Our 2008 Carcass Data

[4Ts4H]

We never implanted them as calves.  In the past, we sold calves into natural programs so we don't use them.  We never know for sure who is going to buy them until we get bids in.

We sold them to the feedlot back in July and they averaged 633 (steers) and (534) right off their mothers.  Never any creep feed.  I don't know if the feedlot uses implants or not, but I don't think so.

That's the best info you have given yet!!!  Here in our plant, we are noticing a good correlation between implanted cattle and cattle that are unuasble in the export market.  It seems that the implants tend to speed up the ocification of the bones as well as the decay of the teeth.  The ocification leads to the USDA grading the carcass as a B-Maturity - even in calves!  The tooth decay will cause the baby teeth to fall out sooner than expected, and the carcass looses its under 30 months of age distinction (even if you have papers to the contrary).  Both of these will eliminate the use of that meat in the export market.

So, if the cost of gain is in a profitable range with only a 2.4 rate of gain, your cattle will be MORE desirable to the packers trading on the export market.

Keep up the good breeding.  BTW, we also breed for consumer beef first, and show second.  Granted we haven't been in this show thing for a long time, only 5 years.  But, last year when we told people that our reserve champion county fair steer was bull bred and pulled from the pasture,  we really had to watch where we walked in fear of stepping into everyone's jaw-dropped open mouths!

WTG - Pete

 

[chambero]

4Ts4H:

How does the grading process work exactly?  Is it plant employees that do the grading or is it USDA inspectors that work at every plant?  I'm not familiar enough with who does what.

The feedlot is a little tighter with the information on how much profit they are actually making, but we find out when it comes time to give us bids on next years crop.

 

[knabe]

when i was at cal poly and ran steers through the steer futurity feeding trials, they went through harris ranch, where a usda inpsector graded all the carcasses that had the usda stamp.  there was a government employee on the line looking at EVERY carcass with his continually sharpened knive ready to cut off any speck of anything looking out of the ordinary off of a carcass or rejecting it.  it was really amazing to see them get busy when the old thin cattle came through.  i've never seen anyone so good with a knife other than someone who skinned for a living.  the guy who butchers my steers moves his continually edge straightened knive very smoothly with almost deliberation.  i'm pretty sure he makes a tidy sum off the hide and reduces his labor by not allowing any fat on the skin for later touching up.

 

[4Ts4H]

The quality and yield grades are called by a USDA grader which each plant has to pay for.  The call on dentitioning age is done by a USDA trained plant employee.  The call on Angus preident is done that way as well - and then of those the grader calls CAB.

One factor that can significantly effect the grade is the chill time.  If a plant runs a normal 48 hour chill, and a situation dictates that they need to be pulled a day earlier, you can loose up to 23% in choice grade according to our figures.  Likewise, if your animals are harvested at the end of one week, and held and graded on the next Monday, you can gain up to 12% in the choice grading.

 

[shorthorns r us]

so you want your cattle killed on thursday and graded on monday?

 

[chambero]

The quality and yield grades are called by a USDA grader which each plant has to pay for.  The call on dentitioning age is done by a USDA trained plant employee.  The call on Angus preident is done that way as well - and then of those the grader calls CAB.

One factor that can significantly effect the grade is the chill time.  If a plant runs a normal 48 hour chill, and a situation dictates that they need to be pulled a day earlier, you can loose up to 23% in choice grade according to our figures.  Likewise, if your animals are harvested at the end of one week, and held and graded on the next Monday, you can gain up to 12% in the choice grading.

Does the marbling fat become more visible as it gets colder?

 

[4Ts4H]

SRU - Yes, provided you are selling on a grid basis.

chambero - Yes, the carcass comes off the kill floor hot and enters a hot box (a cooler so called due to the hot carcasses coming in) where it is stored with other hot carcasses.  The sum of the degree units in the beef must be overcome by the forced air coolers to effectively lower the temp of the carcasses.  It takes 24 hours to get the carcass out of the USDA mandated danger zone, and after 72 hours they are fully chilled.

 

[knabe]

several studies have shown that this "cream" or some other name marbling shows up with extended cooling.  there are some who are looking for this gene, as some minority of carcasses have this.  the marbling flecks have a different shape, and from what i remember, they are more globular in shape.  this is one reason i FIRMLY believe in stacking the marbling genes, ageing the carcases a minimum of two weeks and checking the carcasses myself.  i am also picky about where the gristle is on the new yorks, and also the texture of graininess.  evenly broken down fibers into equadistant pieces, to me, is the goal, and what was so strikingly different in the prime rib i had last new years compared to ones i've had in the past.  this texture would theorhetically be coming from the tenderness genes.  it is probably going to be selectable the fiber diameter as well.  to me, i like my prime rib and filet to be almost like a sees candy bordeaux in it's crumbly texture.  when a 2" inch new york steak is like that, i'm thinking you can't do much better other than throw in some nuttinness if you like that from more recent time on grass.

 

[aj]

I have heard that implants hurt grading ability. I know in the proof positive feedlot test at the montezuma, ks that the shorthorn assn was doing....they were debating on whether or not to implant them. I think feed effiency is hurt if you don't implant. They should kill them before to long.

 

[knabe]

chambero,

do you have any general idea about their feed? ie percent protein, carbs

do they feed some slower rate of gain per day, if they are lighter muscled.

it would seem that the curve of muscle acquisition should be a well guarded secret and how the fat accumulation curve overlays on top of that for different kind of cattle is what's really gonna make a feeder a lot of money.  is muscle measured any other way (accurately, not by visual appraisal) than by ultrasound REA?

feeding implants would seem to cloud the issue and lull one into a false sense of security, especially if one is selecting breeding stock that isn't fed implants, but is selecting them based on how the fed cattle do on implants.  i guess if i wanted to retain ownership, or collect data, i would want to know if they were implanted.

historically we have all been told implants are a no brainer.

perhaps the no-brainer is selecting for type that includes feed efficiency and then how those cattle do getting fat without implants with the hoped for extra muscle.  to me, this is one of the most intriguing questions of fat distribution and why at least an attempt should be made to consolidate the markers.  trouble is, it seems, that selecting for the markers selects for a phenotype no one wants.  to me though, as with any screening process, it should even make it easier to get prepotent cattle, if one has a good phenotype along with the markers, instead of just keeping all high marker animals, weighing phenotype with less importance.  could be a train wreck.  with more muscle, may come more soundness issues, and it may be important to rate ribeye shape or some other measurable to stay away from too tight cattle

 

[chambero]

I have no idea on the feed.  They won't share that kind of detailed info.  All I know is that is "by-product" based.

Talked to some more feedlot reps this weekend.  They did consider our ADG low, but there could be lots of reasons other than just straight genetics.  Like I said, we're starting to work on that issue.  Hopefully we corrected a lot of it by getting rid of a couple of bulls a year ago (we don't have any calves on the ground now out of the two worst thank goodness) and with new ones we buy.

 

[REM]

Those are good numbers. I 'm curious as to how long they were on feed.

 

[chambero]

245 days.  They went straight from the cows to the feedlot.

 

[knabe]

i know i'm dreaming here, but if one took 650 average weaning weight, added 637 lbs in the feedlot for 245 days on feed and that they were weaned at 205 days, the were a little over 14 months when slaughtered.

i wonder what it would take to do the same thing, but only feed for 90 days on whatever feed one could choose.  under what circumstances would this be possible?  assuming the cattle were the same size, and you couldn't substitute negative frame score cattle.  what would these cattle look like?

i realize the byproduct base of the feed affects the original numbers.

 

[chambero]

A lot of people down here take calves - particularly spring borns, wean them, run them on wheat pasture during the winter, and then go to the feedlot for a much shorter period of time.  I would imagine that happens all throughout the country.  I think gains on wheat run a 2+ lbs per day also.  I don't know if there is that good of an alternative for fall borns. 

 

[shorthorns r us]

not many cattle came off wheat this year.  the grain is far too valuable to let the yields diminish with grazing pressure. 

 

[aj]

Thats what I was going to say sru. Even 10$ wheat affects the livestock industry...even if cattle aren't fed it as grain. I have heard that the old process of "backgrounding" may appear again. It is the slow grow...low cost gain practice on a more roughage or pasture. Back when corn was 2$ and the cost of gain in feedlots was .35 cents....it mde sense to just stick cattle in a lot and feed the heck out of them. I'm hearing cost of gains(5$ corn) is now running .90 cents. That not much above the fat price. I am hearing some pens of cattle loosing 100$ a head. If the feedlot had corn bought at 3.50 they are in good shape. This thing is really wild with grain flucuations of prices bouncing around every day. I still think weaned calves selling next fall are going to be in on a price surprise. I think it is going to be down cause new crop corn is leaning toward 6 $. :'(

 

[chambero]

Lots of of guys in our area just run yearlings - they buy weaned calves and stick them on wheat during the winter.  Problem was, we were so dry we didn't have any wheat until a little over a month ago.  The only slightly saving grace was we had lots of standing grass from our wet summer, so they weren't starving but they weren't gaining much either.  Several just went to bulk feeders with them.  I don't know why they just didn't go ahead and get them in a feedlot.

 

[knabe]

i'm thinking deer and elk have the genes to minimize maintenance during low quality feed times of the year, and the genes to get fat quickly when the feed comes on. perhaps excess bone is an efficiency inhibitor.  perhaps we have bred out the photoperiodism a little bit in cattle.

 

[shorthorns r us]

i was reading something written by someone who is supposed to be smart, don't remember who; but, they were saying that the current cash prices for feeders, fats, feed & overhead results in a loss of $200/head.  there were a few other details included that i don't remember; but, i do remember the $200.