BIGGER-FRAMED cattle are presenting welfare and environmental worries for the world’s best-known animal behaviourist, US scientist Dr Temple Grandin.
Writing an essay in US industry magazine Meat and Poultry, she detailed the problems created by increasingly beefy North American cattle genetics.
“Today’s fed cattle in the US are getting bigger and bigger,” she said, noting reports that carcases in the US averaged 38lbs (17.2kg) heavier compared to June 2023.
She wrote: “There are three big problems that this causes. There are increasing problems with back bruises caused by tall cattle hitting their backs when they exit from the bottom deck of a semi-trailer. Unfortunately, this is occurring in trailers that have been modified to provide more back clearance.
“A second problem is that the huge animals do not fit in chutes and cattle handling facilities designed for smaller cattle. A standard 30-inch (76cm) chute with straight sides may be too narrow for some of the fattest animals.
“The third problem is the most serious. Each huge steer has a huge sister who will be too expensive to feed in the (US) winter on grassland ranches.”
Dr Grandin accepted that larger-bodied animals had sustainability benefits “because more pounds of quality beef are produced from fewer cattle.”
However, she said: “Many ranchers risk going broke if they attempt to feed huge cows on arid rangeland. There is a sustainability trade-off on cattle size.”
She recalled that, in the early 1970s, the predominant US beef cattle were smaller Herefords and Angus. “These cattle were definitely too small,” she said, a situation changed by the introduction of bigger-bodied European genetics such as Charolais.
But over time the consumers became faced with another problem – the size of the meat cuts. “The ribeye was too big to fit on the plate,” she said.
US carcase weights have trended heavier for the past 60 years, with steer carcase weights increasing by an average of four pounds (1.8kg) per year over that period – up more than 240 pounds (109kg) from 660 pounds (300kg) in the 1960s to more than 900 pounds (409kg) in recent years.
The recent US trend in fed steer weights 2018-2024 is illustrated in this graph.
Consumer challenge
Larger cuts are fine in the hands of chefs and professionals trained in handling them, said Peter Smith, a former butcher and now Group Manager customer accounts at Queensland processor Australian Country Choice.
Peter Smith
“But Mr and Mrs Jones would find those cuts difficult to manage,” he said.
He noted that the MSA cut-cook standard was based on meat from trade-weight animals weighing 250-280kg, and could possibly need updating for larger animals.
As carcase and primal weights increase, it becomes increasingly difficult to cut a steak of desirable thickness, while sticking to an acceptable portion weight.
A cube roll steak cut to the standard 25mm thickness produces a single steak that, at 400-450g, is the week’s allocation of red meat, according to the Australian dietary guidelines.
Australians’ red meat intake in 1995/96 averaged 88g a day. By 2011/12, that dropped to average 80g a day. Nowadays, the Australian dietary guidelines recommend eating no more than 65g cooked red meat a day.
And if you think that’s barely a snack, the 2019 Lancet-endorsed EAT Planetary Food Guide recommended reducing red meat intake to around 14g/day or around 100g/week.
More moderate breeding trend
Among popular Australian beef breeds, Santa Gertrudis is an example where frame scores have been moderated over time.
Rick Greenup, technical committee chairman of Santa Gertrudis Australia, said larger frame scores at the top end of the chart, (scores 9 or 10), had been pursued in the past. However, more moderate scores of about 7 or 8 were now the standard for most stud and commercial breeders.
“While we don’t dictate to producers the frame score to target, most are now meeting somewhere towards the middle to produce a highly functional animal that gives them options without eroding other important production traits such as fertility,” he said.
“A Santa Gertrudis animal with a moderate frame score gives producers in most environments the opportunity to produce a quality, early-maturing feeder steer that finishes well and meets MSA compliance.
“If producers have the country to grow out heavy, Jap ox bullocks then Santa Gertrudis genetics will also give them that option.
“The bottom line for us and for the processor is salvageable meat yield, which comes from muscle and weight, not frame score.”
For processing plants the shift has meant industry-wide retro-fitting of infrastructure costing millions and higher ongoing costs as bigger bodies need more refrigeration.
A trade-weight carcase that once filled ten standard cartons with meat has in some cases become a custom-kill Wagyu carcase 450-500kg in weight filling more than 20 cartons.
The larger bodies also place more demands on the workforce, many of them smaller-framed Asians, handling boning and slicing. This development has been driving industry R&D through the Australian Meat Processor Corporation into fields like exoskeletal supports for meat workers.
Greater processing efficiency in heavy carcases
A 2023 Australian Meat Processor Corporation report looking at slaughter rates in a Queensland meatworks found: “Smaller and lighter carcases require slower rates to process, due to attributes of body. Maximum rate has been timed at 65 head per hour. This means that, at maximum rate, less revenue would be generated in comparison to a larger and heavier animal…. Larger and heavier animals can be run at faster rates. Maximum rate has been timed at 75 head per hour.”
Looking at the boning process, the report found that the biggest productivity factor was not individual heads, but kilograms of beef processed per animal, and a comparison showed more return from larger bodied animals.
Boning a large animal produced 14,280 kg/hour from 34 head @ 420kg/hour, with a smaller animal accounting for 14,000 kg/hour off 40 head @350kg/hour.
Concluding her essay in the US magazine, Dr Grandin wonders: “The question I wish to ask is: Are we repeating old mistakes?”
Taking into account days to slaughter on the smaller cattle compared to larger cattle at weaning you could feed a few extra pairs on that time difference making your grass more profitable
We used to raise grass fed Red Devon and I thought smaller carcass size was the current trend
Yes we are repeating old mistakes
It is cycle that appears to happen
Every 15 or so years or longer it happens if your old enough we can look back the problemn is if your not old enough you probably just don’t know i don’t know what that age is if you are 40 you would not know because your not old enough I think if you could go back about 60 years your close
An age old packer dilemma- larger or smaller live animal weight and carcass weight yield.
It means more cut out yield over the work shift by workers!! More priduxmction on the line at the same wage.
The problem is the genetic of the meat raiser to shift their program to produce larger or smaller carcass livestock.
At one point the center plate meat distributors wanted a certain size cut for the plate, and they started to control the meat
industry. The packers imposed yoeld grades that penalize raiser and feeder operators.
If the meat industry is a partnership, the players all need to be in a win-win situation. Not a packer win – you the producer lose OR vice versa which definitely would never happen
Show judges reward bigger animals that are over fattened and breeders then keep producing large animals. Most farmers don’t understand why smaller cows will deliver bigger profits
The EAT Lancet 2019 Planetary Food Guide has been thoroughly rebutted by an expert team of scientists led by Dr. Alice Stanton. This publication has published a great deal of the work of Dr, Stanton and her team.
If the Lancet publication had any integrity on this matter, it would withdraw the failed study which has constantly neglected to provide original data in spite of repeated requests.
It is amazing that commenters still refer to this damaging study which will have knock-on effects in places such as nursing homes which already have a very high percentage of nutritional deficiency.
Just to be clear, Joanne, the article’s reference to the Lancet study in no way endorses it – if anything, it exposes just how poor the argument is. Editor
Totally agree Joanne. This article does NOTHING “to expose just how poor the argument is” of the ideologically driven Lancet rubbish .. the author merely states it without any qualifiers or context. Also agree with the main thrust of the article that cows that are too large become inefficient & unsustainable.
Beef Central has written numerous times about the flaws in the Lancet report, Michelle. Here is a recent example. Or this one published earlier: https://www.beefcentral.com/news/lancet-study-faces-renewed-calls-to-amend-overcooked-claims/
That doesn’t mean that every time Lancet is mentioned, it requires forensic examination. Editor
Has anybody done a cut test on the larger cattle versus the smaller cattle comparing the amount of bone and excess fat on the larger cattle compared to the smaller cattle?