Ethanol Co-products Beef Quality Implications

Transcription

1 Ethanol Co-products Beef Quality Implications A Branded Beef Perspective Mark McCully Director of Supply Development Certified Angus Beef

2 Discussion Outline Quality trends in US beef industry Brief review of current thinking on marbling deposition in feedlot cattle Review of literature on feeding of ethanol coproducts and their impact on beef quality Topics for further consideration

3 Top 10 beef quality concerns from purveyors, restaurateurs and retailers 1. Insufficient Marbling 2. Cut Weights Too Heavy 3. Lack of Uniformity In Cuts 4. Inadequate Tenderness 5. Excess Fat Cover 6. Inadequate Juiciness 7. Inadequate Flavor 8. Inadequate Overall Palatability 9. Low Cutability 10. Too Large Ribeyes Source: 2005 National Beef Quality Audit

4 Lost Opportunity- QG Cost = $26.81/hd Prime Top CH Select Other QG Actual Ideal Source: 2005 National Beef Quality Audit

5 Oct-04 Nov-04 Jan-05 Mar-05 May-05 Jul-05 Aug-05 Oct-05 Dec-05 Feb-06 Apr-06 Jun-06 Aug-06 Sep-06 60% 58% 56% 54% 52% 50% 48% USDA Choice and Yield Grade 4&5 Percent Jun-02 Aug-02 Oct-02 Dec-02 Jan-03 Mar-03 May-03 Jul-03 Sep-03 Nov-03 Dec-03 Feb-04 Apr-04 Jun-04 Aug-04 Month 14% 12% 10% 8% 6% 4% 2% Jan-02 Mar-02 May-02 Percent Choice Percent YG 4&5 USDA % Choice USDA % YG 4&5 Linear (USDA % YG 4&5) Linear (USDA % Choice)

6 Angus-type Cattle Earning the CAB Brand In FY06, 1% = 38 million pounds! Percent '95 '96 '97 '98 '99 '00 '01 '02 '03 '04 '05 '06 Fiscal Year (October 1 - September 30)

7 Where are cattle missing the CAB target? % of Rejected Carcasses Total Occurrence Solo Defect Inadequate Marbling Yield Grade Maturity Capillary Rupture Dark Cutter Dairy-type Muscling Hump Height Coarse Marbling CAB Consist Data (26,707 hd)

8 Marbling Score Distribution Among CAB Certified Carcasses % 75% Mst00 Mst10 Mst20 Mst30 Mst40 Mst50 Mst60 Mst70 Mst80 Mst90 Md00 Md10 Md20 Md30 Md40 Md50 Md60 Md70 Md80 Md90 Marbling Score 2005 CAB Consist Data (26,707 hd) Percentage, %

9 The Choice-Select Line % 1.3% 2.9% 3.2% 5.7% 6.1% Source: 2005 CAB Consist Data (26,707 hd) Significant premiums and discounts live in the tales of bell curves.

10 Declining Quality Grades Primary Factors Increasing health problems in the beef cattle industry Increased use of ethanol co-products by feedlots Structural and management changes in the feeding industry Marbling development is a lifetime event Timing, number, and potency of implant regime Corah and McCully, CAB, 2006

11 Declining Quality Grades Genetics Secondary Factors Limited improvement in IMF Increased growth Disposition Vitamin A levels Gender Sorting Corah and McCully, CAB, 2006

12 Choice-Select Spread $14.00 $11.84 $12.00 $10.00 $8.00 $6.00 $4.00 $2.00 $ YTD 2006 Source: USDA; YTD 2006 Thru Nov 1

13 Boxed Beef Cutout Values 2006 YTD $ $ $ Grade/Brand Thru Nov 1

14 Current thinking on marbling deposition in feedlot cattle 6 mo. 8 mo. Birth Weaning Placement into Feedlot Harvest Key window determining later marbling

15 Amount of Marbling is Dependent Upon Number and Size of Fat Cells No. of IM adipocytes (bil.) IMF Cell Number 4 Correlation with % IMF = IMF, kg IMF cell diameter, microns IMF Cell Size 20 Correlation with % IMF = IMF, kg Source: Cianzio et al. (1985)

16 Examples of Early Management Effects on Marbling Marbling Score Miller SL et al. (1987) 20-mo old steers fed 168 d SL 58 High Low Prefinishing Nutritional Plane Marbling score SM 65 Bruns et al. (2005) SM 36 SM 20 No Implant Delayed Implant Early implant Marbling score SM 30 Early weaning Meyer et al. (2005) SL 73 Traditional Weaning Marbling score SM 31 Roeber et al. (2001) SL 99 SL 87 None 1 2 Hospital visits

17 Effect of Distillers Products on Marbling and Yield Grade Distiller s Grain Level (DM basis) Marbling Score Calculated YG Score None 5.55 a 2.96 a 1-15% 5.49 a 3.08 b 16-29% 5.46 a, b 3.05 b Over 29% 5.35 b 3.06 b a, b Differing superscript in same row (P<.05) Source: Dr. Chris Reinhardt, KSU, 2006; 14 study review

18 Effect of Distillers Products on Marbling Score Product Trials Level, % diet Condensed solubles Dried grains & solubles Wet grains & solubles Source: Dr. Fred Owens, 2006; 29 trial review

19 700 All Distillers Products 650 Marbling score Regression weighted by cattle number across all sources. (Linear P<.02; Quad P<.01) Wet or Dried Distiller Grains or Condensed Solubles, % Owens, 2006

20 600 Condensed Distillers Solubles Marbling score Change in marbling score with dietary CDS was not significant Condensed Distillers Solubles, % Owens, 2006

21 700 Dried Distillers Grains and Solubles 650 Marbling score Regression weighted by number of cattle for Dried Distillers Grains plus Solubles. (Linear P<.07; Quadratic P <.01) Dried Distillers Grains plus Solubles, % Owens, 2006

22 Marbling score Wet Distillers Grains and Solubles Change in marbling score with wet distillers grains plus solubles was not significant Wet Distiller Grains, % Owens, 2006

23 Other Quality Considerations Flavor profile? No effect with up to 50% distillers grains (Minnesota, 2004; Nebraska, 2006) Tenderness? No effect with up to 50% distillers grains (Minnesota, 2004; Nebraska, 2006) Shelf stability? Trend in diminished color stability with increasing levels of WDG or DDG (Minnesota, 2004) Lean and fat color? Carotenes and other pigments accumulate in fat Distillers grains influence color of fat in milk (Wisconsin, 2005)

24 Which circle above is larger? They are the same size. Fat color can influence perceived marbling. Is marbling all the same color?

25 Which circle above is larger? They are the same size. Background color can influence perceived marbling.

26 Considerations Beyond Simple Inclusion Rate Calf feds vs. Yearlings and previous plane of nutrition High marbling vs. Low marbling genetics Distiller grain variability between plants Distiller grain variability between corn varieties Proper classification of different types of distiller grains Efficiency improvements in distilling process Sulphur levels and negative interactions (Cu absorption)

27

28 What we can t do!

29 Ethanol Co-products Beef Quality Implications A Branded Beef Perspective Mark McCully Director of Supply Development Certified Angus Beef