scholarly journals National Beef Quality Audit–2011: In-plant survey of targeted carcass characteristics related to quality, quantity, value, and marketing of fed steers and heifers1,2

2012 ◽  
Vol 90 (13) ◽  
pp. 5143-5151 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. C. Moore ◽  
G. D. Gray ◽  
D. S. Hale ◽  
C. R. Kerth ◽  
D. B. Griffin ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Carcass Characteristics ◽  
Beef Quality ◽  
Quality Audit ◽  
Plant Survey

scholarly journals National Beef Quality Audit–2016: In-plant survey of carcass characteristics related to quality, quantity, and value of fed steers and heifers1

2017 ◽  
Vol 95 (7) ◽  
pp. 2993-3002 ◽  
Author(s):  
C. A. Boykin ◽  
L. C. Eastwood ◽  
M. K. Harris ◽  
D. S. Hale ◽  
C. R. Kerth ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Carcass Characteristics ◽  
Beef Quality ◽  
Quality Audit ◽  
Plant Survey

National Beef Quality Audit–2016: In-plant survey of carcass characteristics related to quality, quantity, and value of fed steers and heifers

2017 ◽  
Vol 95 (7) ◽  
pp. 2993 ◽  
Author(s):  
C. A. Boykin ◽  
L. C. Eastwood ◽  
M. K. Harris ◽  
D. S. Hale ◽  
C. R. Kerth ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Carcass Characteristics ◽  
Beef Quality ◽  
Quality Audit ◽  
Plant Survey

National Beef Quality Audit-2000: survey of targeted cattle and carcass characteristics related to quality, quantity, and value of fed steers and heifers

2002 ◽  
Vol 80 (5) ◽  
pp. 1212-1222 ◽  
Author(s):  
D. R. McKenna ◽  
D. L. Roebert ◽  
P. K. Bates ◽  
T. B. Schmidt ◽  
D. S. Hale ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Carcass Characteristics ◽  
Beef Quality ◽  
Quality Audit

scholarly journals National Beef Quality Audit – 2016: Survey of carcass characteristics through instrument grading assessments1

2017 ◽  
Vol 95 (7) ◽  
pp. 3003-3011
Author(s):  
C. A. Boykin ◽  
L. C. Eastwood ◽  
M. K. Harris ◽  
D. S. Hale ◽  
C. R. Kerth ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Carcass Characteristics ◽  
Beef Quality ◽  
Quality Audit ◽  
Instrument Grading

scholarly journals National Beef Quality Audit–2005: Survey of targeted cattle and carcass characteristics related to quality, quantity, and value of fed steers and heifers1

2008 ◽  
Vol 86 (12) ◽  
pp. 3533-3543 ◽  
Author(s):  
L. G. Garcia ◽  
K. L. Nicholson ◽  
T. W. Hoffman ◽  
T. E. Lawrence ◽  
D. S. Hale ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Carcass Characteristics ◽  
Beef Quality ◽  
Quality Audit

National Beef Quality Audit – 2016: Survey of carcass characteristics through instrument grading assessments

2017 ◽  
Vol 95 (7) ◽  
pp. 3003
Author(s):  
C. A. Boykin ◽  
L. C. Eastwood ◽  
M. K. Harris ◽  
D. S. Hale ◽  
C. R. Kerth ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Carcass Characteristics ◽  
Beef Quality ◽  
Quality Audit ◽  
Instrument Grading

National Beef Quality Audit-1995: survey of producer-related defects and carcass quality and quantity attributes.

1998 ◽  
Vol 76 (1) ◽  
pp. 96 ◽  
Author(s):  
S L Boleman ◽  
S J Boleman ◽  
W W Morgan ◽  
D S Hale ◽  
D B Griffin ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Carcass Quality ◽  
Beef Quality ◽  
Quality Audit

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

2017 ◽  
Vol 1 (4) ◽  
pp. 570-584 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. K. Harris ◽  
L. C. Eastwood ◽  
C. A. Boykin ◽  
A. N. Arnold ◽  
K. B. Gehring ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Dairy Cattle ◽  
Dairy Cows ◽  
Body Condition Score ◽  
Beef Cows ◽  
The United States ◽  
Beef Quality ◽  
Live Animal ◽  
Quality Audit ◽  
Condition Score ◽  
Space Requirements

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

Effect of different post-weaning growth paths on long-term weight gain, carcass characteristics and eating quality of beef cattle

2006 ◽  
Vol 46 (12) ◽  
pp. 1571 ◽  
Author(s):  
N. W. Tomkins ◽  
G. S. Harper ◽  
H. L. Bruce ◽  
R. A. Hunter
Keyword(s):  
Weight Loss ◽  
Rapid Growth ◽  
Slow Growth ◽  
Average Daily Gain ◽  
Carcass Characteristics ◽  
Nutrient Restriction ◽  
Longissimus Dorsi ◽  
Beef Quality ◽  
Treatment Groups ◽  
Daily Gain

The effects of post-weaning nutrient restriction on growth, carcass characteristics and beef quality were determined. Belmont Red weaner steers (n = 100) were allocated to an initial slaughter group and 3 treatment groups of 120 days duration: rapid growth, slow growth and weight loss. The average daily gain of the groups were (mean ± s.e.): 0.81 ± 0.02, 0.29 ± 0.02 and –0.22 ± 0.01 kg/day, for the rapid growth, slow growth and weight loss groups, respectively. At the end of the treatment period, rapid growth steers had significantly (P<0.05) heavier carcasses, higher dressing percentages and greater bone mineral contents than those from the weight loss group. Steers from each group were realimented for 192 days at pasture. Average daily gains during this period were 0.39 ± 0.03, 0.52 ± 0.04 and 0.61 ± 0.05 kg/day for the rapid growth, slow growth and weight loss groups, respectively. Ten animals from the rapid growth group were then slaughtered to determine carcass characteristics. The remaining steers were finished at pasture for a further 409 days. During this period there was no significant difference in average daily gain between treatment groups. Steers from the rapid growth group had a significantly greater final weight (531 ± 16.8 kg) compared with weight loss steers (481 ± 14.0 kg). Carcass characteristics, eye muscle area, bone mineral content and objective measures of meat quality for the M. longissimus dorsi and M. semitendinosus did not differ significantly between groups. Shear peak force values for cooked M. longissimus dorsi samples were not significantly different between groups. Clipped meat quality scores for M. longissimus dorsi samples, as assessed by Meat Standards Australia, were not significantly different between treatment groups and indicated consumer acceptability. It was concluded that nutrient restriction in the immediate post-weaning period followed by pasture realimentation did not influence final carcass characteristics or beef quality.

scholarly journals National Beef Quality Audit-2016: Phase 1, Face-to-face interviews

2017 ◽  
Vol 1 (3) ◽  
pp. 320-332 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. D. Hasty ◽  
M. M. Pfeifer ◽  
L. C. Eastwood ◽  
D. A. Gredell ◽  
C. L. Gifford ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Food Safety ◽  
Phase 1 ◽  
Food Service ◽  
Quality Attributes ◽  
Quality Factors ◽  
Beef Quality ◽  
Beef Industry ◽  
Quality Audit ◽  
Face To Face ◽  
Important Quality

Abstract The National Beef Quality Audit (NBQA) is conducted every 5 yr and was most recently again conducted in 2016. Face-to-face interviews gauged progress in quality associated with live cattle production using procedures first utilized in NBQA 2011. The 2016 NBQA was the first in which interviews concerning fed steers and heifers were combined with an audit of market cow and bull beef. Face-to-face interviews were designed to illicit definitions for beef quality, estimate willingness to pay (WTP) for quality attributes, establish relative importance rankings for important quality factors, and assess images, strengths, weaknesses, potential threats, and shifting trends in the beef industry since the 2011 audit. Individuals making purchasing decisions in 5 market sectors of the steer/heifer and cow/bull beef supply chain were interviewed, including packers (n = 36), retailers (including large and small supermarket companies and warehouse food sales companies; n = 35), food service operators (including quick-serve, full-service, and institutional establishments; n = 29), further processors (n = 64), and peripherally-related government and trade organizations (GTO; n = 30). Face-to-face interviews were conducted between January and November of 2016 using a designed dynamic routing system. Definitions (as described by interviewees) for 7 pre-determined quality factors, including: (1) How and where the cattle were raised, (2) Lean, fat, and bone, (3) Weight and size, (4) Visual characteristics, (5) Food safety, (6) Eating satisfaction, and (7) Cattle genetics were recorded verbatim and categorized into similar responses for analysis. Compared to NBQA-2011, a higher percentage of companies were willing to pay premiums for guaranteed quality attributes, but overall were willing to pay lower average premiums than the companies interviewed in 2011. Food safety had the highest share of preference among all interviewees, generating a double-digit advantage over any other quality factor. The 2 beef industries have an overall positive image among interviewees, and despite lingering weaknesses, product quality continued to be at the forefront of the strengths category for both steer and heifer beef and market cow and bull beef.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document