Tenderness

[dph]

The night before the Summitcrest Angus Bull Sale last week, they brought in a couple of speakers for the supper they have the night before. One of them was Steven Shackelford of the US Meat Animal Research Center in Clay Center, Nebraska. They have developed a camera that determines beef carcass grading while the line is in motion. They believe it will be used in the near future by the USDA grades to determine beef carcass grades. Outside of the fact that the video of the guy using it looks like some 50s science fiction movie, it is quite a neat tool. They seem to be developing another instrument for the determination of tenderness along much the same manner. What I found most interesting was the fact that the speaker indicated where tenderness was currently of most interest to the packing industry was in adding value to select cuts of meat. I had hoped that they were ready to look at adding value to cuts above that. All things in time, I suppose.

 

[paul swisher]

The Tenderness test you described was developed in 1997 and written up in Agriculture Research Nov 1999. It even had a picture of Steven Shackelford with the equipment. It estimated a high volume operation could run up to 400 carcasses per hour without interfering with standard processing rates. Optical Quality grading is already done in a number of processing plants. Being a Pinzgauer breeder I have long promotes Tenderness as the key factor in determining value but those who promote fat/marbling, even though marbling contributes less than 10% to tenderness, seem to be winning. There is no reason to go to the expense of installing the equipment if the advertising promotes a different thing. If you look at the MARC Germplasm Evaluations half of the popular breeds that are black wouldn't make it - less than 12 lbs shear force. You read over and over the consumer wants tenderness yet you cant get paid for it and until you do there won't be any real changes.

 

[MikeC]

The USDA Grading system needs a change.

Tenderness will be the next Mecca.

 

[Scotty]

Google GeneStar Testing. It may shed some light on the issue. i still think it is in its infancy but well on its way to being a good tool.

 

[dph]

Paul, I wish I had a better recollection of the presentation now. It wasn't presented as old news (wasn't sure if you thought it was or not), it was presented as where they are at currently and the change they saw ahead. I can't quote names because I can't remember them, but what Steven was speaking about is the packer whom they were initially doing the work for (must have been in 1997 then) is now selling every select cut of meat they produce to Wal Mart, and it sounded like they no longer felt compelled to use tenderness to add value. Since then, as the work has continued, they have generated quite a bit of interest among other packers. It was my understanding that they are further refinning the scan for tenderness to see if they can't get an even better correlation than what they currently have. Too date they have no idea what the infrared scanner is actually scanning for, but they have shown a significant correlation between the scan and the carcass that do go tender.

What I was most disappointed about is again the fact that they were just looking at select cuts. Who among us should have a goal of just trying to raise select beef? But maybe Mike is right and the using it for select meat is just opening the door for it to be more widespread in the future.

We have paid some attention to tenderness since our breeder began testing for it. While we rank it behind confirmation, certain epds, and the dam, we have been able to find bulls that carry at least 5 of the 6 tenderness genes that Bovigen tests for here in the US for the last 4 years. Our thought was that it too would be rewarded for someday and it will take us awhile to breed it into our herd, so why not start now? We have had no trouble finding bulls that meet all our other criteria and have at least 5 tenderness genes. Generally there is not a premium yet paid for those bulls, so it really isn't costing us anything.

Do you test your Pinzguaers for tenderness or do they just naturally have a high concentration of tenderness genes in the breed?

Like it or not, there are some things about getting the packer to test for it very similar to getting the CAB program started years ago.

 

[paul swisher]

We have tested both Bovigen GeneSTAR and Igenity TenderGENE. Our initial testing a few years ago when 2 Stars was the highest, included 10 of the original Austrian imported bulls. 9 of the 10 were 2 Stars I doubt any breed could do that. As a breed we have averaged 84.4% two Stars or better.
The consumer has been brain washed regarding marbling, that is why they are using it on select/standard because there is no visual IMF, even though it may be tender. We sold some bulls to a branded beef company that guarantees tenderness but he uses Brazier Shear Testing on all carcasses but that is time consuming. That is why this optical system is so neat

 

[OK Jeanne]

The below breed comparison chart was done when there was only two tenderness factors proven. Now there are three—another calpain factor has been verified.
The company, Bovigen, will not issue another up-dated breed comparison chart. It is likely that the decision to eliminate breed comparisons was due to the poor showing of the Hereford breed in this comparison. I.E. it would be
bad for their business to continue to publish such charts. I have been informed, however, that the percentage rates with the third factor do not deviate fromthe first calpain result.
They only included breeds that had over 100 animals tested;
I'm sorry to say that the Pinzguaer breed did not have enough
to be included.Maybe they would be included today--but
the company will not publish an up-dated chart:

In my view you are absolutely correct in saying that
marbling has been deliberately promoted as tenderness
when in fact it is not.

 

[skcatlman]

Here is the problem i see with tenderness. Cooking varitations can make a tough cut tender and a tender cut tough. So the method of preparation has a huge effect on tenderness and until the consumer who is doing the cooking is educted properly this whole tenderness issue it moot. Just a question on murry greys were they not derrived from an angus X shorthorn base? And if so why would they not top both charts ? Every breed is looking for another marketing tool and this is just the newest on IMO. As for marbeling it is useless if all the fat is lost in the cooking process, the consumer is just paying for more than they get. I personally like a well marbeled t-bone steak 2" thick bbq'ed rare. If you want a tastey,tender, juicy steak you will get it every time. I have a relative that always complains about tough beef from the store even angus beef but here is the rub he wants it well done no pink or juice in the steak basically a boot sole. The reason is his fear of a foodborne illness.

 

[novatech]

Here is the problem i see with tenderness. Cooking varitations can make a tough cut tender and a tender cut tough. So the method of preparation has a huge effect on tenderness and until the consumer who is doing the cooking is educted properly this whole tenderness issue it moot. Just a question on murry greys were they not derrived from an angus X shorthorn base? And if so why would they not top both charts ? Every breed is looking for another marketing tool and this is just the newest on IMO. As for marbeling it is useless if all the fat is lost in the cooking process, the consumer is just paying for more than they get. I personally like a well marbeled t-bone steak 2" thick bbq'ed rare. If you want a tastey,tender, juicy steak you will get it every time. I have a relative that always complains about tough beef from the store even angus beef but here is the rub he wants it well done no pink or juice in the steak basically a boot sole. The reason is his fear of a foodborne illness.

When tenderness tests are done all meat is cooked exactly the same way in laboratory conditions.

 

[OK Jeanne]

quote]
When tenderness tests are done all meat is cooked exactly the same way in laboratory conditions.[/quote]

When the shear force test is used in labratory conditions,
it seems unrealistic to argue with the statistical results.

 

[dun]

Part of the problem is that when some people cook meat the way they do it will alwasy be tough now matter how tender it started. Those are the people that will alwasy whine and sniffle about not being able to get tender meat. You'll never convince them it's how it's prepared instead of the product itself.
My MIL was that way. Didin;t matter if it was a T-bone, top sirloin or round steak, they were all equally tough by the time she finished "cooking" them

dun

 

[IL Rancher]

My brother was like that growing up. He wanted his well done... Sometime around the age of 18 or so he started taking it medium and now he is up to medium rare.... I dn't remember why he liked well done, I'm not sure he does either but it was she leather as far as I was oncerned... Go to a restraunt and order well done and 1) they will not guarentee the eating experience and 2) they will take the worst looking steak back there to cook it for you as they gosh darn well aren't going to waste a good piece of meat... But than again, I'm a guy who likes medium rare hamburger and rare steak so some out there think I'm nuts. I have cut back on the ultra rare steaks now bu I don't complain when m medium rare turns into still mooing due to me pulling it off theg rill to early.

 

[Jeanne - Simme Valley]

For the record - hubby & I like extra rare beef
Question for those that have used the Igenity TenderGENE. We DNA test for Homo Black Gene and now Igenity offers a "package" testing which we used + BVD-PI. Most of our 10 head tested were 4's & 5's on the Tenderness. That shows about average on the chart. Anyone got results to compare? Seems a bit vague to me??
I like "yes & no" answers when I'm testing for a result. Much simpler

 

[Jeanne - Simme Valley]

OK Jeanne - I like that chart. I copied it.
Anyway, kind of surprising some of the breed comparisons.
Like Wagyu - Angus, Senepol & MG are higher.
And Angus & Red Angus are so different?? they're the same BREED actually.

 

[dph]

Jeane:

Right you are about the test results. As they identify more and more genes this "star" deal is going to be impossible to follow. What Bovigen (and I think the rest) is doing is totaling the starts together and using what they call a GPD. (Genetic Progoney Diference, I think) It is meant so sum up all the informatioin presented and give you a value you can compare directly with another bull. For instance in their Quality Grade testing, not all genes have the same amount of impact on qualtiy grade. They assign a value they claim to have proven on each gene and then total them. I believe it is a $ value in order to compare the carcasses of one bulls calves to another. So instead of just comparing 4 starts to 6, you are comparing apples to apples and it is much easier to read.

 

[skcatlman]

While it works in a lab with identical cooking conditions and shear force testing shows tenderness. The problem is a no such regulation takes place in the preparation by the consumer as well would an 80 yr. old granny and a 20 yr.old college kid apply the same force when cutting a piece of meat, probably not. I guess in my eyes there is to many varibles in the real world to make tenderness a real measureable trait. Until i start gettting paid more for a steer who is supposed to be bred to be more tender i will not start breeding for it. Having worked extensively in the feedlot business the only traits that are important are the ones that make you more money. And tenderness only makes money for the processor so will a cattle producer see more money ? Not likely. It is interesting science but that is where it ends for me.

 

[novatech]

Jeane:

Right you are about the test results. As they identify more and more genes this "star" deal is going to be impossible to follow. What Bovigen (and I think the rest) is doing is totaling the starts together and using what they call a GPD. (Genetic Progoney Diference, I think) It is meant so sum up all the informatioin presented and give you a value you can compare directly with another bull. For instance in their Quality Grade testing, not all genes have the same amount of impact on qualtiy grade. They assign a value they claim to have proven on each gene and then total them. I believe it is a $ value in order to compare the carcasses of one bulls calves to another. So instead of just comparing 4 starts to 6, you are comparing apples to apples and it is much easier to read.

I didn,t read it that way. I thought it was simply weather they found certain gene markers or not. I have not read that there was any comparson between animals. The reports I have received from Bovigen have shown 1 star for each gene marker found.
Some seedstock producers advertise bulls as haveing a certain number of stars. This is usually a total of tenderness and quality. It is important to know which markers those stars represent in order to upgrade ones stock. These stars only represent the animals ability to produce tender or marbled beef.

 

[dph]

Novatech, I think if you visited Summitcrest's website and downloaded their 2007 catalog for either ranch it would show they way they are presenting it. They show the star results and then the GPD for each trait. I assume as more genes are used, all they are going to show is the GPD. What is interesting, is that on the quality grade side you can find bulls that might just have one star. After finding a couple that have one star, but for different genes, you can see that there is a difference in the QG GPD, this is what has had me conclude that not all genes are rated the same. I don't know why, but I didn't try it with the tenderness genes. Could be the tenderness genes aren't all equal either. That ranch is proud in testing all animals, and sometimes they feature new tests before others do. For instance, I think they were one of only 3 or 4 breeders using the 3rd Quality Grade test when it came out. I kind of think Bovigen has a ways to go to identify all the genes responsible for marbling, so I don't pay too much attention to it.

 

[SCRUBS620]

OK Jeanne - I like that chart. I copied it.
Anyway, kind of surprising some of the breed comparisons.
Like Wagyu - Angus, Senepol & MG are higher.
And Angus & Red Angus are so different?? they're the same BREED actually.

They were the same breed. With each generation they will naturally get farther apart since you cant mix the genepools and still get the red color (red color is recessive to black). There probably are still rare occasions where two black angus happen to spawn a red calf but I am bettting that this makes up very few red angus compared to the established red angus herd.

 

[novatech]

Novatech, I think if you visited Summitcrest's website and downloaded their 2007 catalog for either ranch it would show they way they are presenting it. They show the star results and then the GPD for each trait. I assume as more genes are used, all they are going to show is the GPD. What is interesting, is that on the quality grade side you can find bulls that might just have one star. After finding a couple that have one star, but for different genes, you can see that there is a difference in the QG GPD, this is what has had me conclude that not all genes are rated the same. I don't know why, but I didn't try it with the tenderness genes. Could be the tenderness genes aren't all equal either. That ranch is proud in testing all animals, and sometimes they feature new tests before others do. For instance, I think they were one of only 3 or 4 breeders using the 3rd Quality Grade test when it came out. I kind of think Bovigen has a ways to go to identify all the genes responsible for marbling, so I don't pay too much attention to it.

You are correct in that certain gene markers are more important than others. The way they combine is what gives the GPD. Tenderness is the same way.
When I had tests run, over a year ago, they had 2 markers for marbleing, TG5 &M2 and 3 for tenderness cast, calp, T3. Today there are more that have been discovered. Quality has been supported with carrcas quality evaluation and tenderness has been supported by warner brazner shear force tests. There are also major universities that have tested the Genestar results and to date I have found no one to disagree. All this is just another tool. I am sure glad that people, like Summitcrest are useing it.
When I select for a sire I need to know what markers have the stars. This allows me to select for my exact need. GPD does not give this info. I select on individual traits which I need for improvement.
For advertising purposes GPD is great. If I want to better an animals GPE I need to know the individual gene marker score of the bull I intend to breed to. It's like putting a puzzel together, you need the right pieces.