Carcase yeilded 70%, with 19" loineye!

After responding to Knabe's thread on butchering, I thought I'd pass along this. In a Nebraska test recently a Shorty steer yielded over 70%, with a 19.1" loineye. He also topped the "carcass" rate of gain,(Not live).

Here's the disgrace! Carcass only graded USDA standard. When is the USDA going to scrape this antiquated system of "grade and yield", and come up with something for the 21st century?

I'm thinking T-L (tender-lean). I know these genetics, and their tenderness is phenomenal!

Unbelieveable! What was his kill weight- do you know?

Red

High #1300's.

red, remember majors money man is at least heterozygous for the 3 tenderness markers.  ELBEE, whtat do shorthorns do with the markers and what is the lowest number ever recorded on the shear test?  do you know anything about smokey marlbing?  of the percent NOT associated with the current tenderness markers, how much more improvement do you think is possible either genetically, or by management practices like mentioned in your "cowboy logic" post.  is it possible to have the same tenderness as a fully markerded carcass, but not have ANY of the tenderness markers and have that associated with a genetic component that is either being worked on or is known?

Well here is something along those same lines..... The white steer that we raised along with American Muscle was shown twice this summer.... This steer was 49 inches and weighed 1330.... He acutally was the only non black steer at our county fair... Also Terry Knight had an Elbee steer for his county fair... These idiot judges are actually calling them too extreme... Carcass weights too heavy for thier frame size.... This is the stupidest thing I have ever heard.... That is like saying you have too much money!!!!Just frustrating when you spend 10 yrs to approach a certian type of product and now that we are just about there..These idiot judges are claiming we went too far.... Where can we find judges that have a clue? I could really give a crap if we win or loose but don't give a dumbass reason like that!!!!  If there is proof that a 1300# frame 4 steer is less profitable than a 1300# frame 6 steer I would like to see it... I know the frame 4s are more impressive to look at... and feed pretty darn good.

ELBEE said:

After responding to Knabe's thread on butchering, I thought I'd pass along this. In a Nebraska test recently a Shorty steer yielded over 70%, with a 19.1" loineye. He also topped the "carcass" rate of gain,(Not live).

Here's the disgrace! Carcass only graded USDA standard. When is the USDA going to scrape this antiquated system of "grade and yield", and come up with something for the 21st century?

I'm thinking T-L (tender-lean). I know these genetics, and their tenderness is phenomenal!

Click to expand...

Because marbling is important to flavor, and, I don't think we need to go to the system they use in England, which favors double-muscled cattle. Isn't a ribeye that size TOO big?

6 piece Ghen-Su steak knife set, $29.95 at Wally-world.

Never had a customer yet, complain about their steaks being to big. 

Did he look like he would grade?

Most people do not direct market their beef.  Therefore, in order to be profitable, they must supply the commodity that the market desires or has been told that they desire, whichever the case may be.  That being known; research, for whatever that is worth, shows that the American beef consumer prefers juicy beef.  When given two samples with identical shear test ratings, they select the higher graded sample as more tender.  I think that is a good-sized rib eye and wouldn't mind for a second to see it on my plate; but to get it down to the recommended serving size of 4 ounces, it would only be about 1/3 of an inch thick, assuming my math is correct.

ELBEE said:

6 piece Ghen-Su steak knife set, $29.95 at Wally-world.

Never had a customer yet, complain about their steaks being to big. 

Click to expand...

We actually try and finish ours we are going to keep a little bigger because we like a bigger steak.

if this steer was well marbled, he would have received the highest grade in the Canadian Beef grading system, and he would most likely received a premium at some packers. Our system is based on marbling and yield. Yield is determined by exterior fat cover along with the top length and width of the ribe eye. We used to feed a couple thousand head a year, and the cattle we fed for the US plants would stay in the feedlot approx. 40-50 days longer than what was required here.

In regards to the real large ribeyes, I have heard from some packer buyers that they are starting to look at a discount system for the larger than normal ribeyes because they have to be pulled off and processed seperately and sold seperately. I have heard about some complaints about a set of Limo steers that a feedlot sold for this reason.

O.K I have to agree, marbling is grease, and does affect the "eatability" of steak.

And a consumer shopping at Thrift-way for $11.99 per lb. steak, wants to watch their serving size. But our customer paying .93 cents per lb. live, really appreciates the yield and size of their steaks. What they're watching for is the over all weight of the animal.

And another question. Why do the consumers want the fat trimmed to 90% lean? Our packing plant manager gets a good chuckle when people ask him to trim ours down to 90% lean. We haven't taken him one in 10 years that's had 10% fat on it.

ELBEE said:

O.K I have to agree, marbling is grease, and does affect the "eatability" of steak.

And a consumer shopping at Thrift-way for $11.99 per lb. steak, wants to watch their serving size. But our customer paying .93 cents per lb. live, really appreciates the yield and size of their steaks. What they're watching for is the over all weight of the animal.

And another question. Why do the consumers want the fat trimmed to 90% lean? Our packing plant manager gets a good chuckle when people ask him to trim ours down to 90% lean. We haven't taken him one in 10 years that's had 10% fat on it.

Click to expand...

Lee, are you saying yours don't have as much marbling, too, or just don't have a rind, or"bark" on the outside of the carcass?

I can appreciate the "bigger is better" theory......but is it?  I mean really, we are marketing to a family of four that is making a wee bit over minimium wage. And a $12 per pound ribeye, which if it is 17 sq inches and an 1 1/2 inches thick, it is probably weighing at LEAST 2 pounds....so you're expecting a family to buy THREE of them (one for each adult, and one for the children)? That  is $36 for meat THAT meal.  And yes, you can cut them in two, but then it really isn't a ribeye is it?? And a butcher is not going to cut a big ribeye or t-bone in half to market it.

Limis indeed have a "problem" with heavy carcasses with big measurements and yet do not grade due to their leanness. BUT because limi muscle tissue is finer than say angus, they are actually more tender, but the grade system does not take this into account. Same with Piedmontese and Begium Blue cattle.  And by the way....older folks and those that can not tolerate fat in their diets, LOVE naturally lean limi meat!!!

I am not sure what the answer is, except to say we CAN NOT forget who we are marketing to. And we can not let our egos to produce "bigger than them"  get in the way of what is best for the meat industry.

In reality there is no real place in the industry for a 19" loin eye... It is an extra step to make that loin a NY strip and a Fillet... The packer would rather sell the bone!  I know it sounds cool but the proof is that the animal did not grade and that it was probably a large frame animal that had it!

GaryBob, in answer to your question. The carcass in the test, I did not personally see. But I think we can assume there was a lack of marbling to grade so poorly.

As far as our own similar type, each is graded by our plant manager and I.  There is usually some discussion on wheather they'll be select+, or choice -, due to slight marbling. I can tell you our customers are 100% satisfied.