2007 Market Cow & Bull Beef Quality Audit

Beef Quality Assurance Mission Maximize consumer confidence in and acceptance of beef by focusing the industry’s attention on beef quality through the use of science, research, and educational initiatives.

National Market Cow and Bull Beef Quality Audit- 2007: A Survey of Producer Related Defects

4 Auditing Phases: Dairy and Beef Packing Plant Audits Interviews End-User Audits Strategy Workshop

Plants/ University

The Packing Plant Audit Process -Audited Areas: 1 Receiving 2 Holding Pen 3 Harvest Floor 4 Cooler 5 Fabrication 6 Traceability

Data Collection Totals -23 Packing Plants: >15,000 head daily / 8 End User Audits -December ’06 – September ’07 -Approximately 5,500 live animals surveyed -Approximately 5,000 carcasses surveyed during harvest -Approximately 3,000 carcasses surveyed while in the coolers

Travel Time and Cattle Capacity Loads Over 28 Hours: 1% All Loads Met AMI Guidelines for Spacing/Head

Hot Shot Usage for Cattle Unloading Fewer Dairy loads driven with a Hot Shot than Beef

Few Moribund and Dead Animals Arriving on Trucks (Downer Rule 2004) Frequency Distribution of Dead/Moribund Cattle

Frequency Distribution of Visible Defects on Cattle Dairy Cows had the Most Frequent Visible Defects

Frequency Distribution of Visible Knots Dairy Cows had more knots in the neck and shoulder than Beef Cows

Frequency Distribution of Cattle with No Evidence of Cancer Eye Across All Audits Bovine Ocular Neoplasia is on a downward trend since 1994

Frequency Distribution of Locomotion Scores Dairy Cows had a greater incidence of Lameness

Frequency Distribution of Body Condition Scores for Beef Animals Beef Bulls are in Better Condition than Cows

Frequency Distribution Bruising % Decreased Bruising Incidence since 1999 and 1994

Carcass Weight Frequency Distribution% Carcass Weights 2007 Beef Cow Dairy Cows Beef Bulls Dairy Bulls Carcass Weights 1999 Cow Avg Bull Avg Cows and Bulls are Heavier than ever before

Avg. Utility 44 Quality Grade Frequency Distribution%

Percent of Plants Fabricating Subprimals from Cows and Bulls Primal Region% of Plants Rib100 Loin100 Round85.7 Flank85.7 Chuck57.1 Brisket14.3 Reported as % of plants that submitted fabrication information

Frequency Distribution of Bottom Round Defects -Dairy Flats had Twice as Many Defects as Beef -30.5% of Flats had Injection Site Blemishes

Market Cows/Bulls Slaughtered Slaughtered (% of total slaughter) Condemned (% of slaughtered) Beef Cow3,147,950 (9.4%)30,814 (1.0%) Dairy Cow2,503,880 (7.5%)79,164 (3.2%) Bull/Stag564,743 (1.7%)1,338 (0.2%) Total Market Cow/Bull 6,215,573 (18.6%)111,316 (1.8%) *Out of 33,502,493 total cattle slaughtered 11/1/06 to 10/31/07. Source: USDA-FSIS

Frequency Distribution of Identification Types Approximately 68% of Cattle had Back Tags

Traceback for Harvested Cattle 64% of All Cattle were Traced back to Original Owner

Top five beef quality improvements in the market cow and bull beef industry since 1999 Quality challenge improvements 1Herd management techniques 2Animal welfare and handling 3Hide damage 4Injection site location 5Bruises Source: NMCBBQA Strategy Workshop, 2007

Top quality challenges facing the market cow and bull beef industry 2007 Quality challenges 1Food safety 2Market availability/Economic issues 3Animal welfare and handling issues 4Poor conditioning/nutrition 5Antibiotic residues 6Bruises 7Hide damage 8Lameness/soundness 9Condemnation rates/downers 10Injection site prevalence and location 1999 Quality Challenge 1Bruises 2Antibiotic Residues 3Birdshot/Buckshot 4Arthritic Joints 5Yield 6Condition/Leanness 7Condemnation Rate **Highlighted = Present in 1999 and 2007 Interviews

Take Home Message!! Recognize and Optimize the value of your market cows and bulls Be proactive to ensure the safety and integrity of your product Use appropriate management and handling practices to prevent quality defects Closely monitor herd health and market cattle in timely and appropriately

Any Questions??? Any Questions???