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

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

English
16 Pages
Read
Download
Downloading requires you to have access to the YouScribe library
Learn all about the services we offer

Description

ExecutiveSummaryofthe2007National Market Cow and Bull Beef Quality Audit•Recognizeandoptimizecattlevalue•Monitorhealth•Marketcattleinatimelyandappropriatemanner•Preventqualitydefects•Beproactivetoensurebeefsafetyandintegrity Beef Cattle EditionExecutiveSummaryofthe2007National Market Cow and BullBeef Quality AuditConducted byTexasA&MUniversityNorthDakotaStateUniversityCaliforniaPolytechnicStateUniversityPennsylvaniaStateUniversityUniversityofGeorgiaUniversityofFloridaWestTexasA&MUniversity®Coordinated byNationalCattlemen’sBeefAssociation’sBeefQualityAssuranceProgramDecember2007 NationalMarketCowandBullBeefQualityAuditDo the right thing.Ultimately, this is a roadmap to optimize beef quality. Thisdocumentsummarizesanindustry-wideresearch They continue to prefer beef’s flavor to all other effortthatisuniquetoallofU.S.agriculture. productsinthemarketplacetoday,andthey’llcontinue Inthesepages,wetalkopenlyaboutthechallenges tosupportourlivelihoodaslongastheyknowwe’reandopportunitiesourindustryfaces.Wediscussour doing a good job.weaknesses.And,weexplorewherewe’vebeenand Butit’ssomethingwecannevertakeforgranted.wherewe’vemadeprogress. About250millionAmericanswilleatbeef–thebeef Weshareideasonhowwecanworktogether–inour youhelpedproduce–thisweek.ownway ...

Subjects

Informations

Published by
Reads 41
Language English
Report a problem

ExecutiveSummaryofthe2007
National Market Cow and Bull
Beef Quality Audit
•Recognizeandoptimizecattlevalue
•Monitorhealth
•Marketcattleinatimelyandappropriatemanner
•Preventqualitydefects
•Beproactivetoensurebeefsafetyandintegrity Beef Cattle EditionExecutiveSummaryofthe2007
National Market Cow and Bull
Beef Quality Audit
Conducted by
TexasA&MUniversity
NorthDakotaStateUniversity
CaliforniaPolytechnicStateUniversity
PennsylvaniaStateUniversity
UniversityofGeorgia
UniversityofFlorida
WestTexasA&MUniversity
®
Coordinated by
NationalCattlemen’sBeefAssociation’s
BeefQualityAssuranceProgram
December2007
NationalMarketCowandBullBeefQualityAuditDo the right thing.
Ultimately, this is a roadmap to optimize beef quality.
Thisdocumentsummarizesanindustry-wideresearch They continue to prefer beef’s flavor to all other
effortthatisuniquetoallofU.S.agriculture. productsinthemarketplacetoday,andthey’llcontinue
Inthesepages,wetalkopenlyaboutthechallenges tosupportourlivelihoodaslongastheyknowwe’re
andopportunitiesourindustryfaces.Wediscussour doing a good job.
weaknesses.And,weexplorewherewe’vebeenand Butit’ssomethingwecannevertakeforgranted.
wherewe’vemadeprogress. About250millionAmericanswilleatbeef–thebeef
Weshareideasonhowwecanworktogether–inour youhelpedproduce–thisweek.
ownway,onourownfarmsandranches–toimprove And,beefproducedfromcowsandbullshasbecome
beefqualityandthestewardshipofcattle. anincreasinglyimportantfooditeminAmerica’s
Since the first beef quality audits were conducted in kitchensandrestaurants.
theearly1990s,cattleproducerslikeyouhavemoved It’s no longer just fast food hamburgers. It’s roasts,
aggressivelytomakebeefbetter. steaks, fajitas and an endless array of innovative,
Yourecognizequalitymatters. flavorful and value-added food items that are available
Youunderstandthenecessityoffoodsafetyto at just about every restaurant, grocery store and eatery
underpinningbeefdemand. inAmerica.
Yourealizebeefproductiondoesn’tendwhenacow “Beefproducersmuststopthinkingofmarketcows
orabullleavesyourfarmorranch,thatit’sreallya andbullsascullsandstartmanaging,monitoring,and
first, critical step in a complicated journey to the dinner marketingthemastheimportantfoodsourcetheyare,”
platesofAmerica. saysDr.BillHenningofPennsylvaniaStateUniversity.
Youalsorecognizehowconsumershavechangedin “Improvedproductionofcullcowsandbullswillhelp
recentyears. keepupwiththeAmericanconsumer’sloveaffairwith
Theyworrymorethaneverbeforeaboutantibioticsand beefwithoutrelyingonimportedleanmeatforusein
disease. theUS.”
Theywanttoknowtheirsteaksorhamburgersare Andultimately,that’swhatthe2007NationalMarket
producedsafelyandhumanely. CowandBullBeefQualityAuditisallabout.Itprovides
Theyscrutinizeabuseormishandlingoflivestocklike areviewofwherewe’vebeen,asnapshotofwhere
neverbefore. wearetoday,andaroadmapforwherewecanbe
Atthesametime,theytrustus,andtheydemonstrate tomorrow.
thistrustbykeepingbeefatthecenteroftheplate.
BeefCattleEdition Background The 2007 Audit
In 1994, the industry conducted its first audit to Researcherscarriedoutthe2007National
developstrategiesandtacticsforimprovingquality MarketCowandBullBeefQualityAuditbetween
andminimizingeconomiclosses. December2006andSeptember2007.
Theauditdeterminedtheindustryfellshortin Theirgoalwastocompareresultstothe1994
ensuringthequalityofitsproductinanumberof and1999audits,determinehowfartheindustry
importantareas.Theseincluded: has come in addressing previously identified quality
Producersdidnotharvestcowsandbullsina problems,whatareasarestillbelowgrade,andwhat
timelyfashion,waitinginsteaduntilthephysical challengesmightlayahead.
conditionofthecattlehaddeteriorated,resulting
innumerousproblemsdowntheproductionline. The audit was comprised of four phases:
Beefanddairycowshadinadequatemusclingat DuringPhaseI,researchersconductedaudits
harvest. inpackingplantstoidentifyqualitydefectsincows
Toomanymarketcowsweredisabledpriorto andbullsinreceivingareasandholdingpens,andin
harvest. their carcasses on harvest floors and in chill coolers.
Toomanymarketcattleandcarcasseswere Theyalsoauditedpackingplantsforfabricationand
condemned. traceability.
Toomanycarcasseshadexcessivebruises. Thepackingplantphaseoftheauditwasthe
resultoftheworkofover70auditors,including
Theauditconcludedthatmostoftheselosses faculty,staff,andgraduatestudents,aswellas
couldhavebeenreclaimedifproducersmanaged, statebeefcouncilpersonnelandothermembers
monitored,andmarketedtheirherdsmorecloselyto oftheindustryworkingincollaborationwithseven
promotevalueintheircowsandbullsandimprove universities.
thequalityofbeef. Theaudittookplacein23packingplantsin
In1999,asecondauditdeterminedthatthe 11states.Collectively,theseplantsharvestmore
industry had made significant strides in reducing than15,000headperday.Theauditsurveyed
condemnations,thefrequencyof approximately5,500liveanimals,5,000carcasses
disabledcattle,bruising,damage duringharvest,and3,000carcassesinthecoolers.
caused by branding, injection-site InPhaseII,interviewsconsistingoffreePoint of
lesionsandtheoverallcondition responseandaidedquestionnaireswereconductedImprovement ofcattle,butconcludedmuch withtwointervieweesateachplant–onepacker
moreworkneededtobedone andoneFoodSafetyInspectionService(FSIS)Reducetheuseof
tomakebeefbetterandbeef employee.Thepurposeoftheinterviewswastoelectricprodsandother producersmorecompetitive. determineimprovementsanddeclinesinthequality
aggressivedrivingaids ofcattlesincethe1999audit.
whenmovingcattle. InPhaseIII,theauditsconsistedofinterviews
with eight end users, looking specifically at subprimal
defects,topsirloincentercuts,caps,andbottom
round flats. They also looked for injection-site lesions
andotherdefectsthatwouldcausedevaluation.
InPhaseIV,researchers,producers,retailers,
restaurateurs,packers,processorsandgovernment
representationsmetforatwo-dayworkshopto
discussstrategiesandtacticstoensurecontinued
qualityandanimal-handlingimprovements.

NationalMarketCowandBullBeefQualityAuditPhase I – Packing Plant Audits
Duringthisphase,auditorsmonitoredsixareas
at23packingplants:receiving,holdingpens,harvest
floors, coolers, and fabrication rooms. The auditors
alsolookedatthetraceabilityofthecattlebeing
processedbytheseplants.
Receiving Audits
Key points:
Auditorssawthevirtualeliminationofcattlethat
were injured and could not walk when compared to Load sorting -- 65%ofallloadsand56%ofbeef
previousaudits. loadsweresinglegender.35%ofallloadsand44%of
AlltruckandtrailerloadsmetAmericanMeat beefloadsweremulti-gender,ofwhich73%werenot
Institute(AMI)guidelinesforspacing. sortedbygender.
Unnecessaryuseofelectricprodscontinuestobea Cattle unloading --65%ofallcattleloadshadno
cattle-handlingproblemthatneedsimprovement. cattleslip,70%hadnomorethan3%cattleslip,and
Cattleslippingwhilebeingunloadedcanbea 30%hadmorethan3%cattleslip.64%ofbeefloads
problemandneedstobeaddressed. hadnocattleslip,73%hadnomorethan3%cattle
Cattleneedtobeseparatedbygendertoavoid slip,and27%hadmorethan3%ofcattleslip.
injuries. Dead/moribund cattle – Atotalof0.24%loads
hadmoribundcattleand0.04%haddeadcattle.Beef
Auditors evaluated approximately 5,500 live cattleloadscontained0deadofmoribund
animals and 10 percent of trucks during this phase. Electric prod usage for unloading – Electricprods
Theydeterminedthatalltruckandtrailerloads wereusedon22%ofallloadsand32%ofbeefcattle
mettheAMIguidelinesforlivestockspacing. loads.
Overall,cattleloadsaveraged30squarefeetper 13%ofallcattleloadshadelectricprodsusedon
animaland34animalsperload.Beefcattleloads morethan25%oftheanimalsunloaded.
averaged24squarefeetperanimaland38headper 18%ofbeefloadssawelectricprodsusedon
load. morethan25%oftheanimalsunloaded.
Travel – Amongoverallloadnumbers,lessthan Other driving aids used while unloading –15%
1%ofthecattletraveledmorethan28hours. ofbeefloadsexperiencedtheaggressiveuseofthese
Allcattlesurveyedweretruckedanaverageof9 otherdrivingaids.Aggressiveuseis
hoursand409miles. defined as making contact with
Beefcattleweretruckedanaverageof9hours theanimalwithdrivingaids Point ofand473miles.Theminimumdistancetraveledby suchassticks,paddles,and
cattleoverallwas22miles. Improvementwhips.
Theminimumdistancetraveledforbeefcattlewas Electric prod usage
60miles. Improvefootingsocattlewhile moving cattle to the
Themaximumdistancetraveledforbeefcattle don’t slip and injure restrainer – 83%ofallplants
was1050miles. usedelectricprodsformoving themselves.
Trailers -- 64%ofbeefloadsarrivedontractor cattletotherestrainer.65%
trailers,while36%cameinongooseneck/bumper usedelectriccattleprodsons, with the same figures applying to all morethan25%oftheircattle.
cattleloads.14%ofbeefloadstravelingintractor- Other driving aids used when moving cattle to
trailerscontainedcattleinthedoghouse(therear the restrainer -- 39%ofplantsauditedshowedthe
compartmentofpotbellytrailers),comparedto16%of aggressiveuseofdrivingaidswhenmovingcattleto
overallloads. therestrainer.Employeefatigueincreasedaggressive
handling.
BeefCattleEdition 54
52
31
02
87
76 2
64
25
2200
77
Reproductive defects –CowssurveyedhadaHolding Pen Audits – Part 1
0.23%incidenceofvaginalprolapsesand0.31%Key points:
incidenceofretainedplacentas.4.08%ofbullshad Fewercattlehadmud/manureproblemsthanin
brokenpenises.1999.
Hide colors – 44.2%ofbeefcowsand52.3% Morecattlewerepolledthanin1999.
ofbeefbullshadblackhides.Thesecond-most Fewercattlehadbrandsthanin1999.
prevalenthidecolorwasred.32.3%ofbeefcows 92% of the cattle had some form of identification.
and28.6%ofbeefbullshadredhides. Prevalentcolorforbeefcattlewasblack.
Identification types – 68%ofallcattlesurveyed
hadbacktags.60%ofallcattle,57%ofbeefcows,Visible defects – 69%ofall
and 42% of beef bulls had visual identification tags. Point of cattlehadnovisibledefects.72%
Metalclipswereusedtoidentify45%ofallcattle,ofbeefcowsand76%ofbeefImprovement 55%ofbeefcows,and33%ofbeefbulls.8%ofallbullshadnovisibledefects.
cattle,6%ofbeefcows,and14%ofbeefbullshadAbscesses and lumpy jaw Whentransporting
no identification.– 0.39%ofcattlehadabscessesseparatecattlebygender Mud/manure --57%ofallcattlehadsomeof the jaw/tooth compared with to avoid injury or bruising amountofmud/manurewith51%ofmud/manure1%ofallcattleinthe1999audit.
locatedonthelegs.tolivestock. 1%ofallcattlesurveyedhad
Allcattleimprovedfromonly6%withnomud/abscessesoftheknee/hock,
manurein1999to43%withnomud/manureindownfrom2%in1999.
2007.Asin1999,0%ofbeefcowsand1%ofbeef
Brands --76%ofallcattlesurveyedduringthebullshadknee/hockabscesses.0.59%ofallcattle,
2007audithadnobrand,animprovementfrombeef cows, and beef bulls had lumpy jaw, the same
1999’s54%.ratesseenin1999.
Horns --TherewasanincreaseintheUdder defects – 83.9%ofallcowsauditedhad
percentageofpolledanimalssincethe1999audit,noudderdefects,while89.5%ofallbeefcowswere
from77%to83%.freeofudderdefects.
Frequency Distribution of No Mud/Manure for
1999 vs. 2007
100
8800 Bulls90
No Mud/Manure 119999447080
1999 1199999970
2007 60 2200007760
50 5500 447745 43 4743 41 4444
40 37
4030
332220
30
10
2200
22000 17
All Cattle Beef Cows Dairy Cows Beef Bulls Dairy Bulls
12
10 887
11 NationalMarketCowandBullBeefQualityAudit0
None MMiinnoorr MMeeddiiuumm MMaajjoorr EExxttrreemmee
Frequency Distribution of Cattle that
88 00were Not Lame - Across all Audits 7 7 Cows
11999944 11999944100 77 00
1199999989 1199999990
84 66 0022000077 78 2200007780 77 7673 73 7169 55 0070
64
61
4 260
44 00
33 7751 3 7
50
3 1
33 00
40
2 2
30 22 00
1 21 220
11 00
510
2
000 NoneNone MMiinnoorr MMediuediumm MMajorajor ExtremExtremeeBeef Cows Dairy Cows Beef Bulls Dairy Bulls54
52
31
20
8776 2
6644
25
2200
77
Frequency Distribution of No Mud/Manure for
1999 vs. 2007
100
8800 Bulls90
No Mud/Manure 1199994480 7700
1999 1199999970
2007 6600 2200007760
50 45 5500 447743 4743 41 4444
40 37
440030
332220
3300
10
2200
0 20 17All Cattle Beef Cows Dairy Cows Beef Bulls Dairy Bulls
12
8810 7
11
00
NNoonnee MMiinnoorr MMeeddiiuumm MMaajjoorr EExxttrreemmee
Holding Pen Audits – Part 2 Frequency Distribution of Cattle that
Key points: were Not Lame - Across all Audits 8 0 7 7 Cows 97%ofthecattlehadnoevidenceofcancereye,an
1994100 11999944improvementover1999and1994. 7 0
1199999989 Moreknotswereobservedintheshoulderthanthe 1199999990
84 6 0neck,anindicationthatproducersneedtoobserve 2007 220000777880 77 76
73 73labeling instructions for injectable animal-health 7169 5 070products. 64
61 4 2
60 Fewerbeefcowswerelamethanin1999. 4 0
33 7751 3 7 Morebeefcowswereinleanerconditionthanin 50
3 11999. 3 0
40
Fewercattlehadlightmusclescoresthanin1999. 2 2
30 2 0
1 21 220Cancer eye -- 97%ofallcattlehadnoevidenceof
1 0
5cancereye.Cancereyehasbeenonadownwardtrend 10
2
since1994,droppingfromanincidentrateof8.5%in 0
0 NoneNone MMiinnoorr MMediuediumm MMajorajor ExtremExtremeeBeef Cows Dairy Cows Beef Bulls Dairy Bulls1994to4%in1999and3%in2007.
Visible knots – 92.1%ofallcattlesurveyedhad Muscling – 21%ofallcattleauditedwerenovisibleknots.Whenvisibleknotswerepresent, inadequatelymuscled.Therewerefewerlight-muscled2.6%wereintheneck,4.6%intheshoulder,0.2%in beefcowsin2007thanin1999.Inthe1999auditthetopbutt,and0.50%intheround.95.7%ofbeef 44%ofbeefcowscameinwithamusclescoreof1.Incowsand98.7%ofbeefbullshadnosignofknots. 2007thatnumberfellto14%,1.8%ofbeefcowsand0%ofbeefbullshadknots Body condition score intheneckarea.2.1%ofbeefcowshadshoulder – Cattlewereevaluatedusingknotsand1.0%ofbeefbullshadshoulderknots.The Point ofthenine-pointbodyconditionincidenceofknotsintheroundareainbeefcowsheld scoring(BCS)system.Ascore Improvementsteadybetweenthe1999auditandthe2007auditat of1meanstheanimalis0.3%,butknotsintheshoulderareaofbeefcowsrose Administeranimal-healthseverelyemaciated.Ascoreof9from0.3%in1999to2.1%in2007. indicatesobesity. productsintheneck,and“Thehigherincidenceofshoulderknotsindicates 2007foundbeefbullsin dososubcutaneouslyaneedforcontinuededucation,”saysTexasA&M’s betterconditionthanbeefcows. whenlabelallowsDr.JeffSavell.“Theseknotsarelikelytheresultof 95%ofbullsand86%ofcowsintramuscular injections of animal health products earnedascorebetween3and7.instead of the recommended subcutaneous injections Overalltherewerefewerintheneckarea.” moderatelyconditionedbeefbullsandcows(scoringLameness –70%ofallcattle,84%ofbeefcows, 5)sincethe1999audit.22%ofbeefcowshadabodyand69%ofbeefbullsshowednosignoflameness. conditionscoreof5in1994,then31%in1999,and4%ofallcattlereceivedscoresof4and5,considering now21%in2007.Thepercentageofbeefbullsscoringtheseanimalsasverydisabled. 5forbodyconditionrangedfrom42%in1994,to54%At16%,fewerbeefcowswerelamein2007than in1999,to29%in2007.the27%inthe1999audit,butmorethanthe11%in
the1994audit.
Similarly,therewerefewerlamebeefbullsin2007
(31%)thanin1999(36%),butmorethanthe27%
foundlameinthe1994audit.
BeefCattleEdition 54
52
31
20
54
52
31
20
87
76 2
8776 2
64
25
2200
7
64
25
220
7
lesions. 2% of all carcasses had minor injection-site Harvest Floor Audit
lesionsthatresultedintrimsoflessthanonepoundKey points:
perbruisesite.1%ofbeefcowsandbullshadminor Nobuckshot/birdshotwasobservedduringthe
lesions.2007audit,animprovementover1999.
Arthritic joints – 89%ofallcarcassesin1999 Fewercowshadbruisesthanin1994and1999.
had no arthritic joints removed. This figure was Overall,94%ofthecattlehadnovisualevidence
improvedto94%in2007ofcarcasses.95%ofbeefof injection-site lesions.
cowcarcassesand91%ofbeefbullcarcasseshad Fewer arthritic joints than in 1999
no arthritic joints removed. 0.3% beef cow carcasses Moreheadsandliverswerecondemnedthanin
had 2 arved.1999.
Buckshot/grubs --100%ofcarcassesauditedFrequency Distribution of No Mud/Manure for Fewercowswerepregnantatharvestthanin
in2007werebuckshot-free.99.95%ofcarcasses1999.1999 vs. 2007 werefreeofgrubs.
100 Offal condemnation --Moreoffalwas80Dentition – 11.2%ofall BullsPoint of condemnedin2007thanin1999.31%oflivers90 cattleand17%ofbeefcowshadNo Mud/Manure 1994werecondemnedin1994,24%in1999,and45%80 Improvement 708extremelywornadultincisors
in 2007. Of the 45% of rejected livers, 14% were 1999 1999(classified as gummers). 58% of 70 abscessed, 7% were contaminated, 6% had flukes, FollowtheNCBA2007 6600allbullsandcowshad8adult 2200007760 5% had T-lang, and 14% were rejected for “other” guidelinesforanimal incisors.Beefcattlecameinat
50 reasons.45 50 474343 51%with8adultincisors. 47careandhandling.41 44Whole carcass condemnations --In2007,40 37Bruises – The2007audit
whenmorethan1%ofwholecarcasses/animals40foundfewercarcasseswith30
werecondemned,0.3%werecondemnedbruisesthaninthe1994and1999 3220 antemortemand0.8%were30audits.Thehighestincidenceofbruisinginbeef
10 postmortem.Nocarcasseswerecondemneddueto2200cowcarcasseswasintheroundat14%,followedby
bruisesin2007.0 20 1711.8%FPB,7%loin,2%chuck,and1%rib.BeefbullAll Cattle Beef Cows Dairy Cows Beef Bulls Dairy Bulls Pregnancy - 11%ofallcowswerepregnantat12carcass bruising figures were 14% round, 9% FPB,
10 harvestin2007,downfrom12%in1999,and28% 8 76%loin,2%riband1%chuck.
in1994.BeefcowshadanevensmallerincidenceofInjection-site lesions – Overall,94%of 1
0 pregnancyat10%.carcasses showed no evidence of injection site None Minor Medium Major Extreme
Frequency Distribution of No Mud/Manure for
Frequency Distribution % of Bruising Severity1999 vs. 2007 Frequency Distribution of Cattle that
100
80 8 0were Not Lame - Across all Audits 7 7Bulls Cows90
No Mud/Manure 1994 1994 1994100 70 7 080
19991999 89 1999 19999070
842007 6600 66 002007 200760 78 20077780 7673 73 7150 6947 5 045 43 5070 4743 41 44 64
6140 37 4 2
60
4 040 3 730 51 3 7
50 32 3 120
3 030
4010
2200 2 2
30 2 0200 17All Cattle Beef Cows Dairy Cows Beef Bulls Dairy Bulls
1 212 1 220
1 010 87
510
21
000 None Minor Medium Major ExtremeNone Minor Medium Major ExtremeBeef Cows Dairy Cows Beef Bulls Dairy Bulls
Frequency Distribution of Cattle that
were Not Lame - Across all Audits 8 0 7 7 Cows NationalMarketCowandBullBeefQualityAudit
11999944 1994100 7 0
89 11999999 1199999990
84 66 0022000077 220000777880 77 7673 73 7169 55 0070
6461
4 260
44 00
33 7751 3 7
50
3 1
33 00
40
2 2
30 22 00
1 21 220
11 00
510
2
000 NoneNone MMiinnoorr MMediuediumm MMajorajor ExtremExtremeeBeef Cows Dairy Cows Beef Bulls Dairy BullsSkeletal maturity –16%ofallcarcasses,17%ofCooler Audits
beefcowcarcasses,and26%ofbeefbullcarcassesKey points:
-wereDmaturity.In1999cowcarcassesaveragedE CowsandBullswereheavierthanin1999
o.andbullcarcassesaveragedD Cowsandbullshadalowerfatthicknessthanin
Overall maturity –39%ofallcarcasses,38%of1999
beefcowcarcasses,and25%ofbeefbullcarcasses Majority of cows had a muscle score of 1 or 2
weregradedasDoverallmaturity. Morecowshadthemoredesirablefatcolorscores
Quality grade -- 44%ofallcarcassesgradedof1and2thanintheprevioustwoaudits.
utility.29%ofallcarcassesand33%ofbeefcowsCarcass weight –Cowandbullcarcasseswere
carcassesgradedascutters.8%ofallcarcassesandheavierin2007thanin1999.In1999cowcarcasses
11%ofbeefcowcarcassesgradedascanners.0.2%ofaveraged540.5lbs.andbullcarcassesaveraged
thecarcassesauditedgradedprime.858.5lbs.
Muscling scores - The majority of beef cow 2007sawbeefcowcarcassesaveraging634.9
carcasseshadamusclescoreof1or2,withanlbs.andbeefbullcarcassesaveraging873.1lbs.
averageforallcattleof2.06.In1999cowcarcasses21%ofallcarcassesweretoolight(lessthan500
averaged1.6andbullsaveraged3.5.pounds)and7%ofallcarcassesweretooheavy(more
Fat color scores -- Morecarcassesauditedinthan1,000pounds)comparedtothe46%thatwere
2007hadfatcolorscoresof1toolightandthe27%thatweretooheavyin1999.
and2(whitercolor).The200729%ofbeefcowcarcassesweretoolight,and4%
averagescorewas2.7.Theweretooheavy.6%ofbeefbullcarcassesweretoo Point of
averagefatcolorscorein1999light,and19%weretooheavy. Improvementwas3.8forcowcarcassesandFat thickness - Fatthicknessforallcarcasses
2.5forbullcarcasses.averaged.22inchesin2007,lowerthanthe.37inches MarketyourcattlebeforeYield grade -- Theaveragemeasuredin1999.
theybecometoothinoryieldgradewas2.6inthisRibeye area –Ribeyeareaaveraged10-square
toolamefortransport.year’saudit.Cowcarcassesininches.Ribeyearea/cwtofcarcassaveraged1.54.
the1999auditaverageda2.4Lean maturity – 27%ofallcarcasseswerescored
yieldgrade.asCmaturityforlean.26%ofbeefcowcarcassesand
37% of beef bull carcasses were classified as C lean
maturity.In199944%ofcowcarcasseswereDlean.
BeefCattleEdition Fabrication Audits – TableX
Key points: %ofPlantsthatProduceEachItem
A significant portion of the cuts from beef is
Product 1999% 2007%beingusedaswholemusclecutsandleanstrips
ofmeat. Ribeye 74 100
Theround,sirloinandchuckfromcowsandbulls Tenderloin 79 100
are being sold as lean trim for primal specific
Knuckle 37 86groundbeefprograms.
Flank 74 86
Average percentage of products InsideRound 42 79
produced --The2007auditfoundonaverage,during
StripLoin 68 71onefullproductionday,11%ofthe
TopSirloinButt 5 71productsproducedwereforequarter
Point of cuts,28%werehindquartercuts, ChuckTender 16 57
1%wereSPB,and58%weretrim.Improvement EyeofRound 42 57Withtheexceptionoftenderloins,
BottomRound 37 50mosthindquartersubprimalswereMaintainrecord-keeping
100%leanandlikelyusedfor ChuckRoll 16 28.6systemstoverifyyour
grinding.goodmanagement BottomSirloinFlap 21 28.6Subprimals -- Ofplantsthat
practicesandreduce Brisket 21 21submittedinformationabout
oreliminatepotential fabricatingsubprimalcutsfrom Shortloin 32 14
primalregionsofcowandbullforliabilitysurrounding Clod 16 14
carcasses,100%fabricatedribcuts,issuesoffoodsafety. Tri-Tip 11 14100%fabricatedloin,85.7%round,
85.7% flank, 57.1% chuck, and
14.3%brisket.
Traceability audits – 2%ofcarcasseswerePlant production by product – The2007
selectedrandomlytodeterminewhethertheanimalauditnotedanincreaseinthepercentageofplants
couldbetracedbacktotheranch/farm.fabricatingmostcutssince1999.
Plantinformationsuchasbacktags,bangstags,
andownerinfwereusedforthisprocess.
Auction barns, USDA offices, and actual owners were
contactedtoidentifythepointoforiginforeach
animal.
64%ofallcattleand71%ofbeefcattlewere
tracedbacktotheiroriginalowner.19%ofallcattle
and16%ofbeefcattleweretracedbacktothe
auctionbarn.13%ofallcattleand11%ofallbeef
cattleweretracedbacktothecattledealer/trader.
5%ofallcattleand3%ofallbeefcattlecouldnotbe
tracedbackpastthepackingplant.
10 NationalMarketCowandBullBeefQualityAudit