Marbling (Quality) in Serious Decline

Help Support CattleToday:

The decline in quality has apparently taken place during the era of EPD's.

EPD's are not a bad thing. They are not meant to be utilized on their own. It's another tool in the box.

The quality decline is not "BECAUSE" of EPD's. But "IN SPITE" of EPD's.

For every 1 commercial cattleman you can show me that uses EPD's in bull selections, I bet I can show you 10 that do not.

The main criteria for buying a bull now is "LOW BIRTHWEIGHT"!



:mad: :mad: :mad:
 
MikeC":3qotg8zk said:
The decline in quality has apparently taken place during the era of EPD's.

EPD's are not a bad thing. They are not meant to be utilized on their own. It's another tool in the box.

The quality decline is not "BECAUSE" of EPD's. But "IN SPITE" of EPD's.

For every 1 commercial cattleman you can show me that uses EPD's in bull selections, I bet I can show you 10 that do not.

The main criteria for buying a bull now is "LOW BIRTHWEIGHT"!



:mad: :mad: :mad:


I think the main selection criteria used is for production. People are looking to use bulls with low birth weight that still put more pounds on the truck. When some one buys a bull off the farm, they always want the biggest one. How many seed stock producers have had local farmers stop buy to buy the bull with the highest marbling EPD.
The nation's cowherd is getting bigger because of it.
 
MikeC":6fk77vjq said:
The decline in quality has apparently taken place during the era of EPD's.

EPD's are not a bad thing. They are not meant to be utilized on their own. It's another tool in the box.

The quality decline is not "BECAUSE" of EPD's. But "IN SPITE" of EPD's.

For every 1 commercial cattleman you can show me that uses EPD's in bull selections, I bet I can show you 10 that do not.

The main criteria for buying a bull now is "LOW BIRTHWEIGHT"!



:mad: :mad: :mad:

Remember I was playing devil's advocate. EPD's have been added to the toolbox and I believe they work. Yes, the quality decline has occurred in spite of them, not because of them.

I agree on the birthweight criterion. Too much emphasis is placed on it. Too many people buy their only herd bull to make sure the few first-calf heifers they have don't have any calving problems. Never mind that the bull doesn't complement the rest of the herd. In my experience, cows can handle their own birthweight range plus a little with few problems. But if you constantly use these 60-70 pound BW sires, their daughters and especially granddaughters have trouble with the bigger calves.

Seems like it's gotten to where people are scared to death of pulling the occasional calf and cutting off horns and nuts. We all know that reproductive efficiency, growth, and milk are what keep a cattleman in business. But where I live, the top 3 criteria for a bull are: 1) He turns the calves black 2) He throws a small calf 3) He makes the calf polled. You'll cull a lot of good bulls before you get all three of those, bulls that could have made you money.
 
MikeC":2epsfohw said:
Frankie":2epsfohw said:
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!!! be nice!!!!

So now the article you quoted to show that using Angus genetics has ruined the cattle business is hogwash and manure! :lol:

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

Speak for yourself.

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

If you read the article, you'll see there's plenty of blame to go around.

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

If you read the article, you'll see that a large percentage of cattle were very close to making a higher quality grade (or a lower quality grade). It wouldn't take much in the way of management to boost these cattle into a higher, more valuable grade, or down into a lower grade. That's management, not genetics.

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

Read the article: Feedlots woth 20,000 head capacity or more had a 41% reduction in CAB acceptance rate compared to smaller yards and a 20% reduction in Choice. The use of implants can hurt marbling and we're using more of them. Young cattle get sick and that affects quality grade. More young cattle are going into feedlots at a younger age than before; they're getting sicker. The use of Ethanol byproducts as feed has grown and they apparently can affect quality grade. So, yes, I say feeding cattle has changed a great deal.

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

Mike, there are many people who are raising straightbred Angus cattle. They're sending them to CAB licensed feedlots and doing very well with them.

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

So don't listen to them.
 
So now the article you quoted to show that using Angus genetics has ruined the cattle business is hogwash and manure!

Blaming others IS manure. I never said the ANYTHING has ruined the cattle business. I said we made the wrong genetic decisions and can correct them. We should learn from our mistakes.

But I guess if "YOU" are raising perfect cattle, you don't need to. :p

The article is hogwash. But the data came from the NBQA and I have no choice but to respect it.

I guess you're a little touchy because of last years NBQA that slammed you too? And now again?
I wasn't gonna bring it up at all until you got snotty. :lol:
 
Kent":z6up3tz4 said:
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.

I haveto use EPDs for carcass traits since I don;t have x-ray vision. At the fair last week a couple of the broadest backed wide looking steers had ribeyes in the 11 inch range, but they were sure pretty to look at till they put the ultrasound on them.
The whole deal of multiple generations of low BW and poor carcass' still goes back to proper selection of the breeding stock. We've used low BW bulls for years and haven;t had problems with their daughters/grandaughters/etc. being able to calve on their own.
Selecting for color (although we do that since we use red and not black), polled (we also do that) and low BW (we do that too) aren;t automatic contributors to failure. That's why EPDs are of value, the forcast, sort of , what you can expect. If more attention was paid to the cow herd and the replacment heifers people wouldn;t expect a bull or breed of bull to fix all of their problems and blame the bull or breed when it doesn;t

dun
 
MikeC":2hhucfru said:
So now the article you quoted to show that using Angus genetics has ruined the cattle business is hogwash and manure!

Blaming others IS manure. I never said the ANYTHING has ruined the cattle business. I said we made the wrong genetic decisions and can correct them. We should learn from our mistakes.

But I guess if "YOU" are raising perfect cattle, you don't need to. :p

The article is hogwash. But the data came from the NBQA and I have no choice but to respect it.

I guess you're a little touchy because of last years NBQA that slammed you too? And now again?
I wasn't gonna bring it up at all until you got snotty. :lol:

:lol: I'm not touchy. I just think it's funny that you reference an article to infer that Angus genetics have hurt the cattle business, then turn around and say the article is hogwash. Just because it doesn't place the blame where you want it, doesn't make it hogwash. How can you ignore the difference in the amount of quality beef that comes from large feedlots and smaller feedlots? In animals that are fed one ration over another? In the fact that younger cattle tend to get sicker and the quality grade they produce is lower? That agressive implanting hurts quality grade? That more cattle are being fed in Texas instead of NE, KS, etc., and the quality grade there tends to be lower? That many of these cattle are very close to making the higher grade? Most of these are MANAGEMENT issues and they affect the quality grade of beef being produced. It is an interesting article, I'm glad you brought it up, though. :D
 
dun":2sdeunvq said:
Kent":2sdeunvq said:
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.

I haveto use EPDs for carcass traits since I don;t have x-ray vision. At the fair last week a couple of the broadest backed wide looking steers had ribeyes in the 11 inch range, but they were sure pretty to look at till they put the ultrasound on them.
The whole deal of multiple generations of low BW and poor carcass' still goes back to proper selection of the breeding stock. We've used low BW bulls for years and haven;t had problems with their daughters/grandaughters/etc. being able to calve on their own.
Selecting for color (although we do that since we use red and not black), polled (we also do that) and low BW (we do that too) aren;t automatic contributors to failure. That's why EPDs are of value, the forcast, sort of , what you can expect. If more attention was paid to the cow herd and the replacment heifers people wouldn;t expect a bull or breed of bull to fix all of their problems and blame the bull or breed when it doesn;t

dun

You don't have X-ray vision? I'll have to teach it to you some day. ;-) Carcass quality used to be evaluated by sire groups of steers that were actually fed and slaughtered, not by eye. But you make a lot of good points, and yes, a lot of people start off with poor cows and expect the bull to fix them. But in those cases, it is all the more important to make sure and get a good bull, visually good and with good balanced EPD's.

Controlling birthweights (as much as you can) is important, and I won't try to tell anyone to get heavier birthweights if they have no need for them, but some people carry it to extremes. That's not really the point I was trying to make. I see too many people looking for the three traits I listed, and when they find a "pretty" one with those traits, or more often one that is cheap enough for them, they buy it. They never looked at his EPD's or even his dam in the pasture.

Then again, I see a lot of people who are trying to better their herds through AI, but the only source they have for information is the semen catalog or their breed association's sire summary. The sire summary is a good tool, but good Montana cattle don't always make good Georgia cattle, if you know what I mean. Much better in my opinion to visit reputable operations within a couple of hundred miles from your place and use the best bull you find and see working in your climate. There are tons of bulls as good or better than you will ever see in the breed magazines that have never had a camera aimed at them. And people will never see them if they don't get in their truck and go looking.

Edit: Let me just add that too many breeders of seedstock know of better bulls than they actually use from time to time, but they know an AI bull has a hot name and that his sons will bring more money, so they use him instead. That doesn't help the beef business in the long run.
 
by Evan Whitley

A local producer once shared a story with me about how frustrated he had become with some of his neighbors (and friends, for that matter) for not implementing best management practices, causing those friends to "leave money on the table." He went on to say some of these practices were so simple to implement, he couldn't believe they weren't doing them. "They are missing the boat, and it is right under their noses," he said. Well, it just so happened that his eight-year-old daughter was close by and she asked him, "Daddy, what boats are you missing that are right under your nose?" Ah, what you can learn from an eight-year-old if you will only listen.

Recently, I was reviewing the June 2005 issue of BEEF magazine, and I came across an article that made me think of the above story. It outlined the National Beef Quality Audits (NBQA) of 1991, 1995 and 2000, the progress we have made as an industry because of conducting these audits and where there still is room for improvement before the 2005 audit. These improvements came in the form of goals, or challenges, presented by a cross-section of experts in the beef industry. As I reviewed the 12 goals, I couldn't help but think: some of these things are so simple, the industry is missing the boat, it is right under their noses, why is it so difficult to do something so right? I then recalled the eight-year-old's question and realized many of these things are lacking in active Noble Foundation cooperators' herds. It is right under our noses.

The latest NBQA (2000) pinpointed industry-wide losses due to quality defects at $114.92 per harvested animal, down from $137.50 in 1995 and $279.82 in 1991. These numbers note significant progress over the last nine years, primarily in the reduction of injection site blemishes, liver condemnations, dark cutters, bruised carcasses and hide damage from improper brand placement. Although progress has been made, obviously there is still room for improvement across all segments of the beef industry. Hence the question that begs to be answered, "What boats are we missing that are right under our noses?"
The NBQA goals are outlined below, and the panel challenged cattle producers to achieve them by the end of 2005.

1. Eliminate USDA Standard quality grade carcasses.
2. Eliminate USDA Yield Grade 4 and 5 carcasses.
3. Eliminate injection site lesions from whole muscle cuts, including the chuck.
4. Eliminate side-branded hides.
5. Reduce horns to less than 5 percent of the fed cattle supply.
6. Develop and implement a standardized electronic individual identification system.
7. Develop an information system that allows audits to be conducted on individual herds.
8. Seedstock animals that are accompanied by meaningful data for end-product traits.
9. Assure that 100 percent of cattlemen complete BQA training.
10. Eliminate bruises that result in a devaluation of subprimals.
11. Improve transportation and handling equipment of cattle.
12. Continually improve the eating quality of beef.

The implementation of these practices will surely lower that $114.92 figure and will make the industry stronger as a whole in the eyes of our customers — those folks eating our product. So the next time you get ready to process a set of calves, buy a bull, purchase a set of heifers or ship a load of cattle, ask yourself the question "What boats am I missing that are right under my nose?" The answer may surprise you, if you will only look and listen.
 
Thats what happens when everything gets turned black know no one knows the real genetics of the animal, genetics has alot to do with marbling/carcus qualitys, its not just how you feed them. A sale with 3,000 head of cattle 90% are black everything from black Braunvieh to black Chianina and the crosses, with very little marbling, there is bound to be animals sold as CAB that dont even have 20% Angus in there genetics the "original Angus and Shorthorns" had exceptional intramuscular fat, but now everything has been mongrelised.
 
Just cross a good Angus on a good Hereford or a good british on a good European. For exmaple, cross a Hereford on a Char. Smoky calves yield out pretty good and the meat has more marbling than just straight Char. :cboy: Also, you could use Hereford to mate a good Char with and get teh same results, but the Hereford is known for its high backfat numbers.
 
Hill Creek Farm":39p1g3e5 said:
Just cross a good Angus on a good Hereford or a good british on a good European. For exmaple, cross a Hereford on a Char. Smoky calves yield out pretty good and the meat has more marbling than just straight Char. :cboy: Also, you could use Hereford to mate a good Char with and get teh same results, but the Hereford is known for its high backfat numbers.

Well just where in tarnation do you think someones going to find a "Good" Hereford. Sure the Good Angus will be easy, but the Hereford, come on now.

OK, OK, just joking dont everybody lynch me at once now. :lol: :lol: :lol: Please get your own length of rope and make a single file line for the hanging.
 
I wonder what percentage of animals are shipped off to feedlots now compared to what was fed out on smaller farms by the cow/calf operator 20 years ago? Maybe this is a big factor in the change? Here are a few ideas I've been thinking about this.
In this thread, and another thread about creep feeding, it was noted that creep feeding increased IMF, and IMF is put on at a much earlier age than commonly(?) accepted. I put the (?) after 'commonly' because contrary to that 'common' belief that IMF is put on last, I had a cattleman tell me several years ago that IMF is put on at several growth stages of a calves life. First stage is while the calf is young and growing fast. Every period that is missed due to low nutrition means more time on the feedlot to get the animal finished, and then it's more likely to put on excess cover to get adequate marbling.

The cow/calf operator who also finished 20 years ago might have been more inclined to push his calves from the beginning. Fleshier calves gain more on the feedlot than leaner ones, and reach butcher size faster.

Today, feedlot buyers want leaner calves, to make money on "compensatory gain". They may make more money per head due to "compensatory gain", but quality suffers due to those lean calves having lost an opportunity to lay down IMF at a young age.

I think the genetics are there today to get more of our cattle to grade choice, but changes won't be made until there is more value in quality. When 'Choice' becomes more profitable then feeders and cow/calf operators will make the necessary changes in their operations.
 
Face the facts!

As % Angus goes up, % CAB goes down.

That simple.

Doesn't have anything to do with Continentals or crossbreeding, either.

Angus has the largest marketshare and in only increasing as a percent of the whole, therefore, there are more Angus influenced cattle trying for CAB than ever.

"Funny thing is.....the folks that guided us through these screwups are the same ones calling foul now. The Universities and Extension agents." Dead wrong MikeC. The magazines and Angus Association called for the change, not Universities. Maybe a few stupid agents. The bulk of these changes have never been supported by any reputable University person I have dealt with. I ran into some in the late 80's that said Angus had already gotten a case of the crazies on carcass. That was 17 years ago!!!!!!

It's pretty simple to me, Angus created a monster with promotion that they have no knowledge of how to handle since there are only a handful of guys in that breed that really know what they are doing. I've never seen one online. Lot's of promotion and fluff attracting too many unknowledgable amateurs to the breed. Even the "respected" breeders don't know how to deal with what they have created.

mtnman
 
mtnman":2p1df7df said:
Face the facts!

As % Angus goes up, % CAB goes down.

That simple.

Doesn't have anything to do with Continentals or crossbreeding, either.

Angus has the largest marketshare and in only increasing as a percent of the whole, therefore, there are more Angus influenced cattle trying for CAB than ever.

"Funny thing is.....the folks that guided us through these screwups are the same ones calling foul now. The Universities and Extension agents." Dead wrong MikeC. The magazines and Angus Association called for the change, not Universities. Maybe a few stupid agents. The bulk of these changes have never been supported by any reputable University person I have dealt with. I ran into some in the late 80's that said Angus had already gotten a case of the crazies on carcass. That was 17 years ago!!!!!!

It's pretty simple to me, Angus created a monster with promotion that they have no knowledge of how to handle since there are only a handful of guys in that breed that really know what they are doing. I've never seen one online. Lot's of promotion and fluff attracting too many unknowledgable amateurs to the breed. Even the "respected" breeders don't know how to deal with what they have created.

mtnman

Manure. Cattle known to be sired by a registered Angus bull hit the CAB market at a higher percentage than generic black cattle.
 
Lots of things to consider.
I've always heard IMF comes last. At least most of it does. I had a breeder that sells a few hundered bulls a year tell me not to read to much into a younger bull that ratio's less on IMF because there is a big difference between on how a 8 month old and a 12 month old will marble. I've studied this some and think he's right. I've also heard implants can have a very negative effect on IMF.
Maybe the reason cattle don't yield as well today is because there are so many more angus and less continental cattle now.
(I did not say that to start a war) I think cattle can be cleaner made but I hate to think about taking away to much backfat. This could lead to hard keeping cattle with poor fertility.
Pete Crow had a editorial I found interesting in his Western Livestock Journal. (this may have been a first) :D He said the restaurant ass. talked about how they do not want big ribeyes. They like small ribeyes so they can cut them thick and keep them juicy.
If we ever get the cattle how they say they want them they will probably not be profitable cattle or they will change the grading system anyway.
Some breeds need more IMF, some may not. Some need bigger ribeyes, some don't. Some need to work on yield, some don't. If all breeds chase the same traits it may take away from the things they have going for them.
These are just a few things to think about, I don't have the answers.
 
I read some of those articles Chris H and it looks like I'm wrong. Scientific studys show I am anyway. They show young cattle can marble as well and without as much backfat.
I just can't understand how cattle can grade worse than years ago with all the Angus cattle out there today.? Seems like something else has to be going on to cause this.
 
Ned Jr.":23hm7ek4 said:
I read some of those articles Chris H and it looks like I'm wrong. Scientific studys show I am anyway. They show young cattle can marble as well and without as much backfat.
I just can't understand how cattle can grade worse than years ago with all the Angus cattle out there today.? Seems like something else has to be going on to cause this.

Yea, well........... we can blame it on the feedlots and the cow/calf folks.

Plus we can blame the Ralgro folks.

Heck, we can even blame it on the the Ethanol distilleries. :lol: :lol:

GENETICS, SON, GENETICS

I'll take my share of the blame. I don't raise perfect cattle like some do. Close......but not perfect. :lol: :lol:
 
MikeC":v9etvun5 said:
Ned Jr.":v9etvun5 said:
I read some of those articles Chris H and it looks like I'm wrong. Scientific studys show I am anyway. They show young cattle can marble as well and without as much backfat.
I just can't understand how cattle can grade worse than years ago with all the Angus cattle out there today.? Seems like something else has to be going on to cause this.

Yea, well........... we can blame it on the feedlots and the cow/calf folks.

Plus we can blame the Ralgro folks.

Heck, we can even blame it on the the Ethanol distilleries. :lol: :lol:

GENETICS, SON, GENETICS

I'll take my share of the blame. I don't raise perfect cattle like some do. Close......but not perfect. :lol: :lol:

I don't think we can blame the decline of choice animals on genetics. I think the blame lays with how we raise the animals. We grow what the market desires. Feedlots pay premium for feeders not carrying a lot of flesh. But that early 'flesh' is really the beginning of the IMF being laid in. But we cow/calf producers want the most money we can get,so we grow what the feeders want. Feedlots make their money on the compensatory gain when buying lean feeders. When fed, those lean feeders do not grade as well, plus they lay in extra cover fat trying to get the IMF increased.
When choice pays enough for the feedlots to pay a premium for a fleshy feeder, they'll get them. MikeC, even you said the evidence for IMF made a case for creep feeding.
 

Latest posts

Top