My thoughts on "FUNNEL BUTTS"

[mnmtranching]

If anyone cares.

Most all choice and prime fed cattle have more than enough round.

We all like to see a nice filled out butt on fed cattle.

Fact is, there is always more than enough round in the beef supply.

Beef promotions are constantly trying new ways to market the round, make it more desirable to consumers.

Another fact, much of the round ends up ground. Even in choice and prime. For what 2- 3 bucks a pound?

The BA breed and others have worked hard on the Middle meats, like the Rib Eye, T Bones NY Strip etc. These cuts are NEVER ground. And sell for how much per pound?

Anybody got a comment?

 

[Frankie]

Of course, I have a comment. :lol:

Good post. The reason I don't pay much attention to those kinds of posts is because they're simply Angus bashing.

I've yet to see these guys post about how awful it is that Simmentals have completely gone away from their traditional traits, size, color, markings. Or how Chars have downsized, some breeders chasing marbling. Or that many of the black Limis today don't compare with the red Limis of yesterday. Yet the best they can come up with to bash Angus is that they don't like the butt of some Angus bulls posted on these pages.

There have been bulls of other breeds posted without good butts, but the Angus bashers are quiet. Or they mention that that one bull doesn't have much of a butt, but don't equate it to the entire breed.

I think fair is fair, 'butt' that's what happens when you're the lead dog.

Don't get me started.

 

[Badlands]

There is only a miniscule amount of variation in the % of one muscle relative to the % of another muscle in beef animals.

If they are small in the rear, they are small in the "middle meats" and small up front, too.

Sorry, but your post has no point with any biological relavence whatsoever.

Badlands

 

[mnmtranching]

There is only a miniscule amount of variation in the % of one muscle relative to the % of another muscle in beef animals.

If they are small in the rear, they are small in the "middle meats" and small up front, too.

Sorry, but your post has no point with any biological relavence whatsoever.

Badlands

I would rather have a "T Bone" than a round steak. :roll:

I'm not talking about some 4 year old range fed Corriente. I'm talking about choice and prime fed beef. :frowns:

 

[novatech]

Of course, I have a comment. :lol:

Good post. The reason I don't pay much attention to those kinds of posts is because they're simply Angus bashing.

I've yet to see these guys post about how awful it is that Simmentals have completely gone away from their traditional traits, size, color, markings. Or how Chars have downsized, some breeders chasing marbling. Or that many of the black Limis today don't compare with the red Limis of yesterday. Yet the best they can come up with to bash Angus is that they don't like the butt of some Angus bulls posted on these pages.

There have been bulls of other breeds posted without good butts, but the Angus bashers are quiet. Or they mention that that one bull doesn't have much of a butt, but don't equate it to the entire breed.

I think fair is fair, 'butt' that's what happens when you're the lead dog.

Don't get me started.

No offence but angus certainly are not lead dog where I am at.
As far as I am concerned pure breed only exists to make good crosses.
I raise Brahman, and I absolutly know that without other breeds, includeing angus, Brahman would not have any reason to exist.
Personally I like criticisem, It tells me where I need to improve. I can take it or leave it.

Badlands, Where did that info. come from. You are jokeing. Right?

 

[Badlands]

No.

I'm not joking.

Bob Long did the original research inot the concept in the early 1970's when he was at Ankony.

The thought was that they might be able to breed for more muscle in the expensive parts of the animal.

It has been revisited since then by 5 or 6 different groups.

The genetic correlations between weight of one muscle to another muscle always is over 0.98 in these studies.

It is the highest genetic correlation that I am aware of.

When the genetic correlation is 1, it means that there aren't really two traits, there is only one.

Their conclusions are that there is no way to conceivably change the relationship between muscles. It would take a couple hundred years of single trait selection, was their conclusion. Their conclusions were that there are heavier and lighter muscled animals resulting in differing meat:bone ratios, but that muscle ratio's were constant within an animal.

With that said, I do believe that there are occasional animals that don't fit their mold, but they are rare

Now, I'm sure I will not have 95 people jump on me. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

Badlands

 

[Running Arrow Bill]

IMO...

Regardless of the breed...

"Round" steak, eye of round, round roasts, all tend to be on the tough side. They are best cooked VERY slow at lower temperature (or) made into ground beef (or) stew meat (or) Swiss steak (or) ____?.

Of course, I have "occasionally" bought a rump roast (or similar) that ended up on the tender side.

Bottomline: Any "cut" that has had a lot of exercise in the live animal will tend to be on the tough side (arm, shoulder, rear leg, butt, neck, etc.).

 

[novatech]

No.

I'm not joking.

Bob Long did the original research inot the concept in the early 1970's when he was at Ankony.

The thought was that they might be able to breed for more muscle in the expensive parts of the animal.

It has been revisited since then by 5 or 6 different groups.

The genetic correlations between weight of one muscle to another muscle always is over 0.98 in these studies.

It is the highest genetic correlation that I am aware of.

When the genetic correlation is 1, it means that there aren't really two traits, there is only one.

Their conclusions are that there is no way to conceivably change the relationship between muscles. It would take a couple hundred years of single trait selection, was their conclusion. Their conclusions were that there are heavier and lighter muscled animals resulting in differing meat:bone ratios, but that muscle ratio's were constant within an animal.

With that said, I do believe that there are occasional animals that don't fit their mold, but they are rare

Now, I'm sure I will not have 95 people jump on me. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

Badlands

Thanks
I guess I,m not to old to learn. I,m going to go out and look at my cows again.

 

[goddy]

No.

I'm not joking.

Bob Long did the original research inot the concept in the early 1970's when he was at Ankony.

The thought was that they might be able to breed for more muscle in the expensive parts of the animal.

It has been revisited since then by 5 or 6 different groups.

The genetic correlations between weight of one muscle to another muscle always is over 0.98 in these studies.

It is the highest genetic correlation that I am aware of.

When the genetic correlation is 1, it means that there aren't really two traits, there is only one.

Their conclusions are that there is no way to conceivably change the relationship between muscles. It would take a couple hundred years of single trait selection, was their conclusion. Their conclusions were that there are heavier and lighter muscled animals resulting in differing meat:bone ratios, but that muscle ratio's were constant within an animal.

With that said, I do believe that there are occasional animals that don't fit their mold, but they are rare

Now, I'm sure I will not have 95 people jump on me. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

Badlands

Good post.

Around the same time Bob Long had a series of slides that dispelled the " depth of flank " comment people still bring up. He showed clearly that if the flank is "full" there is only one substance it can be and its not extra meat , its good old fat.

If I remember right he was the first to use forearm muscle as a good indicator of overall muscle as they had the correlation Badlands mentions.

cheers
Goddy

 

[mnmtranching]

No.

I'm not joking.

Bob Long did the original research inot the concept in the early 1970's when he was at Ankony.

The thought was that they might be able to breed for more muscle in the expensive parts of the animal.

It has been revisited since then by 5 or 6 different groups.

The genetic correlations between weight of one muscle to another muscle always is over 0.98 in these studies.

It is the highest genetic correlation that I am aware of.

When the genetic correlation is 1, it means that there aren't really two traits, there is only one.

Their conclusions are that there is no way to conceivably change the relationship between muscles. It would take a couple hundred years of single trait selection, was their conclusion. Their conclusions were that there are heavier and lighter muscled animals resulting in differing meat:bone ratios, but that muscle ratio's were constant within an animal.

With that said, I do believe that there are occasional animals that don't fit their mold, but they are rare

Now, I'm sure I will not have 95 people jump on me. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

Badlands

Man! I don't know how long you've been in cattle, but things have changed since the 70's. Fact is there's a shortage of Middle meats and an excess of round, that's what this topic is supposed to be about.

 

[Tom Underwood]

Fact is there's a shortage of Middle meats and an excess of round, that's what this topic is supposed to be about.

Articles appeared the the Hereford Journals of the 60's noting the same shortage of middle meats and excess of other meats (including round).

I think Badlands point, still valid today, is that research shows that muscle on one part of the body (rear or forearm or elsewhere) correlates to muscle in the middle.

Thanks for the post, Badlands.

 

[goddy]

No.

I'm not joking.

Bob Long did the original research inot the concept in the early 1970's when he was at Ankony.

The thought was that they might be able to breed for more muscle in the expensive parts of the animal.

It has been revisited since then by 5 or 6 different groups.

The genetic correlations between weight of one muscle to another muscle always is over 0.98 in these studies.

It is the highest genetic correlation that I am aware of.

When the genetic correlation is 1, it means that there aren't really two traits, there is only one.

Their conclusions are that there is no way to conceivably change the relationship between muscles. It would take a couple hundred years of single trait selection, was their conclusion. Their conclusions were that there are heavier and lighter muscled animals resulting in differing meat:bone ratios, but that muscle ratio's were constant within an animal.

With that said, I do believe that there are occasional animals that don't fit their mold, but they are rare

Now, I'm sure I will not have 95 people jump on me. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

Badlands

Man! I don't know how long you've been in cattle, but things have changed since the 70's. Fact is there's a shortage of Middle meats and an excess of round, that's what this topic is supposed to be about.

You are right. A lot of things have changed since the 70's but I don't think that facts do and I think the points Badlands makes are as valid today as then.

Goddy

 

[MikeC]

I hope some of these folks don't think we are trying to increase the size of "Ribeyes" just to make ribeye steaks larger? :lol: :lol:

 

[beef]

I don't understand what y'all mean by "funnel butt" ... if you look at the muscle on my bull's butt, you can see a resemblance to a funnel...wide at the top of the muscle and narrow at the bottom. Is this what y'all are talking about? What is wrong with it? TIC

 

[KNERSIE]

beef,

I think in the funnel butt debate the funnel points in the opposite direction. Your bull isn't a funnel butt, but rather well muscled.

 

[beef]

Knersie:

I still don't see the "funnel". From the 2 year old bull discussion it looks like they are talking about a bull with no butt, I just can't see the funnel.

 

[Brandonm2]

Yes, that is what they are talking about. If you look at your bull from behind he is shaped something like this:

( )

Where the muscle is well expressed in the round. Go look behind a typical Holstein and the butt looks something like this:

\ /

It is simply hide over flat muscle. No bulge, no muscle shape. Some have gotten too calling this a "funnell butt". I think a much better indicator of muscle is ultrasound ribeye measurement; but most of us don't have that number handy so we still have to eyeball it.

 

[Susie David]

So what are we selling....shape of the animals or pounds of red meat on the hoof, or in our case in the freezer.
Sure we sell alot of the rib and loin cuts but far more ground beef is sold and we market and sell lean ground beef...~90% lean so there isn't and worry about cutting one or two rump rosats and grinding the rest...some steers we cut the rib and loin and grind the rest of the carcass.
It would really be a challange to start breeding the front and rear out of the animals and work on the middle...now that would be a odd looking steer.
Just my two bits worth....DMc

 

[S.R.R.]

It would really be a challange to start breeding the front and rear out of the animals and work on the middle...now that would be a odd looking steer.
....DMc

Odd maybe, correct YES.

 

[andybob]

Badlands, I recall Tom Lasater making a similar observation when being interviewed, when the subject of conformation was discussed. My meat technology lecturer, Dr Horace Thornton, also made the same point, both these views were in the 70's, so there must be enough published research available if someone has the time to search.
If your market will pay a premium for a larger ribeye, then the solution is to use a breed that has a proportionatly larger ribeye in your crossbreeding program!