How Long Does It Take for a Beef Cattle to Reach Finished Market Weight

Finishing Beef Cattle On The Farm

By Paul Beck, David Lalman

Jump To:
• Selection
• Full general Facility Considerations
• Finishing Options
• Provender Finishing
• Grain Finishing in Confinement
• Grain Finishing On Pasture
• Alive Weight to Retail Cuts
• Postmortem Crumbling Effects on Beef Tenderness

Rural landowners often are interested in raising livestock to slaughter for personal consumption, local marketing or for normal article markets. Advantages to raising your ain beef include having control over calf quality and choice of how the calf is finished out. Calves tin be finished on grass, grain and grass, or high concentrate diets. There are disadvantages to consider when fattening your own beef. Disadvantages may include the need to purchase a calf, actress labor for feeding, sufficient country set up aside for fodder-finishing, purchasing and storage of expensive feedstuffs for grain-finishing, or purchasing freezers to store the beefiness after slaughter. Calves also can get sick and may require veterinarian attending, and owners must realize the longer the ownership, the more risk of death losses due to injury or illness. This fact sheet covers facility and calf selection, feeding options and slaughter considerations for finishing calves on the farm. For more in-depth data on diet, health and growth promoting compounds see AFS-3302 An Introduction to Finishing Beefiness.

Choice

Calves selected for subcontract-raised beef vary in type. Budget, marketing niches and stop product goals will determine the type of calf that works best. Modest-framed dairy calves, similar Jersey calves, tin have exceptional meat quality; however, percent retail product and size of cuts, like ribeye steaks, will be fairly small-scale. A Large-framed, heavy-muscled beef brood will have very good cutability (high per centum retail product) simply calves of this type can accept longer to reach maturity, will likely exist slaughtered prematurely and freezer space may be inadequate to shop all the cuts. Calves of beef breeds that are moderate-framed and early maturing with good muscling are platonic for most subcontract raised beef programs. Producers that desire greater lean may desire calves of traditional Continental breeds like Charolais and Limousin; whereas, producers that desire the flavor and juiciness of steaks with more marbling (intramuscular fat that determines USDA Quality Class) may prefer calves of predominately English language breeding such as Hereford, Red Angus, Black Angus or Shorthorn. Finishing calves with more than 25% Brahman influence tin tend to reduce cutability and tenderness.

Bulls should be castrated early in life, preferably at birth or by three months of age. Steaks from intact bulls can be leaner and tougher than steaks from steers. Ambitious activity of group-fed bulls tin get a handling issue every bit well equally increased chances for animal injury and bruising. Heifers make skilful farm-raised beef candidates. Heifers ofttimes are kept for convenance, and at the end of the breeding season, any heifer that did not get pregnant can exist easily finished for slaughter. Because they are earlier-maturing, heifers generally fatten quicker at a lighter bodyweight and have a slightly poorer feed conversion ratio than males.

General Facility Considerations

Shade and air current breaks. Finishing (forage- or grainfinishing) and marketing goals (personal use or sale) will determine the land and facilities needed. Whether finishing calves on pasture or in dry lot confinement, calves will exist more comfortable if they have access to shade during summer and a wind intermission during winter. Calves may grow adequately without shade or a wind suspension during office of the year, but shelter from the elements is necessary when weather exceed the beast'south thermo-neutral zone. The necessity for access to shade and wind break may be a personal preference to the level of animal condolement desired and marketing or may be a necessity depending on the environment. If the goal is to market beef locally, buyers may be interested in farm tours to see where the beef was produced. Buyers of locally grown beef are making their ownership decision based in part on their perception of how calves should be reared and if calves don't take admission to summer shade or wintertime shelter, someone will eventually make it a point to ask.

Handling facilities. Cattle handling facilities at a minimum should include a grab pen with a lane and headgate to exist able to vaccinate, treat affliction, castrate and dehorn. Poorly maintained working facilities can be a source of injury and bruising that may cause product loss. Walk through working facilities and look for possible points of injury, such as protruding confined, bolts or nails.

Feed storage and handling. Wasted feed due to poor storage and handling techniques increases the toll of producing beef. Feeds should be stored in a dry location to reduce the chances of molding. Feed storage facilities demand to be kept clean to keep pests (rodents and insects) at a minimum. Information technology is essential feeding rates be managed to limit build up of uneaten feed. Feed troughs also should be kept make clean to minimize leftover feed spoilage and buildup of uneaten portions due to mixing fresh feed with spoiled feed in troughs.

Hay used in forage-finished beef programs should exist loftier in quality. Storing hay nether UV-protective tarps or in barns will reduce storage waste. Feeding round bales in protected rings that either keep the bale centered or accept a metal sheet around the bottom minimize feeding waste material (see the fact sheets BAE-1716 Round Bale Hay Storage for more in depth data on hay storage losses and PSS-2570 Reducing Wintertime Feed Costs for more information on improved hay utilization)

Finishing Options

Forage- versus Grain-finishing. The objective here isn't to start a grass- or grain-finished debate; there is room for both in a local farm-raised beefiness market place. It is important to understand common characteristics of fodder- versus grain-finished beef when deciding which choice is best for beefiness produced on-farm for personal utilize or marketing. In full general, the typical beefiness consumer of the U.South. prefers the flavor of grain-fed beef. Past comparison, footing beef from cattle finished on forage has been characterized as having a 'grassy' flavor. Grass-fed footing beef besides can have a cooking aroma that differs from grain-fed beef. The visual advent of the fat of grass-fed beef can be more yellow in color due to carotenoids in comparison to grain-fed beef fat, which appears white.

An overview of 23 published studies from 1978 to 2013 showed that cattle finished on pasture gained 1 pound less per 24-hour interval than cattle fed high-concentrate diets in confinement (i.55 vs 2.54 pounds per day.) Forage-finished cattle were finished at a lighter weight (~950 lb pounds) than grain-finished cattle (~1,100 pounds) and dressed at a lower percentage (56% vs 60%). Fodder-finished cattle had 0.2 inches of back fat vs 0.5 inches for feedlot finished and as a result are bacteria when delivered for slaughter compared to grain-finished cattle. Bacteria beef is by and large scored by taste panelists as being less tender and less juicy compared to fatter beef. And then, the wellness-careful consumer seeking forage-raised beef is unremarkably willing to have merchandise-offs of flavour, tenderness and juiciness for a bacteria beefiness that may comprise a greater proportion of centre-healthy fats. Whereas, other consumers may continue to seek the grain-finished beef characteristics, but desire to support local sources of grain-fed beef.

Fodder Finishing

Provender finishing capitalizes on the beef animal'south ability to convert forage into muscle poly peptide through the aid of microbial breakup of provender celluloses in the rumen. Since cattle are naturally grazing animals, some consumers seek out beef from cattle reared in their "natural environment". The first claiming to provender-finishing is having a sufficient surface area of grazeable land. Forage dry matter intake is thought to be maximized when forage assart is kept above 1,000 pounds per acre. Forage-based systems may require 1 acre or up to 10 acres per calf depending on fertilization, weed control, seasonal fodder productivity, forage species and management. Even with practiced fodder management, hay is often needed for 2 months to iv months during wintertime. To sustain skillful calf growth rates and reduce the number of days required to finish calves on a provender-based organization, high-quality hay should be offered when pasture grasses are limiting. Supplementation with concentrate feeds such as soybean hulls may exist needed to boost gains and allow for fat deposition when hay or pasture is moderate to low quality. Soybean hulls are recognized by the American Clan of Feed Control Officials as a roughage source and is approved for grass-fed beef claims by the USDA. Other organizations set differing standards for definition of 'grass-fed' these organizations offering marketing alliances and certification, if yous are (or want to be) a member, you can refer to their guidelines for animal care and canonical management and nutrition.

The 2d limitation to forage-finishing is calf growth response. Equally forage quality, forage quantity and environmental temperatures fluctuate throughout the twelvemonth, average daily proceeds may range from seasonal highs of greater than 2.0 pounds per day to seasonal lows of 0.5 pound per twenty-four hours or less. Equally a event, calves grown in provender-finishing systems often are slaughtered before they reach the same degree of fatness of grain-finished cattle. Provender-finished calves oft will be slaughtered almost 1,000 pounds alive weight. It volition accept over a yr (367 days) to grow a 500-pound calf to ane,000 pounds if its boilerplate daily weight gain is 1.five pounds per day. Some extensive fodder-finishing systems may crave a longer duration for calves to accomplish slaughter weight if provender quality and quantity restrict growth to no more than than 1 pound per solar day.

Intensive bound and summer forage-finishing systems can be achieved with mixtures of forages similar legumes, perennial grasses, annual grasses and brassicas. Inquiry at Clemson University compared forage species for finishing calves on pasture during late-spring and summer months. Calves used in the study were grown the previous wintertime on rye/ryegrass and fescue. Finishing forages studied included alfalfa, bermudagrass, chicory, cowpea, or pearl millet. Pastures in this report were stocked at 1.7 acres per calf with the exception of pearl millet which was stocked at 0.8 acres per calf. The amount of pasture forage maintained during the report ranged from 1,300 pounds to 2,500 pounds per acre. Table one is a summary of the study results.

Steers grazing bermudagrass pastures gained i.7 pounds per day, while steers grazing alfalfa (2.8 pounds per ), chicory (ii.5 pounds per day) and cowpea (1.9 pounds per ) gained more rapidly and had greater backfat thickness at slaughter. Steers grazing pearl millet only gained one.2 pounds per day and had the least backfat at slaughter. Among the finishing systems, fatty acid composition tended to be similar and the ratio of the polyunsaturated fats to saturated fats was similar. In this report, all treatments had shear force values that would be considered at or below the threshold for consumer accepted tenderness.

Enquiry in Georgia (Table 2) compared forage-finishing on toxic fescue and non-toxic, endophyte-infected tall fescue starting in the fall and ending in the spring for a 176-day grazing menses. The stocking rate of the toxic fescue was 1.5 steers per acre and the stocking rate of the non-toxic fescue was i steer per acre. When fescue became limited during winter months (January and February), calves were grouped into a unmarried pasture and were fed bermudagrass hay. In general, toxic fescue reduced growth charge per unit which resulted in lighter carcass weights, but tenderness and consumer panel attributes were not enhanced by non-toxic fescue. WarnerBratzler shear strength for the steaks from is trial were much higher than the threshold level of acceptable tenderness (ten pounds) and would exist considered tough by industry standards. When carcasses were aged for fourteen days, shear force values decreased to 10 pounds, a level that would be on the upper limit of threshold WBSF values considered acceptable for tenderness by consumers (Realini et al., 2005).

Table ane. Growth and carcass attributes of calves finished on different forages during late-leap and summer (adapted from Schmidt et al., 2013).

Finishing System

	Alfalfa	Bermudagrass	Chicory	Cowpea	Pearl Millet
Grazing days per acre	68	89	55	46	112
Start weight, lbs	893	ane,047	931	i,058	1,052
Terminate weight, lbs	1,184	1,274	1,137	1,221	i,155
Average daily gain, lb/day	2.viii	1.7	2.five	1.ix	1.ii
Carcass weight, lbs	711	719	675	752	664
Backfat thickness, inches	0.30	0.2	0.30	0.27	0.18
Dressing, %	60.0	56.iv	59.4	61.6	57.v
Quality grade	3.five	3.8	3.2	4.4	3.eight
Warner-Bratzler shear forcefulness, lbs	eight.8	10.6	9.9	viii.viii	9.ix
Consumer preference, %	40%	5%	ten%	xx%	25%

Quality course code: 3 = Low Select, 4 = High Select, 5 = Low Choice (college is associated with greater fatty and less lean) Warner-Bratzler shear force (lower is associated with greater tenderness, all treatments were at or below the threshold of x generally recognized every bit tender by consumers)

Table ii. Growth and carcass attributes of calves finished on toxic and non-toxic, endophyte-infected fescue from autumn through spring (adapted from Realini et al., 2005).

Finishing System

	Toxic Fescue	Non-toxic Fescue
Terminate weight, lbs	906	992
Carcass weight, lbs	491	541
Backfat thickness, inches	0.17	0.21
Dressing, %	54.two	54.v
Quality form	iii.0	2.8
Warner-Bratzler shear force, lbs	thirteen.2	fifteen.4
Consumer console – Chewiness score	2.8	iii.vii
Consumer panel – Juiciness score	2.7	ii.iv

Quality grade code: three = Low Select, 4 = High Select, v = Low Choice (higher is associated with greater fatty and less lean) Chewiness score: 1-to-5 scale with 1 existence most desirable and five being to the lowest degree desirable. Juiciness score: ane-to-5 calibration with 1 existence to the lowest degree desirable and v being most desirable.

A study at the University of Missouri examined the outcome of adding either red clover or alfalfa to a fescue based foragefinishing arrangement for a three-month finishing period from late March through July. The corporeality of legume in these systems was 38% in the alfalfa system and 16% in the ruby-red clover system. Concluding weight of calves did not differ betwixt the fescue and combined legume response and averaged 1,035 pounds. Calves in the alfalfa system were l pounds heavier at the end of the study compared to the red clover arrangement, which could had been influenced by difference in legume provender availability. The fat acrid composition of fat taken from the loin muscle did not differ amidst forage types.

Another study at Clemson (Table 3) compared a legume system to a grass system with or without supplemental corn fed at 0.75% body weight. The legume systems utilized alfalfa and soybeans while the grass system utilized non-toxic fescue and sorghum-sudangrass. While corn supplementation provided some beneficial responses, these responses were independent of forage system; therefore, the divergence in fodder system is summarized in Table 3. Forage blazon had little influence on fatty acid limerick; withal, greater fat soluble vitamin content was detected in the loin muscle of grass finished beefiness in this study.

As a full general summary, the forage system chosen will commencement be dictated past forage species that are already present. Replacing forages with alternative species or interseeding with complementary forages will exist dictated past soil blazon, topography, and soil fertility. Calves can be forage-finished on grasses, legumes or combination thereof. Current research results do non propose whatsoever single system is platonic based on carcass quality and consumer sensory comparisons.

Grain Finishing in Confinement

While ruminants have the distinct ability to convert cellulose into muscle protein through ruminal microbial fermentation, in that location remains a history of fattening cattle on feedstuffs other than forage long before the establishment of the modern confinement feedlot industry. Early fattening in America included root crops, "Indian corn", tree fruits and brewing and distillery brew. Confinement feeding in early America as well was a mechanism to concentrate manure for fertilizer. Unlike forage-finishing, grain-finishing requires less land. Depending on soil type and topography, as piddling every bit 150 foursquare feet per calf of pen infinite with a feed and water trough is sufficient. Sometimes, locally grown beef producers may allow a much larger area to proceed grass cover in the lot instead of assuasive the pen to get a clay lot.

Tabular array 3. Growth and carcass attributes of calves finished for 98 to 105 days in a grass organisation or a legume arrangement (adjusted from Wright et al., 2015).

	Grass System	Legume System
End weight, lbs	one,142	i,166
Carcass weight, lbs	669	697
Backfat thickness, inches	0.33	0.37
Quality class	4.5	iv.7
Consumer panel – Tenderness score	2.8	two.8
Consumer panel – Juiciness score	2.0	1.ix

Quality grade code: iii = Depression Select, 4 = High Select, 5 = Depression Option (college is associated with greater fat and less lean) Consumer panel scores converted to one-to-5 scale with 1 being least desirable and 5 beingness most desirable.

When finishing calves in groups, 22 inches to 26 inches of linear trough space per dogie is needed when all calves will be eating at one time on the same side of the trough. Grain diets are much drier than pasture diets and when calves are fed in solitude, they are commonly watered from a trough. Keeping the water trough make clean is extremely important. A low in h2o intake tin cause a reduction in feed intake and ho-hum growth rate. During hot conditions, a calf near finishing weighing 1,000 pounds or more tin can consume more than xx gallons per day (for more on water requirements of finishing calves see AFS-3302 An Introduction to Finishing Beef.)

Many acquaintance grain-fed beef with corn-fed beef. From 2005 through 2011, corn employ for ethanol grew to the point the full employ for ethanol reached that of feed and balance employ. A feedlot finishing diet today may contain vi% to 12% roughage, up to 50% byproduct feeds such as distiller's grains and corn gluten feed and cereal grains (mostly corn) representing 50% or more of the finishing diet.

Mimicking feedlot diets may non be practical when finishing calves on-subcontract; however, similar steps used in the commercial feeding industry should be adopted including:

• Calves should be transitioned from a roughage diet to the terminal high concentrate nutrition over a three-calendar week menses. This is called a step-upwardly plan.
• Feed calves at least twice per day when the final nutrition does not contain built in roughage or is not formulated to be self-fed or self-limiting.
• Include 10% to fifteen% roughage in the final diet for increased rumen health and reduced acidosis.
• Feed calves a balanced diet (poly peptide, minerals, mineral ratios and vitamins).
• Adjust feed amount as calves grow.

Consult with a nutritionist to develop a ration based on locally available ingredients or utilize a commercial finishing ration. Some feed mills offering "bull development rations" that can also exist used as a decent finishing ration. These "bull development rations" sometimes include enough cottonseed hulls and byproduct feeds that additional roughage is not needed.

In add-on to distiller'south grains and corn gluten feed, other byproducts such as soybean hulls may be used in finishing diets. Soybean hulls has an estimated feed value of 74% to fourscore% of corn; whereas, dried distiller's grains has demonstrated a 124% feed value of corn. At that place is trivial indication that feeding byproduct feeds changes the marbling of cattle equally long as energy density requirements are met for fat deposition. Research results betoken less intensively processed grains (ie feeding whole corn or rolled corn) may result in higher marbling than intense processing methods commonly used in commercial finishing operations (ie loftier wet corn or steam flaking). This is thought to exist due to the site of starch digestion being shifted to the modest intestine with less intensive grain processing supplying more glucose to drive marbling.

Feeding Concentrate and Roughage Separately. Feed milling, mixing and commitment take upwards much of the daily activities in commercial calibration feedyards. This is an equipment-intensive operation with big capital outlays necessary for the feed mill and equipment for feed delivery. On a smaller scale, large investments in feeding systems may non be warranted. Delivery of total mixed diets balanced to meet nutritional needs of finishing cattle adds efficiency to large commercial operations that cannot be matched past smaller-scale finishing operations. Diets formulated for on-farm finishing also can be based on limit feeding the concentrate portion in the trough while assuasive calves to have free choice access to pasture or hay for roughage. Research (Atwood et al., 2001) comparing intake and functioning past fattening calves offered either a 65% concentrate (rolled barley and rolled corn) total mixed ration with alfalfa hay and corn silage providing the roughage or providing all dietary ingredients offered free-choice for self-selection found that no two animals offered free-choice consumed similar diets or selected diets like to the TMR. The authors concluded complimentary-choice diet pick was adequate for each individual animal to 'encounter its needs'. Performance of cattle fed TMR or offered free-choice selection of diets and feed efficiency were similar between feeding systems.

More recent enquiry from Canada (Moya et al., 2011 and 2014) was conducted to compare operation, efficiency and rumen pH of cattle finished on a TMR based on barley grain (85%), corn silage (10%) and poly peptide/mineral supplement (five%) vs offered concentrate and roughage separately for free-choice pick. All cattle were adapted to the TMR diet and the complimentary-selection diets were available over the 52-day experiment. During the 52 days, cattle selected diets with increasing barley, reaching 70% to eighty% of their self-selected diet, but fifty-fifty with the increasing barley in the diet, ruminal pH was similar to calves fed the TMR in the beginning experiment (Moya et al., 2011). In the first two-week catamenia calves consumed approximately 75% barley grain, increasing to eighty% in weeks 3 and iv, and to 85% in weeks five through seven; the average selected diet for cattle offered barley and corn silage was fourscore% barley grain and xx% corn silage. While in the second experiment, calves offered free- selection access to corn silage and barley grain self-selected diets that were 86% barley and fourteen% corn silage without altering ruminal fermentation characteristics and blood profiles (Moya et al., 2014). As with previous experiments, cattle given costless-choice admission to self-select nutrition ingredients in both experiments performed similarly to cattle fed TMR. These inquiry concluded cattle can finer self-select diets without increasing the risk of acidosis and maintain product levels for growth and feed efficiency.

If a producer wants to employ a free-choice, self-selection feeding organisation where roughage and concentrate are fed separately, a few management steps should be taken.

1. A stride-upward period of increasing grain availability is a must, cattle should exist acclimated to the high concentrate diets during at least twenty days;
2. Apply palatable, high-quality hay, silage or roughage source;
3. Limit-feed concentrate and exercise good feed bunk management;
4. If limit-feeding hay – feed hay first, then provide the concentrate portion of the diet;
5. Concentrate blends of grains and byproduct feeds are safer than providing grain merely;
6. Think about safer concentrate feeding alternatives—feeding whole corn is safer than finely ground corn and tin be an selection for growing and finishing calves

Grain Finishing On Pasture

Hybrid systems have been studied as an alternative to high-concentrate total mixed rations fed in confinement. These systems use the roughage supplied past pasture along with additional energy from supplemental concentrates. They may not run across the requirements to meet 'grass-fed beef' claims by the USDA, but do provide free-pick access to pasture.

Cocky-fed supplements on pasture tin can exist another approach to finishing cattle. Research at Iowa Country University (Tabular array 4) examined self-fed dried distillers' grains with solubles mixed i:1 with either soybean hulls or ground corn. In addition, a mineral that helped remainder the calcium-to-phosphorus ratio and contained monensin to improve rate of gain was added at 4% of the mix. The calves were stocked at approximately 2.25 calves per acre of predominately alpine fescue pasture. Estimated contributions of cocky-fed concentrate and pasture to the total dry matter feed intake in this study was 80% and twenty%, respectively. The study did not report any problems with digestive upset with self-feeding.

2 studies were conducted at the University of Arkansas (Apple and Beck, unpublished data). In the start trial, calves from spring or fall calving herds were either sent to a Texas Panhandle feedyard for finishing as yearlings post-obit a stocker plan or kept at the domicile operation and supplemented with 1% of bodyweight per caput per day with a grain/grain byproduct supplement until slaughter. Steers finished conventionally in confinement gained iv.4 pounds per day, while steers fed concentrate supplement on pasture gained two.five pounds per day. Although the finishing period on pasture was thirty days longer on the average, steers finished in the conventional feedlot were 128 pounds heavier at slaughter and dressing percentage was higher 62.5% vs 60.half-dozen% for Conventional and pasture, respectively). Conventionally finished cattle were 86% Pick while pasture finished were 78% Select quality grade.

Table four. Growth and carcass attributes of calves finished on self-fed concentrates (adapted from Kiesling, D.D. 2013).

Finishing Organisation

	Distillers' grains plus solubles:corn [50:50]	Distillers' grains plus solubles:soybean hulls [50:50]
Average daily gain, lbs	3.four	three.3
Cease weight, lbs	1,302	one,291
Carcass weight, lbs	816	807
Dressing, %	62.6	62.5
Backfat thickness, inches	0.53	0.55
Quality Grade	5.0	5.0

Estimated concentrate intake was 80% and pasture intake twenty%. Quality grade code: iii = Low Select, iv = High Select, five = Low Choice

Figure 1. Effect of finishing on pasture (Provender) with ane% of bodyweight concentrate supplement daily or conventional finishing (Grain) on bodyweight of steers.

In the side by side trial, lx calves were either finished in conventional Texas Panhandle feedyard or were kept on pasture with a grain/grain byproduct concentrate supplement fed at 1.five% of bodyweight daily. Steers finished on pasture with supplement gained 3.6 pounds per day (vs 4 pounds per day for conventional) and were fed 40 days longer than conventional steers, just were nevertheless 40 pounds lighter at slaughter. But, hot carcass weights (836 for pasture vs 854 for conventional) were not as impacted as in the previous report, fat thickness was similar for the two treatments (0.62 inches for pasture vs 0.52 inches for conventionally finished) and dressing percentage was likewise like (63% for pasture and 62.5% for conventional). In this experiment, the cattle finished on pasture with supplement were 100% Option, with 73% being Premium Choice; while the Conventional steers were 93% Choice, with 45% existence Premium Choice. This research indicates acceptable carcass performance tin can exist obtained with limited energy supplementation on pasture.

Figure 2. Effect of finishing on pasture (Forage) with 1.five% of bodyweight concentrate supplement daily or conventional finishing (Grain) on carcass quality grade.

Live Weight to Retail Cuts

The final amount of retail cuts produced from a alive dogie will be affected past frame, muscle, bone, fat comprehend and gut capacity/fill. The offset measure of yield is dressing percentage which is the percentage of carcass weight relative to alive weight. Dressing per centum can range from 58% to 66%. A i,300-pound steer that yields a carcass weighing 806 pounds would accept a 62% dressing per centum. A second measure of yield is retail product. The USDA Yield Form is a numerical score that is indicative of retail product. A calculated Yield Form is determined from hot carcass weight, fat thickness at the 12th rib, ribeye area and the combined percent of kidney, pelvic and heart fatty. Percentage of retail products tin be calculated from these same measurements. Percent retail production may range from 45% to 55%. A 1,300-pound steer at Yield Course 3 would have a retail product percent of 50% which would yield about 650 pounds of retail product. If ii individuals purchase a side of beefiness each, they each can expect 325 pounds of retail product. The yield of retail product will consist of approximately 62% roasts and steaks and 38% ground beefiness and stew meats. Then, a single side of beef that yields 325 pounds of retail product as well would yield approximately 201 pounds of roasts and steaks and 124 pounds of ground beef and stew meat.

Postmortem Aging Effects on Beefiness Tenderness

Effigy three illustrates the benign effects of aging on tenderness as measured in a laboratory as Warner-Bratzler shear force. This naturally tenderizing process ceases once meat is frozen. When possible, postmortem aging should exist at least seven to 15 days to attain threshold shear force values for consumer adequate tenderness of 8.3 pounds to 10 pounds (3.viii kg to 4.6 kg). Aging beyond this timeframe is oft restricted due to the processor'due south cooler infinite, merely could result in further improvements in tenderness.

Effigy 3. Result of crumbling on fodder-finished beef tenderness as determined by Warner-Brazler shear forcefulness (adapted from Schmidt et al., 2013).

Was this information helpful?

YESNO

westeingthishe.blogspot.com

Source: https://extension.okstate.edu/fact-sheets/finishing-beef-cattle-on-the-farm.html

Share this post