Mark McCully Nov. 4, 2014

Transcription

1 CAB Cer/fied Head vs Total Fed CaAle Supply Cer$fied Angus Beef Brand Best Management Prac/ces Fed Steer and Heifers, Million Head CAB Cer5fied Head, mil hd All Fed Steer and Heifers, hd M head +1.5 M head CAB Cer5fied Carcasses, Million Head Vice President, Produc5on FY00 FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 Annual CAB Brand Acceptance 25% 2 15% STEP 1 to become CAB Live animal specifica.on Must be Angus- type Predominantly black- hide 5% YTD More Angus CaAle FYTD2014 STEP 2 to become CAB Ten Carcass Specifica.ons Superior flavor, juiciness, and tenderness Modest or higher degree of marbling (most cri5cal spec for ea5ng quality and the hardest to hit for ca^le producers) Medium or fine marbling texture A maturity No hump on the neck exceeding 2- inch height Consistent sizing in 2 REA; < 1000 lb HCW; <1.0 in BF Desirable appearance and plate presenta5on Moderately thick or thicker muscling characteris5cs Prac5cally devoid of internal hemorrhages No dark cuhng characteris5cs Source: CAB, USDA Convention & Trade Show 1

2 Nov. 4, 2014 Where do caale miss the CAB target? Hot Carcass Weight over 1,000 lbs 2.6% 6.5% Ribeye Area Out of Spec 8.7% 16.7% < % 1.4% > % 2.5% 0.9% Excessive Backfat 8 Nebraska 75% Total U.S. 7 % Choice & Prime Defect Insufficient Marbling Trends in Quality Grading 65% Kansas 6 55% Texas 5 45% 4 35% Source: 2008 CAB Consist Study; 2012 Plant Camera Data YTD Year Source: Source: USDA, USDA State = plant loca5on Wholesale Value Differences + Par What do high CAB acceptance rate caale look like? + $ $64.50 Trait Value Avg lot size Avg in weight Avg out weight 105 head 717 lbs 1,311 lbs Avg CAB % Avg HCW Percent Ch and higher 52.8% 834 lbs 93.2% Percent Prime Avg Yield Grade 8.1% 2.9 Source: CAB FLP; ; Lots > 4 CAB; 48,233 head in 459 lots *Assuming 880 lb HCW & 2014 YTD wholesale values What s possible? What s possible? 2014 CAB Commitment to Excellence Winner Commercial Cow- calf Dry Fork Land & Livestock, Dee and Gaye Johnson, WY Feeding rela5onship with Darnall Feedlot Early loads reached 27% CAB acceptance 5,500 head fed from o 64.7% CAB o 94% Ch and higher o 2 Prime 2013 CAB Commitment to Excellence Winner Commercial Cow- calf Mayer Ranch, Joe Mayer, OK Feeding rela5onship with Triangle H Extensive use of technology for selec5on 7 CAB and 15% Prime Convention & Trade Show 2

3 What determines marbling? Carcass or cow do I have to pick one? Correla/ons Between Marbling and Maternal EPDs Sta/s/cs EPD r P- value Birth Weight Calving Ease Direct 0.17 < Calving Ease Maternal 0.28 < Weaning Weight 0.15 < Scrotal Circumference Heifer Pregnancy Milk 0.22 < Mature Wt 0.13 < $Weaning 0.15 < Source: Selec/on for Marbling and the Impact on Maternal Traits, Smith and Greiner, 2013 Gene/cs and Marbling Carcass traits are highly heritable The Angus breed surpasses others for marbling Breed Marbling Score 1 Angus 610 Red Angus 567 Hereford 534 Simmental 532 Gelbvieh 527 Charolais 520 Limousin 488 Brahman = Slight 00; 500 = Small00 Source: MARC, 2014 Improvement in One Genera/on? CAB Best Management Prac/ces Gene.cs Angus- sired Southern- sired Standard Low Select High Select Low Choice Upper Choice Use registered Angus bulls Select bulls with marbling EPDs to align with cowherd gene5cs Con5nental cross: Top 25% (min of +0.60) English cross: Top 4 (min of +0.48) Selec5on pressure on REA and BF as needed Retain heifers with improved marbling gene5cs Convention & Trade Show 3

4 Replacement Heifer Selec/on CAB Best Management Prac/ces Gene.cs Use carcass data to assist in culling GMX Score GMX Focus Score Distribu/on Average Herd Heifer GMX Score GMX Focus Score Distribu/on Highly Selected Herd Heifer Management Marbling is a life.me event Effect of Animal Health on Quality Grade Number of treatments Quality grade >3 Prime, % Choice /+, % Choice, % Prenatal Birth Weaning Growing Finishing Harvest Ungraded, % Source: Hands et al, KSU, 2012 CAB Best Management Prac/ces Animal Health Comprehensive whole- herd health program Calving season ensure a solid start Sound vaccina5on protocol Reduce parasite load Low stress handling/weaning Effect of Creep Feeding on Marbling Quality grade Control Treatment Creep Fiber Creep Starch Prime, % CAB, % Choice, % Source:Meteer, IL, 2011 Convention & Trade Show 4

5 Nov. 4, 2014 Effect of Fetal Programming on Marbling Winter Range Precalving Body Wt, lbs Corn Stalks Protein Supplement No Supplement Protein Supplement No Supplement Weaning Wt, lbs % Ch or higher % Prem Ch Net Returns, $/hd CAB Best Management Prac/ces Nutri.on Year- around cowherd nutri5on Adequate mineral program Consider creep feeding, preferably starch- based Source: Larson et al., University of NE, Retained through the feedlot CAB Best Management Prac/ces Growth Technologies Both implants and beta- agonists have been shown to suppress marbling Match product type with stage of growth and marke5ng method CAB Best Management Prac/ces Other Considera.ons Keep good records Manage disposi5on Tight calving window Sort off young/small end before feeding Target endpoint of in BF to op5mize marbling poten5al U5lize value- based marke5ng systems Thank you! Convention & Trade Show 5