This handout is to help the reader reach their goals of being a more accurate

Similar documents
BeefCuts. Primal & Subprimal Weights and Yields 1300-pound Steer Choice, YG3 Dressing Percentage: 62% Chuck Rib Loin. Round. Brisket. Plate.

United States Standards for Grades of Carcass Beef

Beef Cattle Frame Scores

AN ACCELERATED FEEDING STUDY

MARKET LAMB & GOAT SELECTION & EVALUATION. Aaron Renfroe Extension Assistant Sheep and Goat Texas AgriLife Extension Service San Angelo, Texas

In many areas of the country, the Holstein

Cattle Growth Dynamics and Its Implications

SHOW STEER SELECTION. Darrell Rothlisberger Rich County Agent Utah State University Extension

A comparison of beef breed bulls for beef production & carcass traits. Future cattle production -seminar Viikki Campus

HOW TO PREPARE THE PERFECT PRIME RIB

Beef Cattle Breeds and Biological Types Scott P. Greiner, Extension Animal Scientist, Virginia Tech

Understanding Grid Marketing: How Quality Grades and Grid Conditions Affect Carcass Value. By Pete Anderson Ag Knowledge Services

Consumer Health and Safety

Final Report. Submitted to National Cattlemen s Beef Association, Centennial, CO. April 2012

Live, In-the-Beef, or Formula: Is there a Best Method for Selling Fed Cattle?

Grid Base Prices and Premiums-Discounts Over Time

COMPARISON OF DAIRY VERSUS BEEF STEERS

MCDONALD S SUSTAINABLE BEEF PILOT Information Sharing Initiative Report April 7, 2016

Swine EPD Terminology

H.A. DePra, J.D. Duggin, D.R. Gill, C.R. Krehbiel, J.B. Morgan, D.C. Bietz, A.H. Trenkle, R.L. Horst, F.N. Owens. Story in Brief

The Efficacy of the Grid Marketing Channel for Fed Cattle. Scott Fausti, Bashir Qasmi, and Matthew Diersen* Economics Staff Paper No

Australian Santa Gertrudis Selection Indexes

Reviewed.March.2010 SHOW LAMB SELECTION. Darrell Rothlisberger Rich County Agent Utah State University Extension

Beef Primal Cuts OUTSIDE FLAT 2050 OUTSIDE 2030

US Imported Beef Market A Weekly Update

SHEEP. The Value of Independence CARCASE AUTHENTICATION AND VERIFICATION SERVICES MEAT AND LIVESTOCK COMMERCIAL SERVICES LTD (MLCSL)

FUTURES TRADING OF LIVE BEEF CATTLE (HEDGING) by Clarence C. Bowen

Swine Feeding and Fitting Guidelines. Ryan Harrell Dec. 2008

Livestock Judging Manual Table of Contents

FEEDLOT MANAGEMENT Matching Cattle Type and Feedlot Performance

Home Slaughtering and Processing of Beef

Texas A&M University, College Station, TX , USA b Texas Beef Council, 8708 Ranch Rd. 620 N., Austin, TX , USA

U.S. Beef and Cattle Imports and Exports: Data Issues and Impacts on Cattle Prices

Electrical Stimulation Purpose, Application and Results

Effects of Supplemental Vitamin E with Different Oil Sources on Growth, Health, and Carcass Parameters of Preconditioned Beef Calves 1

Breeds of Swine. Berkshire. Chester White

Managing cattle for the kind of beef you want your kids to eat.

Mean EPDs reported by different breeds

Agriculture, Food & Natural Resources Career Cluster Agriculture Meat and Dairy Product Processing

How to Raise and Show Pigs

Kansas State University Lean Value Marketing Program

BEEF ARM HALF Approved Name

Selecting, Feeding, Fitting, Grooming and Showing Beef Cattle

FACILITIES FOR FEEDING HOLSTEIN AND BEEF CATTLE

THE EVALUATION OF DISTILLERS CO-PRODUCTS IN DAIRY BEEF PRODUCTION

EBLEX BEEF BRP MANUAL 4. Beef production from the dairy herd

PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM Figure 1

INCIDENT REPORT Smithfield Beef Group Souderton, INC., Establishment 1311 Export of Ineligible Beef to Japan Report

Meat Goats. January Kent Orrell Extension Educator, Kiowa Co. Okla.

Net feed intake: Potential selection tool to improve feed efficiency in beef cattle

Beef Cattle Feed Efficiency. Dan Shike University of Illinois

Understanding and Using Cattle Basis in Managing Price Risk

Terms: The following terms are presented in this lesson (shown in bold italics and on PowerPoint Slides 2 and 3):

Beef Cattle Handbook

Meat processing is a complicated business, with tight

Carcass Traits and Merit

Beef Showmanship Guide

SUCCESSFUL FITTING AND GROOMING OF BEEF CATTLE Celina R. Johnson

Preparing and Giving Oral Reasons

South Dakota State University Livestock Judging Manual Designed for 4-H Seniors and Experienced Judges Second Edition South Dakota State University

BEEF PORK. Whole Animal Buying Guide. and. Published by the Small Meat Processors Working Group April 2009 PM 2076

Lesson # 9: Poultry Processing

INDUSTRY INFORMATION:

SYSCO Branded Premium Pork Products Produced By

CALCASIEU 4-H RABBIT SHOWMANSHIP STUDY GUIDE. Rabbit Terms

IOWA STATE FAIR * AUGUST 11-21, 2016 * FFA BEEF CATTLE

Hog Marketing Practices and Competition Questions. John D. Lawrence Extension Livestock Economist Iowa State University

Math Mammoth End-of-the-Year Test, Grade 6, Answer Key

How To Run A Blade Farming Scheme

Project Pig Production Planner

This Little Piggy Math in the Pig Barn

Chicken. Beef. Pork. Mutton. agriculture, forestry & fisheries. Department: Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA

Declining Quality Grades: A Review of Factors Reducing Marbling Deposition in Beef Cattle.

Beef Cattle. Production MP184 DIVISION OF AGRICULTURE R E S E A R C H & E X T E N S I O N

Valuing Market Hogs: Information and Pricing Issues

Valuing Market Hogs: Information and Pricing Issues

Beef Cow Share Lease Agreements

Recipe For Marbling. Page 1 of 12. Quality grade continues to generate largest grid premiums

Beef Quiz Bowl Questions

CHOICES The magazine of food, farm and resource issues

Jack Russell /Parson Russell Terrier Spanning Guide

CHARACTERISTICS OF RESTRUCTURED BEEF STEAKS CONTAINING MECHANICALLY DEBONED MEAT 1

HENDRY COUNTY 4-H SWINE RECORD BOOK

What kind of fence do I want? USU, Logan, UT

Specifications of Futures and Options Contracts

S P E C I F I C GRAVITY AS A MEASURE PORK CARCASS LEANNESS

ANIMAL SCIENCE RESEARCH CENTRE

DETERMINING YOUR STOCKING RATE

Hospitality Mathematics Test-Out Study Guide

Selecting 4-H pigs. By: Ryan Harrell

FAT 411: Why you can t live without it

ESTIMATING GROSS MARGINS IN MEAT PACKING FOR BEEF, PORK, AND LAMB. Eric L. Sweatt, Derrell N. Peel, and Clement E. Ward *

Texas Correlations CEV Pathway: Food Products/Processing Systems

INNOVA. Software solutions that empower meat processors

Increasing Profitability Through an Accelerated Heifer Replacement Program

By Anne Wasko Gateway Livestock, Market Analyst

Australian Goatmeat NATURALLY FLAVORSOME.

SUBCHAPTER CO-2 BREEDING AND IN-HAND CLASSES CO104 Judging CO105 Showing CO106 Suggested In-Hand Classes CO107 Championships

ILLUSTRATED STANDARD. for the CHINESE SHAR-PEI GENERAL INFORMATION:

Measuring Beef Demand

Transcription:

EVALUATING MARKET STEERS FROM A GRADING STANDPOINT By Chris T. Boleman, Texas A&M University This handout is to help the reader reach their goals of being a more accurate evaluator of market steers. Before one can start judging market steers, they must become familiar with the parts. Figure 1 illustrates the parts of a live beef steer from both the side and rear views. Figure 1: Parts of the market steer Courtesy of Boggs and Merkel. Livestock Evaluation. After learning the parts, it is much easier to follow market steer evaluation techniques. Hopefully, the parts have been placed into memory and it is time to move on to the principles of market steer selection. Work, practice, and dedication are the keys to becoming an accurate evaluator of market steers.

First, please notice Table 1 below. Table 1 shows the average of various carcass traits on beef animals from packing plants across the country. The data comes from the National Beef Quality Audit. 1995 National Beef Quality Audit Carcass Weight 748 lbs. Fat Thickness.47 Ribeye Area 12.8 sq. in Kidney, Pelvic, Heart Fat 2.1% USDA Yield Grade 2.8 Marbling Small Low Choice Percent of Primes and Choices 48% Yield Grades 1 and 2 58% Table 1: National Beef Quality Audit, 1995 Market steers are selected on a combination of the traits listed below: Muscle Correctness of condition (finish) Volume or Body Capacity Structural Correctness Balance This handout will deal only with the principles involved to evaluate for grading emphasis. The two most important criteria are listed below. Muscling relates to the amount of meat and shape or thickness. Some areas to evaluate for muscling include the shoulder, top, loin, rump, and quarter. Correctness of condition or finish refers to amount of fat distributed from front to rear. Areas to evaluate for condition or finish include the brisket, behind the shoulders, over the ribs, flank and cod. Using the first two traits and knowing the weight of market steers, one can estimate both a quality grade and yield grade. The beef industry utilizes this dual grading system. It is imperative to understand both quality and yield grading because each beef carcass is priced according to these two grades.

Quality Grading vs. Yield Grading Quality Grading Simply put, it is the total amount of intramuscular fat streaks inside the ribeye. The ribeye is located opposite the 12 th and 13 th rib. Also, quality grades vary according to the texture of the lean in the ribeye and age of the market steer. Assuming A maturity, the quality grades range from most desirable to least desirable as follows; Prime Choice Select Figure 2. USDA Beef Quality Grades. Adapted from USDA Marbling Score Cards, courtesy of NCBA and USDA. How does one predict this marbling score? External fat is our best visual estimate when predicting grade quality. Rule of thumb, if a market steer possesses.40-.45 of backfat uniformly over his ribcage, we assume he should grade choice if taken to the rail. The less fat a market animal possesses (externally), the less likely the steer will reach the Choice grade. Notice Steer A appears to indicate a much greater amount of fat from front to rear in Figure 3. Conversely, steer B appears much leaner and freer of fat. The steer more likely to reach the choice grade is Steer A. Steer A Figure 3. Fat Steer vs. Lean Steer Steer B

Yield Grade Factors There are four factors measured to formulate a proper yield grade. Fat thickness Ribeye area Carcass weight Kidney-Pelvic and Heart fat The mathematical numbers used to derive yield grades will follow the description of all the measurements. Fat thickness (FT) is measured between the 12 th and 13 th ribs, opposite the rib eye and is the major factor when figuring yield grades. This measurement can also be adjusted according to other fat deposits. Some common depots include through the brisket, over the chuck, round, and associated cod fat. The ribeye area (REA) is measured using a grid. The measurement is taken between the 12 th and 13 th rib and is not to be adjusted for any reason. The hot carcass weight (HCW) is also a fixed variable and may not be adjusted. Heavy carcasses are discounted severely. This is the reason steers weighing in excess of 1,300 pounds are sometimes evaluated harshly in the show ring. An average dressing percent of slaughter cattle is 62%. If one multiples 1,300 lbs by 62% the answer is 806 lbs. This weight is still desirable, but as carcass weight begins to exceed 850 lbs, major problems associated with beef cuts becoming too large for consumers are a major problem. The final factor is kidney-pelvic-and heart fat (KPH). This is a measurement of the internal fat surrounding the vital internal organs. This is very difficult to predict live, but the variation among beef cattle is minimal. Most will have between 2-3% KPH. Yield Grading Yield grades are used to more properly estimate cutability. Cutability is defined as the percent of boneless, closely trimmed, retail cuts. Basically, the leaner and more muscular the animal. the higher the cutability and lower the numerical yield grade. Table 1 outlines the differences between steers ranging in yield grade from 1 to 5.

Yield Grade Visual Example % Cutability Yield Grade 1 52.3 % or more Yield Grade 2 52.2-50% Yield Grade 3 49.9-47.7% Yield Grade 4 47.6-45.5% Yield Grade 5 45.4% or less Table 2. Courtesy of Beef Cattle Evaluation Handbook, USDA Slaugher Grades, Texas Agricultural Extension Service Calculating and Figuring Yield Grades There are four factors measured to formulate a proper yield grade. Fat thickness Ribeye area Carcass weight Kidney-Pelvic and Heart fat 1. Fat Thickness (FT)= +.25 for ever 1/10 inch of fat is added to a Preliminary Yield Grade (PYG) of 2.00. This measurement should be taken at approximately ¾ the length of the ribeye. Example:.2 in fat=2.50.3 in fat=2.75.4 in fat=3.00.5 in fat=3.25

2. Ribeye Area (REA)= REA-11 = x then change sign and add to PYG 3 Example: 12-11=.3- change sign 3, add to PYG 3 Example: 10-11=.-3 change sign +.3; add to PYG 3 3. Kidney-Pelvic-Heart Fat (KPH) Example: 2.5% KPH= -.2 to PYG Example: 3.0% KPH= -.1 to PYG Example: 3.5% KPH= -.0 to PYG Example: 4.0% KPH= +.1 to PYG Example: 4.5% KPH= +.2 to PYG 4. Carcass Weight: +/-.1 for each 25 pounds from 600 Example: 700 pounds = adjustment of +.4 to PYG Example: 550 pounds = adjustment of -.2 to PYG Example: 800 pounds = adjustment of +.8 to PYG Notice when finding yield grades, the evaluator must convert live weight to carcass weight. Estimating the dressing percentage does this. Dressing percentage is defined as the proportion of chilled carcass weight to the animal s slaughter weight. Average dressing percent in market steers is 62%. Some factors affecting dressing percent include: The amount of fill in the steer Amount of muscle Weight of hide, head, feet and horns Amount of fat Combining Quality and Yield Grade Both quality and yield grades are equally important. The optimum steer should possess sufficient marbling (0.4 of backfat opposite the ribeye) and still maintain a yield grade in the 2.0-2.9 range. References -Boggs and Merkel. Livestock Evaluation. 4 th Edition. 1997 -Boleman, L., U.S.D.A Slaughter Grades. Texas Agricultural Extension Service. 1997 -Boleman, S.L., S.J. Boleman, W.W. Morgan, D.S. Hale, D.B. Griffin, J.W. Savell, R.P. Ames, M.T. Smith, J.D. Tatum, T.G. Field, G.C. Smith, B.A. Gardner, J.B.Mogan, S.L. Northcutt, H.G. Dolezal, D.R. Gill, and F.K. Ray. 1998. National Beef Quality Audit-1995: Survey of producer related defects and carcass quality and quality attricutes. J. Anim. Sci. 76: 96-103. -Skaggs, C.L., Animal Science 108 Manual. Texas A&M University. 1998