Ultrasound Carcass Contests

[cattlemanr]

Does anyone have feeding suggestions to improve marbling results for cattle participating in Ultrasound Carcass contests?

 

[sjcattleco]

Does anyone have feeding suggestions to improve marbling results for cattle participating in Ultrasound Carcass contests?
[/quote

A show feed will not help!!! you want to get as many calories in that steer as you can as fast as you can. maybe even add as much fat to the diet as you can get by with!  Breed of steer will also be a big factor... Some breeds marble much easier than others..

 

[thunderdownunder]

Get a Shorthorn  ;D

 

[Earthmover]

Attended a program put on by the Ohio Cattlemans Assoc. (Beef 509) and they told us marlbling occurs in beef at around 800 to 900lbs so you need to feed hard early on to increase marlbling. We also learned that after 1100lbs you'll just waste money on feed and put on fat. Followed their recommendations with a group of heifers that we harvested at 1150 and they were well marbled and delicous.

 

[knabe]

Attended a program put on by the Ohio Cattlemans Assoc. (Beef 509) and they told us marlbling occurs in beef at around 800 to 900lbs so you need to feed hard early on to increase marlbling. We also learned that after 1100lbs you'll just waste money on feed and put on fat. Followed their recommendations with a group of heifers that we harvested at 1150 and they were well marbled and delicous.

any study linking that with early or late weaning? and effect on bw? conception rate?

 

[hereford]

CORN early, CORN often, CORN late.

 

[HAB]

we add some flaxseed to the ration

 

[oakbar]

We use ultrasound carcass information for our local show, although we know there are sometimes discrepancies between ultrasound and "real" carcass measurements.  For example:  we gathered ultrasound data on a steer on June 24th at our local fair and then sent him to a terminal show on August 10th where actual carcass data was taken.  He was underfinished at our local show and weighed 1235#.  By the time we sent him to the terminal show he weighed 1325 and was in very good condition.  The ultrasound showed him to have a 13.1 REA, .32 Fat cover, IMF of 3.4 which gave him a Select Plus grade, and a Yield grade of 2.6--his actual carcass information 6 weeks later showed that he had a 15.8 REA, .40 Fat cover, graded Choice, and had a Yield Grade of 1.9.    All the numbers were exactly what we expected except the REA.  He was better finished and so he had more fat cover, he graded better becuase of this.  Its hard to believe that his REA changed 2.7 square inches in six weeks with only an addtional 90 pounds of weight, though!  I've heard it said before that the shape of the Ribeye can cause discrepancies in the ultrasound readings as well and that the cattle appearing to have a "big top" don't always have the best actual REA so perhaps that is the case here.

Having said all this, ultrasound data is still the best technology we have to gather data at our local fair since the packers started discounting "show animals" so severely when we sent them to market.  It also allows us to gather some information on the breeding heifers at our show.  Its just important to know that it is not infallible and there is a greater possibilityfor errors in this system than in the actual carcass measurements.  JMHO

 

[knabe]

  Its hard to believe that his REA changed 2.7 square inches in six weeks with only an addtional 90 pounds of weight, though!  I've heard it said before that the shape of the Ribeye can cause discrepancies in the ultrasound readings as well and that the cattle appearing to have a "big top" don't always have the best actual REA so perhaps that is the case here.

that's a change of 17-20% depending on the denominator.  still, that's quite a shift.  so, does ultrasound in general, under or over report size?

 

[oakbar]

KNABE, 

I wouldn't want to say that ultrasound results are consistently high or low versus measurements taken on actual carcasses.    I just think we need to be aware that there is a much greater possibility for error.

We use ultrasound measurements for our carcass contest and I really have no problem with that--we, at least, have very timely information to go over with the  kids and we are not at the mercy of the packers discounting cattle becuase they are small groups of "Show cattle".  Also,many packers just don't want to mess with carcass measurements for small shows and I certainly understand why.  Over time (we are now 3 years into it) we should probably be able to pick out tendencies  because we have a few calves each year that are measured with ultrasound at our fair and then go on to a terminal show a few weeks later.  It will be a very small sample, though, so I don't know how much credence you could give the observations.  I'm sure the results could vary if you have different people running the ultrasound, etc. as well.

Please don't read this information from me as a complaint--just an illustration of how variable results can be.    I've done enough carcass measuring over the years to know that the results from the actual carcasses have some variability as well!!  JMHO

 

[blindsquirrel]

most show feeds are around 55 neg you will want a feed to be about 60 neg keep the protein at 13 or higher.  Use optaflexx or zilmax the last 20 to 30 days.
Consider an implant to improve REA  it will ding marbling a bit but that can be overcome by having enough calories. keep the fiber around 8 to 12 percent. should
do the trick.  remember yield grade and dressing percent are just as important as marbling.

 

[aj]

One thing I always wondered about was like in the Pen bull show in Denver. When they do the ultrasound for carcass, since the pens of bulls are fed seperately, is this an accurate comparison? Couldn't you have bulls showing say the choice grade who genetically is iferior to a bull in another pen that showed select, simply because of the way the bulls were fed? I guess that the backfat reading would show a heavier feeding though?

 

[thunderdownunder]

There shouldn't be huge variations in scans. It all comes down to the competency of the scanner... and each scanner is different.
We are lucky to have some very good, very experienced, consistent scanners here.

 

[Show Heifer]

1. The tech doing the scanning has the ability to vary the actual size by the angle and pressure. The best you can hope for is finding a tech that is CONSISTENT on every calf, every time. That way, they are comparable to each other, while not nessecarily being comparable to another scanner.

2. Position of the head can vary the size. Not much, but it can.

3. Genetics play a larger role than feed, but each play an important part.

4. Do not feed DDG's (by-products) in large %'s of ration. They are proven to be "not so great" for carcass development.

5. I have never fully understood the theory of ultrasounding bulls and heifers under the CUP lab requirements. They measure the calf as it is. Not sure about anyone else, but I feed my bulls and replacement heifers TOTALLY DIFFERENT than I do my fat cattle, so therefore, I would not expect them to scan/grade with their fat cattle counter parts. There is a program (the name escapes me at this moment) that takes the measurements and make "predictions" as to what they would be IF FED as a fat. Which, makes a whole lot more sense to me!  So keep in mind, if you are scanning replacement heifers, they will not, nor should they be, compared to their feedlot counterparts.