Market Hog Evaluation

1
Market Hog Evaluation
2
History
1910s
3
History
1920s Bacon or Lard Type
Champion Hampshire Boar 1925 Chicago Intl
4
History
1920s
Bacon Type Lighter Leaner 1924 Champion
Chester White Barrow 1924 Champion Pen Three
Yorkshrires
5
History
1940s
1944
1947
6
History
1950s
1949
1954
1958
7
History
1960s
1967
8
(No Transcript)
9
History
1970s
1970
1977
1978
10
History
1970s
11
History
1980s
1982
1983
1988
12
History
1990s
1991
1994
13
History
Late 1990s
1998
14
History
2000s
15
History
2000s
16
History
2000s
.4 BF 8.9 LEA, 62.61 Lean
17
History
2000s
18
History
2000s
19
History
2003
20
History
1990s
1991
2001
21
1961
1980
1996
22
History
1960s
35 years of change
23
Future
Complete With Muscle
Trend to Heavier constructed Bigger boned
Heavier muscled hogs
24
Average Market Hog
2000 NPPC lean growth modeling Project 1550
head of hogs
Weight 280 lbs Back fat 1.1 LEA 5.5 Muscle
2 USDA Grade 2
25
Ideal Market Hog
Weight 275 lbs Back fat .8 LEA 6.0 Muscle
2 USDA Grade 1
26
Ideal Market Hog

• Packers response
• - 270 lbs
• - White Hogs prefered
• - Hogs that can walk
• - Minimum fat depth of .6
• - Swift/Hormel .8 export market higher
• - Loin eye 7
• - Minimum 54 lean
• - Stress Free

27
Ideal Market Hog

• Quality (Packer response
• 1) Water holding capacity
• 2) Color
• 3) Tenderness
• 4) IMF (intramuscular fat)

28
Ideal Market Hog

• Quality (Packer response
• 1) Water holding capacity
• - Greatest economic loss to the industry
• - Dries excessively during cooking

29
Ideal Market Hog

• Quality (Packer response
• 2) Color
• - Important to consumers and japenesse market
• - Cannot be measured on kill floor fab
  floor - Id becomes a problem

30
Quality Color Standards
Unacceptable
1
4
2
3
Unacceptable
5
31
Ideal Market Hog

• Quality (Packer response
• 3) Tenderness
• - Many packers enhance product up to 30 to
  insure tenderness and juiciness

32
Ideal Market Hog

• Quality (Packer response
• 4) IMF (intramuscular fat)
• - Provides juiciness and flavor
• - Not as much of an issue with (enhanced pork)
• - Evaluated on a scale of 1-10

33
Marbling Scores
Unacceptable
1
2
4
3
Unacceptable
5
34
RFN Ham Red, Firm, and Normal (RFN)
35
PSE Pale, Soft, and Exudative (PSE)

36
DFD HamDark, Firm, and Dry (DFD)
37
Market Hog Evaluation

• Two methods to quantify Lean to fat
• 1) USDA Grade
• - Oldest used only to classify markets by
  some reporters
• 2) Percent Lean

38
Market Hog Evaluation

• USDA Yield Grade
• Last rib back fat
• Muscle score (1, 2, 3)
• (4 x last rib fat) muscle score

39
Market Hog Evaluation

• Percent Lean
• 1) Weight
• -
• 2) Fat measurement
• 10th rib
• Best indicator of total fat Why?
• 3) Loin eye measurement
• - 10th rib
• - best indicator of total muscle
• Base Hog is 250 lbs, .80 BF, 5.0 LEA

40
Visual Indicators of Muscle/Lean
41
Visual Indicators of Muscle/Lean
42
Visual Indicators of Muscle/Lean
43
Visual Indicators of Muscle/Lean
44
(No Transcript)
45
(No Transcript)
46
(No Transcript)
47
Practice Comparisons
235 lbs
48
Practice Comparisons
285 lbs
49
Practice Comparisons
235 lbs
285 lbs
DP .74 Last rib BF .3 Muscle
score 2 USDA Grade 1 10th rib
BF .40 LEA 7.2 Lean 58.5
DP .73 Last rib BF 1.9 Muscle
score 2- USDA Grade 5.6 10th rib BF
1.8 LEA 3.8 Lean 37.6
50
Practice Comparisons
245 lbs
51
Practice Comparisons
245 lbs
DP .72 HCW 180 Last rib BF
1.25 Muscle score 2- USDA Grade 3 10th Rib
BF 1.20 LEA 4.2 Lean 43.7
52
Practice Comparisons
270 lbs
53
Practice Comparisons
270 lbs
DP .70 HCW 195 Last rib BF
1.00 Muscle score 2 USDA Grade 3 10th Rib
BF .95 LEA 7.1 Lean 50.6
54
Practice Comparisons
245 lbs
55
Practice Comparisons
245 lbs

DP .74 HCW 181 Last rib BF
.45 Muscle score 2 USDA Grade 0 10th Rib
BF .45 LEA 7.4 Lean 58.0
56
4 Wt. 287
57
4 Wt. 287

• Percent Muscle
• Wt. 287
• DP, 74
• HCW 213
• 10th rib .45
• LEA 9.2
• Lean 58.9
• USDA Grade
• Last rib .9
• Muscle Score 3
• USDA Grade .6

58
Market Hog Pricing

• Hogs purchased on a Percent Lean Basis
• Most accurate method to calculate value
• If procedure is done correctly
• 1) Fat - O Meater
• - Uses backfat and loin depth
• - John Morrell
• 2) Ultrasound
• - Most accurate method to asses lean
• - Uses actual image of LEA, and 10th rib fat
• - Thorn Apple Valley , Some IBP

59
(No Transcript)
60
(No Transcript)
61
(No Transcript)
62
15.00 Difference 10.8 Live Basis