Quality Practices

Quality Practices Using Grids, etc.

by Gene Rouse, Ph.D., and Daryl Strohbehn, Ph.D., Department of Animal Science, Iowa State University

Grid Definition

Grids are a method for packing plants to communicate value differences between cattle which vary in carcass weight, quality grade, yield grade and other carcass defects such as dark cutters and genetic background.

Selling cattle on a grid will result in the value being determined on each individual animal in the lot sold. Premiums and discounts are paid as the value of the individual animal varies from base price. Base prices are determined by various methods by individual packers.

Beef Quality and Marketing

Today’s beef industry is increasing its concentration and efforts on improvement of carcass quality, red meat yield and eating characteristics. Both the 1991 and 1995 National Beef Quality Audits summarized that the number one leverage point to improve competitiveness and regain market share was to improve beef quality, uniformity and consistency. Additionally, the sectors that sell beef products indicated that improvements were needed in tenderness, palatability and a reduction in excess trimmable fat.

Currently, and in the foreseeable future, the beef industry is establishing carcass value based on USDA quality grade, yield grade and whether the carcass fits into an acceptable weight range. In the future, tenderness and other eating characteristics are likely to be considered in establishing an end product value.

Key quality grades used in the marketing of fed beef today are USDA Prime, Upper 2/3s Choice, Low Choice, Select and Standard (or No Roll). Each of these quality grades have differing amounts of intramuscular fat called marbling. The degrees of marbling associated with the aforementioned quality grades are Abundant, Moderate, Modest, Small, Slight and Traces.

Yield grade, which is evaluated by the USDA Federal Grader, is an estimate of percent red meat yield from the four primals. The yield grade call is determined by using four factors which influence retail product yield: 13th rib fat cover, ribeye area at the 13th rib, hot carcass weight, and estimated percent kidney, pelvic and heart fat. A yield grade number of 1 to 5 is assigned to the carcasses as they are evaluated with 1 having the highest red meat yield and 5 the lowest. In the beef harvesting industry, these yield grades are only called to the nearest whole number; however, with ribeye area and fat cover measurements, yield grade can be calculated to the nearest tenth. The associated retail cut yield differences with the mid point of each yield grade is shown in the table above right.

Hot carcass weight is also a consideration in determining beef carcass value. Currently most harvest facilities desire carcasses that fall in a range of 550 lb. to 950 lb. Because this wide range in carcass weight produces a large variation in retail cut size, it is expected in the near future, that the range in acceptable carcass weight will likely narrow. Carcasses larger than 900 lb. tend to give retail cut sizes that are too large or overfat and those under 600 lb. are on the opposite end of the spectrum. Additionally, carcasses under 550 lb. do not give sufficient pounds of carcass yield to offset the cost of harvest and fabrication, which average about $80 to $90 per head, or, for that matter, offset production costs.

Eating characteristics are now being considered in the evaluation processes. The beef industry is especially interested in characterizing tenderness and is looking at various methodologies to accomplish this at harvest facility speeds. One early methodology is a system developed by scientists at the U.S. Meat Animal Research Center, Clay Center, NE. This system involves removing a 1” rib steak, image analysis for red meat yield, trimming the steak free of fat cover and bone, rapid cooking, sample removal for shear force measurement, and computer evaluation of the data for classifying the carcasses into tenderness groups. A schematic of the harvest facility system is shown. One concern with this objective system is the relationship between tenderness evaluation at 24 hours post-mortem and after 14 days of aging.

Recent work reported by Miller, et. al., at Texas Tech University, indicated that consumers can detect differences in carcasses that have been classified for tenderness and are wiling to pay for that added tenderness. In a project that involved 734 consumers, the consumer evaluated samples from steaks that had been classified as tender, intermediate and tough. The consumers were able to segregate the beef into tenderness threshold groups and could detect changes similar to those found by shearing instruments.

Miller and coworkers further investigated whether these consumers were willing to pay more per pound for a guaranteed tender steak at retail. Seventy-eight percent of the 734 consumers indicated yes, they would pay more. The value difference between the tender and toughest classification was $.56 per lb., while between tender and intermediate classification was $.27 per lb. The retail steak value differences found in their study would result in the opportunity for a premium to be paid to a guaranteed tender carcass of $76.16 vs. the toughest classification. Miller’s study showed that consumers can determine value differences of different beef tenderness threshold classifications and that the beef industry could implement a tenderness-based sorting system that reflects the value of tenderness to the consumer at retail.

Quality with Cutability: The Story of 985 vs. 612 — Industry Challenge

The battle cry for the beef industry since the National Beef Quality Audit has been “improve quality and consistency.” While this objective is important to gaining market share for the beef industry, do not forget that breeding and feeding programs also need to address the inefficiencies caused by excess waste fat. The good news is that we have genetics that can do both, but just not in high enough frequency.

At the 1997 National Angus Conference held at Iowa State University, a vivid reminder of excess waste fat was demonstrated. Iowa State University staff members with the assistance of their ultrasound technology, identified two pairs of steers for this event. All were videotaped and one out of each pair was harvested and then processed into closely trimmed retail cuts.

1.6 vs. 3.6 Yield Grade

Steer #612 pictured, represents a steer that is very close to an average steer certifying for the Certified Angus Beef program. His quality grade was Average Choice and his calculated yield grade was 3.6.

Table I. Carcass Data Comparison

USDA Quality Grade Average Choice Average Choice

The other steer pictured, #985, also made Average Choice, but was heavier muscled and leaner in fat cover by 1/2 inch. Both steers were within 30 lb. of each other in live weight and 12 lb. in carcass weight. The greatest difference in the two steers was that #985 had the ability to marble and grade with considerably less fat cover than #612.

For the National Angus Conference, both steers were fabricated into closely trimmed retail cuts, 80/20 trim, trimmable fat and bone. Table II. shows the comparison of the percent retail cuts and 80/20 trim from the four subprimals, namely the chuck, rib, loin and round. Table III. shows the differences in dollar yield between the two steers.

In the fabrication process, the #985 steer had 14 percent less fat trim from the rib and a whopping 21 percent less fat trimmed from the loin. All retail cuts were priced to reflect prices currently utilized in Midwest retail stores. Fat and bone were valued at $.12 per pound.

$212 Value Difference

The heavier muscled, leaner #985 steer had large advantages in retail dollar value. Table III. shows that #985 was superior by $212 in total carcass value. Table III. shows that $83 of this total ($294 vs. $211) comes from differences in round yield, while $55 is accounted for in the loin subprimal yield (see Table III.).

Table II. Retail Cut & 80/20 Trim Yield from Primals After Fabrication

Table III. Summary of Retail Product Value

Value Based Marketing and Grid Pricing

Today’s finished beef marketing system is moving towards selling based on individual animal carcass performance. In essence, this type of marketing is an extension of what the industry used to call quality and yield grade marketing. However, the major difference in today’s marketing climate is that the packing industry is willing to establish and pay premiums for cattle that perform with either above the set standards for quality and yield grades or discount cattle that perform below their set of standards.

During the mid and late 1990s, high quality grading beef has had higher demands in the hotel and restaurant sectors, thus pushing packers to offer premiums for cattle that have quality grades in the upper 2/3s of Choice and Prime. At the same time, they do not want over finished cattle with excess fat trim, thus they are putting substantial discounts on Yield Grade 4 and 5 cattle. However, for every general trend there is an exception. There are some niche markets that call for cattle with almost no visible fat. These niche markets want cattle with little to no external fat and low amounts of marbling; in other words, USDA Standard and Select.

Most grid pricing systems in the late 1990s reward cattle in a manner similar to the grid shown below. Premiums of $3 to $5 per cwt. of carcass weight are offered for upper 2/3s Choice cattle and premiums of $6 to $10 per cwt. are offered for Prime grading cattle. Typically Select grading cattle are discounted from $3 to $12 per cwt. depending on the supply of Selects, and Standard grading carcasses are discounted from $20 to $30 per cwt. Yield grade is also utilized in the pricing system in grids.

Example Grid Value — Late 1990s

Producers need to realize that with grid marketing, there are potential rewards, but there are also other risks which need to be considered. In this market structure, the risk of quality and yield grades in the cattle, fall back to the producer. Unless the producer has a historical database on his cattle to analyze and draw marketing conclusions from, he is likely to be accepting greater risk than if live marketing his production.

Besides quality grade, yield grade and weight variation risk, there are other quality anomalies which can occur. For instance, it is not unusual for dark cutters to occur in a group of cattle. The 1995 National Beef Quality Audit indicated that three percent of cattle showed some degree of dark cutting and this distracts from the ability to market the end product. Other off quality type of carcasses are what the industry calls “blood shots.” These cattle have likely experienced stress and/or trauma either just prior to, or during harvest. This trauma can cause either muscle capillary damage or incomplete bleed-out resulting in product that cannot be utilized in retail case display, but rather the product has to be directed toward further processed type products.

A final risk area that producers accept in grid marketing are condemned carcasses and those that have bruise trim. Condemnation of the carcass is generally due to some major health problem that has rendered the carcass not fit for human consumption. Federal inspectors in the harvest line constantly monitor the harvest process and make the decision of condemnation. Many times these problems can be completely unnoticed when the animal is alive, but will show up once the animal is harvested. In fiscal year 1996, the Food Safety and Inspection Service condemned .48 percent of over 37 million cattle inspected. A preponderance of these would take place in adult animals rather than finished cattle; however, some condemnation does take place with finished cattle.

Bruise trim occurs quite frequently in cattle. Many times inappropriate load out facilities can cause major bruises to occur either on the shoulder, rib or rear quarter regions. It is not unusual for carcasses to have trim losses of 5 to 15 percent due to bruises, and, of course, these directly impact dressing percent and come out of the carcass pay weight.

Tools Available for Carcass Trait Improvement

The beef industry continues to change, as value-based marketing looms on the horizon, target windows are being defined and the reality exists that many producer’s genetics and management may not fit. Three topics will be discussed as methods to improve carcass merit.

• EPD’s through national cattle evaluation

• Ultrasound for direct and EPD selection

• Ultrasound use in establishing market endpoint in the feedlot

EPD’s Through National Cattle Evaluation

Using Carcass EPD. The objective of a carcass evaluation program is to give breeders the EPD necessary to select for directional change in body composition (percent retail product) and (or) quality (marbling) in progeny carcasses. Achieving this objective has been difficult for several reasons, one of which is the inability of the beef industry to arrive at a highly accurate prediction formula for percent retail product using individual carcass traits that can be measured. Currently, EPD’s for percent retail product are based on a formula developed by Dikeman at Kansas State University, which predicts percent retail product using traditional carcass measurements and an estimate of kidney, pelvic and heart fat percent. The prediction formula is to a zero-trim basis.

The USDA marbling score, a subjective score for the amount of intramuscular fat in the longissimus dorsi muscle (ribeye), is not a precise predictor of intramuscular fat. Research results indicate that generally the correlation between marbling score and percent intramuscular fat (as determined by chemical extraction methods) is .70 - .75. Correlation estimates for individual groups of cattle have been higher than this, but some are lower.

Carcass Weight EPD. Carcass weight is a good predictor of total retail product. In general, carcass weight is not a good predictor of percent retail product. Selecting sires with the higher EPD for carcass weight will result in progeny carcasses that produce more total retail product at a constant fat and age endpoint. An industry target weight range for carcasses would be between 650 and 850 pounds.

Marbling Score EPD. Although a less than accurate subjective measurement of intramuscular fat in the ribeye, the marbling score EPD can be used to select sires that will produce progeny with more marbling at a constant fat and age endpoint. The higher the marbling score EPD, the higher the amount of intramuscular fat in the ribeye. It should be noted that the genetic correlation between marbling score and external backfat at the 12th rib is nearly zero. This means that breeders can select for increased marbling and not have to worry about selecting for increased external fat when taking animals to an age-constant endpoint.

Ribeye Area EPD. Cross-sectional area of the longissimus dorsi muscle (ribeye area) at the 12th rib has been shown to account for a significant amount of variation in percent retail product at a constant carcass weight endpoint. This means that given two sires with the same carcass weight EPD, the sire with the higher EPD for ribeye area, will have progeny that yield a higher percent retail product. The genetic correlation between ribeye area and percent retail product as estimated from the American Angus Association field data is +.55. There is an even higher positive genetic correlation (.72) between 12th rib ribeye area and pounds of total retail product as reported from research findings. Heritability for ribeye area has been estimated at .26 from the Angus carcass data base.

Do not use the ratio of ribeye area EPD to carcass weight EPD as a selection index, nor as an indicator of differences in percent retail product or muscling. Selecting on this ratio will result in the indirect selection for changes in mature size. In general, the higher the ratio, the smaller the mature size.

Fat Thickness EPD. The 12th rib fat thickness heritability has been estimated to be about .25 from various carcass databases. According to research from the U.S. Meat Animal Research Center, there is a high negative genetic relationship (-.74) between external 12th rib fat thickness and percent retail product. From the Angus Association’s field data, this correlation has been estimated at -.85, but it must be remembered that the percent retail product used for the sire evaluation is made up of component traits of which fat thickness is the biggest contributor.

Percent Retail Product EPD. The percent retail product EPD combines the traditional carcass traits (hot carcass weight, fat thickness, ribeye area, and KPH) into a composite EPD. The EPD is expressed in percent. It should be noted that the formula is heavily influenced by the fat thickness measurement. The percent retail product (0 trim) is computed by the following formula:

Percent retail product, % = 65.69 - 9.931 * fat thickness, in. + 1.2259 * ribeye area, in. - 013166 * carcass weight, lbs. - 1.29 * KPH percent

Ultrasound for Direct and EPD Selection

The use of real-time ultrasound to accurately measure body composition traits in live beef cattle has been demonstrated and is being integrated into the recording and selection programs of an increasing number of seedstock producers. This technology has the potential of very significantly improving the characterization of more cattle for carcass traits and in a more cost-effective and timely manner than existing progeny testing programs for carcass merit. However, for this to happen, a program must be developed to organize the collection and processing of the information which will allow for the highest standards of integrity and accuracy to be met. Even though considerable effort has been expended in developing a technician certification process, tremendous variation exists in technical proficiencies and in equipment and software technologies.

Within the near future, ultrasound data can be used to supplement the carcass database if organized to insure credibility, timeliness and accuracy of the ultrasound information. This program has begun as a cooperative research and pilot program between the American Angus Association, Iowa State University, and selected real-time ultrasound technicians. The ISU Centralized Ultrasound Processing Lab began accepting images in January 1998, and was fully operational with a 7-working day turnaround time by February 11, 1998. In the first six months of operation, the CUP lab processed 6,000 ultrasound images. Over a two-year period, the research program is planned to transition into an industry owned and operated program. In the fall of 1999, carcass EPD’s for fat thickness, ribeye area, percent retail product and percent intramuscular fat will be developed from ultrasound information.

Ultrasound Use in Establishing Market Endpoint in the Feedlot

A real-time ultrasound chute side model has been developed to predict percent intramuscular fat as related to quality grade and adjusted fat cover to predict yield grade. This model can be used to sort cattle to meet certain carcass program specifications or unique cells in a grid marketing situation. Research and development continue in 1998 and 1999 to improve this model prior to industry release and utilization.

Marketing Non-Fed Cattle

by Eldon J. Hans, Past BQA Coordinator, ICA Background Information

An important segment of the industry, which makes up 20 percent of the total beef produced in the United States, is the non-fed beef sector. Contrary to popular belief, beef derived from cull cows and bulls is not just used solely for the production of hamburger. A vast majority of the “middle meats” from the rib and loin, which would include ribeye rolls, shortloins, striploins and tenderloins, as well as the round, are removed and marketed as such. Packers spend considerable time finding cuts of beef from non-fed carcasses that can be marketed at a higher price than that of lean trim. It is important to note that the sale of cull cows and cull bulls accounts for 15-20 percent of a beef cattle producer’s annual revenue.

Non-fed Beef Production

In 1994, roughly 4.57 billion pounds of non-fed U.S. produced beef was consumed by consumers, in the form of ground beef. Ground beef accounts for 43 percent of the total beef consumed in the U.S. It is easy to see that much of the beef that is consumed by Americans comes from dairy and beef cows as well as bulls. The annual ratio of bulls to cows harvested is 1 to 10. The slaughter of cull cows generates approximately 75 percent of all domestic non-fed beef. Of all the cull cows that are harvested, one-half are cull dairy cows. Thus, approximately one-third of domestic non-fed beef production is derived from dairy cows.

Marketing of Non-fed Beef

Many non-fed cattle that are marketed are sold because they may have a problem that is hindering their production. Problems that can occur are 1. Prolapsed, 2. Disease, 3. Lameness, 4. Cancer eye, 5. Lumpy jaw, 6. Abscesses, 7. Edema, 8. Sheath damage and 9. Reproductive. It is important to remember that many of these problems do not always improve with time. Thus, timely marketing of animals with these problems is important. The quicker they are marketed, the better.

Injection Site Lesions

There is a greater percentage of injection site lesions/scars found in harvested non-fed beef than in fed beef. The 1994 Non-Fed Beef Quality Audit reported that 28.9 percent of 5,204 rounds that were evaluated, possessed lesions/scars with 2.2 percent having fluid filled abscess. Thus, one out of four cull animals marketed had to be trimmed to remove the lesion. The FSIS reported that the greatest percentage of residues were found in cull dairy and beef cows. These problems can be easily corrected by proper and responsible management practices, as well as accurate record keeping. All injections must be made in front of the shoulder to minimize trim in high priced cut areas. Additionally, producers must honor withdrawal times to eliminate residue occurrence.

Steps to Improve the Quality of Non-Fed Beef

The following is a list of steps to minimize quality shortfalls found in non-fed harvested beef.

1. Minimize condemnations by monitoring herd health and marketing non-fed cattle with physical disorders in a timely manner.

2. Prevent residues and injection site lesions in non-fed cattle by ensuring responsible administration and withdrawal of all animal health products.

3. Improve beef safety by encouraging practices which reduce bacterial contamination of carcasses.

4. Reduce bruises by dehorning, by correcting deficiencies in facilities, transportation equipment and by improving handling.

5. Market more timely to eliminate both emaciated cows and cows with excessive external fat from the market.