Relationships between residual feed intake (RFI) and other performance variables were determined using 54 purebred Angus steers. Individual feed intake and BW gain were recorded during a 70-d post-weaning period to calculate RFI. After the 70-d post-weaning test, steers were fed a finishing ration to a similar fat thickness (FT), transported to a commercial facility, and slaughtered. A subsample of carcasses (n = 32) was selected to examine the relationships among RFI, meat quality, and palatability. Steers were categorized into high (> 0.5 SD above the mean; n = 16), medium (mid; +/- 0.5 SD from the mean; n = 21), and low (< 0.5 SD below the mean; n = 17) RFI groups. No differences were detected in ADG, initial BW, and d 71 BW among the high, mid, and low RFI steers. Steers from the high RFI group had a greater DMI (P = 0.004) and feed conversion ratio (FCR; DMI:ADG; P = 0.002) compared with the low RFI steers. Residual feed intake was positively correlated with DMI (r = 0.54; P = 0.003) and FCR (r = 0.42; P = 0.002), but not with initial BW, d 71 BW, d 71 ultrasound FT, initial ultrasound LM area, d 71 ultrasound LM area, or ADG. The FCR was positively correlated with initial BW (r = 0.46; P = 0.0005), d 71 BW (r = 0.34; P = 0.01), and DMI (r = 0.40; P = 0.003) and was negatively correlated with ADG (r = -0.65; P = 0.001). There were no differences among RFI groups for HCW, LM area, FT, KPH, USDA yield grade, marbling score, or quality grade. Reflectance color b* scores of steaks from high RFI steers were greater (P = 0.02) than those from low RFI steers. There was no difference between high and low RFI groups for LM calpastatin activity. Warner-Bratzler shear force and sensory panel tenderness and flavor scores of steaks were similar across RFI groups. Steaks from high RFI steers had lower (P = 0.04) off-flavor scores than those from low RFI steers. Cook loss percentages were greater (P = 0.005) for steaks from low RFI steers than for those from mid RFI steers. These data support current views that RFI is independent of ADG, but is correlated with DMI and FCR. Importantly, the data also support the hypothesis that there is no relationship between RFI and beef quality in purebred Angus steers.

A survey was conducted to quantify incidence of Beef Quality Assurance (BQA)-related defects in market beef and dairy cows and bulls selling at auction during 2 seasons in 2008. Twenty-three BQA-related traits were evaluated by 9 trained personnel during sales at 10 livestock auction markets in Idaho (n = 5; beef and dairy), California, (n = 4; dairy only), and Utah (n = 1; beef and dairy). Overall, 18,949 unique lots (8,213 beef cows, 1,036 beef bulls, 9,177 dairy cows, and 523 dairy bulls,) consisting of 23,479 animals (9,299 beef cows, 1,091 beef bulls, 12,429 dairy cows, and 660 dairy bulls) were evaluated during 125 sales (64 spring, 61 fall) for dairy and 79 sales (40 spring, 39 fall) for beef. The majority of market beef cows and bulls (60.9 and 71.3%, respectively) were predominantly black-hided, and the Holstein hide pattern was observed in 95.4 and 93.6% of market dairy cows and bulls, respectively. Market cattle weighed 548 ± 103.6 kg (beef cows), 751 ± 176.1 kg (beef bulls), 658 ± 129.7 kg (dairy cows), and 731 ± 150.8 kg (dairy bulls). Most beef cows (79.6%) weighed 455 to 726 kg, and most beef bulls (73.8%) weighed 545 to 954 kg, respectively. Among market beef cattle, 16.0% of cows and 14.5% of bulls weighed less than 455 and 545 kg, respectively, and 63.7% of dairy cows and 81.5% of dairy bulls weighed 545 to 817 kg or 545 to 954 kg, respectively. However, 19.5% of dairy cows and 13.1% of dairy bulls weighed less than 545 kg. Mean BCS for beef cattle (9-point scale) was 4.7 ± 1.2 (cows) and 5.3 ± 0.9 (bulls), and for dairy cattle (5-point scale) was 2.6 ± 0.8 (cows) and 2.9 ± 0.6 (bulls). Some 16.5% of beef cows and 4.1% of beef bulls had a BCS of 1 to 3, whereas 34.8% of dairy cows and 10.4% of dairy bulls had a BCS of 2 or less. Emaciation (beef BCS = 1, dairy BCS = 1.0) or near-emaciation (beef BCS = 2, dairy BCS = 1.5) was observed in 13.3% of dairy cows and 3.9% of beef cows. Among beef cattle, 15.1% of cows and 15.4% of bulls were considered lame. In contrast, 44.7% of dairy cows and 26.1% of dairy bulls were lame. Ocular neoplasia (cancer eye) was observed in only 0.6% of beef cows, 0.3% of beef bulls, 0.3% of dairy cows, and 0.0% of dairy bulls. However, among animals with ocular neoplasia, it was cancerous in 34.4% of beef bulls, 48.0% of dairy cows, and 73.3% of beef cows. In conclusion, numerous quality defects are present in market beef and dairy cattle selling at auction in the Western United States, which could influence their value at auction.

In 2004 a mail-in survey was conducted to establish a baseline level of awareness and knowledge related to dairy beef quality assurance (BQA) issues in Idaho. A 30-question survey was mailed to every (n = 736) registered Idaho dairy. Two-hundred seventy-three (37%) dairies participated and were categorized as small (n <201 cows; 53.5%), medium-sized (n = 201 to 1,000 cows; 27.1%) or large (n >1,000 cows; 19.4%). The majority of respondents were dairy owners (83%). Eighty-nine percent of respondents indicated they followed BQA recommendations for animal care. The neck region in cows was used by 68% of respondents for i.m. injections and by 80% for s.c. injections. In calves, the values were 61 and 78%, respectively. Seventy-four percent of respondents indicated they had been trained for injections. Training methods cited included veterinarians (19.8%), dairy owners (16.8%), experience (9.9%), and BQA events or schools (4.5%). The importance of BQA in the dairy industry was rated 2.6 on a 5-point scale (0 = low; 4 = high). Participants rated the effect of dairy animals on the beef industry at 2.5. Plastic ear tags were the preferred method of animal identification, with 100% of large dairies, 97.3% of medium-sized dairies, and 84% of small dairies citing their use. Less than 10% used electronic identification for their animals. Almost half (48%) of large and medium-sized (49%) dairies and 32% of small dairies supported a national animal identification program. A mandatory identification program was supported by 41, 69, and 59% for small, medium-sized, and large dairies, respectively. The percentage of dairies keeping records was similar between small (93%), medium-sized (99%), and large (100%) dairies. Most small dairies (58%) used some form of paper records, whereas most medium-sized (85%) and large (100%) dairies used computers for record keeping. The preferred method to market cull cows by Idaho dairies was the auction market (64%), followed by order buyers (17%), direct to the packer (17%), private treaty sales (16%), and forward contracts (1%). To market calves, dairies used private treaty sales (52%), auction markets (42%), order buyers (14%), and forward contracts (1%). The results of this study will be used by University of Idaho Extension faculty in the design, development, and delivery of dairy BQA program information and materials.

No abstract

No abstract