An experiment was conducted in market dairy cows to determine the effect of feeding time and ractopamine hydrochloride (RAC) on growth performance, carcass characteristics, and end product quality. In 3 replicates, 9 Holstein cows per replicate (n = 27; 659 +/- 25.3 kg initial BW) culled from 3 dairies were randomly assigned to 3 treatments: 1) slaughter immediately (control), 2) feed for 90 d (NoR), or 3) feed for 90 d with RAC (312 mg.cow(-1).d(-1)) for the final 32 d (RAC). On d 0, NoR and RAC cows were placed in individual pens and fed a high concentrate diet (86% concentrate, DM basis) for 90 d before slaughter. All cows were subjectively scored for BCS and locomotion score on d 0, and NoR and RAC cows were evaluated again after 90 d. Individual DMI was recorded daily throughout the trial, and BW was collected every 14 d. Age and age x treatment did not affect (P > 0.05) any of the traits evaluated in this study. When cows fed for 90 d (NoR and RAC combined) were compared with nonfed controls, fed cows had greater (P < 0.001) final BCS, BW and HCW, lower (P < 0.001) final locomotion score, and greater (P < 0.03) dressing percentage, external fat thickness, and marbling score. Fed cows also tended to have more desirable yield grade (P = 0.08), ribeye area (P = 0.11), fat color (P = 0.09), lean maturity (P = 0.06), and quality grade (P = 0.09) compared with control cows. Warner-Bratzler shear force was not affected (P = 0.23) by feeding. However, a 12-member trained sensory panel revealed that fed cow carcasses had more desirable (P < 0.04) tenderness, juiciness, and overall acceptability than control cow carcasses. Flavor intensity also tended (P = 0.10) to be more desirable for fed vs. control cows. No difference (P > 0.10) in off-flavor was detected among treatments. Finally, there was no effect (P > 0.10) of RAC on growth performance, carcass characteristics, or end product quality. In conclusion, feeding a high concentrate diet for 90 d improved important live animal, carcass, and end product characteristics related to the quality and palatability of beef from market dairy cows; however, no effect of RAC supplementation was observed.

No abstract

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.

Relative effects of Beef Quality Assurance (BQA)-related defects in market beef and dairy cows and bulls on selling price at auction was evaluated during 2008. The presence and severity of 23 BQA-related traits were determined during sales in Idaho, California, and Utah. Overall, 18,949 unique lots consisting of 23,479 animals were assessed during 125 dairy sales and 79 beef sales. Mean sale price ± SD (per 45.5 kg) for market beef cows, beef bulls, dairy cows, and dairy bulls was $45.15 ± 9.42, $56.30 ± 9.21, $42.23 ± 12.26, and $55.10 ± 9.07, respectively. When combined, all recorded traits explained 36% of the variation in selling price in beef cows, 35% in beef bulls, 61% in dairy cows, and 56% in dairy bulls. Premiums and discounts were determined in comparison with a "par" or "base" animal. Compared with a base BCS 5 beef cow (on a 9-point beef scale), BCS 1 to 4 cows were discounted (P < 0.0001), whereas premiums (P < 0.05) were estimated for BCS 6 to 8. Compared with a base BCS 3.0 dairy cow (on a 5-point dairy scale), more body condition resulted in a premium (P ≤ 0.001), whereas a less-than-desirable BCS of 2.0 or 2.5 was discounted (P < 0.0001). Emaciated or near-emaciated cows (beef BCS 1 or 2; dairy BCS 1.0 or 1.5) were discounted (P < 0.0001). Compared with base cows weighing 545 to 635 kg, lighter BW beef cows were discounted (P < 0.0001), whereas heavier beef cows received (P < 0.05) a premium. Compared with a base dairy cow weighing 636 to 727 kg, lighter BW cows were discounted (P < 0.0001), whereas heavier cows (727 to 909 kg) received a premium (P < 0.01). Beef and dairy cows with any evidence of lameness were discounted (P < 0.0001). Presence of ocular neoplasia in the precancerous stage discounted (P = 0.05) beef cows and discounted (P < 0.01) dairy cows, whereas at the cancerous stage, it discounted (P < 0.0001) all cows. Hide color influenced (P < 0.0001) selling price in beef cattle but had no effect (P = 0.17) in dairy cows. Animals that were visibly sick were discounted (P < 0.0001). Results suggest that improving BCS and BW, which producers can do at the farm or ranch level, positively affects sale price. Furthermore, animals that are visibly sick or have a defect associated with a possible antibiotic risk will be discounted. Ultimately, animals with minor quality defects should be sold in a timely manner before the defect advances and the discount increases.

To establish the basis for implementation of a producer education program, a social assessment of the willingness and barriers to adoption of a measure of feed efficiency in beef cattle [residual feed intake (RFI)] was conducted. A 35-question mailed survey was sent to 1,888 producers acquired from the stratified random sample of the Idaho Cattle Association member list (n = 488), Red Angus Association of America member list (n = 2,208), and Red Angus Association of America bull buyer list (n = 5,325). The adjusted response rate for the survey was 49.9%. Of the survey respondents, 58.7% were commercial cow/calf producers and 41.3% were seedstock producers or operated a combination seedstock/commercial operation. Commercial operations had an average of 223 ± 17 cows and 13 ± 3 bulls, whereas seedstock herds (including combination herds) had slightly fewer cows (206 ± 24) and more bulls (23 ± 6). Both commercial and seedstock operators indicated that calving ease/birth weight was the most important trait used to evaluate genetic merit of breeding bulls. Only 3.8 and 4.8% of commercial and seedstock producers indicated that feed efficiency was the most important characteristic used for bull selection. Binary logistic regression models were used to predict willingness of seedstock producers to begin collecting data for the calculation of RFI on their bulls, or to predict willingness of commercial producers to begin selecting bulls based on RFI data. In response, 49.1% of commercial producers and 43.6% of seedstock producers indicated they were willing to adopt RFI as a measure of feed efficiency. These data indicate that feed efficiency was one of the traits that producers consider important; those who perceive feed efficiency as important tended to be actively involved in data collection on their herds, underpinning the notion that objective assessment was valued and used by some. Additional data collection in a future social assessment will continue to elaborate the proportion of producers who perceive feed efficiency as an increasingly important decision and management tool for beef production.