1

The Value of SimGenetics to Retail Carcass– a New York case study

M. J. Baker, G. Jacimovski, M. E. Hannon, L. Bliven

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

30th International Livestock Congress (ILC–USA) in Houston, Texas, March 4-5, 2015.

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 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 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

PrimalChuck Rib/loin Round Other

Retail Cut

Cut $/lb. Cut $/lb. Cut $/lb. Cut $/lb.

Roast

4.99 Short rib 4.79

Tip roast 6.09 Stew 5.39

Arm 4.99 Steak/roast 12.99

Rump roast 5.59 Ground beef

4.89

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

SimAngus 7 4

Simmental

48 12

Total 136 58

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

HCWFor every

pound increase in

HCW, Retail Value

increases $3.34

BFFor every

inch increase in BF, Retail

Value decreases $240.06

REAFor every

square inch

increase in REA, Retail

Value increases $17.24

KPHFor every percent

increase in KPH, Retail

Value decreases

$44.86

Influence of carcass measurements on retail valueError, 2%

HCW, 69%

BF, 12%

KPH, 7%

REA, 10%

$$Determining cost of production$$

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

English (n=88) SM (n=48)

 

Trait Average

SE 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, in2 11.7 0.17 12.9 0.25 **KPH, % 2.3 0.04 2.4 0.06 nsYG 3.0 0.07 2.5 0.09 **DOF 153 4.1 156 5.6 nsInitial wt, lb 743 7.9 749 7.5 nsADG 2.8 0.05 3.0 0.05 *COP, $/hd 1538 11 1561 9 nseCutOut, $/hd 2294 31 2405 37 *NET, $/hd 755 24 844 31 *ObsCutout, $/hd*

2214 63 2388 67 P = 0.07

*English n = 29; SM n = 19  

Carcass and production characteristics of fed steers

English n=46 SM n = 12 SigTrait Averag

eSE Averag

eSE  

HCW, lb 636 11.4 638 15.4 nsBF, in 0.44 0.02 0.37 0.02 P =

0.10REA, in2 10.7 0.25 12.0 0.52 *KPH, % 2.5 0.06 2.5 0.09 nsYG 3.1 0.08 2.5 0.19 **DOF 129 6.0 133 9.5 nsInitial wt, lb 758 12.2 761 19.5 nsADG 2.3 0.08 2.2 0.13 nsCOP, $/hd 1518 16 1525 22 nseCutOut, $/hd 2047 43 2093 55 nsNET, $/hd 530 33 568 46 nsObsCutout, $/hd*

2011 96 1959 73 ns

* English n = 16; SM n = 4

Carcass and production characteristics of fed heifers

Limitations• Dam• Diet• Endpoint

400 500 600 700 800 900 10000

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

Relationship of HCW to Net Value (steers)

HCW, lb

Ne

t va

lue

, $

/hd

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

6 7

Cow weight, lb. 1209 1268Calf sire AN SMBirth weight, lb. 75 89Weaning weight, lb.

461 565

205 d weaning weight, lb.

526 626

ADG to weaning 2.1 2.6

Table 2. Profitability of eight beef herd management systems

  Cow production level

  Medium High

  Pasture management system

  IR MR CI CU IR MR CI CU

Annual forage produced, t1

393 246 169 172 393 246 169 172

No. cows 70 43 30 29 62 38 27 26

Net farm income, $281

4 873-

2195161

7492

0138

1-

1991 1711Net farm income/acre, $/ac 26 8 -20 15 45 13 -18 16Net farm income/cow, $/cow 40 20 -73 56 79 36 -74 66

1Total forage produced on 110 acres, expressed as hay equivalents

1100 1200 1300 1400 -

5

10

15

20

25 Rank in system profitability based on cow weight

Cow weight, lbs. (BCS=5)

Ra

nk

What’s next?1. Develop recommendations on sire selection and

female replacements2. Continue to track and fine tune management

practices3. Evaluate new metrics (ribeye shape, location of fat

depots)4. Analyze tenderness data5. Extend to other packers/marketing groups