Feeding Fodder to Beef Cattle for Slaughter

Finishing Beef Cattle On The Farm

By Paul Beck, David Lalman

Leap To:
• Selection
• General Facility Considerations
• Finishing Options
• Forage Finishing
• Grain Finishing in Confinement
• Grain Finishing On Pasture
• Live Weight to Retail Cuts
• Postmortem Aging Effects on Beefiness Tenderness

Rural landowners oft are interested in raising livestock to slaughter for personal consumption, local marketing or for normal article markets. Advantages to raising your own beef include having control over calf quality and pick of how the calf is finished out. Calves can exist finished on grass, grain and grass, or high concentrate diets. There are disadvantages to consider when fattening your own beefiness. Disadvantages may include the need to buy a calf, extra labor for feeding, sufficient state set aside for forage-finishing, purchasing and storage of expensive feedstuffs for grain-finishing, or purchasing freezers to shop the beef after slaughter. Calves besides can get sick and may crave veterinary attending, and owners must realize the longer the ownership, the more than risk of decease losses due to injury or illness. This fact sheet covers facility and dogie selection, feeding options and slaughter considerations for finishing calves on the farm. For more than in-depth information on nutrition, health and growth promoting compounds see AFS-3302 An Introduction to Finishing Beef.

Choice

Calves selected for subcontract-raised beef vary in type. Budget, marketing niches and terminate production goals will determine the blazon of dogie that works all-time. Pocket-size-framed dairy calves, like Jersey calves, tin have exceptional meat quality; nevertheless, percent retail production and size of cuts, similar ribeye steaks, volition be fairly small. A Large-framed, heavy-muscled beefiness breed will have very skilful cutability (high percentage retail product) merely calves of this blazon can take longer to reach maturity, will likely be slaughtered prematurely and freezer space may be inadequate to store all the cuts. Calves of beef breeds that are moderate-framed and early maturing with proficient muscling are platonic for virtually subcontract raised beefiness programs. Producers that desire greater lean may desire calves of traditional Continental breeds like Charolais and Limousin; whereas, producers that desire the season and juiciness of steaks with more marbling (intramuscular fat that determines USDA Quality Grade) may prefer calves of predominately English convenance such as Hereford, Red Angus, Black Angus or Shorthorn. Finishing calves with more than than 25% Brahman influence can tend to reduce cutability and tenderness.

Bulls should exist castrated early in life, preferably at birth or past iii months of historic period. Steaks from intact bulls tin be bacteria and tougher than steaks from steers. Ambitious activity of grouping-fed bulls can become a handling issue every bit well as increased chances for animate being injury and bruising. Heifers brand good subcontract-raised beef candidates. Heifers oft are kept for breeding, and at the end of the breeding flavor, whatsoever heifer that did not become pregnant can be easily finished for slaughter. Considering they are before-maturing, heifers generally fatten quicker at a lighter bodyweight and have a slightly poorer feed conversion ratio than males.

General Facility Considerations

Shade and wind breaks. Finishing (forage- or grainfinishing) and marketing goals (personal utilize or auction) will decide the land and facilities needed. Whether finishing calves on pasture or in dry lot solitude, calves volition be more than comfortable if they have access to shade during summer and a wind suspension during wintertime. Calves may abound adequately without shade or a wind suspension during part of the year, just 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 exist a personal preference to the level of animal comfort desired and marketing or may be a necessity depending on the environment. If the goal is to market beefiness locally, buyers may be interested in farm tours to see where the beef was produced. Buyers of locally grown beef are making their buying decision based in office on their perception of how calves should be reared and if calves don't take admission to summertime shade or wintertime shelter, someone will eventually make information technology a betoken to ask.

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

Feed storage and treatment. Wasted feed due to poor storage and handling techniques increases the price of producing beefiness. Feeds should be stored in a dry out location to reduce the chances of molding. Feed storage facilities need to be kept make clean to go along pests (rodents and insects) at a minimum. It is essential feeding rates exist managed to limit build up of uneaten feed. Feed troughs likewise should exist 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 fodder-finished beef programs should be high in quality. Storing hay under UV-protective tarps or in barns volition reduce storage waste. Feeding circular bales in protected rings that either keep the bale centered or accept a metal canvass effectually the lesser minimize feeding waste (encounter the fact sheets BAE-1716 Round Bale Hay Storage for more than in depth information on hay storage losses and PSS-2570 Reducing Wintertime Feed Costs for more information on improved hay utilization)

Finishing Options

Forage- versus Grain-finishing. The objective here isn't to first a grass- or grain-finished debate; there is room for both in a local subcontract-raised beef marketplace. It is important to sympathise common characteristics of forage- versus grain-finished beefiness when deciding which option is best for beef produced on-farm for personal use or marketing. In full general, the typical beefiness consumer of the U.S. prefers the flavor of grain-fed beef. Past comparison, footing beef from cattle finished on fodder has been characterized equally having a 'grassy' flavor. Grass-fed basis beef also can have a cooking odor that differs from grain-fed beef. The visual appearance of the fat of grass-fed beef tin be more yellow in color due to carotenoids in comparison to grain-fed beef 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 two.54 pounds per day.) Provender-finished cattle were finished at a lighter weight (~950 lb pounds) than grain-finished cattle (~one,100 pounds) and dressed at a lower per centum (56% vs threescore%). Provender-finished cattle had 0.2 inches of dorsum fat vs 0.5 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 existence less tender and less juicy compared to fatter beef. So, the health-conscientious consumer seeking forage-raised beef is usually willing to accept trade-offs of season, tenderness and juiciness for a leaner beef that may contain a greater proportion of heart-good for you fats. Whereas, other consumers may continue to seek the grain-finished beef characteristics, but want to back up local sources of grain-fed beef.

Forage Finishing

Provender finishing capitalizes on the beef animal's ability to convert provender into muscle protein through the aid of microbial breakdown of provender celluloses in the rumen. Since cattle are naturally grazing animals, some consumers seek out beef from cattle reared in their "natural environment". The beginning claiming to forage-finishing is having a sufficient surface area of grazeable land. Forage dry matter intake is thought to be maximized when forage assart is kept to a higher place 1,000 pounds per acre. Provender-based systems may require i acre or up to 10 acres per calf depending on fertilization, weed control, seasonal forage productivity, forage species and management. Even with good forage management, hay is frequently needed for two months to 4 months during winter. To sustain good dogie growth rates and reduce the number of days required to finish calves on a forage-based system, high-quality hay should exist offered when pasture grasses are limiting. Supplementation with concentrate feeds such equally 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 Clan of Feed Command Officials equally a roughage source and is canonical for grass-fed beefiness claims past 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 member, you can refer to their guidelines for animal intendance and approved management and diet.

The second limitation to forage-finishing is calf growth response. As provender quality, forage quantity and environmental temperatures fluctuate throughout the yr, average daily gain may range from seasonal highs of greater than two.0 pounds per day to seasonal lows of 0.5 pound per day or less. As a result, calves grown in forage-finishing systems oftentimes are slaughtered before they accomplish the same degree of fatness of grain-finished cattle. Forage-finished calves often will be slaughtered near i,000 pounds alive weight. It will have over a year (367 days) to grow a 500-pound dogie to one,000 pounds if its average daily weight gain is 1.5 pounds per twenty-four hours. Some extensive provender-finishing systems may require a longer duration for calves to reach slaughter weight if fodder quality and quantity restrict growth to no more than 1 pound per day.

Intensive bound and summer forage-finishing systems can be accomplished with mixtures of forages similar legumes, perennial grasses, almanac grasses and brassicas. Research at Clemson Academy compared fodder species for finishing calves on pasture during late-spring 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 written report were stocked at 1.vii acres per calf with the exception of pearl millet which was stocked at 0.8 acres per calf. The amount of pasture forage maintained during the study ranged from ane,300 pounds to 2,500 pounds per acre. Table one is a summary of the report results.

Steers grazing bermudagrass pastures gained 1.vii pounds per 24-hour interval, while steers grazing alfalfa (ii.viii pounds per ), chicory (two.5 pounds per 24-hour interval) and cowpea (ane.ix pounds per ) gained more than rapidly and had greater backfat thickness at slaughter. Steers grazing pearl millet only gained 1.2 pounds per mean solar day and had the least backfat at slaughter. Among the finishing systems, fatty acid composition tended to be similar and the ratio of the polyunsaturated fats to saturated fats was similar. In this study, all treatments had shear force values that would be considered at or below the threshold for consumer accepted tenderness.

Research in Georgia (Table 2) compared provender-finishing on toxic fescue and non-toxic, endophyte-infected tall fescue starting in the fall and ending in the spring for a 176-day grazing flow. The stocking charge per unit of the toxic fescue was 1.5 steers per acre and the stocking rate of the non-toxic fescue was one steer per acre. When fescue became limited during winter months (January and February), calves were grouped into a single pasture and were fed bermudagrass hay. In general, toxic fescue reduced growth rate which resulted in lighter carcass weights, but tenderness and consumer panel attributes were not enhanced past non-toxic fescue. WarnerBratzler shear forcefulness for the steaks from is trial were much higher than the threshold level of acceptable tenderness (10 pounds) and would exist considered tough past industry standards. When carcasses were aged for fourteen days, shear force values decreased to 10 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 dissimilar forages during late-leap and summer (adapted 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	i,047	931	1,058	1,052
Cease weight, lbs	1,184	1,274	1,137	1,221	1,155
Average daily gain, lb/day	2.8	1.7	2.5	1.9	1.2
Carcass weight, lbs	711	719	675	752	664
Backfat thickness, inches	0.30	0.2	0.thirty	0.27	0.eighteen
Dressing, %	60.0	56.4	59.four	61.6	57.5
Quality form	three.five	3.viii	3.2	4.iv	3.8
Warner-Bratzler shear force, lbs	8.viii	10.6	9.ix	8.8	9.9
Consumer preference, %	40%	5%	10%	twenty%	25%

Quality grade code: 3 = Low Select, four = High Select, v = Low Choice (higher is associated with greater fat and less lean) Warner-Bratzler shear strength (lower is associated with greater tenderness, all treatments were at or beneath the threshold of 10 generally recognized as tender by consumers)

Tabular array 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
End weight, lbs	906	992
Carcass weight, lbs	491	541
Backfat thickness, inches	0.17	0.21
Dressing, %	54.2	54.v
Quality course	iii.0	2.8
Warner-Bratzler shear force, lbs	13.2	15.4
Consumer console – Chewiness score	2.8	3.7
Consumer panel – Juiciness score	two.vii	2.4

Quality course lawmaking: iii = Low Select, 4 = High Select, v = Depression Choice (higher is associated with greater fat and less lean) Chewiness score: one-to-5 calibration with 1 being near desirable and 5 being least desirable. Juiciness score: 1-to-v calibration with 1 being least desirable and 5 being most desirable.

A study at the University of Missouri examined the effect of adding either red clover or alfalfa to a fescue based foragefinishing system for a three-month finishing period from belatedly March through July. The amount of legume in these systems was 38% in the alfalfa organization and 16% in the red clover system. Final weight of calves did not differ betwixt the fescue and combined legume response and averaged 1,035 pounds. Calves in the alfalfa system were 50 pounds heavier at the end of the written report compared to the cherry clover arrangement, which could had been influenced by difference in legume forage availability. The fatty acid composition of fat taken from the loin muscle did non differ among forage types.

Another study at Clemson (Table iii) compared a legume organisation to a grass organisation with or without supplemental corn fed at 0.75% body weight. The legume systems utilized alfalfa and soybeans while the grass system utilized non-toxic fescue and sorghum-sudangrass. While corn supplementation provided some beneficial responses, these responses were contained of forage system; therefore, the difference in forage organisation is summarized in Table 3. Forage type had little influence on fatty acid composition; however, greater fat soluble vitamin content was detected in the loin musculus of grass finished beefiness in this study.

Every bit a general summary, the fodder system chosen volition first be dictated by forage species that are already present. Replacing forages with alternative species or interseeding with complementary forages will exist dictated by soil blazon, topography, and soil fertility. Calves can be fodder-finished on grasses, legumes or combination thereof. Electric current inquiry results practise not suggest any single system is ideal based on carcass quality and consumer sensory comparisons.

Grain Finishing in Confinement

While ruminants have the distinct ability to catechumen cellulose into muscle poly peptide through ruminal microbial fermentation, at that place remains a history of fattening cattle on feedstuffs other than forage long before the establishment of the modern solitude feedlot manufacture. Early fattening in America included root crops, "Indian corn", tree fruits and brewing and distillery mash. Confinement feeding in early America also was a mechanism to concentrate manure for fertilizer. Unlike forage-finishing, grain-finishing requires less land. Depending on soil blazon and topography, every bit little as 150 square anxiety per dogie of pen space with a feed and water trough is sufficient. Sometimes, locally grown beef producers may allow a much larger surface area to keep grass cover in the lot instead of assuasive the pen to become a dirt lot.

Table 3. Growth and carcass attributes of calves finished for 98 to 105 days in a grass organization or a legume system (adapted from Wright et al., 2015).

	Grass System	Legume System
Finish weight, lbs	ane,142	1,166
Carcass weight, lbs	669	697
Backfat thickness, inches	0.33	0.37
Quality grade	4.5	4.7
Consumer console – Tenderness score	2.8	ii.8
Consumer panel – Juiciness score	2.0	ane.nine

Quality grade code: three = Low Select, 4 = High Select, 5 = Low Choice (college is associated with greater fatty and less lean) Consumer panel scores converted to 1-to-v scale with one existence least desirable and v being most 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 commonly watered from a trough. Keeping the h2o trough make clean is extremely important. A depression in water intake tin can cause a reduction in feed intake and irksome growth rate. During hot weather, a calf nearly finishing weighing 1,000 pounds or more can eat more than 20 gallons per twenty-four hours (for more on water requirements of finishing calves come across AFS-3302 An Introduction to Finishing Beef.)

Many associate grain-fed beef with corn-fed beef. From 2005 through 2011, corn use for ethanol grew to the point the total use for ethanol reached that of feed and residuum employ. A feedlot finishing diet today may contain vi% to 12% roughage, up to fifty% byproduct feeds such as 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-farm; however, similar steps used in the commercial feeding industry should be adopted including:

• Calves should be transitioned from a roughage nutrition to the terminal high concentrate diet over a three-week menstruation. This is called a step-upward plan.
• Feed calves at to the lowest degree twice per twenty-four hour period when the final diet does non comprise built in roughage or is not formulated to be self-fed or self-limiting.
• Include 10% to 15% roughage in the final diet for increased rumen health and reduced acidosis.
• Feed calves a balanced nutrition (protein, minerals, mineral ratios and vitamins).
• Conform feed corporeality as calves grow.

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

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

Feeding Concentrate and Roughage Separately. Feed milling, mixing and delivery take upward much of the daily activities in commercial scale feedyards. This is an equipment-intensive operation with large capital letter outlays necessary for the feed factory and equipment for feed commitment. On a smaller scale, large investments in feeding systems may not be warranted. Delivery of total mixed diets balanced to encounter nutritional needs of finishing cattle adds efficiency to large commercial operations that cannot exist matched by smaller-calibration finishing operations. Diets formulated for on-farm finishing also tin be based on limit feeding the concentrate portion in the trough while allowing calves to have free choice admission to pasture or hay for roughage. Enquiry (Atwood et al., 2001) comparing intake and performance by fattening calves offered either a 65% concentrate (rolled barley and rolled corn) total mixed ration with alfalfa hay and corn silage providing the roughage or providing all dietary ingredients offered free-choice for self-selection found that no two animals offered free-choice consumed similar diets or selected diets similar to the TMR. The authors concluded free-choice nutrition selection was acceptable for each individual animate being to 'run into its needs'. Performance of cattle fed TMR or offered gratis-choice selection of diets and feed efficiency were similar between feeding systems.

More recent research from Canada (Moya et al., 2011 and 2014) was conducted to compare performance, efficiency and rumen pH of cattle finished on a TMR based on barley grain (85%), corn silage (x%) and protein/mineral supplement (v%) vs offered concentrate and roughage separately for free-choice selection. All cattle were adapted to the TMR diet and the free-choice diets were bachelor over the 52-day experiment. During the 52 days, cattle selected diets with increasing barley, reaching seventy% to fourscore% of their self-selected diet, only even with the increasing barley in the diet, ruminal pH was similar to calves fed the TMR in the starting time experiment (Moya et al., 2011). In the outset 2-week menstruation calves consumed approximately 75% barley grain, increasing to 80% in weeks three and four, and to 85% in weeks five through seven; the boilerplate selected diet for cattle offered barley and corn silage was 80% barley grain and xx% corn silage. While in the 2d experiment, calves offered free- selection 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 self-select nutrition 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 utilise a free-option, self-option feeding system where roughage and concentrate are fed separately, a few direction steps should exist taken.

1. A stride-upwards period of increasing grain availability is a must, cattle should exist acclimated to the high concentrate diets during at least 20 days;
2. Utilize palatable, high-quality hay, silage or roughage source;
3. Limit-feed concentrate and practice good feed bunk management;
4. If limit-feeding hay – feed hay beginning, so provide the concentrate portion of the diet;
5. Concentrate blends of grains and byproduct feeds are safer than providing grain but;
6. Think almost safer concentrate feeding alternatives—feeding whole corn is safer than finely ground corn and can be an option for growing and finishing calves

Grain Finishing On Pasture

Hybrid systems take been studied as an alternative to high-concentrate total mixed rations fed in confinement. These systems utilize the roughage supplied past pasture along with additional free energy from supplemental concentrates. They may not meet the requirements to run across 'grass-fed beef' claims by the USDA, but practice provide free-choice access to pasture.

Cocky-fed supplements on pasture tin can be another arroyo to finishing cattle. Inquiry at Iowa State University (Table 4) examined self-fed dried distillers' grains with solubles mixed one:1 with either soybean hulls or ground corn. In addition, a mineral that helped remainder the calcium-to-phosphorus ratio and contained monensin to improve charge per unit of gain was added at four% of the mix. The calves were stocked at approximately 2.25 calves per acre of predominately alpine fescue pasture. Estimated contributions of self-fed concentrate and pasture to the total dry thing feed intake in this study was 80% and 20%, respectively. The study did not report whatsoever issues with digestive upset with self-feeding.

Ii studies were conducted at the University of Arkansas (Apple tree and Brook, unpublished data). In the first trial, calves from spring or fall calving herds were either sent to a Texas Panhandle feedyard for finishing as yearlings post-obit a stocker program or kept at the home performance and supplemented with ane% of bodyweight per head per twenty-four hours 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 2.5 pounds per day. Although the finishing menstruation on pasture was 30 days longer on the average, steers finished in the conventional feedlot were 128 pounds heavier at slaughter and dressing pct was higher 62.5% vs threescore.6% for Conventional and pasture, respectively). Conventionally finished cattle were 86% Choice while pasture finished were 78% Select quality grade.

Table 4. Growth and carcass attributes of calves finished on self-fed concentrates (adapted from Kiesling, D.D. 2013).

Finishing Arrangement

	Distillers' grains plus solubles:corn [fifty:50]	Distillers' grains plus solubles:soybean hulls [50:fifty]
Average daily proceeds, lbs	3.4	3.iii
Terminate weight, lbs	1,302	1,291
Carcass weight, lbs	816	807
Dressing, %	62.6	62.5
Backfat thickness, inches	0.53	0.55
Quality Grade	5.0	five.0

Estimated concentrate intake was lxxx% and pasture intake 20%. Quality form code: 3 = Low Select, 4 = High Select, v = Low Choice

Effigy i. Effect of finishing on pasture (Forage) with one% of bodyweight concentrate supplement daily or conventional finishing (Grain) on bodyweight of steers.

In the next trial, 60 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 3.6 pounds per mean solar day (vs iv pounds per mean solar day for conventional) and were fed twoscore days longer than conventional steers, but were nevertheless 40 pounds lighter at slaughter. But, hot carcass weights (836 for pasture vs 854 for conventional) were non as impacted as in the previous written report, fat thickness was similar for the ii treatments (0.62 inches for pasture vs 0.52 inches for conventionally finished) and dressing pct was likewise like (63% for pasture and 62.5% for conventional). In this experiment, the cattle finished on pasture with supplement were 100% Option, with 73% being Premium Choice; while the Conventional steers were 93% Choice, with 45% beingness Premium Pick. This research indicates adequate carcass performance tin exist obtained with limited energy supplementation on pasture.

Figure 2. Effect of finishing on pasture (Forage) with 1.v% of bodyweight concentrate supplement daily or conventional finishing (Grain) on carcass quality grade.

Live Weight to Retail Cuts

The final amount of retail cuts produced from a live calf volition be affected by frame, muscle, bone, fat cover and gut capacity/fill. The first measure of yield is dressing percentage which is the percent of carcass weight relative to live weight. Dressing percentage tin can range from 58% to 66%. A 1,300-pound steer that yields a carcass weighing 806 pounds would have a 62% dressing pct. A second measure out of yield is retail product. The USDA Yield Grade is a numerical score that is indicative of retail product. A calculated Yield Course is determined from hot carcass weight, fat thickness at the 12th rib, ribeye area and the combined pct of kidney, pelvic and heart fat. Pct of retail products can be calculated from these same measurements. Percent retail production may range from 45% to 55%. A 1,300-pound steer at Yield Grade 3 would have a retail product pct of l% which would yield about 650 pounds of retail product. If two individuals purchase a side of beef each, they each tin can expect 325 pounds of retail product. The yield of retail product will consist of approximately 62% roasts and steaks and 38% footing beef and stew meats. And so, a single side of beefiness that yields 325 pounds of retail product also would yield approximately 201 pounds of roasts and steaks and 124 pounds of ground beef and stew meat.

Postmortem Crumbling Effects on Beefiness Tenderness

Effigy three illustrates the beneficial effects of aging on tenderness as measured in a laboratory every bit Warner-Bratzler shear force. This naturally tenderizing process ceases once meat is frozen. When possible, postmortem aging should be at to the lowest degree seven to 15 days to reach threshold shear force values for consumer acceptable tenderness of viii.3 pounds to 10 pounds (3.eight kg to 4.6 kg). Aging beyond this timeframe is often restricted due to the processor's cooler space, but could consequence in farther improvements in tenderness.

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

Was this information helpful?

YESNO

maxthardissen.blogspot.com

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

Share this post