Senepol Cattle and Grass Fed Beef Allen Williams, Ph.D., PAS Tallgrass Beef Company
Tallgrass Beef Company Grass Fed No Grain Source Verified No Fed Antibiotics No Added Hormones No Animal Byproducts
Verifiable Protocols Selected Genetics Ultrasound Selection RFID Technology Annual Ranch Visits Producer Affidavits
Tallgrass Feedlots Rotational Grazing Forage Sequencing Non-Confinement
Product Attributes Omega 3, CLA, Vit. E Favorable Unsaturated to saturated fatty acid ratio Lower E. coli, campylobacter Environmentally Friendly USA Family Farms Healthy Animals, Healthy Environment, Healthy People
Frequent Product Sampling
Fatty Acid Profiles for Grass Fed Beef o Analysis performed by Dr. Don Beitz,, ISU o Key Fatty Acids Myristic Saturated atherogenic fatty acid that should be minimized in the diet. Stearic Saturated fatty acid, but with heart healthy properties. Promotes HDL. Linoleic Polyunsaturated Omega-6 6 fatty acid. Important for vision, skin health, and immune system function.
Key Fatty Acids o Linolenic Omega-3 3 fatty acid that is important in cardiovascular health. o CLA Omega-6 6 fatty acid demonstrated to have health benefits. o Total Polyunsaturated Fatty Acids (PUFA)- Includes Omega-3 3 and Omega-6 6 fatty acids. o Omega-3:Omega 3:Omega-66 Ratio Recommended ratio is 1:4 or 0.25. Most Americans consume a diet of 1:20.
Comparison Of Grass Fed and Grain Fed Beef Overall Average Fatty Acid Myristic Stearic Linoleic Linolenic CLA Grass Fed Beef 2.64 20.79 5.22 1.24 0.52 Grain Fed Beef 4.38 13.77 2.77 0.19 0.15
Comparison of Grass Fed and Grain Fed Beef Omega-3:Omega 3:Omega-66 Ratio PUFA Omega-3 Omega-6 O3:O6 Ratio Atherogenicity Grass Fed Beef 8.80 1.45 5.98 0.24 0.72 Grain Fed Beef 3.94 0.42 3.00 0.11 0.93
Comparison of Grass Fed and Grain Fed Beef Effect of Season Fatty Acid GF Winter* GF Spring GF Summer Grain Fed Myristic 2.97 2.28 2.80 4.38 Stearic 18.47 23.78 18.82 13.77 Linoleic 4.76 5.66 5.12 2.77 Linolenic 1.03 1.46 1.15 0.19 CLA 0.45 0.61 0.52 0.15 *
Comparison of Grass Fed and Grain Fed Beef Effect of Season PUFA GF Winter 7.84 GF Spring 9.83 GF Summer 8.37 Grain Fed 3.94 Omega-3 1.03 1.79 1.45 0.42 Omega-6 5.37 6.67 5.64 3.00 O3:O6 0.20 0.27 0.26 0.11 Athero. 0.76 0.70 0.72 0.93
Fatty Acid Analysis Summary o Over all seasons, the Grass Fed Beef had more favorable fatty acid profiles compared to USDA Choice Grain Fed beef. o Omega-3:Omega 3:Omega-66 ratio was very close to recommended ratio. o CLA content significantly higher in grass fed. o Season of finish did affect fatty acid profile, but all grass fed samples were significantly better in fatty acid profiles than grain fed. o Supplementation did slightly lower favorable fatty acid profile, but was still significantly better than grain fed.
Breed Comparison Weaning Ultrasound Data Breed Averages Breed RES TEND REA BF REA/CWT IMF Angus 2.20 1.40 7.73 0.15 1.50 3.46 Barzona 2.06 1.84 7.94 0.12 1.58 3.12 Barzona/Hereford 3.43 1.82 6.39 0.09 1.41 2.89 Polled Hereford 2.35 1.66 7.97 0.13 1.43 3.18 Red Angus 2.33 1.79 7.46 0.12 1.42 3.27 Senegus 2.57 1.68 7.28 0.12 1.46 2.85 Senepol 2.55 1.60 7.87 0.09 1.44 3.16 Senepol/Hereford 1.77 1.54 8.47 0.18 1.50 3.16 South Poll 2.54 1.55 7.31 0.13 1.43 3.13
Mississippi State University Steer Project Results o Two Year project. o Fed in Calan Gate System to be able to evaluate individual steer performance. o Fed to a constant backfat end point of 0.4 inches BF. o Collected feedyard data, ultrasound carcass data, and actual carcass data, along with linear measurements.
Mississippi State Univ. Steer Project Ultrasound Measurements Breed REA (in 2 ) Back Fat (in.) % IMF Barzona 10.9 0.30 3.61 Polled Hereford 10.6 0.34 3.32 Red Angus 11.4 0.28 3.85 Senepol 11.9 0.30 3.77 South Poll 11.4 0.26 3.99
Mississippi State Steer Project Actual Carcass Data Breed HCWT (lb.) DP (%) a REA (in 2 ) MS QG YG Barzona 640 58 11.5 389 17.6 2.9 Polled Hereford 627 60 11.5 330 16.8 2.7 Red Angus 653 59 12.0 399 18.2 2.8 Senepol 669 60 12.5 401 18.4 2.7 South Poll 675 60 11.9 398 18.3 2.9
Marbling Score (MS) and Quality Grade (QG) Codes Marbling Score Code Quality Grade Code Trace 200 Standard 15 Slight 300 Select - 16 Small 400 Select 0 17 Modest 500 Select + 18 Choice - 19 Choice o 20
MS State Steer Project Tenderness Scores BREED WB Shear Force, kg Ultrasound Tenderness Barzona Polled Hereford Red Angus Senepol South Poll 3.68 3.67 3.79 3.66 3.36 1.60 1.61 1.73 1.71 1.37
Shear Force Study Summary Study Wheeler et al. 1990 McKeith et al.1985 DeRouen et al. 1992 Sire Breed Hereford Brahman Angus Brahman AN x BR HP x BR CH x BR Brahman WBS (kg) 4.7 6.3 4.7 6.5 9.5 9.9 9.5 13.2
Shear Force Study Summary Study Damon et al. 1960 Wheeler et al. 1994 Sire Breed Angus Hereford Shorthorn Charolais Brangus Brahman Bos Taurus Bi x Bt WBS (kg) 6.4 6.5 6.5 6.4 7.4 7.8 5.4 7.4
RE Shape % IMF Stress BF BIA Ultrasound Tenderness REA/CWT REA Chuteside Capabilities of BIA Automated Software
Bovine Ultrasound Ribeye Image
Bovine Ribeye Diagram Spinalis dorsi Acorn Fat Backfat Thickness Ribeye Spinous Process Intercostal Muscle Boundaries Intercostal Break Quadratus lumborum
Bovine Ultrasound LD Image For % Intramuscular Fat Determination
Backfat Layer Spinalis Hair and Hide Layer Longissimus Muscle % IMF Box (Used to calculate % IMF) Muscle Striations (Used in Tenderness Determination) 11 th Rib 12 th Rib 13 th Rib
Correlation Between Ultrasound Tenderness and WB Shear No Head 101 Harvest Group 1 Correlation Coefficient 0.82 229 2 0.86 78 3 0.84 152 4 0.78 89 5 0.76 165 6 0.85
Correlation with DNA, US, WB Shear Sire Progeny Group Number Progeny DNA US DNA WB WB US A 25 0.21 0.19 0.79 B 32 0.18 0.23 0.82 C 55 0.19 0.28 0.87 D 40 0.25 0.33 0.84 E 33 0.32 0.17 0.86 F 38 0.26 0.27 0.82 G 46 0.29 0.22 0.83
% IMF Relation of % IMF to USDA Quality Grade USDA QG Marbling.28 2.58 Standard Prac.. Devoid 2.59 3.99 Select Slight 4.00 5.33 Choice- Small 5.34 8.55 Choice+ Modest/Mod. 8.56+ Prime Abundant