Coping with Variation in Beef Quality Levels. Chris Reinhardt, Ph.D. Extension Feedlot Specialist Kansas State University

Transcription

1 Coping with Variation in Beef Quality Levels Chris Reinhardt, Ph.D. Extension Feedlot Specialist Kansas State University

2 Beef is a volume business

3 Value of Extra Pounds Cumulative COG, $/cwt Cumulative Incremental Days on Feed

4 Value Based Marketing How does this affect marketing behavior?

5 Effects of Backfat thickness on Quality Grade Lawrence et al., 2001; 60,625 hd NCBA >1.01 Percentage of carcasses Low Choice Premium Choice Prime Choice and Higher Backfat thickness (in.)

6 Effects of HCW on Marbling Score Bruns et al., Marbling Score Marbling Score Ribfat Ribfat, in HCW, lb

7 Effects of Backfat Thickness on Percentage YG 4 Lawrence et al., % 90% YG 4.0+ Percentage of carcasses 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Backfat thickness (in.)

8 What Else Affects Quality Grade?

9 Steam flaking on Carcass Traits Owens and Gardner, 2000; 176 trials; 8,616 hd ADG, lb F:G HCW, lb FT, in Marbling MS:SC fat Dry Rolled 3.12 a 6.37 a 708 a 0.44 a 524 a 45.8 a Steam Flaked 3.48 b 5.43 b 737 b 0.52 b 482 b 41.1 b a,b Means differ (P<0.05)

10 Steam flaking on Carcass Traits Owens and Gardner, 2000 ; 176 trials; 8,616 hd ADG, lb F:G HCW, lb FT, in Marbling MS:SC fat Dry Rolled 3.12 a 6.37 a 708 a 0.44 a 524 a 45.8 a Steam Flaked 3.48 b 5.43 b 737 b 0.52 b 482 b 41.1 b a,b Means differ (P<0.05)

11 Effects of NE g on Fat content Krehbiel, 2006; 69 trials; 8,251 hd

12 Effects of NE g on Fat content Krehbiel, 2006; 69 trials; 8,251 hd 4% Fat added: MS FT (P = 0.05) NEg Content in Diet Adapted from Krehbiel et al., JAS 2006

13 Future Production Potential of DDGS Ives, DDGS Production (1,000 tons) Year

14 Effects of WCDG on Quality Grade Trenkle, 2006 NCBA Percent Choice Marbling Score Percent USDA Choice Marbling Score or Percent WCDG (DM basis) 415

15 Effects of WCDG on Yield Grade Al Suwaiegh et al., a b 2 Control WCDG a,b Means differ (P<0.10)

16 Effects of WCDG on Quality Grade Al Suwaiegh et al., Control WCDG a,b Means differ (P<0.10)

17 Effects of DG on Quality/Yield Grade DiCostanzo et al., 2007; 21 studies; 106 trt means MARB vs DG MARB vs DG and YG 500 Marbling Score DG % (DM basis)

18 Fat Content of Steers Grading Low Choice (Guiroy, 2001) % Empty Body Fat Control Estradiol Int. E2 TBA E2 TBA E2 TBA 2x

19 Fat Content of Steers Grading Low Choice (Guiroy, 2001) % Empty Body Fat a b b b ab Control Estradiol Int. E2 TBA E2 TBA E2 TBA 2x

20 Effects of Implant Timing on Premium Choice Bruns et al., Percent No Implant Early Implant Delayed Implant

21 Effects of Implant Timing on IMF Accretion Bruns et al., a b a Rate d0 56 d No Implant Early Implant Delayed Implant a,b Means Differ (P<0.10)

22 Effects of Vitamin A Restriction on Marbling Gorocica Buenfil et al., 2007a Quality Grade Marbling Score a 5.4 b Control No VitA added a,b Means Differ (P<0.10)

23 Effects of Vitamin A Restriction on IMF Gorocica Buenfil et al., 2007b 6 b 5 4 a a IMF % Control 112d Restriction 243d Restriction a,b Means Differ (P<0.10)

24 Then Why Do We Do IT???

25 Steam flaking on Carcass Traits Owens and Gardner, 2000 ADG, lb F:G HCW, lb Dry Rolled 3.12 a 6.37 a 708 a Steam Flaked 3.48 b 5.43 b 737 b +$40 / head a,b Means differ (P<0.05)

26 Dietary Fat on Carcass Traits Krehbiel, 1995 ADG, lb F:G HCW, lb No Fat a 735 Fat added b 739 +$6 / head a,b Means differ (P<0.05)

27 Implant Strategies and Weight at Equal Fatness $72 / head No Implant Estradiol Int. E2 TBA E2 TBA E2 TBA 2x

28 WDG and Performance Al Suwaiegh et al., b ADG F:G b a Control a +$34 / head WCDG

29 Value of Technology $120 $100 $118 $106 $/head return $80 $60 $40 $20 $0 High Plains Corn Belt

30 To Displace Technology Theoretical Percent Prime Up. 2/3 Choice Total Ch No roll Ch Se Spread ($/cwt) needed Current Base = $5.56

31 To Displace Technology Theoretical Percent Prime Up. 2/3 Choice Total Ch No roll Ch Se Spread ($/cwt) needed Current Base = $5.56 w/o DG $17.75

32 To Displace Technology Theoretical Percent Current w/o DG w/o Fat or Flaking Prime Up. 2/3 Choice Total Ch No roll Ch Se Spread ($/cwt) needed Base = $5.56 $17.75 $27.26

33 To Displace Technology Theoretical Percent Current w/o DG w/o Fat or Flaking w/o Fat, Flaking, or Implants Prime Up. 2/3 Choice Total Ch No roll Ch Se Spread ($/cwt) needed Base = $5.56 $17.75 $27.26 $43.60

34 Coping with Variation in Beef Quality Levels

35 What is REALLY our Problem? Low Grade? Variability in Grade! size, YG, muscle

36 Effects of Sorting on Variation Brethour, StdDev: NON SORTED = 0.18 in SORTED =.11 in. Percent Backfat, in

37 Effects of Sorting on Upper Choice Brethour, Sorted Percent Batch Days after evaluation

38 Effects of Sorting on YG 4 Brethour, 1997 Percent Batch Sorted Days after evaluation

39 Is SORT a 4 letter word? Individual Pricing vs. Average Marketing < > Std Sel Ch CAB Pr 0 YG1 YG2 YG3 YG4 YG5

40 Is SORT a 4 letter word? Individual Pricing vs. Average Marketing < >1000

41 Is SORT a 4 letter word? Reduce variation in: HCW Fatness Grade Reduce out carcasses = $$$ YG 4+5 Heavy + Light weights Increase fat level on leaner cattle Improve Quality Grade = $$$ Increase Carcass weight = $$$

42 Chris Reinhardt, Ph.D. Feedlot Extension Specialist