Transcript Effects of Supplemental Fat on Growth Performance and

What Makes Quality Tasty Meat
Dr. Jan R. Busboom
Department of Animal Sciences
Washington State University, Pullman
Outline:


Defining Quality Again
Quality (Beef value) CP’s
- Genetics
- Nutrition
- Management
- Post harvest treatments
Safe Recommendations

Animal




Safe
Humanely produced
High quality and Palatable
Nutritious
Humanely Produced:


Confinement/mud?
Gentle handling
Quality Grades

Indication of
eating quality
or palatability
Quality Grades








Prime
Choice
Select
Standard
Commercial
Utility
Cutter
Canner
Quality Grade Factors


Maturity
Marbling
Yield Grade Factors




Hot carcass wt.
Ribeye area
Fat thickness
%Kidney, Pelvic
and Heart Fat
(KPH)
Quality/Palatability
We
have too much tough
beef (> 20%)
Despite pricing grids we
now have more YG4 and
YG 5 than in 1995 and
2000.
Palatability: Genetics
Differences
between
breeds
Bos
indicus vs. Bos taurus
(Koch et al., 1976;
Wheeler et al., 1996)
Palatability: Genetics
Differences
among sires
within breeds are greater
than differences among
breeds
Wulf
et al., 1996;
O’Conner et al., 1997
Palatability: Management
Bulls
generally produce
less tender beef
 Testosterone
Collagen
Cuts
age more slowly
Palatability: Management
Anabolic
agents
Days on feed
Health status
Age
Palatability: Management
Marbling
deposition
occurs slowly throughout
growing and finishing
phase.
Ideal is to feed at a rate
that meets muscle, bone
and marbling growth
requirements but does not
cause excessive fattening
Palatability: Management
Biological
type
Late
maturing rapid
growing breeds must be
fed hard and early to get
marbling.
“If
heifer contemporaries reach
puberty on backgrounding diet
probably no harm to gradability
of steers.” Bruns, Pritchard and
Boggs, 2005 (SDSU).
Holsteins
Palatability: Management
Many
studies indicate
about 100 days on feed
are required for
maximum tenderness
Palatability: Management
Health
Time
status
in and money
spent in sick pen is
directly correlated to
toughness and poor
grade
Palatability: Management
Intramuscular
injections
Palatability: Management
Intramuscular
injections
Palatability: Management
Animals
over 30
months of age have
greater connective
tissue toughness
Preharvest Recommendations
Avoid
chronically sick cattle
Eliminate intramuscular
injections
Slaughter prior to 30 months
of age
Positive growth during
backgrounding and rapid
growth prior to slaughter
CP2:Pre-harvest management
Temperament
and/or
ante-mortem stress
Post-harvest treatment
Proper
chilling rate
Electrical Stimulation
Aging
Freezing and then aging
Economically important traits:
A. Reproductive traits
1. No. of pigs born alive :
a. ovulation rate
b. embryonic & fetal survival
c. dystocia
2. 21-day litter wt.- function of:
a. no. of pigs born alive
b. neonatal survival
c. sow lactation & baby pig
growth
3. heritability is low: 10-20% in swine
4. heterosis in response to cross-breeding is high
5. white breeds are best for sow productivity traits:
a.Yorkshire
b. Landrace
c. Chester White
d. Large White from Europe
B. Growth Performance Traits
1. A.D.G.
• boars for breeding should gain:
a. ~2.0-2.5 lb/day
b. reach 230 lb at < 150 days of age
2. F.E. = lb. of feed/lb. of gain or feed to gain ratio
• average of individuals in the herd is ~2.5-3.0
Symbol III
• Live weight feed efficiency of 2.4
• Fat free lean gain of .95 lbs/day
• (about 2.4 Live ADG
• Marketed at 156 days of age
• Weighing 270 lbs.
3. heritability is moderate
a. A.D.G. = 30%
b. F.E. = 25%
4. heterosis in response to cross-breeding is moderate
5. colored breeds are best for growth performance “boar” breeds or terminal sires
a. A.D.G.- Duroc is best
b. F.E. - Hampshire is best, Duroc is good
C. Carcass traits
1. backfat thickness over the 10th rib
a. should be <1 inch or 2.5 cm at slaughter wt
b. measured by backfat probe or ultrasound
2. loin-eye area (L.E.A.)
a. should be >5 inches
b. measured by ultrasound
3. % lean
a. best measure of carcass quality
b. requires slaughter
Symbol III Hot carcass wt of 205 lbs.
• LMA of 6.5 (7.1) sq. in.
• Belly thickness of 1.0 inches
• 10th rib backfat of 0.7 (0.6) inch
• Fat-Free Lean Index is 53.0 (54.7)
4. Heritability is high
a. backfat thickness
• live animal = 40%
• carcass = 50%
b. L.E.A. = 50%
c. % lean = 45%
5. heterosis in response to cross-breeding is low
6. colored breeds are best for carcass traits a. Hampshire is best
b. Poland China is strong in L.E.A.
6. colored breeds are best for carcass traits a. Hampshire is best
b. Poland China is strong in L.E.A.
D. Soundness traits
1. structural soundness of feet & legs
a. support boar during breeding
• not as important with increased use of
artificial insemination
b. may spend entire life on concrete
2. reproduction - external genitalia
3. underline
a. > 7 pair of teats, evenly spaced & functional
E. Genetic change of economically important traits:
– most change by selection pressure on highly heritable
traits
– the most economically important traits are reproductive
traits & of low heritability
– fortunately, least heritable traits respond to cross-breeding
with a high degree of heterosis








Symbol III
Meat quality characteristics:
Muscle color score of 4.0
24-hour pH of 5.9
Maximum drip loss of 2.5%
Intramuscular fat level of 3.0%
Free of within-muscle color variation and coarse
muscle texture.
Free of ecchymosis (blood splash).
Definitions

pH - the lower the pH the
greater the acidity.



A rapid drop in pH (early post mortem causes
PSE
DFD pork has a high pH (low acidity)
L* or Minolta reflectance
Definitions

Quality refers to traits related to palatability
(tenderness, juiciness, flavor, etc.) and
consumer acceptance such as:
Color
 Firmness and texture
 Marbling
 Safety
 No Bruises

Definitions




PSE - Pale, soft and exudative
(watery)
RSE - Red, soft and exudative
RFN - Red, firm and normal
DFD - Dark, firm and dry
Poor color and texture
Definitions

Halothane gene = muscle hypertrophy gene =
stress gene



NN = Normal
Nn = Carrier
nn = Mutant stress susceptible pig
Halothane Gene


Mutants (nn) are unacceptable
Carriers have:





Less backfat?
Greater muscling
Poorer color
Less marbling
Tougher and drier
Definitions

Napole = Hampshire effect



Dominant gene
Low ultimate pH
Low processing yields
Problems with PSE


Low processing yields
Poor consumer acceptability
Factors causing PSE
 Halothane
gene
 Stress
 Slow
chilling
How to reduce PSE





Select against halothane gene
Gentle handling and shipping
Resting pigs before slaughter
Proper handling, stunning and sticking
Rapid chilling


Crust freezing
Hot fat trimming
Inadequate marbling
Marbling





Low but generally positive
relationship with palatability
Highly heritable
Breed differences exist
Fairly low correlation with fat (.1-.3)
Can select for marbling and leanness
In sudden disgust the three lionesses realized they had
killed a Tofudebeast – One of the Serengeti’s
obnoxious health antelopes
5
30.6
0
5
22
0
16.7
Injected
Control
12.8
5
8.7
9.1
9.7
0
8.6
5
0
At site
1 inch
2 inch
3 inch
Fat Thickness and Ribeye Area



12th rib
Body wall
Ribeye, loineye or
longissimus muscle
area (REA, LEA,
LMA)
Quality Grades




Indicate palatability
Prime, Choice, Good,
Utility and Cull
Maturity / Flank
streaking
Lambs with over .1 fat
will almost always be
Choice or Prime
Yield Grades








Indicate cutability
1,2,3,4, and 5
Based on adjusted fat
thickness
<=.15 = 1
.16-.25 = 2
.26-.35 = 3
.36-.45 = 4
>.45 = 5
Industry and Consumers Can I
Hope Agree that Ideal Will Be:




Safe
Humanely
produced
Palatable
Nutritious
BUT Defining Ideal Weight,
Fatness, etc Is Difficult



Hot house/ ethnic
market
Jackpot lambs
Niche markets
Lean

Fat Thickness
 .16-.25 in. (YG 2.02.9)
 .16 -.20
Lean

Fat Thickness



> .25
.1-.14 in.
<.1
Weight

Depends on frame Size
Cheviots & Southdowns
- 80 - 110
 Dorsets & Montadales
- 100 -120
 Rambouillets & Hamps
- 100 - 140
 Suffolks & Columbias
- 115 - 150 or more

Weight
 Packers
generally
want 110 to 150 (55
to 80 pound
carcasses) but…
 Niche
and Ethnic
Markets
 Some 85 to 95 pound
carcasses are
profitable
Weights
 Carcass
weights
have increased
from 59 to over
70 pounds in the
last 20 years
Heavily Muscled
High Choice to
high Prime leg
 2.8 inch2 or larger
 14 inch2 beef ribeye
vs 2 inch2 rib chop
 3 inch2 is better

Increased Muscling Increases



Increasing REA from
2 to 3 may increase
dressing percentage
from 50% to over
54%
Lean cut yield- 58 to
62%.
Consumer
acceptability
Effect of REA On Dress% and
Value
60
50
50
54.1
40
30
20
$12.30
10
0
0
Lamb Dress%
Lamb Carcass Value
Increase
2
3
How do we reach the Ideal
 Genetics
most
important
 Feed to Proper weight
 Proper diet
 Proper handling
(QAAC)
 Exercize?
CP1:Genetics
Effect of Sire on Progeny REA
3.5
3
3.47
3.13
2.96
2.46
2.65 2.46
2.5
2
S
H
R
1.5
1
0.5
0
Ram REA
Progeny REA
Effect of Sire on Progeny Carcass
Wt
180.0
160.0
140.0
120.0
100.0
80.0
60.0
40.0
20.0
0.0
162 158
156
80.9 79.0 77.8
53.9
S
H
R
52.7 51.9
Prog Dress %
Prog CWt
Prog Carc
Value
Value Increase for 100 Progeny
$1,200
$1,067
$1,000
$800
$615
$600
$400
$200
$0
$452
$234
$0
$406
$172
$0
$0
Carc Wt Value Cut Yield Value Total Value Incr.
Incr.
Incr.
S
H
R
CP2:Feed to Correct Weight
Overfinished
Underfinished
vs
Overfinished lamb
•Small frame size
•Fed for too long
•Started with too
heavy of a lamb
Underfinished lamb
•Poor nutrition
•Excess frame size
•Started with too
light of a lamb

Why Not Rams?
Growth


Leaness


Rams > Wethers > Ewes
Rams > Wethers > Ewes
Problems with:
Feedlot behavior
 Pelt removal
 Occasionally flavor

In sudden disgust the three lionesses realized
they had killed a Tofudebeast – One of the
Serengeti’s obnoxious health antelopes
Ram/Meat/Terminal Sire
Breeds

Suffolk
Ram/Meat/Terminal Sire
Breeds

Norfolk Horn
Ram/Meat/Terminal Sire
Breeds

Southdown
Ram/Meat/Terminal Sire
Breeds

Hampshire
Ram/Meat/Terminal Sire
Breeds

Dorper
Ram/Meat/Terminal Sire
Breeds

Texel
Ram/Meat/Terminal Sire
Breeds

White Suffolk
Ewe/Wool/Duel Purpose Breeds

Merino
Ewe/Wool/Duel Purpose Breeds

Rambouillet
Ewe/Wool/Duel Purpose Breeds

Romney
Ewe/Wool/Duel Purpose Breeds

Lincoln
Ewe/Wool/Duel Purpose Breeds

Columbia
Ewe/Wool/Duel Purpose Breeds

Corriedale
Ewe/Wool/Duel Purpose Breeds

Border Leicester
Ewe/Wool/Duel Purpose Breeds

Coopworth
Ewe/Wool/Duel Purpose Breeds

Finn Sheep
Ewe/Wool/Duel Purpose Breeds

Dorset
Ewe/Wool/Duel Purpose Breeds

Polypay
Ewe/Wool/Duel Purpose Breeds

Romanov
Comparison of Past Audits:
Carcass Weight
800
796
790
Carcass weight
787
780
770
760
759
748
750
740
730
720
1991
1995
2000
2005
Source: National Beef Quality Audit -- 2005
Comparison of Past Audits:
USDA Quality Grade
60
57
55
50
51
48
***
USDA Prime and Choice
USDA Standard and lower
40
***Best Result Ever
30
20
10
8
5
7
5
0
1991
1995
2000
2005
Source: National Beef Quality Audit -- 2005
Ideal Versus Actual Quality
Grade Consist
40
35
33
29
30
38
35
Ideal
Actual
31
25
19
% 20
15
10
5
7
5
3
0
0
Prime
Top
Choice
Low
Choice
Select
Standard
and lower
Source: National Beef Quality Audit -- 2005
Comparison of Past Audits:
USDA Yield Grade
60
50
58
Yield Grades 1 & 2
Yield Grades 4 & 5
53
50
45
40
30
20
17
12
14
2000
2005
8
10
0
1991
1995
Source: National Beef Quality Audit -- 2005
"Out Cattle" In The NBQA -- 2005
Excess carcass weight
Insufficient carcass weight
Yield Grade 4
Yield Grade 5
Standard and lower
C-E maturity
>30 MOA
5.0%
0.5%
11.8%
2.3%
5.4%
1.5%
0.8%
Dark cutters
Blood splash
Yellow fat
Calloused ribeye
1.9%
0.6%
0.3%
0.1%
NO DISCOUNTS
77.5%
Beef Quality Concerns of Those Who
Trade Beef to Export Markets
Top Five Beef Quality Concerns:





Unknown age and source (need mandatory ID and traceability)
Size and weight variability
Insufficient marbling
Dull and dark lean color
Administration of growth-promoting implants
Other Concerns:





Feeding vitamin E should be mandatory
Appropriate animal welfare should be assured
Tenderness should be genetically assured
Beef is excessively fat
Should be injection-site free
Source: National Beef Quality Audit -- 2005
Beef Quality Concerns of Those Who
Trade Beef to Export Markets
Top Five Beef Quality Concerns:





Unknown age and source (need mandatory ID and traceability)
Size and weight variability
Insufficient marbling
Dull and dark lean color
Administration of growth-promoting implants
Other Concerns:





Feeding vitamin E should be mandatory
Appropriate animal welfare should be assured
Tenderness should be genetically assured
Beef is excessively fat
Should be injection-site free
Source: National Beef Quality Audit -- 2005
Top Ten Quality Challenges
Across Four NBQAs
Identified in all four audits




Excess external fat
Inadequate tenderness
Insufficient marbling
Excess carcass/cut weights
Disappeared from last two audits

Brand-new in most recent audit


Identified in three audits


Hide problems
Lack of uniformity
Injection-site lesions


Lack of traceability
Need for instrument grading
Need for clearer market signals
Need for communication among
sectors
Source: National Beef Quality Audit -- 2005