How good is a 5.4 score in marbling?
- Thread starter redangus
- Start date
Marbling Score or IMF precentage?
Relationship Between Chemical % Intramuscular Fat and USDA Quality Grade % Intramuscular Fat USDA QG Degree of Marbling (Marbling Score)
< 2.30 Standard Traces (3.0-3.9)
2.30-3.00
3.10-3.99 Select-
Select+ Slight (4.0-4.9)
4.00-5.79
5.80-7.69
7.70-9.89 Choice-
Choice0
Choice+ Small (5.0-5.9)
Modest (6.0-6.9)
Moderate (7.0-7.9)
9.90-12.10
>12.10 Prime-
Prime0 Sl. Abundant (8.0-8.9)
Mod. Abundant (9.0-9.9)
(from Wilson et al., 1998. ISU Beef Res. Report R1529)
Relationship Between Chemical % Intramuscular Fat and USDA Quality Grade % Intramuscular Fat USDA QG Degree of Marbling (Marbling Score)
< 2.30 Standard Traces (3.0-3.9)
2.30-3.00
3.10-3.99 Select-
Select+ Slight (4.0-4.9)
4.00-5.79
5.80-7.69
7.70-9.89 Choice-
Choice0
Choice+ Small (5.0-5.9)
Modest (6.0-6.9)
Moderate (7.0-7.9)
9.90-12.10
>12.10 Prime-
Prime0 Sl. Abundant (8.0-8.9)
Mod. Abundant (9.0-9.9)
(from Wilson et al., 1998. ISU Beef Res. Report R1529)
http://old.redangus.org/cgi-bin/extped.4ge?1093997
No black and his epds suggest he should not marble well. :?:
You're a big epd fan... right?
No black and his epds suggest he should not marble well. :?:
You're a big epd fan... right?
The IMF score will change from one management to the next. If they are pushed harder they will have a higher ultrasound score, or vice versa if they were roughed through. You will find that most Red Angus yearling bulls will be in the 2.5 to 3.5 range. The actual score is good to know, but it is more important to know how he ratioed. It sounds like your bull did quite well. For REA you want to try to keep it at atleast 1 square inch of REA to every hundred pounds of body weight. This bull did that and still marbled pretty good.
BRG":chf2tic3 said:
Here's where the chart came from:
http://www.ext.vt.edu/news/periodicals/ ... s-218.html
preston39
Well-known member
Achieving consistent quality and improved grades are the objectives of any good angus breeder. Evasive,however,it appears with the decline in % of better grades based on current numbers.
It can be concluded that breeding has considered most other perceived ...progressive elements.... but, quality grades have suffered. Modern management and rations may be contributing to these challenges but, it seems the jury is still out.
Several developers are now looking at 50's-60's genetics in the Angus breed to possibly re-coup the apparent losses.
As a result, old semen tanks are being scoured for resources available in semen previously archived/passed up for the latest popular types. Anyone in possession of supplies may be in for windfall prices.
The data we are looking for is when...years(s)... the grading %began to slide. If you find any please share.
Send me a PM I have a couple thoughs, depending on where you are located, that may help with your program.
It can be concluded that breeding has considered most other perceived ...progressive elements.... but, quality grades have suffered. Modern management and rations may be contributing to these challenges but, it seems the jury is still out.
Several developers are now looking at 50's-60's genetics in the Angus breed to possibly re-coup the apparent losses.
As a result, old semen tanks are being scoured for resources available in semen previously archived/passed up for the latest popular types. Anyone in possession of supplies may be in for windfall prices.
The data we are looking for is when...years(s)... the grading %began to slide. If you find any please share.
Send me a PM I have a couple thoughs, depending on where you are located, that may help with your program.
Producers preview latest Beef Quality Audit
A 2005 National Beef Quality Audit preliminary report suggests insufficient marbling is a leading beef quality challenge.
Posted: May 10, 2006
By Troy Smith
Ranchers, cattle feeders, beef packers and retailers appear to agree on at least one thing. The greatest quality challenge facing the U.S. cattle industry is the insufficient number of cattle that achieve desirable levels of marbling and qualify for certain USDA quality grades.
At least that’s what a preliminary report of the 2005 National Beef Quality Audit (NBQA) suggests. It’s not finished yet, so the final results won’t be released until fall. But Oklahoma State University meat scientist Brad Morgan offered an in-progress peek at NBQA findings during the recent Beef Improvement Federation’s annual meeting in Choctaw, Mississippi.
Morgan told conferees how the NBQA serves as a report card indicating how well the U.S. beef industry is meeting consumer needs and wants. Funded through the national beef checkoff, the NBQA provides a snapshot view of the industry’s quality status. By gleaning information from all segments of the beef supply chain, it reveals whether the industry is making progress in the continued push for increased beef quality and value.
According to Morgan, NBQA questioning of the production sector included cow-calf producers, seedstock breeders, stocker/backgrounding operators and cattle feeders. When asked to name the leading beef quality challenges, their aggregated responses ranked “Insufficient Marbling and Low Quality Grades†at the top of the list. Other challenges, ranked in order of importance, included: lack of cattle uniformity; inadequate beef tenderness; yield grades too high; low cutability and too-heavy carcass weights.
Generally, said Morgan, marbling has slipped over the years. In 1975, the percentage of USDA-graded Prime, Choice and Select carcasses were 5%, 79% and 15%, respectively. By the end of 2004, Prime had decreased to 3%; Choice had dropped to 58%, while Select carcasses accounted for 39% of the mix.
“And we’re not winning the war on fat. Not yet,†added Morgan. “Cattle generally go to market fatter. About 15% are too fat, but still may not be marbled well enough.â€
When packers were questioned for the NBQA, “Reduced Grade and Tenderness Due to Use of Implants†led their list of top five greatest quality challenges. Other challenges named in order of significance included: lack of uniformity in live cattle; carcass weights too heavy; yield grades too high; and a fifth-place tie between bruised carcasses and hot-iron brand hide damage.
Morgan explained that packers are not trying to bash growth promoting implants or condemn their use. However, it appears that implants are often used too aggressively, to the detriment of beef quality grade and tenderness.
NBQA findings indicate that beef purveyors, restaurateurs and retail grocers also list “Insufficient Marbling†as the number one challenge. Other challenges named by this supply chain sector include too-heavy beef cuts; lack of uniformity in cuts; inadequate tenderness and excess fat cover.
A 2005 National Beef Quality Audit preliminary report suggests insufficient marbling is a leading beef quality challenge.
Posted: May 10, 2006
By Troy Smith
Ranchers, cattle feeders, beef packers and retailers appear to agree on at least one thing. The greatest quality challenge facing the U.S. cattle industry is the insufficient number of cattle that achieve desirable levels of marbling and qualify for certain USDA quality grades.
At least that’s what a preliminary report of the 2005 National Beef Quality Audit (NBQA) suggests. It’s not finished yet, so the final results won’t be released until fall. But Oklahoma State University meat scientist Brad Morgan offered an in-progress peek at NBQA findings during the recent Beef Improvement Federation’s annual meeting in Choctaw, Mississippi.
Morgan told conferees how the NBQA serves as a report card indicating how well the U.S. beef industry is meeting consumer needs and wants. Funded through the national beef checkoff, the NBQA provides a snapshot view of the industry’s quality status. By gleaning information from all segments of the beef supply chain, it reveals whether the industry is making progress in the continued push for increased beef quality and value.
According to Morgan, NBQA questioning of the production sector included cow-calf producers, seedstock breeders, stocker/backgrounding operators and cattle feeders. When asked to name the leading beef quality challenges, their aggregated responses ranked “Insufficient Marbling and Low Quality Grades†at the top of the list. Other challenges, ranked in order of importance, included: lack of cattle uniformity; inadequate beef tenderness; yield grades too high; low cutability and too-heavy carcass weights.
Generally, said Morgan, marbling has slipped over the years. In 1975, the percentage of USDA-graded Prime, Choice and Select carcasses were 5%, 79% and 15%, respectively. By the end of 2004, Prime had decreased to 3%; Choice had dropped to 58%, while Select carcasses accounted for 39% of the mix.
“And we’re not winning the war on fat. Not yet,†added Morgan. “Cattle generally go to market fatter. About 15% are too fat, but still may not be marbled well enough.â€
When packers were questioned for the NBQA, “Reduced Grade and Tenderness Due to Use of Implants†led their list of top five greatest quality challenges. Other challenges named in order of significance included: lack of uniformity in live cattle; carcass weights too heavy; yield grades too high; and a fifth-place tie between bruised carcasses and hot-iron brand hide damage.
Morgan explained that packers are not trying to bash growth promoting implants or condemn their use. However, it appears that implants are often used too aggressively, to the detriment of beef quality grade and tenderness.
NBQA findings indicate that beef purveyors, restaurateurs and retail grocers also list “Insufficient Marbling†as the number one challenge. Other challenges named by this supply chain sector include too-heavy beef cuts; lack of uniformity in cuts; inadequate tenderness and excess fat cover.
preston39":3s5gxazf said:
From CAB Research:
An interesting study by May and coworkers (1995) examined the results of breeding
crossbred cows to Angus bulls born in either the 1960’s or 1980’s. No EPD criteria was used in
bull selection; their use was based only on semen availability. The results were as expected for
many of growth traits when genetic trends were taken into account (AAA, 1999). Newer
generation-sired calves were heavier and larger framed throughout life. Carcass data analysis
noted no differences in fat (adjusted fat thickness, KPH, or marbling scores) or muscle
measurements but there was a difference in USDA yield grade. Smaller ribeye areas per
hundredweight of carcass appeared to cause the decline in cutability of the calves sired by 1980’s
bulls. They also noted differences in characteristics of the marbling fat cells. Detailed analysis
found that the 1980’s sire calves required more adipocytes to achieve that same amounts of
marbling. Others (Jacobi and Miner, 1999) are seeking ways to manipulate the expression of
marbling but this research is in its infancy. Cattle breeders must rely on genetic selection to
make changes in marbling potential.
