WDMC2001 Getting the Most from Your Dairy Beef: Proceedings of the 5Th Western Dairy Management Conference

Getting the Most From Your Dairy Beef G.C. SMITH—Department of Animal Sciences, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523 Tel: 970-491-5226 Fax: 970-491-0278 [email protected] D.L. ROEBER—Colorado State University J.D. TATUM—Colorado State University K.E BELK—Colorado State University D.S. HALE—Texas A&M University J.A. SCANGA—Colorado State University W.R. HENNING—Pennsylvania State University T.G. FIELD—Colorado State University G.L. COWMAN—National Cattlemen’s Beef Association Most dairy producers have focused their management National audits have been conducted annually since expertise on production of milk, not meat, and their food 1994 to determine the incidence of injection-site lesions in quality and safety efforts on milk products. Dairymen muscles of the round from market cows and bulls; results receive 4% (vs. 16% for cow/calf producers) of their gross of the first five of those national audits (Smith et al., revenue from sale of salvage cattle and 96% from sale of 1999b) are presented in Table 1. Information gathered fluid milk (Roeber et al., 2000a), justifying their emphasis on from these audits was the basis for national and state BQA milk production and their nonchalance about the value of programs designed to increase producer awareness about salvage cattle. There are, however, financial incentives for injection-site lesion problems. From 1994 through 1996, dairymen willing to become well-informed on the use of efforts of national and state BQA programs, to encourage meat from market cows and bulls and to promote value by producers and veterinarians to choose subcutaneous managing their herds to minimize quality shortcomings and (rather than intramuscular) routes of administration and defects, by monitoring the health and condition of market alternate body-location sites for injection (in front of the cows and bulls, and by marketing salvage cattle in a timely shoulder rather than in the rump or hindquarter), were manner (National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, 2000). succeeding (Smith et al., 1999b). Incidence of injection-site Contrary to the popularly held belief of most produc- lesions was 28.9% in 1994, 23.0% in 1995 and 19.3% in ers, not all of the beef from market cows and bulls is used 1996. But, when the incidence dramatically increased — to in the production of commodity ground beef. In fact, beef 40.9% in 1997 — and then, just as abruptly decreased — to from market cows and bulls is widely used in the retail and 23.9% in 1998 — in a two-year period of study, members of food service sectors in a variety of product forms. Roeber et the NCBA, BQA Advisory Board decided that the methodol- al. (2000a) interviewed packers during the 1999 National ogy, by which the audits of muscles from the rounds of Market Cow And Bull Beef Quality Audit and reported that market cows and bulls were being conducted, needed to 43.6% of cow and bull beef was sold as 100% Visual Lean be improved. As a result, it was decided that, for producer (for use in restructured beef roasts) or as primals/ awareness and education purposes, the injection-site lesion subprimals (for sale as steaks/roasts in supermarkets and incidence should be determined more accurately (by food-service operations), leaving 56.4% for use in ground carefully slicing whole muscles from end to end) and more beef and sausage products. definitively (by cattle types—dairy vs. beef). Since 1994, National Cattlemen’s Beef Association’s Beginning in 1998, a national “slice audit” was Beef Quality Assurance Advisory Board has commissioned performed by identifying dairy and beef cows at packing five studies: (a) Two kinds of annual audits to identify plants across the United States, following the carcasses incidence of injection-site lesions in muscles of the round through fabricating/boning and carefully checking — from of dairy and beef cows and bulls; (b) A study to identify end-to-end, from the topline between the hooks and pins uses of meat from dairy and beef, market cow and bull down to the hock, in the outside, and eye of, round carcasses; and (c) Two studies to identify quality concerns muscles (biceps femoris and semitendinosus) — for injection- through conduction of national audits of market cows and site lesions (Smith et al., 1999b). Results of the first slice bulls, their carcasses and their edible and inedible offal audit (Table 2) revealed that an astonishing percentage of (Smith et al., 1999a). These studies were parts of the those muscles had visible tissue damage sufficient to cause activities of the NCBA, BQA Advisory Board and were loss of weight and value (because such lesions must be intended to educate producers regarding means for dissected out and discarded, to remove damaged and improving the quality and value of market (sometimes greatly toughened muscle). It was also determined that called “non-fed,” “cull” or “salvage”) cows and bulls there were substantive differences between rounds from generated by beef and dairy cattle operations. more → PROCEEDINGS OF THE 5TH WESTERN DAIRY MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE 69 Getting the Most From Your Dairy Beef, continued much greater proportion of today’s highest quality (and highest priced) retail ground beef is comprised of cow/bull beef vs. dairy cattle in the incidence and location of the meat. In addition, many subprimal cuts from market cows injection-site lesions. In round muscles from beef cows, the and bulls are now sold in the same manner (to be mer- incidence of injection-site lesions was 28.7% and most of chandized as steaks and roasts) as are subprimal cuts from the lesions were found in the uppermost quadrants of the grain-finished steers and heifers (Smith et al., 1999a). muscle (38.0% of all lesions were found at the top of the Industry nomenclature for kinds/qualities of market muscle, Quadrant 4 (Q4) — near the backbone — with cows and bulls and their carcasses is not used consistently 36.1%, 19.4% and 6.5% located in quadrants 3, 2 and 1 and is not based on any standardized criteria; new, effec- (Q3, Q2 and Q1), respectively, where Q1 is the Quadrant tive official USDA grades are badly needed for price at the bottom of the muscle — near the hock). In rounds determination and market reporting for these cattle and from dairy cows, the incidence of injection-site lesions was carcasses (Roeber et al., 2000a). Smith et al. (1999a) twice as high — at 57.5% — and the lesions occurred in Q4, reported results of an interview of management personnel Q3, Q2 and Q1 quadrants of the muscle at incidences of of one of the nation’s largest harvesters/fabricators of 18.3%, 36.2%, 29.5% and 16.1%, respectively, suggesting market cows and bulls, in which that company’s grading that sites preferred by producers and/or veterinarians for system was characterized. The classes used by that packer administering injections to dairy cows are much lower on to describe market cow and bull carcasses are: the leg (on the standing animal) than are those for beef 1. “White Cows” or “High Quality Cows” — these carcasses cows (Smith et al., 1999b). have a significant covering of white fat (many of these National “slice audits” performed in 1998, 1999 and are from fleshy Holstein cows and some are from beef 2000 (Table 2) reveal meaningful decreases in total cows that have been grouped and fed high-concen- incidences of injection-site lesions, over that time period, in trate diets for about 20 to 60 days prior to harvest), round muscles from both beef cows (28.7%, 25.7% and good body conformation and high muscle quality 20.0%, respectively) and dairy cows (57.5%, 51.0% and (color and marbling). 34.5%, respectively) suggesting that education efforts of 2. “Boners and Breakers” — these are relatively lean BQA programs are succeeding (Smith et al., 1999b; Roeber carcasses with some marbling and good body et al., 2000b). Interestingly, proportions of injection-site conformation. lesions occurring in the upper-half (Quadrants 3 plus 4) of 3. “Cutters and Canners” — these are lean carcasses with the round muscles decreased, between 1998 and 2000, little or no marbling and with poor to very poor body from 74.1%, to 52.2% (beef cattle) and from 54.5%, to conformation. 33.1% in dairy cattle suggesting that the lower-half (Quad- 4. “Bulls” — these are bull carcasses that usually have little rants 1 plus 2) of the round muscles is becoming a more fat cover but good body conformation. popular site (25.9%, to 47.8% in beef cattle; 45.6%, to 5. “Bologna Bulls” — these are bull carcasses that have 66.9% in dairy cattle) for administering intramuscular basically no fat cover (the entire boneless carcass will injections (Table 2). yield meat that is approximately 92% lean) and for The primary function of activities of the NCBA, BQA which conformation is not an issue (Smith et al., 1999a). Advisory Board is to develop information for use in educa- Of the total daily U.S. cattle slaughter, 15 to 25% tional programs of national and state BQA programs. One (depending on season) of beef production will be from educational opportunity involves helping cattle producers market cow and bull carcasses (Smith et al., 1999a). Of the become more knowledgeable about the uses — as foods — national market cow and bull slaughter, about 0.5% are of the muscles from market cows and bulls, and especially “Bologna Bulls,” approximately 9% are “Bulls” and about about changes in management practices that might 1% are “White Cows” while the remaining 88 to 89% of improve the quality and value of those muscles (Smith et market cows and bulls are classified by packers using al., 1999a).

Load more