Beef Tips and Cow Chips
An Educational Series To Enhance Beef Production
What Is a Calf Worth?
Presented By: Bryan Cave
Extension Agent, Agriculture and Natural Resources
Surry County Beef Cattle Improvement Series
January 19, 2006
On any given day all across the country, feeder calves are sold at auction, on
farms, and between individuals. Many times the price received is what producers’
believe is the “worth” of calves. Worth is defined as the quality of any thing that
makes it have value in money or other goods. In many cases the price received
is determined by real or artificial factors. Artificial factors can be things such as
hide color, perceived health, or breed beliefs that may or may not have true
effects on the value or worth of a calf. Real factors can be defined as those that
can be measured such as frame size or muscling. These two factors are not the
only measurable traits, but are the most important when health is determined to
be similar between calves.
In a study from Kansas State University, the discounts applied to calves based
on muscling can be dramatic. This study, conducted in 1986, 1987, and 1993,
used calves with average to heavy muscling as benchmarks for price received.
Steers with medium muscling characteristics were docked at $5.16/cwt. and
steers deemed light muscled were docked at $19.40/cwt. These discounts when
applied to 550 lb. steers amounted to losses of $28.38 and $106.70 per head.
When applied across an entire calf crop, these losses could be significant. The
same study also evaluated prices received as compared to frame size. Large
framed animals were used as the baseline and discounts for upper medium
frame, lower medium frame, and small framed calves were $0.79/cwt.,
$1.66/cwt., and $11.30/cwt. respectively.
A study on improving the value of feeder calves conducted by the University of
Arkansas indicated similar findings as those in Kansas. Based on USDA muscle
scores of 1-3, with 1’s used as a baseline, the discounts were $4.72/cwt. and
$13.40/cwt. for 2’s and 3’s respectively.
Why are muscling and frame size so important? The answer lies in the final
product that cattle producers are responsible for; BEEF. This is true because the
main parameters used to determine price received is based on yield grade and
quality grade of the carcass. Scientific study after study has reinforced the need
for cow-calf producers to base genetic selections and management protocols on
this fact. In order to understand the importance of these factors, one must
understand that feeder calves are grouped into pens at the feedyard and
slaughter date is determined by evaluating the calves and marketing when most
are at acceptable quality carcass points.
Muscle has become a buzzword in the beef industry over the past few years.
Packers, show judges, purebred breeders, and some consultants are promoting
the virtues of muscular cattle as if muscle had just been discovered in an animal.
In truth, the industry has for too long produced too many light muscled calves.
Many breed associations are now reporting EPD’s for ribeye area as if it is the
only selection trait to be considered. This trait is important as another selection
tool, but selecting for one trait such as muscling will lead to losses in other
equally important production traits. Even though ribeye area is a good indicator of
overall ribeye muscle size, it is not an absolute measure of overall muscling
which is the major factor affecting lean meat yield for an animal. Packers and
consumers do not want too large or too small cuts of meat. The desired ribeye
area is 1.7 – 1.8 square inches per hundred weight of carcass. The target ribeye
area is a range from 12 – 14 square inches. This translates to acceptable
carcass weights from 675 – 825 pounds.
Light muscled calves have low cutability, produce small primal cuts, and due to
these points are “worth” less than calves that have medium or heavy muscling. It
is very important to remember that calves that do not have the genetic potential
to produce muscle tissue cannot be developed through any nutritional or
management program. Research has examined the performance and cutout
differences in cattle varying in muscularity. Feeder calves representing the three
USDA calf muscle scores (1-3, 1 is most muscular) and frame sizes (large,
medium, and small) were fed to slaughter. Heavy muscled calves grew faster
and more efficiently and had higher carcass yields than light muscled calves. In
addition, a muscle/bone ratio is sometimes used by packers to determine
carcass value or worth. Muscle score affects this ratio, but frame score does not.
Muscle thickness has also been determined to have an effect carcass fabrication.
This can have large effects on the amount of trimmed boneless beef product
produced by an animal as a percentage of live weight. On a 1250 pound steer, a
1% change in trimmed boneless product can and does have a tremendous effect
on the “worth” of an animal.
Table 1. Feeder Calf Grades - % Muscle
Frame Size
1
Large
Medium
Small
66.7
63.0
60.0
Average
63.4
Muscle Score
2
3
Average
63.8
59.9
58.2
62.5
60.2
58.2
64.4
61.0
58.8
60.8
60.5
J.A.S. 62:121
Table 2. Feeder Calf Grades – Muscle/Bone Ratio
Frame Size
1
Large
Medium
Small
3.99
3.94
3.86
Average
3.93
Muscle Score
2
3
Average
3.76
3.70
3.74
3.32
3.57
3.57
3.68
3.73
3.72
3.73
3.48
J.A.S. 62:121
Table 3. Effects of Muscle Thickness on Carcass Fabrication
Muscle Score
Item
1
2
--------------------- % of live weight ----------------------------
Trimmed, boneless product
44.7
41.9
------------------ % of carcass weight ------------------------Trimmed, boneless product
Adapted from J.A.S. 67:2669
71.5
70.2
So what does all this mean, and how does it affect worth?
The best way to answer the question is to evaluate some “real world” examples.
In most cases, the quality grade and the yield grade of an animal are the primary
factors considered in determining price the feedlot operator receives for his
product. Yield grade is a numerical figure derived by the actual meat yield of an
animal. The yield grade can be from 1-5. The quality grade refers to the actual
quality of the carcass from an eating standpoint. Quality grades are familiar
descriptors such as select, choice, and prime.
The payments for cattle after slaughter are calculated bases on “normal”
parameters with discounts for being outside the normal range. For example, on
January 16, 2006 the reported prices received for carcasses was $154/cwt.
($1.54 per pound) for choice carcasses with select carcasses receiving
$141/cwt., a discount of $13/cwt. Yield grades using 3.0 as a baseline showed an
increase of $2/cwt. for a carcass with a 2 and a discount of $14/cwt. for a yield
grade 4. Obviously, cattle that will finish with a yield grade of 2 – 2.5 and that will
grade choice are the targets. How close an animal can come to these endpoints
will have an effect on the price it receives as a feeder calf.
For example, a calf that is medium framed will weigh approximately 1250 lbs. at
slaughter. If that calf has a dressing percentage of 63%, it would yield a carcass
weight of 788 pounds. If it grades choice, and is a yield grade 2, the price
received would be $154/cwt. plus a premium of $2/cwt. or $1.56 X 788 pounds
for $1229.28.
On the other hand, if the animal was small framed, finished at 1000 pounds, had
a dressing percentage of 60%, it would yield 600 pounds of meat. If the yield
grade was 4 due to excess fat and the quality grade was select due to light
muscling, the price received would be $141/cwt for select minus a discount of
$14/cwt for a yield grade 4 or $1.27 X 600 pounds for a total received of $762.
This is a difference of $467.28. Unfortunately this is all too common an
occurrence in feedyards. Remember, a particular pen of cattle is sold when most
are considered ready. This lack of uniformity has a tremendous affect on the
price a feedyard owner is willing to pay for a calf.
In order to make the most from your calves, remember to think about how your
calves will finish out. If they need muscling, bull selection can help. If they need
size (frame score), once again genetics are the answer. Remember, every calf is
born with all the genetic potential it will ever have, we can’t feed or manage it to
have more than what is there the day it is born.
Assessing muscle score
When determining muscle score one must first estimate the level of fatness
covering the body.
A pre-requisite of accurate muscle evaluation is the accurate appraisal of
fatness. Once an animal’s fatness is known, allowance can be made visually and
mentally to ensure that fatness does not hinder the evaluation of the animal’s
shape.
Closely examining those areas of the body where fat is most visible or actually
feeling those areas of the animals body, it is possible, with training and practice,
to become extremely accurate in subjectively determining the level of
subcutaneous fat.
The best places to assess muscling are those areas least influenced by fat, i.e.
the hindquarter, the round and the top line.
Indicators of muscling in order of importance are:
thickness and roundness of the hindquarter,
stifle thickness and width in the twist,
width across the back and loin.
Forearm thickness and leg stance are useful only when differences in
muscularity are large. When forearm circumference can be measured then it is
the best measurement indicator of muscle score.
Figure 1. Areas of reference for assessing muscling
Figure 2. Observing cattle from behind
Observe cattle from behind to assess thickness through the lower hindquarter
(stifle area). Heavily muscled stock are thickest here. They also stand with their
hind legs further apart than lightly muscled stock.
There are three broad categories of shape - average, poor and good. Picking the
differences when they are as simple and clear as this is not difficult (see Fig 3).
Figure 3. The three simple shape categories
Good
Wide, well-rounded topline; maximum
width through stifle; has a wide stance
and the stomach cannot be seen.
Average
Not as wide or well-rounded over the
topline; hip bones can be seen; has a
narrow stance and the stomach is clearly
visible.
Poor
Narrower over topline, tapering through
stifle; narrower stance; more prominent
hip bones; stomach is more clearly visible.
Most British-type steers would be classified as average shape. If an animal
appears better than average then the assessor needs to distinguish whether this
change is due to an increase in subcutaneous fat cover, or to an increase in
muscle. Fatter animals generally do not exhibit the roundness or convexity which
is present in more heavily muscled animals. Well-muscled, leaner cattle display
clearly evident seams between the muscles of the hindquarter. Poorly-muscled
cattle are thin through the stifle and are clearly widest across the hip area.
When shape differences are as clear as in figure 3, assessment is easy.
However, within the normal cattle population differences in shape are far less
distinctive. It is these situations which can cause confusion. To help separate
animals with smaller differences a more expansive descriptive scoring system (5
scores) was developed based on the three levels as in figure 3, but expanded to
include quite good muscle development (e.g. heavily muscled European breed
bull) and quite low muscle development (e.g. poorly muscled dairy breed cow).
Muscle Score Categories
A score from A (very heavily muscled) to E (lightly muscled) can be given based
on the roundness (convexity) and thickness of the body due to muscle (see the
illustrations below).
To help distinguish smaller differences between animals, and add continuity to
the scoring system, the five scores can be further extended to 15 by adding plus
and minus to each score (A+ to E-).
A. Very heavy (double) muscling
Extremely thick through stifle area
Muscle seams or grooves between muscles
are evident
‘Apple bummed’ – when viewed from the
side, hindquarters bulge like an apple
Butterfly top line – loin muscles along the
top of the animal are actually higher than the
backbone
B. Heavy muscling
Thick stifle
Rounded thigh viewed from behind
Some convexity in hindquarter from side
view
Flat and wide over top line – muscle is at
the same height as backbone
C. Medium muscling
Flat down thigh when viewed from behind
Flat, tending to angular over top line
D. Moderate muscling
Narrow stance
Flat to convex down the thigh
Thin through stifle
Sharp, angular over the top line (except
when very fat)
E. Light muscling
Dairy type – very angular
Sharp ‘tent topped’ over top line
Virtually no thickness through stifle at all
Stands with feet together; concave thigh
So, What is your calf worth?