Positioned for the future...

Help Support Steer Planet:

JbarL

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 21, 2007
Messages
1,677
Location
30deg 17' 11.73 N 81deg 35'59.94&q
knabe said:
aj said:
The key to good meat is hanging it an extra week.

i can back this up with facts.  i posted this on another website.  it's pretty easy to get tenderness gene results by that extra week and on down the line.  pretty amazing.

in the paper
"association of a single nucleotide polymorphism in the calpastatin gene with carcass and meat quality traits of beef cattle" by schenkel et al there is a table. remember, this is only for one gene and measures all 3 allele types. also, remember, a tough steak is rated as one that is 5.7 kg on shear force test or 12.54 pounds.  you can see that if you have the CC allele, you barely have a tender steak for this one gene at two days, but at JUST 7 days hanging, the worst carcass is better than the best carcass at two days!  even more dramatic at 14 days.  i haven't seen any data on carcasses with homozygosity at all three alleles compared to the no star carcasses.  can one have negative tenderness?   in the end, perhaps it just means one can save on energy in the locker and have the best tenderness at 7 days the same as 21 days.  pretty amazing.

here is the table. x is shear force at days post mortem
y is the genotype and units are kg force. (variation not shown)

        2     7     14   21

CC 5.55 5.03 4.23 3.67
CG 5.81 5.13 4.39 3.95
GG 6.06 5.41 4.44 3.87

they have a unit called SFLavg which kinda groups the differences altogether in one number, but i like the table as it shows, as usual, a practice window to excel.

also of note, one could purchase lower cost, low star carcasses and sell them as premium simply by aging and get a similar product depending on how the star carcass was handled. REMEMBER, this is only for one gene.


so it would seem that all you have to do is age the carcass 7 days to get under the magic 5.7 kg. that's a huge difference between on the 2 and 7 day time points, but dramatically gets smaller the longer you age. no one really ages that long without a little hassle (21 days), ie drier aging units to remove moisture so mold doesn't build up, wrapping the carcass with cheesecloth to make mold removal easier. also, quartering the carcass wastes an excellent steak. someone told me yesterday that they would feed carcasses at cost for the profit they make off of offal for a period of time to hold them over during tough price points. a guy at the feed store told me the other day he had one age for a month, but it had lots of mold, but after cleaning it up, he said it was the most tender beef he had ever had. going to go ask a local butcher today about their dry aging.

ps, there is one other paper i am trying to read which i lost for other markers with real data. airhead moment. i'll try and find that one.


PS again.   would like to know if this is what safeway does with ranchers reserve and if it's cheaper for them to purchase the cheaper carcasses, hand required number of days and sell it at a premium called "ranchers reserve" rather than paying up front for better quality carcasses.
"gamey" is a word i always associated with as a "bad" almost rotten description....but in its european "origional" meaning ...was actually a refrence to its "quality, with in turn equated to value".....and was directly related to its "curing/temp/hanging" time....longer being more desired....almost just to the point of spoiling.....risky business....kinda reminds me of my "leareness" of deer and hog meati had  here in florida.....jut couldnt get over the fact of processing wild meat in such warm temps compared to the northern habits im used to........jbarl
 

Diamond

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 14, 2007
Messages
715
Location
CT
I have or had raised just about every breed out there, from my Angus to some watusi, but without a doubt my fav. breed is my Murray greys. though they are a young breed they are being recognized for there quality of beef, yield and there feed to yield ratio, in simple terms they are easy keepers who seem to gain weight off of air. The breed is still fighting to find recognition in the show ring but we are making strives and our cattle are starting to stand there ground agents the major breeds. The best attribute of this breed however is there sweet dispositions, which is a key factor in there breeding.
 

shortyisqueen

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
313
Location
Alberta, Canada
Like most of you, it is two breeds for us as well, the Herefords and Shorthorns (and the commercials). Of course, my opinions here are based on what I have experienced in both (the Herefords have been on our farm for forty years while the Shorties are relative newcomers at only 9 years), so I'm sure you will not all share the same opinion!

It has taken a long, long time, but I think the Herefords are reaching their genetic goal as a maternal breed - they are there to make COWS: Our experience with using both our own and other bulls in the recent past has been this: Unbelievably functional cows - good feet and legs, more than enough milk in udders with strong udder attachments, fertile enough to have a 365 day calving interval, foraging ability, depth of rib, moderate-framed, docile, pigmented, dark-red, low input beef machines. In studying a number of angus catalogues this year, I have noticed that the marbling scan data we have had with our bulls and females each spring has been at least equivilent to the marbling scan data posted in these catalogues. This is good - and it has taken many, many years to take the breed back from the days where 'everything was kept, because you could sell them.' What the Herefords do not have: The round muscle so desired in the show ring (and not proving its worth anywhere else as of yet), the lean meat yeild of the exotic breeds, and perhaps the most important thing, Herefords still lack a good image. Despite the fact that the cattle are perhaps as functional as they have been in a very long time, unless we convince the packer, feedlot operator, and commercial cow-calf producer that Hereford does not mean dwarfy, curly haired, pink-eyed, bad-gaining, prolapsing, non-milking, goat-bagged beasties, we are doomed. Until we can change this opinion, it will remain tough to sell Hereford bulls.

As for the Shorthorns, I think others have stated it aptly when they've said they dominate in the show ring and are non-existent in the commercial arena. Having been one of those people who purchased some 'commercially-oriented' pedigrees as opposed to some show ring bloodlines, I fear that our biggest problem is not that the show ring bloodlines will not work in the commercial herd, but that those  bloodlines which are being touted as the 'commercial cure' are, in fact, a far cry from what is needed. Case in point, some of those commercial-oriented heifer calves I bought are no longer with us, as aside from their very bad feet and very bad udders, they had little milk and were open by the time they were three or four. Needless to say, I am much more careful examining production records when I look into using new genetics.

I am also reminded of the little things that make a good cow 'good' at this time of year especially, as it is calving season at our house. Some of those 'commercial' pedigreed cows couldn't hustle a calf to save their lives, and on the range, that calf would have been coyote bait. I have also heard of more than one Shorthorn producer bragging about how their cow was letting two calves nurse her. What? This is not something to brag about, this is something to cull over! Whatever happened to mothering ability? A cow is supposed to look after her calf and no one else's, not let enough calves suck her that she becomes a rack of bones by fall. Maybe I'm just being a stickler, but I think we can have a balance between show cattle and functional working cattle, and they can happen in the same herd. Our positioning may be dependent on walking to the dairy-barn, looking at what a good udder really looks like, and then walking back to our herd and doing some awfully hard culling.

There are some unbelievable cows in this breed, and if we weed out the crap, we will go places. I do not think we numbers to capture the commercial market as much as we need quality. I, for one, would not have a problem having more potential buyers for my bulls than I had bulls...
 

shortyjock89

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 6, 2007
Messages
4,465
Location
IL
Shortyisqueen- I totally agree with what you have said about my beloved Shorthorns. It would be great to weed out these bad mothering cows, but first we're goig to have to convince alot of people that they have some of these bad cows.  I mean, some of these big time show winning herds have heifers that will not go on to have two calves before they either can't keep up with the nutritional needs of a calf, lose their bag to mastitis, have balloon teats, or some other maternal issue.  The thing is, some of these cows are being flushed and the calves are being promoted as the next generation of show ring dominance.  If we continue this cycle, the only cattle out there worth a dime carrying Shorthorn progeny are going to be the recips.  I'm all for flushing and ET and all that (we are even starting our own program), but when these donors can't even meet their one calf/year quota, how are any of her calves going to be expected to meet it.  It's sad, but as long as big bucks and banners still run the breed, nothing will change.
 
Top