Producing quaility beef

download Producing quaility beef

If you can't read please download the document

  • date post

    14-May-2015
  • Category

    Education

  • view

    520
  • download

    2

Embed Size (px)

description

Powerpoint by Lynn Bliven on beef (meat) quality and customer perceptions

Transcript of Producing quaility beef

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

2. What factors affect eating quality? 3. With rising demand and shrinking beef supply, consumers may face higher prices at the meat case. 4. How will you provide the product consumers desire at a price they are willing to pay? 5. 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 6. Traditional ProductionAt 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. 7. 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 by500% 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 8. Beef Cattle Options Cow/calfStocker Finishing 9. Profitability 20% of variation due to productivity 80% of variation due to costs 60% of variation in costs due to feed costs 10. 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 11. Cost reduction Shift in costs occurred through: 1. Adding grazing days (extended grazing) 2. Shift in grazing systems 3. Adjustments in feeding systems 12. Nutrient Requirements of a Beef Cow52% TDN 10% CP2252% TDN 10% CP2052% TDN 8% CP1652% TDN 8% CP ion14g in lv ca re PPost CalvingPregnant and lactatinge -g id Mge stat12 Mi d-10n tio a stMonthD ECV N OT O CP SEAU GJU LJU NAY MAP RAR C H MFEB8 JA NTDN lb/day18 13. Stocking Method ComparisonAnimal Unit Grazing Days/AcAdapted from Emmick, Fox, and Seaney, 19903002852507410200 150 100 50 016-Paddock1731.71254-Paddock32504498Continuous1.1 .76Stocking Method 1 14. 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. 15. 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 16. Can cattle be finished on all forage? Forage finished beef is more variable: flavor tenderness lean color retail shelf life 17. Can cattle be finished on all forage? Discriminated by packers: lower Dressing Percentage increased Cooler Shrink lower Quality Grade 18. 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 19. Performance of cattle fed hay crop silage and dry hay during winter feeding period FeedADG, lbSourceHay0.3-2.0Gallagher, et al., Baker & Buchanan, Baker & KetchenHCS1.3 2.1Baker & Buchanan, Baker & Ketchen 20. Performance of cattle grazing BMR Sorghum Sudan Grass Weight, lbADG, lbSource11562.7Cornell453-5662.4 - 2.8Texas A&M 21. Growth Rate Faster is better for palatability Strive for 2.0 lb/day for at least the last100 days Improves calpain/calpastatin Animals will be ready for market at younger age 22. 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 23. 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) 24. 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) 25. Key Points Multiple and varied benefits of grazing Economic benefits vary Forage can meet nutrient requirements ofcattle of all ages Research needed to manage meat quality Consistent market required 26. 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 27. Carcass Value vs. Meat Quality Commodity market 1. 2.Carcass value Meat qualitySpecialty market 1. 2.Meat quality Carcass value 28. 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, andmarbling. 29. Carcass Physiological Age/Maturity Younger cattle produce beef with: Superior Color Finer Texture Superior FirmnessMaturity ScoreAge In MonthsA9-30B30-42C42-72D72-96E96+ 30. Beef Quality Grades MaturityClick to add text MarblingAAbundant Mod. Abund. Prime Sl. Abund. Moderate Modest Choice Small Slight Select Traces Standard Pract. Dev.BCDCommercialUtilityE 31. Pricing Grid, Value Discovery, 2012 FactorPremium, $/cwtQuality grade Prime+$0.08Choice$0.00Select-$0.08SexHeifer-$0.01Yield gradeYG2+$0.02Weight, lb949-$0.15Dark,NR-$0.18Defect 32. SlightModerateSmallModestSlightly abundantModerately abundant 33. USDA Beef Quality Grades Most DesirableM A R B L I N GUSDA Prime USDA Choice USDA Select USDA Standard USDA Commercial USDA Utility USDA Cutter USDA CannerLeast DesirableBeef 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 34. 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%Prime10.8%Choice26.4%Select59.1%Standard876Extremely Desirable54321Extremely Undesirable 35. 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 36. Sensory Tenderness 7 6 5 4 3 0.040.090.160.230.300.37Fat thickness, in. Shear Force, kg 10 9 8 7 6 5 0.040.090.160.230.300.37Fat thickness, in.Sarcomere Length, mm 21.91.81.7 0.040.090.160.23Fat thickness, in.0.300.37 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) 38. 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 39. Relationship between body condition score and body fat Body Condition ScorePercent Total Body FatSubcutaneous Fat Cover (inches)10.7025.00.00439.30.005413.70.11518.00.19622.30.29726.70.41831.00.54935.30.68Rick 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 40. Effect of Rates of gain vs. Fat in gainFat in gain, %60 50 400.6 kg/d 1.0 kg/d 1.3 kg/d30 20 10 0 200300400Shrunk Body Weight, kg500 41. 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 42. Juiciness MarblingMarbling stimulates the salivary glands and influences the perceived juiciness of beef Insulatory effect during cooking JuicinessFat 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 43. The #1 Reason Consumers Purchase BeefTE! ST A 44. 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 45. 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 46. Tenderness and sensory characteristics by sire breed9.1 5.8 9.2Tend. score 5.6 4.9 5.7Sensory panel Flavor Juiciness score score 4.9 5.3 5.4 4.9 5.4Simmental Gelbvieh Limousin Charolais9.5 10.0 9.5 9.65.6 5.3 5.6 5.54.9 4.8 4.9 4.95.3 5.2 5.3