National Market Cow and Bull Beef Quality Audit - Dairy Cattle Edition

Executive Summary of the 2007National Market Cow and BullBeef Quality Audit• Recognize and optimize cattle value• Monitor health• Market cattle in a timely and appropriate manner• Prevent quality defects• Be proactive to ensure beef safety and integrityDairy Cattle Edition

Executive Summary of the 2007National Market Cow and BullBeef Quality AuditConducted byTexas A&M UniversityNorth Dakota State UniversityCalifornia Polytechnic State UniversityPennsylvania State UniversityUniversity of GeorgiaUniversity of FloridaWest Texas A&M University®For more information contact:National Cattlemen’s Beef AssociationBeef Quality Assurance Program9110 East Nichols Avenue, Suite 300Centennial, CO 80112303.694.0305December 20072 National Market Cow and Bull Beef Quality Audit

Do the right thing.Ultimately, this is a roadmap to optimize beef quality.This document summarizes an industry-wide researcheffort that is unique to all of U.S. agriculture.In these pages, we talk openly about the challengesand opportunities our industry faces. We discuss ourweaknesses. And, we explore where we’ve been andwhere we’ve made progress.We share ideas on how we can work together – in ourown way, on our own farms – to improve beef qualityand the stewardship of cattle.Since the first beef quality audits were conducted inthe early 1990s, cattle producers like you have movedaggressively to make beef better.You recognize quality matters.You understand the necessity of food safety tounderpinning beef demand.You realize beef production doesn’t end when a cowor a bull leaves your farm, that it’s really a first, criticalstep in a complicated journey to the dinner plates ofAmerica.You also recognize how consumers have changed inrecent years.They worry more than ever before about antibiotics anddisease.They want to know their steaks or hamburgers areproduced safely and humanely.They scrutinize abuse or mishandling of livestock likenever before.At the same time, they trust us, and they demonstratethis trust by keeping beef at the center of the plate.They continue to prefer beef’s flavor to all otherproducts in the marketplace today, and they’ll continueto support our livelihood as long as they know we’redoing a good job.But it’s something we can never take for granted.About 250 million Americans will eat beef – the beefyou helped produce – this week.And, beef produced from cows and bulls has becomean increasingly important food item in America’skitchens and restaurants.It’s no longer just fast food hamburgers. It’s roasts,steaks, fajitas and an endless array of innovative,flavorful and value-added food items that are availableat just about every restaurant, grocery store and eateryin America.“Beef producers must stop thinking of market cowsand bulls as culls and start managing, monitoring, andmarketing them as the important food source they are,”says Dr. Bill Henning of Pennsylvania State University.“Improved production of cull cows and bulls will helpkeep up with the American consumer’s love affair withbeef.”And ultimately, that’s what the 2007 National MarketCow and Bull Beef Quality Audit is all about. It providesa review of where we’ve been, a snapshot of wherewe are today, and a roadmap for where we can betomorrow.Dairy Cattle Edition 3

Point ofImprovementReduce the use ofelectric prods and otheraggressive driving aidswhen moving cattle.BackgroundIn 1994, the industry conducted its first audit todevelop strategies and tactics for improving qualityand minimizing economic losses.The audit determined the industry fell short inensuring the quality of its product in a number ofimportant areas. These included:Producers did not harvest cows and bulls ina timely fashion, waiting instead until the physicalcondition of the cattle had deteriorated, resulting innumerous problems down the production line:Beef and dairy cows had inadequate muscling atharvest.Too many market cows were disabled prior toharvest.Too many market cattle and carcasses werecondemned.Too many carcasses had excessive bruises.The audit concluded these problems could havebeen reclaimed if producers managed, monitored,and marketed their herds more closely to promotevalue in their cows and bulls and improve the qualityof beef.In 1999, a second audit determined that theindustry had made significant strides in reducingcondemnations, the frequency of disabled cattle,bruising, damage caused bybranding, injection-site lesionsand the overall condition ofcattle, but concluded much morework needed to be done to makebeef better and beef producersmore competitive.The 2007 AuditResearchers carried out the 2007 NationalMarket Cow and Bull Beef Quality Audit betweenDecember 2006 and September 2007.Their goal was to compare results to the 1994and 1999 audits, determine how far the industryhas come in addressing previously identified qualityproblems, what areas are still below grade, andfuture challenges.The audit was comprised of four phases:During Phase I, researchers conducted auditsin packing plants to identify quality defects in cowsand bulls in receiving areas and holding pens, and intheir carcasses on harvest floors and in chill coolers.They also audited packing plants for fabrication andtraceability.The packing plant phase of the audit was theresult of the work of over 70 auditors, includingfaculty, staff and graduate students, as well asstate beef council personnel and other membersof the industry working in collaboration with sevenuniversities.The audit took place in 23 packing plants in11 states. Collectively, these plants harvest morethan 15,000 head per day. The audit surveyedapproximately 5,500 live animals, 5,000 carcassesduring harvest, and 3,000 carcasses in the coolers.In Phase II, interviews consisting of freeresponse and aided questionnaires were conductedwith two interviewees at each plant – one packerand one Food Safety Inspection Service (FSIS)employee. The purpose of the interviews was todetermine improvements and declines in the qualityof cattle since the 1999 audit.In Phase III, the audits consisted of interviewswith eight end users, looking specifically at subprimaldefects, top sirloin center cuts, caps, and bottomround flats. They also looked for injection-site lesionsand other defects that would cause devaluation.In Phase IV, researchers, producers, retailers,restaurateurs, packers, processors and governmentrepresentatives met for a two-day workshop todiscuss strategies and tactics to ensure continuedquality and animal-handling improvements.4 National Market Cow and Bull Beef Quality Audit

Phase I – Packing Plant AuditsDuring this phase, auditors monitored six areasat 23 packing plants: receiving, holding pens, harvestfloors, coolers, and fabrication rooms. The auditorsalso looked at the traceability of the cattle beingprocessed by these plants.Receiving AuditsKey points:Auditors evaluated approximately 5,500 liveanimals and 10 % of trucks during this phase.Substantial reductions in the incidence of downercattle.All truck and trailer loads met AMI guidelines forspacing.Use of electric prods has diminished but continuesto be a cattle-handling problem that needsimprovement.Cattle slipping while being unloaded is low butexceeds AMI guidelines and is still a problem thatneeds to be addressed.Cattle need to be separated by gender to avoidinjuries.Dairy cattle traveled shorter distances than beefcattle.Overall, cattle loads averaged 34.7 square feetper animal and 24 animals per load. Dairy cattle loadsaveraged 36 square feet per animal and 15 head perload.Travel – Among overall load numbers, less than 1% ofthe cattle traveled more than 28 hours.Average travel for all cattle was 6 hours and 283miles.Dairy cattle were trucked an average of 3 hoursand 125 miles.The minimum distance traveled by cattle overallwas 1 mile.The minimum traveled for dairy cattle was 5 miles.The maximum distance traveled for all cattle was1250 miles, while the maximum distance for dairycattle was 602 miles.Trailers – 64% of all loads and 37% of dairyloads arrived on tractor trailers, while 36% of allloads and 63% of dairy loads came in on gooseneck/bumper trailers. 17% of dairy loads traveling in tractortrailerscontained cattle in the doghouse (the rearcompartment of potbelly trailers), compared to 16% ofoverall loads.Load sorting -- 65% of all loads and 90% of dairyloads were single gender. 35% of all loads and 10% ofdairy loads were multi-gender. 67% of all multi-genderloads were not sorted by gender. 50% of multi-genderdairy loads were not sorted by gender.Cattle unloading -- 65% of all cattle loads had nocattle slip, 70% had no more than 3% cattle slip, and30% had more than 3% cattle slip. 71% of dairy loadshad no cattle slip, 71% had no more than 3% of cattleslip, and 29% had more than 3% of cattle slip.Dead/moribund cattle – A total of 0.24% loadshad moribund cattle and 0.04% had dead cattle. Dairycattle loads contained 1.04% moribund and 0% deadcattle.Electric prod usage for unloading – Electricprods were used on 22% of all loads and 15% of dairycattle loads.13% of all cattle loads saw electric prods used onmore than 25% of the animals unloaded.10% of dairy loads saw electric prods used onmore than 25% of the animals unloaded.Other driving aids used while unloading –14% of all cattle loads experienced the aggressiveuse of driving aids other thanelectric prods. Aggressive useis defined as making contactwith the animal with drivingaids such as sticks, paddles,and whips. 5% of dairy loadsexperienced the aggressiveuse of body parts as drivingaids.Electric prod usagewhile moving cattle to therestrainer – 83% of all plants used electric prods formoving cattle to the restrainer. 65% used electric prodson more than 25% of the cattle as they were moved.Other driving aids used when moving cattleto the restrainer -- 39% of plants audited showed theaggressive use of driving aids, (aids other than electricprods), when moving cattle to the restrainer. Employeefatigue resulted in an increase in aggressive handlingas the day progressed.Point ofImprovementImprove footing so cattledon’t slip and injurethemselves.Dairy Cattle Edition 5

Point ofImprovementWhen transporting cattle,separate them by genderto avoid injury or bruisingto livestock.Holding Pen Audits, Part 1Key points:Fewer cattle had mud/manure problems than in1999.More cattle were polled than in 1999.Fewer cattle had brands than in 1999.92% of the cattle had some form of identification.Majority of dairy cattle were Holstein.Fewer abscesses in dairy cattle than in 1999.Dairy cows had the most visible defectscompared to other gender/cattle types.Visible defects – 69% of all cattle had novisible defects. 63% of dairy cows and 80% of dairybulls had no visible defects.Abscesses and lumpy jaw – 0.39% of cattlehad abscesses of the jaw/tooth compared with 1% ofall cattle in the 1999 audit.1% of all cattle surveyed had abscesses of theknee/hock, down from 2% in 1999.At 2% for dairy cows and4% for dairy bulls, knee/hockabscesses were down from the1999 figures of 6% for dairy cowsand 5% of dairy bulls. Hook/pinabscesses occurred in 1999 at arate of 1% for all cattle surveyed.In 2007, 1% of all cattle, 1% ofdairy cows, and 2% of dairy bullshad hook/pin abscesses. 0.59%of all cattle, 0.15% of dairy cows,and 1.09% of dairy bulls had lumpy jaw in 2007,compared to 0.59% of all cattle, 1% of dairy cows,and 0% of dairy bulls in 1999.Udder defects – 83.9% of all cows audited hadno udder defects, while 76% of all dairy cows werefree of udder defects.Reproductive defects – Cows surveyed hada 0.23% incidence of vaginal prolapses and 0.31%incidence of retained placentas. 4.08% of bulls hadbroken penises.Hide colors – 93% of dairy cows and 90% ofdairy bulls were Holstein.Identification types – 68% of all cattlesurveyed had back tags. 60% of all cattle, 66%of dairy cows, and 44% of dairy bulls had visualidentification tags. Metal clips were used to identify45% of all cattle, 37% of dairy cows, and 16% ofdairy bulls. 8% of all cattle, 8% of dairy cows, and20% of dairy bulls had no identification.Mud/manure -- 57% of all cattle had someamount of mud/manure with 51% of mud/manurelocated on the legs.All cattle improved from only 6% with no mud/manure in 1999 to 43% with no mud/manure in2007.Brands -- 76% of all cattle surveyed during the2007 audit had no brand, an improvement from1999’s 54%.Horns -- There was an increase in thepercentage of polled animals since the 1999 audit,from 77% to 83%.Frequency Distribution of Udder Defects in Cows10090807060504030201007690No Udder DefectsDairy CowsBeef Cows2411Udder Defects Present6 National Market Cow and Bull Beef Quality Audit

Holding Pen Audits – Part 2Key points:97% of the cattle had no evidence of cancer eye, animprovement over 1999 and 1994.Dairy cattle had more knots in the neck andshoulder than in beef cows, with more observedin the shoulder than the neck, an indication thatproducers need to observe labeling instructions forinjectable animal-health products.There was a higher incidence of lame dairy cows in2007 than in 1999 and 1994.Fewer cattle had light muscle scores than in 1999.More dairy cows were in leaner condition than in1999.Cancer eye -- 97% of all cattle had no evidence ofcancer eye. Cancer eye has been on a downward trendsince 1994, dropping from an incident rate of 8.5% in1994 to 4% in 1999 100and 3% in 2007.Visible knots – 92.1% of all cattle surveyed1994901999had no visible knots. When visible knots were present8020072.6% were in the neck, 4.6% in the shoulder, 0.2% inthe top butt, and 0.50% 7069in the 70 round. 85.8% of dairycows and 91.1% of dairy bulls had no sign 6160of knotsin the neck and shoulder. 4.3% of dairy cows and 511.5% of dairy bulls 50 had knots in the neck area. 8.8%of dairy cows and 6.7% 40 of dairy bulls had shoulderknots. The incidence of knots in the round area in dairy30cows decreased from 4.2% in 1999 to 0.7% in 2007.Incidence of knots 20 in the shoulder area of dairy cowsrose sharply from 0.6% 10 in 1999 to 8.8% in 2007.Frequency Distribution of Cattle withNo Evidence of Lameness Across all Audits1009080706050403020100Dairy Cows are More Lame than in 199969 70Frequency Distribution of Cattle withNo Evidence of Lameness Across all Audits07761Dairy Cows are More Lame than in 19995119941999200777767871All Cattle Dairy Cows Dairy Bulls“The higher incidence of shoulder knots indicatesa need for continued education,” says Texas A&M’sDr. Jeff Savell. “These knots are likely the result ofintramuscular injections of animal health productsinstead of the recommended subcutaneous injectionsin the neck area.”Lameness – 70% of all cattle, 51% of dairy cows,and 78% of dairy bulls showed no sign of lameness.4% of all cattle received scores of 4 and 5, qualifyingthese animals as very disabled.At 49%, more dairy cows were lame in 2007 thanthe 39% in the 1999 audit and the 23% in the 1994audit.Dairy bull figures were slightly improved. In 200722% of dairy bulls were lame, compared to 29% in1999 and 24% in 1994.Muscling – 21% of all cattle audited wereinadequately muscled. There were fewer light-muscleddairy cows in 2007 than in 1999. In the 1999 audit72% of dairy cows came in with a muscle score of 1 or2. In 2007 that number fell to 35%,78 Body condition score – Dairy cattle were scoredfrom 71 1, severely emaciated, to 5,76All Cattle Dairy Cows Dairy Bullsseverely over conditioned.63% of dairy cattle hadbody condition scores of 2.5and lower.100Point ofImprovementAdminister animal-healthproducts in the neck, anddo so subcutaneouslywhen the label allows.Dairy Cattle Edition 790807060504030201006Frequency Distribution of Body ConditionScores for Dairy CattleApproximately 63% of Dairy Cows are BCS 2.5 and Lower2Dairy CowsDairy Bulls162Frequency Distribution of Body Condition1952210211 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 52311236252813

Point ofImprovementFollow theguidelines for animalcare and handling.Harvest Floor AuditKey points:Fewer cows had bruises than in 1994 and 1999.Overall 94% of the cattle had no evidence ofinjection sites.Dairy cattle had more visible injection-siteblemishes than beef cows (11% versus 2%).Fewer arthritic joints than in 1999.No buckshot/bird shot was observed during the2007 audit, an improvement over 1999.More heads and livers were condemned than in1999.Fewer cows were pregnant at harvest than in1999.Dentition – 11.2% of allcattle and 5.7% of dairy cows had8 extremely worn adult incisors(classified as gummers). 58% ofall bulls and cows had 8 adultincisors. Dairy cattle came in at63% with 8 adult incisors.Bruises – The 2007 auditfound fewer carcasses withbruises than in the 1994 and1999 audits. The highest incidence of bruisingin dairy cow carcasses was in the round at 14%,followed by 10% FPB, 6% loin, 3% rib, and 2% chuck.Dairy bull carcass bruising figures were 19% round,7% FPB, 8% loin, 0% rib and 3% chuck.Injection-site lesions – Overall, 94% ofcarcasses showed no evidence of injection sitelesions. 89% of dairy cow carcasses had no lesionsand 99% of dairy bulls had no lesions, but dairycows had more injection-site lesions than any othergender/cattle types. 2% of all carcasses had minorinjection site lesions that resulted in trims of lessthan one pound per bruise site. 3% of dairy cowsand 1% of dairy bulls had minor lesions. 4% of dairycows had medium injections site lesions, (betweenthe size of a golf ball and a softball), 3% hadmajor lesions (larger than a softball and requiringsubstantial trim per bruise site), and 2% had extremelesions (resulting in a trim area nearly the size of anentire primal).Arthritic joints – 89% of all carcasses in 1999had no arthritic joints removed. This figure wasimproved to 94% of carcasses in 2007. 93% of dairycow carcasses and 92% of dairy bull carcasses hadno arthritic joints removed. 2% of dairy cows and 3%of dairy bulls had 2 arthritic joints removed.Buckshot/grubs -- 100% of carcasses auditedin 2007 were buckshot-free. 99.95% of carcasseswere free of grubs.Offal condemnation -- More offal wascondemned in 2007 than in 1999. 31% of liverswere condemned in 1994, 24% in 1999, and 45%in 2007. Of the 45% of rejected livers, 14% wereabscessed, 7% were contaminated, 6% had flukes,5% had T-lang, and 14% were rejected for “other”reasons.Whole carcass condemnations -- In 2007,when carcasses/animals were condemned, 0.3%were condemned antemortem and 0.8% werecondemned postmortem. No carcasses werecondemned due to bruises in 2007.Pregnancy - 11% of all cows were pregnant atharvest in 2007, down from 12% in 1999, and 28%in 1994. Dairy cows had an 11% pregnancy rate.Bruising Severity Frequency Distribution%All Cattle1999 - 11.8% No Bruises2007 - 36.6% No Bruises80706050403020100Cows207754524237 373112122 5None Minor Medium Major Extreme311994199922 200780706050403020100Bulls6447472544322017 207127199419992007None Minor Medium Major Extreme188 National Market Cow and Bull Beef Quality Audit

Cooler AuditsKey points:Cow and bull carcasses were heavier than in 1999.Cow and bull carcasses had a lower fat thicknessthan in 1999.Majority of cows had a muscle score of 1 or 2.More cow carcasses had the more desirable fat colorscores of 1 and 2 than in the previous two audits.Carcass weight – Cow and bull carcasses wereheavier in 2007 than in 1999. In 1999, cow carcassesaveraged 540.5 lbs. and bull carcasses averaged858.5 lbs.In 2007, dairy cow carcasses averaged 648.8pounds and dairy bull carcasses averaged 927.9pounds21% of all carcasses were less than 500 lbs. and7% of all carcasses were too heavy (more than 1,000lbs.) compared to the 46% that were too light and the27% that were too heavy in 1999. 19% of dairy cowcarcasses were too light, and 4% were too heavy. 2% ofdairy bull carcasses were too light, and 36% were tooheavy.Fat thickness - Fat thickness for all carcassesaveraged 0.22 inches in 2007, lower than the 0.37inches measured in 1999.Ribeye area – Ribeye area averaged 10-squareinches. Ribeye area/cwt. of carcass averaged 1.54.Marbling – 3% of carcasses were devoid ofmarbling.Lean maturity – 27% of all carcasses werescored as C maturity for lean. 24% of dairy cowcarcasses and 71% of dairy bull carcasses wereclassified as C lean maturity. In 1999 33% of cowcarcasses were D lean maturity.Skeletal maturity – 16% of all carcasses, 14% ofdairy cow carcasses, and 15% of dairy bull carcasseswere D maturity. In 1999 cow carcasses averaged E -and bull carcasses averaged D o.Overall maturity – 39% of all carcasses, 44% ofdairy cow carcasses, and 29% of dairy bull carcasseswere graded as D overall maturity.Quality grade -- 44% of all carcasses gradedutility. 29% of all carcasses and 20% of dairy cowcarcasses graded as cutters. 8% of all carcasses and4% of dairy cow carcasses graded as canners. 0.2% ofthe carcasses audited graded prime.Muscling scores - The majority of dairy cowcarcasses had a muscle score of 1 or 2, with anaverage for all cattle of 2.06. In1999 cow carcasses averagedPoint ofImprovement1.6 and bulls averaged 3.5.Fat scores -- Morecarcasses audited in 2007had fat color scores of 1 and2 (whiter color). The 2007average score was 2.7. Theaverage fat color score in 1999was 3.8 for cow carcasses and2.5 for bull carcasses.Yield grade -- The average yield grade was 2.6in this year’s audit. Cow carcasses in the 1999 auditaveraged a 2.4 yield grade.Market your cattle beforethey become too thin ortoo lame for transport.Dairy Cattle Edition 9

Point ofImprovementMaintain record-keepingsystems to verify your“Best’ managementpractices and reduceor eliminate potentialfor liability surroundingissues of food safety.Fabrication Audit –Key point:A significant portion of beef cuts from cow andbull carcasses are used as whole muscle cutsand lean strips of meat.The round, sirloin and chuck from cows and bullsare being sold as lean trim for primal-specificground beef programs.Average percentage of products produced-- The 2007 audit found on average,during one full production day,11% of the products producedwere forequarter cuts, 28% werehindquarter cuts, 1% were FPB, and58% were trim. With the exceptionof tenderloins, most hindquartersubprimals were 100% lean andlikely used for grinding.Subprimals -- Of plants thatsubmitted information aboutfabricating subprimal cuts fromprimal regions of cow and bullcarcasses, 100% fabricated rib cuts,100% fabricated loin, 85.7% round,85.7% flank, 57.1% chuck, and 21.6%brisket.Plant production by product – The 2007audit noted an increase in the production costs ofmost cuts since 1999.Table X% of Plants that Produce Each ItemProduct 1999 % 2007 %Ribeye 74 100Tenderloin 79 100Knuckle 37 86Flank 74 86Inside Round 42 79Strip Loin 68 71Top Sirloin Butt 5 71Chuck Tender 16 57Eye of Round 42 57Bottom Round 37 50Chuck Roll 16 28.6Bottom Sirloin Flap 21 28.6Brisket 21 21Shortloin 32 14Clod 16 14Tri-Tip 11 14Traceability audits – 2% of carcasses wereselected randomly to determine whether the animalcould be traced back to the ranch/farm.Plant information such as back tags, bangs tags,and owner information were used for this process.Auction barns, USDA offices, and actual owners werecontacted to identify the point of origin for eachanimal.64% of all cattle and 56% of dairy cattle weretraced back to their original owner. 19% of all cattleand 22% of dairy cattle were traced back to theauction barn. 13% of all cattle and 16% of all dairycattle were traced back to the cattle dealer/trader.5% of all cattle and 7% of all dairy cattle could not betraced back past the packing plant.10 National Market Cow and Bull Beef Quality Audit

Phase II – The InterviewsInterviews were conducted with one packer andone Food Safety and Inspection Service employee ateach packing plant. The interviews consisted of freeresponse and aided questionnaires and were used todetermine improvements and declines in the quality ofcattle since the 1999 audit.Packing plant and FSIS representativesinterviewed, acknowledged that the downer ruleinstituted by the United States Department ofAgriculture’s Food Safety and Inspection Service hasled to several improvements in beef cattle quality.Packing plant representatives noted a decrease inthe number of downer, dead and moribund cattle, andfewer instances of inadequate space on trailers andincorrect loading of cattle.FSIS representatives also noticed fewer downer,dead and moribund cattle, and fewer instances ofinadequate space on trailers. Their observationsindicated fewer animals arriving suffering fromadvanced lameness and extreme emaciation.Top quality challenges,1999 versus 20071999 2007BruisesFood safetyAntibiotic residues Animal welfare/handlingBirdshot/buckshotPoor condition/nutritionArthritic jointsAntibiotic residuesYieldBruisesCondition/leannessCondemnation rateHide damageLameness/soundnessCondemnation rate/downersInjection-site prevalenceTop 5 improvements over 1999Herd management techniquesAnimal welfare and handlingHide damageInjection-site locationBruisesPoint ofImprovementRecognize andoptimize the valueof your market cowsand bulls. Cows andbulls comprise asignificant portion ofyour farm or ranch’sincome – so theyneed to be managedand marketed in waysthat add value – notsubtract from it.Dairy Cattle Edition 11

Point ofImprovementEnsure the safety of yourproduct. Cows and bullsmust be free of chemical,pathogenic and physicalhazards when you shipthem for harvest.Phase III – End User Audits –A total of eight end-user audits were conducted.These audits consisted of interviews and lookingfor quality defects in subprimal cuts as they werebeing further processed. Auditors looked at topsirloin center-cuts, and caps, and bottom round flats.They looked for any injection site lesions as well asother defects that cause devaluation.Top 5 cow and bull quality challenges accordingto end users as determined during theinterview process –Product uniformityProduct qualityBuck shotCattle availabilityInjection sitesTop 5 improvements incow/bull subprimals – Endusers said that overall injectionrelateddefects (beef and dairycarcasses) have improved since1999, including a reductionin the incidence of needles,abscesses, injection site lesions,and bruising. They also noted thatthere were fewer incidences ofbuckshot.Declines in cow/bullsubprimals since 1999 – Endusers noted growing concerns overmeat from subprimals that is too light or too dark incolor. Coloration problems were mainly a concern forsteaks cut from top butts.Top sirloin cap defects – When examining thesubprimals as they were being further processed,end-user auditors found that 9.4% of top sirloincaps had injection site blemishes. 90.0% of dairytop sirloin caps had no defects. 8.0% had minordefects, 0.1% had severe defects, and 0.2% werecondemned.Top sirloin center cut defects – 95.8% of allcenter cuts had no defects. 3.8% of center cuts hadinjection-site blemishes.Bottom round defects – 67.0% of all bottomrounds had no defects. 10.4 % had active lesions,15.5 % had woody calluses, 3.6% had fibrous scars,1.0% had bruises, and 2.7% were dark cutters. In1999, 57.5% of dairy flats had defects, compared to59.1% in 2007. 25.3% had minor defects, 1.3% hadsevere defects, and 0.1% were condemned.Conclusions – The Strategy WorkshopRepresentatives of all industry sectorsmet at a strategy workshop to discuss findingsof the audit, and to develop industry-widerecommendations for the improvement of qualitydefects in cows and bulls.Overall, participants agreed, the dairy cattleindustry has made significant quality gains since thelast audit.There has been significant improvement in thereduction of downer cattle.All trailer and truck loads met the American MeatInstitute guidelines for spacing.Less than 1% of the cattle traveled for more than28 hours.Fewer cattle had mud/manure problems than in1999.More cattle were polled than in 1999.“The reduction in the incidence of horns is apositive development because horns can causesubstantial bruising to other animals in pens and ontrucks,” says Lynn Delmore, California PolytechnicState University. “Horns can also result in headcondemnations during postmortem inspectionsbecause they have to be removed to allow the hide tobe removed properly. This exposes the sinus cavity tohair and other foreign materials that violate the zerotolerance standards.”More cattle had no brands than in 1999. Thepresence of brands causes devaluation of hides,particularly if the brand is located on the ribs.92% of the cattle in the 2007 audit had ID(predominantly back tags), so traceability wasimproved.The majority of dairy cattle were Holsteins.97% of the cattle had no evidence of cancer eye(an improvement over 1999 and 1994).More dairy and beef cows were in leanercondition.Fewer cattle had inadequate muscle scores.Fewer cattle had bruises than in 1994 and 1999.This is a positive trend because bruises requiretrimming in varying degrees depending on theseverity of the bruise.Overall 94% of the cattle had no evidence ofinjection-site blemishes, but 11% of dairy cowshad visible injection-site blemishes.Fewer cattle had arthritic joints than in 1999.This is a very positive trend because packersare required to remove all tissue associated witharthritic stifle joints. Fewer arthritic joints equalless trim loss.12 National Market Cow and Bull Beef Quality Audit

No buckshot or birdshot was observed during theaudit, although it is still a packer concern.Fewer cows were pregnant at harvest than in 1999.Cows and bulls were heavier than in 1999.Cows and bulls had a lower fat thickness than in1999.Majority of cows had a muscle score of 1 or 2.More cows had desirable fat color scores of 1 and2 (whiter color) than in 1999 or 1994.Initiatives for Improvement:1) The cattle industry needs to reduce the use ofelectric prods and provide training in low stresscattle management in order to minimize theaggressive use of driving aids when movingcattle off of trailers and when moving cattle to arestrainer or knock box.65% of the plants used the electric prod on morethan 25% of the animals.2) Improvements are needed to lessen the incidenceof cattle slipping when unloading.3) Continued improvement is needed in separatingcattle by gender.4) More knots in the shoulder than in the neckindicates a need for continued education about theproper way to administer animal-health products;most of these products need to be administeredsubcutaneously rather than intramuscularly whenboth routes are approved. Because the NCBAencourages producers to administer products inthe neck, knots in this region are not counted asquality defects.5) More heads and livers were condemned.6) All producers should realize that the animal careguidelines adopted by the National Cattlemen’sBeef Association apply to the handling and care ofall cull animals.CullingDairy producers should market cull cattle in atimely and appropriate manner, long before their cattlebecome too thin or too lame for transport.Culling dates for dairy cattle are often set dueto production level. Culling can be dependent on acertain time in the lactation cycle. Dairy producerswho use the Dairy Records Management System(DRMS) observe the condition of their cattle at calving,first breeding, just past mid-lactation, and at dry-off.Dairy producers should use those opportunities tocoordinate culling with better management practices tomaximize the quality of cull animals.Dairy producers should conduct frequentobservation of their cattle to prevent loss of bodycondition to the point where the animal is emaciated.Sudden changes in body condition are an alert tohealth problems such as twistedstomachs, parasites, andrespiratory infections.Dairy producers needto be aware of the liabilityconnected with selling animalsthat have been exposedto drugs, insecticides andwormers and set marketdates that allow for therecommended withdrawaltime, so that any violativeresidue dissipates before theanimal is marketed.Market dairy cattle witha body condition score below2.5 should be considered fora reconditioning program toincrease muscle and fat depositionprior to marketing. When marketed, these cattle needto possess sufficient soundness for transport and sale.Point ofImprovementContinuously monitorherd health. It’s in yourbest interest to observethe health of your cowherd, and to ensure youmarket cows and bullsbefore they become toocompromised to make thetrip to town.Dairy Cattle Edition 13

Point ofImprovementPrevent quality defects.Things like bruises,injection-site lesions,improperly placedbrands, dark cutters,or cattle that are toothin or too fat, haveinadequate musclingcaused by emaciation– are preventable.Transport and handling of animalsAll persons involved in the handling andtransport of beef and dairy animals should follow theguidelines defined in the Master Cattle Transporterprogram.Judicious use of driving aids such as electricprods (electric prods) is always recommended.Truckers should receive more training.Risk management and informationmanagementDairy producers should maintain recordkeepingsystems to verify their Best Management Practices(BMP). Production records should document theuse of animal health products as well as the animalhusbandry practices that have beenemployed prior to the animals beingmarketed.The result will be a decreasein liability for issues that may occurafter harvest. And, integration ofexisting ID systems will improvetraceability of the product, such asthe integration of tag numbers andvisual animalID tags.Four Primary DirectivesParticipants at the StrategyWorkshop also developedfour primary directives for theimprovement of cow and bull beef.These include:1.) Be proactive to ensure the safety andintegrity of your productConsumer confidence is one of the mostimportant issues facing today’s beef industry.Market cows and bulls must be free of chemicaland physical hazards when they are shipped forharvest. Additionally, both dairy and beef producersmust do their part to reduce the incidence ofpathogens in the beef supply. Producers, by theirefforts alone, cannot eliminate the occurrence ofpathogens in the beef supply. However, they canplay an important role in reducing the incidence ofpathogenic organisms in or on beef by maintainingbiosecurity and cleanliness of animal facilities and bykeeping market cows and bulls as clean as possible.Injectable pharmaceuticals must beadministered using recommended guidelinesregarding location and route of administration,dosage and specified withdrawal time to ensurecattle are free of antibiotic and other violativeresidues. Following proper industry guidelines alsowill minimize the occurrence of injection-site lesionsin whole muscle products entering the beef trade.Producers cannot risk leaving broken needlesin the muscle tissue of cattle that ultimately willenter the human food supply and must develop aprotocol for removing needles should they break-offinto the muscle tissue when treating/vaccinatingcattle. Producers also must be aware of the growingconcern regarding adulteration of beef productswith birdshot and buckshot. Use of shotguns togather cattle must be prohibited. Moreover, efforts ofcattlemen to identify sources of birdshot/buckshotby hunters and others should be intensified.2.) Closely monitor herd health and market cullcattle timely and appropriatelyDiseases and injuries are common in maturecattle and cannot always be prevented or corrected.In such cases, producers must intervene promptlyand appropriately to prevent suffering of afflictedanimals and to maintain product quality and safety.Producers should closely monitor their herdsfor serious conditions such as cancer eye, arthritisand severe structural problems or injuries, lumpjaw, advanced abscesses, chronic illness andemaciation. Euthanasia should be considered fordisposing of “downers” or cattle with advanced orterminal disease conditions. Euthanasia may bemore responsible and humane than transporting anafflicted animal to a processing plant in an effort touse it for human consumption.Producers can reduce marketing lossesassociated with advanced stages of cancer eye byearly detection and correction of the problem. Longterm,cattlemen should consider genetic strategies(such as EPD development or marker-assistedselection) for reducing the occurrence of cancer eyein breeds that are most susceptible to the problem.Finally, the incidence of severe cases of cancer eyewould decrease if producers would refuse to sell,and packers would refuse to buy, cattle that haveadvanced cancer eye lesions.Marketing losses associated with arthritisand the considerable carcass trim loss that resultsfrom removal of arthritic joints also can be reducedby early detection and intervention. Other actionsthat producers may consider include training of allpersonnel to avoid causing injuries to cattle, selection14 National Market Cow and Bull Beef Quality Audit

for structural correctness, and improvement of flooringand housing in production facilities (particularly dairies)to reduce the incidence and severity of arthritic joints.3.) Use appropriate management and handlingpractices to prevent quality defectsA number of quality defects – such as bruises,injection-site lesions, improperly placed brands,dark cutters, cattle that are too thin or too fat, andinadequate muscling caused by emaciation – aremanageable and can be prevented.Producers should implement a quality assuranceprogram and use “best” management and handlingpractices to reduce the incidence of such qualitydefects.Bruising of market cows and bulls represents asignificant source of marketing losses to producers.Producers can reduce the incidence of bruises by notovercrowding cattle in alleyways, chutes and trailers;minimizing the use of prods and whips; selectingagainst wild or temperamental cattle; training peopleat all points in the marketing chain with respect toproper cattle handling techniques; eliminating horns;moving cattle slowly to and from pens; properlydesigning and maintaining facilities; and improvingtransportation methods.4.) Recognize and optimize the value of yourmarket cows and bullsIn 1999, returns from the sale of market cows andbulls represented approximately 16% of total returns tothe average beef cow/calf operation and about 4% oftotal returns for the average dairy operation.Cattle-Fax reported a $36.19/cow profit in 1999.However, without proceeds from the sale of marketcows, the average commercial cow-calf producer wouldhave lost $22.35 per cow in 1999.The perception of many beef and dairy producersis that market cows and bulls are simply culls ratherthan an important food source. However, beef frommarket cows and bulls are widely used in the retail andfood service sectors in a variety of product forms – notjust as ground beef.It is important that producers begin to view theirmarket cows and bulls as valuable contributors tothe beef supply. During the Strategy Workshop, Dr.Bill Mies of Elanco encouraged producers to have thesame mindset when selling market cows and bulls thatthey have when they are trading for a new pickup truck.“Most people will clean up an old pickup truck toadd value to it before trading it in on a newer model,”says Mies. “The same is not true for most producerswhen selling cows and bulls.”Producers should identify opportunities to addvalue to their market cows and bulls.For example, it may be possible to feed cows for ashort period prior to marketing to increase weight andimprove body condition and carcass characteristics.This brief feeding period may also help identifyobviously ill cattle that should be rendered.Moreover, small operators may be able to expandmarketing opportunities by pooling cattle resourcesand forming cooperative marketing agreements.Livestock auction markets can play an integral role inthe development of expanded marketing opportunitiesfor producers.To facilitate implementation of the four directives,participants in the 1999 Strategy Workshop developeda Quality Assurance Marketing code of Ethics for useby cattlemen, dairymen, and packers when it comes tomarketing cows and bulls.QUALITY ASSURANCEMARKETING CODE OF ETHICS1. I will only participate in marketing cattle that:Do not pose a known public health threatHave cleared proper withdrawal timesDo not have a terminal condition (including advancedlymphosarcoma, septicemia, etc.)Are not disabledAre not severely emaciatedDo not have uterine/vaginal prolapses with visiblefetal membraneDo not have advanced eye lesionsDo not have advanced Lumpy Jaw2. Furthermore, I will:Do everything possible to humanely gather, handle andtransport cattle in accordance with accepted animalhusbandry practices.3. Finally, I will:Humanely euthanize cattle when necessary to preventsuffering and to protect public health.If producers fail to adopt a proactive positionconcerning product quality and integrity, the availabilityof antimicrobials and the approval of new animalhealthproducts could be jeopardized, higher costsassociated with residue monitoring systems couldbe incurred, the number of market outlets coulddecrease, and the beef industry could be forced tocomply with an unwieldy and expensive nationalanimal identification system designed and mandatedby regulatory agencies.Dairy Cattle Edition 15

National Cattlemen’s Beef Association9110 East Nichols Avenue, Suite 300Centennial, Colorado 80112303.694.0305