Keeney`s Corner

A current and reflective discussion of cattle breeding from outside the registered mainstream
 
HomeUsergroupsRegisterLog in

Share | 
 

 Matching type to purpose

View previous topic View next topic Go down 
Go to page : Previous  1, 2
AuthorMessage
Kent Powell



Posts : 659
Join date : 2010-09-24
Location : SW Kansas

PostSubject: Re: Matching type to purpose    Thu Sep 01, 2011 12:18 am

Back to top Go down
http://powellangus.com
Kent Powell



Posts : 659
Join date : 2010-09-24
Location : SW Kansas

PostSubject: Re: Matching type to purpose    Thu Sep 01, 2011 12:24 am

Back to top Go down
http://powellangus.com
PatB



Posts : 491
Join date : 2010-09-25
Age : 53
Location : Turner, Maine

PostSubject: Re: Matching type to purpose    Thu Sep 01, 2011 6:21 am

R V wrote:
de·fect (dfkt, d-fkt)
n.
1. The lack of something necessary or desirable for completion or perfection; a deficiency: a visual defect.
2. An imperfection that causes inadequacy or failure; a shortcoming.


Is double muscling really a defect? Genetic variation/mutation - yes, but I don't think it meets the definition of defect. I don't disagree that it should be monitored in the general Angus gene pool, but I view it more like the red gene. Perfection is in the eye of the beholder. I believe there is the potential of an excellent seedless fruit application. There are also potential health benefits - especially if the resultant leaner meat is palatable and tender. Sorry to ramble, but I am curious what others think.

What say ye?

List it as a genetic factor like the red gene. I am curious of the benefits of this mutation when it comes to producing more red meat
Back to top Go down
R V



Posts : 108
Join date : 2010-10-04

PostSubject: Re: Matching type to purpose    Fri Sep 02, 2011 12:59 am

patb wrote:
R V wrote:
de·fect (dfkt, d-fkt)
n.
1. The lack of something necessary or desirable for completion or perfection; a deficiency: a visual defect.
2. An imperfection that causes inadequacy or failure; a shortcoming.


Is double muscling really a defect? Genetic variation/mutation - yes, but I don't think it meets the definition of defect. I don't disagree that it should be monitored in the general Angus gene pool, but I view it more like the red gene. Perfection is in the eye of the beholder. I believe there is the potential of an excellent seedless fruit application. There are also potential health benefits - especially if the resultant leaner meat is palatable and tender. Sorry to ramble, but I am curious what others think.

What say ye?

List it as a genetic factor like the red gene. I am curious of the benefits of this mutation when it comes to producing more red meat

The Belgian Blues are the most extreme and the extremely muscled cattle versions have selected for more genes than just the myostatin gene. This is probably the only area in cattle breeding that I feel educated enough to contribute. What I learned a decade ago by the school of hard knocks is talked about regularly here. Management is very important. Such as - these cattle require significantly more selenium secondary to the muscle mass and ???? and if you don't supplement, watching beautiful calves die of white muscle disease is extremely disheartening. Within the Belgian Blue breed there were cows that could lay down and have a calf unassisted every year, wean it and still breed back like cows are supposed to. There were more cows though that could only have full blood calves via c-section or required too much support to raise the calf, etc. Within the breed there were a few lines (Cracker Jack and Hebreu are two that I can think of right now and a Hazelwood bull that I cannot remember his name.) in which the calves were born with minimal muscling and small calves that worked successfully on heifers and cows. These bulls were "curve benders" as the progeny had good muscle expression as the calves got older. Another x-factor for them was the shorthorn color scheme. I could go on and on, but everyone would fall to sleep. My history/search for a group of functional Belgian Blue cattle reminds me of Dennis's Papa Forte story. It took research and time to prove these traits and cattle on the ground. Each bull had pro's and con's, but they were/are easier to ascertain because most of them were easily seen and measured + the gene pool was much smaller. Separating the breeders from the promoters was paramount in reproducing functional cattle on the full blood side.

Sorry to get distracted, in regards to the meat, it is lean and tender and there is more pounds of meat compared to bone on the carcasses. I don't think there is enough difference to justify the management issues over the F1 cross in a commercial herd, but it is economically viable at the F1 cross. I do think the potential health benefits do justify the breed and similar breeds. In regards to cholesterol content, it tested very well - less than most skinless poultry - if the F1's were harvested with back fats ~.25 inches. If it is this lean, then it cooks fast. That sounds good, but really isn't unless one is very observant. It needs to be on the rarer side to taste good and is very easy to overcook and have a piece of meat that tastes like shoe leather.
Back to top Go down
MKeeney
Admin


Posts : 5022
Join date : 2010-09-21

PostSubject: Re: Matching type to purpose    Fri Sep 02, 2011 7:04 am

R V wrote:
patb wrote:
R V wrote:
de·fect (dfkt, d-fkt)
n.
1. The lack of something necessary or desirable for completion or perfection; a deficiency: a visual defect.
2. An imperfection that causes inadequacy or failure; a shortcoming.


Is double muscling really a defect? Genetic variation/mutation - yes, but I don't think it meets the definition of defect. I don't disagree that it should be monitored in the general Angus gene pool, but I view it more like the red gene. Perfection is in the eye of the beholder. I believe there is the potential of an excellent seedless fruit application. There are also potential health benefits - especially if the resultant leaner meat is palatable and tender. Sorry to ramble, but I am curious what others think.

What say ye?

List it as a genetic factor like the red gene. I am curious of the benefits of this mutation when it comes to producing more red meat

The Belgian Blues are the most extreme and the extremely muscled cattle versions have selected for more genes than just the myostatin gene. This is probably the only area in cattle breeding that I feel educated enough to contribute. What I learned a decade ago by the school of hard knocks is talked about regularly here. Management is very important. Such as - these cattle require significantly more selenium secondary to the muscle mass and ???? and if you don't supplement, watching beautiful calves die of white muscle disease is extremely disheartening. Within the Belgian Blue breed there were cows that could lay down and have a calf unassisted every year, wean it and still breed back like cows are supposed to. There were more cows though that could only have full blood calves via c-section or required too much support to raise the calf, etc. Within the breed there were a few lines (Cracker Jack and Hebreu are two that I can think of right now and a Hazelwood bull that I cannot remember his name.) in which the calves were born with minimal muscling and small calves that worked successfully on heifers and cows. These bulls were "curve benders" as the progeny had good muscle expression as the calves got older. Another x-factor for them was the shorthorn color scheme. I could go on and on, but everyone would fall to sleep. My history/search for a group of functional Belgian Blue cattle reminds me of Dennis's Papa Forte story. It took research and time to prove these traits and cattle on the ground. Each bull had pro's and con's, but they were/are easier to ascertain because most of them were easily seen and measured + the gene pool was much smaller. Separating the breeders from the promoters was paramount in reproducing functional cattle on the full blood side.

Sorry to get distracted, in regards to the meat, it is lean and tender and there is more pounds of meat compared to bone on the carcasses. I don't think there is enough difference to justify the management issues over the F1 cross in a commercial herd, but it is economically viable at the F1 cross. I do think the potential health benefits do justify the breed and similar breeds. In regards to cholesterol content, it tested very well - less than most skinless poultry - if the F1's were harvested with back fats ~.25 inches. If it is this lean, then it cooks fast. That sounds good, but really isn't unless one is very observant. It needs to be on the rarer side to taste good and is very easy to overcook and have a piece of meat that tastes like shoe leather.

the trade-offs continue...just a matter of what you want to trade...I`ll trade problems to less price these days..
Back to top Go down
http://www.keeneyscorner.com
Grassfarmer



Posts : 912
Join date : 2010-09-27
Location : Belmont, Manitoba, Canada

PostSubject: Re: Matching type to purpose    Fri Sep 02, 2011 11:35 am

R V wrote:

Sorry to get distracted, in regards to the meat, it is lean and tender and there is more pounds of meat compared to bone on the carcasses. I don't think there is enough difference to justify the management issues over the F1 cross in a commercial herd, but it is economically viable at the F1 cross. I do think the potential health benefits do justify the breed and similar breeds. In regards to cholesterol content, it tested very well - less than most skinless poultry - if the F1's were harvested with back fats ~.25 inches. If it is this lean, then it cooks fast. That sounds good, but really isn't unless one is very observant. It needs to be on the rarer side to taste good and is very easy to overcook and have a piece of meat that tastes like shoe leather.

We ate lots of lean, double muscled beef in Europe and it was bland, tasteless crap that was generally tough. Do we want to go the way of the pork industry? Who says cholesterol and fat are bad? sure "conventional science" has been running that campaign for a while now but my customers come to me looking for something that is well fattened, well marbled and with lots of "good" cholesterol because it's been grass fattened.
Back to top Go down
http://www.luingcattle.com
R V



Posts : 108
Join date : 2010-10-04

PostSubject: Re: Matching type to purpose    Sat Sep 03, 2011 12:02 am

Grassfarmer wrote:
R V wrote:

Sorry to get distracted, in regards to the meat, it is lean and tender and there is more pounds of meat compared to bone on the carcasses. I don't think there is enough difference to justify the management issues over the F1 cross in a commercial herd, but it is economically viable at the F1 cross. I do think the potential health benefits do justify the breed and similar breeds. In regards to cholesterol content, it tested very well - less than most skinless poultry - if the F1's were harvested with back fats ~.25 inches. If it is this lean, then it cooks fast. That sounds good, but really isn't unless one is very observant. It needs to be on the rarer side to taste good and is very easy to overcook and have a piece of meat that tastes like shoe leather.

We ate lots of lean, double muscled beef in Europe and it was bland, tasteless crap that was generally tough. Do we want to go the way of the pork industry? Who says cholesterol and fat are bad? sure "conventional science" has been running that campaign for a while now but my customers come to me looking for something that is well fattened, well marbled and with lots of "good" cholesterol because it's been grass fattened.


I have had terrible marbled beef, but I have also had outstanding marbled beef and outstanding lean beef as well. I do know that I like my grass raised farm beef better than anything that I can get at the store and I rarely eat beef when we go out because it is rarely as good as what I get at home. Do you remember if the above mentioned meat was overcooked. In the testing that we did, it was the most common mistake. In my experience, overcooked beef is usually tough and tasteless. Marbled meat and unmarbled meat cook at different rates and fat is much more forgiving. I have always thought that grass finished beef would be much better healthwise - similar to wild venison, but one of the recent studies that appeared to be well done did not verify that. I would like to see more data because that doesn't make any sense to me. Of course, it is the fatty acid composition of the meat that we have based the health benefits on in the past and not actual human studies. Actual human studies should be much better than assumptions.

Ron - Just sitting here getting hungry again and wondering if the fatty acids in some Japanese beef is really that much better for us.
Back to top Go down
Kent Powell



Posts : 659
Join date : 2010-09-24
Location : SW Kansas

PostSubject: Re: Matching type to purpose    Sat Sep 03, 2011 8:30 am

What determines the taste and quality of beef? Are industry problems genetic, management, handling during processing, aging of the beef of the lack there of, or is it the actual cooking?

Back to top Go down
http://powellangus.com
Oldtimer

avatar

Posts : 324
Join date : 2010-10-04
Location : Northeast Montana

PostSubject: Re: Matching type to purpose    Sat Sep 03, 2011 9:00 am

I'm not a lean beef fan- most of it tastes like shoe leather to me... Lauras Lean would be broke if she counted on me... I like a well marbled steak with some fat on it as that is what gives it the flavor...

I just butchered a grass fattened steer that was one of the nicest marbled I've seen-with a nice layer of fat- an N Bar Prime Time son - and tastes as good as it looks...
Back to top Go down
Tom D
Admin


Posts : 589
Join date : 2010-09-25
Age : 38
Location : Michigan

PostSubject: Re: Matching type to purpose    Sat Sep 03, 2011 10:00 am

Keystone wrote:
Are industry problems genetic, management, handling during processing, aging of the beef of the lack there of, or is it the actual cooking?


Yes.
Back to top Go down
Kent Powell



Posts : 659
Join date : 2010-09-24
Location : SW Kansas

PostSubject: Re: Matching type to purpose    Sat Sep 03, 2011 10:26 am

So, unless you have complete control all along the line, the point is moot?
Back to top Go down
http://powellangus.com
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Matching type to purpose    Sat Sep 03, 2011 10:31 am

Keystone wrote:
So, unless you have complete control all along the line, the point is moot?

That is the way i see it also.
Back to top Go down
Kent Powell



Posts : 659
Join date : 2010-09-24
Location : SW Kansas

PostSubject: Re: Matching type to purpose    Sat Sep 03, 2011 10:37 am

Then the question becomes, do we take our own product all the way on whatever scale we can handle, or do we become contracted cowboys scrutenized and inspected by third parties and influenced by special interests?

I prefer the former. Those groups supposedly representing me demand the latter. Thus the unnecessary divide which will conquer and lead to force and no choice.
Back to top Go down
http://powellangus.com
R V



Posts : 108
Join date : 2010-10-04

PostSubject: Re: Matching type to purpose    Sat Sep 03, 2011 11:44 am

Keystone wrote:
So, unless you have complete control all along the line, the point is moot?

Very Happy It appears great minds think alike. I was going to bring this up this morning and I agree with the principle. In our work the standardization of processing and finishing of the beef did improve the consistency and overall eating experience and we did expect that, but the difference in cooking time was initially quite a suprise. Once we thought about it and did a little testing, it just made sense. Chefs have apparently known this for a long time and it is part of the art/science of their profession. Of course, we didn't find out about the chef's knowledge until later. It was an important management/educational issue for us because the Belgian Blue cross beef was significantly different from the norm and very few people like tough meat and the usual cooking times/method made most of the meat tough/bland. Also first impressions are important. We had good success with sampling correctly cooked meat and giving recipes(education). Human nature is interesting here. We initially presented the information as "education" and very few people were interested/took it. When redone slightly and presented as recipes, almost everyone took the info and sales did improve.
Back to top Go down
Grassfarmer



Posts : 912
Join date : 2010-09-27
Location : Belmont, Manitoba, Canada

PostSubject: Re: Matching type to purpose    Sat Sep 03, 2011 10:39 pm

R V wrote:


Do you remember if the above mentioned meat was overcooked. In the testing that we did, it was the most common mistake. In my experience, overcooked beef is usually tough and tasteless. Marbled meat and unmarbled meat cook at different rates and fat is much more forgiving.

Depends what you define as "cooking" - I'm not a BBQ fan much prefering slow cooked meat like slow cooker pot roasts. The wall we hit in the UK with the domination of limo double muscled types was lean meat that took longer to cook - even by slow cooking methods. Stuff that previously took 8 hours to cook now needed 12 to become tender. Resteraunt steaks in the UK are generally of a poor standard - all over the place for taste, texture, toughness and most there like their steaks very rare so overcooking is not likely the cause.


Keystone wrote:
What determines the taste and quality of beef? Are industry problems genetic, management, handling during processing, aging of the beef of the lack there of, or is it the actual cooking?

In my opinion this non-ageing or wet ageing is the biggest factor. Genetics probably plays less of a role than some of us would like to think.



Keystone wrote:
Then the question becomes, do we take our own product all the way on whatever scale we can handle
Works for me and our customers love it! Smile We don't control the handling at actual slaughter time but otherwise they are bred, born, raised and fattened by yours truly. We have a say in the ageing - we dry age 16-17 days generally although I'm hanging one this fall for a chef in the top steakhouse in Calgary who wants it 30 days aged as a minimum He has been buying grainfed steers aged 36 days + and really feels the extra time and shrink is worth it. I'll be interested to see how this works out.
Back to top Go down
http://www.luingcattle.com
R V



Posts : 108
Join date : 2010-10-04

PostSubject: Re: Matching type to purpose    Sun Sep 04, 2011 12:13 am

Depends what you define as "cooking" - I'm not a BBQ fan much prefering slow cooked meat like slow cooker pot roasts. The wall we hit in the UK with the domination of limo double muscled types was lean meat that took longer to cook - even by slow cooking methods. Stuff that previously took 8 hours to cook now needed 12 to become tender. Resteraunt steaks in the UK are generally of a poor standard - all over the place for taste, texture, toughness and most there like their steaks very rare so overcooking is not likely the cause.

Grassfarmer, thanks for taking the time to reply and to share your experiences. You are correct that I was referring to grilled beef/steaks. Our findings were the same with both the lean Belgian Blue steaks and similar lean cuts from ostriches. We did compare Belgian Blue with Blondes and Piedmontese and found them similar enough to market them the similarly for the respective breeders, but not any of the other double muscled cattle. In my mind, I thought they would be the same, but that does not mean they are. I also didn't study how the roasts cooked in comparison to marbled beef (Our market was based on high end cuts and lean hamburger.), but would have expected it to be different than marbled beef. Based on our experiences/studies with grilled meat, I would have guessed wrong and thought it would have been faster and not slower. Embarassed Just shows how assumptions based on experience in similar areas can be wrong.

The beef was definitely better when we aged it longer, but that was another difference that suprised us. The lean Belgian Blue beef did not need to be aged as long as the marbled certified angus to get equivalent shear force tenderness. I don't remember the exact difference as it didn't mean much to me at the time as I was only worried about my product, but as I recall 14 days were equal to 18 days and 21 days to 28 days.
Back to top Go down
RobertMac



Posts : 399
Join date : 2010-09-28
Location : Mississippi, USA

PostSubject: Re: Matching type to purpose    Mon Sep 05, 2011 1:16 pm

Any beef eating experience can be ruined by bad cooking...maybe even tenderloin, but I've never tried.

Taste is subjective. There is not one criteria that pleases every consumer or displeases every consumer...as long as it is cooked correctly.

When customers ask me about taste, I tell them it will be different. If their palate is accustom to grainfed beef, their first bite of grassfed will be different from what their palate is expecting...chances are greater for a 'negative' difference.

There will always be variation in beef because of the differences in the environments. Consistency is a pipe dream...even with one breed. Beef will never be pork or poultry, so why try.

Exploit the differences!
Back to top Go down
Sponsored content




PostSubject: Re: Matching type to purpose    

Back to top Go down
 
Matching type to purpose
View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 2 of 2Go to page : Previous  1, 2
 Similar topics
-
» The Forum's Purpose
» Stellar Spectral Type vs Planetary Habitability
» Is borderline type 2 diabetes life-threatening illness/disease?
» type 1 diabetes and the sleeve....
» What Spiritual Type are you?

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
Keeney`s Corner :: Breeding Philosophies :: Breeding Philosophies-
Jump to: