• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Getting a Handle on Quality Grades

Mike

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
28,480
Location
Montgomery, Al
CAB: Getting A Handle On Grade



Feeding Quality Forums in North Platte, Neb., and Amarillo, Texas, last November shed light on many of the factors the play a role in delivering higher quality beef to consumers. Opening remarks by cosponsoring Feedlot magazine editor Robert Strong set the stage by noting how far technology has advanced.



"Fifty-eight years after the transistor was invented, digital technology is still in its infancy," he said. "But it looks like it is starting to help us in the beef industry and good things are yet to come. We'll be able to track the complete history on each animal as well as the mass of data to separate any variable you can imagine. They all deserve more study, especially when reducing variability could make life more predictable and, hopefully, more profitable."



Pfizer Animal Health, Inc., and Certified Angus Beef LLC (CAB) joined in sponsoring the forums.



Larry Corah, CAB vice president, laid out the challenges of meeting consumer demand. Citing the most recent National Beef Quality Audit (NBQA), he said the main problem is a declining trend in quality grade. That is followed by the 21-year increase in yield grade and even longer-term increase in carcass weight variability.



While genetics are a critical factor, Corah said many existing cattle are on the quality-grade line. That means minor management adjustments could change their carcass values in the near term. He listed six factors contributing to lower marbling: health, feedlot structure, gender, understanding of marbling as a lifetime event, implant strategy and, probably, ethanol byproduct feeding.



Glen Dolezal, Cargill Meat Solutions' director of technical applications, provided details on why the packer views the transition to instrument grading as one of the most positive developments in the industry.



Randy Blach, executive vice president of Cattle-Fax, said increased consumer demand added $215 per head to live cattle prices since 1998. He showed the familiar bar graphs of increasing cattle and carcass weights, with inventories poised to put still more beef on the market. However, Blach warned that continued demand is questionable unless quality grades improve.



The boxed beef cutout value spreads from April 2003 to October 2006 were $24.39 for Prime- Choice and $22.91 for CAB-Select, he noted. This is part of a five-year uptrend.



The NBQA called for an ideal harvest mix of 7% Prime, 62% Choice and 31% Select, compared to 2.8% Prime and 52.9% Choice in 2005. Although Blach said the market could not absorb the ideal overnight, a return to increasing quality grade could stimulate the demand needed. Moreover, he said the reopening export markets will demand more Choice and Prime product.



"Price spreads need to stay wide to create incentive for producers," Blach said. "That will lead to more cattle sold on grids as feeding profit margins will narrow on commodity cattle."



Daryl Tatum, Colorado State University animal science professor, reviewed the components of consumer demand and how producers can best deliver the "pleasurable eating experience" for which they will pay more. Genotype determines the upper limit for intramuscular fat (IMF, or marbling) deposition, Tatum said, but management either preserves or harms marbling potential.



Most producers know that once cattle have more than enough energy to meet growth demand, they begin to store the extra energy as fat. But Tatum said producers may not be as familiar with KellyBruns' South Dakota State University research that shows marbling is deposited most rapidly when given the opportunity early in the feeding period.



In fact, a growing body of research shows a window from two to eight months of age that is critical for marbling development. That's why it takes coordination through the supply chain to realize the quality potential in cattle, Tatum said. Otherwise, calves with stunted marbling end up piling on backfat and developing yield grade (YG) problems. One solution is to increase the discount for YG4s, he added.



Fred Owens, Oklahoma State University emeritus professor and Pioneer consultant, talked about nutrition and a coordinated approach to quality. Cow-calf producers must start with sire selection and using feedlot and carcass data to cull cows and manage calves with preconditioning vaccinations and weaning so they are ready for the stocker phase, Owens said. Stockers and feedlotoperators should buy or feed only tame cattle with known and appropriate health and nutritionalbackground, use no implants, sort finished cattle to outcome and return all data to the ranch of origin,he added.



Pfizer veterinarians Lonty Bryant and John Pollreisz, along with nutritionist Gary Sides,provided specific solutions to many of the quality challenges. "Feeders sometimes want all products, such as de-wormers, to be the same so they can least-cost everything," Pollreisz said. "That can lead to disaster."



As the industry moves to younger cattle and strives for ever-greater efficiency, Pollreisz and Bryant said feeders must ask whether efficiency and quality are opposing traits, and if quality has received enough priority.



Sides advocated a holistic approach throughout the production system and reviewed the "energetics of growth and marbling." Using empty body fat as a fixed percentage, Sides showed that growth implants may be useful in helping some cattle reach heavier carcass weights. He also noted Iowa State University research that suggests implants should be matched with protein source to optimize quality grades.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top