Marbling (Quality) in Serious Decline

[MikeC]

With Angus bulls selling at an all time high this phenomenon should not be happening.

In 1986, nearly 97% of federally inspected cattle were Choice or Prime, but in 2005 that declined to 60%.
The percentage of beef accepted in CAB has declined to 15.6% in 2005 from nearly 20% in 1999. (The highest accepted rate year)

At the same time, Yield Grade 4 cattle have INCREASED from less than 1.5% in 1997 to almost 8% in 2005.

Folks, we're just not doing a good job and leaving a lot of money laying on the table.

WE'RE GOING BACKWARDS!!!!!

If everyone would select breeding stock for carcass traits in addition to the other needed traits we can improve these figures.

Get those Marbling and Ribeye Areas up, and get those Backfat numbers down!

 

[dun]

Devils advocate time. The influx of continental breeds may have helped to cause the decline in marbeling, feedlots trying to get those basicly select carcass' to choice may have lead to the YG problems. One breed can;t fix every problem, but no one breed can cause them all either (brahman excepted of course)

dun

 

[MikeC]

Devils advocate time. The influx of continental breeds may have helped to cause the decline in marbeling, feedlots trying to get those basicly select carcass' to choice may have lead to the YG problems. One breed can;t fix every problem, but no one breed can cause them all either (brahman excepted of course)

dun

This is not a breed bashing post.

Carcass EPD's are available for every breed and we're just not using all the tools in the box.

Again, my reference to Angus was used to make a point. Not to bash. We are utilizing a "Marbling" breed in higher than ever numbers (which is not a bad thing) but we just aren't using the right ones of ANY breed!

 

[farmwife]

I agree, however one must consider the USDA Quality degree standards. This link gives a historical account of how USDA grading standards have changed over the years http://www.ams.usda.gov/lsg/stand/stand ... ef-car.pdf. According to the artical, the Good grade was not widely used and was replaced in 1987 with Select. A couple of years later the Select was restricted to A Maturity only and also the marbling score required for Choice was increased. These a a few other reasons could account for such a change in numbers. I didn't research the Yield Grade thing. I do agree that we must do a better job regardless of the USDA requirements for meat grading.

 

[dun]

Didn;t mean for it to sound like I thought you were breed bashing. Just from the comments on these boards it seems like a lot of people don;t use EPDs, (it's all witchcraft) and htink they can determine the milking ability, calving ease, carcass quailty, etc., just form eyballing. Until more people start to use the tools available, they may not be the greatest tools but they're the best we have right now, things aren;t going to improve. It took a long time to get where we are, it going to take a long time to fix it. Maybe people need to go back to more straightbreeding so they have a solid basis to work from.

dun

 

[Frankie]

Maybe people need to go back to more straightbreeding so they have a solid basis to work from.

dun

Sounds good to me.

 

[Frankie]

I agree, however one must consider the USDA Quality degree standards. This link gives a historical account of how USDA grading standards have changed over the years http://www.ams.usda.gov/lsg/stand/stand ... ef-car.pdf. According to the artical, the Good grade was not widely used and was replaced in 1987 with Select. A couple of years later the Select was restricted to A Maturity only and also the marbling score required for Choice was increased. These a a few other reasons could account for such a change in numbers. I didn't research the Yield Grade thing. I do agree that we must do a better job regardless of the USDA requirements for meat grading.

That's an interesting article. Thanks....

 

[MikeC]

Maybe people need to go back to more straightbreeding so they have a solid basis to work from.

Yup. It amazes me that so many keep replacements out of mongrelized cattle then put a "black" bull on them to make the calves uniform looking.

You're right.

They have no idea what they are selling (as far as carcass quality).

 

[MikeC]

I agree, however one must consider the USDA Quality degree standards. This link gives a historical account of how USDA grading standards have changed over the years http://www.ams.usda.gov/lsg/stand/stand ... ef-car.pdf. According to the artical, the Good grade was not widely used and was replaced in 1987 with Select. A couple of years later the Select was restricted to A Maturity only and also the marbling score required for Choice was increased. These a a few other reasons could account for such a change in numbers. I didn't research the Yield Grade thing. I do agree that we must do a better job regardless of the USDA requirements for meat grading.

Supposedly these figures I used are adjusted to compensate for changes and numbers of "No Rolls" thrown in the mix.

 

[farmwife]

I agree, however one must consider the USDA Quality degree standards. This link gives a historical account of how USDA grading standards have changed over the years http://www.ams.usda.gov/lsg/stand/stand ... ef-car.pdf. According to the artical, the Good grade was not widely used and was replaced in 1987 with Select. A couple of years later the Select was restricted to A Maturity only and also the marbling score required for Choice was increased. These a a few other reasons could account for such a change in numbers. I didn't research the Yield Grade thing. I do agree that we must do a better job regardless of the USDA requirements for meat grading.

Supposedly these figures I used are adjusted to compensate for changes and numbers of "No Rolls" thrown in the mix.

Maybe, where did you get your numbers?

We must also remember that marbling is the last fat put on an animal, but at the same time we are adding more cover (i.e., higher yield grade) and intramuscular fat.

 

[3MR]

Didn;t mean for it to sound like I thought you were breed bashing. Just from the comments on these boards it seems like a lot of people don;t use EPDs, (it's all witchcraft) and htink they can determine the milking ability, calving ease, carcass quailty, etc., just form eyballing. Until more people start to use the tools available, they may not be the greatest tools but they're the best we have right now, things aren;t going to improve. It took a long time to get where we are, it going to take a long time to fix it. Maybe people need to go back to more straightbreeding so they have a solid basis to work from.

dun

I agree, it blows my mind what people think they can tell from a picture on the internet.

 

[MikeC]

Maybe, where did you get your numbers?

We must also remember that marbling is the last fat put on an animal, but at the same time we are adding more cover (i.e., higher yield grade) and intramuscular fat.

It was an article from CAB. Don't know if it's posted on their sight yet, But it's titled: "Against A Stacked Deck".

New research shows that marbling is attained earlier than was previously thought (preweaning).

Backfat/Kidneyfat is the last to be attained.

A good argument FOR creep feeding.

 

[bullpeddler]

By crossing breeding English cattle with continental cattle there is no reason not to be able to get marbling and yield grade balanced for whatever market segment we are after. The trick is to make sure the steaks are tender. It doesn't matter how much marbling we have, if the steak is not tender, who will want it? Of course, someone will point out that we don't get paid for tenderness. That's true but neither do the chicken and pork folks. How often do you run across a tough chicken breast or pork chop?

bull

 

[BRG]

We are all also forgetting that they never used to grade the poorer cattle. They were called no-rolls I believe. Today nearly every animal is graded and the cattle that were once no-rolls are now selects. The 97% choice would have been alot lower then if they graded everything.

 

[Frankie]

From the article in the Journal:

"Most of these factors relate to management and environment rather than genetics, but confronting them should help to overcome their negative effect."

Here's the link: http://www.angusjournal.com/aj_article1.html?CID=5269

 

[MikeC]

By crossing breeding English cattle with continental cattle there is no reason not to be able to get marbling and yield grade balanced for whatever market segment we are after. The trick is to make sure the steaks are tender. It doesn't matter how much marbling we have, if the steak is not tender, who will want it? Of course, someone will point out that we don't get paid for tenderness. That's true but neither do the chicken and pork folks. How often do you run across a tough chicken breast or pork chop?

bull

I agree BP. Although Marbling contributes to Tenderness, it's not a given.

The work on a line-speed tenderness test is underway, I assure you and it will help raise demand in the future.

But just "ANY" Continental bull on "ANY" British cow doesn't guarantee quality or tenderness.

We need to be more particular in our decisions.

 

[TheBullLady]

All of which is a good idea for a producer to take a calf crop and feed them out himself. When your check is based on what's actually put on the table, you'd be surprised how quickly you can make some changes! If you just send everything to the barn, it's easier to say "let the feedlot worry about it".

 

[MikeC]

From the article in the Journal:

"Most of these factors relate to management and environment rather than genetics, but confronting them should help to overcome their negative effect."

Here's the link: http://www.angusjournal.com/aj_article1.html?CID=5269

Frankie, Think about this for a moment. We have been working on genetics for a long time, a looooong time. We have also been feeding cattle for a long time.

With all the innovations in feeding and processing employed now we have gone backwards while at the same time trying to improve our genetics!

The statement above is HOGWASH!!! MANURE!!! BULLSHIT!!!!

We made mistakes in our genetics programs throughout all these years and the payment has come due!

Now they are blaming the cow/calf man and the feedlots for our cattle not grading!!!

Do you really think that the differences in calving and feeding has as big of influence as our genetics?

The calving and feeding hasn't changed nearly as much as the genetics available has dictated.

That statement above is nothing but an excuse for wrong genetic changes we made through the years.

Funny thing is.....the folks that guided us through these screwups are the same ones calling foul now. The Universities and Extension agents.

 

[MikeC]

All of which is a good idea for a producer to take a calf crop and feed them out himself. When your check is based on what's actually put on the table, you'd be surprised how quickly you can make some changes! If you just send everything to the barn, it's easier to say "let the feedlot worry about it".

Very astute thinking there BullLady. It should be mandatory that every cow/calf operator feed a certain percentage of his own cattle and sell on the grid. It would clear this problem up in about 2-3 cattle generations.

You would see a big difference in seedstock also!

 

[Kent]

Didn;t mean for it to sound like I thought you were breed bashing. Just from the comments on these boards it seems like a lot of people don;t use EPDs, (it's all witchcraft) and htink they can determine the milking ability, calving ease, carcass quailty, etc., just form eyballing. Until more people start to use the tools available, they may not be the greatest tools but they're the best we have right now, things aren;t going to improve. It took a long time to get where we are, it going to take a long time to fix it. Maybe people need to go back to more straightbreeding so they have a solid basis to work from.

dun

Devil's advocate time again. The decline in quality has apparently taken place during the era of EPD's. Some use them, some don't. When cattle were higher quality, no one used EPD's. How is that?

If I had to choose between making breeding decisions based on performance records and visual evaluation versus using EPD's and a picture in the semen catalog, I'll take the former. Too many breeding decisions are being made by people looking at a glossy picture and glossy numbers. EPD's will work, but they do not replace any evaluation tool we had in the past, especially visual evaluation (in person with the animal standing before you).