National Beef Quality Audit–2016: Transportation, mobility, live cattle, and carcass assessments of targeted producer-related characteristics that affect value of market cows and bulls, their carcasses, and associated by-products1

Abstract

The National Beef Quality Audit–2016 marks the fourth iteration in a series assessing the quality of live beef and dairy cows and bulls and their carcass counterparts. The objective was to determine the incidence of producer-related defects, and report cattle and carcass traits associated with producer management. Conducted from March through December of 2016, trailers (n = 154), live animals (n = 5,470), hide-on carcasses (n = 5,278), and hide-off hot carcasses (n = 5,510) were surveyed in 18 commercial packing facilities throughout the United States. Cattle were allowed 2.3 m2 of trailer space on average during transit indicating some haulers are adhering to industry handling guidelines for trailer space requirements. Of the mixed gender loads arriving at processing facilities, cows and bulls were not segregated on 64.4% of the trailers surveyed. When assessed for mobility, the greatest majority of cattle surveyed were sound. Since the inception of the quality audit series, beef cows have shown substantial improvements in muscle. Today over 90.0% of dairy cows are too light muscled. The mean body condition score for beef animals was 4.7 and for dairy cows and bulls was 2.6 and 3.3, respectively. Dairy cattle were lighter muscled, yet fatter than the dairy cattle surveyed in 2007. Of cattle surveyed, most did not have horns, nor any visible live animal defects. Unbranded hides were observed on 77.3% of cattle. Carcass bruising was seen on 64.1% of cow carcasses and 42.9% of bull carcasses. However, over half of all bruises were identified to only be minor in severity. Nearly all cattle (98.4%) were free of visible injection-site lesions. Current results suggest improvements have been made in cattle and meat quality in the cow and bull sector. Furthermore, the results provide guidance for continued educational and research efforts for improving market cow and bull beef quality.

Timely Euthanasia in the United States Dairy Industry–Challenges and a Path Forward

“…Often these cows are in a compromised condition and may deteriorate quickly. Several benchmarking studies, described in detail below, have characterized the condition of cull cows arriving at slaughter plants, noting conditions with grave welfare implications for the cow [4,14,15]. We argue that some of these culling decisions should actually be euthanasia decisions.…”

“…We argue that some of these culling decisions should actually be euthanasia decisions. Although the majority of culled cattle arriving at slaughter facilities are in adequate condition and are fit for transport [14], not all culled cattle should be sold into the supply chain. If they are suffering and not fit for transport, producers should elect to euthanize these animals, rather than sell them.…”

“…The journey to slaughter for culled dairy cows is difficult to quantify as the majority of cull cows are transported to an auction market prior to being delivered to a slaughter facility [4]. The 2016 National Beef Quality Audit, a national benchmarking study, indicated that in the study population, the average transport time from the last stop prior to the slaughter plant was 6.7 h [14], but this likely does not represent the total transportation duration. Simply put, these compromised cows represent close to one-half-million bad decisions on the part of dairy farmers, veterinarians, and cattle buyers.…”

From unloading to trimming: studying bruising in individual slaughter cattle

“…Bruises not only impact overall carcass value but also raise concerns about cattle welfare and, therefore, bruising has received considerable interest within the cattle industry. The 2016 National Beef Quality Audit (NBQA) reported a bruise prevalence of 38.8%, 64.1%, and 42.9% for finished steer and heifer, cow, and bull carcasses, respectively ( Eastwood et al, 2017 ; Harris et al, 2017 ). Similarly, in a large commercial study exploring risk factors associated with bruising in the United States, Lee et al (2017) reported that 68.2% of cattle observed were bruised.…”

“…Industry reports have estimated that bruising costs the cattle industry millions of dollars in lost carcass value annually ( Henderson, 2016 ). Although data from the past several NBQAs have indicated general reductions in bruise prevalence, there are still opportunities for improvement ( Eastwood et al, 2017 ; Harris et al, 2017 ). Additionally, the NBQA reported that critical and extreme bruises made up 2.4% and 6.3% of bruises in finished steers and heifers and cull cows and bulls, respectively ( Eastwood et al, 2017 ; Harris et al, 2017 ).…”