Marbling and rib eye size?

[cowman]

In the last issue of Grain News, in Cattlemans corner, there was an article on how as marbling increased, rib eye size decreased? Now I assume this guy knew what he was talking about?
He also said marbling has been linked to tenderness...but this is not the case? He seemed to be suggesting that marbling was really not very important at all and was sort of a fad that had taken hold! Is this true?
Now personally I have to follow a strict diet that contains as little fat as possible. My steaks are sirloin...a ribeye or T-bone is too fat, so more marbling has never been an issue for me.
I wonder though, what are we giving up with this striving for a marbled product? Isn't "marbling" really just more fat? And is that a good thing considering every doctor worth his salt says we need to eat less fat?
Also are we giving up more real meat per fat ratio with this marbling trend? This author seems to suggest that with his shrinking rib eye figures?
Unfortunately my better half tossed this paper out or else I could give you the authors name. I'll check to see if my son still has his paper.

[grassfarmer]

It was another great article by Christoph Weder. I'm really impressed by this young mans articles - someone who is able to think outside the box. He doesn't just talk about it either, he does a lot of creative things in his operation. Check out www.spiritviewranch.com
Regarding marbling I've read that some operators can produce steaks in south America with zero marbling that are outstandingly tender. I've also read that fat is the only part of a steak that contains any taste - the actual beef is pretty bland. There is a difference in fat also, Cowman, as you say most doctors advice is to avoid fat. This will be true of fat produced by grain feeding in a feedlot situation - it's like saturated transfat - bad,bad,bad! On the other hand it has been proven that grass-fed beef contains less fat but this fat is actually good fat. It contains the highest levels of CLAs and Omega 3 fatty acids in the steak. I guess the beef produced off a well grassed cull cow would actually be better for you than feedlot beef!

[Horse]

Talked to this feedlot operator and he just came back from the Dominican Republic and he says you cant get a good steak there as even the tenderloin is tough [grass fed southamerican beef] Now I am sure he is bais but he says there will never be a threat from south america because of poor quality grass fed bef.
When I started there was still a lot of 3-4yr old grass fed strs [ big ones 1200-1400#] then 850# grain fed now back to 1400# grain fed and the people ate it all along so I dont know just who sets the standard.

[grassfarmer]

So where does their beef come from in the Dominican Republic Horse? Home produced or imported ? bos taurus or bos ears hanging down?

[cowman]

Actually grassfarmer I went to this Grey Wooded Forage association thing several years ago where they had a speaker who talked about this very subject? He talked about all the benifits of grass fed beef as opposed to grain fed and he talked about how someday there would be a premium for the "right kind" of fat. Well I'm still waiting to see that? But a very interesting concept.
I wonder if this South American grass beef is tough because they raise the animal longer and maybe slaughter conditions? There is an art to aging beef that isn't much followed in our modern packing establishments? Instead it is get them cool and ship them out? I doubt the SA plants are any different?
My Dad said one time they got a shipment of Argentine grass beef in Italy that was tough as a boot. He said even the soup was tough! But he also said the carcasses were around 1700 lb. and from the humps on them they must have been old bulls!
He also had a lifelong distaste(or should say absolute refusal to eat it) for lamb as they got a lot of old ewes to eat in the army! My mother used to like a lamb chop now and then but he would not eat "mutton" as he called it!

[grassfarmer]

Cowman the premiums are here now - just don't expect them to be given to you on a plate by Cargill or Tyson. There certainly are differences to be had by hanging time, speed at which carcase is cooled, temp at which it is stored etc. Again don't expect the commodity processsors to do anything that will help improve your beef or bottom line - that is not in their interests.

[kpb]

grassfarmer, the premiums for grass-fed beef may be here now, as you say, but only if producers do their own marketing, their own (or contracted) processing, their own billing and delivery and all the other things that cattle producers do not normally do. All of these things cost money and, more important, time, so the premium you speak of has to be discounted by the time and money spent to earn it.

A real premium on grass-fed beef would be available to all producers when they wanted to sell their beef without engaging in other business activities. I don't see this. Like it or not, most consumers prefer to have grain-finished beef that is tasty, fat and sizzles. I had grass-finished beef several years ago and, frankly, it was not very good. I believe that until all grass-finishers can produce a product that is consistently tasty and not tough, it will be a difficult sell to convince consumers, en masse, to eat grass finished product over grain finished that is generally finished to a high, consistent standard.

I am not afraid of that day but I don't see it coming soon. I think marketing grass-finished product by yourself is an enterprising way to go and no doubt grosses more income (I'm not sure about the net). But most producers either can't or won't become retail marketers of their beef. I think we have to address the problems of the industry in a different manner than through niche marketing that most producers will not do.

I agree with you, grassfarmer, that our industry as a whole still needs to address the lack of influence we have over the packing industry and the consequent lack of profit.

kpb

[grassfarmer]

Certainly I want better returns for all beef producers kpb, I have a vested interest in that because we still sell 90% of our feeder calf output into that conventional market. At this moment I do not see how producers can achieve that in the current set up and I don't see how to change the set up.
Direct marketing needn't be this huge frightening 360 degree turn around for producers. We got into it by asking friends to buy our beef - they were happy to and that demand has grown by 50% each year. We don't actively sell or pay to advertise, there is a growing number of consumers actively seeking out grassfed beef in Alberta. Our website gets about 3 hits a day from people searching for "grassfed beef" or "organic beef" Our beef sells itself by word of mouth and recommendation by our initial customers. I'm sure all you born here Albertans know more people than I do if you wanted to sell this way.

I'm happy with our net returns - more importantly we have control of our returns. We sell 17-18 month grassfeds off the grass in October and this year are looking for a net return of $1350 a head (net of processing/ delivery costs not of rearing costs)Last year we netted $1250 and with rising fuel and processing costs we felt we needed a better return. We explained the situation to the customers and raised prices by $100 an animal half expecting to lose some orders. Not one customer commented negatively on the price increase but some took the time to write and sympathise with the plight of producers - they were not aware of the situation as they had believed the ABP sound bites that the open border had restored great profitability to producers. Producers being able to raise prices is what needs to happen in mainstream agriculture but unfortunately because of the corporate stranglehold on every sector of the production chain we are unable to get the return we need to be sustainable. I view our city dwelling consumers as valuable allies in the battle for fairer returns.

PS the best two steaks I've tasted in my life came from very different sources - one cooked by the Cdn Angus CEO - it was a carefully chosen steak I'm sure. The other was grass fed cow beef imported into South Africa from Botswana. They were actually very similar eating experiences. Consistancy certainly is a problem in the US grassfed market place but again there are a lot of beginners doing it. Consumer surveys find that 2 out of 5 US conventional steaks give a poor eating experience.

[kpb]

grassfarmer, I agree with everything you wrote in the previous post. I have a friend who worked in agriculture in South Africa and he assures me, with much conviction, that grass-fed beef can be every bit as tasty as the best grain-fed product. And the cattle industry in South Africa is, or at least used to be, very modern and progressive (Allan Savory's origins).

However, consistency is the problem in North American grass-fed product as you mentioned and I think that until this is resolved grass-fed beef will lag. I agree that grain-fed animals also are not always good but generally consumers know what to expect I think.

But my big question is how to convert a small grass-fed enterprise to an enterprise that could include many producers. I respect your enterprise but how do you see yourself growing from selling 10% of your product to people who want grass-finished beef to 100%? This must be a goal, surely, since you have personally realized good returns from this approach.

I also do not know of a realistic plan to improve profits to producers until the current system. I guess what I'm wondering is if you think there is enough demand--or if enough demand could be created--to have many producers producing consistent grass-fed beef, processing it themselves and marketing it through established retail outlets as, say, Organic Meat with Health Benefits? Could the current market niche be grown to a sizeable chunk of the domestic market so that many producers, as a group, could benefit and maintain control of the product all the way through to the consumer (or at least the retailer)?

kpb

[PureCountry]

kpb, we are all food producers, right? So why do so many of us not seem to care that we don't know how nutritious our beef is? Grain-fed may taste better depending on how the grass-finished is done. BUT, grass-fed will almost always be healthier. I've met some folks who raise and market grass-finished beef, and they say the problem with grass-beef that's tough or gross, is that it hasn't been given enough time on grass to fatten.

Fat is where the flavor comes from. So if it's given enough time, it will be marbled, flavorful, and super-healthy. But, of course, not all of us can hold onto animals long enough for them to fatten to that point. I'm planning on doing it myself, but what's at the center of our plan, is having that beef tested for nutrient density. I like the idea of having the confidence in our product to be able to say HOW high it is Omega 3, 6, CLA or whatever.

[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?