CARCASS CUNTEST PROCEDURES A 75. YEAR'S EXPERIENCE Last year a t our meeting a t Knoxville, the carcass contest commttt e e presented recommendations f o r quality beef, pork and lamb contests. After much discussion, the conference voted t o accept t h e recommendations of t h e committee. My assignment has been t o report on a year's experience with these recommendations. I wish t o express mly thanks t o the committee members who made the surveys that make t h i s report possible Needless t o say, carcass contests have become very popular a t county, state and i n t e r s t a t e livestock shows. This i s a very good sign t h a t the producers of meat animals, t h e breeder, and feeder are more i n t e r e s t e d i n marketing a desirable type of m e a t a n a l. It c e r t a i n l y behooves each of us here t o assist i n every way possible t o evaluate this end product of livestock production i n an educational and informative manner. I would l i k e t o share with you the findings of t h i s committee on t h i s past year's carcass contest. Tablee 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 are the summary of lamb contests, conducted by Mr. V a n Stavern. Table 1 w i l l show that t h i s past year twenty s t a t e s had lamb carcass contests and twentyone did not have contests. Six s t a t e s d i d not reply. Table 2 will show that i n 1962 o r 1963 twentysix states plan t o have lamb carcass contests. Table 3, 4, and 5 w i l l show methods used i n conducting t h e contests a t the various states. It w i l l be noted that most states l i s t methods other than t h e Reciprocal Meat Conference (R. M. C.) recommendations. The l a s t f e w l i n e s on Table 5 should be noted. M r. Van Stavern noted that there seemed t o be a l o t of i n t e r e s t i n having "a system" for lamb carcass evaluation. Very few states mentioned R. M. C, procedures. This caaaes one t o wonder how e f f e c t i v e R. M. C. has been i n making i t s reconmendations known?! On pages 41 through 46 of last years proceedings a r e l i s t e d the recommendations f o r a beef carcass contest. Although I d i d not make an extensive survey, I did contact several Meats workers i n various states as t o the procedures f o r beef carcass contests. I would l i k e t o c a l l your a t t e n t i o n t o Tables 6 and 7. In these tables you w i l l note quite a l o t of variation as t o method of carcass appraisal. Some s t a t e s l i s t R. 14. C., others Dual G r a d i n g, some l i s t an Index, and others c e r t a i n carcass values o r l i v e values. This c e r t a i n l y shows that a l o t of v a r i a t i o n exists i n beef carcass evaluation. I would l i k e t o mention the "Honnel formula" used a t the V l d w e s t Carcass Contest a t Austin, Minnesota. Table 8. For t h i s contest they have
76. established requirements f o r l o i n eye area and f a t thickness. A carcass must have two square inches of l o i n eye per 100 pounds and not more than.12 inches of f a t per 100 pounds. A carcass with these measuremnts would score 20. The decimal point on l o i n eye is moved one place to the r i g h t t o correct 2.0 square inches t o a score of 20. The decimal i s moved two places t o the r i g h t f o r f a t thickness (12). 20 + 1 2 equals 3 2. The f a t thickness is then subtracted f r n m 32 giving a fat thickness score of 20. 2 0 + 2 0 equals 40 divided by 2 20 (carcass score). This f i n a l carcass score is the avernee of t h e rib eye score and f a t thickness score. The example a t the bottom of Table 8 is f o r a carcass w i t h 1.9 aquare inches of l o i n eye e9d.14 inches f a t. This carcas8 had a score of 18.5. A f o m l a of t h i s type w i l l allow.1 square inch l o i n eye area t o be equal t o.01 inch of f a t thickness and one will compensate f o r the other on an equal basis. The recommendations for pork carcass contests a r e found on pages 131, 132, and 133 of l a a t year's pmceedings. I n Table 9 is listed the results of a survey by B. C. Breidenstein. It will be noted that t h e R. M, C. recommendations a r e followed in only a few cases, but t l a t the recommendat i o n s are partislly followed i n most cases. Unfortunately the survey did not show how these recomnendations were partially followed. Table 1 0 w i l l show the B o r n 1 LoinEye A r e a and Ham Per Cent that w i U be used a t the National B a r r o w Show and the National Hampshire!Type Contest. These new methods should be studied and may have some merit. I t h i n k we need tc keep our c8rcass evaluation simple, meaningful and understandable. I think we, as Meats Workers, have an obligation t o industry t o guide the way and not follow. Therefore, we should make available our recommendations t o the meat industry.
77. LAMB CAFCASS CONTEST FOR PRODUCERS A survey of Eaphasis and Procedures compiled by: B. D. VanStavern Extension k a t S p e c i a l i s t Ohio State University a t e n s i o n S p e c i a l i s t s in46 states were contacted f o r t h i s report. 40 states have responded at, the time of t h i s summary. 1. DO YOU HAVE A LAMB C P X A S S C O N T E S FOR PRODUCERS IN YOUR STATE? Y ES NO California Colorado Connecticut Illinois Indiana Iowa Alabama Arkansas Delaware norida Georgia Idaho Kentucky b u i s iana Maine Missouri lbntana Kaasas Maryland Massachusett s Michigan Nevada Pew Mexico New York Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Texas Nebraska New Hampshire North Carolina North Dakota South Dakota Tennessee Vemnt Virginia Washington West Virginia Utah Wyoming No response by surmnary time: Arizona Minnesota Miss i s s i p p i New Jersey South Carolina W i s c ons i n
78. TABU 2 2. DO YOU PLAN TO HAVE A LAMB CARCASS CONTEST IN 1962 or 1963? California Louisiana Colorado Maine C o m ect i c u t Maryland New Mexico New York Ohio Illinois Massachusetts Oklahoma Indiana Michigan Oregon Mlesouri Pennsylvania Kansas Nebraska Kentucky Nevada South Dakota Iowa Texas Utah mming
TABLE 3 3. METHOD OF CONDUCTING CONTEST: TAT% LIVE EVALUATION CARCASS EVALUATION SUGGESTIONS alifornia live appraisal mdified R. M. C. plus fore and hind saddle each producer have several lambs evaluated all sired by same ram olorado individual type score backfat, loineye, percent hind saddle and visual appraisal onnecticut live placing dressing percentage, loineye & backfat Illinois live placing quality minimum cutout with standard trim more objective criteria of cutout Indiana graded on foot value per 100 lbs. need simple evaluation loineye, outside fat, weight and value of loinleg and kidney Iowa live placing Rath system prefer R. M. C. ansas aine none graded on foot federal grades judged by retail and wholesale meat men
TABLE 4 STATE LIVE EVALUATION CARCASS EVALUATION SUGGESTIONS Maryland l i v e placing d o l l a r and cents evaluation need a simple., good way t o evaluate lamb Massachusetts graded conformation, f i n i s h quality, s i z e ribeye Michigan graded and placed R. M. C. more time f o r chilbiog tighten r e s t r i c t i o n s both l i v e and carcass Nevada Danish system grade and yield y i e l d should be deleted and replaced by evaluation of conformatio o r muscle s i z e and y i e l d of trim r e t a i l cuts New Mexico l i v e placing degree of f i n i s h, dressing percent and r i b covering ribeye measurements New York placed by committee R. M. C. Ohio committee evaluation of meatiness R. M. C. Oklahoma graded R. M. C., plus d o l l a r and cents evaluation on t o p lambs more education for exhibitors and public
STATE Oregon TABLE 5 LIVE EVALUATION CARCASS EVALUATION SUGGESTIONS connnittee estimates cutout value f a t thickness, weight of f o r e and hind saddle loineye s i z e educate a new crop of judges t o get away f r o m f i n i s h 0IJY Pennsylvania carcass jude;e and on foot judge place lambs quality and conformation, modified R. M. C. Texas graded on foot carcass d o l l a r and cents value, including f a t thickness judged by three eyeball judgement Utah judges need of more d e f i n i t e scoring card There seemed to be a l o t of i n t e r e s t in having "a system" f o r lamb carcass evaluation. Very f e w s t a t e s mentioned R. M. C. procedures. T h i s causes one to wonder how effective R. M. C. has been i n making i t s recommendation known!!
a2. TABLE 6 L rn CARCASS Loin eye and Fat Quality Cutability MICHIGAN NOIU'H CAROLINA no contest NEW YORK an foot placing Loin eye and f a t 2.0.15 high 5 desired cuts choice q u a l i t y ARKANSAS ( 4 H & FFA) pen of 5 USDA (10 years) State F a i r Sweetwater Ft. Worth San Antonio on foot (93 c a t t l e ) m a l Grade Carcass value $ 1 cut d o l l a r ana cents value of r e t a i l cuts +or tenderness (shear) TEXASA & M FLORIDA S t a t e F a i r 1961 R. M e C* 1961 Re M. C. 1961 R e M * C o 1961 R.. M. C. R. M* C. Establish yield plus panel and % shear tendernes s NEBRASKA MONTANA no contest ( 4 4 INDIANA Index = $ c u t a b i l i t y +.7 grade u.5 wholesale cuts priced t o calculate value
83. LIVE CAfdcAsS R. M. C. several c l i n i c s no conteat I _ ILLINOIS ( f n t e r n a ti o a ) no contest WYOMING WISCONSIN ( a t 4 Jr. Livestock Shows) TEMJESSEE V. D o I e &UoT* 0moMA no contest ( B r i s t o l) S.D.A cutability U o h a l grading GNRGIA Retail cuts Retail value State Fair on foot Re M. C e Loin eye 2.0 Fat.13 Waterloo Meat Animal. a d j u s t for f i l l wholesale c u t s value 4H contest A l l Iowa Fair on foot R, M. C. MISSOURI IOWA WIMORE Eastern National pennsylvania, Harrisburg OREGON, Portland CALIFORMA
TABLE 8 biildes'j2 STEER CAIPCASS CON'JEST (Ronnel Austin, PIian.) 2.0 square inches.12 inches of fat 2.0 a loin / ~ O C # carcass l0oifl carcass 20.12 12 niirms fat 12 20 32 plus / rib eye score fat thickness 32 fat thickness score 20 20 (rib eye) 40 divided by 2 = 20 8core Example 2 1.9 sq. in. l o i n 1.4 in. fat / loo# / l0o;'f 32 34 18 18 p3.u~ 19 37 f a t thickness SCOR fat thickness score rib eye score divided by 2 * 18.5 score
85. QUALITY PORK CONTESTS m2 NO (15)* ILLINOIS A x B, M. C 4 recomrnendations followed? Complete cut out If possible P a r t i a l l y complete cut out Not followed NEW YORK (2.) FLORIDA Wsr VIRGINIA R e M. C 4 (10) WISCONSIN NOFiTH CAROLDJA ARKANSAS TENNESSEE (2) LOUISTANA R. M. C. VIRGINIA NOKTH DAK13TA (15) TEXAS (6) KANSAS OHIO (15) N33lNEScIJIA INDIANA NEBRASKA (4) (2) (4) Iowl (25) (3) OREGON MOXCIANA (2) MISSOURI (6) * R a 14. C. (20) MICHIGAN Number of contests i n each state partially R. M4 C. partially
86. TAatE 10 LOINEYE AREA AND HAM PERCENT National Barrow Shuw Austin, Minn. This fornula combines a score f o r each ham and l o i n. The loin eye area is converted from a measurement t o a score and t h e ham from a percent of l i v e weight t o a score. Ten scores are awarded f o r each square inch o f loineye. A four inch loineye would earn a score of 40, a f i v e inch l o i n eye a score of' 50, and a six inch l o i n eye a score of 60. Likewise, a score of 10 is awarded f o r each percent of skinned ham i n excess of 1 0 ( l i v e weight). A 14% ham would earn a score of 40, a 15% ham a score of 50 and a 16$ ham a score of 60. 4.6 sq. in. in l o i n 14.4$ ham ( l i v e weight) 4.6 = 46 90 score. (Ap2lause) MR, KLINE: Now, I wasn't aware that I was supposed t o conduct t h e discussion here, but since I have been saddled with t h e responsibility, I will open the f l o o r f o r discussion. You may have questions you want t o d i r e c t t o BurdeBte Breidenstein o r VanStavern, the other t w o mexfibers of t h i s Committee who a r e here a t t h i s time. MR. KEMP: (University of Kentucky) I would l i k e t o make one o r two comments. One is that I don't t h i n k we need t o c r i t i c i z e t h i s too m c h yet because the proceedings didn't come out u n t i l November o r December and most of the lamb carcass contests f o r l a s t year were already over with, and some of the o t h e r contests. We ought t o give t h i s a f a i r shake f o r another year before we c r i t i c i z e t h i s t o o much.