Just another opinion:
Will history repeat again? As an industry, we have misused information turning progress into mistakes. Are we doing it again? Remember when performance information became available and we selected for heavier and heavier weaning weights. We got heavier weaning weights and along with selecting for larger framed cattle, many cattle got too big and too large framed to be sustainable and profitable. Too much of a good thing. And we had to back track, having wasted time and money getting somewhere we didn't want to be.
Is the beef industry doing the same thing with the "marbling" trait today? A lot of emphasis is being placed on marbling, which means less emphasis is being placed on other important traits. And when we get "there", will we find again that we don't want to be "there"?
Marbling is an important and economic trait for which to select. It is what makes beef taste like beef. Flavor and juiciness are the two main attributes of marbling. Marbling has been shown to have some correlation with tenderness. Since marbling is fat, it obviously chews easier than muscle and meat with higher levels of marbling/fat tend to be more tender.
So, the question is, "how much marbling do we need?" No agreement has been reached on that question. The answer depends a great deal on whether you're selling marbling genetics or not. The American Angus Association has stated that the only way we'll sell more beef is to produce more highly marbled/fat beef. Others who make money off of the high marble/high fat business agree, but others disagree. For instance, research shows that approximately 3.0% fat (low Select) is all that's required to give beef the flavor and juiciness needed to be acceptable. And we know that it is easier to over cook a low marbled / fat steak than a high marbled / fat steak, so maybe we need a little more marbling/fat to make the steak more user friendly. But the statement that the only way we'll sell more beef is to make it fatter is hard to swallow - especially when the Choice/Select spread, or premium for marbling/fat, is narrow - say $1-$5.00.
The current USDA grading system uses percent intramuscular fat to determine different quality grades. There is demand for all grades of beef (it all sells at some price), but the grades of Standard and below are considered unacceptable to consumers without extra processing, flavoring, etc. So, the argument about marbling should be one of "what level is unacceptable" not " how much can we add?" Most agree that "Standard" is too little.
The real argument then is how much of the different levels of fat (above Standard) do we need. Believe it or not, the market place tells us. When the Choice/Select spread is wide - ie. a premium is paid for high marbled / fat beef - we need more high marbled/fat beef and when that spread is low - ie. little or no premium is paid for high marbled/fat beef - we don't need more high marbled/fat beef. This spread varies daily and cycles up and down throughout the year. Since this premium is so variable and unreliable, is the market really signaling that we need to place great emphasis on producing more marbling / fat. While the market does tell us constantly that it doesn't want Standard quality beef. Are these stiff and constant discounts a market signal telling us where to place our emphasis - eliminating the bottom end.
The only way a beef producer can gain the full benefit of the marbling/fat premium is to sell his calves "in the beef" priced on carcass value. And very few do that. But whether you sell "off the cow" or "in the beef", if you lose more in other traits like fertility and growth and lean yield than you gain in premium for marbling/fat, you lose.
A mixed statement made by many is that high quality beef means high marbled/fat beef. Not so. Many consumers consider lower marbled / fat beef that is flavorful and juicy and tender to be very high quality. The success and awards won by "Certified Hereford Beef" a lower marbling/fat grade of beef proves that to be true. And taste panel research confirms that many consumers prefer lower marbled/fat beef. Quality beef requires marbling but once adequate marbling is present for flavor and juiciness, then tenderness and preparation determine quality. Consumer tastes differ for the amount of marbling/fat they like in their beef, but high quality beef is found in Select, Choice and Prime quality grades of beef.
Have we learned from history? Just as too much weight or frame is bad, too much marbling/fat is bad too. The consumer is telling us, the health profession is telling us and the dietitians are telling us that we need less fat, not more. Why should we as an industry place so much emphasis on adding fat to our product when consumers and other segments of the food industry are trying to take fat out?
Don't misunderstand me, we need marbling. But, are those who have the most to gain from adding marbling leading us down a road we'll have to back track from again? Does the industry need more marbling/fat in its products or are the promoters of such steering us toward too much of a good thing just as some did in the weight and frame race?
I agree that beef needs to deliver a more consistent, tender, tasty product. And marbling is a component of that, but not the panacea. If the issue is tenderness, then lets address tenderness. If the issue is consistency, then let's address consistency. But tenderness is not marbling and marbling doesn't guarantee tenderness and neither guarantee consistency if our product is prepared improperly.
Just as we needed more weight and growth in the 80's, we need more marbling in some cattle today. But let's learn from history and not go too far. Can our industry afford the time lost, money spent and effort wasted on producing too much of a good thing again?
Will history repeat again? As an industry, we have misused information turning progress into mistakes. Are we doing it again? Remember when performance information became available and we selected for heavier and heavier weaning weights. We got heavier weaning weights and along with selecting for larger framed cattle, many cattle got too big and too large framed to be sustainable and profitable. Too much of a good thing. And we had to back track, having wasted time and money getting somewhere we didn't want to be.
Is the beef industry doing the same thing with the "marbling" trait today? A lot of emphasis is being placed on marbling, which means less emphasis is being placed on other important traits. And when we get "there", will we find again that we don't want to be "there"?
Marbling is an important and economic trait for which to select. It is what makes beef taste like beef. Flavor and juiciness are the two main attributes of marbling. Marbling has been shown to have some correlation with tenderness. Since marbling is fat, it obviously chews easier than muscle and meat with higher levels of marbling/fat tend to be more tender.
So, the question is, "how much marbling do we need?" No agreement has been reached on that question. The answer depends a great deal on whether you're selling marbling genetics or not. The American Angus Association has stated that the only way we'll sell more beef is to produce more highly marbled/fat beef. Others who make money off of the high marble/high fat business agree, but others disagree. For instance, research shows that approximately 3.0% fat (low Select) is all that's required to give beef the flavor and juiciness needed to be acceptable. And we know that it is easier to over cook a low marbled / fat steak than a high marbled / fat steak, so maybe we need a little more marbling/fat to make the steak more user friendly. But the statement that the only way we'll sell more beef is to make it fatter is hard to swallow - especially when the Choice/Select spread, or premium for marbling/fat, is narrow - say $1-$5.00.
The current USDA grading system uses percent intramuscular fat to determine different quality grades. There is demand for all grades of beef (it all sells at some price), but the grades of Standard and below are considered unacceptable to consumers without extra processing, flavoring, etc. So, the argument about marbling should be one of "what level is unacceptable" not " how much can we add?" Most agree that "Standard" is too little.
The real argument then is how much of the different levels of fat (above Standard) do we need. Believe it or not, the market place tells us. When the Choice/Select spread is wide - ie. a premium is paid for high marbled / fat beef - we need more high marbled/fat beef and when that spread is low - ie. little or no premium is paid for high marbled/fat beef - we don't need more high marbled/fat beef. This spread varies daily and cycles up and down throughout the year. Since this premium is so variable and unreliable, is the market really signaling that we need to place great emphasis on producing more marbling / fat. While the market does tell us constantly that it doesn't want Standard quality beef. Are these stiff and constant discounts a market signal telling us where to place our emphasis - eliminating the bottom end.
The only way a beef producer can gain the full benefit of the marbling/fat premium is to sell his calves "in the beef" priced on carcass value. And very few do that. But whether you sell "off the cow" or "in the beef", if you lose more in other traits like fertility and growth and lean yield than you gain in premium for marbling/fat, you lose.
A mixed statement made by many is that high quality beef means high marbled/fat beef. Not so. Many consumers consider lower marbled / fat beef that is flavorful and juicy and tender to be very high quality. The success and awards won by "Certified Hereford Beef" a lower marbling/fat grade of beef proves that to be true. And taste panel research confirms that many consumers prefer lower marbled/fat beef. Quality beef requires marbling but once adequate marbling is present for flavor and juiciness, then tenderness and preparation determine quality. Consumer tastes differ for the amount of marbling/fat they like in their beef, but high quality beef is found in Select, Choice and Prime quality grades of beef.
Have we learned from history? Just as too much weight or frame is bad, too much marbling/fat is bad too. The consumer is telling us, the health profession is telling us and the dietitians are telling us that we need less fat, not more. Why should we as an industry place so much emphasis on adding fat to our product when consumers and other segments of the food industry are trying to take fat out?
Don't misunderstand me, we need marbling. But, are those who have the most to gain from adding marbling leading us down a road we'll have to back track from again? Does the industry need more marbling/fat in its products or are the promoters of such steering us toward too much of a good thing just as some did in the weight and frame race?
I agree that beef needs to deliver a more consistent, tender, tasty product. And marbling is a component of that, but not the panacea. If the issue is tenderness, then lets address tenderness. If the issue is consistency, then let's address consistency. But tenderness is not marbling and marbling doesn't guarantee tenderness and neither guarantee consistency if our product is prepared improperly.
Just as we needed more weight and growth in the 80's, we need more marbling in some cattle today. But let's learn from history and not go too far. Can our industry afford the time lost, money spent and effort wasted on producing too much of a good thing again?
