1 / 28

As a Producer, How Do I Hit that Target?

As a Producer, How Do I Hit that Target?. Twig Marston Extension Beef Specialist K-State Research & Extension. To Hit a Target (Complete a Project) You Need a Blueprint. “Ideal” Carcass Specifications. Hot Carcass Weight 700 to 800 lb External fat 0.3” to 0.4”

shanae
Download Presentation

As a Producer, How Do I Hit that Target?

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. As a Producer,How Do I Hit that Target? Twig Marston Extension Beef Specialist K-State Research & Extension

  2. To Hit a Target (Complete a Project) You Need a Blueprint

  3. “Ideal” Carcass Specifications • Hot Carcass Weight 700 to 800 lb • External fat 0.3” to 0.4” • Loin Eye Area 12.0 to 14.0 sq. in. • Marbling Small 00 minimum – Modest 00 preferred • Genetically “Guaranteed Tender”

  4. Goals Set for 2005 from National Beef Quality Audit - 2000 • Eliminate USDA Standard grade carcasses. • Eliminate Yield Grade 4’s and 5’s. • Eliminate side-branded hides. • Accompany all seedstock animals with meaningful genetic data for production and end-product traits. • Continually improve the eating quality of beef.

  5. Defining Quality • Consumer – Affordable, lean, tasty, and tender • Retailer – Trim, tasty, uniform in size and tender • Packer – Finished cattle of the proper weight, quality grade and yield • Feeder – “Good Doing” cattle w/ growth potential, the right weight, quality and yield • Producer – Genetically correct cattle, efficient in reproduction, growth, and adequate marbling

  6. Producers’ Tool Box • Genetics • Nutrition • Management • Advertisement/Education

  7. Heritability Estimates • Fat thickness 0.19 • Marbling Score 0.68 • WBSF 0.40 • Taste Sensory Panel • Tenderness 0.37 • Juiciness 0.46 • Flavor 0.07 Dikeman et al., submitted

  8. Marbling, Favor, Juiciness, and Tenderness • Breed composition • Diet energy concentration • Length of the finishing phase

  9. Breed Differences Exist Black is not a Carcass Gene, It is a Dominant Coat Color Gene.

  10. Why Do We Need Marbling? • Flavor • Insurance for Ignorance in Cooking

  11. Marbling(Producers’ Insurance Policy) • About a 10% linear increase in consumer acceptance for each full marble score between Slight and Slightly Abundant. • WBSF between 6.6 and 12.1 correlated to a steep decline in predicted acceptance. Platter et al., 2003 CSU

  12. USDA Grade and Endpoint Temperature Obuz et al., 2004, KSU

  13. Relationship between Cow Production & Carcass Traits Weight Height Condition Score HCWt 0.81 0.69 0.23 Retail Prod. -0.05 0.03 -0.12 LMA 0.34 0.32 0.24 Marbling -0.15 -0.17 -0.03 WBSF 0.15 0.22 0.08 Nephawe et al., 2004 MARC

  14. A positive correlation exists between Marbling and Milk EPDs. Marston , 2004

  15. Tenderness • Injection Site (up to 6” of injection) • Castration • Over Aggressive Implant Programs

  16. Beef Palatability & Genetics Breed/Sire WBSF Marbling Simmental -0.90 to +0.79 -0.22 to +0.48 Shorthorn -0.90 to +0.79 -0.42 to 0.00 Herefords -0.1.06 to +0..44 -0.16 to +0.47 WBSF and Marbling: Lowly correlated –0.19 Carcass Merit Traits Project

  17. DNA Marker Assisted Selection • Eating Quality Test • Disease Resistance • Marker–Assisted Expected Progeny Differences • Global Efforts – Australia, Brazil, Canada • Calpain (good guy) propagate and • Calpastatin (bad guy) eliminate

  18. Nutrition • Grain vs. Grass-fed vs. Forage-fed • Weaning Age/Young Age Positive Energy Balance • Propionate vs. Acetate VFA Rumen Production • Creep feeding

  19. Management • Implant and Implant Programs • Feed Additives (Beta agonists) • Calf vs. Aged Cattle Feeding • Days on Feed

  20. Effects of Days Fed May et al., OSU

  21. Sickness Robs Quality Grade

  22. Treating for Sickness Can Influence Quality Grade No. of treatments 0 1 2 or more No. calves 5,490 574 540 Quality score 6.45 6.65* 6.87** Prime, % 1.86 1.05 0.93 Prem. Choice, % 27.1* 24.28*† 18.7† Total Choice, % 70.7 62.9 58.0 Standard, % 2.6 5.9 10.6 Busby et al., 2004 ISU

  23. Promotion, Development, and Education

  24. Using the Tools in the BoxMeasure Twice – Cut Once

  25. Three Paradigms of Beef Producers • Cattle Producer • Labor user, task-driven, no effective use of information • Red Meat Producer • Record keeper, cost efficient, focused on red meat • Food Producer • Complex, targeting product characteristics which are multi-dimensional and directly related to known tastes and preferences of consumers

  26. The Future of the Paradigms • Cattle Producer – will be around because of the love and romance of the business, will stay in business if not over leveraged. • Red Meat Producer – will survive with the commodity side of the business. • Food Producer – will be rewarded by those that know the value of quality. Driven by the cost and quality controlled production of food made from beef.

  27. Quality Thoughts • We can now make more mistakes faster than ever before. • Those who refuse to use data will make greater and more frequent mistakes. • Those who refuse to make data will be compensated with a smaller piece of the pie. • Those who control the data control the destiny of the industry.

More Related