Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T08:36:43.284Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

An Evaluation of Feeder Cattle Grading Standards

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 April 2015

Kim B. Anderson
Kim B. Anderson*
Affiliation:
University of Kentucky
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Responding to the needs of the feeder cattle industry, the USDA (1979) implemented a new feeder cattle grading system which broke from the traditional method of using consistent grade terminology throughout the marketing process. The terms Prime, Choice, Good, etc. were replaced by three frame sizes (large, medium, and small) and three thickness scores (1, 2, and 3). The change from carcass quality terms to production-oriented terminology was deemed necessary because the product characteristics desired by cattle feeders differ from those desired at slaughter by the slaughterer-packer.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics , Volume 12 , Issue 2 , December 1980 , pp. 43 - 49
Copyright
Copyright © Southern Agricultural Economics Association 1980

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Anderson, Kim B. “Coordinative Efficiency of Grades and Standards for Feeder Cattle.” Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, May 1980.Google Scholar
Anderson, Kim B. and Baquet, Alan E.. “A Method to Measure the Efficiency of Feeder Cattle Grade Standards.” Paper presented at National American Agricultural Economics Association Meetings, Urbana-Champaign, Illinois, July 1980.Google Scholar
Berg, R. T. and Butterfield, R. M.. “Growth Patterns of Bovine Muscle, Fat, and Bone.” J. An. Sci. 27(1978):611–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Breimyer, Harold F. “The Purpose of Grading.” Unpublished paper presented to Inter-Industry Beef Grading Conference, Kansas City, Missouri, Nov. 14, 1960. Memo. Columbia: Department of Agricultural Economics, University of Missouri, 1960.Google Scholar
Brungardt, V. H.Efficiency and Profit Differences of Angus, Charolais and Hereford Cattle Varying in Size and Growth. Madison: College of Agricultural and Life Science, University of Wisconsin, research report, 1972.Google Scholar
Fox, Danny G. and Black, J. Roy. A System for Predicting Performance of Growing and Finishing Beef Cattle, Res. Rep. No. 328. East Lansing: Michigan State University, 1977,142–62.Google Scholar
Fox, Danny G., Johnson, R. R., Preston, R. L., Dockerty, T. R., and Klosterman, E. W.. “Protein and Energy Utilization During Compensatory Growth in Beef Cattle.” J. An. Sci. 34(1972):310–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meyer, J. H., Hull, J. L., Weitkamp, W. H., and Bonilla, S.. “Compensatory Growth Responses of Fattening Steers Following Various Low Energy Intake Regimes on Hay or Irrigated Pastures.” J. An. Sci. 24(1965):29–37.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nelson, Ted R.Beef Gain Projection Program. Unpublished Microcomputer Program. Stillwater: Department of Agricultural Economics, Oklahoma State University, 1979.Google Scholar
Osborne, T. B. “The Resumption of Growth After Long Continued Failure to Grow.” J. Biol. Chem. 23(1916):439–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Osborne, T. B. and Mendel, L. B.. “Acceleration of Growth After Retardation.” Am. J. Physiol 40(1916):16–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Marketing Service.“ Livestock: Grades and Standards for Feeder Cattle.” Federal Register. Washington, D.C, Aug. 1,1979, 4531 9–22.Google Scholar
Osborne, T. B., Food Safety and Quality Service. Official United State Standards for Grades of Carcass Beef. Washington, D.C., Apr. 14, 1975.Google Scholar