Processing

Help Support CattleToday:

sudonsan

Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2013
Messages
19
Reaction score
0
Wondering what percentage is 'typical' from on the hoof weight to final processing.
 
sudonsan":3a6robkd said:
Wondering what percentage is 'typical' from on the hoof weight to final processing.

Hanging carcass weight = 60% of live weight
Cut & wrapped in your freezer = 60% of hanging carcass weight

Can vary depending on animal & finish
 
Chris H":2u3d9cxx said:
sudonsan":2u3d9cxx said:
Wondering what percentage is 'typical' from on the hoof weight to final processing.

Hanging carcass weight = 60% of live weight
Cut & wrapped in your freezer = 60% of hanging carcass weight

Can vary depending on animal & finish
Feedlot averages are close to 64% from live to hanging but those are feedlot cattle.
 
We're a grass-only operation.

This summer, we had over 60% yield on an 15mo old percentage heifer we weren't actually trying to finish, we just couldn't keep her in the fence and I got sick and tired of putting her back in. She was easy as pie (temperamentally) ... I'm convinced she was part eel. Very tasty eel. As a matter of fact, we earned a big blue ribbon from the American Royal for the eating quality of her rib eye steaks.

So, like I said, it's very dependent upon genetics, management and age.

What are you raising, how do you feed them and how old are they?

With a bit more information, we could help you out.

Thanks and good luck.
 
Final weight in the box also depends a bit on how you have your beef trimmed, bone-in or boneless, do your take the organ meats etc.
 
We are grass feeding, grass fed longhorn. I know those aren't the 'typical' beef breed, but the nutritional value is like white meat chicken and brings $8-$12 a pound. The niche is, of course, the health conscious who still want red meat.
 
Regrettably, I don't have much experience with longhorn yields out of a grass-only system.

Using moderately framed and thick-butted animals in a terminal cross should give you some nice yields.
 
Chris H":14xfb210 said:
sudonsan":14xfb210 said:
Wondering what percentage is 'typical' from on the hoof weight to final processing.

Hanging carcass weight = 60% of live weight
Cut & wrapped in your freezer = 60% of hanging carcass weight

Can vary depending on animal & finish

X2, a simple, correct and general answer without getting lost in the weeds.
 
chippie":mnss34l5 said:
How is the nutritional value like white meat chicken?
Yep that is a good BS marketing line they must have been taking CAB courses.
You could package up Cape buffalo or Musk Ox with that line of :bs: .
 
"the nutritional value is like white meat chicken" ????????

I am an engineer not a nutritionist. I don't understand this comment at all. Beef and chicken are different. And Vive la Difference!

I was reading something recently about vitamin B12 deficiency in US adults:

This publication said vitamin B12

-keeps the immune system functioning
-regulates sleep cycles
-crucial to energy levels
-keeps your brain from shrinking [!]
-which maintains memory and cognition
-especially affects vegetarians
....and more

the article went on: "VITAMIN B12 IS ONLY FOUND IN RED MEATS" emphasis mine.

(and of course the supplement pills they are trying to sell)

My personal conclusion: beef is not white meat chicken. Good red meat beef is part of a healthy diet. Forget the pills, eat good quality beef!
 
chippie":5g7z7w0k said:
How is the nutritional value like white meat chicken?

Based on 3.5 oz serving
White meat chicken - Calories 173, Protein 30.9, Fat 4.5, Cholesterol 85.5
Longhorn beef - Calories 140, Protein 25.5, Fat 3.7, Cholesterol 61.5

Studies have been done by several entities.
 
sudonsan":3rx6l4ju said:
chippie":3rx6l4ju said:
How is the nutritional value like white meat chicken?

Based on 3.5 oz serving
White meat chicken - Calories 173, Protein 30.9, Fat 4.5, Cholesterol 85.5
Longhorn beef - Calories 140, Protein 25.5, Fat 3.7, Cholesterol 61.5

Studies have been done by several entities.

The calories part is clear enough but the values for protein, fat and cholesterol are just numbers without a measure. Please elaborate on what is being reported by those numbers?
 
Just like nutritional labels

http://www.tlbaa.org/Registered%20Lean% ... beefad.jpg

Also, grams for protein and fat, and mgms for cholesterol.

Info can be found in a number of cattle magazines - not just longhorn publications. My husband's boss is a beefmaster breeder and was surprised to find an article about the nutritional benefits of longhorns in their publication.

Texas A&M has done studies as well.
 
sudonsan":iz5o9mv8 said:
Just like nutritional labels

http://www.tlbaa.org/Registered%20Lean% ... beefad.jpg

Also, grams for protein and fat, and mgms for cholesterol.

Info can be found in a number of cattle magazines - not just longhorn publications. My husband's boss is a beefmaster breeder and was surprised to find an article about the nutritional benefits of longhorns in their publication.

Texas A&M has done studies as well.

This is a bit curious. First, it looks like a 3.5 oz serving of Longhorn has fewer combined grams of protein and fat than a 3.5 oz serving of any of the other 'meats'. As far as I know there's only protein, fat and carbs and no carbs will be found in any of these meats so it must be a difference of water. In other words, on a dry matter basis then these are not equal servings if those numbers are accepted.

Second, carbs and protein release 5 calories per gram while fat releases 9 calories per gram. So 3.5 oz of Longhorn beef with 25.5 grams of protein and 3.7 grams of fat would release 160.8 calories rather than the stated 140. White meat chicken would accordingly release 195 calories rather than the 173 stated. Accepting the numbers as provided requires suspending the laws of physics or those of basic math.
 
I am only quoting the information given by the TLBAA.

I am not a math major, a researcher, nor a food analyst.
 

Latest posts

Top