I. Full Project Report - Beef Quality Assurance

I. Full Project Report - Beef Quality Assurance

I. Full Project Report National Beef Quality Audit – 2011: In-plant survey phase Lead Principal Investigator: Jeffrey W. Savell Regents Professor, ...

419KB Sizes 0 Downloads 0 Views

Recommend Documents

cattle care & handling guidelines - Beef Quality Assurance
CATTLE CARE & HANDLING GUIDELINES. FEEDING AND NUTRITION. Diets for all classes of beef cattle should meet the recommend

National BQA Manual - Beef Quality Assurance
Cattle managed using BQA guidelines will be less likely to contain a violative .... For example, the products of a comme

antibiotic stewardship for beef producers - Beef Quality Assurance
A Beef Producers Guide for Judicious Use of Antibiotics in Cattle. 1. Prevent Problems: Emphasize appropriate husbandry

QUALITY ASSURANCE PROJECT PLAN - Washington Stormwater
Washington State University (WSU) is collaborating with the City of Puyallup, Washington and other partners to implement

multi-family third-party quality assurance project - Quality Built
2727 Kirby. Houston, TX. 55 Merrick. Coral Gables, FL. The Legend. San Diego, CA. This information is for the intended r

BQA Supplemental Guidelines 2014.indd - Beef Quality Assurance
Castration of beef cattle is performed in many production systems to reduce ... Methods of castration used in beef cattl

quality assurance report - Caribbean Tourism Organization
Association Criteria “Wellness Hotel” of the Hotel Association of Germany(IAH) ................. 10. 2.2.8. Spa Accr

4. Quality Assurance - helcom
Basic principles of quality assurance are also referred in the HELCOM Monitoring and ... The laboratories providing data

Quality Assurance Auditor - marsqa
8161 Maple Lawn Boulevard, Fulton, Maryland 20759 • (410) 884-9100 • Fax: (410) 884-9122. Quality Assurance Auditor.

quality assurance division - DPHHS
Feb 7, 2017 - Brian Watson. 406-444-2868 [email protected] Bureau Chief, Certification. Todd Boucher. 406-444-2038 Tbouche

I.

Full Project Report

National Beef Quality Audit – 2011: In-plant survey phase Lead Principal Investigator:

Jeffrey W. Savell Regents Professor, E.M. “Manny” Rosenthal Chairholder Department of Animal Science, Texas A&M University 2471 TAMU, College Station, TX 77843-2471 (979 845-3935; Fax: (979) 845-9454; [email protected]

Co-Principal Investigators: Texas A&M University Dan S. Hale Davey B. Griffin Christopher R. Kerth

The Pennsylvania State University Christopher R. Raines Cal Poly State University Robert J. Delmore, Jr.

Colorado State University Keith E. Belk Dale R. Woerner J. Daryl Tatum

USDA-AMS Marty O’Connor Larry Meadows

West Texas A&M University Ty L. Lawrence

USDA-MARC Steven D. Shackelford D. Andrew King Tommy L. Wheeler

Oklahoma State University Deb L. VanOverbeke Gretchen G. Mafi Lead graduate students Russell O. McKeith, Texas A&M University Melanie C. Moore, Texas A&M University Gatlan D. Gray, Texas A&M University Jessica L. Igo, Colorado State University Lee M. Christensen, Cal Poly State University

Funded in part by The Beef Checkoff April 2012

Harvest-Floor Assessment ABSTRACT The National Beef Quality Audit - 2011 was conducted to assess the current status of quality and consistency of US fed steers and heifers. Between May and November 2011, survey teams surveyed approximately 18,000 cattle/carcasses in eight beef processing plants to assess the condition of traits known to impact value. Identification method and frequency were lot visual tags (85.7%), individual visual tags (50.6%), electronic tags (20.1%), metal-clip tags (15.7%), other means (5.3%), none (2.5%), and wattles (0.5%). Hide colors or breed type were black (61.1%), red (12.8%), yellow (8.7%), Holstein (5.5%), brown (5.0%), gray (5.0%), white (1.4%), and brindle (1.0%). Brand frequencies were no brands (55.2%), one (40.4%), two (4.4%), and three or more (0.04%), and brands were located on the butt (33.8%), side (8.6%), and shoulder (2.4%). Hide location and incidence of mud or manure were no mud/manure (49.2%), legs (36.8%), belly (23.7%), side (14.9%), top-line (11.0%), and tail region (13.7%). There were 77.2% of cattle without horns, and the majority of those with horns (71.6%) were between 0 cm and 12.7 cm in length. Permanent incisor number and occurrence were zero (87.3%), one (1.4%), two (8.0%), three (0.9%), four (1.9%), five (0.3%), six (0.2%), seven (0.1%), and eight (0.02%). Most carcasses (77.0%) were not bruised, 18.7% had one bruise, 3.4% had two bruises, 0.6% had three bruises and 0.3% had more than three bruises. Bruise location and incidence were loin (50.1%), rib (21.3%), chuck (13.8%), round (7.3%), and brisket, flank, plate (7.5%). Condemnation item and incidence were whole carcass (none recorded), liver (20.9%), viscera (9.3%), lungs (17.3%), tongue (10.0%), and head (7.2%). When compared to the 2005 NBQA, this audit revealed a higher percentage of black hided cattle (2005, 56.3% vs. 2011, 61.1%), cattle with brands (2005, 38.7%, vs. 2011, 44.8%), and more cattle with some form of identification (2005, 93.3% vs. 2011, 97.5%). In addition, there was a lower percentage of carcasses with bruises (2005, 35.2% vs. 2011 23.0%), and carcasses with more than one bruise (2005, 9.4% vs. 2011, 4.2%). Also, a similar percentage of the cattle were deemed greater than thirty months of age using dentition (2005, 2.7% vs. 2011, 3.3%). This information helps the beef industry measure the progress it has made compared to the past four surveys and provides a benchmark for future educational and research activities. MATERIALS AND METHODS Overview There were eight in-plant surveys conducted (one day of production sampled in each of eight different beef packing plants) throughout the United States between May and December 2011 (Table 1-1). A practice and correlation session was held before data collection began to ensure uniformity and consistency in the observations and measurements taken. During data collection, if a specific packing plant processed cattle during two 8 hr shifts per day, then data were collected during both shifts. Harvest Floor Assessments Fifty percent of the individual production lots were sampled by the survey teams at each packing plant for a total of approximately 18,000 cattle observations. Animal identification was 2

recorded as follows: none, electronic, bar code, individual tag, lot tag, metal clip, wattle, or by other means. Hide color was classified based on primary (>50% total hide surface area) color (black, white, yellow, brindle, red, brown, gray, or Holstein). Incidence of hide brands were recorded based on location – butt (round), side (loin), or shoulder (chuck) – and the approximate size was noted. Cattle were assessed visually for the presence of mud/manure based on location (not visible, legs, belly, side, top-line, or tail region) and the amount (none, small, moderate, large, or extreme). The presence of horns were evaluated visually, and if present, the approximate length (<2.54 cm, 2.54 -12.7 cm, and >12.7 cm) were recorded. Dentition was evaluated by assessing the number of permanent incisors present. Carcasses were assessed for number of bruises (0, 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5), their location (round, loin, rib, chuck, and flank/plate/brisket), and severity (minor, major, critical, or extreme). When observed, the presence of grubs and injection site lesions were noted. Offal (liver, lung, and viscera) and heads and tongues were evaluated for wholesomeness by USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service personnel, and the number and reasons for condemnations were recorded. A lung scoring system was implemented to help segment different severities of pneumonia (Griffin, 2006). The number of heifer carcasses carrying fetuses was evaluated at the viscera table. Statistical Analysis All analyses were performed using JMP® Software (JMP® Pro, Version 9.0.0, SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC 1989-2010). Means, standard deviations, minimum and maximum values for each trait measured were generated using the analyze function of JMP. Frequency distributions were analyzed by using the distribution function of JMP. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Animal Identification Method The animal identification assessment for these audits was first performed and described by NBQA–2005 (Garcia et al., 2008). The percentage of cattle that had some type of identification was 97.5%. This is 4.2 percentage points higher than Garcia et al. (2008). The types and frequency of identification observed in this survey (Table 1-2) were electronic tags (20.1%), individual tags (50.6%), lot tags (85.7%), metal clips (15.7%), wattles (0.5%), and by other means (5.3%). When the percentages are added together they total over 100% because some animals had multiple types of identification. For the carcasses that had identification, number of methods and frequency were one (49.1%), two (27.0%), three (20.9%), four (3.0%), or five (0.01%). This indicates that cattle identification has become more frequent in the cattle industry since the NBQA–2005. Hide Color The hide color assessment has been a part of the previous two audits, NBQA–2000 and NBQA–2005 (McKenna et al., 2002; Garcia et al., 2008), to provide an indication of predominant breeds within the fed steer and heifer populations since hide color is used in many of the USDA-certified beef programs today. The characteristics of hide color can be found in Table 1-3. Of the cattle observed in the audit, 61.1% of the cattle were predominantly black and

3

12.8% were red. The other classifications with significant percentages were yellow (8.7%), the black and white characteristic of Holstein (5.5%), gray (5.0%), brown (5.0%), white (1.4%), spotted (1.1%) brindle (1.0%), Hereford (1.0%), roan (0.3%), and striped (0.3%). Compared to the previous two audits, the percentage of black-hided cattle has dramatically increased from 45.1% reported by McKenna et al. (2002) and 56.3% reported by Garcia et al. (2008). The reason why black-hided cattle continue to increase in the United States is likely due to an increase in the number of branded beef programs that emphasize cattle with Angus heritage from the previous two audits. Hide Brand Assessment The hide brand assessment has been a part of all the previous audits (NBQA–1991, NBQA–1995, NBQA–2000, and NBQA–2005). In data not reported in tabular form, percentages of hide-on carcasses with zero, one, two, or three hot-iron brands were 55.2, 42.2, 4.6, and 0.02, respectively. Of the cattle with brands, 90.1% had one brand, 9.8% had two brands, and only 0.1% had three brands. The location of brands is reported in Table 1-4. Brands were located on the butt (35.2%), side (9.0%), and shoulder (2.5%). Mean hot iron brand sizes were 8.6 in. x 8.6 in. for side brands, 5.6 in. x 5.6 in. for butt brands, and 5.6 in. x 5.6 in. for shoulder brands. Mud or Manure Evaluation For the beef industry mud and manure has been of great concern due to its potential of contaminating the carcass, especially when it is present on the legs and belly of the animal. During the slaughter process, opening the hide can potentially contaminate the carcass inadvertently if proper care is not taken during the removal process. The percentage of animals with no visible mud and/or manure present on the hide was 50.8%. Of those cattle with mud and/or manure, the number and frequency of locations were 1 (6.4%), 2 (61.4%), 3 (26.5%), 4 (4.6%), and 5 (1.2%). The percentages of cattle with mud and/or manure on specific locations were legs (36.8%), belly (23.7%), side (14.9%), tail region (13.7%), and top-line (11.0%). Severity scores of hide-on carcasses with mud and/or manure were none (49.6%), small (41.5%), moderate (8.1%), large (0.8%), and extreme (0.1%). Horn Evaluation Horn prevalence and length has been a part of all the previous audits (NBQA–1991, NBQA–1995, NBQA–2000, and NBQA–2005). Prevalence of horns (Table 1-5) and horn length were evaluated. Of the cattle observed in the audit, 23.8% had horns, which is numerically similar to the frequencies found in the NBQA–2005 (22.3%) reported by Garcia et al. (2008) and NBQA–2000 (22.7%) reported by McKenna et al. (2002). These frequencies were numerically less than those reported for the NBQA–1995 (33.2%) reported by Boleman et al. (1998) and NBQA–1991 (31.1%) reported by Lorenzen et al. (1993). Of the cattle that had horns, 25.4% had horns <2.54 cm in length, 46.14% had horns between 2.54 cm and 12.7 cm in length, and 7.8% had horns >12.7 cm in length.

4

Dentition The dentition assessment (Table 1-6) was implemented as described for the NBQA–2005 (Garcia et al., 2008). Of the cattle observed, 87.3% had zero permanent incisors, which was numerically greater than the 82.2% reported by Garcia et al. (2008). The numbers of permanent incisor and occurrences were 1 (1.4%), 2 (8.0%), 3 (0.9%), 4 (1.9%), 5 (0.3%), 6 (0.2%), 7 (0.1%) and 8 (0.02%). Carcass Bruises The characteristics of carcass bruising can be found in Table 1-7. Of the carcasses observed, 77.0% of the carcasses had no bruises, 18.8% had one bruise, 3.4% had two bruises, 0.6% had three bruises, 0.2% had four bruises, and 0.1% had more than four bruises. A potential rationale for decreased (numerically) bruising from prior audits could be due to the increased attention to animal handling by the livestock and meat industry. Of the carcasses with bruises, 50.1% were located on the loin, 21.3% located on the rib, 13.8% located on the chuck, 7.3% located on the round, and 7.5% located on the flank, plate, or brisket. Bruise severity was also recorded, and of the bruises assessed, 73.4% were classified as minor, 24.5% were classified as major, 0.4% were classified as critical, and 0.2% were classified as extreme. Offal and Carcass Condemnations Incidence rates for offal and carcass condemnations by USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service (Table 1-8) were livers (20.9%), viscera (9.3%), lungs (17.3%), tongue (10.0%), and head (7.2%). Livers were condemned for major abscesses (5.4%), minor abscesses (8.3%), flukes (1.9%), contamination (3.6%), and other reasons (1.7%). Lungs were condemned for pneumonia-mild (6.3%), pneumonia-moderate (4.3%), pneumonia-severe (1.1%), contamination (4.8%), and other reasons (0.9%). Viscera condemnations included abscesses (3.4%) and contamination (5.9%). Heads were condemned for inflamed lymph nodes (0.4%), abscesses (1.0%), contamination (3.9%), and other reasons (1.8%). Tongues were condemned for inflamed lymph nodes (1.3%), hair sores (2.4%), cactus tongue (0.7%), contamination (2.0%), and other reasons (3.5%). The number of cattle observed in this audit that had fetuses was 0.5%. This incidence rate is similar to the NBQA–2005 (Garcia et al., 2008), but was numerically lower than the rates reported by the other audits. Conclusions The NBQA-2011 continues the process of evaluating and updating the information on the various factors that affect the value of the live cattle along with their carcasses and by-products. Some of the trends observed in the 2011-NBQA include more black-hided cattle, more cattle being identified individually, more cattle with no mud and/or manure present on their hides, and fewer carcasses with bruises. From these data, genetic and management decisions are being made by the rancher, stocker, and feedlot personnel that affect the type of cattle that are coming to the market and how proper animal handling protocols are being implemented.

5

Table 1-1. Company and location of surveyed plants Company Location Cargill Meat Solutions Cargill Meat Solutions Creekstone Farms Premium Beef JBS Swift & Company JBS Swift & Company National Beef Packing Company Tyson Fresh Meats Tyson Fresh Meats

Dodge City, KS Schuyler, NE Arkansas City, KS Cactus, TX Greeley, CO Brawley, CA Amarillo, TX Lexington, NE

Table 1-2. Percentages of hide-on carcasses that were individually identified and by what type of identification they were identified by in NBQA–2005 and NBQA–20111 NBQA–2005 NBQA–2011 With identification, % 93.3 97.5 No identification, % 9.7 2.5 Electronic tags, % 3.5 20.1 Barcoded tags, % 0.3 0.0 Individual visual tags, % 38.7 50.6 Lot visual tags, % 63.2 85.7 Metal-clip tags, % 11.8 15.7 Wattles, % 0.0 0.5 Other means, % 2.5 5.3 1 Numbers exceed 100% due to animals having multiple forms of identification.

Table 1-3. Percentages of hide-on carcasses with predominant hide color evaluated in NBQA– 2000, NBQA–2005, and NBQA–2011 Predominant Hide Color NBQA–2000 NBQA–2005 NBQA–2011 Black, % 45.1 56.3 61.1 Red, % 31.0 18.6 12.8 Yellow, % 8.0 4.9 8.7 Holstein (black & white), % 5.7 7.9 5.5 Gray, % 4.0 6.0 5.0 White, % 3.2 2.3 1.4 Brown, % 1.7 3.0 5.0 Brindle, % 1.3 1.0 1.0

6

Table 1-4. Percentages of hot-iron brands on hide-on carcasses evaluated in NBQA–1991, NBQA–1995, NBQA–2000, NBQA–2005, and NBQA–2011 NBQA– NBQA– NBQA– NBQA– NBQA– 1991 1995 2000 2005 2011 No brands, % 55.0 47.7 49.3 62.0 55.2 On the butt, % 29.9 38.7 36.3 26.8 35.2 On the side, % 13.8 16.8 13.7 7.5 9.0 On the shoulder, % 0.8 3.0 3.6 0.0 2.5 Cattle with more than one brand, % 2.1 6.1 4.4 3.7 9.9

Table 1-5. Percentages of hide-on carcasses evaluated for the presence of horns in NBQA–1991, NBQA–1995, NBQA–2000, NBQA–2005, and NBQA–2011 NBQA–1991 NBQA–1995 NBQ –2000 NBQA –2005 NBQA–2011 With horns, % 31.1 32.2 22.7 22.3 23.8 No horns, % 68.9 67.8 77.3 77.7 76.2

Table 1-6. Percentages of the number of permanent incisors evaluated in NBQA–2005 and NBQA–2011 Number of Permanent Incisors NBQA–2005 NBQA–2011 Zero, % 82.2 87.3 One, % 5.2 1.4 Two, % 9.9 8.0 Three, % 0.4 0.9 Four, % 1.2 1.9 Five, % 0.1 0.3 Six, % 0.3 0.2 Seven, % 0.0 0.1 Eight, % 0.7 0.02

7

Table 1-7. Percentages of bruises for carcasses evaluated in NBQA–1991, NBQA–1995, NBQA–2000, NBQA–2005, and NBQA–2011 NBQA– NBQA– NBQA– NBQA– 1991 1995 2000 2005 No bruises, % 60.8 51.6 53.3 64.8 One bruise, % 25.0 30.9 30.9 25.8 Two bruises, % 10.6 12.8 11.4 7.4 Three bruises, % 3.5 3.7 3.5 1.6 Four bruises, % 0.2 0.9 0.8 0.4 More than four bruises, % nd* 0.1 0.1 0.0 Bruised on the round, % Bruised on the loin, % Bruised on the rib, % Bruised on the chuck, % Bruised on the flank/plate/brisket, % *nd = not determined

2.7 23.4 14.4 16.7 0.2

7.2 41.1 20.8 30.8 0.0

14.9 25.0 19.4 28.2 11.6

10.6 32.6 19.5 27.0 10.3

NBQA– 2011 77.0 18.8 3.4 0.6 0.2 0.1 7.3 50.1 21.3 13.8 7.5

Table 1-8. Percentages of offal and carcass condemnations and fetus incidence for carcasses evaluated in NBQA–1991, NBQA–1995, NBQA–2000, NBQA–2005, and NBQA–2011 NBQA– NBQA– NBQA– NBQA– NBQA– 1991 1995 2000 2005 2011 Liver condemnations, % 19.2 22.2 30.3 24.7 20.9 Lung condemnations, % 5.1 5.0 13.8 11.5 17.3 Viscera condemnations, % 3.5 11.0 11.6 11.6 9.3 Head condemnations, % 1.1 0.9 6.2 6.0 7.2 Tongue condemnations, % 2.7 3.8 7.0 9.7 10.0 Whole carcass condemnations, % 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 Fetus incidence, %

0.9

8

1.4

3.8 in heifers

0.6

0.5

LITERATURE CITED Boleman, S. L., S. J. Boleman, W. W. Morgan, D. S. Hale, D. B. Griffin, J. W. Savell, R. P. Ames, M. T. Smith, J. D. Tatum, T. G. Field, G. C. Smith, B. A. Gardner, J. B. Morgan, S. L. Northcutt, H. G. Dolezal, D. R. Gill, and F. K. Ray. 1998. National Beef Quality Audit-1995: Survey of producer-related defects and carcass quality and quantity attributes. J. Anim. Sci. 76: 96-103. Garcia, L. G., K. L. Nicholson, T. W. Hoffman, T. E. Lawrence, D. S. Hale, D. B. Griffin, J. W. Savell, D. L. VanOverbeke, J. B. Morgan, K. E. Belk, T. G. Field, J. A. Scanga, J. D. Tatum, and G. C. Smith. 2008. National Beef Quality Audit-2005: Survey of targeted cattle and carcass characteristics related to quality, quantity, and value of fed steers and heifers. J. Anim. Sci. 86: 3533-3543. Griffin, D. 2006. Beef Quality Assurance and Production Management Monitoring in the Packing House. http://gpvec.unl.edu/files/griffin/B-PIKE(ISU-UNLGPVEC)Downloads/. Accessed 4/2/2012. Lorenzen, C. L., D. S. Hale, D. B. Griffin, J. W. Savell, K. E. Belk, T. L. Frederick, M. F. Miller, T. H. Montgomery, and G. C. Smith. 1993. National Beef Quality Audit: Survey of producer-related defects and carcass quality and quantity attributes. J. Anim. Sci. 71: 1495-1502. McKenna, D. R., D. L. Roeber, P. K. Bates, T. B. Schmidt, D. S. Hale, D. B. Griffin, J. W. Savell, J. C. Brooks, J. B. Morgan, T. H. Montgomery, K. E. Belk, and G. C. Smith. 2002. National Beef Quality Audit-2000: Survey of targeted cattle and carcass characteristics related to quality, quantity, and value of fed steers and heifers. J. Anim. Sci. 80: 1212-1222.

9

Cooler Assessment ABSTRACT The National Beef Quality Audit-2011 assessed the current status of quality and consistency of US fed steers and heifers. Beef carcasses (n = 9,802), representing approximately ten percent of each production lot in 28 beef packing plants, were selected randomly for the survey. Carcass evaluation for the cooler assessment of this study revealed these traits and frequencies: steer (63.7%), heifer (36.2%), cow (0.05%), and bullock (0.05%) sex classes; darkcutters (3.2%); blood splash (0.3%); calloused ribeye (0.05%); yellow fat (0.1%); A (92.8%), B (6.0%), and C or older (1.2%) overall maturities; native (88.3%), dairy-type (9.9%), and Bos indicus (1.8%) estimated breed types; and United States (97.7%), Mexico (1.8%), and Canada (0.5%) country of origin. Certified or marketing program frequencies were: age and source verified (10.7%), A40 (10.0%), Certified Angus Beef® (9.3%), top Choice (4.1%), and nonhormone treated cattle (0.5%), and there were no natural or organic programs observed. Mean USDA yield grade (YG) traits were USDA YG (2.6), HCW (824.6 lbs), adjusted fat thickness (0.51 in.), ribeye area (13.8 in2), and KPH (2.3%). The USDA YG were YG 1 (25.0%), YG 2 (46.5%), YG 3 (23.0%), YG 4 (4.6%), and YG 5 (0.9%). Mean USDA quality grade traits were USDA quality grade (Select93), marbling score (Small40), overall maturity (A59), lean maturity (A54), skeletal maturity (A62). Marbling score distribution was Slightly Abundant or greater (2.3%), Moderate (5.0%), Modest (17.4%), Small (39.9%), Slight (34.4%), and Traces or less (1.1%). This information provides a benchmark and helps to measure progress in the beef industry. MATERIALS AND METHODS General Overview In-plant cooler audits were conducted in twenty-eight federally inspected packing plants throughout the United States selected to represent the major fed beef plants (Table 1). These audits were conducted in May 2011 to February 2012 by personnel from seven collaborating institutions. Plants were surveyed to achieve the equivalent of one day’s production, and both shifts were surveyed in those packing plants that process cattle during two daily shifts. Data were collected between Monday and Friday of a given week. Prior to the beginning of this study, a correlation session was held to ensure consistency of measurements and observations during data collection. Carcass Assessment Beef carcasses representing approximately ten percent (n = 9,802) of each production lot were selected randomly for the survey. Trained personnel evaluated beef carcasses for sex class (steer, heifer, cow or bullock), estimated breed type (native, dairy or Bos indicus), ribeye area (measured by either dot grid, blotting paper or beef camera), hot carcass weight, carcass defects (dark cutter, blood splash, calloused ribeye, yellow fat, etc.), certified or other marketing program, country of origin, and whether the carcass was less than or equal to or greater than 30 months of age. Estimated breed types were classified using the protocol established by Garcia et al. (2008): dairy type carcasses were those in which the conformation and overall muscling were 10

angular and thin in relation to carcass size, Bos indicus type carcasses had dorsal thoracic humps (rhomboideus muscle, overlying muscles, and subcutaneous fat) less than 10.2 cm (4 in), and carcasses with no readily distinguishable characteristics that would classify them as dairy or Bos indicus type were considered as native. Carcasses qualifying for certified or other marketing programs were noted. United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Marketing Service, Meat Grading and Certification Branch personnel evaluated beef carcasses for lean maturity, skeletal maturity, marbling score, adjusted fat thickness, and kidney, pelvic, and heart fat percentage (USDA, 1997). Statistical Analysis All analyses were performed by using JMP® Software (JMP® Pro, Version 9.0.0, SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC 1989-2010) and Microsoft® Excel® for Mac 2011. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Carcass Assessment Means for USDA QG and USDA YG are shown in Table 2-2. The mean USDA QG for the current study was Select93, and the mean USDA YG was 2.6. Means for USDA QG and USDA YG from previous audits were Select86 and 3.2 for NBQA-1991 (Lorenzen et al., 1993), Select79 and 2.8 for NBQA-1995 (Boleman et al., 1998), Select85 and 3.0 for NBQA-2000 (McKenna et al., 2002), and Select90 and 2.9 for NBQA-2005 (Garcia et al., 2008). Frequency distributions of USDA YG by half-grade increments are shown in Figure 2-1. The USDA YG distributions were YG 1 (25.0%), YG 2 (46.5%), YG 3 (23.0%), YG 4 (4.6%), and YG 5 (0.9%). The USDA QG distributions were Prime (2.1%), Choice (58.9%), Select (32.6%), Standard (5.1%), Commercial (0.9%), and Utility (0.3%). The USDA QG distributions from NBQA-2005 (Garcia et al., 2008) were Prime (2.6%), Choice (51.9%), Select (40.2%), Standard (4.4%), Commercial (0.7%), and Utility (0.3%). Marbling scores across and within USDA QG are shown in Table 2-3. McKenna et al. (2002) reported the need to determine the number of carcasses that were Small50 or greater because of the growing number of certified beef programs that include such carcasses. It was found that 41.2% of the carcasses surveyed had marbling scores greater than or equal to Small50, which was numerically greater than that reported (36.6%) by McKenna et al. (2002) and (23.6%) by Garcia et al. (2008). Distributions of carcasses in various combinations of USDA QG and YG are reported in Table 2-4. Carcasses that were Choice and Select, YG 2 and 3 were 64.74%; comparable percentages were 67.2% for NBQA-2005 (Garcia et al., 2008), 70.5% for NBQA-2000 (McKenna et al., 2002), 75.0% for NBQA-1995 (Boleman et al., 1998), and 67.2% for NBQA1991 (Lorenzen et al., 1993). Nonconforming carcasses—QG of Standard and lower and (or) YG 4 and 5—represented 11.1%. Garcia et al. (2008) reported 18.3% of the carcasses in NBQA2005 to be nonconforming. Frequencies of carcass maturities are reported in Table 2-5. Carcasses that were A maturity comprised 92.8% of the carcasses sampled. The Beef Export Verification program for Japan requires that beef carcasses from cattle of unknown chronological ages must be A40 or

11

more youthful in overall maturity. For A-maturity carcasses, 23.2% met this qualification, whereas 76.8% of the carcasses were A50 and older. In data not reported in tabular form, 3.2% of the carcasses were dark cutters. The discounts for dark cutters were one-third grade (1.07%), one-half grade (0.77%), two-thirds grade (0.66%), and full grade (0.69%). Other carcass defects included blood splash (0.3%), calloused ribeye (0.05%), and yellow fat (0.1%). Least squares means for carcass traits within each USDA QG are show in Table 2-6. As QG increased from Standard to Prime, numerical YG and adjusted fat thickness increased (P < 0.05). In contrast, ribeye area and KPH percentage decreased as QG increased from Standard to Prime. Carcass trait means within each USDA YG are displayed in Table 2-7. As USDA YG increased (from YG 1 to YG 5), marbling, QG, adjusted fat thickness, HCW, and KPH percentage also increased, whereas ribeye area decreased. These relationships between carcass traits and USDA YG are similar to those reported by Lorenzen et al. (1993), Boleman et al. (1998), McKenna et al. (2002), and Garcia et al. (2008). Figure 2-4 shows the sex-class distribution of carcasses which were the following; steers (63.47%), heifers (36.37%), cows (0.13%), and bullocks (0.03%). The percentages were close to those reported in the NBQA-2005 (Garcia et al., 2008), which included steers (63.7%), heifers (36.2%), cows (0.05%), and bullocks (0.05%). In data not reported in tabular form, carcass estimated breed types were native type (88.3%), dairy type (9.9%), and B. indicus (1.8%). Frequency distributions were shown in Figure 2-5. The trend seen over time in these surveys is the increasing number of carcasses classified as dairy type. Corresponding percentages from previous audits were 6.9% for NBQA-2000 (McKenna et al., 2002) and 8.3% for NBQA-2005 (Garcia et al., 2008). Carcass traits stratified by sex class are displayed in Table 2-8. Carcasses from steers and heifers had more youthful (P < 0.05) overall maturity scores than carcasses from bullocks and cows. Carcass traits stratified by estimated breed type are reported in Table 2-9. Among breed types, marbling score, HCW, KPH, and ribeye area differed significantly. Dairy-type carcasses had greater (P < 0.05) QG and marbling scores than the other two breed types. Figure 2-6 shows the frequency distribution of carcasses from different country of origins. Those carcasses from the United States were 97.7%, Mexico was 1.8%, and Canada was 0.5%. Figure 2-7 displays the frequency distribution of carcasses identified as eligible for certain certified or marketing programs. Frequencies were as follows: age and source verified (10.7%), A40 (10.0%), Certified Angus Beef® (9.3%), top Choice (4.1%), and non-hormone treated cattle (0.5%). There were no natural or organic programs observed. This is the first time in the history of the National Beef Quality Audits that this information has been obtained. Conclusions The NBQA serves as a benchmark study to measure and report certain producer-related cattle and carcass traits in the US beef industry. Some of the trends observed in the NBQA-2011 included an increase in USDA Prime and Choice carcasses, lower numerical USDA yield grade, increased HCW, increased ribeye area, and more dairy-type carcasses compared with previous audits. Information from this audit adds to the existing knowledge base of the beef industry.

12

Findings will be used to mark the progress that has been made in the industry and pinpoint the areas of improvement for the future. Table 2-1. Company and location of surveyed plants Company AB Foods Washington Beef Cargill Meat Solutions Cargill Meat Solutions Cargill Meat Solutions Cargill Meat Solutions Cargill Meat Solutions Creekstone Farms Greater Omaha Packing Company Harris Ranch Beef Company JBS Green Bay JBS Plainwell JBS Souderton JBS Swift Cactus JBS Swift Grand Island JBS Swift Greeley JBS Swift Hyrum JBS Tolleson National Beef National Beef National Beef Nebraska Beef Sam Kane Beef Processors Tyson Fresh Meats Tyson Fresh Meats Tyson Fresh Meats Tyson Fresh Meats Tyson Fresh Meats Tyson Fresh Meats

Location Toppenish, WA Fort Morgan, CO Schuyler, NE Dodge City, KS Plainview, TX Friona, TX Arkansas City, KS Omaha, NE Selma, CA Green Bay, WI Plainwell, MI Souderton, PA Cactus, TX Grand Island, NE Greeley, CO Hyrum, UT Tolleson, AZ Brawley, CA Dodge City, KS Liberal, KS Omaha, NE Corpus Christi, TX Joslin, IL Finney County, KS Dakota City, NE Lexington, NE Amarillo, TX Pasco, WA

13

Table 2-2. Means, standard deviations, and minimum and maximum values for USDA carcass grade traits Trait USDA yield grade USDA quality grade1 Adjusted fat thickness, in. Hot carcass weight, lbs Ribeye area, in2 Kidney, pelvic, and heart fat, % Marbling score2 Lean maturity3 Skeletal maturity3 Overall maturity3 1

Mean 2.6 693 0.5 824.6 13.8 2.3 440 154 162 159

SD 0.9 61 0.2 102.5 1.8 0.8 98 28 34 29

Minimum ‐0.6 220 ‐0.4 309.5 7.8 0.0 100 110 100 110

Maximum 6.9 887 1.6 1203.0 23.0 5.0 960 550 600 585

100 = Canner00, 400 = Commercial00, 600 = Select00, and 800 = Prime00. 100 = Practically devoid00, 300 = Slight00, 500 = Modest00, 700 = Slightly Abundant00, and 900 = Abundant00. 3 100 = A00 and 500 = E00. 2

14

Table 2-3. Occurrence1 of marbling scores within USDA quality grades2 Marbling score, % Abundant Moderately Abundant Slightly Abundant Moderate Modest Small Slight+ Slight‐ Traces Practically Devoid 1

Overall3 0.03 0.44 1.78 4.99 17.41 39.89 19.51 14.85 1.02 0.08

Prime 1.46 20.49 78.05

Choice 0.09 8.27 28.93 62.71

Select

0.06 0.38 56.20 43.35

Standard 46.73 20.61 11.63 19.59 1.43

Rounding error prevents all categories from adding to 100.0. USDA quality grade was affected by maturity and dark cutting. 3 Overall category represents USDA quality grades of Prime, Choice, Select, Standard, Commercial, Utility, and Cutter. 2

Table 2-4. Percentage distribution1 of carcasses stratified by USDA quality2 and yield grades USDA Yield Grade 1 2 3 4 5

1

Prime 0.04 0.86 0.91 0.31 0.10

Choice 9.40 29.53 16.73 3.48 0.64

Select 13.00 13.92 4.56 0.63 0.09

USDA Quality Grade, % Standard Commercial 1.98 0.11 1.90 0.33 0.69 0.26 0.10 0.09 0.03 0.01

Utility 0.09 0.14 0.04 0.03 0.00

Cutter 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Carcasses with missing values for USDA quality or yield grades are not included. USDA quality grade was affected by maturity and dark-cutting beef, and there were no Canner carcasses observed in the audit. 2

Table 2-5. Characteristics of overall maturity1

1

Overall maturity A B C D E

n 8,901 578 102 6 5

Percentage of sample 92.80 6.03 1.06 0.06 0.05

Mean 153.0 218.0 307.3 444.2 531.0

SD 14.24 20.65 16.12 27.82 39.12

100 = A00, 200 = B00, 300 = C00, 400 = D00, and 500 = E00.

15

Minimum 110 200 300 410 500

Maximum 196 295 370 485 585

Table 2-6. Least squares means for carcass traits (SEM1) within USDA quality grades Trait USDA yield grade USDA quality grade2 Adjusted fat thickness, in. HCW, lbs REA, in2 KPH, % Marbling score3 Lean maturity4 Skeletal maturity4 Overall maturity4 a-d

Prime (n = 205) 3.3a (0.06) 819a (1.59) 0.66a (0.01) 850.0a (7.10) 13.0c (0.13) 2.4a (0.06) 759a (4.04) 151b (1.11) 160b (1.61) 157b (1.28)

USDA quality grade Choice Select (n = 3,121) (n = 5,634) 2.8b 2.2c (0.01) (0.01) 727b 650c (0.30) (0.41) 0.55b 0.45c (0.003) (0.004) 833.1b 808.8c (1.36) (1.83) b 13.6 14.1a (0.02) (0.03) 2.4a 2.2b (0.01) (0.01) b 484 351d (0.77) (1.04) 151b 151b (0.29) (0.39) 159b 154c (0.31) (0.41) 155b 153c (0.24) (0.33)

Means within a row lacking a common superscript letter differ (P < 0.05). SEM is the SE of the least squares means. 2 100 = Canner00, 400 = Commercial00, 600 = Select00, and 800 = Prime00. 3 100 = Practically devoid00, 300 = Slight00, 500 = Modest00, and 700 = Slightly Abundant00. 4 100 = A00 and 500 = E00. 1

16

Standard (n = 490) 2.2c (0.04) 582d (1.03) 0.44c (0.009) 823.9d (4.68) 14.1a (0.08) 1.8c (0.04) 377c (2.61) 201a (0.98) 206a (1.04) 204a (0.83)

Table 2-7. Least squares means for carcass traits (SEM1) within USDA yield grades Trait

1 (n = 2,032) USDA yield grade 1.5e (0.007) USDA quality grade2 665e (1.31) Adjusted fat thickness, 0.33e (0.003) in. HCW, lbs 790.2e (2.13) 2 15.1a REA, in (0.03) KPH, % 1.98e (0.02) 3 387e Marbling score (2.02) 157a Lean maturity4 (0.63) 160a Skeletal maturity4 (0.75) 159a Overall maturity4 (0.64) a-d

USDA yield grade 2 3 (n = 3,787) (n = 1,875) 2.5d 3.4c (0.05) (0.007) 696d 712c (0.95) (1.35) 0.48d 0.64c (0.002) (0.003) 825.5d 856.2c (1.56) (2.22) b 13.7 12.9c (0.03) (0.04) 2.26d 2.52c (0.01) (0.02) d 442 478c (1.48) (2.10) 153b 152b (0.46) (0.65) 160a 162a (0.55) (0.78) 157a 158a (0.46) (0.66)

4 (n = 370) 4.3b (0.02) 720b (3.03) 0.88b (0.007) 884.8b (5.00) 12.3d (0.08) 2.82b (0.04) 506b (4.73) 151b (1.45) 163a (1.74) 158a (1.47)

Means within a row lacking a common superscript letter differ (P < 0.05). SEM is the SE of the least squares means. 2 100 = Canner00, 400 = Commercial00, 600 = Select00, and 800 = Prime00. 3 100 = Practically devoid00, 300 = Slight00, 500 = Modest00, and 700 = Slightly Abundant00. 4 100 = A00 and 500 = E00. 1

17

5 (n = 72) 5.4a (0.04) 738a (6.99) 1.07a (0.02) 923.67a (11.34) 11.3e (0.18) 3.46a (0.08) 555a (10.72) 150b (3.35) 1.58a (3.95) 156a (3.41)

Table 2-8. Least squares means for carcass traits (SEM1) within sex class Trait USDA yield grade USDA quality grade2 Adjusted fat thickness, in. HCW, lbs REA, in2 KPH, % Marbling score3 Lean maturity4 Skeletal maturity4 Overall maturity4 a-d

Sex class Steer (n = 6,171) 2.6a (0.01) 693a (0.79) 0.48b (0.003) 852.7a (1.23) 13.8a (0.02) 2.2a (0.01) 436b (1.25) 154d (0.35) 158c (0.43) 156c (0.36)

Heifer (n = 3,536) 2.6a (0.02) 693a (1.04) 0.56a (0.003) 776.3b (1.62) 13.6b (0.03) 2.4b (0.01) 448a (1.65) 155c (0.46) 169b (0.56) 163b (0.48)

Cow (n = 13) 2.2a (0.26) 562b (16.99) 0.29c (0.06) 792.9b (28.84) 12.1c (0.50) 1.5c (0.21) 488ab (27.13) 232b (7.56) 302a (9.24) 276a (7.78)

Means within a row lacking a common superscript letter differ (P < 0.05). SEM is the SE of the least squares means. 2 100 = Canner00, 400 = Commercial00, 600 = Select00, and 800 = Prime00. 3 100 = Practically devoid00, 300 = Slight00, 500 = Modest00, and 700 = Slightly Abundant00. 4 100 = A00 and 500 = E00. 1

18

Bullock (n = 3) 1.0b (0.50) 571b (43.31) 0.20c (0.12) 880.5ab (55.22) 15.8a (1.04) 0.7c (0.43) 280ab (56.48) 400a (19.27) 177bc (19.24) 275a (19.83)

Table 2-9. Least squares means for carcass traits (SEM1) within estimated breed types Trait USDA yield grade USDA quality grade2 Adjusted fat thickness, in. HCW, lbs REA, in2 KPH, % Marbling score3 Lean maturity4 Skeletal maturity4 Overall maturity4 a-d

Estimated breed type Dairy (n = 876) 2.5a (0.03) 701a (2.13) 0.31c (0.006) 810.7b (3.47) 12.3b (0.06) 2.3b (0.03) 451a (3.30) 154a (0.98) 157b (1.16) 156b (1.00)

Native (n = 7,776) 2.6a (0.01) 692b (0.71) 0.53a (0.002) 827.1a (1.17) 13.9a (0.02) 2.2c (0.009) 440b (1.10) 155a (0.33) 163a (0.39) 160a (0.33)

Means within a row lacking a common superscript letter differ (P < 0.05). SEM is the SE of the least squares means. 2 100 = Canner00, 400 = Commercial00, 600 = Select00, and 800 = Prime00. 3 100 = Practically devoid00, 300 = Slight00, 500 = Modest00, and 700 = Slightly Abundant00. 4 100 = A00 and 500 = E00. 1

19

Bos indicus (n = 159) 2.4b (0.07) 689b (4.90) 0.39b (0.02) 739.0c (8.31) 12.8c (0.14) 2.5a (0.06) 424c (7.68) 152a (2.26) 154b (2.73) 154b (2.31)

25.0

23.1

23.4

Percentage

20.0

15.0

15.0

10.0

15.8

10.0 7.2

5.0

3.3 1.3

0.9

0.0 <1.49 1.50‐1.992.00‐2.492.50‐2.993.00‐3.493.50‐3.994.00‐4.494.50‐4.99 >5.00 USDA Yield Grade

Figure 2-1. Frequency distribution of carcass by one-half yield grade increments from the NBQA-2011.

20

70.0 58.9

60.0

Percentage

50.0 40.0

32.6

30.0 20.0 10.0

5.1

2.1

0.9

0.3

Commercial

Utility

0.0 Prime

Choice

Select Standard USDA Quality Grade

Figure 2-2. Frequency distribution of USDA Quality Grade from the National Beef Quality Audit-2011.

21

18.9

20.0 18.0

16.7

17.6

16.0 Percentage

14.0

12.1

12.0 10.0

7.4

6.8

8.0 6.0 2.0 0.0

3.7

2.9

4.0 0.1

0.3

12.3

1.1

Weight Group (lb)

Figure 2-3. Frequency distribution of carcasses by weight groups from the National Beef Quality Audit-2011.

22

70.00

63.47

60.00

Percentage

50.00 40.00

36.37

30.00 20.00 10.00 0.00 Steer

Heifer

0.13

0.03

Cow

Bullock

Sex Class

Figure 2-4. Frequency distribution of sex class from the National Beef Quality Audit-2011.

23

100.0 90.0

88.3

80.0

Percentage

70.0 60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0

9.9

10.0

1.8

0.0 Native

Dairy Estimated Breed Type

Bos indicus

Figure 2-5. Frequency distribution of estimated breed type from the National Beef Quality Audit-2011.

24

120.0 100.0

97.7

Percentage

80.0 60.0 40.0 20.0 1.8

0.5

Mexico Country of Origin

Canada

0.0 USA

Figure 2-6. Frequency distribution of country of origin from the National Beef Quality Audit2011.

25

12.0 10.0

10.7 10.0

9.3

Percentage

8.0 6.0 4.1

4.0 2.0

0.5 0.0 CAB

Top Choice

NHTC

A40 Programs

0

0

Organic

Natural

ASV

Figure 2-7. Frequency distribution of different certified and marketing programs from the National Beef Quality Audit-2011.

26

80%

74%

70% 61%

Percentage

60%

55%

51%

49%

50%

55%

40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 1974

1991

1995

2000

2005

2011

Year

Figure 2-8. Comparison of percent USDA Prime and Choice from USDA-1974, NBQA-1991, 1995, 2000, 2005, and 2011.

27

LITERATURE CITED Boleman, S. L., S. J. Boleman, W. W. Morgan, D. S. Hale, D. B. Griffin, J. W. Savell, R. P. Ames, M. T. Smith, J. D. Tatum, T. G. Field, G. C. Smith, B. A. Gardner, J. B. Morgan, S. L. Northcutt, H. G. Dolezal, D. R. Gill, and F. K. Ray. 1998. National Beef Quality Audit-1995: Survey of producer-related defects and carcass quality and quantity attributes. J. Anim. Sci. 76: 96-103. Garcia, L. G., K. L. Nicholson, T. W. Hoffman, T. E. Lawrence, D. S. Hale, D. B. Griffin, J. W. Savell, D. L. VanOverbeke, J. B. Morgan, K. E. Belk, T. G. Field, J. A. Scanga, J. D. Tatum, and G. C. Smith. 2008. National Beef Quality Audit-2005: Survey of targeted cattle and carcass characteristics related to quality, quantity, and value of fed steers and heifers. J. Anim. Sci. 86: 3533-3543. Lorenzen, C. L., D. S. Hale, D. B. Griffin, J. W. Savell, K. E. Belk, T. L. Frederick, M. F. Miller, T. H. Montgomery, and G. C. Smith. 1993. National Beef Quality Audit: Survey of producer-related defects and carcass quality and quantity attributes. J. Anim. Sci. 71: 1495-1502. McKenna, D. R., D. L. Roeber, P. K. Bates, T. B. Schmidt, D. S. Hale, D. B. Griffin, J. W. Savell, J. C. Brooks, J. B. Morgan, T. H. Montgomery, K. E. Belk, and G. C. Smith. 2002. National Beef Quality Audit-2000: Survey of targeted cattle and carcass characteristics related to quality, quantity, and value of fed steers and heifers. J. Anim. Sci. 80: 1212-1222. USDA. 1997. United States standards for grades of carcass beef. Accessed Mar. 26, 2012. http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getfile?dDocName=STELDEV3002979.

28

Instrument Grading Assessment ABSTRACT The instrument grading assessment for the National Beef Quality Audit–2011 evaluated the quality attributes and trends seasonally and over the course of the year. Instrument grading data (n = 2,427,074) were collected over a 12-month period (November 2010 through November 2011) from four beef processing corporations, encompassing 17 federally inspected packing plants, to create a “snapshot” of quality attributes and trends with a large quantity of data that could be evaluated on a monthly, quarterly, etc., basis. Data for carcass weight, gender, quality grade, and yield grade groups were obtained from one week’s production, every other month, beginning in November of 2010. Mean USDA yield grade (YG) traits were USDA YG (2.9), HCW (818.5 lbs), adjusted fat thickness (0.47 in.), and ribeye area (13.7 in2) as well as average marbling score (449.6). The USDA YG distribution was YG 1 (15.7%), YG 2 (41.0%), YG 3 (33.8%), YG 4 (8.5%), and YG 5 (0.9%). Carcass weight distribution was <600 lbs (1.6%), 600 lbs to 1000 lbs (95.1%), ≥1000 lbs (3.3%). Month-by-month mean carcass weights were November 2010 (840.6 lbs), January 2011 (828.8 lbs), March 2011 (807.3 lbs), May 2011 (789.0 lbs), July 2011 (821.3 lbs), September 2011 (829.1 lbs), and November 2011 (823.5 lbs). Monthby-month quality grade distribution for Prime, Choice, and Select, respectively, were November 2010 (3.0, 58.3, and 33.9%), January 2011 (2.8, 64.9, and 28.7%), March 2011 (3.1, 64.7, and 27.8%), May (2.3, 62.4, and 31.8%), July 2011 (2.3, 61.7, and 32.3%), September 2011 (2.5, 58.8, and 33.3%), and November 2011 (2.7, 57.7, and 34.3%). The mean fat thickness distribution for each month was were November 2010 (0.51 in.), January 2011 (0.48 in.), March 2011 (0.46 in.), May 2011 (0.44 in.), July 2011 (0.47 in.), September 2011 (0.48 in.), and November 2011 (0. 48 in.). Interestingly, seasonal decreases in carcass weights and fat thicknesses were accompanied by increases in marbling and quality grade. This data set presents the opportunity to further investigate the whole array of value-determining factors that influence the viability and profitability of the beef industry. MATERIALS AND METHODS Instrument grading data (n = 2,427,074) were collected over a 12-month period (November 2010 through November 2011) from four beef processing corporations, encompassing 17 federally inspected packing plants, to create a “snapshot” of quality attributes and trends with a large quantity of data that could be evaluated on a monthly, quarterly, etc., basis. Data for carcass weight, gender, quality grade, and yield grade groups were obtained from one week’s production, every other month, beginning in November of 2010. Carcass data collection consisted of subcutaneous fat thickness, ribeye area, kidney, pelvic, and heart fat percentage, hot carcass weight, USDA marbling score, genetic type, sex condition, and carcass discounts. From this information, USDA (1997) yield and quality grades were determined. In addition, the frequencies of the quality defects and combinations of these categories were determined. The following describes how instrument grading is conducted generally: An in-plant employee aligns the calibrated camera onto the ribeye muscle between the 12th and 13th rib for each side. The image is stored and displayed for the USDA grader to verify that the objective assessments for USDA quality grade and USDA yield grade were made correctly. The USDA grader may make adjustments to the grade, or if necessary, reject the instrument’s assessment 29

altogether. Adjustments are entered manually for maturity or any other defects (blood splash, calloused ribeye, dark cutter, etc.) that a carcass may possess. Factors that would not be ascertained from the camera, such as sex class, breed classification, and hot scale weight, would follow each individual carcass through the trolley tracking system and their individual identification number. Data were obtained from each of the four beef processing corporations in a Microsoft® ® Excel spreadsheet (Microsoft® Corporation, Redmond, WA). Data were harmonized so it could be consolidated to prevent the detection of one processor from another. Microsoft® Excel® was used to generate means and frequency distributions for data analysis. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Instrumental Carcass Assessment Means for instrumentally assessed UDSA YG traits and marbling scores are shown in Table 3-1. The mean USDA YG was 2.9 and the mean marbling score was 449.6 for the current study. The USDA YG distributions for the instrumentally assessed carcasses, shown in Figure 31, were YG 1 (15.7%), YG 2 (41.0%), YG 3 (33.8%), YG 4 (8.5%), and YG 5 (0.9%). Distributions of carcasses and combinations of USDA QG and USDA YG are shown in Table 3-2. Instrumental assessment found 70.5% of the carcasses to be Choice and Select, YG 2 and 3. Carcasses classified as “Other” consisted of no roll, Standard, Commercial, Utility, heiferette, dark cutter, blood splash, hard bone, and calloused ribeye, comprising 4.3% of the instrumentally surveyed carcasses. Carcass weight distributions are presented in Figure 3-2. Of the instrumentally assessed carcasses, 95.1% of the carcasses were between 600 and 1000 pounds. May carcass weights (Figure 3-3) were lowest for the year (789 lbs), which was 29.5 lbs less than the average carcass weight for the year (818.5 lbs). Carcass prices had reached a peak and began to decline sharply around the time these carcasses were being observed. Cattle may have been sent to slaughter earlier, resulting in lighter carcasses and higher percentage of yield grades 1-3 (92.5%) for the May observations when compared to the average percentage of yield grades 1-3 (90.6%) for the survey (data not reported in tabular form). As shown in Figure 3-4, the percentage of Choice carcasses was highest in January (64.9%), and the highest percentage of Choice and Prime carcasses was observed in March (67.8%). Due in part to an increased percentage of Select carcasses, May exhibited the highest percentage of Prime, Choice, and Select carcasses (96.5%). Carcasses in March resulted in the highest average marbling score (460.2), followed by a decline for the month of May (Figure 3-5). In data not reported in tabular form, frequency of dark cutters was at the lowest points in January 2011 (0.43%) and March 2011 (0.38%) with an increase that peaked in September 2011 (1.94%). Of the instrumentally assessed carcasses, March and May resulted in the highest percentage of carcasses with ribeye areas between 10 in2 and 16 in2, 90.7% (Figure 3-6). May also had the lowest percentage of ribeye areas greater than 16 in2 (7.5%) for the year. As shown in Figure 3-7, November 2010 had the highest average fat thickness (0.51 in.), which was higher than the average for the instrumental assessment (0.47 in.). May had the lowest average fat thickness (0.44 in.), again suggesting that more cattle were sent to slaughter earlier at that time. The distribution of steers, heifers, and other sex class categories are represented in Figure 3-8.

30

CONCLUSIONS For the first time in the NBQA, sufficient information was available that allowed for quality and yield traits to be evaluated seasonally. Some of the seasonality shifts in carcass weights observed were a decline from the highest point in November 2010 to the lowest mean carcass weight observed in May 2011. Mean fat thickness followed the same trend line as mean carcass weight. Conversely, mean marbling score increased from November 2010 to the peak in March 2011, and then declined for the remainder of the study. This data set presents the opportunity to further investigate the whole array of value-determining factors that influence the viability and profitability of the beef industry.

31

45.0%

41.0%

40.0% 33.8%

35.0%

Percent (%)

30.0% 25.0% 20.0%

15.7%

15.0% 8.5%

10.0% 5.0%

0.9%

0.0% 1

2

3 USDA Yield Grade

4

Figure 3-1. Frequency distribution of USDA YG from the NBQA-2011.

32

5

40.0%

36.4%

35.0% 29.8%

Percent (%)

30.0% 25.0%

18.2%

20.0% 15.0% 10.7% 10.0% 5.0% 0.0%

0.1% <500

3.3%

1.5% 500

600

700 Weight

800

900

≥1000

Figure 3-2. Frequency distribution of carcasses by weight groups from the NBQA-2011.

33

850.0 840.0

840.6 829.1

828.8

830.0

823.5

821.3

Weight (lbs)

820.0 807.3

810.0 800.0

789.0

790.0 780.0 770.0 760.0 Nov.

Jan.

March

May Month

July

Sept.

Nov.

Figure 3-3. Frequency distribution of average hot carcass weight by month from the NBQA2011.

34

70.0% 60.0%

64.9%

64.7%

62.4%

58.3%

61.7%

58.8%

57.7%

Percent (%)

50.0% 40.0%

33.9%

31.8%

32.3%

33.3%

34.3%

2.5%

2.7%

28.7%

27.8%

3.0%

2.8%

3.1%

2.3%

2.3%

November

January

March

May Month

July

30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0%

Prime

Choice

September November

Select

Figure 3-4. Frequency distribution of quality grade by month from the NBQA-2011.

35

465.0 460.2 460.0

Marbling Score

456.7 455.0 449.5

450.0 446.4

445.9

445.4

445.0 439.1

440.0

435.0 November

January

March

May Month

July

September November

Figure 3-5. Frequency distribution of average marbling score by month from the NBQA-2011.

36

100.0% 90.0%

84.2%

88.2%

90.7%

90.7%

88.0%

84.9%

85.6%

14.1%

13.3%

1.0%

1.1%

80.0%

Percent (%)

70.0% 60.0% 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0%

15.0%

10.7%

0.9%

1.1%

7.7% 1.6%

November

January

March

7.5% 1.8% May Month

10.5% 1.4%

0.0%

<10 sq. in.

10‐16 sq. in.

July

September November

>16 sq. in.

Figure 3-6. Frequency distribution of ribeye area by month from the NBQA-2011.

37

0.55 0.51 Fat Thickness (inches)

0.50

0.48

0.47

0.46

0.48

0.48

0.44

0.45

0.40

0.35

0.30 November

January

March

May Month

July

September November

Figure 3-7. Frequency distribution of fat thickness by month from the NBQA-2011.

38

70.0%

62.0%

60.0%

Percent (%)

50.0% 40.0%

38.0%

58.1%

41.8%

56.0% 44.0%

58.5%

41.5%

60.5%

60.5%

39.4%

39.4%

0.0%

58.5%

41.5%

30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

November

January

March

May Month

July

0.0%

0.0%

Steer

Heifer

September November

Other

Figure 3-8. Frequency distribution of sex class by month from the NBQA-2011.

39

Table 3-1. Means, standard deviations, and minimum and maximum values for USDA carcass grade traits Trait Mean SD Minimum Maximum USDA yield grade 2.9 0.8 -0.04 7.4 Adjusted fat thickness, in. 0.47 0.2 -0.4 2.5 Ribeye area, in2 13.7 1.7 4.4 28.2 Hot carcass weight, lbs 818.5 97.1 300 1358 1 Marbling score 449.6 94.8 100 1090 1 100 = Practically devoid00, 300 Slight00, 500 = Modest00, 700 = Slightly Abundant00, and 900 = Abundant00.

Table 3-2. Percentage distribution1 of carcasses stratified by USDA quality2 and yield grades USDA yield grade, % 1 2 3 4 5

1

Prime 0.03 0.47 1.30 0.72 0.13

USDA quality grade Choice Select 4.91 9.27 23.91 14.98 25.31 6.33 6.67 0.87 0.72 0.07

Other 1.53 1.65 0.89 0.22 0.03

Carcasses with missing values for USDA quality or yield grades are not included. Other includes: no roll, Standard, Commercial, Utility, heiferette, dark cutter, blood splash, hard bone, and calloused ribeye. 2

LITERATURE CITED USDA. 1997. United States standards for grades of carcass beef. Accessed Mar. 26, 2012. http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getfile?dDocName=STELDEV3002979.

40

II. Executive Summary a. Title, Authors, University or organization, Date of submission National Beef Quality Audit – 2011: In-plant survey phase J.W. Savell, D.S. Hale, D.B. Griffin, and C.R. Kerth, Texas A&M University K.E. Belk, D.R. Woerner, and J.D. Tatum, Colorado State University D. VanOverbeke and G.G. Mafi, Oklahoma State University T. Lawrence, West Texas A&M University C.R. Raines, Penn State University R.J. Delmore, Jr., Cal Poly State University M. O’Connor and L. Meadows, USDA-Agricultural Marketing Service S.D. Shackelford, D.A. King, and T.L. Wheeler, USDA-Agricultural Research Service April, 2012 b. Background The National Beef Quality Audits have been conducted four previous times over the past twenty years with a major component of these audits being the harvest-floor and cooler assessments (Lorenzen et al., 1993; Boleman et al., 1998; McKenna et al., 2002; Garcia et al., 2008). These scientific articles are widely cited by the scientific and industry communities and are relied on as the greatest source of documenting the actual quality and quantity characteristics of the carcasses and by-products of the fed-beef cattle supply in the U.S. Over the years, new and important information has been gathered with each National Beef Quality Audit reflecting the trends or regulations impacting the industry. Some of these have included dentition (addressing specified risk materials), A40 designation (for the Japanese export market), predominant hide color (used in various certification programs), certification/marketing programs, and Country of Origin Labeling to name a few. In recent years, instrument grading of beef carcasses has become more mainstream, and the opportunity to obtain information from some of the beef packers who use this system provided a chance to greatly increase the number of observations to the audit that would not have been available in past audits. The National Beef Quality Audit – 2011: In-Plant Survey Phase was conducted to obtain traditional and new information from: (1) harvest-floor assessments of various traits for the hide-on carcasses, carcasses, and offal, (2) cooler assessments of quality, yield, and other factors for the chilled carcasses, and (3) instrument grading programs that detailed camera data from multiple plants from multiple companies.

41

c. Objectives (1) To collect information regarding the traditional live animal/harvest-floor assessments along with survey data points that examine the adoption of Beef Quality Assurance principles. (2) To obtain in-depth quality/yield factors from cooler carcass assessments from each of the major steer/heifer plants in the United States. (3) To analyze instrument grading data from multiple plants from multiple companies to evaluate carcass characteristics throughout the year. d. Methods This phase of the National Beef Quality Audit – 2011 consisted of three components: (1) harvest-floor assessment where 50% of hide-on carcasses, carcasses, and offal of each production lot were evaluated during one-day’s production at eight beef packing plants (approximately 18,000 animals), (2) cooler assessment where 10% of beef carcasses in each production lot were evaluated during one day’s production in all of the major fedbeef packing plants in the U.S. (n = 28 plants; approximately 9,800 carcasses), and (3) instrument grading assessment where camera-grading information from one-week’s production for every other month was obtained from multiple plants from multiple companies (approximately 2.4 million carcasses). For the harvest-floor assessments, hideon cattle were evaluated for predominant hide color, horns (presence and size), hide branding (presence, location, and size), animal identification (presence and type), and mud/manure (presence, location, and amount). Carcasses were evaluated for bruises (presence, location, and severity), and heads and offal were evaluated for condemnations (incidence and reasons). For the cooler assessment, carcasses were evaluated for USDA quality and yield grade information, sex-class (steer, heifer, cow, and bullock), estimated breed type (native, dairy, or Bos indicus), fat color (noted if yellow), and certification/marketing program. For the instrument grading data, information was obtained for carcass weight, gender, quality grade and yield grade so means, trends, and frequencies could be determined overall and seasonally. e. Important Findings For the harvest-floor assessments, identification method and frequency were lot visual tags (85.7%), individual visual tags (50.6%), electronic tags (20.1%), metal-clip tags (15.7%), other means (5.3%), none (2.5%), and wattles (0.5%). Hide colors or breed type were black (61.1%), red (12.8%), yellow (8.7%), Holstein (5.5%), brown (5.0%), gray (5.0%), white (1.4%), and brindle (1.0%). Brand frequencies were no brands (55.2%), one (40.4%), two (4.4%), and three or more (0.04%), and brands were located on the butt (33.8%), side (8.6%), and shoulder (2.4%). Hide location and incidence of mud or manure were no mud/manure (49.2%), legs (36.8%), belly (23.7%), side (14.9%), topline (11.0%), and tail region (13.7%). There were 77.2% of cattle without horns, and the majority of those with horns (71.6%) were between 0 cm and 12.7 cm in length. Permanent incisor number and occurrence were zero (87.3%), one (1.4%), two (8.0%), three (0.9%), four (1.9%), five (0.3%), six (0.2%), seven (0.1%), and eight (0.02%). Most

42

carcasses (77.0%) were not bruised, 18.7% had one bruise, 3.4% had two bruises, 0.6% had three bruises and 0.3% had more than three bruises. Bruise location and incidence were loin (50.1%), rib (21.3%), chuck (13.8%), round (7.3%), and brisket, flank, plate (7.5%). Condemnation item and incidence were whole carcass (none recorded), liver (20.9%), viscera (9.3%), lungs (17.3%), tongue (10.0%), and head (7.2%). When compared to the 2005 NBQA, this audit revealed a higher percentage of black-hided cattle (2005, 56.3% vs. 2011, 61.1%), cattle with brands (2005, 38.7%, vs. 2011, 44.8%), and more cattle with some form of identification (2005, 93.3% vs. 2011, 97.5%). In addition, there was a lower percentage of carcasses with bruises (2005, 35.2% vs. 2011 23.0%), and carcasses with more than one bruise (2005, 9.4% vs. 2011, 4.2%). Also, a similar percentage of the cattle were deemed greater than thirty months of age using dentition (2005, 2.7% vs. 2011, 3.3%). For the cooler assessments, beef carcasses (n = 9,802), representing approximately ten percent of each production lot in 28 beef packing plants, were selected randomly for the survey. Carcass evaluation for the cooler assessment of this study revealed these traits and frequencies: steer (63.7%), heifer (36.2%), cow (0.05%), and bullock (0.05%) sex classes; dark-cutters (3.2%); blood splash (0.3%); calloused ribeye (0.05%); yellow fat (0.1%); A (92.8%), B (6.0%), and C or older (1.2%) overall maturities; native (88.3%), dairy-type (9.9%), and Bos indicus (1.8%) estimated breed types; and United States (97.7%), Mexico (1.8%), and Canada (0.5%) country of origin. Certified or marketing program frequencies were: age and source verified (10.7%), A40 (10.0%), Certified Angus Beef® (9.3%), top Choice (4.1%), and non-hormone treated cattle (0.5%), and there were no natural or organic programs observed. Mean USDA yield grade (YG) traits were USDA YG (2.6), HCW (824.6 lbs), adjusted fat thickness (0.51 in.), ribeye area (13.8 in2), and KPH (2.3%). The USDA YG were YG 1 (25.0%), YG 2 (46.5%), YG 3 (23.0%), YG 4 (4.6%), and YG 5 (0.9%). Mean USDA quality grade traits were USDA quality grade (Select93), marbling score (Small40), overall maturity (A59), lean maturity (A54), skeletal maturity (A62). Marbling score distribution was Slightly Abundant or greater (2.3%), Moderate (5.0%), Modest (17.4%), Small (39.9%), Slight (34.4%), and Traces or less (1.1%). For the instrument grading assessments, the quality/quantity attributes and trends were evaluated seasonally and over the course of the year. Mean USDA yield grade (YG) traits were USDA YG (2.9), HCW (818.5 lbs), adjusted fat thickness (0.47 in.), and ribeye area (13.7 in2) as well as average marbling score (449.6). The USDA YG distribution was YG 1 (15.7%), YG 2 (41.0%), YG 3 (33.8%), YG 4 (8.5%), and YG 5 (0.9%). Carcass weight distribution was <600 lbs (1.6%), 600 lbs to 1000 lbs (95.1%), ≥1000 lbs (3.3%). Month-by-month mean carcass weights were November 2010 (840.6 lbs), January 2011 (828.8 lbs), March 2011 (807.3 lbs), May 2011 (789.0 lbs), July 2011 (821.3 lbs), September 2011 (829.1 lbs), and November 2011 (823.5 lbs). Month-by-month quality grade distribution for Prime, Choice, and Select, respectively, were November 2010 (3.0, 58.3, and 33.9%), January 2011 (2.8, 64.9, and 28.7%), March 2011 (3.1, 64.7, and 27.8%), May (2.3, 62.4, and 31.8%), July 2011 (2.3, 61.7, and 32.3%), September 2011 (2.5, 58.8, and 33.3%), and November 2011 (2.7, 57.7, and 34.3%). The mean fat thickness distribution for each month was were November 2010 (0.51 in.), January 2011

43

(0.48 in.), March 2011 (0.46 in.), May 2011 (0.44 in.), July 2011 (0.47 in.), September 2011 (0.48 in.), and November 2011 (0. 48 in.). Interestingly, seasonal decreases in carcass weights and fat thicknesses were accompanied by increases in marbling and quality grade. f. Implications/Industry Impact There were several interesting and important trends observed from the in-plant survey: (1) almost all of the cattle coming into the packing plant were identified, with a numerical increase in the number individually identified (50.6%) compared to the previous audit (38.7%), (2) the number of bruises were numerically lower reflecting increased awareness of the importance of animal handling to the beef industry, (3) the number of black-hided cattle continue to increase (61.1% vs. 56.3%), (4) the number of cattle with no mud or manure present almost doubled (50.8% vs. 25.8%) compared to the previous audit, (5) As has been noted for many years now, hot carcass weights continue to increase (824.6 lbs for NBQA-2011 vs. 793.4 lbs for NBQA-2005), (6) even with increasing carcass weights, 95.1% of the carcasses ranged between 600 and 1,000 lbs, (7) ribeye areas have increased numerically (13.8 in2 for NBQA-2011 vs. 13.4 in2 for NBQA-2005), (8) USDA yield grade means continue to improve and are at the all-time high for this audit (USDA YG 2.6), which translates to an improvement in red meat yield, (9) the percentage of Prime and Choice beef increased numerically and is at a 20-year all-time high (NBQA-2011 = 61.1%; NBQA-2005 = 54.5%), (10) marbling scores of Small50 and above continued to increase (41.2% vs. 23.6%), (11) conforming carcasses, those hitting targets of U.S. Select or higher and USDA yield grades 1-3, totaled 88.9% compared to 81.7% for the previous audit, and (12) Certain carcass measurements were surprising similar: ribeye area (13.76 in2 vs. 13.71 in2), adjusted fat thickness (0.51 in. vs. 0.47 in.), marbling score (Small40 vs. Small50), and carcass weights (824.6 lbs vs. 818.5 lbs) for cooler and instrument grading, respectively. Improvements in red meat yield with increases in marbling scores and USDA quality grade indicate that the beef industry has made great strides in selection and management to reach carcass targets not easily attained and never before achieved. These findings are of great importance to cattle producers and others along the beef chain where improvements in leanness while maintaining or increasing quality are important to building the demand for beef.

44

g. Graphs/Tables – include at least one relevant graph and/or data table

Table 4-1. Means for USDA carcass grade traits from NBQA-1991, NBQA-1995, NBQA-2000, NBQA-2005, and NBQA-2011 Trait USDA yield grade USDA quality grade1 Adjusted fat thickness, in. Hot carcass weight, lbs Ribeye area, in2 Kidney, pelvic, and heart fat, % Marbling score2 Lean maturity3 Skeletal maturity3 Overall maturity3 1

NBQA1991 3.2 686 0.6 760.6 12.9 2.2 424 163 175 169

NBQA1995 2.8 679 0.5 747.8 12.8 2.1 406 154 163 160

NBQA2000 3.0 685 0.5 786.8 13.1 2.4 423 165 167 166

NBQA2005 2.9 690 0.5 793.4 13.4 2.3 432 157 168 164

NBQA2011 2.6 693 0.5 824.6 13.8 2.3 440 154 162 159

100 = Canner00, 400 = Commercial00, 600 = Select00, and 800 = Prime00. 2 100 = Practically devoid00, 300 = Slight00, 500 = Modest00, 700 = Slightly Abundant00, and 900 = Abundant00. 3 100 = A00 and 500 = E00.

Table 4-2. Means for carcass traits between cooler and instrument data from the NBQA-2011 Cooler Mean (n = 9,802) 2.56 0.51 824.6 13.76 440

Trait USDA yield grade Adjusted fat thickness, in. Hot carcass weight, lbs Ribeye area, in2 Marbling score1 1

Instrument Mean (n = 2,427,074) 2.86 0.47 818.5 13.71 450

100 = Practically devoid00, 300 = Slight00, 500 = Modest00, 700 = Slightly Abundant00, and 900 = Abundant00.

45

25.0

23.1

23.4 22.6 20.6

Percentage

20.0

18.1 15.0

15.0

15.8 13.1 Cooler

10.0

10.0

10.2

Instrument 7.2

5.9 5.0

6.3 3.3

2.3 1.3

0.9 1

0.0

USDA Yield Grade

Figure 4-1. Frequency distribution of carcass by one-half yield grade increments for cooler and instrument data from the NBQA-2011.

46

70.0 58.9

60.0

61.5

Percentage

50.0 40.0

Cooler

32.6 31.5

Instrument

30.0 20.0 10.0

6.3

2.1 2.7

4.3

0.0 Prime

Choice Select USDA Quality Grade

Other

Figure 4-2. Frequency distribution of USDA Quality Grade for cooler and instrument data from the National Beef Quality Audit-2011. h. Photos – include at least 2 relevant photographs (jpg format) REFERENCES Boleman, S. L., S. J. Boleman, W. W. Morgan, D. S. Hale, D. B. Griffin, J. W. Savell, R. P. Ames, M. T. Smith, J. D. Tatum, T. G. Field, G. C. Smith, B. A. Gardner, J. B. Morgan, S. L. Northcutt, H. G. Dolezal, D. R. Gill, and F. K. Ray. 1998. National Beef Quality Audit-1995: Survey of producer-related defects and carcass quality and quantity attributes. J. Anim. Sci. 76: 96-103. Garcia, L. G., K. L. Nicholson, T. W. Hoffman, T. E. Lawrence, D. S. Hale, D. B. Griffin, J. W. Savell, D. L. VanOverbeke, J. B. Morgan, K. E. Belk, T. G. Field, J. A. Scanga, J. D. Tatum, and G. C. Smith. 2008. National Beef Quality Audit-2005: Survey of targeted cattle and carcass characteristics related to quality, quantity, and value of fed steers and heifers. J. Anim. Sci. 86: 3533-3543. Lorenzen, C. L., D. S. Hale, D. B. Griffin, J. W. Savell, K. E. Belk, T. L. Frederick, M. F. Miller, T. H. Montgomery, and G. C. Smith. 1993. National Beef Quality Audit: Survey of producer-related defects and carcass quality and quantity attributes. J. Anim. Sci. 71: 1495-1502.

47

McKenna, D. R., D. L. Roeber, P. K. Bates, T. B. Schmidt, D. S. Hale, D. B. Griffin, J. W. Savell, J. C. Brooks, J. B. Morgan, T. H. Montgomery, K. E. Belk, and G. C. Smith. 2002. National Beef Quality Audit-2000: Survey of targeted cattle and carcass characteristics related to quality, quantity, and value of fed steers and heifers. J. Anim. Sci. 80: 1212-1222.

48