What Is the Most Common Kind of Roughage Used for Feedimg Beef Cattle in Your Area

Finishing Beefiness Cattle On The Farm

By Paul Beck, David Lalman

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

Rural landowners frequently are interested in raising livestock to slaughter for personal consumption, local marketing or for normal commodity markets. Advantages to raising your ain beef include having command over calf quality and choice of how the calf is finished out. Calves can exist finished on grass, grain and grass, or loftier concentrate diets. There are disadvantages to consider when fattening your ain beef. Disadvantages may include the need to purchase a calf, actress labor for feeding, sufficient country set aside for forage-finishing, purchasing and storage of expensive feedstuffs for grain-finishing, or purchasing freezers to store the beef after slaughter. Calves also tin get sick and may require veterinary attention, and owners must realize the longer the ownership, the more risk of death losses due to injury or illness. This fact sheet covers facility and calf selection, feeding options and slaughter considerations for finishing calves on the farm. For more in-depth information on diet, health and growth promoting compounds run across AFS-3302 An Introduction to Finishing Beef.

Selection

Calves selected for farm-raised beef vary in type. Upkeep, marketing niches and finish product goals volition determine the type of dogie that works best. Small-framed dairy calves, like Bailiwick of jersey calves, can have exceptional meat quality; all the same, percent retail product and size of cuts, similar ribeye steaks, volition be adequately small. A Large-framed, heavy-muscled beef breed will take very good cutability (high percentage retail product) but calves of this type can accept longer to accomplish 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 practiced muscling are ideal for about farm raised beef programs. Producers that want greater lean may want calves of traditional Continental breeds like Charolais and Limousin; whereas, producers that desire the flavour and juiciness of steaks with more marbling (intramuscular fat that determines USDA Quality Grade) may prefer calves of predominately English breeding such as Hereford, Red Angus, Blackness Angus or Shorthorn. Finishing calves with more than 25% Brahman influence tin can tend to reduce cutability and tenderness.

Bulls should be castrated early on in life, preferably at nascence or by three months of age. Steaks from intact bulls can exist leaner and tougher than steaks from steers. Ambitious activity of group-fed bulls can become a treatment issue besides as increased chances for animal injury and bruising. Heifers brand good farm-raised beef candidates. Heifers oftentimes are kept for breeding, and at the end of the breeding season, any heifer that did not become pregnant tin can be easily finished for slaughter. Considering they are earlier-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 employ or sale) will make up one's mind the state and facilities needed. Whether finishing calves on pasture or in dry lot confinement, calves will be more comfortable if they have access to shade during summer and a current of air break during winter. Calves may grow fairly without shade or a wind break during part of the yr, but shelter from the elements is necessary when conditions exceed the animal'south thermo-neutral zone. The necessity for access to shade and current of air break may be a personal preference to the level of fauna comfort desired and marketing or may be a necessity depending on the environment. If the goal is to market beef locally, buyers may be interested in farm tours to meet where the beef was produced. Buyers of locally grown beef are making their buying decision based in role on their perception of how calves should be reared and if calves don't have access to summer shade or winter shelter, someone will eventually arrive a point 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 cause 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 toll of producing beefiness. Feeds should be stored in a dry location to reduce the chances of molding. Feed storage facilities demand to be kept clean to keep 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 make 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 proceed the bale centered or have a metal canvass around the lesser minimize feeding waste (see the fact sheets BAE-1716 Round Bale Hay Storage for more than in depth information on hay storage losses and PSS-2570 Reducing Winter Feed Costs for more data on improved hay utilization)

Finishing Options

Forage- versus Grain-finishing. The objective here isn't to start a grass- or grain-finished debate; there is room for both in a local farm-raised beef market. It is of import to understand 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 general, the typical beef consumer of the U.S. prefers the flavour of grain-fed beef. By comparing, ground beefiness from cattle finished on fodder has been characterized as having a 'grassy' flavor. Grass-fed basis beef too can take a cooking odor that differs from grain-fed beef. The visual advent of the fatty of grass-fed beef can exist more yellow in color due to carotenoids in comparison to grain-fed beef fatty, which appears white.

An overview of 23 published studies from 1978 to 2013 showed that cattle finished on pasture gained 1 pound less per twenty-four hour period than cattle fed loftier-concentrate diets in solitude (i.55 vs ii.54 pounds per day.) Forage-finished cattle were finished at a lighter weight (~950 lb pounds) than grain-finished cattle (~1,100 pounds) and dressed at a lower percentage (56% vs 60%). Forage-finished cattle had 0.two inches of back fat vs 0.5 inches for feedlot finished and as a result are leaner when delivered for slaughter compared to grain-finished cattle. Leaner beef is mostly scored by taste panelists every bit being less tender and less juicy compared to fatter beef. So, the health-conscientious consumer seeking forage-raised beefiness is usually willing to take trade-offs of flavour, tenderness and juiciness for a bacteria beef that may contain a greater proportion of heart-healthy fats. Whereas, other consumers may continue to seek the grain-finished beef characteristics, merely want to support local sources of grain-fed beef.

Forage Finishing

Fodder finishing capitalizes on the beefiness animal's ability to convert forage into muscle poly peptide through the aid of microbial breakdown of forage celluloses in the rumen. Since cattle are naturally grazing animals, some consumers seek out beefiness from cattle reared in their "natural surround". The first claiming to forage-finishing is having a sufficient area of grazeable land. Fodder dry thing intake is thought to exist maximized when forage allowance is kept above one,000 pounds per acre. Fodder-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. Fifty-fifty with proficient forage management, hay is often needed for two months to 4 months during winter. To sustain good dogie growth rates and reduce the number of days required to terminate calves on a forage-based system, high-quality hay should be 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 degradation when hay or pasture is moderate to low quality. Soybean hulls are recognized by the American Association of Feed Control Officials every bit a roughage source and is approved for grass-fed beefiness claims by the USDA. Other organizations set up differing standards for definition of 'grass-fed' these organizations offer marketing alliances and certification, if you lot are (or desire to be) a member, yous tin refer to their guidelines for animal care and canonical management and nutrition.

The 2nd limitation to forage-finishing is calf growth response. Every bit provender quality, forage quantity and environmental temperatures fluctuate throughout the year, average daily gain may range from seasonal highs of greater than 2.0 pounds per day to seasonal lows of 0.v pound per day or less. As a upshot, calves grown in forage-finishing systems ofttimes are slaughtered before they reach the same caste of fatness of grain-finished cattle. Forage-finished calves often will exist slaughtered near 1,000 pounds live weight. It will accept over a year (367 days) to grow a 500-pound calf to 1,000 pounds if its average daily weight gain is i.5 pounds per 24-hour interval. Some extensive forage-finishing systems may crave a longer duration for calves to attain slaughter weight if fodder quality and quantity restrict growth to no more than 1 pound per 24-hour interval.

Intensive spring and summer provender-finishing systems can be achieved with mixtures of forages like legumes, perennial grasses, annual grasses and brassicas. Research at Clemson University compared provender species for finishing calves on pasture during late-leap and summertime months. Calves used in the written report were grown the previous winter on rye/ryegrass and fescue. Finishing forages studied included alfalfa, bermudagrass, chicory, cowpea, or pearl millet. Pastures in this report were stocked at 1.7 acres per dogie with the exception of pearl millet which was stocked at 0.eight acres per dogie. The amount of pasture forage maintained during the study ranged from 1,300 pounds to 2,500 pounds per acre. Table 1 is a summary of the study results.

Steers grazing bermudagrass pastures gained one.7 pounds per day, while steers grazing alfalfa (ii.viii pounds per ), chicory (ii.five pounds per day) 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 day and had the least backfat at slaughter. Among the finishing systems, fatty acrid composition tended to exist similar and the ratio of the polyunsaturated fats to saturated fats was like. In this written report, all treatments had shear force values that would be considered at or below the threshold for consumer accepted tenderness.

Enquiry in Georgia (Tabular array 2) compared provender-finishing on toxic fescue and not-toxic, endophyte-infected tall fescue starting in the fall and ending in the leap for a 176-day grazing period. The stocking rate of the toxic fescue was one.5 steers per acre and the stocking charge per unit of the non-toxic fescue was one steer per acre. When fescue became limited during wintertime 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 by non-toxic fescue. WarnerBratzler shear strength 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 late-spring and summertime (adapted from Schmidt et al., 2013).

Finishing Arrangement

	Alfalfa	Bermudagrass	Chicory	Cowpea	Pearl Millet
Grazing days per acre	68	89	55	46	112
Start weight, lbs	893	1,047	931	ane,058	1,052
End weight, lbs	1,184	1,274	1,137	i,221	1,155
Average daily gain, lb/day	2.viii	1.vii	ii.five	ane.9	one.2
Carcass weight, lbs	711	719	675	752	664
Backfat thickness, inches	0.thirty	0.two	0.30	0.27	0.18
Dressing, %	60.0	56.four	59.4	61.6	57.5
Quality grade	3.5	3.8	iii.2	4.four	3.viii
Warner-Bratzler shear force, lbs	8.8	ten.6	9.9	viii.8	9.9
Consumer preference, %	xl%	five%	10%	20%	25%

Quality grade code: 3 = Low Select, 4 = Loftier Select, v = Low Pick (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)

Tabular array 2. Growth and carcass attributes of calves finished on toxic and non-toxic, endophyte-infected fescue from fall through bound (adapted from Realini et al., 2005).

Finishing Organisation

	Toxic Fescue	Non-toxic Fescue
Stop weight, lbs	906	992
Carcass weight, lbs	491	541
Backfat thickness, inches	0.17	0.21
Dressing, %	54.two	54.5
Quality grade	three.0	2.8
Warner-Bratzler shear force, lbs	13.2	15.4
Consumer panel – Chewiness score	2.8	iii.7
Consumer panel – Juiciness score	2.7	2.iv

Quality grade code: iii = Low Select, 4 = Loftier Select, 5 = Low Choice (college is associated with greater fat and less lean) Chewiness score: i-to-5 calibration with i being most desirable and 5 beingness to the lowest degree desirable. Juiciness score: 1-to-5 scale with 1 being least desirable and v being well-nigh desirable.

A study at the Academy of Missouri examined the effect of adding either red clover or alfalfa to a fescue based foragefinishing system for a three-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 blood-red clover system. Terminal weight of calves did not differ between the fescue and combined legume response and averaged i,035 pounds. Calves in the alfalfa system were 50 pounds heavier at the stop of the written report compared to the red clover system, which could had been influenced by difference in legume forage availability. The fatty acid composition of fat taken from the loin muscle did not differ among forage types.

Some other study at Clemson (Tabular array 3) compared a legume system to a grass system 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 independent of forage system; therefore, the difference in provender system is summarized in Table 3. Forage blazon had piffling influence on fat acid composition; all the same, greater fat soluble vitamin content was detected in the loin musculus of grass finished beef in this study.

Every bit a full general summary, the forage system chosen will first be dictated by fodder species that are already nowadays. Replacing forages with alternative species or interseeding with complementary forages will be dictated by soil type, topography, and soil fertility. Calves can be forage-finished on grasses, legumes or combination thereof. Current research results do not advise whatever unmarried system is ideal based on carcass quality and consumer sensory comparisons.

Grain Finishing in Solitude

While ruminants take the distinct ability to convert cellulose into muscle protein through ruminal microbial fermentation, there remains a history of fattening cattle on feedstuffs other than provender long before the institution of the modernistic confinement feedlot industry. Early fattening in America included root crops, "Indian corn", tree fruits and brewing and distillery mash. Solitude feeding in early on America also was a machinery to concentrate manure for fertilizer. Unlike forage-finishing, grain-finishing requires less land. Depending on soil type and topography, as piffling as 150 foursquare feet per calf of pen space with a feed and water trough is sufficient. Sometimes, locally grown beefiness producers may allow a much larger expanse to keep grass cover in the lot instead of allowing the pen to become a clay lot.

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

	Grass System	Legume System
End weight, lbs	1,142	i,166
Carcass weight, lbs	669	697
Backfat thickness, inches	0.33	0.37
Quality grade	4.5	4.7
Consumer panel – Tenderness score	2.viii	2.viii
Consumer console – Juiciness score	2.0	1.9

Quality course code: iii = Depression Select, 4 = Loftier Select, five = Low Choice (higher is associated with greater fatty and less lean) Consumer panel scores converted to one-to-5 scale with 1 being 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 unremarkably watered from a trough. Keeping the water trough clean is extremely of import. A depression in water intake tin cause a reduction in feed intake and ho-hum growth rate. During hot weather, a calf near finishing weighing 1,000 pounds or more tin can consume more than 20 gallons per twenty-four hour period (for more on h2o requirements of finishing calves see AFS-3302 An Introduction to Finishing Beef.)

Many associate grain-fed beefiness with corn-fed beefiness. From 2005 through 2011, corn utilize for ethanol grew to the point the total apply for ethanol reached that of feed and residue utilise. A feedlot finishing diet today may contain six% to 12% roughage, upwards to 50% byproduct feeds such every bit distiller's grains and corn gluten feed and cereal grains (mostly corn) representing l% or more of the finishing nutrition.

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

• Calves should be transitioned from a roughage diet to the terminal high concentrate diet over a three-week period. This is chosen a footstep-upwardly plan.
• Feed calves at to the lowest degree twice per day when the terminal nutrition does not contain built in roughage or is not formulated to be self-fed or self-limiting.
• Include 10% to xv% roughage in the final diet for increased rumen wellness and reduced acidosis.
• Feed calves a counterbalanced nutrition (protein, minerals, mineral ratios and vitamins).
• Adjust feed amount 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 "balderdash development rations" that can also be used as a decent finishing ration. These "bull development rations" sometimes include plenty cottonseed hulls and byproduct feeds that additional roughage is not needed.

In addition to distiller's grains and corn gluten feed, other byproducts such as soybean hulls may exist used in finishing diets. Soybean hulls has an estimated feed value of 74% to eighty% of corn; whereas, dried distiller'southward grains has demonstrated a 124% feed value of corn. In that location is trivial indication that feeding byproduct feeds changes the marbling of cattle as long as energy density requirements are met for fat deposition. Research results indicate less intensively candy grains (ie feeding whole corn or rolled corn) may outcome in higher marbling than intense processing methods normally used in commercial finishing operations (ie high moisture corn or steam flaking). This is idea to exist due to the site of starch digestion existence shifted to the small intestine with less intensive grain processing supplying more than glucose to bulldoze marbling.

Feeding Concentrate and Roughage Separately. Feed milling, mixing and delivery accept up much of the daily activities in commercial scale feedyards. This is an equipment-intensive functioning with large majuscule outlays necessary for the feed manufacturing plant and equipment for feed commitment. On a smaller scale, large investments in feeding systems may non exist warranted. Delivery of total mixed diets balanced to meet nutritional needs of finishing cattle adds efficiency to large commercial operations that cannot exist matched past smaller-scale finishing operations. Diets formulated for on-farm finishing as well can be based on limit feeding the concentrate portion in the trough while allowing calves to accept free choice admission to pasture or hay for roughage. Research (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-selection for cocky-option found that no two animals offered free-choice consumed like diets or selected diets similar to the TMR. The authors concluded free-pick nutrition option was adequate for each individual animal to 'run into its needs'. Performance of cattle fed TMR or offered complimentary-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 complimentary-selection option. All cattle were adapted to the TMR nutrition and the gratuitous-choice diets were available over the 52-24-hour interval experiment. During the 52 days, cattle selected diets with increasing barley, reaching 70% to 80% of their self-selected nutrition, just fifty-fifty with the increasing barley in the diet, ruminal pH was like to calves fed the TMR in the get-go experiment (Moya et al., 2011). In the starting time two-week period calves consumed approximately 75% barley grain, increasing to eighty% in weeks three and 4, and to 85% in weeks five through seven; the average selected diet for cattle offered barley and corn silage was eighty% barley grain and 20% corn silage. While in the second experiment, calves offered free- choice admission to corn silage and barley grain cocky-selected diets that were 86% barley and 14% corn silage without altering ruminal fermentation characteristics and claret profiles (Moya et al., 2014). Equally with previous experiments, cattle given free-selection access to self-select diet ingredients in both experiments performed similarly to cattle fed TMR. These inquiry concluded cattle can effectively self-select diets without increasing the risk of acidosis and maintain product levels for growth and feed efficiency.

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

1. A step-up period of increasing grain availability is a must, cattle should be 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 skillful feed bunk management;
4. If limit-feeding hay – feed hay first, then provide the concentrate portion of the diet;
5. Concentrate blends of grains and byproduct feeds are safer than providing grain simply;
6. Think about safer concentrate feeding alternatives—feeding whole corn is safer than finely ground corn and can exist an pick for growing and finishing calves

Grain Finishing On Pasture

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

Cocky-fed supplements on pasture can be another approach to finishing cattle. Inquiry at Iowa State Academy (Tabular array 4) examined cocky-fed dried distillers' grains with solubles mixed 1:1 with either soybean hulls or basis corn. In addition, a mineral that helped balance the calcium-to-phosphorus ratio and contained monensin to improve rate of proceeds 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 matter feed intake in this study was 80% and xx%, respectively. The study did non 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 first trial, calves from jump or fall calving herds were either sent to a Texas Panhandle feedyard for finishing as yearlings following a stocker programme or kept at the home performance and supplemented with 1% of bodyweight per head per twenty-four hours with a grain/grain byproduct supplement until slaughter. Steers finished conventionally in confinement gained 4.4 pounds per day, while steers fed concentrate supplement on pasture gained 2.five pounds per twenty-four hours. Although the finishing period on pasture was 30 days longer on the boilerplate, steers finished in the conventional feedlot were 128 pounds heavier at slaughter and dressing percentage was higher 62.5% vs 60.6% for Conventional and pasture, respectively). Conventionally finished cattle were 86% Selection while pasture finished were 78% Select quality grade.

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

Finishing System

	Distillers' grains plus solubles:corn [l:50]	Distillers' grains plus solubles:soybean hulls [50:50]
Average daily gain, lbs	three.4	3.three
End weight, lbs	i,302	i,291
Carcass weight, lbs	816	807
Dressing, %	62.6	62.v
Backfat thickness, inches	0.53	0.55
Quality Grade	5.0	5.0

Estimated concentrate intake was 80% and pasture intake 20%. Quality form code: 3 = Low Select, 4 = High Select, five = Low Option

Figure ane. Upshot of finishing on pasture (Provender) with ane% of bodyweight concentrate supplement daily or conventional finishing (Grain) on bodyweight of steers.

In the next trial, lx calves were either finished in conventional Texas Panhandle feedyard or were kept on pasture with a grain/grain byproduct concentrate supplement fed at i.five% of bodyweight daily. Steers finished on pasture with supplement gained three.6 pounds per day (vs four pounds per day for conventional) and were fed 40 days longer than conventional steers, merely were even so twoscore pounds lighter at slaughter. Just, hot carcass weights (836 for pasture vs 854 for conventional) were not as impacted as in the previous written report, fatty 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% Choice, with 73% existence Premium Choice; while the Conventional steers were 93% Choice, with 45% being Premium Choice. This research indicates acceptable carcass performance can exist obtained with limited free energy supplementation on pasture.

Figure 2. Effect 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 concluding amount of retail cuts produced from a alive calf volition be afflicted past frame, muscle, os, fat cover and gut chapters/fill. The first measure of yield is dressing percent which is the percentage of carcass weight relative to alive 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 percentage. A second measure out of yield is retail product. The USDA Yield Course is a numerical score that is indicative of retail product. A calculated Yield Grade is adamant from hot carcass weight, fat thickness at the twelfth rib, ribeye surface area and the combined percentage of kidney, pelvic and heart fat. Percentage of retail products can be calculated from these same measurements. Percentage retail product may range from 45% to 55%. A 1,300-pound steer at Yield Grade 3 would have a retail product pct of 50% which would yield about 650 pounds of retail product. If two individuals buy a side of beef each, they each can look 325 pounds of retail product. The yield of retail production will consist of approximately 62% roasts and steaks and 38% ground beef and stew meats. Then, 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 beefiness and stew meat.

Postmortem Aging Furnishings on Beef Tenderness

Effigy 3 illustrates the beneficial furnishings of aging on tenderness equally measured in a laboratory as 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 8.3 pounds to ten pounds (iii.8 kg to iv.vi kg). Aging beyond this timeframe is often restricted due to the processor'south libation space, but could result in further improvements in tenderness.

Figure 3. Event of crumbling on forage-finished beef tenderness equally determined past Warner-Brazler shear forcefulness (adapted from Schmidt et al., 2013).

Was this information helpful?

YESNO

velezanscialtat.blogspot.com

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

Share this post