Lynsey McAnally (00:02):

Angus At Work, a podcast for the profit-minded cattleman. Brought to you by the Angus Beef Bulletin, we have news and information on health, nutrition, marketing, genetics and management. So let’s get to work, shall we? 

Hello and welcome back to Angus At Work! Did you know the current red meat yield equation was rolled out in 1962? While our cattle have certainly changed over the last 60 years, the calculations used to compensate producers haven’t kept up with the times. Enter Dr. Dale Woerner and his team at Texas Tech University, who were determined to find a better way to calculate true red meat yield using state-of-the-art technology. 

I’m Lynsey McAnally, and on today’s episode, we are joined by Woerner, Cargill Endowed Professor in the Department of Animal and Food Sciences at Texas Tech. Tune in as Dale and our very own Shauna Hermel chat about the future of red meat yield calculation, how yield could be predicted with 90% accuracy using x-ray technology, the relationship between ribeye area and true muscling, and why putting on the right pounds to increase quality is important to consumers. So, let’s dive in!

From our sponsor: 

On a beef operation, calves are the future of your herd. Defend them with products as premier as they are like the Pyramid plus Presponse family of vaccine. By vaccinating calves with Pyramid, you protect them against viruses and bacteria that cause the devastating Bovine Respiratory Disease complex. So, if you want to give the future of your herd a shot at greatness, choose premier relentless protection with Pyramid vaccines.

Shauna Hermel (02:01):

Thank you for joining us today for this episode of Angus At Work brought to you by the Angus Beef Bulletin. I’m Shauna Hermel, editor, and I’m here today speaking with Dale Woerner following up from Feeding Quality Forum where, Dale, you got to present a lot of information on some new technology.

Can we have you kind of give us first a glimpse of your role there at Texas Tech and what you’re exploring from a research angle?

Dale Woerner (02:31):

Absolutely. I work on our meat science and muscle biology team on the faculty at Texas Tech. Research and teaching are a big part of the role. And then, of course, industry outreach. I have some great coworkers there working alongside us in this red meat yield discussion that we brought into light for the Feeding Quality Forum today. Dr. Blake Foraker, Dr. Brad Johnson, Dr. Mark Miller ... all part of what we’re doing there, as well. My role, again, is teaching and research, but I do a lot of applied and industry research. Right now, we’re focusing on aspects of red meat yield and sustainability in our industry. The first focus is better measuring that red meat yield.

Shauna Hermel (03:14):

One of the things that you pointed out this morning was a little bit of the problem we have right now with our current yield grade equation maybe not necessarily equating to an actual accurate red meat yield. Can you kind of explain that and what some of the limitations are, starting from when that yield grade equation was created?

Dale Woerner (03:37):

Yeah, it’s a great segue into what we’re talking about here. The yield grade equation was developed from research that was conducted in the 1950s, late 1950s, fully developed and published in 1960 and then implemented in 1962.

Shauna Hermel (03:54):

Cattle type has changed a little since then.

Dale Woerner (03:56):

Yeah, just slightly, right? No, we’ve gone from purebred Hereford and Angus cattle in that mix of cattle that were used to make that yield grade equation. Clearly we have changed and evolved from that, not only in cattle genetics and cattle type, but also in management, as well. As early as the late 1960s, people began to question the accuracy of yield grade. As cattle changed, as we transitioned into the early 2000s, 2010, and to current several — including Dr. Ty Lawrence at West Texas A&M — several working groups have really began to question the accuracy of yield grade, specifically as it relates to different cattle types like dairy cattle, for example, or dairy crossbred cattle. Our research adding on to that, showing that the yield grade equation is highly inaccurate in truly explaining differences in what we call red meat yield, which is essentially the muscle fat and bone makeup of carcasses, which translates to what we can sell from a carcass.

We call that saleable yield and cutting yield. Right now we just don’t have a really good indicator with yield grade as it’s being applied to truly separate and incentivize red meat yield in cattle, because it’s just largely inaccurate.

Shauna Hermel (05:17):

So explain for some of our audience who might not understand how that yield grade equation comes up with an actual yield grade. How does that happen? What factors play into that?

Dale Woerner (05:32):

Yeah, absolutely. Yield grade is a calculation that was developed using statistical regression techniques, again, dating back to the 1950s and 1960s. But ultimately we use hot carcass weight, ribeye area, fat thickness at the 12th rib, and then internal or kidney pelvic and heart fat (KPH) in that equation. As we input individual measurements for those factors, we use a computation to get to a whole number scale that ranges from 1 to 5 on yield grade, Yield Grade (YG) 1 indicating the leanest, highest-yielding cattle and Yield Grade 5 indicating the fattest, lowest-yielding cattle in that population of cattle in the United States. But it’s not doing a really good job, as we’ve discussed.,

Shauna Hermel (06:19):

We do get paid based on those yield grades.

Dale Woerner (06:23):

Absolutely. Yield and quality grade. Obviously, the two primary factors, outside of hot carcass weight, in grid-based value systems. We still are very dependent upon marbling score as an indication of eating quality. Good news is marbling works to indicate eating quality. Bad news is yield grade is not working. So, yes, we continue to rely upon a yield grade equation to differentiate value of cattle that’s not accurate, and so that becomes a problem, obviously, for our industry.

Shauna Hermel (06:57):

One of the things we talked about was you said that that ribeye area is one of the estimates for the muscling within that carcass, but it’s not a very accurate, can you explain some of those factors?

Dale Woerner (07:09):

Absolutely. Ribeye area is something our industry has utilized as an indication of muscling because of its relationship to yield grade calculations. Unfortunately, for whatever reason, the relationship between ribeye area and true animal — true carcass — muscling has grown apart to the point where ribeye area doesn’t explain very much at all of the true variation in muscularity. In fact, if you take ribeye area and red meat yield from a carcass, it’s about 4% related.

Shauna Hermel (06:57):

Four percent?

Dale Woerner (07:43):

Four percent. Not 40%, but 4%. And that’s because fat is involved, bone is involved, a lot of other things coming into play there. We’ve done a really good job, specifically over the last 30 years, in improving ribeye area and improving marbling score to go with it. Mainly because we’re able to get good data back on what ribeye area is and what marbling score is from camera-grading systems, data-capture systems and plants. So when we give good information back to genetics groups, Angus for example, they can make progress in those traits. The problem is we’ve given them only ribeye area, not true muscling. So when we single-trait select for ribeye area for muscling, even though it’s not related very well to muscling, we actually grow those relationships apart.

Shauna Hermel (08:40):

We can start to go down the wrong path.

Dale Woerner (08:42):

We do and we did, and not that big ribeye area is necessarily bad. It’s just not related to the whole carcass anymore.

Shauna Hermel (08:51):

So from the 1960s to 2024, do we have the technology to do it better?

Dale Woerner (08:57):

Absolutely. Technology’s the key. Technology that can operate at production speeds and give us the accuracy that we’re looking for. Medical technology seems to be where we always start in ag when we look at precision measurements and things of that nature, specifically on the animal or the carcass. So we’ve evaluated CT scanning, which is an x-ray technology. We’ve even looked at MRI scanning and DEXA scanning, but really I would just summarize that as X-ray technologies we’re able to look into the animal’s fat, muscle, bone ... Those technologies are not only accurate, they are measurements of yield. So we can use those technologies to actually quantify with a very high level of accuracy and confidence how much muscle, fat and bone is in a carcass.

The issue today with medical equipment is cost. Medical equipment was designed for humans or small animals in a vet practice ...

Shauna Hermel (09:55):

A little harder to put a bull through?

Dale Woerner (09:57):

Impossible to put a bull or a carcass through at a high rate of speed. So what we’re really looking at now is technologies that can really predict what x-ray tells us. The thing that we’re working on at Texas Tech is three-dimensional imaging. 3D images can be used to measure confirmation, shape and volume of carcasses. And then again, through statistical modeling and even some artificial intelligence models, we’re able to estimate red meat yield with a really high level of accuracy. Our early models are showing 90% or greater accuracy with a 3D image that can be captured in an instant.

Shauna Hermel (10:38):

It’s a little better than 4%.

Dale Woerner (10:40):

It's a lot better than 4%. And so I think we’re just headed in a very positive direction with technology to get a better market signal. Ultimately, what we’re looking for when we get a better market signal, we get a better measure to go back to producers with, then we can make progress for red meat yield.

Shauna Hermel (11:00):

So how far are we away from being able to implement that, and what are maybe the hurdles? I would assume cost is one.

Dale Woerner (11:08):

Yep. Yeah, and this is where you’re going to get me lying a little bit because somebody can always look back and say, “Well, you said it was going to be two or three years.” I think realistically, though, the industry is energized looking at this. NCBA (National Cattlemen’s Beef Association) working with Checkoff dollars and working groups including academicians. Industry people at all levels: cow-calf level, feeding level, packer level. And it looks like we’re on a timeline of about three to five years of really getting something notable, visible and functioning in plants. So again, don’t hold my feet to the fire completely on that, but I think it’s in the reasonable timeframe of that three- to five-year window before we see something happening there.

And again, technology, artificial intelligence, all of these things have really come into play to help us do that.

What are the obstacles? Time and resource expense, of course, part of that resource question. But, the type of work that we need to do to develop these technologies — like scanning carcasses, like cutting carcasses into their pieces and components — takes a lot of manpower and time, and then of course, collaboration from industry. All of those pieces are coming together, but it’s going to take a little bit of time to get it done. So it’s really more time than money at this point because the technology is available. The technology of a 3D image exists in your smartphone. The technology for CT scanning has been used for decades in the medical industry, and although technical, not overly expensive really relative to the modern era of what equipment costs today.

Shauna Hermel (12:54):

Okay. Are there other countries that are using some of this 3D technology already?

Dale Woerner (13:02):

Yeah, in a sense, we’re behind other countries like Australia and even Europe that utilize these technologies like CT scanning to understand composition of animals. They’re actually transacting livestock on the basis of red meat yield using these technologies. What I mentioned earlier today is their advantage in developing and utilizing those technologies is they're considerably smaller than the US industry in that they're throughput or production speeds are slow enough for CT technology and DEXA scanning. Another X-ray technology can actually function in the right amount of time to do a really good job. Those medical technologies are not necessarily ready for a 350 or 400 head per hour production speed. So that’s really the latency in their development vs. ours, but we’ll get there. Obviously, we might just have to use a little bit different approach.

Shauna Hermel (14:01):

One of the other areas that we visited about earlier, or you presented on and presenting with Daniel Clark was a Certified Angus Beef (CAB) program on some sustainability of the industry and the importance of putting on the right pounds when we’re looking at adding days on feed. Can you walk through the important parts of your discussion and adding that, I believe you said 180 days to 222, what it means to get the right pounds put on at that stage?

Dale Woerner (14:33):

Yeah, absolutely. When we talk about what the right pounds are, we have to understand in our industry that beef demand is largely driven on eating quality. And what eating quality translates to today with carcasses is marbling amount. So we have to leave marbling paramount in this, and Dr. Clark and CAB did an excellent job illustrating the relationship between fat thickness and marbling. We understand that fat thickness increases and maybe has to increase even to get the marbling level in cattle, but at some point we reach a point of diminishing return. In other words, we’re increasing marbling with fat thickness, but at a decreasing rate.

So he was demonstrating that about 66/100ths of an inch of fat. We see a decline in the amount of marbling that increases with fat, and we get out to 9/10ths of an inch of fat, and we really see no reasonable increase in marbling with increases in fat. So that gives us some boundaries, right, as to maintaining emphasis on marbling, but not getting cattle overly fat.

So where does the sustainability message come in? Dr. Kristen Hales at Texas Tech, one of my coworkers, did a cost of fat analysis and presented that at a previous symposium that we hosted and did a terrific job illustrating that in those last 40 days on feed, this animal becomes hugely inefficient at producing lean muscle. In fact, her data suggests that they produce 11 times more fat in those 42 days than they do protein, and we only gain about 12% Choice grade and about 40 units in marbling.

So we have to begin thinking, what is the cost of that fat? At what value or cost does marbling come with that? Ultimately, the takeaway for me is we have to improve genetics for marbling so that we can reach desirable marbling levels at fewer days on feed and a lesser amount of fat because that fat is hugely expensive when it comes to water resources and even CO₂ and carbon emissions. We become 25% more inefficient from a carbon standpoint in those last 40 days on feed than we are in the first 180 days on feed. And then we also use more corn obviously in that process that equates to tens of thousands of gallons of water equivalency added to each animal to make that same amount of carcass weight.

Shauna Hermel (17:04):

That’s amazing when you really start thinking about it.

Dale Woerner (17:07):

Right? It is it amazing and eye-opening, right? We really have to make sure that we’re producing a high-quality beef product that our consumers are demanding, but the responsibility in doing that efficiently with carbon and water is paramount and marbling will never go away. We need marbling in our marketing system. We need more marbling at a lesser cost of production from a resource standpoint.

Shauna Hermel (17:32):

If we get that marbling at an earlier life point, if you would, in that days on feed, do you think that that will encourage feeders to ship at a lighter weight or is the incentive for having that heavyweight carcass still going to compete out there?

Dale Woerner (17:53):

It’s still going to compete. I mean, weight is king. However, if we get, when we get this red meat yield measurement corrected, then that system can begin to correct itself. And I don’t know that we’re necessarily going to promote lighter-weight carcasses, but the consistency of that weight, the quality, if you will, of the weight in the carcasses is going to have to improve. And so when we begin to measure composition more effectively, we’ll still incentivize weight, but at a more desirable composition. And so it’ll take, initially we’ll subtract weight out of the animal because we’re going to remove fat, which is largely what we’re producing in that latter portion of the feeding period. But eventually, genetics will catch up to replace that weight of fat loss with true, high-quality, lean, highly-marbled product. That’s the goal, right?

Shauna Hermel (18:49):

You bet.

Dale Woerner (18:49):

I truly believe we can do that as an industry. Genetics advancements, reproductive technology advancement. We live in an era now where we can multiply the power of our genetics more than we ever have been able to before. What it takes to make those improvements, though, is good data. That’s what we’re lacking. We're lacking good data because yield grade is failing us. So once we get a corrected data source coming in, then the genetics providers — cattlemen — can make genetic progress and improvement to replace fat with lean, but not only lean from a pure lean standpoint, but lean with marbling with that intramuscular fat.

Shauna Hermel (19:32):

So for producers who are interested in getting involved in that yield grade discussion, how can they do so?

Dale Woerner (19:39):

Yeah, absolutely. It’s just now getting out, right? We’re hitting the airwaves and presenting in front of people, showing them what we’re doing. NCBA is a voice currently for this discussion. The voice that we’re engaged in. So through your representation there, through your membership fees, through the checkoff dollars that you all pay, get involved and have a voice there at the NCBA or state beef council level. Certified Angus Beef, the Angus breed and many breed associations are very much involved in this discussion. So you have a voice through your brand and through breed associations as well. That’s the best way to communicate that.

Shauna Hermel (20:20):

So where’s your research go from here? What’s the next step for you?

Dale Woerner (20:25):

Yeah. Our research right now has really been proof of concept for these technologies, and we’ve demonstrated accuracy to the point where it’s time to move forward. I would call it very applied steps moving forward. We are going to move into plants with their cooperation to measure carcasses with these technologies to validate, verify, and ultimately improve the accuracy of these technologies. So I expect within the next year to three years especially, we will be in the plant, boots on the ground measuring carcasses with these technologies. And then building from that improved red meat yield equation will involve technology providers. That will involve a lot of other constituents contributing to our industry to make that happen. So we’ll be busy, to say the least.

Shauna Hermel (21:20):

You’ll probably have a few grad students and a few undergrad students helping you along the way.

Dale Woerner (21:24):

It takes an army to do this kind of work. We’ll also have other institutions, right? The peer institutions helping us go out and collect these data. It’s important that we go geographically to the South, the Midwest and the North and the East and the West to collect these type of data. So they’ll be participating universities located geographically to help us gather that data as well. So a lot of collaboration, a lot of really good time working together, which is really nice to get these things done.

Shauna Hermel (21:59):

Well, thank you for joining us here today! We always like to end the Angus At Work podcast with something that’s going on that’s exciting or good news in your professional or your personal life. Do you have something you’d like to share?

Dale Woerner (22:14):

Yeah, absolutely. This is one of the most exciting times I’ve been a part of, and it’s really based around the excitement and the idea that we can do something to change the industry. And I really feel like what we’re doing in red meat yield and pursuing improvements there will ultimately improve the sustainability and the durability of our industry moving forward. 

Personally, no better time in my life. I’ve got a 12-year-old boy at home. My wife and I get up every day to raise him. He’s doing middle school sports and singing. 4-H and showing steers.

Shauna Hermel (22:50):

Oh, what a fun time.

Dale Woerner (22:51):

Yeah. So for me, it’s a great time to be around and do what we do.

Shauna Hermel (22:55):

Well, thank you very much for joining us here today, and we look forward to monitoring the progress of this research and technology as we move forward.

Dale Woerner (23:05):

Thank you for the opportunity. I really appreciate it.

Lynsey McAnally (23:13):

Listeners, for more information on making Angus work for you, check out the Angus Beef Bulletin and the Angus Beef Bulletin EXTRA. You can subscribe to both publications in the show notes. If you have questions or comments, let us know at abbeditorial@angus.org, and we would appreciate it if you would leave us a review on Apple Podcast and share this episode with any other profit-minded cattlemen. Thanks for listening, this has been Angus At Work!