What Is the Primary Grain Fed to Fatten Beef Cattle

Finishing Beef Cattle On The Farm

By Paul Brook, David Lalman

Jump To:
• Pick
• General Facility Considerations
• Finishing Options
• Forage Finishing
• Grain Finishing in Solitude
• Grain Finishing On Pasture
• Live Weight to Retail Cuts
• Postmortem Aging Effects on Beef Tenderness

Rural landowners oftentimes are interested in raising livestock to slaughter for personal consumption, local marketing or for normal commodity markets. Advantages to raising your own beef include having control over calf quality and selection of how the dogie is finished out. Calves can be finished on grass, grain and grass, or high concentrate diets. At that place are disadvantages to consider when fattening your own beef. Disadvantages may include the need to buy a calf, actress labor for feeding, sufficient state set aside for forage-finishing, purchasing and storage of expensive feedstuffs for grain-finishing, or purchasing freezers to store the beefiness afterward slaughter. Calves as well can get sick and may require veterinary attending, and owners must realize the longer the ownership, the more risk of death losses due to injury or illness. This fact canvas covers facility and calf selection, feeding options and slaughter considerations for finishing calves on the subcontract. For more than in-depth data on nutrition, health and growth promoting compounds see AFS-3302 An Introduction to Finishing Beef.

Selection

Calves selected for farm-raised beef vary in type. Budget, marketing niches and end product goals will make up one's mind the type of calf that works best. Small-scale-framed dairy calves, like Jersey calves, can accept exceptional meat quality; yet, percent retail product and size of cuts, like ribeye steaks, volition be fairly modest. A Large-framed, heavy-muscled beef brood will have very good cutability (loftier percentage retail product) only calves of this type tin can take longer to achieve maturity, will likely exist slaughtered prematurely and freezer space may exist inadequate to shop all the cuts. Calves of beef breeds that are moderate-framed and early maturing with practiced muscling are ideal for most farm raised beef programs. Producers that desire greater lean may desire calves of traditional Continental breeds similar Charolais and Limousin; whereas, producers that desire the flavour and juiciness of steaks with more marbling (intramuscular fatty that determines USDA Quality Grade) may adopt calves of predominately English breeding such as Hereford, Red Angus, Black Angus or Shorthorn. Finishing calves with more than 25% Brahman influence can tend to reduce cutability and tenderness.

Bulls should be castrated early in life, preferably at nascence or by 3 months of age. Steaks from intact bulls can be leaner and tougher than steaks from steers. Aggressive activity of grouping-fed bulls tin get a handling outcome as well as increased chances for animal injury and bruising. Heifers make good farm-raised beefiness candidates. Heifers often are kept for breeding, and at the end of the breeding season, whatever heifer that did non become pregnant can exist easily finished for slaughter. Because they are earlier-maturing, heifers generally fatten quicker at a lighter bodyweight and take a slightly poorer feed conversion ratio than males.

Full general Facility Considerations

Shade and air current breaks. Finishing (forage- or grainfinishing) and marketing goals (personal apply or sale) will determine the land and facilities needed. Whether finishing calves on pasture or in dry lot confinement, calves volition be more comfortable if they have access to shade during summer and a wind intermission during winter. Calves may grow adequately without shade or a air current intermission during part of the year, simply shelter from the elements is necessary when weather exceed the animal's thermo-neutral zone. The necessity for access to shade and wind break may be a personal preference to the level of fauna condolement desired and marketing or may be a necessity depending on the environs. If the goal is to market beef locally, buyers may be interested in subcontract tours to see where the beefiness was produced. Buyers of locally grown beefiness are making their buying decision based in role on their perception of how calves should exist reared and if calves don't have admission to summer shade or winter shelter, someone will eventually brand it a bespeak to ask.

Handling facilities. Cattle treatment facilities at a minimum should include a catch pen with a lane and headgate to be able to vaccinate, treat affliction, castrate and dehorn. Poorly maintained working facilities can exist a source of injury and bruising that may cause product loss. Walk through working facilities and look for possible points of injury, such as protruding bars, bolts or nails.

Feed storage and handling. Wasted feed due to poor storage and treatment techniques increases the toll of producing beef. Feeds should be stored in a dry out location to reduce the chances of molding. Feed storage facilities demand to be kept clean to go on pests (rodents and insects) at a minimum. It is essential feeding rates be managed to limit build upwards of uneaten feed. Feed troughs as well should be kept clean to minimize leftover feed spoilage and buildup of uneaten portions due to mixing fresh feed with spoiled feed in troughs.

Hay used in forage-finished beef programs should be high in quality. Storing hay under UV-protective tarps or in barns will reduce storage waste. Feeding round bales in protected rings that either keep the bale centered or have a metal canvas effectually the bottom minimize feeding waste matter (see the fact sheets BAE-1716 Circular Bale Hay Storage for more than in depth data on hay storage losses and PSS-2570 Reducing Winter Feed Costs for more data on improved hay utilization)

Finishing Options

Provender- versus Grain-finishing. The objective here isn't to start a grass- or grain-finished debate; there is room for both in a local subcontract-raised beef market. It is of import to understand common characteristics of forage- versus grain-finished beef when deciding which option is best for beefiness produced on-farm for personal use or marketing. In general, the typical beef consumer of the U.S. prefers the flavor of grain-fed beefiness. By comparison, ground beefiness from cattle finished on provender has been characterized equally having a 'grassy' flavor. Grass-fed footing beef besides can take a cooking odor that differs from grain-fed beefiness. The visual appearance of the fat of grass-fed beefiness can be more yellow in color due to carotenoids in comparison to grain-fed beefiness fat, which appears white.

An overview of 23 published studies from 1978 to 2013 showed that cattle finished on pasture gained 1 pound less per day than cattle fed high-concentrate diets in confinement (1.55 vs 2.54 pounds per solar day.) Forage-finished cattle were finished at a lighter weight (~950 lb pounds) than grain-finished cattle (~ane,100 pounds) and dressed at a lower percent (56% vs sixty%). Forage-finished cattle had 0.2 inches of back fat vs 0.v inches for feedlot finished and as a result are leaner when delivered for slaughter compared to grain-finished cattle. Leaner beefiness is generally scored by taste panelists as being less tender and less juicy compared to fatter beefiness. So, the health-conscientious consumer seeking forage-raised beefiness is usually willing to take trade-offs of flavor, tenderness and juiciness for a leaner beefiness that may contain a greater proportion of middle-healthy fats. Whereas, other consumers may go along to seek the grain-finished beef characteristics, merely want to back up local sources of grain-fed beef.

Forage Finishing

Forage finishing capitalizes on the beef animal'south power to convert forage into muscle protein through the aid of microbial breakup of fodder celluloses in the rumen. Since cattle are naturally grazing animals, some consumers seek out beef from cattle reared in their "natural environment". The first challenge to forage-finishing is having a sufficient area of grazeable land. Forage dry thing intake is thought to be maximized when forage allowance is kept above i,000 pounds per acre. Forage-based systems may crave ane acre or up to 10 acres per dogie depending on fertilization, weed control, seasonal forage productivity, provender species and management. Even with good provender direction, hay is often needed for two months to 4 months during winter. To sustain skilful calf growth rates and reduce the number of days required to cease calves on a fodder-based organization, loftier-quality hay should exist offered when pasture grasses are limiting. Supplementation with concentrate feeds such every bit soybean hulls may be needed to boost gains and allow for fat deposition when hay or pasture is moderate to depression quality. Soybean hulls are recognized by the American Association of Feed Control Officials equally a roughage source and is approved for grass-fed beef claims by the USDA. Other organizations set differing standards for definition of 'grass-fed' these organizations offer marketing alliances and certification, if y'all are (or want to be) a fellow member, y'all tin refer to their guidelines for brute care and approved direction and nutrition.

The second limitation to forage-finishing is calf growth response. Every bit forage quality, forage quantity and environmental temperatures fluctuate throughout the year, average daily proceeds may range from seasonal highs of greater than two.0 pounds per solar day to seasonal lows of 0.5 pound per day or less. As a consequence, calves grown in forage-finishing systems oft are slaughtered before they accomplish the same degree of fatness of grain-finished cattle. Forage-finished calves often will be slaughtered near 1,000 pounds alive weight. It will take over a yr (367 days) to grow a 500-pound calf to 1,000 pounds if its average daily weight gain is ane.5 pounds per twenty-four hours. Some extensive forage-finishing systems may require a longer duration for calves to attain slaughter weight if fodder quality and quantity restrict growth to no more than than 1 pound per day.

Intensive spring and summer provender-finishing systems tin can be achieved with mixtures of forages like legumes, perennial grasses, annual grasses and brassicas. Research at Clemson University compared forage species for finishing calves on pasture during late-leap and summer months. Calves used in the study were grown the previous winter on rye/ryegrass and fescue. Finishing forages studied included alfalfa, bermudagrass, chicory, cowpea, or pearl millet. Pastures in this study were stocked at 1.7 acres per calf with the exception of pearl millet which was stocked at 0.viii acres per calf. The amount of pasture provender maintained during the report ranged from ane,300 pounds to ii,500 pounds per acre. Table ane is a summary of the report results.

Steers grazing bermudagrass pastures gained 1.7 pounds per day, while steers grazing alfalfa (two.8 pounds per ), chicory (ii.5 pounds per twenty-four hour period) and cowpea (1.9 pounds per ) gained more rapidly and had greater backfat thickness at slaughter. Steers grazing pearl millet only gained 1.2 pounds per twenty-four hours and had the least backfat at slaughter. Amid the finishing systems, fat acrid composition tended to be similar and the ratio of the polyunsaturated fats to saturated fats was similar. In this written report, all treatments had shear forcefulness values that would be considered at or below the threshold for consumer accepted tenderness.

Research in Georgia (Table 2) compared fodder-finishing on toxic fescue and non-toxic, endophyte-infected alpine fescue starting in the autumn and catastrophe in the spring for a 176-24-hour interval grazing period. The stocking rate of the toxic fescue was ane.5 steers per acre and the stocking rate of the non-toxic fescue was one steer per acre. When fescue became express during winter months (January and Feb), calves were grouped into a single pasture and were fed bermudagrass hay. In full general, toxic fescue reduced growth rate which resulted in lighter carcass weights, just tenderness and consumer console attributes were not enhanced past non-toxic fescue. WarnerBratzler shear force for the steaks from is trial were much higher than the threshold level of acceptable tenderness (10 pounds) and would be considered tough past industry standards. When carcasses were aged for 14 days, shear force values decreased to x pounds, a level that would be on the upper limit of threshold WBSF values considered acceptable for tenderness by consumers (Realini et al., 2005).

Table 1. Growth and carcass attributes of calves finished on different forages during belatedly-bound and summer (adjusted from Schmidt et al., 2013).

Finishing System

	Alfalfa	Bermudagrass	Chicory	Cowpea	Pearl Millet
Grazing days per acre	68	89	55	46	112
Start weight, lbs	893	1,047	931	1,058	1,052
End weight, lbs	one,184	ane,274	1,137	1,221	1,155
Boilerplate daily gain, lb/day	2.viii	one.7	2.5	i.9	1.2
Carcass weight, lbs	711	719	675	752	664
Backfat thickness, inches	0.xxx	0.2	0.30	0.27	0.18
Dressing, %	lx.0	56.4	59.4	61.half-dozen	57.5
Quality class	three.five	iii.8	3.2	four.four	3.8
Warner-Bratzler shear force, lbs	eight.8	10.6	nine.9	viii.8	9.9
Consumer preference, %	40%	v%	x%	xx%	25%

Quality grade code: 3 = Low Select, 4 = High Select, 5 = Depression Option (higher is associated with greater fat and less lean) Warner-Bratzler shear force (lower is associated with greater tenderness, all treatments were at or below the threshold of 10 mostly recognized as tender by consumers)

Table 2. Growth and carcass attributes of calves finished on toxic and non-toxic, endophyte-infected fescue from autumn through spring (adapted from Realini et al., 2005).

Finishing System

	Toxic Fescue	Non-toxic Fescue
Stop weight, lbs	906	992
Carcass weight, lbs	491	541
Backfat thickness, inches	0.17	0.21
Dressing, %	54.2	54.five
Quality grade	3.0	two.8
Warner-Bratzler shear force, lbs	13.2	15.4
Consumer panel – Chewiness score	two.8	iii.vii
Consumer panel – Juiciness score	ii.vii	ii.4

Quality class code: three = Low Select, four = Loftier Select, v = Low Option (college is associated with greater fat and less lean) Chewiness score: ane-to-5 scale with one being near desirable and 5 existence to the lowest degree desirable. Juiciness score: i-to-v scale with 1 being least desirable and 5 being about desirable.

A study at the University of Missouri examined the effect of calculation either red clover or alfalfa to a fescue based foragefinishing system for a 3-calendar month finishing menstruum from late March through July. The amount of legume in these systems was 38% in the alfalfa system and 16% in the ruddy clover system. Final weight of calves did not differ betwixt the fescue and combined legume response and averaged i,035 pounds. Calves in the alfalfa system were 50 pounds heavier at the end of the study compared to the red clover system, which could had been influenced past difference in legume provender availability. The fatty acid composition of fat taken from the loin muscle did not differ among forage types.

Another written report at Clemson (Tabular array 3) compared a legume system to a grass arrangement with or without supplemental corn fed at 0.75% body weight. The legume systems utilized alfalfa and soybeans while the grass organisation utilized non-toxic fescue and sorghum-sudangrass. While corn supplementation provided some beneficial responses, these responses were independent of forage system; therefore, the divergence in forage system is summarized in Table 3. Forage type had little influence on fatty acrid composition; all the same, greater fat soluble vitamin content was detected in the loin muscle of grass finished beef in this report.

Equally a general summary, the forage organization chosen will first be dictated past forage species that are already present. Replacing forages with alternative species or interseeding with complementary forages volition be dictated by soil type, topography, and soil fertility. Calves tin be forage-finished on grasses, legumes or combination thereof. Current inquiry results do not propose any unmarried system is ideal based on carcass quality and consumer sensory comparisons.

Grain Finishing in Confinement

While ruminants have the distinct ability to convert cellulose into musculus protein through ruminal microbial fermentation, there remains a history of fattening cattle on feedstuffs other than forage long earlier the establishment of the modernistic confinement feedlot industry. Early on fattening in America included root crops, "Indian corn", tree fruits and brewing and distillery mash. Confinement feeding in early on America too was a mechanism to concentrate manure for fertilizer. Unlike forage-finishing, grain-finishing requires less land. Depending on soil type and topography, as picayune as 150 square feet per calf of pen infinite with a feed and h2o trough is sufficient. Sometimes, locally grown beefiness producers may allow a much larger area to proceed grass cover in the lot instead of assuasive the pen to become a dirt lot.

Table three. Growth and carcass attributes of calves finished for 98 to 105 days in a grass system or a legume arrangement (adapted from Wright et al., 2015).

	Grass System	Legume Organization
End weight, lbs	1,142	1,166
Carcass weight, lbs	669	697
Backfat thickness, inches	0.33	0.37
Quality grade	4.5	4.vii
Consumer panel – Tenderness score	2.8	2.8
Consumer console – Juiciness score	2.0	ane.ix

Quality grade code: three = Depression Select, 4 = High Select, 5 = Low Choice (higher is associated with greater fat and less lean) Consumer console scores converted to 1-to-5 scale with 1 being least desirable and five existence almost desirable.

When finishing calves in groups, 22 inches to 26 inches of linear trough space per calf is needed when all calves will be eating at once on the same side of the trough. Grain diets are much drier than pasture diets and when calves are fed in confinement, they are usually watered from a trough. Keeping the water trough make clean is extremely important. A depression in h2o intake tin can cause a reduction in feed intake and slow growth charge per unit. During hot weather condition, a dogie about finishing weighing 1,000 pounds or more can consume more than 20 gallons per day (for more on water requirements of finishing calves see AFS-3302 An Introduction to Finishing Beef.)

Many acquaintance grain-fed beef with corn-fed beefiness. From 2005 through 2011, corn use for ethanol grew to the point the total use for ethanol reached that of feed and residuum utilize. A feedlot finishing diet today may incorporate 6% to 12% roughage, up to fifty% byproduct feeds such every bit distiller'southward grains and corn gluten feed and cereal grains (mostly corn) representing 50% or more of the finishing diet.

Mimicking feedlot diets may not be practical when finishing calves on-subcontract; however, similar steps used in the commercial feeding industry should be adopted including:

• Calves should be transitioned from a roughage nutrition to the final high concentrate diet over a iii-week period. This is called a footstep-up plan.
• Feed calves at least twice per mean solar day when the final nutrition does not contain built in roughage or is not formulated to be self-fed or cocky-limiting.
• Include 10% to 15% roughage in the terminal nutrition for increased rumen health and reduced acidosis.
• Feed calves a balanced diet (poly peptide, minerals, mineral ratios and vitamins).
• Adjust feed corporeality as calves grow.

Consult with a nutritionist to develop a ration based on locally available ingredients or use a commercial finishing ration. Some feed mills offer "bull evolution rations" that tin can also be used every bit a decent finishing ration. These "bull development rations" sometimes include enough cottonseed hulls and byproduct feeds that boosted roughage is not needed.

In improver to distiller's grains and corn gluten feed, other byproducts such as soybean hulls may be used in finishing diets. Soybean hulls has an estimated feed value of 74% to 80% of corn; whereas, stale distiller's grains has demonstrated a 124% feed value of corn. There is little indication that feeding byproduct feeds changes the marbling of cattle as long as energy density requirements are met for fat deposition. Inquiry results indicate less intensively processed grains (ie feeding whole corn or rolled corn) may result in higher marbling than intense processing methods commonly used in commercial finishing operations (ie high moisture corn or steam flaking). This is idea to be due to the site of starch digestion being shifted to the small intestine with less intensive grain processing supplying more than glucose to drive marbling.

Feeding Concentrate and Roughage Separately. Feed milling, mixing and delivery take up much of the daily activities in commercial scale feedyards. This is an equipment-intensive functioning with large uppercase outlays necessary for the feed manufactory and equipment for feed delivery. On a smaller calibration, big investments in feeding systems may non be warranted. Delivery of full mixed diets balanced to meet nutritional needs of finishing cattle adds efficiency to large commercial operations that cannot be matched by smaller-scale finishing operations. Diets formulated for on-farm finishing also can exist based on limit feeding the concentrate portion in the trough while assuasive calves to have free choice access to pasture or hay for roughage. Enquiry (Atwood et al., 2001) comparison intake and performance by fattening calves offered either a 65% concentrate (rolled barley and rolled corn) full mixed ration with alfalfa hay and corn silage providing the roughage or providing all dietary ingredients offered gratis-choice for self-selection found that no two animals offered costless-choice consumed like diets or selected diets similar to the TMR. The authors concluded free-selection diet selection was acceptable for each individual fauna to 'meet its needs'. Performance of cattle fed TMR or offered gratis-choice selection of diets and feed efficiency were similar between feeding systems.

More than recent inquiry from Canada (Moya et al., 2011 and 2014) was conducted to compare functioning, efficiency and rumen pH of cattle finished on a TMR based on barley grain (85%), corn silage (10%) and poly peptide/mineral supplement (5%) vs offered concentrate and roughage separately for free-choice selection. All cattle were adjusted to the TMR nutrition and the gratuitous-choice diets were available over the 52-day experiment. During the 52 days, cattle selected diets with increasing barley, reaching 70% to 80% of their self-selected diet, just even with the increasing barley in the diet, ruminal pH was similar to calves fed the TMR in the first experiment (Moya et al., 2011). In the first ii-calendar week period calves consumed approximately 75% barley grain, increasing to fourscore% in weeks three and four, and to 85% in weeks five through seven; the average selected nutrition for cattle offered barley and corn silage was fourscore% barley grain and 20% corn silage. While in the 2nd experiment, calves offered free- option access to corn silage and barley grain self-selected diets that were 86% barley and 14% corn silage without altering ruminal fermentation characteristics and blood profiles (Moya et al., 2014). As with previous experiments, cattle given free-choice access to cocky-select diet ingredients in both experiments performed similarly to cattle fed TMR. These research concluded cattle can effectively self-select diets without increasing the risk of acidosis and maintain production levels for growth and feed efficiency.

If a producer wants to utilize a free-option, self-selection feeding system where roughage and concentrate are fed separately, a few management steps should exist taken.

1. A step-up menstruum of increasing grain availability is a must, cattle should exist acclimated to the high concentrate diets during at to the lowest degree 20 days;
2. Utilize palatable, high-quality hay, silage or roughage source;
3. Limit-feed concentrate and practice proficient feed bunk direction;
4. If limit-feeding hay – feed hay get-go, and so provide the concentrate portion of the diet;
5. Concentrate blends of grains and byproduct feeds are safer than providing grain only;
6. Call back almost safer concentrate feeding alternatives—feeding whole corn is safer than finely ground corn and can exist an option for growing and finishing calves

Grain Finishing On Pasture

Hybrid systems have been studied as an alternative to high-concentrate total mixed rations fed in confinement. These systems utilize the roughage supplied by pasture along with additional energy from supplemental concentrates. They may non meet the requirements to run into 'grass-fed beef' claims by the USDA, simply do provide free-choice access to pasture.

Self-fed supplements on pasture tin can be another arroyo to finishing cattle. Research at Iowa State Academy (Table iv) examined self-fed dried distillers' grains with solubles mixed 1:ane with either soybean hulls or footing corn. In addition, a mineral that helped balance the calcium-to-phosphorus ratio and contained monensin to improve rate of gain was added at iv% of the mix. The calves were stocked at approximately 2.25 calves per acre of predominately tall fescue pasture. Estimated contributions of self-fed concentrate and pasture to the total dry out matter feed intake in this study was 80% and 20%, respectively. The study did not report any issues with digestive upset with self-feeding.

Two studies were conducted at the University of Arkansas (Apple and Beck, unpublished data). In the start trial, calves from spring or autumn calving herds were either sent to a Texas Panhandle feedyard for finishing as yearlings following a stocker program or kept at the home operation and supplemented with 1% of bodyweight per head per mean solar day with a grain/grain byproduct supplement until slaughter. Steers finished conventionally in confinement gained 4.iv pounds per day, while steers fed concentrate supplement on pasture gained ii.5 pounds per 24-hour interval. Although the finishing flow on pasture was 30 days longer on the average, steers finished in the conventional feedlot were 128 pounds heavier at slaughter and dressing percent was higher 62.5% vs sixty.half dozen% for Conventional and pasture, respectively). Conventionally finished cattle were 86% Choice while pasture finished were 78% Select quality grade.

Tabular array iv. Growth and carcass attributes of calves finished on self-fed concentrates (adapted from Kiesling, D.D. 2013).

Finishing System

	Distillers' grains plus solubles:corn [50:50]	Distillers' grains plus solubles:soybean hulls [50:50]
Average daily gain, lbs	3.4	3.3
Stop weight, lbs	1,302	1,291
Carcass weight, lbs	816	807
Dressing, %	62.six	62.v
Backfat thickness, inches	0.53	0.55
Quality Class	5.0	5.0

Estimated concentrate intake was lxxx% and pasture intake 20%. Quality grade lawmaking: 3 = Low Select, 4 = Loftier Select, five = Low Choice

Effigy 1. Effect of finishing on pasture (Fodder) with 1% of bodyweight concentrate supplement daily or conventional finishing (Grain) on bodyweight of steers.

In the next trial, sixty calves were either finished in conventional Texas Panhandle feedyard or were kept on pasture with a grain/grain byproduct concentrate supplement fed at 1.5% of bodyweight daily. Steers finished on pasture with supplement gained 3.half dozen pounds per day (vs 4 pounds per day for conventional) and were fed 40 days longer than conventional steers, only were still 40 pounds lighter at slaughter. But, hot carcass weights (836 for pasture vs 854 for conventional) were not as impacted as in the previous report, fat thickness was like for the two treatments (0.62 inches for pasture vs 0.52 inches for conventionally finished) and dressing percentage was likewise like (63% for pasture and 62.5% for conventional). In this experiment, the cattle finished on pasture with supplement were 100% Pick, with 73% beingness Premium Selection; while the Conventional steers were 93% Choice, with 45% being Premium Choice. This enquiry indicates acceptable carcass performance tin exist obtained with limited energy supplementation on pasture.

Figure 2. Issue of finishing on pasture (Forage) with 1.5% of bodyweight concentrate supplement daily or conventional finishing (Grain) on carcass quality grade.

Live Weight to Retail Cuts

The final corporeality of retail cuts produced from a live calf will be afflicted past frame, muscle, os, fat cover and gut capacity/fill. The first measure of yield is dressing percentage which is the per centum of carcass weight relative to alive weight. Dressing per centum can range from 58% to 66%. A 1,300-pound steer that yields a carcass weighing 806 pounds would have a 62% dressing percent. A second measure of yield is retail product. The USDA Yield Class is a numerical score that is indicative of retail production. A calculated Yield Grade is determined from hot carcass weight, fat thickness at the 12th rib, ribeye expanse and the combined percent of kidney, pelvic and heart fat. Per centum of retail products can be calculated from these aforementioned measurements. Percent retail product may range from 45% to 55%. A one,300-pound steer at Yield Course 3 would have a retail production pct of l% which would yield almost 650 pounds of retail product. If ii individuals purchase a side of beef each, they each can expect 325 pounds of retail product. The yield of retail product will consist of approximately 62% roasts and steaks and 38% ground beefiness and stew meats. So, a unmarried side of beef that yields 325 pounds of retail product also would yield approximately 201 pounds of roasts and steaks and 124 pounds of basis beef and stew meat.

Postmortem Crumbling Furnishings on Beef Tenderness

Figure 3 illustrates the benign effects of aging on tenderness as measured in a laboratory as Warner-Bratzler shear force. This naturally tenderizing process ceases once meat is frozen. When possible, postmortem crumbling should be at least seven to xv days to reach threshold shear forcefulness values for consumer acceptable tenderness of 8.3 pounds to 10 pounds (three.eight kg to 4.6 kg). Crumbling beyond this timeframe is often restricted due to the processor'southward cooler space, only could result in further improvements in tenderness.

Figure 3. Event of aging on fodder-finished beef tenderness as determined past Warner-Brazler shear force (adapted from Schmidt et al., 2013).

Was this information helpful?

YESNO

rileydaway1948.blogspot.com

Source: https://extension.okstate.edu/fact-sheets/finishing-beef-cattle-on-the-farm.html

Share this post