as a producer, how do i hit that target?

Post on 13-Jan-2016

26 Views

Category:

Documents

0 Downloads

Preview:

Click to see full reader

DESCRIPTION

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” - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

TRANSCRIPT

As a Producer,How Do I Hit that Target?

Twig MarstonExtension 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” Loin Eye Area 12.0 to 14.0 sq. in. Marbling Small 00 minimum – Modest 00

preferred Genetically “Guaranteed Tender”

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.

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

Producers’ Tool Box

Genetics Nutrition Management Advertisement/Education

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

Marbling, Favor, Juiciness, and Tenderness

Breed composition Diet energy

concentration Length of the finishing

phase

Breed Differences Exist

Black is nota CarcassGene, It is a Dominant Coat ColorGene.

Why Do We Need Marbling?

Flavor Insurance for

Ignorance in Cooking

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

USDA Grade and Endpoint Temperature

202530354045

35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85

Temperature (C)

WBSF (N)

Choice Select

Obuz et al., 2004, KSU

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

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

Tenderness

Injection Site (up to 6” of injection) Castration Over Aggressive Implant Programs

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

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

Nutrition

Grain vs. Grass-fed vs. Forage-fed Weaning Age/Young Age Positive Energy

Balance Propionate vs. Acetate VFA Rumen

Production Creep feeding

Management

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

Effects of Days Fed

0

1

2

3

4

5

0 28 56 84 112 140 168 196

Days on Feed

Marbling YG Fat

May et al., OSU

Sickness Robs Quality Grade

Treating for Sickness Can Influence Quality Grade

No. of treatments0 1 2 or more

No. calves 5,490 574 540Quality score 6.45 6.65* 6.87**

Prime, % 1.86 1.05 0.93Prem. Choice, %27.1* 24.28*† 18.7†Total Choice, % 70.7 62.9 58.0Standard, % 2.6 5.9 10.6

Busby et al., 2004 ISU

Promotion, Development, and Education

Using the Tools in the BoxMeasure Twice – Cut Once

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

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.

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.

top related