National Beef Quality Audit -- 2000

RESULTS OF THE NATIONAL BEEF QUALITY AUDIT—2000: In Phase I (Questionnaire Results), 518 Seedstock Generators reported that Changes They Had Made Since 1991 were: (1) Improved genetics (using performance), (2) Changed injection-site location, (3) Improved genetics (using physical traits), (4) Increased record-keeping, (5) Improved genetics (using carcass traits), (6) Improved genetics (using ultrasound), (7) Improved handling practices, (8) Collected carcass data, (9) Changed vaccination program, and (10) Maintained health/ management data, and that Results of Past NBQAs had “Strong Impact” (21.2%), “Moderate Impact” (54.0%) or “Weak Impact” (24.8%) on changes they had made. Cow/Calf Producers (N=1,424) reported that Changes They Had Made Since 1991 were: (1) Changed injection-site location, (2) Improved genetics (using performance), (3) Improved genetics (using physical traits), (4) Increased record-keeping, (5) Improved handling practices, (6) Increased individual animal identification, (7) Changed vaccination program, (8) Improved genetics (using carcass traits), (9) Changed preconditioning program, and (10) Maintained health/management data, and that Results Of Past NBQAs had “Strong Impact” (17.3%), “Moderate Impact” (59.7%) or “Weak Impact” (23.0%) on changes they had made. Stockers/Backgrounders (N=407) reported that Changes They Had Made Since 1991 were: (1) Changed injection-site location, (2) Changed genetic type(s) of cattle, (3) Improved handling practices, (4) Increased record-keeping, (5) Changed vaccination program, (6) Maintained health/management data, (7) Increased worker/employee awareness, (8) Provided incentive for preconditioning, (9) Provided incentive for genetic superiority, and (10) Collected and used carcass data, and that Results of Past NBQAs had “Strong Impact” (14.0%), “Moderate Impact” (59.5%) or “Weak Impact” (26.5%) on changes they have made. Feedlot Operators (N=262) reported that Changes They Had Made Since 1991 were: (1) Changed injection-site location, (2) Changed genetic type(s) of cattle, (3) Collected and used carcass data, (4) Improved handling practices, (5) Increased record-keeping, (6) Increased worker/employee awareness, (7) Changed implant strategy, (8) Provided incentive for preconditioning, (9) Maintained health/management data, and (10) Increased individual animal identification, and that Results Of Past NBQAs had “Strong Impact” (47.7%), “Moderate Impact” (40.5%) or “Weak Impact” (11.8%) on changes they had made.

In Phase I (Questionnaire Results), 29 Packers reported that the Greatest Improvements Made Since 1991 were in reducing the incidence of these quality defects or nonconformities: (1) Presence of injection-site lesions, (2) Carcass weights too light, (3) Reduced Quality Grade/ tenderness due to implants, (4) Inadequate muscling, (5) Too small ribeyes, (6) Hide damage due to parasites, (7) Carcass condemnations, (8) Excess fat cover, (9) Presence of bruises on carcasses, and (10) Hide damage due to brands, and that Results Of Past NBQAs had “Strong Impact” (6.9%), “Moderate Impact” (55.2%) or “Weak Impact” (37.9%) on those improvements. Purveyors (N=37) reported that the Greatest Improvements Made Since 1991 were in reducing the incidence of these quality defects or nonconformities: (1) Presence of bruises on cuts, (2) Injection-site lesions, (3) Excess fat cover, (4) Inadequate overall palatability, (5) Low cutability, (6) Inadequate flavor, (7) Lack of uniformity in cuts, (8) Inadequate tenderness, (9) Insufficient marbling, and (10) Inadequate juiciness, and that Results Of Past NBQAs had “Strong Impact” (6.9%), “Moderate Impact” (55.2%) or “Weak Impact” (37.9%) on those improvements. Retailers (N=44) reported that the Greatest Improvements Made Since 1991 were in reducing the incidence of these quality defects or nonconformities: (1) Excess fat cover, (2) Presence of bruises on cuts, (3) Injection-site lesions, (4) Low cutability, (5) Lack of uniformity of cuts, (6) Inadequate muscling, (7) Excess seam fat, (8) Inadequate overall palatability, (9 tie) Cut weights too light, and (9 tie) Inadequate tenderness, and that Results Of Past NBQAs had “Strong Impact” (10.3%), “Moderate Impact” (82.1%) or “Weak Impact” (7.7%) on those improvements. Restaurateurs (N=32) reported that the Greatest Improvements Made Since 1991 were in reducing the incidence of these quality defects or nonconformities: (1 tie) Presence of bruises on cuts, (1 tie) Injection-site lesions, (3) Excess fat cover, (4 tie) Inadequate overall palatability, (4 tie) Inadequate flavor, (4 tie) Inadequate tenderness, (7) Lack of uniformity in cuts, (8) Inadequate juiciness, (9) Inadequate muscling, (10 tie) Cut weights too light and (10 tie) Insufficient marbling, and that Results Of Past NBQAs had “Strong Impact” (11.5%), “Moderate Impact” (76.9%) or “Weak Impact” (11.5%) on those improvements. Aggregated responses for Results Of Past NBQAs on the Greatest Improvements Made Since 1991 indicated “Strong Impact” by 17% of producers, 7% of packers and 10% of end-users (wholesalers/retailers), “Moderate Impact” by 60% of producers, 55% of packers and 72% of end-users (wholesalers/ retailers), or “Weak Impact” by 23% of producers, 38% of packers and 18% of end-users (wholesalers/retailers).

In Phase I (Questionnaire Results), all Producers combined identified the Greatest Quality Challenges as: (1) Inadequate tenderness, (2) Lack of uniformity in live cattle, (3) Insufficient marbling/USDA Quality Grade too low, (4) Too frequent injection-site lesions, (5) Inadequate flavor, (6) Low cutability, (7) Excess fat cover, (8) Carcass weights too heavy, (9) Inadequate muscling, and (10) Presence of bruises on carcasses. Packers identified the Greatest Quality Challenges as: (1) Lack of uniformity in live cattle, (2) Carcass weights too heavy, (3) Excess fat cover, (4) Inadequate tenderness, (5) Insufficient marbling/USDA Quality Grade Too Low, (6) Reduced USDA Quality Grade/tenderness due to implants, (7) Assuring food safety, (8) Low cutability, (9) Presence of bruises on carcasses, and (10) Too high (numerically) USDA Yield Grades. End-Users (Wholesalers/Retailers) identified the Greatest Quality Challenges as: (1) Insufficient marbling, (2 tie) Lack of uniformity in cuts, (2 tie) Inadequate tenderness, (4) Excess fat cover, (5) Inadequate flavor, (6) Too heavy cut weights, (7) Too large ribeyes, (8) Low cutability, (9) Inadequate juiciness, and (10) Inadequate overall palatability.

In Phase II of the National Beef Quality Audit—2000, researchers audited 30 packing plants, geographically distributed throughout the U.S., collecting data on the harvest floor from 43,415 cattle/carcasses for brands, horns, manure, hide color, bruises and condemnations. Percentages of brands on cattle, by number, were 49.3% none, 46.2% one, 4.0% two and 0.4% three; cattle with horns was 22.7% and without horns was 77.3%. Manure was present on the body of 81.5% of cattle and absent on the body of 18.5% of cattle; the 81.5% of cattle that had manure present on their body was comprised of 20.1% with manure in only one location and 60.5% with manure in several (multiple) locations. Manure was present around the tail-base and rectum of 33.4% of cattle, on the topline of 24.5% of cattle, on the side of 36.0% of cattle, on the belly of 65.3% of cattle and on the legs of 64.4% of cattle.

Predominant hide color of cattle evaluated was 45.1% black, 31.0% red, 8.0% yellow, 5.7% black and white (Holstein-Friesian), 4.0% grey, 3.2% white, 1.7% brown and 1.3% brindle. Carcasses with no bruises were 53.3% of those evaluated while those with one, two, three, four or more than four bruises, respectively, represented 30.9%, 11.4%, 3.5%, 0.8% or 0.1% of those evaluated. Of all bruises detected on carcasses 14.9% were on the round, 25.9% were on the loin, 19.4% were on the rib, 28.2% were on the chuck and 11.6% were on the thin cuts (flank, plate, brisket). Severity was “critical/extreme” for 2.6%, 5.1%, 6.7%, 3.9% and 4.0%, respectively, of the bruises detected on rounds, loins, ribs, chucks and thin cuts while those that were “minor” accounted for 83.0%, 70.0%, 73.6% and 71.1%, respectively of the bruises detected on rounds, loins, ribs, chucks and thin cuts. Condemnation rates were 30.3% for liver, 13.8% for lungs, 11.6% for tripe, 6.2% for heads, 7.0% for tongues, and 0.1% for carcasses. A fetus was present in 1.2% of carcasses (approximately 3.8% of carcasses from female cattle). Of livers condemned, 44.8% were due to abscesses, 21.7% were due to flukes and 33.6% were due to other reasons (including contamination during evisceration).

In the 30 packing plants, researchers collected data from 9,396 carcasses; traits evaluated included carcass weight, gender, breed type, Quality Grade and Quality Grade factors (marbling scores were assigned by USDA officials; all other factors were assigned by university personnel), Yield Grade and Yield Grade factors (adjusted fat thickness was assigned by USDA officials; all other factors were measured or assigned by university personnel), dark cutters, blood splash, yellow fat and callused ribeyes. Carcass weight distribution was 0.7% less than 550 pounds, 6.6% 550 to 650 pounds, 27.1% 650 to 750 pounds, 40.1% 750 to 850 pounds, 21.7% 850 to 950 pounds and 3.9% greater than 950 pounds. Gender of carcasses was 67.9% steer, 31.8% heifer and 0.3% bullock. Breed type of carcasses was 90.1% native, 6.9% dairy and 3.0% Bos indicus influenced (greater than 4-inch hump). Mean values for Quality Grade factors were Small23 for marbling, A66 for skeletal maturity, A65 for lean maturity, A66 for overall maturity and Select85 for Quality Grade. Marbling score distribution was 2.3% Slightly Abundant or higher, 4.8% Moderate, 13.1% Modest, 33.3% Small, 43.3% Slight and 3.4% Traces. Overall carcass maturity was 96.6% “A,” 2.5% “B” and 0.9% “C” or older. Quality Grade distribution was 2.0% Prime, 17.3% Upper Two-Thirds Choice, 31.8% Low Choice, 42.3% Select and 6.5% Standard and hardboned. Ribeye Area (square inches) distribution was 1.4% less than 10, 6.5% 10 to 10.9, 17.9% 11 to 11.9, 24.2% 12 to 12.9, 22.2% 13 to 13.9, 14.6% 14 to 14.9, 7.6% 15 to 15.9 and 5.3% 16 or larger. Fat thickness (inches) distribution was 4.9% less than .20, 13.9% .20 to .29, 15.9% .30 to .39, 18.4% .40 to .49, 16.2% .50 to .59, 15.8% .60 to .69, 6.3% .70 to .79, 4.4% .80 to .89, 2.0% .90 to .99 and 2.3% 1.00 or thicker. Mean values for Yield Grade factors were 0.49 inches for adjusted fat thickness, 787 pounds for carcass weight, 13.1 square inches for ribeye area, 2.35% for kidney/pelvic/heart fat and 3.0 for Yield Grade. Yield Grade distribution was 4.2% Yield Grade 1A, 8.0% Yield Grade 1B, 15.3% Yield Grade 2A, 22.1% Yield Grade 2B, 22.1% Yield Grade 3A, 16.5% Yield Grade 3B, 7.4% Yield Grade 4A, 3.0% Yield Grade 4B and 1.3% Yield Grade 5. Carcasses with yellow fat, blood splash and callused ribeyes occurred at a frequency of 0.4%, 0.5% and 0.0%, respectively. Carcasses with dark cutter discounts of one-third grade, one-half grade, two-thirds grade and a full grade occurred at a frequency of 1.0%, 0.6%, 0.4% and 0.3%, respectively; 2.3% of all carcasses evaluated in this study were discounted for dark cutting beef.

Comparative data for Quality Grades and Yield Grades from the 1991, 1995 and 2000 National Beef Quality Audits and USDA Annual Summaries revealed that for 1974, 1987, 1991, 1995 and 2000, respectively, percentages of carcasses grading: (a) Prime were 6.6, 2.0, 1.4, 2.1 and 3.0; (b) Choice were 68.0, 60.7, 54.2, 53.9 and 52.4; (c) Select were 21.3, 1.5, 12.5, 29.5 and 36.1, while; (d) ungraded/no-roll were 4.1, 35.8, 31.9, 14.5 and 8.5. Comparison of USDA Annual Summary data for FY-2000 as compared to data from the National Beef Quality Audit—2000, respectively, for steer/heifer carcasses indicated that 3.0% vs. 2.0% graded Prime, 52.4% vs. 49.1% graded Choice, 36.1% vs. 42.3% graded Select while ungraded/no-roll were 8.5% vs. 6.6% and that 9.8% vs. 12.3% were Yield Grade 1, 40.7% vs. 37.4% were Yield Grade 2, 35.5% vs. 38.6% were Yield Grade 3, 1.8% vs. 10.4% were Yield Grade 4 and 0.2% vs. 1.3% were Yield Grade 5 (according to the USDA Annual Summary, 12.0% of steer/heifer carcasses were not Yield Graded). According to USDA Annual Summaries, fiscal year trends (1993 through 2000), total numbers of “Certified” carcasses (by USDA Marketing & Regulatory Programs) increased from approximately 850,000 to about 3,500,000 under all “Schedules” approved by USDA, and total numbers of “Certified” carcasses with Modest-minus or higher marbling scores increased from about 1,000,000 in 1994 to approximately 2,600,000 in 2000.

From questionnaires returned by 29 packers as a part of Phase I of the National Beef Quality Audit—2000: (a) Percentages of carcasses in their plants weighing less than 400 pounds, 400 to 600 pounds, 600 to 800 pounds, 800 to 1,000 pounds and more than 1,000 pounds were 0.2, 3.7, 58.2, 36.9 and 0.9, respectively; (b) Percentages of their carcasses by Quality Grade were 3.6 for Prime, 17.2 for Upper Two-Thirds Choice, 39.5 for Low Choice, 33.5 for Select and 2.5 for Standard; (c) Percentages of their carcasses by Yield Grade were 12.5 for Yield Grade 1, 41.9 for Yield Grade 2, 40.8 for Yield Grade 3, 3.4 for Yield Grade 4 and 0.6 for Yield Grade 5; (d) Percentages of their carcasses that were B-maturity, hardboned, with callused ribeyes, dark cutters or with blood splash were 1.3, 1.5, 0.1, 1.0 or 0.4, respectively; (e) Average number of “Branded Beef’ programs per packer was 4.5; of those, 33.2%, 40.4%, 95.0% or 71.9% programs had specifications for breed, hide color, marbling or Yield Grade, respectively. From questionnaires answered as a part of Phase I of the National Beef Quality Audit—2000: (a) Purveyor (N=37) purchases of beef by Quality Grade were 3.6% Prime, 42.7% Upper Two-Thirds Choice, 17.9% Low Choice, 22.4% Select and 3.0% Standard; (b) Retailer (N=44) purchases of beef by Quality Grade were 1.8% Prime, 34.2% Upper Two-Thirds Choice, 19.7% Low Choice, 35.0% Select and 1.0% Standard, and; (c) Restaurateur (N=32) purchases of beef by Quality Grade were 20.6% Prime, 51.3% Upper Two-Thirds Choice, 25.5% Low Choice, 24.2% Select and 0.0% Standard.

In Phase III of the National Beef Quality Audit—2000, one goal of the Strategy Workshop (to capitalize upon knowledge gained in this endeavor) was characterized as “Improving The Quality, Consistency, Competitiveness And Market-Share Of Fed-Beef.” Economic assessment of quality losses per slaughter steer/heifer was made and consensus was achieved; it was agreed-upon that the beef industry was losing—through Quality Problems/Defects/ Shortcomings/Shortfalls/Nonconformities—$100.10 for every steer/heifer harvested in 2000. Amounts lost were $50.96 due to Waste, $24.45 because of Taste, $18.23 due to Management and $6.46 because of Weight.

Included among items in the “Success Story” for the National Beef Quality Audit—2000 were: (a) 86.3% of steers/heifers were appropriately branded or not hot-iron branded. (b) 96.2% of steers/heifers were free of excess mud. (c) 77.3% of steers/heifers were polled or dehorned. (d) 88.4% of steer/heifer carcasses were free of major and critical bruises. (e) 93.5% of steer/heifer carcasses graded U.S. Select or better. (f) 88.3% of steer/heifer carcasses had Yield Grades of 3 or better. (g) 97.5% of top sirloin butts were free of injection-site lesions (up from a low of 78.7%). (h) 100% of federally inspected packing facilities had implemented a HACCP approach to food safety. (i) 85% of fed cattle were harvested in plants that are using multiple-hurdle decontamination systems. (j) 47 states had a Beef Quality Assurance program. (k) 52 USDA certified/process-verified beef programs had been developed. (l) 1/4-inch trim beef was the industry standard.

According to participants in the Strategy Workshop of the National Beef Quality Audit—2000, the “Top Ten Quality Challenges” for the fed-beef industry are: (1) Low overall uniformity and consistency of cattle, carcasses and cuts. (2) Inappropriate carcass size and weight. (3) Inadequate tenderness of beef. (4) Insufficient marbling. (5) Reduced Quality Grade/tenderness due to implants. (6) Excess external fat cover. (7) Inappropriate USDA Quality Grade mix. (8) Too much hide damage due to brands. (9) Too frequent and severe bruises. (10) Too frequent liver condemnations.

Participants in the Strategy Workshop of the National Beef Quality Audit—2000 agreed that those in the fed beef industry should make “A Commitment To Never-Ending Improvement” that stated the following: “I am a member of the U.S. beef industry and because I am committed to the role I play as a producer of safe, nutritious and wholesome food for myself, my family and humanity, I promise to: (a) Continually seek to learn more about my business and my industry so that my family can prosper, that opportunities can be created for others, and that better products can be made available to the world’s consumers. (b) Collect, share and use meaningful information that affects the value and quality of beef. (c) Seek opportunities to improve relationships with others in the production, processing and marketing of cattle, beef and beef by-products. (d) Train and retrain myself and my employees in the principles and procedures of Beef Quality Assurance. (e) Be a good steward of the natural resources, the animals and the products under my care.”

“Strategies” for improving the quality of beef from fed steers/heifers are: (1) Assist producers with use of selection and management techniques to produce cattle that fit customer expectations for marbling, red meat yield, weight and other value-determining attributes. (2) Assist producers with the process of collecting and analyzing data and sharing and utilizing information. (3) Enhance an already commendable record in regards to the production of safe, nutritious and wholesome beef. (4) Assure delivery of predictable and uniform lots of cattle by more correctly managing implants, nutrition, horns, castration, sorting and health programs while refining selection strategies to meet specific market windows. (5) Assure that the needs of case-ready product marketing efforts can be met by improving the yield, consistency and palatability characteristics of beef. (6) Implement new production technologies only after carefully considering the consumer demand-perception, economic, environment and animal welfare consequences. (7) Encourage continued use of cattle-marketing systems that identify, categorize and assign price to product attributes that affect consumer satisfaction by appropriately rewarding and discounting performance. (8) Identify breeding, management and sorting systems that optimize production, palatability, cutability and profitability. (9) Encourage post-harvest product enhancement technologies to assure the delivery of suitably tender and flavorful products to consumers while simultaneously managing the pre-harvest production process to achieve the same objectives.

“Tactics” for improving the quality of beef from fed steers/heifers are: (1) Develop and implement a voluntary, industry-driven, standardized electronic individual animal identification system that is tied to a seamless system of transmitting information up and down the production, processing and distribution chain. (2) Merchandize and purchase only those seedstock that are accompanied by objective performance information relative to economically important traits (production and end-product). (3) Eliminate side brands. (4) Eliminate horns via selection or early dehorning. (5) Castrate early. (6) Match implant strategies to cattle types to optimize product quality with economic returns. (7) Develop management/production practices to reduce variation in weight and cut sizes within a lot. (8) Utilize health management and nutrition protocols that contribute to improved quality attributes. (9) Match a vast majority of the fed cattle to carcass weight targets of 650-850 pounds. (10) Handle and transport cattle in a safe and humane manner. (11) Train 100% of beef and dairy producers, veterinarians, transport providers and others with an impact on cattle, in Beef Quality Assurance principles and procedures as well as humane handling practices. (12) Move all injections to the neck region and eliminate intramuscular injections. (13) Reduce immediately those genetic and management practices that contribute to production of USDA Standards, Yield Grade 4s and 5s, dark cutters and non-conforming carcass weights and cut sizes. (14) Change the Quality Grade and Yield Grade mix to 6% Prime, 27% Upper Two-Thirds Choice, 32% Low Choice and 35% Select, and to 15% Yield Grade 1, 26% Yield Grade 2A, 27% Yield Grade 2B, 24% Yield Grade 3A and 8% Yield Grade 3B. (15) Participate in partnerships and coordinated market chains to foster communications and the delivery of products that meet consumer demands. (16) Continue to support and encourage development of branded beef product concepts and value-added, further processed beef items.

“Goals, By 2005” for improving the quality of beef from fed steers/heifers are: (1) Eliminate USDA Standards. (2) Eliminate Yield Grades 4 and 5. (3) Eliminate injection-site lesions from whole-muscle cuts including the chuck. (4) Eliminate side branded hides. (5) Reduce horns to less than 5% of the fed cattle supply. (6) Develop and implement a standardized electronic individual animal identification system. (7) Develop an information system that allows each producer to conduct a quality audit for his/her own herd. (8) Assure that 100% of seedstock animals are accompanied by meaningful genetic data (EPDs, etc.) for production and end-product traits. (9) Assure that 100% of cattlemen complete BQA training. (10) Eliminate major and critical bruises that result in a devaluation of subprimals. (11) Improve the transportation (handling and equipment) of cattle. (12) Improve continually the eating quality of beef.

Research Goals identified by participants in the Strategy Workshop of the National Beef Quality Audit—2000 are: (1) Better understanding the influence of calfhood and lifetime management on the quality of beef. Specifically, how does stress at various points of a calf’s life affect its ability to deposit marbling? (2) What are the levels of stress caused by dehorning at various life-stages versus the improvement in bruise prevention that results from dehorning? (3) How can we sort/implant/manage/re-sort cattle of unknown genetics to achieve uniformity targets in cut size for retail and hotel/restaurant/institutional end-users? (4) Better understand how to interpret feedlot and endproduct data at the cow/calf and seedstock levels. (5) Better understand how automation at the packing and processing sectors will affect desired characteristics of cattle and carcasses. (6) Better understand and communicate the role of each production sector on the wholesomeness, nutritional value and quality of beef. (7) Develop carcass and cattle specifications for weight, muscling, fat and marbling based on case-ready fabrication requirements, rather than trying to fit current cattle to a case-ready approach. (8) What are the tenderness implications of injection-site lesions in the lower round (as a follow-up to the top-butt research).

Executive Summary

Improving the Quality, Consistency, Competitiveness and Market-share of Fed-Beef

The Final Report of the Third Blueprint for Total Quality Management in the Fed-Beef (Slaughter Steer/Heifer) Industry

National Beef Quality Audit — 2000