Grass Fed Beef Production Ira Mandell

Dept. of Animal & Poultry Science University of Guelph

FarmSmart January 18, 2014

Most consumers perception of how grass-fed beef produced...

North  American  definition  of  “Grass-Fed”  Beef includes animals fed conserved forages (Hay and/or Silage) and not only pasture from weaning through finishing

Producers have numerous opportunities to Forage Finish cattle

Forage Finishing

• Various methods of forage finishing (Pasture, Hay, Silage) can alter the nutritional content as well as consumption patterns

• Various plant species can be used (grasses and legumes) but they can vary in nutrient composition and fatty acid profiles

Why Are Producers Interested in Forage Finishing ?

• Consumer dissatisfaction with feedlot production practices – New markets for a more natural product – Possible higher returns for a more natural product

• Could possibly lower costs of production – On a world scale, more cattle produced exclusively

on forages than with grain • Many prefer flavour of forage- vs. grain-fed beef

• Environmentally friendly?

Why Are Producers Interested in Forage Finishing ?

• Grain-fed beef does not meet nutritional demands of consumers

• High in cholesterol elevating saturated fatty acids consumers

• Forage finishing can alter fatty acid composition of beef: –Decreases saturated fatty acid content of beef – Increases polyunsaturated fatty acid (PUFA)

content of beef – Increases omega-3 fatty acid & CLA contents

of beef

Factors to Consider Regarding Meat Quality with Grain vs Forage Finishing

– Carcass grades

– Fat cover – Color of the lean and fat – Marbling

– Tenderness – Flavor – FA composition of the end product

• More PUFA + CLA in forage-finished beef –Appeals to health conscious consumers

Slight Marbling

Small Marbling

How much marbling do we expect with forage finishing?

Effect of Plant Species on Fatty Acid Composition (Boufaied et al. 2003)

Species C16:0 C18:1 C18:2 C18:3 TFA Annual Ryegrass 4.8 0.9 4.0 20.6 31.8 Orchardgrass 3.9 0.8 3.7 11.0 20.5 Tall fescue 3.7 0.9 2.6 10.8 19.1 Smooth brome 3.3 0.6 3.2 9.4 17.3 Timothy 3.3 1.1 3.6 7.3 16.3 Bluegrass 3.8 1.0 2.9 8.1 16.9 Trefoil 5.1 1.7 4.7 11.6 25.3 Red clover 3.9 1.9 4.6 8.9 20.7 Alfalfa

4.0 1.0 3.6 6.0 16.0

Past  Studies  (early  1980’s)  Evaluating Forage Finishing

• Problems with carcass quality – Dark colored lean, yellow fat, limited marbling

• Problems with eating quality – Tougher, less flavorful beef which included off

flavours (grassy, gamey) – Off flavours often detected by trained taste

panels but not necessarily by consumer panels • These studies often used older cattle (cattle

could be 18 months of age when they started on forage finishing treatments)

Our  Early  Work  in  the  90’s • Focused on alfalfa silage (AS; 96%) finishing

diets compared to high moisture corn (HMC; 68%) based diets

• 1st study used Charolais-X steers (10 months of age) fed to common backfat levels across diets (4, 7, 10 mm)

• 2nd study used Limousin-X steers (10 months of age) fed to common times on feed

• Both studies used breed crosses not traditionally used for forage finishing

How We Assess Beef Quality • Warner Bratzler shear force (WBSF)

determination: instrumental measurement of tenderness – Low values for WBSF desired as this means less force  required  to  “cut”  thru  muscle  fibers

• IMF determination: chemical determination of marbling fat

• Trained taste panel: train individuals to objectively assess beef tenderness, juiciness, and flavor

Growth Performance & Carcass Traits: Charolais-X

Trait

Alfalfa silage (AS)

AS/High moisture corn (HMC)

HMC

SE

ADG, kg/d 0.91 1.24 1.65 0.04 Feed to gain 10.5 7.3 5.5 0.25 Days on feed 155 122 92 9.0 Backfat, mm 7.3 7.4 7.4 0.2

Rib eye, sq cm 70.4 81.4 83.2 2.3 Marbling 4.63 4.83 4.59 0.19 Lean yield 598 580 592 7 Fat yield 167 205 213 6

Lean colour 3.96 3.97 3.97 0.03 Fat colour 3.92 3.96 4.0 0.02

Assessment of Eating Quality: Charolais-X Steers

Trait

Alfalfa silage

(AS)

AS/High moisture corn

(HMC)

HMC

SE Shear force, kg 3.85 4.61 4.60 0.26

Trained Taste panel evaluation (higher rankings desired with the exception of off flavour) Tenderness 7.06 6.78 6.82 0.32 Juiciness 6.07 6.47 6.08 0.24

Beef flavour 6.21 6.66 6.67 0.17 Off flavour 0.98 0.51 0.44 0.13

Many studies will show less intense beef flavour & presence of off flavours with forage finishing

Growth Performance & Carcass Traits: Limousin-X

Cattle fed to HMC attaining

4 mm

Cattle fed to AS attaining 4

mm

AS Fed to 8

mm Trait HMC AS AS HMC AS SE

ADG, kg/d 1.64 1.35 1.14 1.56 1.12 0.13 Backfat, mm 5.5 4.0 5.1 10.3 8.3 0.4

Rib eye area, sq cm 81.6 70.8 82.5 83.1 80.1 3.0 Marbling 3.27 2.55 3.17 4.42 3.57 0.20 Lean yield 61.4 63.5 60.7 54.8 58.1 0.7 Fat yield 19.4 14.6 18.9 27.2 22.3 0.8

Lean colour 3.86 3.71 3.76 4.00 3.96 0.08 Fat colour 3.96 3.95 3.91 3.95 3.89 0.04

Assessment of Eating Quality: Limousin-X

Cattle fed to HMC attaining

4 mm

Cattle fed to AS attaining 4

mm

AS Fed to 8 mm

Trait HMC AS AS HMC AS

SE

Shear force, kg 4.24 4.23 4.26 4.50 4.52 0.26 Trained Taste panel evaluation

Tenderness 5.84 5.29 5.81 5.92 5.37 0.47 Juiciness 5.46 5.74 5.12 5.62 5.01 0.31

Beef flavour 5.53 5.11 5.23 5.66 5.22 0.15 Off flavour 4.33 4.83 5.15 4.27 5.40 0.22

For Off flavour, higher ranking means more pronounced off flavour

Pasture Finishing Trial at New Liskeard: Summer, 2007

• Compare grass versus alfalfa pastures on growth performance, carcass traits, meat quality, and fatty acid deposition

• Include dry lot cattle fed 85% concentrate diet based on whole shelled corn

• 40 Angus and 40 Hereford yearlings – 1/3 of each breed allocated to:

• Grass pasture • Alfalfa pasture • High grain diet

• Cattle slaughtered at CMS in Guelph

Carcass traits assessed at Cargill Meat Solutions using camera

Example of the data that camera provides

Effect of Feeding Regimen on Growth Performance in Hereford + Angus Steers

Feeding Regimen Pasture

Trait Grass Alfalfa Grain P > F Start weight 439.8 445.4 440.8 0.775 Final weight 583.3 594.5 668.2 0.001 ADG, kg/d 1.27 1.33 2.02 0.001 HCW, kg 301.0 310.8 354.3 0.001 Backfat, mm 5.5 8.1 13.1 0.001 Marbling 286.5 291.9 377.2 0.001 %IMF 1.89 2.43 4.02 0.001

Effect of Feeding Regimen on Carcass Traits in Hereford + Angus Steers

Feeding Regimen Pasture

Trait Grass Alfalfa Grain P > F Backfat, mm 5.5 8.1 13.1 0.001 REA, sq cm 76.9 75.7 79.0 .200 Lean yield,% (dissection)

56.6 53.8 49.3 0.001

Retail Yield, % (camera)

72.6 72.5 69.9 0.036

• Fat cover: want thin layer of fat covering the muscles Examine over the hips and ribs

• Pasture finishing has been shown to reduce fat deposition on the carcass • 1 out of 54 carcasses (pasture) graded B1 for

inadequate backfat and(or) marbling

Carcasses discounted for yellow fat Forage finished beef associated with yellow fat color due to high levels of beta carotene in forages

2 out of the 54 pasture finished steers were down graded for yellow fat color (B2 grade)

• Pasture finished beef associated with darker color lean and at times dark cutting – Dark color lean with pasture finishing

• Associated with lower energy stores versus grain-finished cattle – Fed Nutricharge (source of electrolytes & energy ) to all

cattle to reduce stress with 6 hour drive to Cargill • 2 of the 54 (3.7%) pasture finished cattle dark cut;

none of the grain finished cattle dark cut – Grain-finished  beef  in  Ontario,  see  ≈  2%  dark  cutters

Marbling Distribution Across Feeding Regimens

Marbling Distribution (% of carcasses)

A AA AAA Grass

pasture 53.8 34.6 3.8

Alfalfa pasture

45.5 40.9 4.5

High grain 7.1 50 42.9 Based on marbling, some may expect that high

grain feeding will produce more tender beef

Postmortem Ageing Effects on WBSF Values for Hereford + Angus Beef

Feeding Regimen Pasture

PM ageing Grass Alfalfa Grain P > F 7 days 8.99 6.16 6.72 0.001 14 days 6.08 4.45 5.03 0.003 21 days 5.77 4.24 4.73 0.002

Early studies marketed grain and forage finished beef at different times so connective tissue deposition could

decrease tenderness for forage-fed beef This study marketed all cattle after identical times on

feed so age at slaughter not a factor

Forage  Finishing  Trial  at    U  of  G’s  New  Liskeard Research Station and AAFC Kapuskasing: Summers, 2010 to 2012

• Compare method of forage finishing using alfalfa and grass on growth performance, carcass traits, meat quality, and fatty acid deposition – Forage finishing using pasture, forage silage, hay

• Does it matter how the forages are fed? – First time that we know of where the 3 methods of

forage finishing examined simultaneously with beef cattle

• Does forage species matter? – Species differences in nutrient content especially

18:3 n-3

Forage Finishing: Summers, 2010-2011

• 50 Angus & 50 Hereford yearlings per location – 1/4 of each breed allocated to 4 management

regimens for finishing Pasture Forage Silage Hay High grain diet

• Forage finishing using alfalfa at NLARS while reed canary grass used at AAFC Kapuskasing – Includes an identical high grain diet used at both

locations (85% concentrate diet based on whole shelled corn) • Hay component of TMR trucked from NLARS to Kap

Nutrient Composition of Diets at Kap Grass

Pasture Grass Hay

Grass Silage

TMR (Grain)

Net Energy (Mcal/kg) 0.92 0.95 0.86 1.66 Protein % 11.9 9.7 16.2 13.1 NDF % 54.1 53.9 53.0 18.1 Ca % 0.45 0.44 0.43 0.61

Nutrient Composition of Diets at NLARS Alfalfa Pasture

Alfalfa Hay

Alfalfa Silage

TMR (Grain)

Net Energy (Mcal/kg) 0.94 0.81 0.88 1.63 Protein % 18.6 13.4 17.5 12.4 NDF % 37.9 46.5 39.1 21.6 Ca % 1.68 1.52 1.87 0.58

Effects of Forage Finishing on Growth Performance Traits

Management Regimen Grain Pasture Silage Hay P > F Alfalfa at NLARS Gains, kg/d 1.82 1.08 0.96 1.04 0.0001 Feed intake, %BW 2.09 NA 2.02 2.08 0.319 Feed to gain 6.08 NA 9.98 10.73 0.0001

Grass at Kap Gains, kg/d 1.46 0.84 0.85 NA 0.0003 Feed intake, %BW 2.31 NA 1.71 NA 0.010 Feed to gain 8.12 NA 9.73 NA 0.399

Management Regimen by Year Interactions Forage Finishing with Alfalfa

Management Regimen (MR) P-values Trait Year Corn Pasture Silage Hay Y x MR ADG, kg/d

2010 1.73 0.97 0.92 0.72 < 0.001 2011 1.87 1.15 0.99 1.41

DMI, kg/d 2010 11.1 N/A 10.3 9.1 < 0.001 2011 10.6 N/A 8.9 11.3

DMI, % BW

2010 2.14 N/A 2.13 1.96 < 0.001 2011 2.02 N/A 1.88 2.26

Feed to Gain

2010 6.56 N/A 10.2 12.9 < 0.001 2011 5.64 N/A 9.8 8.4

Effects of Forage Finishing on Carcass Traits

Management Regimen Grain Pasture Silage Hay P > F Alfalfa at NLARS HCW, kg 348.9 301.1 278.2 285.0 0.0001 Backfat, mm 15.7 6.9 6.8 7.3 0.0001 Rib eye area, sq cm 78.6 73.0 75.5 71.7 0.017 Lean yld, % 56.3 61.8 61.6 61.5 0.0001 Grass at Kap HCW, kg 347.7 285.4 284.4 NA 0.001 Backfat, mm 14.9 5.1 7.2 NA 0.011 Rib eye area, sq cm 80.9 74.5 73.3 NA 0.072 Lean yld, % 55.7 62.4 61.9 NA 0.001

# B Grades for Forage Finished Cattle

• Alfalfa – B1: 1 (silage) – B4: 6 ( 2 fed hay; 3 fed silage; 1 pasture

fed)

• Grass – B4: 4 (all pasture fed)

Effects of Forage Finishing on Beef Quality

Grain Pasture Silage Hay P > F Alfalfa at NLARS Shear force, kg 3.61 3.97 3.93 3.98 0.274 Tenderness 6.89 6.33 6.56 6.15 0.015 Juiciness 5.99 5.71 5.93 5.47 0.017 Flavour 6.58 6.37 6.19 6.58 0.007 Grassy flavour 1.24 1.51 1.17 1.18 0.015 Grass at Kap Shear force, kg 4.31 3.64 4.11 NA 0.083 Tenderness 5.86 6.51 6.55 NA 0.094 Juiciness 5.38 5.14 5.53 NA 0.307 Flavour 6.49 6.03 6.11 NA 0.006 Grassy flavour 1.02 1.40 1.46 NA 0.027

Effects of Forage Finishing with Alfalfa on Fatty Acid Composition (%/ 100 g)

Grain Pasture Silage Hay P > F Linolenic acid 0.30 1.66 1.26 1.30 0.0001 EPA 0.15 0.55 0.48 0.48 0.0001 DHA 0.07 0.13 0.13 0.11 0.001 CLA cis 9 trans 11 0.48 0.54 0.44 0.42 0.0001 CLA trans 10 cis 12 0.06 0.08 0.09 0.08 0.005 SFA 47.8 47.6 49.2 48.5 0.176 MUFA 44.7 40.5 40.5 40.7 0.037 PUFA 7.6 11.6 10.0 10.7 0.002 n-3 fatty acids 1.71 4.36 3.66 3.68 0.0001 n-6:n-3 ratio 3.54 1.71 1.78 1.97 0.0001 PUFA:SFA ratio 0.16 0.25 0.20 0.22 0.003

Effects of Forage Finishing with Grass on Fatty Acid Composition (%/ 100 g)

Grain Pasture Silage P > F Linolenic acid 0.46 1.47 1.18 0.0001 EPA 0.22 0.62 0.45 0.0001 DHA 0.06 0.12 0.09 0.046 CLA cis 9 trans 11 0.34 0.52 0.48 0.0001 CLA trans 10 cis 12 0.06 0.08 0.06 0.472 SFA 48.8 48.2 50.8 0.003 MUFA 43.7 39.8 40.8 0.0001 PUFA 7.4 11.8 8.3 0.0001 n-3 fatty acids 1.85 4.11 3.25 0.0001 n-6:n-3 ratio 3.35 2.07 1.70 0.0001 PUFA:SFA ratio 0.15 0.25 0.16 0.0001

Beef Finished Exclusively on Forages

• Predominant mode for beef production in the world today

• Greater concentrations of 18:3, PUFA, and CLA than grain-finished beef

• This product is condemned in parts of the world due to concerns for carcass and eating quality and shelf life

• Flavor of this product preferred in many parts of the world over grain-fed beef – Some prefer wild, gamey taste – Meal preparation will influence if an off-flavour can

be detected

Conclusion • Not surprising, grain-fed cattle outgained

pasture-fed cattle along with heavier carcasses, higher DP, more fat (backfat and IMF) and less retail meat yield

• Study to study differences whether grain finishing improved tenderness vs forage finished products – Tenderness differences most likely can not be

detected by consumers • Do see better beef flavour scores with grain

finished cattle

Conclusion • This study processed cattle at a major

packing plant which does not brand pasture-finished beef – Run the risk for off grades when marketing

these cattle at a plant where carcass returns based on carcass grades

• Production of niche market beef requires producers to evaluate how their product is processed and marketed to attain best possible returns

Acknowledgements • Funding from OCA via the Growing

Forward Program & CCA’s Beef Cattle Research Council

• AAFC & U of G/OMAFRA for access to research facilities

• Staff at the New Liskeard & Kapuskasing research stations

• Cargill Meat Solutions Guelph • U of G Meat Laboratory

Acknowledgements • Research team which included:

– Robert Berthiaume formerly with AAFC – Carole Lafreniere from UQAT – U of G personnel including Cheryl Campbell, Lyle Sheperd, Lisa Pivotto – Retired U of G Beef researcher, Jock Buchanan-

Smith

Questions ?