This handout is to help the reader reach their goals of being a more accurate evaluator of market steers

Boleman, Chris T.

English

Texas A&amp;M Repository

EVALUATING MARKET STEERS FROM AGRADING STANDPOINTBy Chris T. Boleman, Texas A&M UniversityThis handout is to help the reader reach their goals of being a more accurateevaluator of market steers.Before one can start judging market steers, they must become familiar withthe parts. Figure 1 illustrates the parts of a live beef steer from both the sideand rear views.Figure 1: Parts of the market steerCourtesy of Boggs and Merkel. Livestock Evaluation.After learning the parts, it is much easier to follow market steer evaluationtechniques.  Hopefully, the parts have been placed into memory and it istime to move on to the principles of market steer selection.Work, practice, and dedication are the keys to becoming anaccurate evaluator of market steers.First, please notice Table 1 below. Table 1 shows the average of various carcasstraits on beef animals from packing plants across the country. The data comes fromthe National Beef Quality Audit.    1995 National Beef Quality AuditCarcass Weight 748 lbs.Fat Thickness .47 “Ribeye Area 12.8 sq. inKidney, Pelvic, Heart Fat 2.1%USDA Yield Grade 2.8Marbling Small – Low ChoicePercent of Primes and Choices 48%Yield Grades 1 and 2 58%Table 1: National Beef Quality Audit, 1995Market steers are selected on a combination of the traits listed below:ü Muscleü Correctness of condition (finish)ü Volume or Body Capacityü Structural Correctnessü BalanceThis handout will deal only with the principles involved to evaluate for gradingemphasis.  The two most important criteria are listed below.Muscling relates to the amount of meat and shape or thickness.  Some areas toevaluate for muscling include the shoulder, top, loin, rump, and quarter.Correctness of condition or finish refers to amount of fat distributed from front torear.  Areas to evaluate for condition or finish include the brisket, behind theshoulders, over the ribs, flank and cod.Using the first two traits and knowing the weight of market steers, one canestimate both a quality grade and yield grade.  The beef industry utilizes this dualgrading system.  It is imperative to understand both quality and yield gradingbecause each beef carcass is priced according to these two grades.Quality Grading vs. Yield GradingQuality GradingSimply put, it is the total amount of intramuscular fat streaks inside the ribeye.  Theribeye is located opposite the 12th and 13th rib. Also, quality grades vary accordingto the texture of the lean in the ribeye and age of the market steer.  Assuming Amaturity, the quality grades range from most desirable to least desirable as follows;Figure 2. USDA Beef Quality Grades. Adapted from USDA Marbling Score Cards, courtesy of NCBA and USDA.How does one predict this marbling score?External fat is our best visual estimate when predicting grade quality.  Rule ofthumb, if a market steer possesses .40-.45” of backfat uniformly over his ribcage,we assume he should grade choice if taken to the rail.  The less fat a market animalpossesses (externally), the less likely the steer will reach the Choice grade.Notice Steer A appears to indicate a much greater amount of fat from front to rearin Figure 3.  Conversely, steer B appears much leaner and freer of fat.  The steermore likely to reach the choice grade is Steer A.Figure 3. Fat Steer vs. Lean SteerPrime Choice SelectSteer A Steer BYield Grade FactorsThere are four factors measured to formulate a proper yield grade.ü Fat thicknessü Ribeye areaü Carcass weightü Kidney-Pelvic and Heart fatThe mathematical numbers used to derive yield grades will follow the descriptionof all the measurements.Fat thickness (FT) is measured between the 12th and 13th ribs, opposite the rib eyeand is the major factor when figuring yield grades. This measurement can also beadjusted according to other fat deposits. Some common depots include through thebrisket, over the chuck, round, and associated cod fat.The ribeye area (REA) is measured using a grid. The measurement is takenbetween the 12th and 13th rib and is not to be adjusted for any reason.The hot carcass weight (HCW) is also a fixed variable and may not be adjusted.Heavy carcasses are discounted severely. This is the reason steers weighing inexcess of 1,300 pounds are sometimes evaluated harshly in the show ring.  Anaverage dressing percent of slaughter cattle is 62%. If one multiples 1,300 lbs by62% the answer is 806 lbs. This weight is still desirable, but as carcass weightbegins to exceed 850 lbs, major problems associated with beef cuts becoming toolarge for consumers are a major problem.The final factor is kidney-pelvic-and heart fat (KPH). This is a measurement of theinternal fat surrounding the vital internal organs.  This is very difficult to predictlive, but the variation among beef cattle is minimal. Most will have between 2-3%KPH.Yield GradingYield grades are used to more properly estimate cutability. Cutability is defined asthe percent of boneless, closely trimmed, retail cuts. Basically, the leaner and moremuscular the animal…. the higher the cutability and lower the numerical yieldgrade.  Table 1 outlines the differences between steers ranging in yield grade from 1to 5.Yield Grade Visual Example % CutabilityYield Grade 1 52.3 % or moreYield Grade 2 52.2-50%Yield Grade 3 49.9-47.7%Yield Grade 4 47.6-45.5%Yield Grade 5 45.4% or lessTable 2. Courtesy of Beef Cattle Evaluation Handbook, USDA Slaugher Grades,  Texas Agricultural ExtensionServiceCalculating and Figuring Yield GradesThere are four factors measured to formulate a proper yield grade.ü Fat thicknessü Ribeye areaü Carcass weightü Kidney-Pelvic and Heart fat1. Fat Thickness (FT)= +.25 for ever 1/10 inch of fat is added to a PreliminaryYield Grade (PYG) of 2.00. This measurement should be taken at approximately¾ the length of the ribeye.Example: .2 in fat=2.50.3 in fat=2.75.4 in fat=3.00.5 in fat=3.252. Ribeye Area (REA)= REA-11 =  x then change sign and add to PYG 3      Example: 12-11=.3- change sign –3, add to PYG    3      Example: 10-11= .-3 change sign +.3; add to PYG     33. Kidney-Pelvic-Heart Fat (KPH)Example: 2.5% KPH= -.2 to PYGExample: 3.0% KPH= -.1 to PYGExample: 3.5% KPH= -.0 to PYGExample: 4.0% KPH= +.1 to PYGExample: 4.5% KPH= +.2 to PYG4. Carcass Weight: +/- .1 for each 25 pounds from 600Example: 700 pounds = adjustment of +.4 to PYGExample: 550 pounds = adjustment of -.2 to PYGExample: 800 pounds = adjustment of +.8 to PYGNotice when finding yield grades, the evaluator must convert live weight to carcassweight.  Estimating the dressing percentage does this. Dressing percentage isdefined as the proportion of chilled carcass weight to the animal’s slaughter weight.Average dressing percent in market steers is 62%. Some factors affecting dressingpercent include:ü The amount of fill in the steerü Amount of muscleü Weight of hide, head, feet and hornsü Amount of fatCombining Quality and Yield GradeBoth quality and yield grades are equally important. The optimum steer shouldpossess sufficient marbling (0.4” of backfat opposite the ribeye) and still maintain ayield grade in the 2.0-2.9 range.References-Boggs and Merkel. Livestock Evaluation. 4th Edition. 1997-Boleman, L., U.S.D.A Slaughter Grades. Texas Agricultural Extension Service. 1997-Boleman, S.L., S.J. Boleman, W.W. Morgan, D.S. Hale, D.B. Griffin, J.W. Savell, R.P. Ames, M.T.Smith, J.D. Tatum, T.G. Field, G.C. Smith, B.A. Gardner, J.B.Mogan, S.L. Northcutt, H.G. Dolezal,D.R. Gill, and F.K. Ray. 1998. National Beef Quality Audit-1995: Survey of producer related defectsand carcass quality and quality attricutes. J. Anim. Sci. 76: 96-103.-Skaggs, C.L., Animal Science 108 Manual. Texas A&M University. 1998

Evaluating Market Steers From a Grading Standpoint

https://oaktrust.library.tamu.edu/bitstream/1969.1/200531/1/beefevaluatingmarketsteers.pdf

Evaluating Market Steers From a Grading Standpoint

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Texas A&M Repository

Evaluating Market Steers From a Grading Standpoint

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Texas A&amp;M Repository

Texas A&M Repository