The Canadian Beef Grading Agency announced that the three yield grades of the Canadian beef grading standards will be replaced in January 2019 with five yield grades. The quality grades will remain the same.

The adoption of five yield grade standards is being implemented to align with the American yield grades and create transparency with the U.S., given its role as Canada’s biggest export client of beef. This change will also allow for the industry to develop management practices for targeted finishing by creating a greater distinction between low and high carcass yields.

This change to the beef yield grade standards is connected to the Safe Foods for Canadians Act, coming into effect January 15, 2019. Óscar López Campos, research scientist with Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, and his team at the Lacombe Research and Development Centre were tasked with the research and testing required to develop and validate the new standards. This work was supported by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency’s national standards officer, as well as beef graders across the country.

The original method used to predict lean yield was introduced in April 1992, then updated in 2001 when regulations changed to reduce the minimum amount of backfat thickness. Through the current standards, a grader makes an estimate of lean yield once a carcass is given a Canada Prime grade or one of the A grades. An estimated yield of 59 per cent or more qualifies for Canada 1, or Y1, while 54 to 58 per cent fall into Canada 2 (Y2) and 53 per cent or less is considered Canada 3 (Y3).

In the American standards, United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Yield Grade 1 is given to carcasses with an estimated yield of more than 52.3 per cent. USDA Yield Grade 2 is 50 to 52.3 per cent; Yield Grade 3 is 47.7 to 50 per cent; Yield Grade 4 is 45.4 to 47.7 per cent; and Yield Grade 5 is less than 45.4 per cent.

Once the five new yield grades are finalized and verified, an objective measuring tool will be created to accompany the new standards. More information on this, as well as training for graders, will follow soon. Visit the Canadian Beef Grading Agency’s website for more information.

*UPDATE: A previous version of this article stated that USDA Yield Grade 1 is given to carcasses with an estimated lean yield of more than 52.3 per cent. In fact, USDA yield grades estimate the amount of boneless, closely trimmed retail cuts from the high-value parts of the carcass. They also show differences in the total yield of retail cuts. 

The post Canadian beef yield grade standards change in January appeared first on Canadian Cattlemen.

The 28 per cent of a beef carcass categorized as prime cuts from the middle sells itself, but there are lots of opportunities to create value from less tender cuts that oftentimes have more distinct flavour.

The plate, or front underbelly along the ribs, is a good example. As a source of beef bacon it demands three to four times the price of the other lesser cuts.

With added marbling in the chuck today it can supply added value when turned into specialty steaks and steak cubes for deep frying.

The petite tender from the shoulder clod is actually the third-most tender cut in a youthful carcass and Van Melle demonstrates how it can gain tremendous value as a stuffed entree, beef Wellington or sliced across the grain into medallions.

Proper trimming and cooking techniques make winners. The sirloin flap (thin cuts) located along the flank and below the loin used to go for hamburger but less so since the centre discovered some wonderful marinade recipes for this cut that make it a valued dish in Central America and Asia and is now very popular in Quebec.

The tri-tip, although part of the sirloin, serves up best when slow roasted and cut across the grain after cooking because it comprises two parts with differing grains.

The loin tail, which is one of the toughest cuts of all, is just starting to be explored for further potential and they’ve found already that it can be fall-apart tender when rolled with stuffing and long-braised with sweet gravy.

For more on beef cuts and recipes to go with them, visit www.canadabeef.ca and search for “cuts by colour.”

The post Making the most of a beef carcass appeared first on Canadian Cattlemen.

Often a good group of cattle is judged by its similarities and not its differences, so that’s one visual criteria for selection.

With good reason, we also tend to focus on traits that are measurable such as growth (birth, weaning and yearling weights), performance (average daily gain), reproduction and conformation. We have learned these are economically important traits that we have a lot of control over.

But there are other traits of economic importance that aren’t so easily judged as they are difficult or expensive to measure, and less within our control. These include input traits such as feed intake with resulting feed efficiency, and carcass traits like marbling and ribeye area which require a different method of evaluation, preferably one that is reliable, quick, easy and cheap.

This is where genetic evaluation enters the picture. It has enabled us to take a look under the hide of our cattle so that we might better predict their performance and that of their offspring. Using genomic technology in crossbred cattle is relatively new, but has the potential to provide producers with more information earlier in the life of an animal where genetic merit scores (EPDs) would otherwise not be available (beefgenomicprediction.ca).

The gains from improved selections through genetic evaluation also have the potential to benefit more than just your own bottom line. For example, research has established feed-efficient cattle emit less methane and produce less manure than inefficient cattle and ultimately cost less to feed. So the overall benefit of a widespread shift to genomic-aided selection might well be a greener and more competitive beef industry.

Genomics can also be used to optimize heterosis by accurately predicting breed composition to influence mating decisions. Using this approach of genomic mate selection also adds value by avoiding both inbreeding and recessive genetic defects in the herd.

In order to demonstrate the impact of genomics the Alberta Beef & Forage Grazing Centre and Lakeland College turned to the new Student Managed Farm (powered by New Holland) livestock unit at the college in Vermilion, Alta., to conduct a long-term study on a herd of 50 Angus crossbred females that had been selected on traditional visual appraisal, herd reputation and performance records.

The students will manage the study with the assistance of instructor Geoff Brown and myself.

The heifers had DNA samples taken and analyzed by Delta Genomics and those results were translated into molecular breeding values with economic weights assigned for each trait under the direction of Dr. John Crowley, a geneticist at the University of Alberta and research director of the Canadian Beef Breeds Council.

The heifers were then put on a 75-day feed efficiency test using GrowSafe feeders to determine their residual feed intake (RFI) and then ranked on all this information (visual, performance data, molecular breeding values and resulting economic value).

Does all that extra data and information help us select better cattle? That is what the students plan to find out. But we, and Canadian Cattlemen magazine, thought you might like to try your hand at judging the results for yourself.

We have selected four heifers (see at top and below) to follow over the length of this trial. So let’s get started: step one is for you to rank these heifers from top to bottom based on visual and basic performance data.

In the next article we’ll have some additional data to further refine your rankings.

The post You judge the heifers! Part 1 appeared first on Canadian Cattlemen.

Analysis of grading results from 2005 and 2015 indicate that the average carcass in 2015 contained 19.3 pounds of fat per cwt compared to 16.7 pounds per cwt in 2005. That increase of 2.6 pounds per cwt comes to an extra 22.5 pounds per 2015 carcass. On the 2.78 million cattle slaughtered in 2015 this is an extra 62.6 million pounds of fat.

The real question, though, relates to the cost of all of that fat. Current reported average cost of feedlot gain is $0.76 per pound. We know, however, that feed efficiency drops dramatically as an animal fattens, and so adding one pound of fat to an animal is significantly more expensive. Using an estimate of $1.50 per pound of gain for fat, the cost of the excess fat in 2015 was a rather staggering $93.9 million. To put that in perspective, it is equivalent to a $33 discount on every steer and heifer fed in Canada. This could be justified if feeders received a significant premium for AAA carcasses; however, there are now so many AAA carcasses that there is, in fact, no premium at all.

As Gracey noted in his article, cattle feeders may be making a logical decision to feed to excess as the payment structure and feed costs support this strategy, although barely. But step back for a moment and think like a consumer. They ultimately pay for this excess fat through higher beef prices. Like all rational consumers, higher beef prices make you look more closely at chicken as a preferred alternative.

It will take a concerted effort to change the system so that this inefficiency can be dealt with. The Canadian Cattlemen’s Association recently launched a National Beef Strategy. The strategy has four pillars, including three that can be assisted by dealing with this issue:

Beef demand pillar: The goal under this pillar is to enhance beef demand and, as a result, enhance carcass cutout value by 15 per cent over five years.

The figure below lays out in stark terms the challenge we face with regard to demand: beef consumption has continued its 30-year decline, replaced with chicken, which has enjoyed a healthy 30-year run. By feeding excessively, adding fat that is then trimmed and tossed aside, we are in reality making beef less and less competitive.

Chicken has been winning the war and at this point, we’re handing them the bullets.

How does excess fat relate to carcass cutout value? Well that $33 in excess fat is a little over one per cent of the value of a carcass. This alone will not meet the 15 per cent target of the strategy but it could make a good contribution toward the goal.

Productivity pillar: The goal here is to increase production efficiency by 15 per cent. Fat is added to an animal at a cost of feed roughly 2.5 times that of adding muscle. To make the math simple, if we use a feed efficiency of 5:1 for muscle (12.5:1 for fat), this additional 62.6 million pounds of fat equates to 391,000 tons of grain. It also results in a tremendous amount of both more manure and greenhouse gas. For both industry efficiency and industry sustainability, excess fat is a problem.

Connectivity pillar: Through efforts in this pillar, the goal is to enhance industry synergies, connect positively with consumers, the public, government, and partner industries by actively addressing industry issues. The beef industry suffers from a disjointed supply chain that results in confused (or lack of) market signals. This is where the problem of excess fat arises: each player making logical moves that add up to something that really makes no sense.

There are several initiatives now underway that can help. Data systems such as bioTrack can help to connect the information dots. The caveat, of course, is that people must get on the systems and that data is shared freely or at a reasonable cost, particularly grade data. A powerful but highly underutilized tool available to the beef industry is genetics. By selecting the right bulls, we can get the marbling desired without the excess feeding and fat. We simply do not need to sacrifice yield in the pursuit of marbling.

Mike McMorris is the general manager of BIO

The post The real cost of fat appeared first on Canadian Cattlemen.

On the positive side we see a very sharp increase in AAA carcasses from 57.1 per cent of the total in the Prime to A series to 62.0 per cent. In fact Prime plus AAA now make up almost two-thirds of the total. Wonderful! But don’t stop here.

Before we applaud the increase in “quality” let’s have a look at the yield classification side of the matter. In 2015 the highest-yielding class fell out of bed, dropping from 50 per cent of the total in 2014 to just 41.3 per cent in 2015. As Donald Trump might say, “what the hell is going on?”

What is going on is that cattle feeders, faced with record-high replacement prices decided to market more feed through the cattle they already owned and deferred the purchase of an admittedly reduced supply of replacement cattle. That might make short-term economic sense but it doesn’t say much for the product. A short explanation is needed.

Quality in youthful cattle is determined almost exclusively by the level of marbling. I say almost exclusively only to avoid criticism that I overlook other important factors. But if you look at the B grades those other important factors have excluded only 1.75 per cent of the carcasses from the Prime and A series grades. So I can assert that the level of marbling has increased simply because the cattle got fatter.

If one wishes to dispute that observation you must ignore the yield results. Yield is determined primarily, and again almost exclusively, by fat thickness measurements taken at the ribbing site and, as stated above the Y1s dropped from 50 per cent in 2014 to 41.3 per cent in 2015. Therefore no one can dispute that the cattle were much fatter in 2015 than ever before during the present grade standards regime. Actually the high water mark for yield was way back in 1997 and 1998 when A1s reached 71.1 per cent of the total.

I am being deliberately blunt here because I think it’s time the industry addressed this issue. The consumer is being shortchanged. The industry is supplying more fat and less lean meat than ever to a consumer who is generally unaware. The fat she pays for was removed in the trimming process but somebody, and who else but the consumer, had to pay for that production.

So would I then sacrifice quality for yield? Not in a million years. We have known for at least the last four decades that it is possible to breed, raise, feed and market animals that are of high quality and also high yield. If I were to define the ideal carcass, with the poor tools we have to do that, I would suggest that this should include the top half of the AA grade and all of the AAA and Prime carcasses that had a Yield Grade 1. That definition would have included 43 per cent of the carcasses graded in 2005 but only 29 per cent of those graded in 2015. So we don’t have to look for proof that a better carcass is possible. We just have to look at what was done a decade ago.

So I have to ask again, when is the industry going to implement instrument grading and start paying more attention to carcass yield? Only when producers are paid fairly for both quality and yield will they respond with a better product. The cattle feeder cannot and should not be blamed for responding to a marketplace that sends strong signals about quality and faint beeps about yield. When these signals are better balanced in terms of price offerings producers will respond.

Grading results matter!

The post Beef Grading: Yield is down, fat is up appeared first on Canadian Cattlemen.