The Value of Sim Genetics to Retail Carcass

  • Slides: 21
Download presentation
The Value of Sim. Genetics to Retail Carcass– a New York case study M.

The Value of Sim. Genetics to Retail Carcass– a New York case study M. J. Baker, G. Jacimovski, M. E. Hannon, L. Bliven 1

Dr. Gary Smith: “Emphasize “systems” approaches to supply chains and prescriptive production. ” 30

Dr. Gary Smith: “Emphasize “systems” approaches to supply chains and prescriptive production. ” 30 th International Livestock Congress (ILC–USA) in Houston, Texas, March 4 -5, 2015.

Introduction • Large variation in carcass quality • Challenge to meet consumer demand, especially

Introduction • Large variation in carcass quality • Challenge to meet consumer demand, especially in small businesses that can not “sort” • Cow/calf producers do not have access to data on the carcass quality or retail value of their beef. Objective: Determine which carcass measurements affect retail value

Procedures • Cattle fed and slaughtered at Wilson Beef Farms, Canaseraga, NY • Feeder

Procedures • Cattle fed and slaughtered at Wilson Beef Farms, Canaseraga, NY • Feeder calves on feed ~700 lb. • Corn silage, corn, soybean meal ration • Formulated 2. 5 -3. 0 lb. ADG • 4 -6 head/wk slaughtered (6 miles from feedlot)

Procedures • Carcasses chilled 7 or 14 days • Carcass data collected every 2

Procedures • Carcasses chilled 7 or 14 days • Carcass data collected every 2 weeks: • HCW, BF, REA, Marbling, KPH • Two sides are processed into retail cuts • Developed regression equation to predict Total Retail Value.

Table 1. Cut of beef and price used to determine retail value Primal Chuck

Table 1. Cut of beef and price used to determine retail value Primal Chuck Rib/loin Round Other Retail Cut $/lb. 5. 39 Roast 4. 99 Short rib 4. 79 Tip roast 6. 09 Stew Arm 12. 99 Rump roast 5. 59 Ground beef 4. 89 4. 99 Steak/roast Steak 5. 59 Delmonico 16. 99 London broil 6. 29 Eye 7. 19 T-bone 13. 99 Eye 6. 09 Porterhouse 14. 29 Cube 6. 29 Sirloin 11. 69 Tenderloin 18. 49 Second cut strip or sirloin 9. 99

Breed Steers Heifer Angus 62 33 Red Angus 10 6 Hereford 9 3 Sim.

Breed Steers Heifer Angus 62 33 Red Angus 10 6 Hereford 9 3 Sim. Angus 7 4 Simmental Total 48 136 12 58

Results Based on the current data and statistical analysis, the results can be summarized

Results Based on the current data and statistical analysis, the results can be summarized by the following regression equation (101 observations). Total Retail Value (side) = -23. 93 + 1. 67*HCW - 120. 03*BF - 22. 43*KPH + 8. 62*REA HCW For every pound increase in HCW, Retail Value increases $3. 34 BF For every inch increase in BF, Retail Value decreases $240. 06 REA For every square inch increase in REA, Retail Value increases $17. 24 KPH For every percent increase in KPH, Retail Value decreases $44. 86

Influence of carcass measurements on retail value [CELLRANGE], [PERCENTAGE] [CELLRANGE], [VALUE]

Influence of carcass measurements on retail value [CELLRANGE], [PERCENTAGE] [CELLRANGE], [VALUE]

$$Determining cost of production$$ • • Individual feeder weight Estimated finish weight (60% DP)

$$Determining cost of production$$ • • Individual feeder weight Estimated finish weight (60% DP) Average daily gain Feeder price Feed cost of gain Yardage Slaughter and processing

Carcass and production characteristics of fed steers English (n=88) SM (n=48) Trait Average SE

Carcass and production characteristics of fed steers English (n=88) SM (n=48) Trait Average SE Sig HCW, lb 702 8. 7 725 9. 7 P = 0. 10 BF, in 0. 44 0. 02 0. 36 0. 02 ** REA, in 2 11. 7 0. 17 12. 9 0. 25 ** KPH, % 2. 3 0. 04 2. 4 0. 06 ns YG 3. 0 0. 07 2. 5 0. 09 ** DOF 153 4. 1 156 5. 6 ns Initial wt, lb 743 7. 9 749 7. 5 ns ADG 2. 8 0. 05 3. 0 0. 05 * COP, $/hd 1538 11 1561 9 ns e. Cut. Out, $/hd 2294 31 2405 37 * NET, $/hd 755 24 844 31 * Obs. Cutout, $/hd* 2214 63 2388 67 P = 0. 07

Carcass and production characteristics of fed heifers English n=46 SM n = 12 Sig

Carcass and production characteristics of fed heifers English n=46 SM n = 12 Sig Trait Average SE HCW, lb 636 11. 4 638 15. 4 ns BF, in 0. 44 0. 02 0. 37 0. 02 P = 0. 10 REA, in 2 10. 7 0. 25 12. 0 0. 52 * KPH, % 2. 5 0. 06 2. 5 0. 09 ns YG 3. 1 0. 08 2. 5 0. 19 ** DOF 129 6. 0 133 9. 5 ns Initial wt, lb 758 12. 2 761 19. 5 ns ADG 2. 3 0. 08 2. 2 0. 13 ns COP, $/hd 1518 16 1525 22 ns e. Cut. Out, $/hd 2047 43 2093 55 ns NET, $/hd 530 33 568 46 ns Obs. Cutout, $/hd* 2011 96 1959 73 ns

Limitations • Dam • Diet • Endpoint

Limitations • Dam • Diet • Endpoint

Relationship of HCW to Net Value (steers) 1600 1400 Net value, $/hd 1200 1000

Relationship of HCW to Net Value (steers) 1600 1400 Net value, $/hd 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 400 500 600 700 HCW, lb 800 900 1000

Table 1. Description of Angus cows and calf performance Production System Medium (M) High

Table 1. Description of Angus cows and calf performance Production System Medium (M) High (H) Cow frame score 6 7 Cow weight, lb. 1209 1268 Calf sire AN SM Birth weight, lb. 75 89 Weaning weight, lb. 461 565 205 d weaning 526 626 weight, lb. ADG to weaning 2. 1 2. 6

Table 2. Profitability of eight beef herd management systems Cow production level Medium Annual

Table 2. Profitability of eight beef herd management systems Cow production level Medium Annual forage produced, t 1 No. cows Net farm income, $ High Pasture management system IR MR CI CU 393 246 169 172 70 43 30 29 62 38 2814 27 873 -2195 1617 4920 1381 -1991 26 1711 Net farm income/acre, $/ac 26 8 -20 15 45 13 -18 16 Net farm income/cow, $/cow 40 20 -73 56 79 36 -74 66 1 Total forage produced on 110 acres, expressed as hay equivalents

Rank in system profitability based on cow weight 25 Rank 20 15 10 5

Rank in system profitability based on cow weight 25 Rank 20 15 10 5 1100 1200 1300 Cow weight, lbs. (BCS=5) 1400

What’s next? 1. Develop recommendations on sire selection and female replacements 2. Continue to

What’s next? 1. Develop recommendations on sire selection and female replacements 2. Continue to track and fine tune management practices 3. Evaluate new metrics (ribeye shape, location of fat depots) 4. Analyze tenderness data 5. Extend to other packers/marketing groups