1 / 22

Live Cattle Evaluation

This article delves into the critical aspects of live cattle evaluation, focusing on quality grade, yield grade, and dressing percentage. It elucidates the factors determining quality grades, including maturity and marbling, detailing how physiological age affects beef grading. Additionally, it examines yield grades, emphasizing the impact of fat and ribeye area on cutability. The importance of dressing percentage in the livestock marketing landscape is also discussed, highlighting key factors that influence this metric. Learn how these elements shape the value of beef products in the industry.

noam
Download Presentation

Live Cattle Evaluation

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Live Cattle Evaluation

  2. What are we trying to determine? • Quality grade • Yield grade • Dressing percentage

  3. Quality Grade Factors Maturity Marbling

  4. Beef Quality Grading Factors-- Maturity -- • Estimation of physiological age • Classifications: A B C D E (young to old) • determined by degree of bone ossification • most fed cattle = A maturity (< 30 mo of age) • As age  , QG 

  5. Bone Maturity Thoracic Cartilagenous Vertebrae

  6. Bone Maturity Thoracic Cartilagenous Vertebrae

  7. A B C D E 96 30 72 42 Feedlot Cattle Young Cows Older Cows Chronological Age of Cattle Heiferettes

  8. Beef Quality Grading Factors-- Marbling -- • Measure of the intramuscular fat • fat within the muscle • “taste” fat

  9. B C D E A PRIME Sl. Abundant Moderate COMMERCIAL CHOICE Modest Small Slight SELECT UTILITY Traces STANDARD CUTTER Practically Devoid

  10. Measure of cutability or the percent yieldof boneless, closely trimmedretail cuts from the: chuck rib loin round Wholesale Cuts from the Beef Carcass Beef Yield Grades

  11. Interconversion of YG and the % of Boneless, Closely Trimmed Retail Cuts  % lean (muscle),  % fat  % lean (muscle),  % fat

  12. Factors Used to Calculate Beef Yield Grades • Fat over ribeye (in) FOE • % kidney, pelvic, heart fat KPH • of the carcass weight • Ribeye Area (in2) REA • Hot carcass weight HCW As HCW , REA must 

  13. Measurement of FOE 3/4 length of Ribeye Fat thickness

  14. Measurement of REA

  15. Dressing Percentage • Used as a basis for marketing livestock • beef • Usage and importance  as the industry moves toward “value-based” marketing. • As fat , dressing percentage  • but YG less desirable (poor cutability)

  16. = hot carcass weight live pay weight  100 1200  100 = 62.5% 750 cattle Dressing Percentage Example: If live weight = 1200 lbs HCW = 750 lbs

  17. 1200 X .65 = 780 lb HCW Dressing Percentage Example: If live weight = 1200 lbs DP = 65%

  18. Beef Dressing Percent • Fed Cattle = 63% • Cows = 50% • Factors that affect dressing percentage • “Fill” -- large rumen capacity • fat cover -- fat animals have higher dress • mud on the hide -- add live weight, reduce dress

  19. Key Points: The Beef Industry Carcass Evaluation of Beef • Beef quality grading factors (2) • associated quality grades • Beef yield grading factors (4) • associated yield grades • Dressing Percent • factors • importance for valuation of beef

  20. How do our customers value our product? High Low

  21. How do we value our customers? High Low

More Related