Marbling and rib eye size?

[northfarmer]

Mach 13 Grainews, page 22....he does also get into the discussion of hormones regarding marbling....

[kpb]

grassfarmer, thanks for taking the time to outline how you maximize the profits in raising grass-finished beef. Your explanation was comprehensive.

While the profits per animal are obviously high, isn't the problem that overall gross profits are limited by the number of animals involved and the fact that the individual producer must take time, under the system outlined, to market and sell, arrange for processing, etc? There has to be an inverse relation between the time spent on marketing, etc. the grass-feds and the size of your herd. Although your profits per head are high you still must have a critical mass of animals in order to make enough to sustain the overall operation.

I appreciate that you feel this is a positive outcome in terms of advocating small farm, etc. but, in reality, even with extraordinary profits (say $800 a head)a 50-head operation does not enable a full-time farmer to stay on the farm and support a family. After all, there are land payments and taxes and truck payments and school fees and heat, etc.It also does not provide a fair return on capital invested for most farms.

Farms have been getting bigger not because farmers want them that way but because it is the only way they can survive a little longer. At the present time only 10% of your production is marketed as grass-fed cattle--to get that up to, say, 80% you'd have to take time away from some aspect of cattle production, likely lowering cattle numbers. I know that your profit per animal is higher but you still need a minimum number of animals in order to achieve a liveable, sustainable operation.

As far as cutting out the middlemen in the beef operation is concerned, these people exist in order to facilitate large cattle numbers. They are not inherently bad. The problem right now is that we (the producers) do not control them. But what if we were able to own the means of processing and marketing our grass-fed product --if these people were our employees and we controlled them. I don't see this as being controlled by the current system but rather grabbing control of the system to suit our needs.

Just brainstorming, mostly, but it seems to me that if the people who finish beef on grass can produce a consistent product there ought to be a way to get it to the store shelf every week, in big numbers, with full control by the producers who make the product. I was involved with Price's packing house group for a while and I know they let investors slaughter their cattle there and put their own label on them. To me this still looks like a way of getting many producers off the packing house treadmill and in control of their own destinies. I think a healthy, grass-fed alternative, marketed that way, would do well in the grocery store.


kpb

[smcgrath76]

Original Topic...
Marbling is positively correlated with fat. In other words, as marbling increases, overall fat will tend to increase. The ratio of fat to lean determines yield. Thus as fat increases, yield tends to decrease, regardless of whether hormones have been used or not.
The challenge in most mainstream markets is to increase marbling, without increasing backfat, and maintaining Rib-eye in a reasonable zone. There are cattle that will marble, with limited backfat and decent yield. There are also cattle with extremely low yields, tons of backfat and no marbling.
In industrial/commodity production most plants target 1/2 inch of fat cover as it minimizes trim, and controls the speed at which the carcass cools.
There is some work that shows larger rib-eye area also results in reduced marbling assessment as the marbling is bascially spread out over a larger area, however I would question this as marbling relative to lean is probably what is really important.
Marbling is related to juiciness and flavour and has VERY little to do with tenderness. There is some work going on with calpain/calpastatin gene markers and also some flight time work that looks pretty promising in regards to tenderness.
I think young rkaiser is pretty much right on. There has been almost no emphasis in Canada on carcass merit and at this point it is pretty much based on dumb luck and hide colour. (they all look the same colour when the hide is off though - go figure).

[grassfarmer]

The original article discussed is online at www.spiritviewranch.com under articles entitled "Crossed with crossbreeding"

kpb, You make a reasoned argument - I don't claim to know all the answers or have the solution. This is however the most positive part of my operation at present and the one I can get really excited about - apart from my Luings of course!
I find it takes little time actually selling the product - I definately spend more time writing on Agriville than I do marketing / delivering beef.
One outfit I'm watching is TK at Coronation - if they get their proposed Federal slaughter plant built that might be an opportunity for more commodity minded guys to buy in. They have the knowledge, markets,experience and business savvy to make it work. However I guess if I was selling them grassfed beefs I would only get a small premium over conventional - they are in business afterall. If I went to the trouble of setting that kind of deal up I would want to take a good cut too!

[grassfarmer]

The other point I missed in your thread kpb was seasonality and making beef available in the stores year round. This is a huge problen in Canada because we have such a short grass season. We absolutely do not compromise on this, we process cattle once a year in October. This is the only way to ensure quality grassfed beef. Some of the bigger outfits that sell grassfed and organic by the individual cut are already
"supplementing" winter forage rations to allow slaughter year round. At this point it isn't grassfed in my opinion as most of the health benefits are lost when they are not grazing fresh green grass. This may be the biggest limitation to expansion in Canada.

[nicolaas]

I'm sort of behind the times so I am not aware of the "health benifits" of grass fed cattle. I keep hearing people talk about them, but havn't had a chance to ask. What are they? What kind of research has been done in this area?

[rkaiser]

Thanks for the youthful compliment smcgrath76, I work hard on keeping that skin on the top of my head shiny and moist.

Can't disagree with much of your post either. Wish our breed associations had the bucks to prove a claim that hide and hair will tend to reduce backfat while allowing ample marbling.

Another point I would like to make is that our customers are not truly demanding the AAA and often prefer the AA. What do the rest of you feel is ultimate marbling in fed cattle?

[grassfarmer]

nicolaas, here is some starter information on health benefits www.eatwild.com/nutrition.html

rkaiser, the group that Christoph Weder helped set up "prairie heritage"?? sell natural beef into BC and they specify that their cattle are AA so he must be agreeing with your thoughts on that.

[nicolaas]

thanks, that was aninteresting web site. I know canola such as nexera canola is high in omega 3's and other "good fats". I wonder if you fed your cows canola oil in the feed lot if the omega 3's levels would surpass the grass fed? Has anyone ever seen a test done on this? I know feedlots really pour the vitamin E to the animals for longer meat shelf life ( I believe). It is definitly a convincing web site, that is for sure.

[cowman]

Now once again, I am no rocket scientist, so this is just personal observation. When you take a top sirloin steak and look at it you can hardly see any internal fat? If you trim off the outer fat...it has to be about as close to fat free as possible? And yet, if cooked properly, it can be very tasty and tender and in fact juicy if cut thick? Again only a personal preference as I just can't abide a greasy steak!
And again from observation: Probably the tenderest beef I ever butchered was a yearling Char heifer, grain fed about 90 days, slaughtered around 1000 lb.! There was almost zero marbling and yet she was very tender and very tasty! And about the worst darned animal I ever ate was a yearling Sim steer, grain fed about half a year? Tough as a boot and not much flavor! Don't know if that was genetics or what? He didn't marble very well but had a good outer fat cover. Maybe there is a reason why Western Feedlots doesn't want any Simmental cattle?

[smcgrath76]

There are a lot of papers out of Lacombe, however nothing super recent and consumer tastes have been changing, but Joe Average will take a piece of generic AA over generic AAA beef out of the meat counter roughly 85% of the time. I am sure branding products has changed this over time.
The kicker is that most preferred AAA in blind taste tests.

[rkaiser]

How abouit this for a kicker Sean. Last CBEF meeting with CEO's from Cargill, Tyson, and such in attendence picked the AAA first and D1 cow second in a blind taste test that included all grades of fed cattle.

[smcgrath76]

And they say this industry has no direction!!!
Does that mean that D1 cows are going to come up in price yet again?

[rkaiser]

I think not Sean. Have been working up to a Western Producer editorial discussing the serving of more cow beef in Canada than ever in History. No that it is bad, as discovered by the CBEF board, but still not as good as that which we are sending our American cousins while watching the packers enjoy yet another Canadian Salmon run. Don't really want to blast the Beef Information Center once again, but they sure have helped this cow meat thing with new recipes etc. Guess some producer other than me is gainig from this producer levy money --- or is it maybe the packers and the retailers?????

[smcgrath76]

I think rkaiser that is another topic worthy of a post.