An Analysis of the Problems in Producing and Evaluating Veal and

An Analysis of the Problems in Producing and Evaluating Veal and

144.
AN A N A L Y S I S OF T H E PROBLEHS IN PRODUCING
A N D E V A L U A T I N G VEAL A M c a t F
...
Re
Yb BRAV
UNlVEASll'Y
OF W I SCONS I N
0 . . 0 . 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 . . . ~ . . . . . . . . . 0 . . . . . . . 0 . 0
A review of the l i t e r a t u r e indicates t h a t r e l a t i v e l y l i t t l e research e f f o r t has been devoted t o veal Bnd calf production, processing, o r
marketing. This i s t r u e i n s p i t e of the f a c t t h a t annually we produce i n
the United States over l* b i l l i o n pounds of these combined meats from approximatcly13 million animals. The production figure i n pounds is twice t h a t
f o r lamb. Wisconsin leads all other states i n veal production, producing
approximately 13 million head, o r about twice as many as i t s nearest comp e t i t o r , New York.
Before we consider the research problems of these t y p s of meat,
I believe it would be desirable t o define the terms, v e a l and calf. The
U.S.D.A. Grading Standards f o r v e a l and c a l f carcames define veal as
being derived from the slaughter of immature, milk-fed, bovine animals
usually not over 3 months of age, b u t do not place an age l i m i t on mat
considered as calf. The standards do indicate that calf generally is derived from immature animals that have subsisted i n part o r e n t i r e l y on
feeds other than milk. U.S.D.A. graders, however, have no p s t production h i s t o r y available on the carcasses they grade and therefore must
r e l y upon differences i n carcass c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . The chief difference
exists i n the color between these two classes of meats. Veal i s considered t o be l i g h t i n color, being a gray t o a pinkish brown i n color,
while calf i s darker, being l i g h t t a n t o a reddish brown.
The veal crop has long been considered as a by-product of the
d a i r y industry and considered by som dairy farmers as a necessary production e v i l i n the pxth of produciw milk. For these reasons l i t t l e
e f f o r t oh the prt of dairy husbandry p o p l e has been put f o r t h i n the
d i r e c t i o n of veal research. Likewise those of u s working i n meats have
had the fear of being ostracized if we devoted research e f f o r t s t o a
'phase of meats outside that of general animal husbandry i n t e r e s t s . Fortunately i n late years some e f f o r t s have been directed toward the solut i o n of the many veal research problems.
Even though we have some i n t e r e s t i n v e a l and calf research a t
the present time, I believe that part of the general lack of i n t e r e s t is
related t o our system of marketing veal. Packers i n Wisconsin t e l l me
that the q u a l i t y of v e a l b e i n g produced i s slipping downward and t h a t the
eastern market preference f o r Minnesota and Wisconsin milk-fed veal is
likewise diminishing. This can be a t t r i b u t e d t o either the f a c t that i n
general milk prices have been more favorable than veal, o r that t h e d i f f e r e n t i a l between the d i f f e r e n t q u a l i t i e s of veal i s nut s u f f i c i e n t t o pay
f o r the additional m i l k required f o r the production of top q u a l i t y veal.
Perhaps Both reasons hsve been i n e f f e c t , but it seems t o me t h a t i n
Wisconsin the buying of veal calve6 and the s e l l i n g of the dressed produ c t on a graded basis has been p r a c t i c a l l y nonexistent. In f a c t , very
145.
l i t t l e v e a l is government graded, and because of the prominence of small
mckers in veal slaughter, we a l s o have a s i t u a t i o n where r e l a t i v e l y l i t t l e
v e a l is being sold on the packer grade basis. Our Wisconsin pckers claim
that the government grades are not r e a l i s t i c f o r the bulk of the calves
marketed, which are dairy-bred animals. The claim i s based on the point
that they believe too much emphasis is being placed on desirable conformat i o n i n the U.S.D.A. standards, which of coclrse is somwflat lacking i n
dairy-bred calves. However, the q u a l i t y of v e a l seem8 t o be a8 good o r
even superior i n these sane animals. This problem we must leave with the
U.S.D.A. Standards and Grading Division of the P.M.A.
If t h i s s i t u a t i o n
is more o r less general throughout the United States, then one can r e a d i l y
see that the p c k e r has very l i t t l e reason t o make d i f f e r e n t i a l s in price
based on grade. However, it should be pointed out t h a t dressing p r c e n t a g e
may s t i l l make f o r a d i f f e r e n t i a l in price between grades, f o r generally
better grading veal calves w i l l dress higher.
The belief that then? i s a l a c k of i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of q u a l i t y i n
t h e retail s a l e of v e a l seem t o be substantiated by a Wisconsin study of
the pricing nethods of' l i v e calves. Before the study was made a general
survey indicated t h a t calves were being sold on either a per head basis, a
weight basic, o r on a grade and weight basis. The study involved the
c o l l e c t i o n of data as regards grade and yield in an attempt t o f i n d whether
o r not pricing of veal calves wa8 providing equitable treatment t o buyer
and seller. I n other words, it was a test as t o the accuracy of estimating
grade and y i e l d of these calves. Data were collected on a t o t a l of 613
farmer delivered calves a t two major packing plants. A t one plant the yield
was estimated c o r r e c t l y f o r 14 percent of the calves
a t the other f o r 7
percent of the calves. A t the first plant, 23 percent of the y i e l d estimates were too high (from 1 t o 9$) and 63 percent were t o o low (from 1 t o
lo$). A t the second plant, 11 percent of the yield estimates were too high
(1t o 6%) and 82 percent were too low (1t o l l $ ) . There were "misses" of
2 percent o r more from the a c t u a l y i e l d in the estimates f o r two t h i r d s of
the calves a t the first plant and four f i f t h s of the calves a t the second
plant.
--
A t one plant 61 p r c e n t of the estimates on grade agreed with t h e
federal grades, while at the other plant only 33 percent of the calves were
graded correctly. The plant with t h e best record was the o n l y plant In W i s consin a t that time claiming t o buy veal on a graded basis. Even though
much improvement seemed desirable a t that plant, it w&8 a l s o obvious that
l i v e grading ma not being practiced in t h e other plant. In f a c t , it is my
opinion that t h i s plant was most t y p i c a l of the way v e a l calves were and
s t i l l are being marketed i n Wisconsin.
Marketing l i v e v e a l calves on a graded basis and carrying t h i s
grade i d e n t i t y t o the consumer i s one of the foremost problems with veal
and subsequently has a very pronounced influence on the d i r e c t i o n of veal
research i n the areas of production and processing.
If I were an economist, I could l o g i c a l l y s t o p here i n my d i s cussion and conclude that nothing f u r t h e r need be done u n t i l our marketing
system is corrected. Even though t h i s may be t r u e , we are not generally
accustomd t o think about only one phase of any of our meats research.
346.
Another f e r t i l e area f o r research l i e s i n the merchandising and
processing f i e l d .
Two of the problems with merchandising veal a t the packer l e v e l
have been the control of moisture l o s s and maintenance of desirable carcass
color. One solution practiced f o r years has been shipping carcasses hide
on. This i s fine except it involves extra shipping tonnage, and an addit i o n a l 1 0 6 6 t o the industry through improper skinning and the handling of
skins. Several wrappers, as well as g e l a t i n - l i k e dips, have been used, but
the problem of packaging carcasses hide off has not been adequately solved.
The form of v e a l cuts has v i r t u a l l y been unaltered over the years.
Since v e a l contains 80 much moisture, it often lacks appeal i n the r e t a i l
s t o r e . One development, used on lower q u a l i t y cuts, i s the boning and
r o l l i n g of the shoulder and then dipping it i n a g e i a t i n - f a t d i p , Thia item
i s very a t t r a c t i v e . We need f u r t h e r t o vary and improve the appearance of
v e a l cuts, possibly through canning of l e g s and shoulder i n similar manner
t o pork, o r through boning and molding i n t o appealing frozen cuts. S t i l l
another p o s s i b i l i t y is the development of pan-or oven-ready veal cuts or
dishes, such as has been done w i t h breaded v e a l chops.
Next, what can be done t o produce more desirable q u a l i t y v e a l ?
Assuming that the consumer pays ~ o m ea t t e n t i o n t o q u a l i t y indicators i n
veal, auch as color and firmness, and f u r t h e r assuming they are related t o
p a l a t a b i l i t y , any improvement i n these two f a c t o r s should increase the demand f o r veal.
W
e r e a l i z e that t o date no-one has found a s u b s t i t u t e f o r whole
milk in the production of high q u a l i t y veal. Feeding whole milk i s a t
tims too costly, e s g e c i a l l y if a producer is s e l l i n g through a Grade A
milk market. This problem creates a need t o f i n d s u b s t i t u t e s . A t the
Viscon8in Station we have had such a project underway. !l%e calves, mostly
of Holsteinbreeding, w e r e assigned t o one of our l o t s . Lot I was given a
liberal whole milk r a t i o n only, l o t If liberal whole milk plus i r o n and
copp?r supplement, l o t I11 limited whole milk, hay, and calf’ s t a r t e r , and
l o t IV liberal milk replacer, hay, and c a l f starter. All calves were
slaughtered a t 6 week6 of age. The following table gives sone of the most
pertinent data.
Lot I
Lot I1
Lot I11
Lot IV
103.2
95.6
98.0
I n i t i a l wt., lb.
93.1
142.1
185.9
157.5
Final w t . , l b .
183.1
Daily gain, lb.
2.34
2.35
1.55
1.12
TDN per l b . d a i l y gain, l b .
Yield, %
Carcass grade
Kidney f a t , gm.
% l i v e r (live w t . )
Blood iron, mg.5
Mg. i r o n per 100 gm. l i v e r
$ moisture l o i n eye
Myoglobin content of l o i n
eye m s c l e
._I__
1.45
1.43
1.61
1.66
69.39
69.29
63.46
64.49
Top Choice Av. Choice Top Commer- Top U t i l i t y
ci a l
617.7
557.1
212.4
100,s
--
3.0
77.64
12.7
77.49
1.8
39.7
5.0
78 e31
0.33
0.67
0.47
2.2
20.4
2.1
54.2
-
1.9
35.9
5.9
78 52
0.43
147.
This work leaves us with but one conclusion regarding gains and
d e s i r a b i l i t y of mrc&ss with the r a t i o n s studied. The whole milk, with o r
wtthout i r o n and copper supplement, produced much higher q u a l i t y carca8ses
from a n b a l e having s i g n i f i c a n t l y better dressing percentage. Since v e a l
Uver is a high priced i t e m , it I s a l s o of s u f f i c i e n t i n t e r e s t t o note the
heavier weights of the l i v e r s i n the liberal whole milk lots. The v a r i a t i o n
fn iron values i n the blood aypd liver i 8 c e r t a i n l y pronounced.. The supplemested l o t ranked highest, followed %ytbe l o t s receiving calf starter and
hay i n addition t o either milk or milk replacer. It is of i n t e r e s t t o note
a t whole milk, a8 expected, had the lowest iron values. The myoglobin
content of the mu6cle varied signif'fcantly, and the values were highly associated with the iron values of the l i v e r and blood. These values were such
t h a t one could e a s i l y pick out v i s u a l l y the saxuplea i n l o t s I and 11.
If' consumers were t o p r e f e r dark-colored veal, we c e r t a i n l y
could produce It f o r t h e m . On the other hand, we know that in order t o
produce light-colored veal, it must be done with a feed law i n iron, such
as milk.
I have c i t e d the above work t o i l l u s t r a t e t h e type of research
that is urgently needed i n v e a l production. Often i n nilk-producing areas
it is uneconomicalto feed whole milk, thus investigations with s u b s t i t u t e s
are c e r t a i n l y timely. Then, too, I have attempted t o point out that i n
addition t o the amount of d a i l y gain, we lrrurat concern ourselves with carcass grade and more s p e c i f i c a l l y the f a c t o r s which determine consumer
acceptance, such as color and firmness, Therefore it may be one thing t o
produce a vealer economically, b u t another t o produce a high q u a l i t y
product.
To t e s t t h e d e s i r a b i l i t y of' v e a l produced by the r a t i o n s already
discussed, Professor Flora Eenning of' our Home Economics Department,
gathered together conslderable data from l o i n roasts, 8om of which appear
in the following table
Lot I*
-
Lot II*
Lot I n *
2.4
2.8
1.1
17.0
16.4
17.9
20.2
19.4
19.2
19.0
21.4
Shear value
9.6
5.3
11.0
13 e 4
Flavor more
7.8
7.8
7.8
7.8
Juiciness score
7.1
7.6
7.4
7.5
Dripping
1088,
Evaporation
$
1088,
Total cooking
$
1088,
%
Lot
Iv*
1.2
Wen calves per group.
The t o t a l cooking
lOS6 was
quite eimilar with the exception of l o t
IV. Either r a t i o n , grade, o r both may have had some influence i n t h i s res u l t . Moisture losses were higher i n t h e lower grading lots, while f a t losses
were higher i n t h e higher grading l o t s . The most pronounced differences i n
v e a l r o a s t s were found i n the shear values. The differences were
148.
s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t . The higher grading l o t s produced the most
tender roasts, with the i r o n and copper supplemented l i b e r a l m i l k l o t producing the most tender mat. For t h i s re hwe no explanation. Apparently
f l a v o r and juiciness were not affected by differences i n r a t i o n o r by
grade, according t o the p a l a t a b i l i t y test. These r e s u l t s should stimulate
our thinking i n terms of w h a t f a c t o r s do influence f l a v o r and juiciness i n
v e a l and especially of animals i d e n t i c a l in age. Even though f a t was not
present in large quantities, it m8 decidedly evident i n l o t s I and 11;
yet apparently d i d not contribute i n such a way as t o a f f e c t f l a v o r o r
juiciness. Is tenderness then our primary concern i n working toward q u a l i t y
v e a l ? If so, what i s influencing the degree of tenderness? These questions
should provide some provoking thought t o those i n t e r e s t e d i n meat tenderness.
Digressing somewhat from the area of meats, we f i n d some addit i o n a l problems i n production of veal, e s p e c i a l l y i n our northern states.
The m o r t a i l i t y rate of v e a l calves i n Wisconsin is l i t t l e higher than 10
percent, with most of the deaths occurring i n the f i r s t 10 days a f t e r
b i r t h . The most common causes of death are scours and respiratory d i s orders. This l o s s amounts t o about 2 calves per farmer i n the s t a t e of
Wisconsin. The prcblem is not d i r e c t l y i n our f i e l d of meats but coma
under the heading of a problem in producing veal. m n y farmers a r e inclined t o s e l l c a l w s as soon as possible a f t e r b i r t h rather than risking
possible death losses. This practice, of course, lowers the q u a l i t y of
veal produced and therefore i n d i r e c t l y becomes our problem.
Another problem i n producing veal with whole milk has been t h a t
of i n j u r y of the udder of the cow by the nursing c a l f .
This has been
solved rather acceptably by use of the Connor feeding bucket. Even so, it
takes t i m t o educate the dairy farmer that t h i s bucket i s p r a c t i c a l and
requires very l i t t l e extra labor.
Since I do not have f i r s t h a n d information pertaining t o t h e
problems of production and evaluating calf carcasses, my comments w i l l be
both general and brief.
The production of calf is located primarily i n the more southern
states. Kentucky h a s conducted research with calf
more especially under
the so-called CGW and calf plan. Their r e s u l t s indicate t h a t the plan is
good f o r the area and that t h e q u a l i t y of meat produced receives very
acceptable consumer reaction, he said:
--
"Elr. Varney s a i d that t h e statement was t r u e when t h e study was
made but a8 of today he feels that consumer acceptance i s not quite as
high as it was two o r three years ago.
I also learned i n talking with him that t h e r e a r e problems i n
the production of calves and it seems that they vary from state t o state.
I had a f i n e l e t t e r from %ne Palmer giving me some of the
problems of production of calf i n Florida. One of the problems he states
is a r e a l problem there is g e t t i n g the calf on the ground. T h a t is, the
calving pzrcentages are very low, from 50 t o 60 F r cent. I understand,
thcugh, that i n Kentucky that is not a serious problem, So there i s an
example of v a r i a t i o n i n that respect between states. Also I understand
149,
that there is a lack of uniformity of calves produced i n Florida; that is,
a l o t of nondescript calves are being marketed fromvarious breeding pract i c e s , whereaa I understand t h a t i n Kentucky it is somewhat more uniform.
I judge t h a t i n Texas t h a t is likewise true, i n t h a t you probably
have a predominance of beef breeding involved whereas i n Florida you have
dairy Brahman and beef breeding involved, which makes f o r a considerable
lack of uniformity.
Another problem, as Zunderstand it, is a lack of weight f o r age
i n Florida, That is, msqy of the cow8 perhaps do not have s u f f i c i e n t
milking a b i l i t y t o produce heavy calves a t the t i m e they should be ready
t o go t o market. Again I understand that t h i s i s not a serious problem i n
Kentucky because most of the cows there have good milking ability, and I
suppose t h e blue grass of Kentucky also adds somewhat t o the s i t u a t i o n
and helps t o improve the s i t u a t i o n ,
Getting calves veU. i n t o the grade i s also another problem that
seems t o exist i n Florida, and that, as Zane points out, is due t o t h e fact
t h a t a t the present tixce they do not have enough improved pasture.
Improvement of the q u a l i t y of t h e calves then seem6 t o be one of
the primary production problems...
. . ,.- -
-
One of the other points t h a t was mntioned by M r . Varney from
Kentucky and a l s o Zane Palmr from Florida was t h a t t h e r e seem6 t o be a
lack of proper i d e n t i f i c a t i o n f o r t h i s kind of meat.
Zane
ing problem i s
calf and beef.
a8 heavy veal;
desired.
respect.
states it t h i a way: 'I believe that the real merchandisthe development of a clear-cut d i s t i n c t i o n between veal,
Also too frequently heavy v e a l goes as calf o r l i g h t calf
hence the consumer i s not always able t o buy w h a t is
It looks l i k e there may be a merchandising problem i n t h a t
Mr. Poggi has touched upon one of t h e problems I was going t o
Illention, and that i s the packer problem involving a steady supply of t h i s
type of mat and t h e problem of g e t t i n g the retailer t o take on t h i s meat
when it is available.
Also the problem of the r e t a i l e r was touched upon i n h i s talk i n
that the r e t a i l e r does then have the problem of advertising and merchand i s i n g t h i s product when it i s available and then running the r i s k of
losing h i s customers because he does not have it when the supply i s s h o r t .
I think t h i s takes care cf some of the major production problems with c a l f , and I might say, Don, that i n leading the discussion you
might c a l l upon B i l l Cole, !&me and M r . Varney f o r additional comments i n
t h i s respect.
.
-, ._ ,. ,
,n
I
Carcass evaluation problems i n my opinion should be similar t o
those of veal, w i t h the possible exception of color of lean."
150
VEXL CALF GIiOWTH AND CARCASS DATA
TABLE 1.
Lot I
-
Liberal
whole milk
+ i r o n and
copper
supplement
--
Liberal
whole milk
only
--_--I n i t i d wt.,
Final wt.,
93.1
lb.
lb.
TDN per lb. d a i l y gain,
lb
Yield,
$
2.35
1.45
69 e 39
Top Choice
Carcass grade
Kidney f a t , gm.
.
Blood iron, mg. $
Mg, i r o n per 100 @ . l i v e r ;
$ moisture loin eye
Myoglobin content of l o i n
eye muscle
-------~.__-.
157 a 5
142 1
1.12
1.43
1.61
1.66
69 29
63.46
64.49
Top Commercial Top U t i l i t y
557 1
100 5
212 4
2.1
1.8
1.9
28.4
54.2
59*7
35.9
3.0
12.7
5.0
5.9
73 31
78.52
77 64
77 049
0.35
0.67
0
0.43
0.47
_-I-___._-
I
_
-
VXAL CNiF COOKING DA!TA
L o t I*
%
103.2
2.2
TfSBLE 2.
~
98.0
1.55
Av. Choice
617 7
$ liver (live v t )
Liberal
milk r e placer,
hay and
c a l f s t a r t e r ----calf starter
185.9
2.34
Lot I V
L i m i t ed
whole milk,
hay and
95.6
183.1
Daily gain, lb.
Lot 111
--
Lot I1
------
Lot II+C
~
_
_
_
Lot III*
-
-
-
-
-
-
I
_
-
.
-
-
~
Lot I W
2.4
2.8
l e1
1.2
17.0
16.4
17.9
20.2
19.4
19b2
19.0
21.4
Shear value
9.6
5b3
11.0
13.4
Flavor score
7.8
7 bc3
7.8
7.8
J u i c ine s s score
7.1
7.6
7.4
7.5
Dripping loss,
maporation loss,
5
Total cooking loss, $
Wen calves per group.
151.
CHAIRMAN PEARSON:
I wish t o thank F&b f o r h i s t a l k .
Discussion w i l l now be l e d by Don Kropf from the University
of Wisconsin, Don.
MR, KROPF: !Jell f i r s t , i n limiting our coments t o Bob
Bray's paper I was considerably enlightened
and I hope there a r e
when he s a i d t h a t they have dairy,
no Br&hmaa breeders i n t h e room
Brahman and beef breeding i n Florida,
--
-9
6ure t h a t t h e r e axe other problems i n c a l f production of
f
which Bob and I are unaware, and a t t h i s time I would l i k e t o c a l l
upon anyone else who trishes t o contribute t o t h e discussion of t h e
problems i n t h e area of calcf production, I wonder if B i l l Cole has
any comments i n t h a t f i e l d o r myone else.
MR, COLE: I&. bopf, I don't know whether I can add anything t o what has already been s a i d or not, but I can t e l l you t r u t h =
fully I was p r e t t y much mazed a t t h e q u a l i t y of veal i n Tennessee
when I first went there, I think it i s very good, The Neuhoff' plant,
a t Nashville, I am told, i s t h e l a r g e s t veal slaughtering plant i n the
world, It is set up t o k i l l about a thousand calves a day, They do
a l o t of grading there.
In Knoxville, f o r instance, I would say t h a t 90 per cent of
the veal i s f e d e r a l l y graded. A l l the veal calves i n Tennessee t h a t
I know anything about are k i l l e d hog s t y l e , That is, w i t h the hide on,
md i n the marketing of veal calves I thinlc considerable grading is
done, P r a c t i c a l l y a l l auction markets do grade calves. I don't know
how experienced t h e graders are, but t h e s t a t e department does have
grading men t o supervise it, and they are graded and put i n t o the l o t s
and sold by auction. In other words, the calf l o s e s i t s i d e n t i t y ,
It i s graded and put i n t o t h e l o t snd they a r e paid f o r so many pounds
of calf. So I think t h a t maybe i n t h a t respect they a r e doing a
p r e t t y good job of marketing i n Tenneseee.
As f o r production problems and carcass information I don't
know much about t h a t ,
MR. KROFF:
Thank you f o r your comments, B i l l .
Are there any other comments on calf production, o r are
t h e r e questions t h a t you would l i k e t o d i r e c t t o Bob Bray o r anyone
else?
DR, BRATZIXR: I wanted t o ask, Ebb, how did you g e t these
v e a l calves i n t o choice If the color of the lean was a8 dark as I
gather it was. A l s o whether the amount of iron and copper supplement
has anything t o do with calor and whether you t r i e d it with hog o r
swine t o eliminate the white pork?
DR. BRAY: Well, there wa8 so= downgrading of those carcasses. T h a t tended t o push t h e m down some, s t i l l c l a s s i f i e d as v e a l
but undesirabIe from the standpoint of grade because of the darker
col.or.
The bone i n those calves
wa8
blood red, j u s t f i e r y
red, and we think, of course, contributed t o the iron supplementation
there
What w8s the other part of your question?
DR. BFATZLFR: How about the amount of supplementation? Do
you think that could be regulated?
DR. BRAY: Well, I think probably.
!Je were using I think
200 milligrams daily that was being given t o the calves i n t h e i r milk.
I think t h a t could be t r i e d . I r e a l l y think you could vary t h e color
by t h e amount t h a t you supplement the milk. iJe t r i e d it b r i e f l y on
e g o t enhogs. Ernie t r i e d it on 8ome hogs r i g h t after t h i s . W
e tried it on 16 hogs, 8 controls
couraged t o see what we might do. W
and 8 hogs supplemented with iron and copper and kept on t h i s r a t i o n
about two weeks p r i o r t o slaughter. bbybe a l i t t l e longer than that.
Two t o three weeks p r i o r t o slaughter. There was no v i s u a l difference
between them.
How about the qyoglobin, Ernie?
MR. BRISKEY: They haven't been analped.
DR. BRAY: They haven't been run as yet, 'out c e r t a i n l y there
was no visual difference.
MEl. ADAMS:
How about the tenderness of the pork?
DR. BRAY: I don't
DR. EEN3ICKSON:
the product held up?
know.
Did that make any difference in how long
DR. BRAY: W
e d i d n ' t t r y t o test t h e storage l i f e .
DR. J. C. PIERCE: I w8s j u s t going t o ask if the tenderness
values of your panel tended t o line up a t a l l with the shear values of
your coobd veal. I notice that you show the shear values but you do
not show t h e panel scores.
DR, BRAY : Well, Miss k n n i n g s thought there would be some
d i f f i c u l t y i n g e t t i n g her panel t o evaluate juiciness, flavor, and
tenderness adequately. She thought if she gave them Juiciness and
fLcrvor that wouldbe enough. They did put down their comments regarding t h e i r overall impression of the samples, but that has not been
related t o the shear values. The c o m n t s were t h a t it was s t r i n g y o r
tough. Those comments were on those that were i n those two lower
graded l o t s , but we don't have a correlation f i g u r e between t h e panel
and the shear value.
dress 64+,
DR. KEMP:
I would l i k e t o ask how you got u t i l i t y veal t o
DR. BRAY:
I don't know.
153.
DR, KEMP:
Was that hide on?
DR. BRAY: That fs hide on, sure, but interestingly enough i n
t h e study with t h e 613 calves, the farmer delivered calves, some with
t h e l i g h t calvee were the one8 that r e a l l y yielded, W
e had a l i t t l e
light calf, I remember, yielding around 70 per cent. That wae the exception. It depends a l o t on the f i l l in the calf', of course, but
these calves a l l csme off the same t i m e t and you 8ee then a r e l a t i v e
spread exists between t h e m . I cannot tell you wby we have that kind
of a yield.
DR, KEMP: In our work with these calves
we have two maJor
problems I think. One is g e t t i = the cot113 bxkd e a r l y enough t o drop
them according t o plan. I am not t a l k h g about v e a l now. I am t a l k ing about calves. W
e don't want them t o come late because if we do we
w i l l s e l l these 300 and 400 pounders along abaxrt October. Nobody
wants them and we take a loss on them. But if we can get these calves
dropped around Christmae o r shortly thereafter, we don't have t o sell
them a6 calves. W
e can sell them a8 l i g h t beef aad the market wants
t h e m . That is in our plan of operation. It is what we t r y t o do,
b u t a large percentage of the people don't follow the plan l i k e we
propose it, sad the market is flooded with the intermediate weights.
I* isn't beef or veal a8 has been pointed out, and t h e calf i s n ' t
merchadieed as such. It all comes close t o the stme time, and unless we can do a better merchanaisiw job on t h i s type of meat, some
of our farmers get h u r t with it. So our ma$n problem r i g h t now is
producing it not quite according t o the plan and it floods the market
a t the sans t i m e a8 a l o t of our regular grass c a t t l e are coming on
the market.
MR. EUIS PIERCE: I would l i k e t o ask Bob a question on
the liberal amounts of whole milk. Jiast how mny pounds of milk were
there, Bob?
DR. BRAY: Our conversion there was about 6 o r 8 pounds per
I guess it ran 8 plus, so that would make it on
pound nf d a i l y gain.
thoee roughly 20.
MR. PIERCE: !Twenty pounds per day?
figures.
DR. BRAY:
--
Roughly that
18 o r 20 pourads.
I a o n ' t h a p p n t o have then here.
We have those
MR. WELLIlQGTON: J u s t very briefly. Of courae, as Bob
mentioned we slaughter quite a l o t of veal, W
e eat 8om good veal,
but most of what we eat comes from Kentucky or %nneseee t o New York.
W
e have given a l o t of thought t o t h i s veal problem and the economics
of it, and some tim8 the price picture is favorable t o feeding milk
t o the calves. The qroblem that we run i n t o more than anything else
is a darry farm management problem. In a good dairy herd the dairyman
does not Bee the proper way of handling t h i s veal c a l f . I wonder i f
Bob has any coxnment on t h a t .
DR. BRAY : I think our problem is the same as yours. For
the b i g dairy f a m m , the good d a i r y farmers, that are on a grade A
m i l k m a r k e t , j u s t a8 I s t a t e d before, the c a l f j u s t becones a necessary
production e v i l i n g e t t i n g a new milk supply. They g e t r i d of the
calf as soon a8 they can, and even though t h e veal price may be favorable they Just don't take advantage of it.
MR. KROPF: Okay, one more queation.
DR. BREIDENSTEIN: I would l i k e t o ask t h i s queetion e i t h e r
of D r . KEmp o r Mr. Varney. Do they have any ideas as t o the reason6
f o r the iucrease i n coneumer resistance t o t h i s calf beef or should we
say reduced consumer acceptance?
DR. KEMP: I think that it is primarily due t o methcds of
mrchandising. As you know, more and more s t o r e s are becoming supermarkets, and they are placing a standard type of mat on their
shelves the year around. To give one example, one of the large i n dependent marbete in Louisville two or three years ago handled t h i s
meat i n large volume. He admitted t h a t he made more money on it i n
the s h o r t ti=. But he d i d n ' t handle it the next year, primarily
f o r the reason t h a t it got h i s customers accustomed t o a l i t t l e
cheaper beef than the regular fed beef and about the time they got
accustorned t o it he was out of i t . He could not g e t any more and
the cuetomers d i d not come back f o r a while. So the s t o r e s don't
want t o handle it.
Another thing is t h a t most of t h e cooking mthcds are put
out on beef. Very l i t t l e work has been done on the cooking of t h i s
c a l f . Consumers g e t t h i s calf and they t r y t o cook it like they
cooked beef and it does not work. If they t r y t o b r o i l it o r t o cook
it the way it 1 6 reconmended they cook beef it does not work. So it
is a matter, I think, of not knowing how t o use it because i f it is
used properly i t i s a very good product, I think, but most people
J u s t don't know how t o use it properly.
DR. BREDENSTEIN: I want t o a6k one more question. Perhaps the retailers a r e misrepresenting it. A t l e a s t it happened i n
our area. They have sold it as beef and promoted the idea of cooking
it as beef and it j u s t has not worked.
DR. KEMP: You don't see any calves i n our markets. It is
e i t h e r veal or beef and quite a b i t of it is calf but it i s n ' t labeled
a6 such i n m O 6 t Ca6e6.
MR. KROPF: I think t h a t a t t h i s time we had b e t t e r move
along t o a l i t t l e discussion of Bob Kelly's paper on veal cutting
procedures. I think that we should keep this discussion rather
general. If you have comments I wish you would l e t Bob know by m a i l .
So a t t h i s time i f there are any general comments on t h i s procedure
I should l i k e t o have them.
DR. BUTLER: It seem t o me t h a t the procedure proposed
here Fe about the saw as f o r beef except t h a t the loin ends, the
rUmp6, are not removed and the plate and b r i s k e t s are not separated.
I should l i k e t o point oue t h a t nobody cuts calves l i k e t h i s , and t h a t
155.
calf carcasses are much more like beef carcasses. They may average
250 pounds i n weight o r somthing l i k e that. I wonder if it would not
be s a t i s f a c t o r y simply t o cut by tk sane procedure as beef and t o make
s e p r a t i o n i n t o the different cuts optional.
MR. KELLY: !Chat l e one of the problems that we were confronted with i n drawing up the procedure. For instance, i n some of
the work that you maly be doing and i n some of the work t h a t we are
doing on the composition of gains of beef cattle, we are working with
w h a t you might call calf' carcasse8 but we are cutting them up as recommended f o r beef. I think here it depends upon what you are going t o
use the carcass f o r i n the over-all study that you are working on.
If that is t h e end product, if v e a l is the end product, if
that is a8 f a r as the study is going, then I w o u l d s o r t of lean tmrd
the proposed procedure, If' I were going t o carry on and t r y t o commre it with the mature beef, then I w o u l d certainly want t o use the
beef cutting procedure.
EIW. KRCSF:
Are there any other general c m n t a ?
MR. WELLLNGTOM: I think that we are getting i n t o a subject
that we a l l f e e l quite qualified t o t a l k on and t o commjent on, but I
would j u s t l i k e to mention that I am glad t h a t the committee decided
t o have suggestions sent i n within a couple of weeks and that then
it is going t o decide from those suggestions j u s t how t o proceed.
A t this point I would J u s t l i k e t o m n t i o n that the Beef
Carcass Ehaluation Committee presented its plan to t h i s group and
tried t o handle it as democratically a8 it could. There was a strong
difference of opinion as t o haw the separation should be made between
the chuck and the brisket. The way it nciw stands, we are separating
the brisket from the chuck on a l i n e that is certainly different from
w h a t is followed i n most mcking plants or cutting procedures.
As 1 look a t your diagram, I think that your l i n e is the
as ours a t the present time. I believe that again as a democ r a t i c procedure we might give some consideration t o whether we want
t o make that eeparation as it I s $n these two plans a t the present
t i m e , We went on the majority v o b that day and ruled t o keep i-b
the way it was, but the on&y reason we had was that it had been t h a t
way previously i n our guide.
8-
MR. XRCOPF:
One more question.
DR. COLE: I wonder w h a t , if any, tlx? significance of the
dotted l i n e i n the aitch is.
You didn't mention that.
MR, KELLY: That outside covering there should not be anyw h e r e nsnr 88 thick. That i s t h e externa,l f a t cavering. On t h e f i r s t
copy that I mtle it was j u s t about 1/4 of aa inch thick. It is not
going t o be even t k a t t h i c k on a veal o r a calf carcas6. That is f o r
f a t thickness and 1 don't believe you can measure that accurately.
156
DR. COLE: A r e you proposing that we use j u s t the one measurement f o r f a t thicknese?
MR. KEILY: 1 have not mentioned external f a t thickness a t
aU. I do not believe that we can mat3ure t h a t objectively.
MR. KROPF: I have j u s t one general comment. I think w i t h
regard t o veal carcass skinning maybe we ought t o specify i n these
proposals that the skinning be done immediately p r i o r t o the time of
cutting t o cut our s h r i n k l o s a e s in veal.
Now I want t o remind you, if you have any cements please
send them t o Bob Kelly a t VPI, o r you may want t o see him today o r
tomorrow some time and t e l l him your comments. We will appreciate
having t h e m .
MR. MACKINTOSH: &. Chairman, I should l i k e t o revert t o
the question of cooking calf f o r j u s t a momant. I be1,ieve t h a t the
National Live Stock and M a t Board has, we might say, reconvened the
Ekat Cooking Cowmittee and it is again a t work revamping the standard
mthods of mat cookery, It might be well f o r t h i s conference t o
draw t o the a t t e n t i o n of t h i s committee the need f o r work on calf,
which I believe i s not included i n t h e i r o r i g i n a l publication.
CBnIRp.IAN PEARSON: A l l right, thank you, Mr. Mackintosh.
W
e will r e f e r that t o next year's Executive Committee and they can
hand it down t o the Veal and C a l f Carcass Committee and see tliat it
is properly brought t o the a t t e n t i o n of the Board.
I want t o remind you again,
changes i n the procedures f o r cutting
Kelly. N s o George, i f you f e e l t h a t
ently, your comments should certainly
the committee, and if a change should
brought t o the conference a t a f'uture
if you have any suggestions f o r
v e a l o r calf refer them t o Mr.
beef should be handled differbe brought t o the attention of
be made, recommendations can be
date.
We now have scheduled the election of next year's chairman,
and Bill Cole w i l l take over this function. So, B i l l , will you and
your committee pass out the b a l l o t s and t e l l t h e m f o r whom they have
a right t o vote? T e l l t h e m their names.
MR, C O U : The Executive Committee f o r next year, as
selected yesterday, is D r . Blumer of North Carolina; D r . Kemp of
Kentucky; Dr. C a h i l l of Ohio State University
Dr. Blmr of the
University of Florida, and Gene King of Texas A. and M. College.
--
According t o the constitution, t h i s group is t o s e l e c t a
man as chairman f o r next year.
CHAIRMAN PEARSON: A l l r i g h t , the b a l l o t s are now b e i q
distributed. Please mark them.
I n the meantirne, while the b a l l o t s are being marhd, there
are people who have cow in who have not introduced themselves, and
I should like t o have them stand and follow the procedure that we
have followed so far i n t h i s conference i n introducing themselves.
157.
Is there anyone along this table here who has not been introduced t o the conference?
MR. SOULE, JR: Ralph Saule, Jr. of Kansas State College.
CHAIRMAN PEARSON: Bob, were you here yesterday when the fntroductione were carried aut?
M1?. RIERSCXN:
No, I was not.
morning. Bob Rierson from Wisconsin.
I got in here early t h i s
CHAIRMAN pEARs0IJ:- Bob i s i n the Agricultural Economics Department with Bob Bray and is here 88 a guest of Wisconsin.
MRi RIERSON: I am a j o i n t appointee betueen Agricultural
Economics and the Animal Husbandry.
CHAIRMN
Niven here.
PEARsolq:
You belong halfway.
W
e have Charley
MR. T.JANG: Harry tlang of the American %at I n s t i t u t e
Foundation.
CIIAIRMW PEARSON: Is there anybody else who has not been
e would l l k e t o have you Introduce yourselves if you
introduced? W
have not been introduced,
Our Conference Secretary has announcements t o make and
f o l l a r l n g that we will take a break of appraxfmately f i v e minutes.
Franklin. )
(There w a s a short recess following announcements by
&.
CHAIRMAN PENtSON: Now If you w i l l take your seats again
we w a n t t o g e t under way.
The report of the Nominating Committee is that the C h a i r man of the Executive Cormittee f o r next year has been duly elected
and he is Tom B l u e r . We w i l l allow him his chance t o mske his
speech t h i s afternoon during the business meeting. A t that tire he
w i l l o f f i c i a l l y take Over the duties as Chairman.
W
e w i l l now have the report from our Fksearch Review Committee which has certainly worked hard. We have some of our tab
stock out. I know that some of yau have W e we of these abstracts.
We find them t o be very convenient i n keeping abreast of the current
literature. I a l s o find that being an abstractor help8 lie t o keep
abreast of the current literature i f I f u l f i l l my responsibility t o
abstract the journals which I have been assigned.
Our next paper w i l l be "Your Rzsponsibility i n Abstracting,
which will be presented by J e r r y Wariderstock of Cornell. Jerry.
If