Double Muscling and Tenderness
- Thread starter MikeC
- Start date
Help Support CattleToday:
mtnman":cnb3fewt said:
So you're adding mind reader to your gifts now? I never said the Angus in the control group were bad, or good. But with a score of 8.6, with 10 being the worst, this CONTROL GROUP, not just the Angus, was a poor marbling group.
frankie:
No mention is given at to what the numbers 1-10 mean.
Therefore, we have no idea what good or bad is. It looks bad, only because it is nearer to 10 than 1.
But, we have no idea what the number means.
We just know that they weren't different from the average of the other groups, which is a good thing, from Mike's standpoint.
No mind-reading necessary, just common sense.
mtnman
No mention is given at to what the numbers 1-10 mean.
Therefore, we have no idea what good or bad is. It looks bad, only because it is nearer to 10 than 1.
But, we have no idea what the number means.
We just know that they weren't different from the average of the other groups, which is a good thing, from Mike's standpoint.
No mind-reading necessary, just common sense.
mtnman
MikeC
Well-known member
Some packers don't grade ANYTHING.
If their customer is confident in a packers grading system why would they pay extra for grading?
Point is, it wouldn't make sense to no roll them JUST because they are doubled muscled.
Tod Dague
Well-known member
Reread the article. "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."mtnman":2ha8t55h said:
I always find the double muscling posts very interesting. These breeds seem to have so much to offer in the yeild of our cattle and the health of people. There are some places to sell them at a far price. http://www.laurasleanbeef.com comes to mind and there are others.
Tod, it's still not relative to anything we can use to compare to choice/select/etc.
Frankie just jumped in and assumed they were low marbling Angus, at least that is what she alluded to in her comment abot finding low IMF.
Point is, we don't know where all these cattle landed, we just know they were the same as the average of the others, be it high/low, etc.
I wouls assume that they weren't real fat as 10 was no marlbling, and 1 was very high. I would assume they were marketed at some point to make a little money, so my guess is select, or similar.
Sure, Angus can do better, but so can all the others.
We don'tknow if they are good or bad on our scale, just that they weren't too good on the other scale.
mtnman
Frankie just jumped in and assumed they were low marbling Angus, at least that is what she alluded to in her comment abot finding low IMF.
Point is, we don't know where all these cattle landed, we just know they were the same as the average of the others, be it high/low, etc.
I wouls assume that they weren't real fat as 10 was no marlbling, and 1 was very high. I would assume they were marketed at some point to make a little money, so my guess is select, or similar.
Sure, Angus can do better, but so can all the others.
We don'tknow if they are good or bad on our scale, just that they weren't too good on the other scale.
mtnman
A
Anonymous
well yall fellars can breed your cattle with BB's if yall think it will give yall better cattle but I seriously think our customers that buy our beef would rather have some fat in their steaks to make them taste better than to just have some healthier lean beef...maybe BB cross beef would be leaner and healthier but for now im just trying to give the consumers what they want...maybe when people say "I sure wish I could buy some steaks with no marbling, just lean healthy beef" then I might consider the BB's...but until the consumers ask me to get leaner beef then i'll just keep on raising my herfords like I do now, trying to get the most IMF that I can in them
Have a good day
Have a good day
greenwillowherefords
Well-known member
"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. " -Frankie's qote-
The C-sections are not an isolated incident in the Belgian Blue breed. The only breeder that I know of around here regularly schedules them with the vet, and when the vet tells him its the last time a particular cow can handle having a calf, he culls her.
The C-sections are not an isolated incident in the Belgian Blue breed. The only breeder that I know of around here regularly schedules them with the vet, and when the vet tells him its the last time a particular cow can handle having a calf, he culls her.
MikeC":eeuaucpr said:
Mike, it has been years since I was taught the grading system in college; BUT, if my memory serves, Jeanne is right.....double muscling IS a an automatic disqualification no matter the marbling score. I COULD be wrong and I am not going to try to look it up; but I had thought that a grader was not allowed to stamp a obviously double muscled carcass with a Choice, Prime, or Select grade no matter the marbling and maturity. The rules MAY have changed. Double muscling is considered a genetic defect in cattle that increases dystocia problems and has been linked to lower female fertility. I know a lot of Charolais breeders fought long and hard to get rid of the double muscling gene in their cattle in the 70s and early 80s.
MikeC
Well-known member
Brandonm2":20aetv36 said:
Feel free to look up the grading standards on the USDA website, Brandon. I can find NOTHING about the grading of double muscled carcasses. I do, however find that when grading feeder cattle they are graded inferior.
If someone can find it, I would like to see it.
Jeanne - Simme Valley
Well-known member
Brandonm2 - thanks! I was just getting ready to type about the same thing. Dbl muscle does not qualify for grading - unless (like you said) there has been some change I don't know of. Dbl m are automatically NO ROLL.Brandonm2":33azrcbr said:
And, Mike, I think you already posted - the meat has to be cooked "just right" or it's terrible. We have enough trouble with the common consumer knowing how to cook beef properly, without throwing this meat at them.
You are talking a NITCH market - go for it if that's what you want and think you can make more money. There are many nitch markets out there, they are not "right" for everyone.
sackshowcattle
Well-known member
Befor I got into the club calf and purebred Maine industry we ran around 30 head of mixed breed cows that we always bred to a Piedmontese bull. We never had any trouble selling every bit of the meat. It was tender and juicy just like what I raise now, but it was a lot leaner so a lot healthier for todays over weight society as a whole. Not to mention the bigest selling point we had is between the finer bone and double muscling we only had a 30 to 35 percent loss at the packing house. People got more for there buck so they were happy. Also we never once had a problem with calving ease. I bet we had somewere around 350 calves crossed this way from first calf heifers to old cows with very few problems. I have more calving difficulty with my current operation than what we use to raise.
MikeC
Well-known member
I have asked for someone to show me in the "USDA Beef Grading Standards" where beef from double muscled cattle is not graded.
If it is there, I would thoroughly enjoy reading it.
I know that there is no feeder cattle grades for double muscling. But that's a whole nuther ball game.
If it is there, I would thoroughly enjoy reading it.
I know that there is no feeder cattle grades for double muscling. But that's a whole nuther ball game.
MikeC":ed1l6y8n said:
It's not a USDA standard. I think it's the packers trying to cut their losses. They know double muscled breeds don't marble, so they don't bother to send them down the grading line at all. They simply no-roll them out the back door to someone who uses them for whatever lower quality beef is used for. At least that's the explantion I was given several years ago.
bulldealer
Well-known member
http://www.ams.usda.gov/lsg/stand/stand ... ef-car.pdf
Here is a pretty in depth explanation of the USDA Quality Grade system. I just skimmed over it, and didn't see anything about the double muscle issue. Maybe someone else can read the whole thing.
Here is a pretty in depth explanation of the USDA Quality Grade system. I just skimmed over it, and didn't see anything about the double muscle issue. Maybe someone else can read the whole thing.
bulldealer
Well-known member
http://www.ams.usda.gov/lsg/stand/PocketCards904.pdf
Here is an article, that backs up the feeder cattle claim.
Here is an article, that backs up the feeder cattle claim.
bulldealer
Well-known member
If they pass the DM trait to the offspring what is the purpose, use another terminal breed that is accepted by the industry. Charolais, Limousin, etc. If they don't pass on the DM then so be it, sell them when you wean them at 7 to 8 months old, 350-400# calves :lol: are pretty high right now. In my opinion they are just like all of the other novelty breeds, if that is your thing fine, but don't try to make them something that they are not; good commercial cattle.
Shorthornguy
Well-known member
Mr. Mike C,
Very interesting post, Thank You, I learn something new every day.
Anything is better than Chicken!!!!!! :lol:
Very interesting post, Thank You, I learn something new every day.
Anything is better than Chicken!!!!!! :lol:
