Marbling and rib eye size?

[kpb]

I agree.

I think it would be a great marketing tool to know exactly how nutritious the grass-fed beef is. Everything you said about marketing the beef and having knowledge about how it is finished, etc. could be applied on a much larger scale so that many producers could benefit. Could it not be a way for many producers to get off the packer merry-go-round?

But I think to do that the grass-fed industry has to move beyond selling this beef to friends and neighbours and look to carve out a wider market share with professional marketing, processing, etc. to establish a branded product that the consumer looks for and can get at, say, Co-Op. Do you see this as a possible way for producers to gain more control over the profits and how do we get there from here?

kpb

[nsbeef]

I have been a lurker on this site for some time and do appreciate the insight, wisdom and occasional BS. Taste and tenderness are not the same thing but people tend to blend the two features into the overall eating experience. The extra fat in AAA creates a sweet juicy caramelized taste, however I find it otherwise bland and poor compensation for the extra dietary fat. The overall eating experience with grass fed beef is very dependent on feeding good forage, harvesting at the right time, humane handling, correct hanging and most importantly correct cooking technique. Grass fed beef at its best is a more complex and interesting taste in comparison to grain fed. The health and environmental benefits are considerable. I am obviously stating this case as a grass fed producer. I am certainly not dismissing other practises, as at the present time this can only be done on a limited basis, the markets and marketing have yet to develope on a large scale, so everyone has to do what works for them.

I have cannibalized much information from this web-site and in particular the Eat Wild site for my own purposes at Naturalbeefns.com for those who may be interested.

[grassfarmer]

kpb,
I think what you are looking for is a way to make niche market premiums available to commodity producers. You are still thinking in the industrial model - if you can make $xxx dollars more per animal if it's organic imagine how much you can make with 1000 head. I can understand your thinking, I was brought up to believe that scale equals success and that if you became a huge scale farmer/ rancher it was a sign you had arrived, you had been successful. Clearly if we look at world agriculture today this no longer rings true - example the huge feedlot operations in Alberta with millions invested trying to make $10 or $20 per head profit. If we move to a more organised grassfed market, hire marketers etc we will fail - we are buying back into an industrial model that is clearly broken. The profits will accrue to the truckers, salesmen, processors and retailers of the beef rather than the primary producer. You would also break the valuable link of trust between consumer and producer that direct marketing allows.
The reason I think direct marketing is a possible way ahead is because it is a low turnover/high margin business rather than the other way around. You do not need to be running hundreds or thousands of cattle to make a living. I'll give you some rough figures as an example - please don't nickel and dime them to say my story doesn't add up, think of the concept rather than the accuracy of the figures. My calves from 2005 returned me $695 per head - a value calculated for the day they were weaned (ie any fed beyond weaning had the feed costs removed from their sale price) The grassfed cattle we kept from them will return $1350 next October a difference of $655. I can easily keep them for a year and fatten them for under $400 so I'm making at least $255 more per head selling grassfeds than selling calves. Imagine when we hit the bottom of the cattle cycle and calves make the $450 you suggested - my return then for selling beef will leap by $245 assuming we keep our beef price at current levels. We would be $500 per head better off than being calf sellers! On 20 grassfed beef animals we would return an extra $10,000 over selling calves - look how many feedlot cattle, or grazing yearlings it would take to make that kind of return at $10 or $20 per head (1000 or 500) Even at a high point in the cattle cycle we could make as much on 20 head as on 500 or 250 of the above animals. The bonus would be that instead of pushing for huge scale and low turnover you could concentrate your operation and maybe even sell off some land and you would be well ahead. This is all with demand and pricing at current levels - some sellers in the US are getting US$5 per pound hanging weight for grassfeds - charging over US $3000 per animal for beef! This would be my dream - more producers on the land, earning high dollar value for the produce leaving their land, keeping the money created in the local communities rather than ending up in US corporate vaults. This is possible with direct marketing but not within the current production paradigm.

[grassfarmer]

Oops apologies for that being so lengthy! - got carried away. Very nice site nsbeef, you even charge the exact same prices as us! How is demand for grassfed in Nova Scotia? Are you selling rural or into the urban centres? our website is luingcattle.com

[rkaiser]

Sorry for high jacking the grass fed arguement, but I was away for a bit and did not get a chance at answering cowman original question on Marbling and Rib eye.

I can hardly imagine rib eye dropping in size as cattle marble. Especially in cattle that are pumped with hormones; as in the conventional market. Hormones promote muscle development and cattle take LONGER to marble when they are pumped. Carcass size in the north American market continues to rise due to a number of things.

First off, cow calf guys continue to use the "paid by the pound" adage when chosing herd bulls where growth and size have been the focus for 30 plus years. Can't blame the cow calf guy - he's only trying to make a buck. More and more hybrid bulls are being added to the system every year. Hybrid means even more growth.

Secondly this trend toward AAA marbling has guys trying to reach the mark with these cattle who can hardly do it without hormones - thus a larger carcass. Marketable in the USA, but discounted in Canada. Started to show up in the exotic bull market early in the BSE thing, but now that the border is open again, it will likely be full steam ahead toward the 900 pound mark again.

Therefore this comparison between more marbling and less rib eye size seems backwards unless you consider cattle without hormones.

One note in here about size of rib eye. This is not something easily manipulated with genetics, and no one breed can say that they have done any true work on the characteristic beyond shit house luck and increased carcass size.

The only thing that I can see this fellow refering to in an article comparing rib eye to marbling may be that the cattle he is refering to are smaller cattle that have not been pumped with hormones. In this situation, the cattle will finish with higher marbling at a younger age with not only a smaller rib eye, but a smaller hanging carcass as well.

Couldn't find the article last night cowman. Did the fellow mention hormones?

[northfarmer]

Mach 13 Grainews, page 22....he does also get into the discussion of hormones regarding marbling....

[kpb]

grassfarmer, thanks for taking the time to outline how you maximize the profits in raising grass-finished beef. Your explanation was comprehensive.

While the profits per animal are obviously high, isn't the problem that overall gross profits are limited by the number of animals involved and the fact that the individual producer must take time, under the system outlined, to market and sell, arrange for processing, etc? There has to be an inverse relation between the time spent on marketing, etc. the grass-feds and the size of your herd. Although your profits per head are high you still must have a critical mass of animals in order to make enough to sustain the overall operation.

I appreciate that you feel this is a positive outcome in terms of advocating small farm, etc. but, in reality, even with extraordinary profits (say $800 a head)a 50-head operation does not enable a full-time farmer to stay on the farm and support a family. After all, there are land payments and taxes and truck payments and school fees and heat, etc.It also does not provide a fair return on capital invested for most farms.

Farms have been getting bigger not because farmers want them that way but because it is the only way they can survive a little longer. At the present time only 10% of your production is marketed as grass-fed cattle--to get that up to, say, 80% you'd have to take time away from some aspect of cattle production, likely lowering cattle numbers. I know that your profit per animal is higher but you still need a minimum number of animals in order to achieve a liveable, sustainable operation.

As far as cutting out the middlemen in the beef operation is concerned, these people exist in order to facilitate large cattle numbers. They are not inherently bad. The problem right now is that we (the producers) do not control them. But what if we were able to own the means of processing and marketing our grass-fed product --if these people were our employees and we controlled them. I don't see this as being controlled by the current system but rather grabbing control of the system to suit our needs.

Just brainstorming, mostly, but it seems to me that if the people who finish beef on grass can produce a consistent product there ought to be a way to get it to the store shelf every week, in big numbers, with full control by the producers who make the product. I was involved with Price's packing house group for a while and I know they let investors slaughter their cattle there and put their own label on them. To me this still looks like a way of getting many producers off the packing house treadmill and in control of their own destinies. I think a healthy, grass-fed alternative, marketed that way, would do well in the grocery store.


kpb

[smcgrath76]

Original Topic...
Marbling is positively correlated with fat. In other words, as marbling increases, overall fat will tend to increase. The ratio of fat to lean determines yield. Thus as fat increases, yield tends to decrease, regardless of whether hormones have been used or not.
The challenge in most mainstream markets is to increase marbling, without increasing backfat, and maintaining Rib-eye in a reasonable zone. There are cattle that will marble, with limited backfat and decent yield. There are also cattle with extremely low yields, tons of backfat and no marbling.
In industrial/commodity production most plants target 1/2 inch of fat cover as it minimizes trim, and controls the speed at which the carcass cools.
There is some work that shows larger rib-eye area also results in reduced marbling assessment as the marbling is bascially spread out over a larger area, however I would question this as marbling relative to lean is probably what is really important.
Marbling is related to juiciness and flavour and has VERY little to do with tenderness. There is some work going on with calpain/calpastatin gene markers and also some flight time work that looks pretty promising in regards to tenderness.
I think young rkaiser is pretty much right on. There has been almost no emphasis in Canada on carcass merit and at this point it is pretty much based on dumb luck and hide colour. (they all look the same colour when the hide is off though - go figure).

[grassfarmer]

The original article discussed is online at www.spiritviewranch.com under articles entitled "Crossed with crossbreeding"

kpb, You make a reasoned argument - I don't claim to know all the answers or have the solution. This is however the most positive part of my operation at present and the one I can get really excited about - apart from my Luings of course!
I find it takes little time actually selling the product - I definately spend more time writing on Agriville than I do marketing / delivering beef.
One outfit I'm watching is TK at Coronation - if they get their proposed Federal slaughter plant built that might be an opportunity for more commodity minded guys to buy in. They have the knowledge, markets,experience and business savvy to make it work. However I guess if I was selling them grassfed beefs I would only get a small premium over conventional - they are in business afterall. If I went to the trouble of setting that kind of deal up I would want to take a good cut too!

[grassfarmer]

The other point I missed in your thread kpb was seasonality and making beef available in the stores year round. This is a huge problen in Canada because we have such a short grass season. We absolutely do not compromise on this, we process cattle once a year in October. This is the only way to ensure quality grassfed beef. Some of the bigger outfits that sell grassfed and organic by the individual cut are already
"supplementing" winter forage rations to allow slaughter year round. At this point it isn't grassfed in my opinion as most of the health benefits are lost when they are not grazing fresh green grass. This may be the biggest limitation to expansion in Canada.