VanStavern remembered with meat science “mentorship”

by Crystal Meier

November 11, 2020

It was an Elvis moment for Diana Clark: the chance to meet a legend in her field of meat science.

The University of Illinois graduate shared an elevator ride and introductions with Bobby “Dr. Bob” VanStavern.

“He pushed for the focus on quality,” Clark says. Leaner beef was the 1970s trend but “he knew what good quality beef was.”

The Ohio State University (OSU) Extension professor linked cattle production to quality on the plate. He taught students and pros, mentored both and wrote instructional guides, always looking to make beef better for each link in the value chain. Uniting all those needs raised challenges, but it would pay in time.

That road began when Certified Angus Beef ® (CAB®) brand cofounder Mick Colvin entered VanStavern’s office in August 1977, seeking science-based criteria to incentivize higher quality beef for consumers. The details were already in a desk drawer, leading to the brand’s retail launch the next year.

Mentoring still

In meat science as in life, The OSU legend was a listener and champion of others, an unwavering rock with a warm presence. Last February, he passed away at 90.

To honor his friendly leadership style, the brand helped launch an American Meat Science Association (AMSA) Development Council “mentorship” in 2020. Each year, one student who presents beef-quality research at the AMSA Reciprocal Meat Conference will receive a scholarship in his honor, funded by those VanStavern mentored. The first $1,000 recipient will be chosen next year.

“I think it’s fitting to honor Dr. Bob in this way,” says fellow meat scientist and CAB President John Stika. “Dr. Bob believed the data he collected and in the power of a better eating experience, and that’s why research is such a rock-solid part of our specifications still today. He helped so many people—students, colleagues and producers to consumers—be more successful.”

The OSU legend consulted for the first premium branded beef program for 25 years, on the team with Colvin, meat packers, processors, distributors, retailers and chefs. He nurtured and encouraged. He visited their businesses and crafted “Science Behind the Sizzle” training much like Clark presents today.

More than 19,000 partners market the brand in 52 countries now, delivering 6.3 billion servings annually.

“Things Dr. Bob advocated for seem commonplace today, because 40 years later, other programs and breeds are touting quality in the marketplace,” Stika adds. “Because of his solid opinion and willingness to defend it, there’s an entire industry today that gets it.”

Living legacy

John Grimes was one of the students and colleagues VanStavern touched.

Starting in 1979, Grimes went on to work alongside his mentor in Ohio State Extension.

“Bobby was always a students’ professor, like a players’ coach,” Grimes says. “He really cared about his students, wanted you to learn, and was passionate about meat science and what he did for Certified Angus Beef.”

Grimes served as 2020 chairman of the brand’s board of directors. Retired from Extension, he still raises Angus cattle with his wife, Joanie, in Hillsboro, Ohio. It’s easy to see the call for higher quality beef has grown much bigger than one individual.

“The continued success of the Certiﬁed Angus Beef brand documents the need for farmers and ranchers to pay attention to carcass traits,” Grimes adds. “As demand grows, it’s our obligation to continue growing beef cattle to meet consumer needs.”

As for Clark, she and husband Daniel are meat scientists for the brand now, spending their days in the meat lab, on Zoom, researching and at seminars talking with partners, compounding a legacy of success.

“He set the foundation and pointed us in the best direction,” Clark says. “We have the best beef out there. We continue honoring him by challenging ourselves to always make it better.”

Stika’s advice for students: “Believe the data, be persistent, and then share your beliefs with conviction. Dr. Bob always did.”

The West Virginia native earned his bachelor’s from West Virginia University before advanced degrees from OSU. He served two years in the Air Force and earned the rank of Captain before returning to OSU for his Ph.D. in 1960. VanStavern was a beloved family man, noted researcher, speaker and leader in AMSA and other organizations.

Contributions to the mentor scholarship program are made available through AMSA.

Flavor’s secret ingredient

Many factors create a good eating experience, but delivery is key

by Abbie Burnett

October 5, 2020

A thunderstorm rolls in above the parched Great Plains with all the usual effects, but no rain. Disappointment, like a tender steak without flavor.

Just as it takes certain factors to produce a great rainfall, so it goes with flavor. To quell a drought, you need rain. To satisfy consumers, you need flavor. Hint: it’s in the marbling.

Texas Tech University meat scientist Jerrad Legako spoke to that point during the American Society of Animal Science conference earlier this year.

“No question, flavor is at least equivalent to tenderness in importance to the overall eating experience, if not a little more,” he said. That’s partly due to improved beef tenderness since the late 1980s.

But what is flavor, and how do we experience it?

It’s a complex combination, said Legako.

More than taste on the tongue, flavor takes in perceptions of texture and mouth feel. It’s “olfaction,” as the scientist evokes the world of smell, and chemical reactions on the tongue that perceive spiciness. Ambiance and prior experiences complete the impression.

All of these affect perceptions of flavor, but Legako’s team looks for a nuanced key to the best beef-eating experiences.

“With the sensitivity of the olfaction system, volatile compounds are incredibly important for our perceptions of flavor,” he said.

Volatile because they evaporate at room temperature, the organic compounds start as sugars, amino acids, lipids and thiamines, breaking down in beef’s aging, storage and cooking processes.

All but the fats are water soluble and provide basic tastes like sweet, sour, salty and bitter.

Then cookery enters with its Maillard reaction that reduces sugars and proteins to the volatile compounds like aldehydes we enjoy as a robust flavor profile. It’s how such flavors as nutty, roasted, garlicky, whiskey and honey get into browned foods like dumplings, cookies, biscuits, marshmallows—and steaks, of course.

“With time and temperature, you can kind of start to think about this as a chemistry equation,” Legako said. “You’re driving that reaction at different rates just depending on exposure time and the level of heat.”

Lipids, the top contributor, produce flavor through oxidation, he said, citing Australian studies: “Fat is the delivery system.” Among beef cuts with varying fat levels, those with the most would always deliver more of the same volatile compounds.

To be clear, the flavor components fat delivers come not from the fat but from the effects of cookery on amino acids and sugars, Legako said.

“Yet they’re dissolving in that fat, retained in that high-fat sample and being delivered,” he said, “an increased sensory response or a more intense beef flavor through the greater delivery of those volatile compounds.”

Basically, fat serves as a reservoir to deliver flavor.

Legako and team tested this reaction across different cookery types, higher degrees of doneness and different grades of beef. The consistent find? The higher the grade, the better the flavor, increasing linearly from Standard to Prime.

“This is at least some support for marbling content in a way influencing volatile compound delivery,” Legako said.

For a good thunderstorm, you need moisture, instability and a lifting mechanism. For good flavor, you need aging and heat, but it takes ample marbling to really deliver. That starts on the ranch.

Committed students earn CAB Colvin Scholarships

by Kylee Kohls

May 6, 2020

Goal-getters and difference makers, innovators and change curators – today’s students are tomorrow’s leaders. Supporting these creative and intelligent young people, the 2020 Colvin Scholarship Fund awarded $42,000 to 10 who are pursuing degrees in animal and meat sciences across the country.

Honoring the Certified Angus Beef^® (CAB^®) brand co-founder and executive director of 22 years, Louis “Mick” Colvin, the Fund supported 86 recipients to date. Since 1999, the scholarship has carried on Colvin’s legacy of making dreams a reality and inspiring others to do their best.

Recognizing community involvement, commitment to success and progress in the beef industry, the program recently announced 2020 recipients.

Undergraduate awards:

$7,500 – Conner McKinzie Stephenville, Texas – Texas Tech University
$5,000 – Natalie Hawkins, Atwood, Kan. – Oklahoma State University
$5,000 – Kaylee Greiner, Christiansburg, Va. – Texas A&M University
$5,000 – Sarah Bludau, Hallettsville, Texas – Texas A&M University
$3,000 – Emily Glenn, Scott City, Kan. – Kansas State University
$3,000 – Hattie Duncan, Wingate, Ill. –University of Illinois

Graduate awards:

$7,500 – Luke Fuerniss, Loveland, Colo. – Texas Tech University
$3,000 – Samantha Werth, Rancho Buena Vista, Calif. – University of California, Davis
$2,000 – Lindsay Upperman, Chambersburg, Penn. – University of Nebraska-Lincoln
$1,000 – Keayla Harr, Jeromesville, Ohio – Kansas State University

colvin scholarship winner, conner mckinzie, texas tech university

sarah bludau, colvin scholarship winner, Texas A&M University

natalie hawkins, colvin scholarship winner, oklahoma state university

emily glenn, colvin scholarship winner, Kansas State University

kaylee greiner, colvin scholarship winners, Texas A&M University

hattie duncan, colvin scholarship winner, university of illinois

Their essays on ambitious goals and plans to impact the beef business were part of the highly competitive selection process. Applicants were asked to outline a proposal to distinguish CAB from the 90 other USDA-certified programs that use “Angus” labels in marketing.

Texas Tech University animal science junior Conner McKinzie proposed a “relatable” approach to differentiate CAB from others: deploy unique packaging to help tell the story of who the brand’s producers are and how their cattle live.

“Never before has there been a generation more in touch with their emotions and socially ‘awakened’ than there is today,” said McKinzie. “People want to know what they’re buying, where they’re buying it from, who raised it and what was it given in its lifetime.”

He explained how “augmented reality” can be a part of product packaging that could engage a wide variety of customers. “This would be the cornerstone for building authentic relationships with customers new and old.”

McKinzie hopes to earn master’s and doctorate degrees in food science to explore solutions to food waste and the insecurity epidemic. Embodying a service mindset, his goal is “to make our world a more efficient and food-secure place to live.”

Another idea? Kaylee Greiner suggested capitalizing on the relationship with the American Angus Association and the CAB brand to better connect producer to consumer. As the only branded beef program directly affiliated, Greiner said, “Consumers will benefit from an increase in credibility that comes with the association.”

luke fuerniss, colvin scholarship winner, texas tech university

samantha werth, colvin scholarship winner, university of california davis

lindsay upperman, colvin scholarship winner, university of nebraska-lincoln

keayla harr, colvin scholarship winner, kansas state university

The Texas A&M University animal science major said connecting the Angus community and its families to the final product will build consumer trust and bring transparency to the meat case and CAB brand.

Luke Fuerniss’s research agenda says he wants to discover new options for breeding and feeding for more high-quality beef. The Texas Tech doctorate student and graduate-award winner wrote about his project to “clarify targets for genetic selection, inform feedlot management decisions and assess the potential to replace dairy steers in the U.S. beef industry.”

Fuerniss aims to shine a light on using quality beef genetics that support feeding efficiency, sustainability and carcass consistency so that more qualify for premium branded programs.

The Certified Angus Beef Colvin Golf Classic and auction funds the scholarship program, with CAB partners raising more than $91,000 just last year, confident in the future of agriculture and students pursuing lifelong careers.

“This year’s recipients demonstrated a level of engagement, understanding and leadership in the industry rare among many young people who have already entered the industry, let alone those who are still students,” said John Stika, CAB president. “Their list of activities and plans for the future instilled a great deal of confidence that they will make a positive impact on the beef business moving forward.”

Don’t wince

Scientific evidence, economic incentive for sustainability

by Abbie Burnett

April 15, 2020

William Shakespeare wrote about every plot line ever told—betrayal, love, mystery, drama, tragedy, comedy—but he didn’t invent them.

Humanity has been telling the same stories for ages. But as each new generation walks the earth, they find new twists on the same basic tales. And we don’t grow tired of them.

Sustainability is an old story to cattle producers all over the world, but they’re finding new ways to talk about it.

Protein upcycling is a recent term that adds science to the narrative.

“The vast majority of what we do is take a resource that is largely un-utilizable by humans and turn it into something that humans can utilize,” Tryon Wickersham, Texas A&M University ruminant nutritionist, said at the 2020 Cattle Industry Convention in San Antonio.

“Everybody in the room knows that,” he said, “but the majority of people outside of this room don’t know it—so we need to speak to that.”

Humans need essential amino acids, and a shortage can stunt physical or mental development.

Corn, wheat and soybeans contain amino acids and human edible proteins (HEP), but meat provides more per calorie, Wickersham said.

Protein sources’ capacity to meet nutritional needs are ranked by digestible indispensable amino acid scores (DIASS). Animal proteins tally more than 100 DIASS versus corn at 36.8, so you need much less from animal sources to meet requirements, he said.

But at what cost? Are the resources consumed worth what those animals deliver?

No question, really. Wickersham calculated that a 1,000-head cow herd is fed just 24 pounds (lb.) of HEP during an entire year while producing more than 62,000 lb. of HEP.

“For every pound of HEP we put into the system, we get 2,600 lb. out,” he said. Taking that times beef’s protein quality ratio gets to a net protein contribution of 8,000. “Anything greater than 1 means the industry is not competing with humans for human edible protein.”

While it may take 770 lb. of corn to finish a steer, he put that in perspective.

“If I took that corn and I fed it to children, how many children could I feed?” he asked the audience.

Three. That would meet the toddlers’ amino acid requirement, but it would be difficult to consume that many calories from the grain and would lead to obesity.

Through protein upcycling—feeding that HEP to livestock—beef cattle feed 17 children with much fewer calories.

“We’re contributing to society by converting these low-quality sources of protein that humans can’t utilize into something that tastes amazing and does a great job of meeting their nutritional requirements,” he said.

But there are other measures and “sustainability is a balancing act,” Wickersham said. So his team tracks methane production per unit of HEP, too, demonstrating higher quality diets in feedyards help reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

“Anything we do from a production efficiency standpoint generally improves net protein contribution and the ability of cattle to feed people,” he said.

The underlying themes are timeless, but evolving technology and discoveries mean it’s time to share the story again.

Not only are consumers devouring it, but stakeholders are pressing for it, according to Wayne Morgan, Golden State Foods executive and president of the company’s protein products and sustainability branch.

As a $5 billion supplier to more than 125,000 restaurant chains and retail stores on five continents, Morgan feels the pressure sustainability questions are putting on companies like his and those it serves.

“Consumers say a lot of things and they don’t always respond with their wallets the same way they answer questions, but still, we can’t deny they’re an important part of this beef industry. We need to listen to what they’re saying,” Morgan said.

Investors, on the other hand, are responding with their wallets.

One of the biggest investor groups is BlackRock, controlling $7 trillion of the $80 trillion on earth.

“So when they announced they’re going to avoid investments in companies that present high sustainability-related risks, well, that ought to get your attention,” he said. “Anytime a major player in any business makes a shift, everybody else comes along.”

Morgan gets regular calls on Golden State Foods’ sustainability initiatives.

“How are we going to do better? How are we going to make improvements on greenhouse gas emissions? Save water? Reduce packaging?”

The Golden State Foods plan includes logistics, environmental scorecards, third-party audits, pilot projects and new data tracking technologies through IBM Blockchain.

How does he want the cattle community to answer those questions?

For starters, “don’t wince” every time you hear the word sustainability, Morgan advised.

Shakespeare wasn’t the first storyteller and neither are producers.

“We want you to embrace it,” he said, challenging the audience to change the sustainability narrative and make it their own.

Why ‘veggie meat’ won’t replace beef

by Justin Sexten, Ph.D.

Lately the news is overrun with features on how we humans plan to shift away from meat as we’ve always known it to plant protein alternatives. Personally, I refuse to call it meat; vegetables and legumes in a meat-like form perhaps, but meat it is not.

“Lab meat,” despite not being commercially available, continues to garner news coverage with the implication it may be coming soon to a store near you. The troubling aspects of these products are the claims they make against the methods and efficiency we use in raising cattle, and the suggestion that these alternatives are more sustainable than the ruminant model. Recent research offers some compelling arguments that will add to our enjoyment of watching cows and yearlings graze pastures this spring.

At the 2018 Plains Nutrition Conference, Texas A&M University graduate student Jessica Baber presented on evaluating bovine efficiency at converting feed, forage and some human-edible proteins (HEP) to one HEP better known as beef. The work considered all feed sources a beef animal needs from conception to consumption to calculate the return on HEP invested.

Baber’s team found differences in conversion efficiency by segment in the beef supply chain. On the farm or ranch, we may think cows less efficient because they spend all their time in maintenance. But considering they convert otherwise indigestible forage into new calves and milk for those calves, the conversion ratio of HEP out from HEP consumed in this stage was reported at 2,871 to 1. As you might expect, the huge factor in this lopsided
efficiency ratio for the cow-calf segment derives from the fact that it consumes so little HEP.

Since the stocker segment is also forage focused, the HEP conversion ratio is also favorable, but maintenance requirements for a growing calf coupled with greater feed supplement levels common to the stocker phase reduced that ratio to 5.94 to 1. The feedyard is the least efficient in the HEP conversion ratio, generating 0.65 pound of protein (beef) for 1 pound of HEP input, just due to the larger percentage of HEP concentrates used during the finishing phase.

When you look at the entire beef supply chain, the percentage each segment contributes is comparable to the amount of weight gained during the period. The cow-calf segment is responsible for 57% of human edible protein (yes, beef) while stocker makes up 10% and feedyard is 36% of the total.

Overall, the “return on protein invested” is favorable for the beef community, at 1.72 lb. of HEP returned for each pound consumed. Perhaps more importantly, the quality of this protein is enhanced threefold relative to human needs. While we often consider the protein needs of our cow herd, we rarely consider protein needs of the human race. Beef offers a much improved protein and amino acid balance to the human than any one plant or grain input consumed by cattle.

What the Baber study didn’t explore was the diversity and satisfaction of flavors associated with beef, but that goes without saying. Not much need to conduct that research in this context—I have yet to meet an omnivore who will argue that the protein found in cattle feed is tastier than beef itself, especially when it’s the Certified Angus Beef^® brand.

So tune out those persistent lab meat feature stories with their wild assumptions. Instead, as you watch the calves turned out this spring to graze forage only a ruminant can digest, remember you are watching the ultimate value addition of turning sunshine and rain into a high-quality and tasty human-edible protein. The next time you hear some herbivore arguing that plants are a more efficient protein source, relax and quote the data. Beef is the product of superior resource efficiency, making use of two-thirds of the U.S. land that is unable to raise crops and improving the protein quality and taste over feed grains. If that data isn’t compelling enough, then just offer them a scoop of feed for lunch.

No sick animals, ever

Sick animals are what let a veterinarian put food on the table, right? No animals to treat, no paycheck.

Well, that’s not the way Purdue University’s Dr. Mark Hilton sees it.

Rather than visit a ranch or a feedyard, I went on a trip of another kind (via video interview gathered earlier this year) and learned from one of the best.

“I tell my freshman veterinary students their very first lecture, on introduction to the beef industry, my goal as a food animal veterinarian is to never see a sick animal,” he says.

Enter the good doctor’s “dream team.”

As a veterinarian, he is on the roster, but also wants a nutritionist to help produce calves with the best rate of gain. A grazing specialist to promote pasture health. And even a marketing expert, because what good is value-added beef if your returns don’t exceed your input?

All of the above promote healthy and profitable calves from the very beginning.

“The nutrition of the dam when that calf’s in utero starts the clock,” Mark says. “So the placenta develops in the first few weeks of conception, and if the placenta doesn’t develop correctly because of poor nutrition of the dam, that calf is set up for the potential for health problems later on in his life.”

After a calf is born, through weaning, preconditioning and its first days in the feedlot, the veterinarian still stresses nutrition, nutrition, nutrition. Especially for those calves that have never been introduced to high-starch feedstuffs, such as corn silage.

“More cattle are ruined the first two weeks on feed in the feedlot than any other time of their life,” Mark says, quoting a friend in the business. “We know absolutely that subclinical acidosis decreases the immune system. And then that calf with the decreased immune system is the one that gets sick from bovine respiratory disease.”

There are other points to watch: calving environment, preconditioning and the importance of retaining ownership in a feedyard. All of which, put together and including the “dream team,” can help lower sickness rates in cattle, and that’s every producer’s dream.

Now if only I had a “dream team” following me around….

~Hannah

Although summer intern Hannah Johlman was born in northeast Kansas and is now a senior studying ag communications and animal sciences at Kansas State University, she claims Sheridan, Wyo., as her home. Hannah tributes her grandfather and uncle involved in farming and veterinary medicine as her largest ag influencers, inspiring her to the career path she has chosen.

Hot topic, cool solutions

Holistic approach to heat tolerance

by Miranda Reiman

Many challenges in the beef community are tackled with a two-pronged approach: genetics and management.

Heat stress should be no different, says Megan Rolf, Oklahoma State University Extension beef geneticist.

“Certainly from the feedlot side there has been a lot of work done on mitigation strategies, and I think we have a real opportunity in the cowherd to use genetics to work on adapting cows to the different environments,” she says.

The animal scientist outlines some of those possibilities in her research review, “Genetic Selection for Heat Tolerance in Cattle.”

For helping animals through heat events, many of the tips such as shading and altering feeding schedules, apply to cattle on feed. Cowherds already have the distinct advantage of natural shade, like trees, and green grass that absorbs less sun than feedyard pens.

But interventions are also harder to manage at that level.

“Because they’re out on pastures and living on grass, they’re really not in a controlled environment where you can set up sprinklers, for example,” Rolf notes.

That’s why she and other researchers gathered with cattlemen and beef community partners more than a year ago to discuss the role of genetics in heat tolerance.

It all starts at a cellular level and cattle genetics plays a role in heat stress.

“Heat stress responses are controlled by lots of small mutations, spread all throughout the genome,” Rolf says, noting it could be a different fold in the protein due to a slight tweak in an amino acid string. “Just like weights and other production traits, it can be these little things that change a small molecular mechanism, but cumulatively they can have a big impact.”

Much of the current research comes from the dairy production side, because data is easier to gather in those intensively managed herds.

“Heat tolerance is a heritable trait, so genetic selection can be utilized to increase heat tolerance,” the paper notes.

The key to a selection program is defining the right phenotype. Two in the scientific literature are respiration rate (breaths per minute) and body temperature regulation. Both are heritable traits, but there are several practical disadvantages to selection. Respiration rate is very labor-intensive and body temperature regulation requires specialized equipment, Rolf says.

Location also matters. The best bulls for heat tolerance in the Midwest might be different than the best set for the Southeast, for example.

“When you have environmental differences that impact genetics, you have an interaction,” she says. In a favorable environment, there will be one outcome. “When you move those bulls and generate progeny in a really challenging environment, progeny performance might be different.”

Adaptability can be increased by crossbreeding with a tropically adapted breed, or by improving the traits related to tolerance in Bos taurus breeds that have distinct performance and carcass quality strengths.

Results from one paper using simulated data suggested it might require fewer generations to take a high-performance breed and make it more heat tolerant, than to take an already-heat-tolerant breed and make it more favorable for some performance traits.

To make that significant improvement, there are a lot of questions: What are the best and most realistic measures to collect? Would it be easier to use the measures breed associations are already tracking that are collected in different environments? Should a selection index be created to balance selection for heat tolerance and performance traits?

“It’s a high-hanging fruit, but there are some options and possibilities,” Rolf says. “We have to consider thermo-tolerance really comprehensively with other treats. I think we can make progress with improving heat tolerance without making sacrifices in production traits, but we have to consider them holistically.”

Today, particularly in the Southeast, some cattlemen watch hair shedding, which could impact calves later on. One area study showed a 25-pound increase in calf weaning weight from cows that shed their hair quickly.

“There’s no national genetic evaluation but hair shedding is heritable, so a producer could go out and take a look and try to keep replacement females that tend to shed hair earlier in the season,” she says. “That’s a win-win, because you’re getting an advantage in terms of increasing heat tolerance and you get that advantage in weaning weight.”

The Angus Foundation is also funding broader research at the University of Missouri on adapting cattle and genetic selections to better fit nine regions across the U.S., furthering both animal wellbeing and producer profit in concert.

Starting at the beginning would be a boon to the entire system, Rolf says, because improving heat tolerance in herds should create progeny with increased ability to adapt in the stocker and feeding phase.

“Anytime we’re trying to produce a great product for a consumer, it’s a combination of a lot of different factors,” she says. “Everything from the genetics and mating decisions all the way to the management choices you make. Anytime we can do things that reduce the stress on those animals, that’s going to help translate into a good quality product for the consumer.”

The complete research paper is available at www.cabcattle.com/research.

VanStavern remembered with meat science “mentorship”

by Crystal Meier

You may also like

Flavor’s secret ingredient

Many factors create a good eating experience, but delivery is key

by Abbie Burnett

You may also like

Committed students earn CAB Colvin Scholarships

by Kylee Kohls

You may also like

Don’t wince

Scientific evidence, economic incentive for sustainability

by Abbie Burnett

You may also like

Why ‘veggie meat’ won’t replace beef

by Justin Sexten, Ph.D.

You may also like

No sick animals, ever

You may also like

Hot topic, cool solutions

Holistic approach to heat tolerance

by Miranda Reiman

You may also like