No CAB cheerleading please

[ollie']

Here is a quote from Dun's article.

As weights increased, ribeye size had to grow proportionately for carcasses to remain below Yield Grade 4.

The question begs : Can the black cattle breeders not lower back fat while maintaining quality grades?

Secondly , how will this affect the amount of imports? We currently import alot of south american (?) or australian lean cattle to mix with the tallow we are shearing off these cattle in box car loads.

I personally think this is a mistake on the AAA. Time will tell. There are enough good angus cattle to eventually satisfy the market in the long term. This will take some of the incentive out of the market to be current and will take some pressure off the black breeders to produce a better product. I see it as negative for the beef industry.

 

[Frankie]

Here is a quote from Dun's article.

As weights increased, ribeye size had to grow proportionately for carcasses to remain below Yield Grade 4.

The question begs : Can the black cattle breeders not lower back fat while maintaining quality grades?

Yes, they can. The Angus Assn and the NALF both have research showing backfat and IMF are not closely related. But you know that yields are also affected by feeding.

Secondly , how will this affect the amount of imports? We currently import alot of south american (?) or australian lean cattle to mix with the tallow we are shearing off these cattle in box car loads.

In theory, we could stop importing that lean beef. But I doubt the feeders will stop importing cheaper cattle as long as they can sell it for a profit.

I personally think this is a mistake on the AAA. Time will tell. There are enough good angus cattle to eventually satisfy the market in the long term. This will take some of the incentive out of the market to be current and will take some pressure off the black breeders to produce a better product. I see it as negative for the beef industry.

:?: :?: What is a mistake of the AAA?

 

[BRG]

I don't think it is a real good idea to lower backfat much. If you do, you will then have harder keeping cows.

 

[MikeC]

Yes it can be done. It will take years though.

But by lowering the bar and allowing YG's higher than 3.9 will not reduce the premiums enough to make any dramatic short term effects.

The logical approach will be to cross the Conts with the Angus to hit the targets. It's already happening to a high degree.

There are more changes coming to CAB shortly. Not everyone will like them either.

From BEEF Magazine:

"In order to produce a low percentage of YG 4 steer carcasses, ribeyes need to average 14.1 sq. in. (basis 775-lb. carcass). In order to produce such a carcass using black baldy cows, as an example, considering that average genetics in this crossbred produces a ribeye size of 12.3 sq. in., [Meat Animal Research Center (MARC) data — Table 1], Wulf explains you need to use a bull on these cows that has a yearling ultrasound scan of at least 15.9 sq. in. He points out yearling bull ribeye size is comparable to that of market-ready steers.

Of course, this means seedstock suppliers would have to use sires even more muscular to build such bulls for their commercial customers. That means even the most muscled common breeds have some work to do. For instance, using MARC across-breed expected progeny difference (EPD) analysis, Wulf points out only 38% of Limousin sires in that breed's genetic evaluation have stout enough EPDs for ribeye to build these kinds of bulls; Charolais 28% and only 3% in the Angus breed"

Also:
"Arguably, it takes at least five years for a selection decision in the seedstock pasture to get to the packing plant."

 

[Frankie]

I don't think it is a real good idea to lower backfat much. If you do, you will then have harder keeping cows.

I think you're right. When Future Beef was trying to build their pasture to plate program, they said they weren't looking for YG1 steers. They wanted all links in their production chain to be profitable, and cows that produced YG1 steers were less likely to breed back. We probably need less backfat on our cows here in southern OK than you do in SD.

 

[MikeC]

I don't think it is a real good idea to lower backfat much. If you do, you will then have harder keeping cows.

There is no need to lower the backfat on brood cows at all.

Just use bulls that lower the backfat and raise the ribeye size of the calves!

Also you get the extra advantage of heterosis.

Best of all worlds. :lol:

 

[ollie']

If we have bigger REA and better marbling cattle, less back fat is a given because of the reduced time on feed. You put enough guts in a cow and she'll carry enough back fat to reproduce because she'll stay in better condition.

 

[ollie']

I also noticed they are taking (roughly) 1600 lb live weight animals. That's sure going to put some frame score back in the breeding program. Where did the 1250lb choice, y2 target go?

 

[Frankie]

If we have bigger REA and better marbling cattle, less back fat is a given because of the reduced time on feed. You put enough guts in a cow and she'll carry enough back fat to reproduce because she'll stay in better condition.

That's true if the feedlot is paying attention to backfat. If we increase the size of the cow's ribeye, won't she get too big to be efficient?

BTW, I promise not to "cheerlead" for CAB if you can get Mike to stop bashing CAB.

 

[ollie']

BTW, I promise not to "cheerlead" for CAB if you can get Mike to stop bashing CAB.

I stopped having any influence over mike when you two started dating. He's your problem now. ;-)

I don't think large REA automatically makes large cows. That is our job as breeders to breed better quality.

 

[AngusSenorita]

I learned about YG is Livestock judging but forgot the order.

could you tell m the YG order, i'm confused

Thanks

 

[dun]

I learned about YG is Livestock judging but forgot the order.

could you tell m the YG order, i'm confused

Thanks

1 is the highest grade and it goes down hill from there. This link pretty well covers everything
http://meat.tamu.edu/beefgrading.html

dun

 

[Brandonm2]

I learned about YG is Livestock judging but forgot the order.

could you tell m the YG order, i'm confused

Thanks

Well (1) is very lean or lean and very heavy muscled (a big ribeye area improves the YG)
(2) is lean (in a perfect world all the cattle would be YG2s and still grade Choice avg.....we always have to hope!)
(3) is average to a little fat MOST fattened cattle are 3s
(4) is a fat slob
(5) should almost NEVER happen This Yield Grade really should NOT exist any more and is a carryover from the day when cattle were raised for lard. Five is just about as fat as a cow can get and is usually lacking in the REA too.

 

[AngusSenorita]

Thanks alot

I need to brush up on my steer grading and feeder cattle selection, we have our 1st judging contest on Oct. 14th

 

[ROB]

Are the new requrements for CAB being changed because todays genetics can't meet the original requirements of CAB consistently? Seems like there are a lot more YG 4 angus cattle showing up rather than YG 2 and 3's (At least in reporting data I've seen on the commercial grade end of the spectrum).

There are cattle out there that are moderate framed, have low backfat, will consistently YG 2, and produce a ribeye 12 to 15". Problem is they are not black-hided. Personally, I prefer the lower backfat. A 750 lb. carcass with .15" backfat will produce approximately 50 lbs more retail product than that of a 750 lb. carcass with .60" of backfat. (according to various local butchers).

 

[Brandonm2]

I got this in the Hereford E-News....

"Yield Grade 4’s Record High — Where Is the Industry Headed?
Randy Blach, Cattle-Fax Update
The number of Yield Grade 4 cattle in the mix continues to increase. Year-to-date, the percentage of 4’s is running at 9.5% up 1% compared to a year ago and 6% higher than the five year average of 1999-2003. The most recent data showed Nebraska had more than 15% YG 4s and Texas had more than 8%. The national average for the percentage of Y 4s is 10.76% and record high.

It is no surprise that as the number of Y 4s increase so does the price discount. The discount has remained between $13-$14 in recent weeks. Year-to-date, the average discount has been $13.78 which is nearly identical to 2004 and 2005. However, since 2001 the trend is clear, the discount is growing.

Bottom-Line: During the week ending Aug. 4, the number of YG 4s and 5s processed that week totaled about 64,000, which nearly double the five year average of 35,000. The economic incentive to feed cattle longer and to heavier weights has definitely been there and the industry has responded to this signal. The reason that the number of Y 4 cattle in the mix continues to increase is because the economic incentive to add weight overshadows the YG 4 discounts."

 

[TSR]

I just don't think that in general the restaurant trade will want large ribeyes. When you sell ribeye dinners you will make more money off of the small to average ribeye. Sure there are those restaurants that sell all sizes of steaks but I'll bet there are more that just sell that ribeye standard dinner. Now for us that slaughter our own beef tht is another story. Might be wrong, but just my opinion.

 

[AngusSenorita]

so the lower the yeild grade the lawer the external fat? Does that mean they are over fed or does it mean it takes more feed to form intro muscular fat(is that the same as marbleing?)

 

[Brandonm2]

so the lower the yeild grade the lawer the external fat? Does that mean they are over fed or does it mean it takes more feed to form intro muscular fat(is that the same as marbleing?)

Intramuscular fat IS the same thing as marbling. That is the "good" fat amidst the muscle fiber. The more of that a carcass has the higher the quality grade. The backfat (all that fat trim on the edge of a steak is the BAD fat). The more backfat present the worse the Yield grade. A perfect carcass would be high Choice and YG1; but those freaks rarely happen. The MORE you feed a steer the more likely it is that you will get more marbling and higher Quality grade....provided that you don't take it too far and the steer does not get too old and get a quality grade discount for B maturity. Unfortunately the more that a calf is fed, the more fat you put on it's back. The consumer will not buy steaks with an inch of fat around them so all that extra fat has to be trimmed off and mixed in with lean trimmings (usually cull cows or foreign calves) to make burger meat. The paradox of this business is fattening cattle improves quality grade while worsening yield grade. The best carcasses are the exceptions. They have low external trim, a bigger than expected Ribeye area for their carcass weight, and plentiful marbling. The problem carcasses are usually one of two extremes. They are either too fat and have a Yield grade 4 or 5 OR they are very lean; but are devoid of marbling.

 

[MikeC]

I also noticed they are taking (roughly) 1600 lb live weight animals. That's sure going to put some frame score back in the breeding program. Where did the 1250lb choice, y2 target go?

The packers have become wise. They figure it takes the same amount of time and labor to harvest a 1600 lb animal as it does a 1250 lb animal.

Much more meat at the end of the day with the same amount of labor and equipments costs.