DOCSLIB.ORG

National Beef Quality Audit–2000: Survey of Targeted Cattle and Carcass Characteristics Related to Quality, Quantity, and Value of Fed Steers and Heifers1

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
National Beef Quality Audit–2000: Survey of Targeted Cattle and Carcass Characteristics Related to Quality, Quantity, and Value of Fed Steers and Heifers1 National Beef Quality Audit–2000: Survey of targeted cattle and carcass characteristics related to quality, quantity, and value of fed steers and heifers1 D. R. McKenna*, D. L. Roeber†, P. K. Bates‡2, T. B. Schmidt§3, D. S. Hale*, D. B. Griffin*, J. W. Savell*4, J. C. Brooks‡, J. B. Morgan‡, T. H. Montgomery§, K. E. Belk†, and G. C. Smith† *Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, Department of Animal Science, Texas A&M University, College Station 77843-2471; †Department of Animal Sciences, Colorado State University, Ft. Collins 80523-1171; ‡Department of Animal Science, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater 74078-0425; and §Division of Agriculture, West Texas A&M University, Canyon 79016 ABSTRACT: The National Beef Quality Audit–2000 tion revealed these traits and frequencies: steer was conducted to assess the current status of the quality (67.9%), heifer (31.8%), and bullock (0.3%) sex-classes; and consistency of U.S. fed steers and heifers. Between dark-cutters (2.3%); A (96.6%), B (2.5%), and C or older May and November 2000, survey teams assessed hide (0.9%) overall maturities; and native (90.1%), dairy- condition (n = 43,415 cattle for color, brands, mud/ma- type (6.9%), and Bos indicus (3.0%) breed-types. Mean nure), bruises (n = 43,595 carcasses), offal and carcass USDA yield grade traits were USDA yield grade (3.0), condemnation (n = 8,588 cattle), and carcass quality carcass weight (356.9 kg), adjusted fat thickness (1.2 and yield information (n = 9,396 carcasses) in 30 U.S. cm), longissimus muscle area (84.5 cm2), and kidney, beef packing plants. Hide colors were black (45.1%), pelvic, and heart fat (2.4%). USDA yield grades were red (31.0%), yellow (8.0%), Holstein (5.7%), gray (4.0%), Yield Grade 1 (12.2%), Yield Grade 2 (37.4%), Yield white (3.2%), brown (1.7%), and brindle (1.3%). Brand Grade 3 (38.6%), Yield Grade 4 (10.4%), and Yield Grade frequencies were no (49.3%), one (46.2%), and two or 5 (1.3%). Mean USDA quality grade traits were USDA more (4.4%), and brands were located on the butt quality grade (Select85), marbling score (Small23), over- (36.3%), side (13.7%), and shoulder (3.6%). Most cattle all maturity (A66), lean maturity (A65), and skeletal ma- had no (18.0%) or a small amount (55.8%) of mud/ma- turity (A67). Marbling score distribution was Slightly nure on their hides, and they had no (77.3%) horns. Abundant or higher (2.3%), Moderate (4.8%), Modest Most carcasses (53.3%) were not bruised, 30.9% had one (13.1%), Small (33.3%), Slight (43.3%), and Traces bruise, and 15.8% had multiple bruises. Bruise location (3.4%). USDA quality grades were Prime (2.0%), Choice and incidence were round (14.9%), loin (25.9%), rib (49.1%), Select (42.3%), Standard (5.6%), and Commer- (19.4%), chuck (28.2%), and brisket, flank, and plate cial, Utility, Cutter, and Canner (0.9%). This informa- (11.6%). Condemnation item and incidence were liver tion will help the beef industry measure progress com- (30.3%), lungs (13.8%), tripe (11.6%), heads (6.2%), pared to the past two surveys and will provide a bench- tongues (7.0%), and carcasses (0.1%). Carcass evalua- mark for future educational and research activities. Key Words: Beef Quality, Market Surveys, Meat Grades 2002 American Society of Animal Science. All rights reserved. J. Anim. Sci. 2002. 80:1212–1222 Introduction The National Beef Quality Audit–1991 (NBQA– 1Technical article from the Texas Agric. Exp. Stn. This study was 1991; Lorenzen et al., 1993) established the first major supported, in part, by the National Cattlemen’s Beef Assoc. on behalf benchmark that identified what the U.S. beef industry of the Cattlemen’s Beef Board through its $1 per head check-off program. was producing. The National Beef Quality Audit–1995 2Present address: Foodbrands America, Inc., North Richland Hills, (NBQA–1995; Boleman et al., 1998) measured prog- TX 76180. ress regarding the quality, consistency, and competi- 3 Present address: University of Missouri, Columbia 65211. tiveness of beef. These audits have been used exten- 4Correspondence: phone: 979-845-3935; fax: 979-845-9454; E-mail: [email protected]. sively in a variety of research, education, and business Received October 5, 2001. activities as references to what the beef industry was Accepted January 4, 2002. producing. Information gathered and disseminated 1212 National Beef Quality Audit–2000 1213 from previous audits has focused on production prac- Table 1. Company and location of plants audited tices (branding and dehorning), animal handling (mud/manure on hides and carcass bruising), condem- ConAgra Beef, Inc. Cactus, TX ConAgra Beef, Inc. Garden City, KS nation (offal and carcass), and carcass quality and ConAgra Beef, Inc. Grand Island, NE quantity factors, and a recommendation was made to ConAgra Beef, Inc. Greeley, CO update this information every 4 to 5 years (Smith et E.A. Miller Hyrum, UT al., 1992). Excel, Inc. Dodge City, KS Since the completion of the NBQA-1995, a number Excel, Inc. Fort Morgan, CO Excel, Inc. Friona, TX of management and marketing changes may have in- Excel, Inc. Plainview, TX fluenced the type of beef being produced. Most notably, Harris Ranch Selma, CA a resurgence in demand for beef (NCBA, 2001), an IBP, Inc. Amarillo, TX increased number of USDA certified branded beef pro- IBP, Inc. Boise, ID grams (USDA, 2001a), an affordable, abundant supply IBP, Inc. Dakota City, NE IBP, Inc. Denison, IA of grain (USDA, 2001b,c,d), and improved manage- IBP, Inc. Emporia, KS ment and awareness facilitated through Beef Quality IBP, Inc. Garden City, KS Assurance and other producer education programs. IBP, Inc. Joslin, IL These factors may have impacted the quality and con- IBP, Inc. Lexington, NE sistency of cattle and resulting carcass and by-product IBP, Inc. Pasco, WA IBP, Inc. West Point, NE characteristics. Moyer Packing, Inc. Souderton, PA The National Beef Quality Audit–2000 (NBQA– Murco Plainwell, MI 2000) was conducted to assess the current status of Nebraska Beef Omaha, NE the quality and consistency of the U.S. fed steer and Packerland Green Bay, WI heifer population, pinpoint inadequacies and short- PM Beef, Inc. Windom, MN Sam Kane Beef Processors Corpus Christi, TX falls that the industry needs to improve upon, and Shamrock Vernon, CA track progress made since previous audits. This phase Sun Land Beef Co. Tolleson, AZ of the audit encompassed in-plant surveys of targeted Taylor Packing, Inc. Wyalusing, PA qualitative and quantitative attributes of cattle, car- Washington Beef Sunnyside, WA casses, and by-products. Materials and Methods Cattle Assessment. These characteristics were as- sessed for samples of cattle from each production lot General Overview. The four universities involved during the slaughter process in each packing facility: with this study surveyed federally inspected fed-beef before hide removal (n = 43,415), hide color, hide packing plants (n = 30; Table 1) selected to represent branding, mud/manure, and horns; after hide removal various geographical regions of the United States and (n = 43,595), carcass bruising; and carcass and offal comprise approximately 80% of fed steer and heifer condemnation (n = 8,588) upon pathological evalua- slaughter capacity. Plants were audited within a 7- tion. For the characteristics evaluated before and after mo period (May through November 2000), and each hide removal, approximately 50% of each production team surveyed seven or eight plants based on a plan lot was sampled, and about 10% of each lot was sam- that maximized travel and time efficiency and opti- pled for carcass and offal condemnation. mized proportions of calf vs yearling slaughter cattle. These assessments were made at the beginning of To standardize assessments, team leaders partici- the slaughter process near the exsanguination area of pated in a 3-d training and correlation session at a each packing plant. Hide color was classified according beef packing plant before the start of the study. to primary color (black, red, yellow, gray, white, Each team audited plants that were assigned to brown, brindle, or Holstein) and percentage saturation them once during the prescribed month. Plants were (100%, 99 to 85%, 84 to 51%, or roan). Cattle classified audited to achieve the equivalent of one day’s produc- as Holstein were given a saturation value of 100%. tion; plants operating only a single production shift Hide brands, if present, were evaluated for location each day were audited on a single day, and those op- and approximate size. “Butt” brands were those lo- erating two production shifts each day were audited cated on the rump and round region, “side” brands over the course of2d(e.g., d 1, evening shift; d 2, were those located on the loin and(or) rib-plate re- morning shift). Plants were eligible to be audited on gions, and “shoulder” brands were located on the any day of the week; however, 14% of the audits were shoulder (chuck) and(or) neck regions. Cattle were conducted on Mondays. Because additional postmor- evaluated for the presence of horns. If horns were pres- tem chilling may influence USDA quality grade factors ent, approximate length (of a single horn) was esti- (Calkins et al., 1980), we did not want to over- or mated (< 2.54 cm, 2.54 to 12.7 cm, or > 12.7 cm). Mud/ under-sample carcasses that would be chilled over the manure on the hides was evaluated visually as to its weekend from animals slaughtered on Fridays or Sat- amount (no, small, moderate, large or extreme) and urdays. location (no, mud/manure on legs, mud/manure on 1214 McKenna et al.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • New Concepts of Cattle Growth
    NEW CONCEPTS OF CATTLE GROWTH Roy T. Berg Rex M. Butterfield Foreword by St C. S. Taylor SYDNEY UNIVERSITY PRESS NEW CONCEPTS OF CATTLE GROWTH Roy T. Berg Rex M. Butterfield Original Publisher SYDNEY UNIVERSITY PRESS University of Sydney 1976, ISBN 0 424 00002 4 Now Published by The Internet-First University Press This manuscript is among the initial offerings being published as part of a new approach to scholarly publishing. The manuscript is freely available from the Internet-First University Press repository within DSpace at Cornell University at http://dspace.library.cornell.edu/handle/1813/62 The online version of this work is available on an open access basis, without fees or restrictions on personal use. A professionally printed version may be purchased through Cornell Business Services by contacting: [email protected] All mass reproduction, even for educational or not-for-profit use, requires permission and license. For more information, please contact [email protected]. We will provide a downloadable version of this document from the Internet-First University Press. Ithaca, NY March 2005 SYDNEY UNIVERSITY PRESS Press Building, University of Sydney UNITED KINGDOM, EUROPE, MIDDLE EAST, AFRICA, CARIBBEAN Prentice/Hall International, International Book Distributors Ltd Hemel Hempstead, England National Library of Australia Cataloguing-in-Publication data Berg, Roy Torgny New concepts of cattle growth/ [by] Roy T. Berg [and] Rex M. Butterfield.—Sydney: Sydney University Press, 1976. Index. Bibliography. ISBN 0 424 00002 4. 1. Cattle—Physiology.
    [Show full text]
  • A Study of the Relationships Between Growth, Carcass and Meat Characteristics of Angus Steers
    Copyright is owned by the Author of the thesis. Permission is given for a copy to be downloaded by an individual for the purpose of research and private study only. The thesis may not be reproduced elsewhere without the permission of the Author. A STUDY OF THE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN GROWTH, CARCASS AND MEAT CHARACTERISTICS OF ANGUS STEERS A thesis presented in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Agricultural Science in Animal Science at Massey University James Kundaeli Kileghua Msechu 1982 ii ABSTRACT Growth, defined as change in weight , may be considered the most important single characteristic of slaughter cattle. Fast-growing cattle may have better food conversion and reach slaughter early. The end- products in a beef production business, namely, carcass and meat , have properties which determine consumer acceptability. This study focussed attention on growth, carcass and meat characteristics in cattle. Literature was reviewed on factors that influence variability in these traits and relationships reported in the literature between some of the traits were summarised . Records on 117 Angus steers born in 1975 and 1976 (years 1 and 2) were analysed by the least squares method of fitting constants. Data included birth weight , calf milk consumption pre-weaning average daily gain (ADG), weaning weight , post-weaning ADG, yearling weight, 2-year weight, finish (30-month) weight , carcass weight , kidney and channel fat weight , eye muscle width, depth, and area, fat depth , fat trim percentage, intra-muscular fat percentage, sarcomere length, meat tenderness, muscle pH, and colour , lean percentage and bone percentage. Fixed-effects constants fitted to growth data were: herd , age of dam and peri-natal treatment (calving on pasture or sawdust pad) .
    [Show full text]
  • KEY National FFA Livestock Evaluation Career Development Event 2014
    KEY National FFA Livestock Evaluation Career Development Event 2014 1. Adapting the behavior of animals to fit the need of humans is called: a. training b. imprinting c. domestication (p 5) d. culling 2. American breeds of swine originate from two wild stocks; European wild boar: Sus scrofa and the East Indian Pig: Sus ______ . a. caballus b. vittatus (p 10) c. camelus d. hicus 3. Which species of livestock is the most efficient in converting feed calorie intake(energy efficiency) and converting crude protein in feed to edible protein (protein efficiency) meat? a. Cattle b. Goats c. Lambs d. Swine(p 12) 4. Which state ranks in the top ten for production of each of the species of cattle, swine, sheep and goats? a. Texas b. California c. Montana d. Iowa (p 20) 5. Which trait in beef cattle has the highest heritability estimate? a. Rib eye area (p 190) b. Yearling weight c. Carcass grade d. Weaning weight 6. Which trait in swine has the lowest heritability estimate? a. Loin muscle area b. Birth weight (p 191) c. Feed efficiency d. Back fat 7. Which of the following is an example of a homozygous (dominant) gene pair? a. PP (p 197) b. Pp c. pP d. pp 8. In the reproductive system the testicles produce the hormone: a. Progesterone b. Estrogen c. Testosterone (p 209) d. Melengestrol acetate 9. The average length of gestation for goats is: a. 114 days b. 148 days c. 151 days (p 215) d. 201 days 10. Which species of livestock’s onset of puberty has more to do with the time of year than the age in months? a.
    [Show full text]
  • Beef, Bison and Veal Carcass Grade Requirements
    Beef, Bison and Veal Carcass Grade Requirements Prepared by the Canadian Beef Grading Agency This document was published on January 9, 2020 Date of publication of previous versions: June 13, 2018 Table of Contents 1.0 Definitions ......................................................................................................................................... 1 2.0 Marking ............................................................................................................................................. 5 2.1 Beef Carcass .................................................................................................................................. 5 2.2 Bison Carcass ................................................................................................................................. 5 2.3 Veal Carcass .................................................................................................................................. 6 3.0 Grade Names and Grade Requirements for Beef Carcasses ............................................................. 7 Grade Requirements for Canada A, Canada AA, Canada AAA and Canada Prime.................................... 7 Table - Marbling Levels for Canada A, Canada AA, Canada AAA and Canada Prime ............................ 7 Table - Yield Classes for Canada A, Canada AA, Canada AAA and Canada Prime ................................. 8 Grade Requirements for Canada B1 ........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • 2016 National Beef Quality Audit Go Further, Providing Additional Actionable Insights
    2016 NB A STEER & HEIFER Executive Summary TABLE Fellow Cattle Industry Members, of Those of us involved in the 2011 National Beef Quality Audit CONTENTS (NBQA) came away with an important conclusion: We must do a better job of telling our beef industry story. That emphasizes the Background ...........................2 question: What IS our story? While the final pages of the 2011 report offered valuable guidance, The Research Process ..........3 results from the 2016 National Beef Quality Audit go further, providing additional actionable insights. They also prove that when Face-to-Face Interviews ........4 it comes to a compelling story, we really do have a strong one to tell. At the same time, this data adds to the body of critical information Producers Weigh-In ...............7 necessary to help our industry maintain its focus on continuous improvement. In-Plant Research Without question, statistics and data in this research have helped the industry make significant improvements in its processes and Transportation, Mobility & Harvest products through the years. The 2016 research should stimulate the Floor Assessments ........................ 8 same result. But unless our customers – cattle and beef buyers and consumers – are both knowledgeable about and comfortable with Cooler Assessments .................... 12 industry changes, optimal success cannot be achieved. As we look to core strategies in the 2016-2020 Beef Industry Long Instrument Grading Assessments . 15 Range Plan, we see this research addresses many of the industry’s needs. It leads to work that will grow consumer trust in beef and beef production, as well as promote and strengthen beef’s value Strategy Session ..................16 proposition.
    [Show full text]
  • The Effects of Placing Cattle on Feed at Bimonthly Intervals, Housing, and Stage of Feeding Upon Feedlot Performance and Carcass Grades " (1986)
    Iowa State University Capstones, Theses and Retrospective Theses and Dissertations Dissertations 1986 The effects of placing cattle on feed ta bimonthly intervals, housing, and stage of feeding upon feedlot performance and carcass grades Gary Michael Pusillo Iowa State University Follow this and additional works at: https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/rtd Part of the Agriculture Commons, and the Animal Sciences Commons Recommended Citation Pusillo, Gary Michael, "The effects of placing cattle on feed at bimonthly intervals, housing, and stage of feeding upon feedlot performance and carcass grades " (1986). Retrospective Theses and Dissertations. 8029. https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/rtd/8029 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Iowa State University Capstones, Theses and Dissertations at Iowa State University Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Retrospective Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Iowa State University Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. INFORMATION TO USERS This reproduction was made from a copy of a manuscript sent to us for publication and microfilming. While the most advanced technology has been used to pho­ tograph and reproduce this manuscript, the quality of the reproduction is heavily dependent upon the quality of the material submitted. Pages in any manuscript may have indistinct print. In all cases the best available copy has been filmed. The following explanation of techniques is provided to help clarify notations which may appear on this reproduction. 1. Manuscripts may not always be complete. When it is not possible to obtain missing pages, a note appears to indicate this.
    [Show full text]
  • Luiz De Queiroz”
    1 Universidade de São Paulo Escola Superior de Agricultura “Luiz de Queiroz” Impacto em características qualitativas de carne bovina in natura decorrente do manejo nutricional e de tecnologias pós-abate, e sua relação com grupo genético Carolina de Castro Santos Tese apresentada para obtenção do título de Doutor em Ciências. Área de concentração: Ciência Animal e Pastagens Piracicaba 2011 2 Carolina de Castro Santos Médico Veterinário Impacto em características qualitativas de carne bovina in natura decorrente do manejo nutricional e de tecnologias pós-abate, e sua relação com grupo genético versão revisada de acordo com a resolução CoPGr 5890 de 2010 Orientador: Prof. Dr. EDUARDO FRANCISQUINE DELGADO Tese apresentada para obtenção do título de Doutor em Ciências. Área de concentração: Ciência Animal e Pastagens Piracicaba 2011 Dados Internacionais de Catalogação na Publicação DIVISÃO DE BIBLIOTECA - ESALQ/USP Santos, Carolina de Castro Impacto em características qualitativas de carne bovina in natura decorrente do manejo nutricional e de tecnologias pós-abate, e sua relação com grupo genético / Carolina de Castro Santos. - - versão revisada de acordo com a resolução CoPGr 5890 de 2010. - - Piracicaba, 2011. 167 p. : il. Tese (Doutorado) - - Escola Superior de Agricultura “Luiz de Queiroz”, 2011. 1. Abate - Técnicas 2. Ácidos graxos 3. Bovinos de corte 4. Carnes e derivados - Qualidade 5. Estimulação elétrica 6. Melhoramento genético animal 7. Nutrição animal I. Título CDD 636.213 S237i “Permitida a cópia total ou parcial deste documento, desde que citada a fonte – O autor” 3 Dedico Aos meus pais, Domingos e Janete pela dádiva da oportunidade. Sem ela, eu não teria chegado até aqui.
    [Show full text]
  • Markus F. Miller Professor of Meat Science and Muscle Biology San Antonio Livestock Show Distinguished Chair in Meat Science
    Markus F. Miller Professor of Meat Science and Muscle Biology San Antonio Livestock Show Distinguished Chair in Meat Science Texas Tech University Department of Animal and Food Sciences Meat Science Laboratory Box 42141 Lubbock, TX 79409-2141 Telephone: 806-742-2804, Fax: 806-742-4003 [email protected] Personal Name: Markus F. Miller Address: RR 1 Box 9 Abernathy, TX 79311 Telephone: 806-328-5210 Cell: 806-438-4979 Birthday: February 6, 1960 Birthplace: Joshua, Texas Marital Status: Wife – Celia Children: Son – Markus, 21; Daughters – Kristin, 19; Kimberly, 14; Julie, 13 Height: 5’10” Weight: 205 lbs. Background: Reared on a North Central Texas dairy farm. Enterprises included registered Red Angus, dairy cattle and crops. Education 1974-1978 Joshua High School Joshua, Texas Graduated 7 of 132 Diploma 1978 1978-1982 Texas Tech University Lubbock, Texas Animal Science – Magna cum Laude B.S. 1982 1982-1984 Texas Tech University Lubbock, Texas Animal Science – Meat Science M.S. 1984 1984-87 Texas A&M University College Station, Texas Animal Science – Meat Science Ph.D. 1987 Professional Experience 2004 – Present Professor, San Antonio Livestock Show Distinguished Chair in Meat Science 1990-2004 Professor of Meat Science, Texas Tech University 1980-1990 Director of Research/Development and Quality Assurance, Montfort of Colorado. Inc. 1987-1989 Assistant Professor of Meat Science, University of Georgia 1984-1987 Research Associate, Texas A&M University 1982-1984 Instructor, Texas Tech University 1981-1982 Undergraduate employee, Texas Tech
    [Show full text]
  • Effect of Weight, Grade, and Sex of Beef Carcasses on Yield of Packaged Beef for the Freezer
    University of Tennessee, Knoxville TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange Bulletins AgResearch 7-1962 Effect of Weight, Grade, and Sex of Beef Carcasses on Yield of Packaged Beef for the Freezer J. W. Cole C. B. Ramsey A. R. Cavendar University of Tennessee Agricultural Experiment Station Follow this and additional works at: https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_agbulletin Part of the Agriculture Commons Recommended Citation Cole, J. W.; Ramsey, C. B.; Cavendar, A. R.; and University of Tennessee Agricultural Experiment Station, "Effect of Weight, Grade, and Sex of Beef Carcasses on Yield of Packaged Beef for the Freezer" (1962). Bulletins. https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_agbulletin/282 The publications in this collection represent the historical publishing record of the UT Agricultural Experiment Station and do not necessarily reflect current scientific knowledge or ecommendations.r Current information about UT Ag Research can be found at the UT Ag Research website. This Bulletin is brought to you for free and open access by the AgResearch at TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange. It has been accepted for inclusion in Bulletins by an authorized administrator of TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange. For more information, please contact [email protected]. SUMMARY ARCASSES of 75 steers and 68 heifers, representing five USDA C grades and four weight groups, were used to depict the rela- tionships between yield of cuts for the locker and selected charac- teristics. • Increases in carcass weight were accompanied by increases in carcass length, fat thickness over the rib eye, and rib-eye area. Heifers were fatter and had less rib-eye area than steers.
    [Show full text]
  • Developing Carcass Beef for the Japanese Premium Market: a Montana Enterprise
    University of Montana ScholarWorks at University of Montana Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers Graduate School 1992 Developing carcass beef for the Japanese premium market: A Montana enterprise Scott G. Hibbard The University of Montana Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.umt.edu/etd Let us know how access to this document benefits ou.y Recommended Citation Hibbard, Scott G., "Developing carcass beef for the Japanese premium market: A Montana enterprise" (1992). Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers. 5847. https://scholarworks.umt.edu/etd/5847 This Professional Paper is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at ScholarWorks at University of Montana. It has been accepted for inclusion in Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks at University of Montana. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Maureen and Mike MANSFIELD LIBRARY Copying allowed as provided under provisions of the Fair Use Section of the U.S. COPYRIGHT LAW, 1976. Any copying for commercial purposes or financM gain may be under^en only with the author’s written consent. MontanaUniversity of Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. DEVELOPING CARCASS BEEF FOR THE JAPANESE PREMIUM MARKET A Montana Enterprise by Scott G. Hibbard B.A., Williams College, 1974 M.F.A., University of Montana, 1979 A Professional Paper Submitted to a Committee of Graduate Faculty in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Business Administration School of Business Administration University of Montana Missoula, Montana 1992 Approved Chairman, Board of Examiners Dean, Graduate School J r 2 li .
    [Show full text]
  • Guide to Food Labelling and Advertising
    Home > Food > Labelling > Guide to Food Labelling and Advertising Print Text Size: - + Share Guide to Food Labelling and Advertising Acknowledgement Contributions of Canadian Food Inspection Agency and Health Canada officers and other experts who provided input to this document are gratefully acknowledged. Information found in the Guide to Food Labelling and Advertising is provided free of charge to the public. It may be reused or reproduced provided that it is: accurately reproduced; accompanied by the date of issue, or in the case of an amended section, the date of the most recent amendment appearing at the bottom of the page; and the source is credited. Persons using this information agree to save harmless Her Majesty in right of Canada and all her representatives against any claim resulting from its use. Table of Contents Chapter 1 Introduction 1.1 Reason for the Guide 1.2 Legislative Framework: Key Acts and Regulations 1.3 Other Relevant Federal Legislation 1.4 Purpose of Food Labelling 1.5 Food Advertising Responsibilities 1.6 Sources of Additional Information on Labelling and Claims Chapter 2 Basic Labelling Requirements 2.1 Definitions 2.2 General Labelling Requirements 2.3 Foods Requiring a Label 2.4 Bilingual Requirements 2.5 Common Name 2.6 Net Quantity 2.7 Name and Address 2.8 List of Ingredients 2.9 Nutrition Facts Table 2.10 Artificial Flavours 2.11 Durable Life Date 2.12 Previously Frozen 2.13 Standard Container Sizes 2.14 Other Mandatory Information 2.15 Labels of Shipping Containers 2.16 Test Market Foods 2.17 Temporary
    [Show full text]
  • USDA MARBLING and CARCASS PHYSIOLOGICAL MATURITY RELATED DIFFERENCES for BEEF TENDERNESS and PALATABILITY CHARACTERISTICS By
    USDA MARBLING AND CARCASS PHYSIOLOGICAL MATURITY RELATED DIFFERENCES FOR BEEF TENDERNESS AND PALATABILITY CHARACTERISTICS By CHARLES ANDREW MCPEAKE Bachelor of Science Oklahoma State University Stillwater, Oklahoma 1999 Submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate College of the Oklahoma State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE August, 2001 USDA MARBLING AND CARCASS PHYSIOLOGICAL MATURITY RELATED DIFFERENCES FOR BEEF TENDERNESS AND PALATABILITY CHARACTERISTICS Thesis Approved: -~.- Dean of the Graduate College II ACKNOWLEDGMENTS First and foremost I would like to express my sincere appreciation to my major advisor, Dr. Brad Morgan. His never-ending desire to point me in the proper direction regarding not only research activities and scholastic achievement, but also for his willingness to go the extra mile by providing positive support and friendship will always be something that I will remember for years to come. I would also like to thank Dr. Chance Brooks and Dr. Carla Goad for their technical assistance and Dr. Fred Ray for always being someone that I could bounce an idea off of no matter how irrelevant it seemed to be. Lastly, I would like to thank the final member of my graduate committee, Dr. Clint Krehbiel, for his many entertaining discussions regarding rumenology and the feedlot industry that ultimately changed my educational path. I would be na"ive to believe a single person could accomplish research without help from their surrounding peers. A special thanks goes to Aaron Elam, Nathan Elam, Paula Bates, Laura Locke, Jeff Mafi, Mark McGee and lIiana Pruneda. Your hard work not only enabled me to complete this project in a reasonable amount of time, but also to fulfill my classroom requirements with flying colors.
    [Show full text]