Producing Quality Beef
Customers Seek
Lynn A Bliven
Association Team Coordinator
Cornell Cooperative Extension
Allegany/Cattaraugus County

What factors affect eating quality?

With rising demand and shrinking
beef supply, consumers may face
higher prices at the meat case.

How will you provide the product consumers
desire at a price they are willing to pay?

“The greatest agricultural resource of
New York is its exceptional adaptation
for the growth of grass. Yet the hay crop
has received little attention and pastures
have rarely received any care… It would
certainly seem good policy to consider
means of increasing the efficiency of our
pastures”.
--Dr. G. F. Warren. 1910

Traditional Production
At any given time, about 15-20% of all
beef cattle in the US are housed in
feedlots. They account for about 10%
of all corn use in the US.
80-85% of the life cycle of
traditionally-raised beef cattle in
the US depends on grass and
forages as the sole nutritional
source.

If you do the calculations
based on the YAN prediction
equation and account for the
time, manure production, and
total meat production from
20% forage to 100% forage in
the diet, the methane
production increases by
500%
Per pound of beef produced.
Canadian, US, and Australian
studies have confirmed these
results.
The bigger picture is
more than methane.
Source: 2008 http://snipurl.com/methanecartoon, Last accessed May 7, 2010

Beef Cattle Options
Cow/calf
Stocker
Finishing

Profitability



20% of variation
due to
productivity
80% of variation
due to costs
60% of variation
in costs due to
feed costs

Difference between profitable
and unprofitable cow/calf
operations






Lower feed cost, less debt and lower
operating expense
Productivity: higher sale weights, conception
rate and pounds weaned/cow exposed
Better management of genetics, herd health and
pastures
Measuring performance, benchmarking and
choosing the right replacement stock
Matching genetics to market
Correct use of technology

Cost reduction
Shift in costs occurred through:
1. Adding grazing days (extended grazing)
2. Shift in grazing systems
3. Adjustments in feeding systems

Nutrient Requirements of a Beef Cow
52% TDN
10% CP
22
52% TDN
10% CP
20
52% TDN
8% CP
16
52% TDN
8% CP
ion
14
g
in
lv
ca
re
P
Post Calving
Pregnant and lactating
e
-g
id
M
ge
s
tat
12
Mi
d-
10
n
tio
a
st
Month
D
EC
V
N
O
T
O
C
P
SE
AU
G
JU
L
JU
N
AY
M
AP
R
AR
C
H
M
FE
B
8
JA
N
TDN lb/day
18

Stocking Method Comparison
Animal Unit Grazing Days/Ac
Adapted from Emmick, Fox, and Seaney, 1990
300
285
250
7410
200
150
100
50
0
16-Paddock
173
1.7
125
4-Paddock
3250
4498
Continuous
1.1
.76
Stocking Method
1

Grass Fed Beef is an important part of the
Beef industry because:
1.It engages customers that may not eat any
other beef.
2.It meets the criteria for customers that desire
information about how their food is produced
3.It meets the needs of customers that do not
wish to have animals confined.
4.It is usually produced and marketed locally so
customers are face-to-face with farmers.
5.It is an important lifestyle for many farmers.

Increased interest in beef
finished on forage
•Reduced cost of gain
•Potential world grain shortage
•Energy conservation
•Consumer desire for leaner meat
•Philosophical predisposition to no grain feeding
•Health benefits

Can cattle be finished on all
forage?
Forage finished beef is more variable:
• flavor
• tenderness
•lean color
•retail shelf life

Can cattle be finished on all
forage?
Discriminated by packers:
• lower Dressing Percentage
• increased Cooler Shrink
• lower Quality Grade

Winter Performance Requirements
Assumptions:
•BW 85 lb
•Calving date May 1
•WW 578 lb (2.5 WDA)
•Harvest weight 1100 lb.
To finish on grass:
Cattle must gain 1.5 -2.0 lb/day during
winter feeding period.
If WDA through weaning is only 2.0 lb,
then winter gain must be 2.0/day

Performance of cattle fed hay crop silage
and dry hay during winter feeding period
Feed
ADG, lb
Source
Hay
0.3-2.0
Gallagher, et al., Baker &
Buchanan, Baker & Ketchen
HCS
1.3 – 2.1
Baker & Buchanan, Baker &
Ketchen

Performance of cattle grazing BMR
Sorghum Sudan Grass
Weight, lb
ADG, lb
Source
1156
2.7
Cornell
453-566
2.4 - 2.8
Texas A&M

Growth Rate
 Faster is better for palatability
 Strive for 2.0 lb/day for at least the last
100 days


Improves calpain/calpastatin
Animals will be ready for market at younger
age

External Fat
 A target of 0.3 - 0.4 inches is good


Allows slower chilling and prevents strong
cross bonds between muscle filaments.
Also demonstrates animal has adequate
energy for rapid growth and that muscle
tissue growth is stopping

Maturity
(animal age)
 Strive for < 24 months



Less connective tissue cross linking
Older animals are less tender
Fewer problems with BSE regulations (cattle
are aged by dentition which is not always
precise)

Maturity
(animal age)
 Strive for < 24 months



Less connective tissue cross linking
Older animals are less tender
Fewer problems with BSE regulations (cattle
are aged by dentition which is not always
precise)

Key Points
 Multiple and varied benefits of grazing
 Economic benefits vary
 Forage can meet nutrient requirements of
cattle of all ages
 Research needed to manage meat quality
 Consistent market required

Frame Score
 What is it?

Measurement based on observation and
height measurements when claves are
evaluated at 205 days of age
 Uses?


To estimate expected size of animal when it
reaches maturity
Sire selection

Carcass Value vs. Meat Quality

Commodity market
1.
2.
Carcass value
Meat quality

Specialty market
1.
2.
Meat quality
Carcass value

Major characteristics important in
beef production include:
•
mature body size,
•
milk production,
•
age at puberty,
environmental
adaptability,
•
rate and efficiency
of gain,
•
•
muscle expression,
•
cutability, and
•
marbling.

Carcass Physiological
Age/Maturity
Younger cattle produce beef with:
Superior Color
Finer Texture
Superior Firmness
Maturity Score
Age In Months
A
9-30
B
30-42
C
42-72
D
72-96
E
96+

Beef Quality Grades
Maturity
Click to add text
Marbling
A
Abundant
Mod. Abund. Prime
Sl. Abund.
Moderate
Modest Choice
Small
Slight Select
Traces Standard
Pract. Dev.
B
C
D
Commercial
Utility
E

Pricing Grid, Value Discovery, 2012
Factor
Premium, $/cwt
Quality grade Prime
+$0.08
Choice
$0.00
Select
-$0.08
Sex
Heifer
-$0.01
Yield grade
YG2
+$0.02
Weight, lb
<550
-$0.15
>949
-$0.15
Dark,NR
-$0.18
Defect

Slight
Moderate
Small
Modest
Slightly abundant
Moderately abundant

USDA Beef Quality Grades








Most Desirable

M
A
R
B
L
I
N
G

USDA Prime
USDA Choice
USDA Select
USDA Standard
USDA Commercial
USDA Utility
USDA Cutter
USDA Canner
Least Desirable
Beef quality refers
to the expected
palatability of the
final cooked product
USDA Quality
Grades are used to
reflect differences in
expected eating
quality among
slaughter cattle and
their carcasses

How Do Quality Grades Work?
How Do Quality Grades Work?
Percent of Loin Steaks Receiving Desirable and
Percent of Loin Steaks Receiving Desirable and
Undesirable Overall Palatability Ratings
Undesirable Overall Palatability Ratings
Smith et al. (1987)
Smith et al. (1987)
5.6%
Prime
10.8%
Choice
26.4%
Select
59.1%
Standard
8
7
6
Extremely Desirable
5
4
3
2
1
Extremely Undesirable

Meat Quality- Sensory Characteristics
Tenderness factors
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
Sarcomere shortening
Aging
Animal age
Genotype
Time on feed
Gender
Degree of doneness

Sensory Tenderness
7
6
5
4
3
0.04
0.09
0.16
0.23
0.30
0.37
Fat thickness, in.
Shear Force, kg
10
9
8
7
6
5
0.04
0.09
0.16
0.23
0.30
0.37
Fat thickness, in.
Sarcomere Length, mm
2
1.9
1.8
1.7
0.04
0.09
0.16
0.23
Fat thickness, in.
0.30
0.37

Meat Quality - Days On Feed
DOF
0
30
60
90
100
130
160
200
230
% of Panel Ratings Higher than 5.00
Overall
Flavor
Tenderness
Palatability
64
59
51
93
48
59
90
90
70
79
68
63
95
100
93
100
93
91
100
100
93
100
95
95
100
100
97
Source: Dolezal et al., (1982)

Meat Quality- Sensory Characteristics
Tenderness factors
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
Sarcomere shortening
Aging
Animal age
Genotype
Time on feed
Gender
Degree of doneness

Relationship between body condition score and body fat
Body Condition Score
Percent Total Body
Fat
Subcutaneous Fat Cover (inches)
1
0.7
0
2
5.0
0.004
3
9.3
0.005
4
13.7
0.11
5
18.0
0.19
6
22.3
0.29
7
26.7
0.41
8
31.0
0.54
9
35.3
0.68
Rick Hardin. Using Body Condition Scoring In Beef Cattle Management. The University of
Georgia College of Agricultural & Environmental Sciences Cooperative Extension Service
Circular 817/December, 1990. http://www.ces.uga.edu/pubcd/c762-w.html

Effect of Rates of gain vs. Fat in gain
Fat in gain, %
60
50
40
0.6 kg/d
1.0 kg/d
1.3 kg/d
30
20
10
0
200
300
400
Shrunk Body Weight, kg
500

Suggested window of acceptability
for strategic alliances
Minimum 100 days in a high energy diet
Carcass weight 650-800 lb.
Low Choice QG
Yield grade 3 or better
Manage for tenderness
– maximum age of 18 months
– fat depth .3-.5 in. for insulation
– electric stimulation of carcass
– min. aging in box of 14-21 days

Juiciness
Marbling
Marbling stimulates the
salivary glands and
influences the perceived
juiciness of beef
 Insulatory effect during
cooking


Juiciness

Fat slows down the
migration of heat and
decreases the shock effect
of heat on protein
degradation and moisture
loss.
The amount of water and fat
lost during cooking is
reduced

The #1 Reason Consumers
Purchase Beef
T
E!
ST
A

Beef Flavor
Intensity/Desirability/Overall
Species-specific carbonyl compounds located
in the intramuscular fat determine flavor
Primary determinants of beef
flavor desirability are:
1)
2)
3)
Nutritional regime
Feeding duration
Flavor increases as marbling/fat
increases

Factors affecting meat quality:
Live animal/production factors
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Weight (initial & final)
Breed
ADG
Age
Weight/DOA
Gender
Pasture days
Feedlot days
Total days
Dietary fat

Tenderness and sensory characteristics by
sire breed
9.1
5.8
9.2
Tend.
score
5.6
4.9
5.7
Sensory panel
Flavor Juiciness
score
score
4.9
5.3
5.4
4.9
5.4
Simmental
Gelbvieh
Limousin
Charolais
9.5
10.0
9.5
9.6
5.6
5.3
5.6
5.5
4.9
4.8
4.9
4.9
5.3
5.2
5.3
5.2
LSD<.05
0.7
0.3
0.1
0.1
Sire
Breed
Hereford
Angus
Red Angus
WBS, lb.
8.9

Meat Quality-Physical
Factors
#1-Total fat = 135 lb.
#2 – Total fat = 207 lb.

Regression equations
Marbling impacts
 Tenderness
 Juiciness
 Flavor intensity
 Overall desirability

Regressions of meat quality indices
on carcass measurements
Factor
Prediction equation
R2
Tenderness
4.95 – 0.002 x marbling
0.04
Flavor desirability
6.47+.02 x HCW - .0836 x REA
0.30
Flavor intensity
0.005 x marbling
0.44
Overall desirability
3.81 + .0063 x Mrb – .0267 fat
0.24
Owens and Gardner, 1999

“For overall maximum meat
quality, these equations indicate
that the preferred animal is one
with a high degree of marbling but
minimal fat cover.”
Owens and Gardner,
1999

Regressions of meat quality indices
on beef production factors
Factor
Prediction equation
R2
Tenderness 7.86 - .0027 x FW +.643 x ADG – 1.39
x Wt/DOA
0.49
Flavor
desirability
8.26 + .0063 dietE – 2.62 x Wt/DOA
0.55
Flavor
intensity
15.04 - .0029 x FW – .0031 x DOF
– 6.43 x Wt/DOA
0.95
Overall
desirability
8.92 – 3.115 x Wt/DOA
0.71
Owens and Gardner, 1999

External Fat Thickness and
Beef Palatability
Tenderness, %
Very Desirable
Desirable
Undesirable
Fat Thickness (3/ 4 measure)
< .20
.20 - .40
> .40
24
43
33
33
44
24
49
47
4
Overall Palatability, %
Very Desirable
6
Desirable
50
Undesirable
44
17
61
22
38
52
10
Source: Dolezal et al., 1982

“For optimum overall meat quality,
the ideal animal appears to be one
that is older (but still under 30
months) and that has gained
rapidly, but not excessively heavy
at harvest.”
Owens and Gardner, 1999

“No Better Bull” Profit Tips
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Smaller cows
Later calving
Hybrid vigor-wean
23% more
Use composite bulls
Develop heifers to
55% of mature
weight
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Avoid scours
Fenceline weaning
Pre-condition
Select for feed
efficiency
Capitalize asset
base

Pricing
On the hoof
On the rail
By the piece

Pricing

Know your Costs
Price for Profit
 1) Start with the input costs =
Variable
Costs
 2) Add in ownership costs =
 3) Add in a return to you =
Price
Fixed Costs
Profitable

Value vs. Price
 Value = Quality +
Service + Price



Your buyers want
quality
Your buyers want to
know how their food
was raised
Your buyers are wiling
to pay for education

Calculations for Determining Price
 Cost and Profit Method
 Gross Margin Method
 Plan for Profit – Don’t Drop Prices
 Going Rate for Market Area

Questions??
Credit for contribution of content:
Michael J. Baker,
Cornell University
Beef Extension Specialist