From a GREAT MAN

[Scotty]

A Commentary on a "More Valuable Product"
By Tommy Donnell

Let's first take a look back. In the 1950's and 1960's, America produced more choice beef then than we do today. What was different back then? Our cattle were predominantly English, we didn't implant, and our grading standards were higher. For many, many generations the English breeds had been selected mainly for "eating quality". Life was good and Americans ate a lot of high quality beef. The choice beef of the 50's and 60's would make CAB grade today.

What changed? In the late 1960's and 1970's we began to implant cattle to improve rate of gain and feed efficiency. Then, we started crossing with other breeds (Exotics/Continentals, Heat Tolerates, and Composites-Hybrids) in an attempt to take advantage of heterosis and to increase beef production. We set in motion the production of a larger supply of more commodity, lower quality beef that lacked uniformity, consistency, and eating quality. Not surprisingly, per capita beef consumption began many years of decline. When single trait selection and the popularity of Exotic/Continental cattle (70's – 80's) reached an all time high, beef consumption was reaching all time lows.

The packers figured all this out very quickly and bought our cattle at one price, sorted them with the "hide off" at the packing plant, and kept the premium on the higher grading carcasses for themselves. No one knows what kind of cattle graded best any better than the packers. Thus, cattle buyers began routinely asking the following question to ranchers: "What percent black-hide are they?" Today it's not enough for cattle to be just "black hided", the premiums will be paid for the right kind of "black hided" cattle.

With our inability to control the cost of production beyond a certain point, our focus must now turn to producing a "more valuable product" (more uniformity, more consistency, higher quality). The data provided on each bull in this sale book can help you identify the bulls that compliment your cow herd, and help you produce "a more valuable product" that better addresses the economic realities of today's marketplace. A more valuable product will open up additional marketing channels for your production and allow you to benefit from the premium product you create.

Realizing the importance of growth and carcass, a rancher must never overlook the importance of birth weights, maternal traits, and reproductive efficiency. Our bulls will not only make money for feeders and packers, they will do equally as well producing replacement females. This is true value


This is from one of my mentors. If there was ever a question on black hided cattle it was answered here.

 

[vs_cattle]

good flash back

 

[auctionboy]

"If there was ever a question on black hided cattle it was answered here." I do not agree. I can't understand the point? That brief history doesn't answer to many questions. Is the point that the beef market was less when english breeds didn't dominate , but CAB is helping to regain English dominance?

 

[Badlands]

The cattle of those times also carried an inch of more of finish. I guess he forgot to put that in the letter. They would not have made CAB; they would have suffered not just the YG 4 discounts, but also YG 5 discounts.

Badlands

 

[MikeC]

The cattle of those times also carried an inch of more of finish. I guess he forgot to put that in the letter. They would not have made CAB; they would have suffered not just the YG 4 discounts, but also YG 5 discounts.

Badlands

There are no more discounts for YG 4's or 5's in CAB. 1" of backfat is now acceptable. ;-)

 

[Brandonm2]

The cattle of those times also carried an inch of more of finish. I guess he forgot to put that in the letter. They would not have made CAB; they would have suffered not just the YG 4 discounts, but also YG 5 discounts.

Badlands

Exactly and if we finished today's cattle to 1" of finish our Choice percentage would PROBABLY double. I also wonder how much of that lost per capita beef consumption from back then was the 1" of pure fat they used to sell on the edge of steaks.....(most of which got fed to the dog) that modern consumers balk at purchasing.

 

[novatech]

I was raised in the cattle industry in the 50's And I can tell you their is nothing in the cattle bussines like it was. Money went a whole lot further than it does today. The cattle industry has been forced by the the consumer to breed with efficiency in mind. Quility has gone to hadies. Consumers are setting the price. One can only afford to sell them what they are willing to pay for.

 

[Brandonm2]

>>Exactly and if we finished today's cattle to 1" of finish our Choice percentage would PROBABLY double. I also wonder how much of that lost per capita beef consumption from back then was the 1" of pure fat they used to sell on the edge of steaks.....(most of which got fed to the dog) that modern consumers balk at purchasing<<

All true, but it would take a heck of a lot of high dollar corn to put 1" of backfat on a continental feeder. You'd probably lose money because of the feeding costs.

I'm not weighing in on whats right or wrong, just that it would take time and a lot of feed to get a continental there.

You are exactly right. Feeding a frame 2 Angus to 1" of backfat would take ~110 days in a feedlot. Some of the big framed calves of today might not get there in 200...and still might not grade. I am not advocating overly fat cattle, I am just pointing out that more than just the genetics are responsible for the decline in quality grade.

 

[toby]

I was sorta in the livestock industry in the 50, hauling corn to a large feedlot in E Central Nebr. Cattle on feed consisted of the english breeds Angus Red/Black, Shorthorn, & Herfords. The opeator consistantly turned these cattle on a 90 - 100 day schedule. Of course in thoses days he had a better selection of packers in which to sell his product. IMHO the quality of meat was much better than today and didn't require a breed marketer.

 

[MikeC]

Look to genetics for marbling indicators
NOVEMBER 10, 2003
By Jennifer Ryan

Some fat cattle may be just, well, fat.

New research shows that using the amount of external fat as an indicator for marbling isn't the most accurate sign of carcass quality.

By using genetic selection to emphasize marbling traits, producers can achieve minimum carcass fat with an immense amount of marbling, notes John Brethour, Professor at the Kansas State University Agricultural Research Center in Hays, Kan.

"Fat and marbling is an 'either/or' relationship," Brethour says. "Feeding more energy than you need for the maintenance generates fat, and the genetics of the animal indicates where the fat goes. Marbling is about 90% genetics."

While Brethour notes that a longer feeding period can enhance marbling, but it's a slow progression that must begin with a genetically capable animal.

"You can't make something out of nothing," Brethour says. "There are cattle that won't grade Choice no matter how many days you feed them."

In a recent study including 10 pens of cattle, with an average of 27 animals per pen, Brethour notes that there was no correlation between average backfat thickness and gain per kilogram of dry matter (DM) intake, i.e., feed efficiency. Correlations between average backfat thickness and ADG or DM intake were also nearly zero. Furthermore, carcass backfat thickness was a poor predictor of carcass marbling score even though backfat thickness was an important predictor of percent empty body fat.

According to the study's results, there is little relationship between body composition and marbling score, which is contrary to models that assume a USDA quality grade target at a specified percent fat endpoint. In addition, the results show a measure of backfat thickness on the live animal during the finishing phase is not an effective predictor of future feed efficiency.

Dan Faulkner, Professor of Animal Sciences at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, says his research confirms there is little correlation between backfat and marbling. However, his research has shown a relationship between days on feed and backfat.

Simply put, Faulkner says that while any cattleman can tell you that days on feed influences backfat, there is little evidence to show that backfat can be used as a good indicator of the amount of marbling present.

He notes that proper nutrition greatly influences an animal's marbling score.

"We can feed byproducts to cattle and achieve the same rate of gain as cattle on high-grain diets. We can get the backfat deposited, but not get the marbling deposited," Faulkner says. "The No. 1 determinant of quality, in our research, is the number of days the cattle are on a high-grain diet. An average animal gains about one marbling score every 100 days on a high-grain diet."

Faulkner notes that early weaning or creep feeding can get cattle on feed earlier and help achieve a higher rate of gain - without depositing excessive amount of fat. On the other hand, poor management can reduce an animal's marbling score.

"If you take cattle off a high-grain diet, you lose that marbling," Faulkner says. "If they get sick, there's usually a one quality grade difference. The cattle are off feed and not getting the rate of gain needed."

Different genetics will marble differently, Faulkner says, but all types of genetics will increase marbling if placed on a high-grain diet

"Every group of cattle may be different just because of their genetic ability," notes Kelly Bruns, Ph.D., Assistant Professor of Animal Science at South Dakota State University. "Our research would show that the longer you fed cattle, the fatter they became, but that didn't necessarily relate to their ability to obtain a higher marbling scores. Certain individual animals wouldn't necessarily get higher up on the marbling line than other steers in their contemporary group."

The most important determinants of beef carcass value are external fat content and marbling. External fat lowers value while marbling increases value. Dr. Bruns notes the cattle industry is beginning to realize there is a weak relationship between these variables.

Learning how and when marbling develops is a key component to commercial use of such research, Bruns says.

An old school of thought was that marbling is a late-developing trait tissue. Research conducted by Bruns and colleagues at South Dakota State University revealed that marbling develops at a fairly constant rate throughout an animal's life, contrary to what has been assumed for many years. The research was conducted over a two-year period and involved approximately 90 purebred Angus steers, slaughtered at carcass weights ranging from 460 to 838 lbs.

The key to producing a carcass with minimal external fat and maximum marbling is to match genetics to an optimal slaughter point, Bruns notes.

"Marbling is a continuous process and can be hindered due to improper management practices early in a calf's life," Bruns says. "We tested that theory by administering a high potency implant early in the finishing phase of production, which resulted in decreased marbling scores versus if we delayed administration of the same implant. How you manage cattle in the first 30 to 50 days in the feedlot is very critical relative to marbling development. Any stresses that impede dry matter intake, growth or average daily gain within the first 30 days may have an adverse effect on marbling development. Our research would indicate that different groups of cattle maximize marbling development at different levels of carcass fatness.

 

[Frankie]

Look to genetics for marbling indicators
NOVEMBER 10, 2003
By Jennifer Ryan

Some fat cattle may be just, well, fat.

New research shows that using the amount of external fat as an indicator for marbling isn't the most accurate sign of carcass quality.

By using genetic selection to emphasize marbling traits, producers can achieve minimum carcass fat with an immense amount of marbling, notes John Brethour, Professor at the Kansas State University Agricultural Research Center in Hays, Kan.

"Fat and marbling is an 'either/or' relationship," Brethour says. "Feeding more energy than you need for the maintenance generates fat, and the genetics of the animal indicates where the fat goes. Marbling is about 90% genetics."

While Brethour notes that a longer feeding period can enhance marbling, but it's a slow progression that must begin with a genetically capable animal.

"You can't make something out of nothing," Brethour says. "There are cattle that won't grade Choice no matter how many days you feed them."

In a recent study including 10 pens of cattle, with an average of 27 animals per pen, Brethour notes that there was no correlation between average backfat thickness and gain per kilogram of dry matter (DM) intake, i.e., feed efficiency. Correlations between average backfat thickness and ADG or DM intake were also nearly zero. Furthermore, carcass backfat thickness was a poor predictor of carcass marbling score even though backfat thickness was an important predictor of percent empty body fat.

According to the study's results, there is little relationship between body composition and marbling score, which is contrary to models that assume a USDA quality grade target at a specified percent fat endpoint. In addition, the results show a measure of backfat thickness on the live animal during the finishing phase is not an effective predictor of future feed efficiency.

Dan Faulkner, Professor of Animal Sciences at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, says his research confirms there is little correlation between backfat and marbling. However, his research has shown a relationship between days on feed and backfat.

Simply put, Faulkner says that while any cattleman can tell you that days on feed influences backfat, there is little evidence to show that backfat can be used as a good indicator of the amount of marbling present.

He notes that proper nutrition greatly influences an animal's marbling score.

"We can feed byproducts to cattle and achieve the same rate of gain as cattle on high-grain diets. We can get the backfat deposited, but not get the marbling deposited," Faulkner says. "The No. 1 determinant of quality, in our research, is the number of days the cattle are on a high-grain diet. An average animal gains about one marbling score every 100 days on a high-grain diet."

Faulkner notes that early weaning or creep feeding can get cattle on feed earlier and help achieve a higher rate of gain - without depositing excessive amount of fat. On the other hand, poor management can reduce an animal's marbling score.

"If you take cattle off a high-grain diet, you lose that marbling," Faulkner says. "If they get sick, there's usually a one quality grade difference. The cattle are off feed and not getting the rate of gain needed."

Different genetics will marble differently, Faulkner says, but all types of genetics will increase marbling if placed on a high-grain diet

"Every group of cattle may be different just because of their genetic ability," notes Kelly Bruns, Ph.D., Assistant Professor of Animal Science at South Dakota State University. "Our research would show that the longer you fed cattle, the fatter they became, but that didn't necessarily relate to their ability to obtain a higher marbling scores. Certain individual animals wouldn't necessarily get higher up on the marbling line than other steers in their contemporary group."

The most important determinants of beef carcass value are external fat content and marbling. External fat lowers value while marbling increases value. Dr. Bruns notes the cattle industry is beginning to realize there is a weak relationship between these variables.

Learning how and when marbling develops is a key component to commercial use of such research, Bruns says.

An old school of thought was that marbling is a late-developing trait tissue. Research conducted by Bruns and colleagues at South Dakota State University revealed that marbling develops at a fairly constant rate throughout an animal's life, contrary to what has been assumed for many years. The research was conducted over a two-year period and involved approximately 90 purebred Angus steers, slaughtered at carcass weights ranging from 460 to 838 lbs.

The key to producing a carcass with minimal external fat and maximum marbling is to match genetics to an optimal slaughter point, Bruns notes.

"Marbling is a continuous process and can be hindered due to improper management practices early in a calf's life," Bruns says. "We tested that theory by administering a high potency implant early in the finishing phase of production, which resulted in decreased marbling scores versus if we delayed administration of the same implant. How you manage cattle in the first 30 to 50 days in the feedlot is very critical relative to marbling development. Any stresses that impede dry matter intake, growth or average daily gain within the first 30 days may have an adverse effect on marbling development. Our research would indicate that different groups of cattle maximize marbling development at different levels of carcass fatness.

Mike, are you saying you agree with this article?

 

[MikeC]

Mike, are you saying you agree with this article?

I'm saying we would be shooting ourselves in the foot to feed cattle to 1" of backfat. It takes much more energy to put on a pound of fat than it does a pound of lean meat.

The end result would be those little frame 2 stumpy steers with 400-500 pound carcasses that cost twice the amount to feed and fabricate/process.

We can breed marbling back into cattle. We just have to give a little on some other traits.

But is marbling going to be our salvation?

 

[TxStateCowboy]

Just my opinion but when I eat a steak I like it to be clean w/o slivers of fat infused. I've just never been a fan of marbling. It just has to be tender and well-prepared so its not like eating bark off a tree. I like a tender juicy steak, but i'd rather not "chew the fat" if I don't have to.

 

[Ryan]

Just my opinion but when I eat a steak I like it to be clean w/o slivers of fat infused. I've just never been a fan of marbling. It just has to be tender and well-prepared so its not like eating bark off a tree. I like a tender juicy steak, but i'd rather not "chew the fat" if I don't have to.

The marbling increases the tenderness and juiciness of the steak. When you "chew the fat" you usually are not chewing marbling, as marbling will melt when you cook it. the fat you chew is usually seam fat or subcutaneous fat.

 

[bward]

Importing the exotics was one of the most productive things the cattle industry ever did. if you want to romance the "good" cattle of the 50's and 60's I hope you also enjoy your 300 pound weaning weights.

 

[Scotty]

I have never had any wean that small. Here is my scientific data. My grandparents always comment on how the beef they ate when they were in the youngers years tasted better. And since I was born, mid 70's, it has all gone down the crapper. Meat is tough and too BIG. Now you might say who gives at rats butt about your grandparents. Well mine and yours and your neighbors are the ones buying the product. They care. Stimulated some thought. Thats what I was after.

 

[auctionboy]

I have never had any wean that small. Here is my scientific data. My grandparents always comment on how the beef they ate when they were in the youngers years tasted better. And since I was born, mid 70's, it has all gone down the crapper. Meat is tough and too BIG. Now you might say who gives at rats butt about your grandparents. Well mine and yours and your neighbors are the ones buying the product. They care. Stimulated some thought. Thats what I was after.

I think this has alot to do with how the beef is cooked. As for beef being less tender peoples teeth may be what is getting more tender as they age

 

[Scotty]

I have never had any wean that small. Here is my scientific data. My grandparents always comment on how the beef they ate when they were in the youngers years tasted better. And since I was born, mid 70's, it has all gone down the crapper. Meat is tough and too BIG. Now you might say who gives at rats butt about your grandparents. Well mine and yours and your neighbors are the ones buying the product. They care. Stimulated some thought. Thats what I was after.

I think this has alot to do with how the beef is cooked. As for beef being less tender peoples teeth may be what is getting more tender as they age

Are you seriously trying to pass that it is peoples teeth and not the beef that is the problem. As for the cooking techniques I will agree to a certain point. I will not thinly coat my beef with tenderizor as many that have tough meat do. I have high enough blood preasure as is.

 

[MikeC]

Importing the exotics was one of the most productive things the cattle industry ever did. if you want to romance the "good" cattle of the 50's and 60's I hope you also enjoy your 300 pound weaning weights.

I well remember the 50's and 60's and those little dinks we all weaned. Heck it took at least two years for one of those little guys to get big enough for harvest.

A 350 lb weaning weight was PHENOMENAL back then.

Here's a little flashback from a magazine article:

"The Harvilles ran approximately 1,000 head of breeding cows and Mr. Rice continued with this number for the first few years of his ownership. From 1951 to 1953 a 70 to 75 percent calf crop was the rule. Average calf weaning weight was 300 to 320 pounds and about 224,000 pounds of beef were sold each year. Mr. Rice now (1960) has 550 head of breeding cows. He obtains a 95 percent calf crop and weaning weights run around 415 pounds. During 1958 and 1959 217,568 pounds of beef were sold each year.

 

[auctionboy]

I have never had any wean that small. Here is my scientific data. My grandparents always comment on how the beef they ate when they were in the youngers years tasted better. And since I was born, mid 70's, it has all gone down the crapper. Meat is tough and too BIG. Now you might say who gives at rats butt about your grandparents. Well mine and yours and your neighbors are the ones buying the product. They care. Stimulated some thought. Thats what I was after.

I think this has alot to do with how the beef is cooked. As for beef being less tender peoples teeth may be what is getting more tender as they age

Are you seriously trying to pass that it is peoples teeth and not the beef that is the problem. As for the cooking techniques I will agree to a certain point. I will not thinly coat my beef with tenderizor as many that have tough meat do. I have high enough blood preasure as is.

I actually don't know how beef tasted twenty years before I was born, but I do know people always say everything use to be so better. I think people glamourize things when they remember them.