fbpx

feedyard cattle in the sun

SCIP to the premiums

 

by Jen Gillespie and Steve Suther

November 11, 2011

First results from ongoing research show an average carcass-value advantage of $134 per head for Angus-sired calves compared to those with bos indicus or Brahman influence.

The Southern Carcass Improvement Project (SCIP) was initiated in 2009 as a collaboration between Kansas State University, Virginia Tech and Gardiner Angus Ranch. Its goal was to measure the impact that a single generation of high-quality Angus genetics can have on feedlot and carcass performance when mated to Brahman-crossed cattle commonly found in the Southern U.S.

“It had to show the effect in one generation to have much impact and gain many believers,” said Mark Gardiner, the Ashland, Kan., Angus breeder who shared SCIP progress at his family’s bull sale in September.

The idea came up while talking with longtime friend Tom Brink, senior vice president of Five Rivers Cattle Feeding, about beef quality in the South, where many herds were selected for adaptability with little emphasis on carcass traits.

Brink had bought many calves and feeders from those states, and he knew a huge share of them hit a genetic roadblock to marbling. Gardiner had sold many bulls into those states and saw what a difference genetic improvement was making for his customers. Both men saw the USDA Choice percentage climb in Kansas packing plants while Texas plants lagged.

“This is a major problem, yet there is no broad-scale effort to improve quality grades in Southern-origin cattle,” Brink noted at the Gardiner sale. “In fact, the industry problem is rarely even discussed, although its annual cost is more than $200 million, not counting the lost beef demand due to lack of sufficient high-quality beef.”

Three years earlier he and Gardiner wondered, what if a demonstration project could be set up in with a major university to show the added value in breeding to an Angus alternative? They talked to Virginia Tech animal scientists Dave Notter and Bill Beal, geneticist and breeding systems experts, respectively. Gardiner would fund the research if a scientifically valid structure could be set up.

As Beal recalled, “Tom proposed that we identify a group of cows typical of Southern herds and breed them either to typical Southern bulls or high-growth, high-carcass Angus bulls. The question was how to do it.”

He liked the idea of “demonstration” as opposed to clinical study.

“We could all sit back and go to the Journal of Animal Science, where there are published studies that used bulls with different marbling levels, and they show that what you see is, in fact, what you get in carcass merit. Okay,” Beal said, “but those were controlled studies that some meat scientist did at a university.” Such results still seemed theoretical to real-world ranchers.

A demonstration project may not impress animal scientists, but it had to pass their scrutiny.  The target had to be commercial ranchers who had adapted their herds to challenging Southern environments, but who doubted whether Angus genetics could make a difference in their progeny.

After ruling out multiple herds and locations for adding too many wild cards to the project design, Beal and Notter saw the Gardiner embryo transfer (ET) program as part of the solution: All that was needed were Southern donors.

Simplicity may have allowed some elbow room, but skeptics are universal. “We couldn’t have either ranchers or animal scientists look at the study and say, ‘well obviously it worked because they picked those donors or those bulls.’ We really went to great lengths to be representative and then utilized random mating of bulls to the Southern donors,” Beal explained.

Igentity® DNA profiling helped minimize concerns about selection of specific individuals, too, he added. “We characterized those cattle, cows, bulls and calves, so you could see which ones had marbling potential.”

Consulting with Notter, 22 representative cows were purchased and relocated to the Gardiner Ranch for the ET program; 12 of them produced calves from random mating to sires from eight bos indicus breeds or three Angus bulls. They were born in spring 2010, raised as contemporaries, weaned and fed together through harvest.

Carcass data on 57 of those Angus- or “Southern”-sired calves shows big differences, although leanness was similar as measured by yield grades. Two-thirds of the Angus-sired group graded Choice, but none of the non-Angus graded above Select.

On average, the Angus-sired group finished with higher marbling scores, larger ribeye areas, more backfat and heavier carcass weights compared to the Southern-sired group. The value of those differences added up to $134 gross and a net $92-per-head economic advantage after accounting for feed costs.

The Angus sire effects for the first-year calves included a 103-point marbling advantage—more than a full USDA quality grade—along with nearly another inch of ribeye area and 61 more pounds of carcass.

Larry Corah, Certified Angus Beef LLC (CAB) vice president for supply, said demand for high-quality beef is running high, even as the supply tightens and quality premiums increase. CAB partners sold more than 807 million pounds in 2011, setting a fifth consecutive annual sales record, despite a stagnant to recession-affected economy.

“This project and its results speak volumes about the opportunity just waiting for ranchers in an area not known for high quality to cash in on the millions of dollars in annual premiums paid for quality beef,” Corah said.

And the project continues with 56 SCIP calves born in 2011 backgrounded at Gardiner Angus Ranch.

You may also like

Making Sense of Supply, Pricing and Navigating the Market

Making Sense of Supply, Pricing and Navigating the Market

Amid anticipated shifts in cattle supply and evolving market dynamics, CAB remains well-positioned to navigate the beef sales road ahead. Clint Walenciak addressed how producer profitability, strategic specification adjustments, and resilient demand will help stabilize the brand’s beef supply chain through herd size and pricing shifts in 2025 and beyond.

Every Issue Has Its Moment

Every Issue Has Its Moment

Progress happens when people are at the table, engaged and committed to action. With a vested interest in the industry’s future, CAB is leaning in on conversations surrounding evolutions in meat science.

DNA: feedlot strategies

 

by Miranda Reiman

November 3, 2011

Recently, animal scientist John Wagner and his team set out to answer one question: “Is there potential application for DNA technology in the feedlot?”

The research completed by Colorado State University (CSU) says, “Yes.”

“We know precious little about the cattle when we go into a feeding situation with them,” Wagner says. “We all know that millions of dollars have been spent to map the bovine genome and tools have been developed to help with selection of breeding stock.”

Yet adoption of DNA technology has been somewhat limited to purebred producers.

The CSU team collected DNA from 1,100 yearling steers, selected 360 of them based on results and then sorted those into one of four groups: low tenderness with low marbling, low tenderness with high marbling, high tenderness with low marbling, or high tenderness with high marbling.

Harvest results showed the accuracy of the DNA forecast.

The group that was predicated as lower quality had an average marbling score of 437. That’s compared to a 464 score for the high marbling group.

“That’s almost a third of a quality grade,” says Larry Corah, vice president of supply for Certified Angus Beef LLC (CAB). “That’s significant when you look at the value difference between grading Choice over Select or premium Choice versus Choice.”

That high marbling group graded 80% Choice and higher, while only 64% of the low marbling group met that threshold.

‘This proves that DNA technology works to sort cattle into predictable outcome groups,” Corah says.

The low and high tenderness groups backed that up. Using the industry standard Warner-Bratzler shear force test, the low tenderness group had a higher score, 3.92, compared to more desirable 3.59 rating for the high tenderness group.

Wagner suggests the biggest limitations to widespread use right now are turnaround time and cost, but some producers might already be set up to easily implement it.

“There are some producers who are on a revaccination program or who are doing a delayed implant program,” he says, noting that they could get samples upon receiving and re-sort cattle during that second trip through the chute.

He envisions a point in time when there will be chute-side tests.

“That would have been unheard of several years ago, but I think the sky’s the limit as far as what technology will be available to us in the future,” Wagner says.

Another key will be reaping a reward for the investment.

“You’d have to get some kind of value-based marketing program to receive benefits,” he says.

Corah suggests it might help determine which cattle are sold on a grid rather than a flat, live price. It could also assist with management decisions made on a pen-by-pen basis.

Wagner says feedlot-oriented DNA test applications aren’t limited to feeders. Cow-calf operators might be able to use the technology as a marketing tool.

“They could test cattle and put together packages of high-marbling or high-tenderness calves,” he says. Of course they’d face the same issues of time and money, and would also need to be rewarded for that extra information.

“It’s an exciting age, to think of all we can learn about cattle before harvest,” says Corah, who expects to see more commercial-level DNA tests made available in 2012. “This just shows DNA is one more tool that producers can add to their toolbox.”

The research was funded in part by the by The Beef Checkoff and commissioned by the industry’s Joint Product Enhancement Committee.  Merck Animal Health and Merial Limited also provided financial support.

You may also like

Making Sense of Supply, Pricing and Navigating the Market

Making Sense of Supply, Pricing and Navigating the Market

Amid anticipated shifts in cattle supply and evolving market dynamics, CAB remains well-positioned to navigate the beef sales road ahead. Clint Walenciak addressed how producer profitability, strategic specification adjustments, and resilient demand will help stabilize the brand’s beef supply chain through herd size and pricing shifts in 2025 and beyond.

Every Issue Has Its Moment

Every Issue Has Its Moment

Progress happens when people are at the table, engaged and committed to action. With a vested interest in the industry’s future, CAB is leaning in on conversations surrounding evolutions in meat science.

The genetic effect

Over time, selection for beef quality makes a difference

By Miranda Reiman

Genetic change in the cattle business is a slow and steady process, but evidence shows it’s happening, and that it’s positive for beef quality.

A recent research review notes, “Quantifying the genetic impact is difficult, but it is definitely a factor in the trend toward higher quality grade.”

That paper, written by Larry Corah and Mark McCully of Certified Angus Beef LLC (CAB), examines the factors that have driven quality grades up, ending a 30-year decline. By this summer 60.1% of cattle in the nation’s harvest mix were grading Choice, a 7.5-percentage-point leap in just two years.

Scientists estimate 1 to 1.5 points can be directly traced to the increased use of Angus genetics, an improvement in that breed’s natural marbling ability and a boost in the number of cattle that show Angus influence.

Sally Northcutt, genetic research director for the American Angus Association, says the breed has focused on marbling.

“When you look at the genetic trend for marbling from the 1980s to now, we see about a third of a marbling score improvement,” she says. At 0.26 by mid-2009, the marbling EPD (expected progeny difference) for Angus bulls had moved up 9 points in a decade (Figure 1), after taking 25 years to move that far since its inception.

“We’ve had a huge progression of the selection tools to allow us to place pressure on marbling,” Northcutt says. The Association has more than 85,000 carcass and a million ultrasound measures to evaluate each week.

“It’s not enough with Angus breeders to just have the cattle. They like to characterize those cattle for different traits,” she says. “Marbling is definitely a key player in trait selection and breeding programs. That funnels through to their customers.”

The Angus customer base has been steadily building, too.

According to a 1995 survey, 39% of all bulls used that year were Angus. By 2008, that number was 55%, and 70% of producers said they used at least some Angus bulls.

“The breed has inherently good quality and produces very desirable marbling genetics,” Northcutt says.

Data from Iowa’s Tri-county Steer Carcass Futurity (TCSCF), which tracks breed makeup, shows the impact of selection. Barely half of the black-hided cattle with less than a quarter Angus genetics in the TCSCF database graded Choice. That’s compared to those with three-quarters Angus breeding , which went 86.2% Choice and Prime. Certified Angus Beef ® (CAB®) qualifiers more than tripled as Angus makeup increased (Figure 2).

Northcutt says that effect is amplified today: “We’ve moved beyond just supplying herd sires with a quality impact.” She says retaining females builds ever more Angus influence into producers’ cowherds.

From 2000 to 2008, there was a 12-point jump in the share of black-hided cattle in the U.S. harvest mix, from 48% to 60%. TCSCF data helps explain the trend, showing an 18-point advantage in the percentage of Choice or higher grade from black-hided cattle compared to their non-black contemporaries.

All of that combines for a partial explanation of the beef quality grade surge.

To read “Quality Grade: What is driving the recent upswing?” in its entirety, visit https://cabcattle.com/about/research

No easy route

B3R wins CAB Commitment to Excellence Award

 

by Miranda Reiman

The Bradley family has never been one to take the path of least resistance.

That spirit was first illustrated when Minnie Lou (Ottinger) Bradley, family matriarch, headed to Oklahoma State University as the first female animal science student and member of the livestock judging team.

Decades later, daughter Mary Lou left the Bradley 3 Ranch to pursue an accounting career – only to return with the determination it takes to forge a success in the meat business. The B3R Country Meats packing plant was built in nearby Childress, Texas, and Mary Lou was traveling across the country marketing “Beef like ranchers feed their families.”

That resolve to always produce what the customer wants, from the bull buyer to the consumer earned B3R Certified Angus Beef LLC (CAB) recognition. Minnie Lou, along with Mary Lou and her husband James Henderson, accepted the 2009 Seedstock Commitment to Excellence award at the brand’s annual conference in Scottsdale, Ariz., Sept. 18.

The family has a long history with CAB, first as American Angus Association members who ultimately own the brand and later through B3R Country Meats. In 2004, the plant was licensed as the first Certified Angus Beef ® (CAB®) Natural producer, giving consumers the highest quality choice in that category.

Shortly after Minnie Lou and Bill Bradley were married they bought the first 3,500 acres and ran yearlings on it. In 1958 they purchased their first registered Angus stock and began building to the 12,500 acres and more than 400 cows in place today.

“We are trying to fit the cattle to the environment,” Mary Lou says.

Minnie Lou adds, “You don’t have a customer if he’s not going to make money off your product. So we strive to produce that kind of bull. Not only will he have some longevity to him, but after he gets that cow bred we want that cow to calve easily. Then we want him to just pop and start growing.

“Then, we want an endpoint out of the feedlot where he will marble and finish up,” she says.

They select for fertility by requiring the cows to rebreed in a 60-day window, using DNA as a tool that lets them use several sires per pasture.

“Anything that’s open at preg-check we ship,” James says. “It seems everybody is so worried about quick turnover, but for a commercial guy, there’s nothing that makes him more money than fertility and longevity.”

They lead Texas in the number of Pathfinder cows (21) in the 2009 Association report. That shows they’re committed to fostering good females.

The family has a history of educating their customers.

“Because we had so many years in the meat business and we gave people a lot of information, then drug them through the cooler and made them look at their cattle, we have real sophisticated buyers,” Mary Lou says. “We turned that data into information.”            

Looking to the future they say they will continue to place importance on all traits in balance, while being sure they please that ultimate customer.

Genetics and marbling in beef

Texas scientist finds variation affects marbling, from research design to cattle type and management

 

by Steve Suther

Marbling drives value-based beef marketing. How to infuse enough of this quality-grade potential into herd genetics – or even how much is enough – has remained something of a mystery.

That’s partly because of the wide range of research results and advice, along with a segmented supply chain and erratic market signals.

Producers selecting for quality may already know marbling is “moderately to highly heritable,” averaging near 45%. Heritability is the part of the variance in an observed trait after allowing for environmental factors.

Looking at the upward trend in marbling expected progeny differences (EPDs), it’s clear genetic selection is effective. But one advisor says back away from marbling selection because you have plenty, while another says you should maximize it while avoiding single-trait selection.

Until now there was no comprehensive review of research into the genetics of marbling, but Texas A&M geneticist Andy Herring recently completed the white paper, “Genetic aspects of marbling in beef carcasses.” The literature review encompasses 52 studies spanning several decades.

Among those were comparisons of high- and low-marbling-EPD registered Angus bulls bred to composite cows at the USDA Meat Animal Research Center. The top bull EPDs were +.33 and the low bulls were -.35 in the 1995 Angus Sire Summary, but fat thickness EPD was similar for all. Progeny were fed and harvested in two groups 60 days apart.

Calves from high-marbling bulls averaged 52% and 96% Choice, compared to 17% and 78% Choice for the progeny of low-marbling EPD bulls, while Yield Grades did not vary significantly. Further analysis suggested the higher marbling progeny also may have a faster rate of marbling deposition.

Despite the diverse results, research demonstrated selection can increase marbling ability without increasing external fat or causing detrimental effects on other feedlot or ranch traits.

Although the marbling heritability average estimate is .45, the reports range from .12 (barely worth the selection effort) to .88, or 88% effective selection. The amount of genetic variation itself varies, and the relationship of marbling to other traits is probably not constant across all breeds, Herring says (see Table).

The variability in external fat appears to be larger on average than that for marbling with heritability estimates from .02 to .86 across several studies.

“Fat thickness is thought of as the result of feeding management, but there are significant genetic differences when cattle are subjected to the same environment,” Herring says.

Phenotypic correlation estimates between marbling and fat thickness have ranged from slightly negative to moderately positive.

“That means fat thickness phenotype alone may only describe 0.64% to 9% of the variation in marbling,” he explains. Ironically, most cattle are marketed on quality grids based on estimated back-fat thickness.

Marbling-related research varies in methodology of carcass end-point constant, from age to weight to fat-thickness basis. Most genetic research uses an age-constant basis, while nutritional studies favor a fat constant one. Herring calls for more research looking at both in the same trial, “especially as age verification programs become more popular.”

He says the industry needs to find better ways to evaluate and incorporate herd and calf genetic and management factors when evaluating marbling ability and other carcass traits.

“Several reports document the influence of animal age at harvest, age of dam, effects of creep feeding, individual year-effects, and other traits that may be viewed today as ‘nuisance’ variables,” Herring says. “They are generally not known on most feedlot cattle, yet variation in these types of effects could mask genetic differences if not documented.”

Feeders who must make the most of unknown genetics have little chance at efficiency, he points out. “Cattle of differing genetics are fed and managed the same because their potential is ineffectively projected based on appearances or stereotypes,” Herring says.

“The main point about cattle that grade Prime is that they have the genetic ability to marble, and it is not because they are fat,” he says, noting results of three National Beef Quality Audits.

As producers apply selection pressure to get a few more Primes and pounds, cows change. Herring says there’s a shortage of research, but mature cow weight and height may be lowly, negatively correlated with marbling score. Cow body condition score seems not correlated with marbling, slightly with carcass weight and moderately with fat thickness of steers.

“Within beef production systems, we must always consider the relationships between cowherd and end-product traits,” he concludes.

For detailed tables and bibliographies of the original studies, see Herring’s white paper at http://www.cabpartners.com/news/research/index.php.