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

If only we knew the targets

Jason

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,994
Location
Alberta Canada
That phrase "if only we knew the targets" has been used several times in another thread.

Here is a snippet of an article posted on Cattle Today in July.

Some grids reward handsomely for high quality, but discount unmercifully for failure to make at least the Select grade. Other grids are more balanced in rewarding both quality and red-meat yield, and are less forgiving of excess fat. Recent grid price trends show a widening of the spread between Select and higher marbling quality, and an increase in premiums for Yield Grades 1 and 2.

Base prices for grids vary from previous week's cash price to the nearby futures month or locally negotiated. That base usually starts with Select, Yield Grade 3, but may start with Choice, Yield Grade 3—either can work to your advantage, depending on the bid and your cattle—but be sure you know the starting grade.

Niche markets may also have grids, unique to program preferences. Make sure any extra steps required for eligibility are covered in the rewards, and that there are other viable marketing avenues open if your cattle fail to qualify for a given program.

In light of the complexity of grid marketing, especially with first-time cattle, many beginning feeders opt for cash sales with carcass data, an increasingly common option. For as little as $2/head, some feedlots can obtain individual carcass data even on cash live sales.

Individual data will allow "what if" comparisons among the grid markets, useful for future selection, management and marketing decisions. Your cattle type may be split between two major targets, say high quality and high yield grade. If the data conform to patterns in your cowherd or breeding decisions, you can aim the next calf crop at the proper grid targets while choosing future sires based on the highest priced end product.

While it is true that there are many grids and premiums for some cattle on one would be discounts on another, we have the ability to differentiate.

With ultrasound and service companies like Angus Gene Net, the grids are nothing to fear. You first have to know your cattle.

Of course if you are buying pick up calves from all over the continent, you might have to be more wary, but those would still be know decisions.

Targets for cattle are well defined. Marbling is desireable in nearly all grids, excess fat is not, but will be tolerated. Elephants nor rats are desireable, but handyweights in that 750 carcass range are.

Yep pretty complicated to know what the target is. You actually have to read and ask a couple questions.
 
Well for the last 40 years a 1200-1300 pound steer with some yield did you allright up in Canada-lately if there's some extra marbling even better. Maybe not the maximum price everytime but if that's what you raised consistantly you could keep going in the cattle business. 50-75 British breeding the rest some exotic to bump the yield. It's funny how our Dad's who didn't know much had that figured out years ago-now were just trying to reinvent the wheel.
 
No speculation is needed for why some specs change.

CAB specs have been the same since the mid 1970's.

Cattle have changed since then.

Ribeye size was tied to carcass weight, and it was making it an arbitrary selection to increase ribeye, which makes it harder to have even marbling in a larger ribeye.

If the changes CAB made reduce demand it will have been a mistake that will be corrected. Somehow I doubt demand for the largest branded beef brand in the world is a problem.

The targets are there, CAB changes have actually made it easier to hit that one, the point is find out what your cattle are and market them accordinglly.
 
Red Robin, under the original CAB specs they had a requirement that said a specified number of square inches per 100 pounds of carcass weight.

Average carcass weights have climbed since that was first stated. Back in the 70's carcass weights were something like 600 pounds now they are over 800.

You can see with a specified ribeye per weight how it gets out of hand.

The newer specs specify a standard ribeye measurement regardless of carcass size.

What they saw was lots of bigger carcasses missing the CAB targets because of small technicalities, but these carcasses were exceptional compared to average.

Set your sepces too tight and you'll never move enough product to stay in business. CAB is becoming a victim of it's own success. They can't supply demand so they lose customers to other beef programs that can deliver.
 
Jason, can you find the information that contains the REA/cwt that was the original criteria for CAB and the new criteria? I'd like to see the difference but not enough to go scouring the WWW for it.
 
Red Robin, The following is how Yield grades are calculated in relation to REA, etc.

The previous CAB specs called for 3.9 YG or better. (Lower number)

The new CAB specs limit REA's to from 10-16 sq. in. and no Yield grade specs at all. 1000 lb. carcass limit.

A CAB study is being done to see if limiting backfat thickness will add to the equation.


http://gpvec.unl.edu/files/feedlot/Griff-PMCD/GriffinPMfiles/yield_grades.htm
 
This should explain most of it, I bolded the part that explains the ribeye problem, although the specs aren't lited.

CAB to enhance uniformity

Responding to beef industry changes and consumer demand, the Certified Angus Beef LLC (CAB) board of directors on Sept. 7 voted to adjust Certified Angus Beef ® (CAB®) brand specifications.

In place of a longstanding Yield Grade (YG) 3.9 limit, the brand will use a more specific consistency requirement in the future. Finished cattle weights have increased steadily and beef fabrication styles have evolved in the 28 years since CAB was founded. The changes will address uniformity issues that technology has been unable to control.

The board voted to adopt a ribeye size bracket of 10 to 16 square inches and a carcass weight cap at less than 1,000 pounds (<1,000 lb.). It also instructed the CAB staff to investigate limits on external fat thickness to refine compositional consistency.

CAB staff will discuss the plans with its licensed packers, review existing research and conduct cutting tests before reporting to the Board with a final fat thickness recommendation.

Since 1978, the average weight of a U.S. beef carcass has increased by nearly 6 lb. per year, or 165 lb., while the initial YG 3.9 limit remained static. "That limit helped control carcass weight, ribeye size and external fat," said CAB president Jim Riemann. "It maintained a balance of those factors and allowed strength in one or two of those areas, but increasingly, outliers have set back our consistency goals.

"Yield grade is a cutability indicator for the packer, but it does not give us the product size and weight consistency our licensed retailers and restaurant operators need," said Riemann, who worked several years in the packing industry and as a meat scientist before coming to CAB.

The brand's 2005 consist study of 26,700 carcasses at plants in four states found calculated YG 3 carcasses with a ribeye range of 6.9 to 19.0 square inches, and carcass weights of up to 1,169 lb.

"It makes sense to limit ribeye range and to control cut weights, as it does to investigate an appropriate fat thickness," Riemann said. "The idea is to achieve better control over consistency than yield grade currently offers."

The 2005 National Beef Quality Audit found the top concern of foodservice and retail customers (insufficient marbling) already met by the CAB brand. "This change would take aim at the next two on that list: cut weights too heavy and lack of uniformity," said John Stika, CAB vice president for business development. As carcass weights increased over the years, the static YG formula required ever-larger ribeyes.

For example, many 950-lb. carcasses with 14-inch ribeyes could not qualify for the brand under the YG specification-in some cases, CAB acceptance required a ribeye larger than 16 inches. Ironically, that's too large to fit CAB foodservice demand. Meanwhile, selection, management and marketing continue to point toward larger cattle, and YG scores are already at a 20-year high.

The upper limit of <1,000 lb. is consistent with most value-based grids, Stika pointed out. What's more, as a cutability guideline, the YG formula uses 15.8 inches as the base for that weight. That fits in the new specification window, he noted.

Muscling in Angus cattle has kept pace with the trend to heavier weights, but further pressure there could only lead to still heavier weights and ribeyes. "Adjusting our specification is a more appropriate way to address filling the box," Stika said. "We will lose at least 6% of the cattle that currently qualify for the brand, but pick up others better suited to the needs of our customers."

Limits on fat thickness will serve to eliminate the problem outliers. Investigating those limits should address cutability concerns not met by today's fabrication styles and the other newly refined CAB specifications, he said. One key challenge: "There is an inconsistent relationship between trim fat and the kernel fat that has been a problem across all YG classes for all brands," Stika said.

"It will always be a challenge for cattle to meet the CAB marbling specifications, simply because the brand demands the best in Angus cattle," said Larry Corah, CAB vice president for supply development and packing. "That's good news for Angus producers who focus their selection, management and marketing on the CAB brand standards: premiums should remain strong."

These changes could add value to some YG 4s on the product side, but "YG 4 will not become a producer target," Corah explained. "Not with the feeding inefficiencies and a YG 4 discount at three times the value of a typical CAB premium.

"Angus producers will now have a ribeye target, rather than simply 'bigger,' and a logic for developing balanced growth and carcass genetic packages," Corah added.

Stika noted that CAB specifications have seen minor adjustments in the past, to better screen out dairy and bos indicus genetic types, and to reflect changes in technology and fabrication practices. Just last summer, the Board voted to adjust the brand's live specification to allow evaluation of all AngusSource® program calves, regardless of hide color.

The latest move ensures the brand's leadership in providing foodservice and retail businesses with consistently superior beef, he said. CAB would be the first Angus brand to adopt a ribeye and carcass weight standard. Nearly three-quarters of Angus brands certified by the USDA have no yield or uniformity specification.

"When the overall industry changes and production signals run counter to what our customers want, it is incumbent upon us to act," Riemann said. "We all know the consumer is the source of all new dollars in the beef industry."

The brand's executive team is expected to determine a back-fat recommendation by mid-November, Riemann said. The Board will then approve a final form of the new specification and petition the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) for the change. Riemann said CAB would work closely with USDA and licensed packers to ensure a smooth transition to using the new specifications at all licensed plants.

Certified Angus Beef ® is the world's leading brand of fresh beef. Since 1995, packers have paid producers more than $200 million in value-based grid premiums for cattle accepted into the brand. For more information on CAB products and programs, visit www.CABpartners.com.
 
It wasn't the point of the fat cover, the spec said it needed a bigger ribeye to qualify for CAB, but if it had the ribeye measure speced by CAB it would be too big for CAB.

The spec said something like a minimum of 1.5 sq in per 100 pounds of carcass. The 14 inch ribeye on a 950 wt carcass is 1.47 sq in per 100 pounds.

The carcass would be disqualified on 1 minor technicality but in all other respects would have been a perfect representative for the CAB brand.

If you notice in the article, the discounts from the packer on the yg4 would likely outweigh the premium for being accepted as a CAB carcass.

The new changes do not encourage fatter animals, it just allows them to deal with what is out there.
 
Jason said:
It wasn't the point of the fat cover, the spec said it needed a bigger ribeye to qualify for CAB, but if it had the ribeye measure speced by CAB it would be too big for CAB.

The spec said something like a minimum of 1.5 sq in per 100 pounds of carcass. The 14 inch ribeye on a 950 wt carcass is 1.47 sq in per 100 pounds.

The carcass would be disqualified on 1 minor technicality but in all other respects would have been a perfect representative for the CAB brand.

If you notice in the article, the discounts from the packer on the yg4 would likely outweigh the premium for being accepted as a CAB carcass.

The new changes do not encourage fatter animals, it just allows them to deal with what is out there.
Jason , that's a .9 sq.in. per cwt for live weight. I certainly , as a breeder, don't find that restrictive. Fat cover in relationship to REA is exactly why they are moving the target. The problem is the rea.
 
Red Robin said:
Jason said:
It wasn't the point of the fat cover, the spec said it needed a bigger ribeye to qualify for CAB, but if it had the ribeye measure speced by CAB it would be too big for CAB.

The spec said something like a minimum of 1.5 sq in per 100 pounds of carcass. The 14 inch ribeye on a 950 wt carcass is 1.47 sq in per 100 pounds.

The carcass would be disqualified on 1 minor technicality but in all other respects would have been a perfect representative for the CAB brand.

If you notice in the article, the discounts from the packer on the yg4 would likely outweigh the premium for being accepted as a CAB carcass.

The new changes do not encourage fatter animals, it just allows them to deal with what is out there.
Jason , that's a .9 sq.in. per cwt for live weight. I certainly , as a breeder, don't find that restrictive. Fat cover in relationship to REA is exactly why they are moving the target. The problem is the rea.

You're right RR. Should explain some:

http://beef-mag.com/mag/beef_gone_flabby/index.html
 
Economic pressure has pushed for bigger carcasses.

Tying REA to carcass weight but limiting overall size of REA is a sure way to spec yourself out of carcasses.

If feeders and breeders are so stupid to gat the cattle even fatter to hit yg4 just for a CAB premium, but then take a bigger hit for overfat cattle, so be it.

The yg4's are a direct result of chasing marbling only and not paying attention to frame size with fat maturity issues. Smaller framed cattle will mature earlier and deposit fat sooner regardless of epd's for marbling and fat cover.

Cattle were getting too big and not finishing properly, but the trend swings and trying to get smaller cattle to the same finished weight leads to fat. Feeders are set on a 600 pound gain (at least) to make their margin. Producers have dropped a frame score at least yet still want the same dollar for their calves.

We are getting close to the same problems that led to the continentals coming to N.America in the 60's and 70's, except for the fact that marbling is known to be positive to consumer reaction to beef.
 
Jason wrote: The yg4's are a direct result of chasing marbling only )

I believe that the higher yield grades of today are the result of the quest for "Easy Doing" cows, i.e. "British", and not using a "Continental" bull on them like the MARC studies have been preaching for years.

There is a low correlation between marbling and backfat.
 
Mike: "Have you noticed that CAB has dropped their requirement for a 3.9 yield grade? Any speculation as to why?"

No speculation needed. In order for "MANY" if not "MOST" angus cattle to qualify for CAB, they are going to be carrying excessive back fat. CAB was put in a position of either lower the Yield Grade CAB qualifying standard or face a decreasing number of qualifiers.

I'm sure you would agree Mike, CAB is doing one of the biggest disservices to this industry there is to promote their breeds attributes (marbling) while forgiving additional backfat in the process. CAB promotes the hell out of marbling, which only has a 10% direct correlation to tenderness, while forgiving excessive amounts of backfat which is expensive to feed on and expensive to trim off. Meanwhile, the retail industry has went from .4" trim to .8" trim. Oh the irony!

BTW, for those who claim cattle need extra flesh in harsh environments, can you explain how some continental breeds survived in harsh winter environments without excessive amounts of back fat? Perhaps that's just an angus problem. Hmmmm???

Mike, don't you just hate it when Clay Center refutes popular breed trends with hard data? Hahaha! Long live hybrid vigor!


~SH~
 
Mike, don't you just hate it when Clay Center refutes popular breed trends with hard data? Hahaha! Long live hybrid vigor!

Colorblindness must be contagious. :lol:

It should be a prerequisite to feed a randomly selected portion/% of a cow calf operators' progeny and send them to the rail.

:shock:
 

Latest posts

Back
Top