Selecting calves

[SirLoin]

Can anyone give me some pointers in selecting angus or angus cross breeds for profitability in raising freezer beef? Most of my customers are steak guys so I'd like to make them happy and get them the highest percent of quality steaks for their money. They'd be willing to pay more $ for a higher % of steaks. The guy I buy my calves from sells based on taping the heart girth. I've done better profit wise so far by selecting calves that are longer vs. the shorter length squatter ones. A longer calf of the same breed, w/t same heart girth almost certainly weighs more than a shorter one. Some of the squatter ones can grow incredibly wide for their length, but the longer ones normally have a greater hanging weight. What are the advantages and disavantages of each body type. Does one body type yield more of the higher quality steaks (sirloin and better) percentage wise than the other? Do the squatter types typically have more trimming losses from being fatter? Any info. or opinions would be greatly appreciated.

P.S., sirloin steak is my absolute favorite steak. Nothing beats the flavor IMO. My sirloin steaks are well flecked with fat and are as tender or more tender than any grocery store bought porterhouse or T-Bone.

 

[Frankie]

Bob Long:

All cattle have exactly the same number of mucles, and those muscles are attached to the same places on the skeleton.

Not only do cattle have the same muscle pattern, the muscle weights are in the same proportion. Therefore, the phrase "more weight (or more meat) in the high priced cuts" becomes invalid.

http://www.angusjournal.com/articlepdf/ ... flogic.pdf

 

[mwj]

Bob Long:

All cattle have exactly the same number of mucles, and those muscles are attached to the same places on the skeleton.

Not only do cattle have the same muscle pattern, the muscle weights are in the same proportion. Therefore, the phrase "more weight (or more meat) in the high priced cuts" becomes invalid.

http://www.angusjournal.com/articlepdf/ ... flogic.pdf

So why are angus breeders selecting for ribeye area if they are all the same in the amounts of ''high priced cuts''? :???:

 

[Cattleman200]

If you buy one of those really long calves then you can get twice the number of ribeyes as the short calves. Oh yea.....I forgot to mention that you have to cut them only half the thickness to get twice as many.


Circle H Ranch

 

[DOC HARRIS]

Bob Long:

All cattle have exactly the same number of mucles, and those muscles are attached to the same places on the skeleton.

Not only do cattle have the same muscle pattern, the muscle weights are in the same proportion. Therefore, the phrase "more weight (or more meat) in the high priced cuts" becomes invalid.

http://www.angusjournal.com/articlepdf/ ... flogic.pdf

WOW! Here is a "Hand Grenade" comment by the revered "Bob" Long which infers factual and evidentiary deductive reasoning which (In MY Opinion) was/is not always the case with Bob Long! Some of you members of this Forum are cognizant of my often contentious sentiments regarding Long's usually "hubris" tenets. These two quotes are examples of those doctrinal ideas of his, which I shall comment on later, but A Christmas Dinner awaits at the moment, and I haven't the time to explain my dissent with him now.

Later.

Merry Christmas and Happy New to you A LL!

DOC HARRIS

 

[Frankie]

Bob Long:

All cattle have exactly the same number of mucles, and those muscles are attached to the same places on the skeleton.

Not only do cattle have the same muscle pattern, the muscle weights are in the same proportion. Therefore, the phrase "more weight (or more meat) in the high priced cuts" becomes invalid.

http://www.angusjournal.com/articlepdf/ ... flogic.pdf

So why are angus breeders selecting for ribeye area if they are all the same in the amounts of ''high priced cuts''? :???:

Since muscles are in proportion with each other, a larger ribeye should indicate more muscling throughout the carcass.

 

[SirLoin]

If you buy one of those really long calves then you can get twice the number of ribeyes as the short calves. Oh yea.....I forgot to mention that you have to cut them only half the thickness to get twice as many.


Circle H Ranch

Thanks for your intelligent analysis :roll:

 

[SirLoin]

So why are angus breeders selecting for ribeye area if they are all the same in the amounts of ''high priced cuts''? :???:[/quote]


Since muscles are in proportion with each other, a larger ribeye should indicate more muscling throughout the carcass.[/quote]


So why are some angus long and some are shorter and much wider? Your theory would seem to say that the broader the animal is the longer he should be., i.e "in proportion".

If you look at a heard of angus, they are clearly not all in proportion.

 

[DOC HARRIS]

Bob Long:

All cattle have exactly the same number of mucles, and those muscles are attached to the same places on the skeleton.

Not only do cattle have the same muscle pattern, the muscle weights are in the same proportion. Therefore, the phrase "more weight (or more meat) in the high priced cuts" becomes invalid.

http://www.angusjournal.com/articlepdf/ ... flogic.pdf

WOW! Here is a "Hand Grenade" comment by the revered "Bob" Long which infers factual and evidentiary deductive reasoning which (In MY Opinion) was/is not always the case with Bob Long! Some of you members of this Forum are cognizant of my often contentious sentiments regarding Long's usually "hubris" tenets. These two quotes are examples of those doctrinal ideas of his, which I shall comment on later, but A Christmas Dinner awaits at the moment, and I haven't the time to explain my dissent with him now.

Later.

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to you All!

DOC HARRIS

Well, back after a Traditional Christmas Dinner with Harris Family members from California, and Michigan, and ,of course, Colorado, I am prepared to respond to the remarks by "Bob" Long, the at-one-time known "Patroon of Ankony Farms" with the following caveat: Bob Long is one of the many guru's of the Beef Cattle Industry of years past who made a tremendous impact on the awareness factors of many beef cattle breeders, and I respect that fact, and freely admit that he had a great impact on the education of Beef breeders throughout the world. I would not presume to minimize the importance that his writings had on the furtherance of increased knowledge of beef cattle production.

HOWEVER - (there is usually a - "however") - some of his very frequently dogmatic and caustic utterances were 'couched' in arrogant platitudes which postulates absolute factuality, which upon re-evaluation, was found wanting in actuality. This comment "- - - more weight (or more meat) in the high price cuts" becomes invalid is, in fact - in itself, - invalid!

It is a physiological truism that the animal biological structure has specified muscles. In the partricular connotation of this thread we are referring to beef cattle skeletal muscles, or 'voluntary muscles', or - "Higher Priced Cuts", if you will. These muscles are comprised of 'fibers' bound together into 'bundles' (fasciculi), which are separated by connective tissue collected into bundles of varying sizes. These muscles, bundles and cells are grouped together forming "muscles" with which we are concerned in this discussion.

The continual use of, or exercise of, muscle groups causes said muscles to enlarge, NOT develop MORE FIBERS. It merely enlarges the SIZE of the pre-determined NUMBERS of fibers, which causes the desirable attributes contained by the "Higher Cuts", such as Ribeye, Sirloin, Filet Mignon, Shoulder, Round, and so on down the line. The "Muscle Weights" absolutely ARE NOT physiologically compelled or dictated to be "in the same proportion". Carcass EPD's is a predictor of the differences of the inconsistency between specific individuals.

An Olympic Weight Lifting Champion has the SAME NUMBER of muscle fibers that he had the day he was born, but they were not developed to their potential. By the same token, his Biceps Femoris and Quadratus Lumborum are NOT in the same proportion. Neither is a steers Round Muscles necessarily in the same proportion as his Longissimus Dorsi.

A descriptive analogy of this example would be the differences between a Jersy Bull, and a Belgian Blue Bull, both the same mature age.

Here is another: the definition of PHENOTYPE: "The manifest characteristics of an organism collectively, including anatomical and psychological traits, that result from both its heredity and its environment."

It is obvious to me from the replies on this thread that breeders are using their intelligence to a great extent!

DOC HARRIS

 

[Red Bull Breeder]

So if we exercise a Jersy bull enough he will have a azz like a Belgian Blue??

 

[SirLoin]

'Chip' Short bodied and extremely wide Angus/Longhorn cross 1100 lbs at slaughter 18 mos

'SirLoin' Long bodied Angus/Longhorn cross 1200 lbs at slaughter 18 mos

 

[3waycross]

Sirloin did the ribeye steaks you posted the pics of come from one of these steers?

 

[Brandonm22]

So why are angus breeders selecting for ribeye area if they are all the same in the amounts of ''high priced cuts''? :???:

Because over simplifying there are five factors in how we price the American beef carcass

1) weight

2) backfat

3) quality - ie marbling and maturity

4) RIBEYE AREA

5) KPH fat

 

[3waycross]

So why are angus breeders selecting for ribeye area if they are all the same in the amounts of ''high priced cuts''? :???:

Because over simplifying there are five factors in how we price the American beef carcass

1) weight

2) backfat

3) quality - ie marbling and maturity

4) RIBEYE AREA

5) KPH fat

Not argueing but when it gets to the consumer whether retail or restuarant the smaller eye cut thicker sells for more money. I think we need more weight(longer) ribeyes a lot worse than we need more square inches of ribeye.


It is a rare day when the wholesale price of 12# and down ribeyes sell for less than 12# and up's. I sell a lot of both and I will tell you for sure the ones in the 12 and up box are not there because they are longer it is because they are thicker, and selling for less money.

 

[LimiMan]

Sirloin, I realize you are using longhorn crosses but I would think you could offer your customers a better quality product by changing up your breed of calves, 1200 lbs @ 18months is just way to long for an animal that isn't going to be grass finished.

 

[Frankie]

Well, back after a Traditional Christmas Dinner with Harris Family members from California, and Michigan, and ,of course, Colorado, I am prepared to respond to the remarks by "Bob" Long, the at-one-time known "Patroon of Ankony Farms" with the following caveat: Bob Long is one of the many guru's of the Beef Cattle Industry of years past who made a tremendous impact on the awareness factors of many beef cattle breeders, and I respect that fact, and freely admit that he had a great impact on the education of Beef breeders throughout the world. I would not presume to minimize the importance that his writings had on the furtherance of increased knowledge of beef cattle production.

HOWEVER - (there is usually a - "however") - some of his very frequently dogmatic and caustic utterances were 'couched' in arrogant platitudes which postulates absolute factuality, which upon re-evaluation, was found wanting in actuality. This comment "- - - more weight (or more meat) in the high price cuts" becomes invalid is, in fact - in itself, - invalid!

It is a physiological truism that the animal biological structure has specified muscles. In the partricular connotation of this thread we are referring to beef cattle skeletal muscles, or 'voluntary muscles', or - "Higher Priced Cuts", if you will. These muscles are comprised of 'fibers' bound together into 'bundles' (fasciculi), which are separated by connective tissue collected into bundles of varying sizes. These muscles, bundles and cells are grouped together forming "muscles" with which we are concerned in this discussion.

The continual use of, or exercise of, muscle groups causes said muscles to enlarge, NOT develop MORE FIBERS. It merely enlarges the SIZE of the pre-determined NUMBERS of fibers, which causes the desirable attributes contained by the "Higher Cuts", such as Ribeye, Sirloin, Filet Mignon, Shoulder, Round, and so on down the line. The "Muscle Weights" absolutely ARE NOT physiologically compelled or dictated to be "in the same proportion". Carcass EPD's is a predictor of the differences of the inconsistency between specific individuals.

An Olympic Weight Lifting Champion has the SAME NUMBER of muscle fibers that he had the day he was born, but they were not developed to their potential. By the same token, his Biceps Femoris and Quadratus Lumborum are NOT in the same proportion. Neither is a steers Round Muscles necessarily in the same proportion as his Longissimus Dorsi.

A descriptive analogy of this example would be the differences between a Jersy Bull, and a Belgian Blue Bull, both the same mature age.

Here is another: the definition of PHENOTYPE: "The manifest characteristics of an organism collectively, including anatomical and psychological traits, that result from both its heredity and its environment."

It is obvious to me from the replies on this thread that breeders are using their intelligence to a great extent!

DOC HARRIS

Good grief, DOC. Doctor Long wins this one hands down.

Belgium Blues (double muscled breeds) have the same muscle structure as a Jersey, but they have more muscle fibers in each muscle. They don't get that way because of exercise. You could exercise a Jersy bull his entire life and he'd never get Belgium Blue-type muscles.

Yes, exercise can enlarge muscles that are being worked, but weight lifters are BORN with the same muscle proportion as everybody else. And so are cattle. I don't believe you can select for animals that will produce larger high end cuts without selecting overall for larger cattle.

I'll repost this link. There is a lot more in the article than the two comments that I posted:

http://www.angusjournal.com/articlepdf/ ... flogic.pdf

 

[SirLoin]

3 way, the ribeyes in that other post were from the steer in the first pic. The second guy was a stag and was leaner. He dressed out at 700 lbs. I sold him in quarters to four different people for $2.00 a pound hanging weight. They all have reordered for next year. I kept half of the first one and sold the other half to my buddy. He said "don't change a thing".

Limi, I'd like to try something else, but the tenderness and the taste of these guys is incredible. I look around every year trying to get a few different breeds of calves to try out. I'm not too keen on buying anything passing through our local farm auction house. It's mostly angus and angus/hereford crosses around here. Right now I've gotten some black angus calves with a few angus/longhornX calves. Since I started reading the forum I realized that It's taking me 3 or 4 months longer to finish steers than most. I can assure you it's not because I'm underfeeding them. I tried some simmental cross calves that grew much faster, but the meat quality was not the same.

 

[Brandonm22]

So why are angus breeders selecting for ribeye area if they are all the same in the amounts of ''high priced cuts''? :???:

Because over simplifying there are five factors in how we price the American beef carcass

1) weight

2) backfat

3) quality - ie marbling and maturity

4) RIBEYE AREA

5) KPH fat

Not argueing but when it gets to the consumer whether retail or restuarant the smaller eye cut thicker sells for more money. I think we need more weight(longer) ribeyes a lot worse than we need more square inches of ribeye.


It is a rare day when the wholesale price of 12# and down ribeyes sell for less than 12# and up's. I sell a lot of both and I will tell you for sure the ones in the 12 and up box are not there because they are longer it is because they are thicker, and selling for less money.

There may be a better way too yield grade; but right NOW that is the formula for folks selling on the grid. Certainly there is room for improvement. If we could come up with an industry accepted way too measure for actual tenderness we could pay people for producing a more desirable product .

 

[3waycross]

3 way, the ribeyes in that other post were from the steer in the first pic. The second guy was a stag and was leaner. He dressed out at 700 lbs. I sold him in quarters to four different people for $2.00 a pound hanging weight. They all have reordered for next year. I kept half of the first one and sold the other half to my buddy. He said "don't change a thing".

Limi, I'd like to try something else, but the tenderness and the taste of these guys is incredible. I look around every year trying to get a few different breeds of calves to try out. I'm not too keen on buying anything passing through our local farm auction house. It's mostly angus and angus/hereford crosses around here. Right now I've gotten some black angus calves with a few angus/longhornX calves. Since I started reading the forum I realized that It's taking me 3 or 4 months longer to finish steers than most. I can assure you it's not because I'm underfeeding them. I tried some simmental cross calves that grew much faster, but the meat quality was not the same.

I am sure you know I had a reason for asking the way I did. And that is simply that the calf in question does not LOOK overly finished at all, yet he sure enuf is.

Someone smarter than me will have to explain that.

 

[novatech]

This may be dumb but, I thought longhorns were suposed to produce lean tender meat. This seems like a conflict to breed this way. I beleive there may be more economical crosses that would give the same or better results.
As far as the steak is concerned I would eat it and the fat would not be wasted.