A COMPARISON OF FORAGE-FINISHED AND GRAIN-FINISHED B E E P

T . D. BlDNER Louisiana S t a t e University This s u b j e c t has become very popular i n t h e l a s t year because of high g r a i n p r i c e s and cheap c a t t l e p r i c e s . The low c a t t l e p r i c e s a r e mainly due t o overproductim. I n modern times, t h e t o t a l United S t a t e s beef numbers have been on a t e n year cycle, and we a r e p r e s e n t l y a t t h e t o p of t h i s peak i n c a t t l e nmibers.

The high g r a i n p r i c e s a r e a l o t more complex, b u t t h e main theme i s t h a t man i s now competing with animals f o r grains of t h e world and i s w i l l i n g t o pay t h e p r i c e . This coupled with increased energy cost means t h a t g r a i n p r i c e s w i l l never be as cheap as they were i n t h e e a r l y 70's f o r any extended period of time. Because of t h e depressed condition of t h e beef i n d u s t r y and t h e high g r a i n p r i c e s , t h e f e e d l o t business has been hard h i t . Table 1 shows t h e break-even p r i c e of a 650 l b s t e e r fed t o 1050 lb on $3 t o $4 per bushel corn i f t h e s t e e r was purchased f o r $38 per cwt. Production records of a group of Angus and Angus Hereford cross s t e e r s r a i s e d a t t h e West Louisiana Experiment S t a t i o n show t h a t it i s generally cheaper t o grow and f i n i s h s t e e r s on g r a s s ( t a b l e 2 ) . A s t h e c a t t l e consumed more grain, t h e i r break-even p r i c e a l s o increased. Using an i n i t i a l c o s t of $36.60 / cwt, which was t h e break-even production c o s t o f t h e 650 l b c a l f , even t h e grass-finished 930 lb s t e e r was not cheap ($39/cwt). One of t h e b i g problems of cmparing forage- and grain-finished beef has been t h e lower net energy o f t h e forage and t h e slower gains of c a t t l e on t h i s type of d i e t . Table 3 shaws some of t h e energy values of some common f e e d s t u f f s , expected gains 3n t h i s feed and days required t o gain 400 l b . I t a l s o should be noted t h a t some of t h e grasses a r e not a v a i l a b l e f o r t h e t o t a l time needed t o gain 400 l b . This same idea was revealed by Wood and Scholl (1962) who fed a group of s t e e r s on forage and d i f f e r e n t r a t i o s of forage t o concentrate f o r a t o t a l of 137 days. A s t h e amount of g r a i n increased, t h e average d a i l y gain a l s o increased. This a l s o had an e f f e c t on t h e f i n a l appraised slaughter grade s i n c e t h e c a t t l e which received more g r a i n were given a higher score. Twenty t o twenty-five years ago, considerable work had been done on comparing forage- and grain-finished b e e f . I n 1954, a t t h e 7th Annual RMC, W . L . Brown gave a paper on t h e carcass c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f forage-finished b e e f . I n t h e summary he concluded t h a t t h e forage c a t t l e had yellow f a t and were leaner than g r a i n f i n i s h e d c a t t l e ( t a b l e 5 ) .

*

Presented a t t h e 28th Annual Reciprocal Meat Conference of t h e American Meat Science Association, 1975.

Table 1. Break-even net s e l l i n g p r i c e 650-pound s t e e r fed t o lO5O-p~und s a l e weight De l i v e r e d pur cha s e T o t a l cost p e r pound o f gain price/cwt $38

$44.og 47.14 50 J9

544 ($3.OO/bu. corn) 624 ( 3.50/bu. corn) 704 ( 4 .OO/bu. corn) Doane 's A g r i c u l t u r a l Report,

Table 2 .

1974.

Production c o s t of f m a g e and short-grain f e d s t e e r s

Forage

., .

Final w t lb Cost/cwt gain Gain -28 0 days Break-even price a t final w t

930 $44.40 284

.

39*oo

954

53 090

305

42.20

Treatments

56

956

.

1004

63*75

334

46.10

I n i t i a l c o s t of 650 l b s t e e r of $36.60/cwt., Cwt

100

61.oo

381 45 *90

g r a i n r a t i o n cost of

998 76 050

366 5 1 *25

$6.80/

303 Table 3.

Energy value of some f e e d s t u f f s and expected gains

TDN

d r y matter basis Bermudagrass Alfalfa hay ( e a r l y bloom) Ryegrass Bluegrass Corn s i l a g e (poor e a r ) Corn s i l a g e (good e a r ) Corn, X$ roughage r a t i o n

tal/

100 l b )

Gain/day, lb, 650 lb c a l f

Days t o gain 400 l b

58

20

0 *9

444

57 62 69

22

1.o

400 267

64

35

1.6

250

70

45

2 .o

200

2.6

154

33 42

1.5 1.8

ss

222

S u b s t i t u t i o n of corn f o r forage i n fattening ration

All forage

.,

(m

83

Table 4.

Steers Days f e d Initial w t lb T o t a l gain, l b Daily gain Appraised s l a u g h t e r grade

NE g a i n

Ratio of forage t o concentrate 20: 1

5:l

2:l

53 137 841 185 1.34

56 137 839

55 137 837 3 6 2.24

56 137 847 360 2.66

STD+

Good'

Wood and S c h o l l ( 1962 )

.

229

1.66

Good

Good'

304 Table 5. Summary--beef carcass c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s a s influenced by grass and other roughages--7 RMC

1. Forage beef has lower lean plus f a t t o bone r a t i o due t o a d d i t i o n a l f a t of g r a i n fed beef.

2.

No consistent differences detected i n coDked product.

3.

Color of l e a n nDt adversely a f f e c t e d . Color of f a t s l i g h t l y yellow.

Brown, si'. L.

1954.

I n 1960, Bernadine Meyer and others a t Tennessee pair-fed a group of 16 s t e e r s t o a common age of approximately 21.5 months. This r e s u l t e d i n about a 100 l b heavier slaughter weight and 2/3 of a superior q u a l i t y grade f o r t h e g r a i n s t e e r s ( t a b l e 6 ) . These differences r e s u l t e d i n superior organoleptic p r o p e r t i e s f o r t h e g r a i n c a t t l e , e s p e c i a l l y f o r t a s t e panel j u i c i n e s s , tenderness and f l a v o r . There was not a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e f o r Warner-Bratzler shear (FTBS). The g r e a t e s t sensory d i f f e r e n c e i n t h e two types of beef was observed i n t h e f l a v o r of f a t ( t a b l e s 6 and 7 ) . This agrees with e a r l i e r work of Malphrus (1957) who found t h a t a t a s t e panel could d e t e c t a d i f f e r e n c e between steaks with yellow and white f a t . The problem wit'n t h i s study was t h a t only 12 carcasses were used, 6 with yellow f a t and 6 with white fat. Oltjen, Rumsey and Putnam (1971)f e d a r a t i o n of p e l l e t e d a l f a l f a 3r timothy hay and compared t h e s e steers t o ones on a cracked corn d i e t . One of t h e main d i f f e r e n c e s i n t h i s experiment was that t h e c a t t l e were fed t o a constant w e i g h t i n s t e a d Df a constant age. This experimental design yielded d i f f e r e n t r e s u l t s as compared t o experiments where t h e animals were fed t o constant age ( t a b l e 8 ) . The grain fed s t e e r s had a higher q u a l i t y grade and superior dressing percent as compared t o t h e a l f a l f a fed s t e e r s i n t r i a l 1, but both treatments graded Choice. Taste panel d a t a revealed that t h e a l f a l f a f e d s t e e r s were more tender, f l a v o r f u l and o v e r a l l more d e s i r a b l e than t h e g r a i n f i n i s h e d s t e e r s . They completed a second t r i a l t o see i f t h e r e s u l t s could be repeated and t o compare a l f a l f a hay t o timothy hay. A similar group of s t e e r s were f e d t h e p e l l e t e d a l f a l f a f o r t h e same length of time a s i n t r i a l 1 (203 days). I n the second t r i a l , t h e s t e e r s gained s l i g h t l y slower and only graded average Good. Taste panel r e s u l t s were s i m i l a r f o r both a l f a l f a and timQthy hay c a t t l e .

3 05 Table 6 . P a i r f e d s t e e r s t o a s i m i l a r age on g r a i n and grass ~

S t e e r no. Weight, lb. Age, mo Q u a l i t y grade Length of g r a b feeding, mo.

.

Grain

Grass

8

8 893 21.8 L. Good

1000 21.5 H . Good

4 -9

--

--

Meyer, e t a l . (1960).

Table 7. Organoleptic p r o p e r t i e s of steers based on b n g i s s i m u s muscle--7 days age

Shear, l b Taste panel Tenderness Flavor o f lean Flavor Df f a t Juiciness T o t a l cooking l o s s , $

9 point s c a l e , 9

--

Grain

Grass

14.6

17.1

7.7 7 07 7 *4 8 .o

20.1

= e x c e l l e n t , 1 = very poor

Meyer e t a l . (1960).

4.9 6.5 5 *6 7.8

16.5

Table 8.

.

All-forage d i e t s f o r f i n i s h i n g beef c a t t l e 1000 L .W )

(z

Grain

No. s t e e r s Daily gain, l b Days on t e s t Q u a l i t y grade Dressing $ T .P tenderness Flavor Juiciness Overall d e s i r a b i l i t y

12

2.8

168

A. Ch.

59 -9 5 98 5 -8 5.6 7 *2

.

Alfalfa hay 12 2 -3

2 03

L. ax. 55 94 6.1 6.1 5 *7 7 *6

O l t j e n e t a l . (1971)-

Table 9.

All-forage d i e t s f o r f i n i s h i n g beef c a t t l e ( z 985 LOW.)

No. steers Daily gain, lb Days on feed Quality grade Dressing $ T .P tenderness Flavor Juiciness

.,

Scale 1-7 with 7 most d e s i r a b l e Oltjen e t a l .

(1971).

Alfa If a hay

Timothy hay

12

12

2.14

203 A . good

55 -9 6 .o 5.5 5-5

1.85

224

H . good

52.8 5-5 5 09 5 -4

307 Kropf, A l l e n and Thouvenelle s e l e c t e d 30 c a t t l e from t h r e e d i f f e r e n t sources of predominately Hereford breeding t o compare F l i n t H i l l s grass c a t t l e , 70 days g r a i n fed and a t l e a s t 150 days g r a i n fed c a t t l e . The age i n days of some of t h e c a t t l e was not known b u t a l l t h e groups had t h e same maturity score based on t h e skeleton. There was over 100 lb d i f f e r e n c e i n carcass weight and a f u l l q u a l i t y grade d i f f e r e n c e between t h e g r a s s and t h e 150 day g r a i n c a t t l e . A s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e was observed f o r f a t color w i t h t h e grass c a t t l e being more yellow.

A s shown i n t a b l e 11, as t h e length of g r a i n feeding increased t h e e a t i n g q u a l i t y a l s o increased. I n t h i s experiment t h e biggest d i f f e r e n c e was between t h e g r a s s and t h e 70 day g r a i n c a t t l e . Since t h e s e c a t t l e were from d i f f e r e n t backgrounds we cannot determine how much of t h e s e d i f f e r e n c e s a r e due t o genetics End how much t o n u t r i t i o n . Dale Huffman f e d a group of s t e e r s on rye, ryegrass and arrowleaf clover while a second group w a s c a r r i e d on t h i s pasture up t o t h e l a s t 90 days before slaughter and then were placed on a ' c o n v e n t i o n a l high energy r a t i o n . Both roups of s t e e r s graded high Good with t h e same The organoleptic p r o p e r t i e s were s i m i l a r f o r . y i e l d grade ( t a b l e I 2 both groups with t h e g r a s s group being s l i g h t l y more tender by t h e shear and t a s t e panel.

'5 .

A p r o j e c t i n progress a t t h e Louisiana Agriculture Experiment S t a t i o n involves comparing forage-finished with s h o r t g r a i n fed s t e e r s . I n t h e f i r s t phase of t h i s p r o j e c t t h e c a t t l e were approximately 22 months of age a t slaughter and had s i m i l a r carcass weights,and q u a l i t y grades ( t a b l e 14). The f a t color was scored on a six point s c a l e with t h e forage c a t t l e being more yellow than t h e c a t t l e on a l l concentrate d i e t s . There were no s t a t i s t i c a l d i f f e r e n c e s i n t h e WES f o r t h e various treatments, with t h e forage group being about average ( t a b l e 1 5 ) .

Steaks and r o a s t s f r o m t h e s e carcasses were sold through t h r e e l o c a l s t o r e s of a major supermarket chain. The cooperating r e t a i l chain c u t and wrapped t h e beef and displayed t h e packaged c u t s i n t h e i r meat counter. The customers knew t h i s beef was from a n experiment w i t h d i f f e r e n t feeding treatments but t h e feeding treatments producing p a r t i c u l a r c u t s were not revealed t o t h e consumer. While 4,000 packages containing questionnaire cards were d i s t r i b u t e q , only 900 were returned. The consumer was asked t o rank t h e meat f o r j u i c i n e s s , tenderness, f l a v o r and o v e r a l l a c c e p t a b i l i t y on a t h r e e point s c a l e . The o v e r a l l r e t a i l response i s presented i n t a b l e 15. The forage beef received r a t i n g s very similar t o t h e 70 and 100 day g r a i n fed c a t t l e while t h e forage plus 1/2$ body weight of g r a i n received somewhat lower r a t i n g s .

308 Table 10. Carcass d a t a from grass-fed, short-fed and l m g - f e d beef

Grass Carcass w t . , lb Marbling . i u a l i t y grade Fat thickness, i n . Yield grade Fat color

501 TR STD+

-

0.19

2.2 2.2 (SY)

70 day

l5O+ day

532 SL+

615

Good

0.36

SM

Good++

0.53 3.1

2.4

1.4 ( W )

1.2

(w)

Table 11. Quality of grass-fed, s h o r t -f ed and long -f ed beef

*

Grass

Lon issimus color

Shear 4 D . p.m, T.P. 7 0 . pm Flavor J u i c i n e ss Te nderne s s Acceptability

lb

10.7

5 -9 6.3 5 *4 5 -7

70 day

l5O+ day

3 .O(SDR) 7.5

2 .~(BR+)

7 90 7 -1 6 -9 6 -9

7.3 7 7 *7 7.3

6 = s l i g h t l y d e s i r a b l e ; 7 = moderately d e s i r a b l e

7.0

309 Table 12. Carcass c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of g r a i n and g r a s s f i n i s h e d c a t t l e

90 day

Grass

No. s t e e r s F i n a l wt., lb Quality grade Yield grade Fat color Huffman, D . L.

10

23

1109 H. good

1051 H. good

2 -9 2 . o( SY )

2 -9 1 .3 (ti)

(1974). Table 13. Organoleptic t r a i t s of g r a s s and g r a i n f i n i s h e d c a t t l e ~

Shear, lb Taste panel Tenderness Juiciness Flavor

Huff’man, D. L.

~.

Grass

Grain

16.6

19.5

6.6

6.2

7.0 7 *6

(1974).

~

6.4 7 *6

310 Table 1 4 . Carcass d a t a of forage, grain on grass and s h o r t grain fed c a t t l e Forage Forage No. steers Carcass w t . , lb Daily gain-413D Quality grade Yield grade Color of f a t

10

550

1.22 Good 2.1

3.7

Table 1 5 .

Shear, lb Overall r e t a i l response Inferior, $ Average, $ Superior,

4

+

l/%

10

583 1.36

Good

2 *5

3 -2 (sy 1

56

day

70

day

100 day

10

10

10

577 1.31

Good 2 *3

1.5

(TY)

610 1.44

Good+

2.5 1.3

(w)

605 1.47

Good+ 2.4 1.1

(w 1

Shear and r e t a i l response t o forage and s h o r t g r a i n f e d c a t t l e

day

70

day

100 day

19.9

20.2

18.8

19.4

6 -7 63 -9

7.1 56.2 36 -7

55 -1

Forage

Forage t- 1/25

19.4 2 -9

56*7

40.4

24.4

56

2.4

42.4

6 -3

52.6

41.1

Conclusions

1.

Forage-finished c a t t l e have s l i g h t l y yellow t o moderately yellow f a t a s compared t o grain-finished c a t t l e .

2.

If c a t t l e a r e f e d t o comparable weights and grades, type of d i e t has l i t t l e influence on organoleptic components.

3.

Since forages contain less n e t energy than high concentrate r a t i o n s , c a t t l e gain slower on high roughage r a t i o n s .

4.

If c a t t l e a r e fed a constant time o r t o a constant age and t h i s experimental design r e s u l t s i n b i g differences i n f i n a l weight and q u a l i t y grade, d e t e c t a b l e d i f f e r e n c e s w i l l be found f o r dressing percent, c u t a b i l i t y and e a t i n g q u a l i t i e s . L i t e r a t u r e Cited

Brown, W . L. 1954. Beef carcass c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s as influenced by g r a s s and o t h e r roughages. Proc. Recip. Meat Conf. 7:199.

Huffman, D. L. 1974. Carcass c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s - - c u r r e n t research. Proc of Alabama Beef Industry Conference, Auburn University.

.

Kropf, D. H., D . M . Allen and G. J . Thouvenelle. 1975. Short-fed, grain-fed and long-fed beef compared. Kansas S t a t e Cattleman's Day Report 62:78. Malphrus, L. D. 1957. E f f e c t o f color of beef f a t on f l a v o r of steaks and r o a s t s . Food Res. 22:342. Meyer, B., J. Thomas, R . Buckley and J . W . Cole. 1960. The q u a l i t y o f grain-finished and grass-finished beef a s a f f e c t e d by ripening. Food Technol. 1:(1)4. Oltjen, R. R , , T . S. Rumsey and P. A. Putnam. 1971. f o r f i n i s h i n g beef c a t t l e . J. Anim. S e i . 32:327.

All-forage d i e t s

Woods, W . and J . M. Scholl. 1962. S u b s t i t u t i o n of corn f o r forage i n f a t t e n i n g r a t i o n of s t e e r s . J. h i m . S c i . 21:69.

Reba Staggs, National Live Stock and bleat Board: I would l i k e t o a s k you, Mi-. Bidner, did you cook a v a r i e t y of c u t s i n making t h e palat a b i l i t y evaluation? T . M. Bidner: Yes, b u t it 178s not reported i n t h e s l i d e s . We have done a n a n a l y s i s on responses t o cards we received from r e t a i l purchasers where w e used r o a s t s and steaks from p r i m 1 c u t s . We a l s o have done a t r a i n e d t a s t e panel on round s t e a k , on T-bone s t e e k and r i b roasts. O.k., then a l s o ( I did not r e p o r t on any of t h e s e r e s u l t s because it was not s t a t i s t i c a l l y analyzed), then we have done a consum2r t a s t e panel on those primal c u t s . But I d i d not r e p o r t that work.

Reba S t a g e : The reascm I ask you i s because we have found t h e response t o d i f f e r e n t c u t s t o be very d i f f e r e n t from w h a t we have o r d i n a r i l y thought

.

T. D. Bidner: This is one bad t h i n g about t h i s being a r e t a i l study. We had 4,000 cards that were d i s t r i b u t e d through t h e c u t s . We received 900 responses s o it i s hard t o t r y t o break t h i s down from w h a t study we had i n t o separate c u t s because i n some of t h e s e d i f f e r e n t segments we d i d n o t g e t very much response on c e r t a i n c u t s s o we are going t o do t h i s again, hopefully, next year. This work i s being done by our A g r i c u l t u r a l Economists and m e .

* * * Gary Smith: The Chairmn of t h e Meat Cookery Committee, Dr. Russell Cross, received t h e R . D . f r s m Texas A&M University i n 1972. Dr. Cross was employed by Am, Standardization Branch, Livestock Division, f o r a year and a half and then joined t h e Meat Science Research Iaboratory s t a f f a t B e l t s v i l l e , Mwyland. So I ' l l t u r n t h e program over t o D r . Cross.

H . R . Cross: Thank you, Gary. Ladies and Gentlemen, welcome t o t h i s morning's s e s s i o n on Meat Cookery. Before we proceed w i t h t h e program, I would l i k e t o express my thanks t o B i l l Kramlich, t h e Coordinator from t h e Board f o r his support and patience i n working with t h i s committee. I would a l s o l i k e t o thank t h e members of t h e Meat Cookery Committee f o r t h e i r support i n t h e development of t h e program and suggest ions for t h e distinguished speakers t h i s morning. Mmy of us cook meat f o r one reason o r another and m s t of us do it d i f f e r e n t l y . Some of us cook it frozen while others cook it thawed. Some of us trim and s i z e OUT steaks before cooking while others leave a c e r t a i n amount of f a t on t h e outside. Some r o a s t , while others b r o i l . Mmy researchers cook t o a constant degree of doneness based on time while others cook t o a constant i n t e r n a l temperature. From t h e reported l i t e r a t u r e , t h e r e i s l i t t l e doubt t h a t method of cookery has a pronounced e f f e c t on u l t i m t e p a l a t a b i l i t y . Therefore, t h e r e i s l i t t l e p o s s i b i l i t y , due t o t h e extreme v a r i a b i l i t y of methods of cookery, t h a t we can compare research r e s u l t s from one s t a t i o n t o t h e o t h e r . Perhaps t h e time i s upon

us t o consider s t a n d a r d i z a t i o n of meat cookery methd-s o r a t l e a s t t h e devebpment of guidelines for meat cookery methods. bJith t h i s i n mind, t h e meat cookery committee has s e l e c t e d t h r e e e x c e l l e n t speakers t o discuss problems r e l a t e d t o meat cookery and perhaps t h e i r s o l u t i o n s . Our f i r s t speaker t h i s morning i s Dr. Denny Heldman who i s p r e s e n t l y on t h e s t a f f of t h e Food Engineering Department a t Michigan S t a t e University. Dr. Heldman received h i s B.S. degree and M.S. degree from The Ohio S t a t e University, and h i s Ph.D. from Michigan S t a t e University i n 1965. D r . Heldman is very a c t i v e i n teaching and r e s e a r c h i n processed foods as t h e y r e l a t e t o design of processing equipment. D r . Heldman i s a recent author of a textbook on food processing. This morning we have asked D r . Heldman t o speak on t h e s u b j e c t of heat t r a n s f e r i n meat and t h e problems involved i n temperature measurement and some of t h e e f f e c t s of compositim on t h e t r a n s f e r of heat during cooking.