Ohio Beef Quality Assurance Program

Home Page       

---

INDUSTRY QUALITY CHALLENGES

The 1995 NBQA provides management practices for reducing beef’s quality problems.  These include eliminating excess external fat and determining genetic and management systems that improve beef eating quality characteristics, such as flavor, tenderness and juiciness. Good production practices can reduce, if not eliminate, the occurrence of these quality challenges.  Administering animal health products according to label directions, marketing cattle at an optimum end point, reducing stress in cattle handling, and eliminating extremes in size of breeding stock are some of the procedures which can reduce quality defects, and increase the market value of beef cuts.

The NBQA conducted in 1991 determined the economic losses due to total waste (excess fat) to be $219.25 (Table 1, column 1), however, this value did not account for allowing one-quarter inch trim to remain on cuts of beef.  Therefore, the 1995 NBQA reported values of total waste under both scenarios: a) removing all excess fat from beef cuts (Table one column 2), and b) total waste fat in excess of one-quarter inch trim on beef cuts (Table one, column 3).  The latter is more reflective of standard industry practices.

Table 1.  NBQA (1991 and 1995) estimated economic losses associated with quality defects in fed steers and heifers, and  midcourse correction losses resulting from the 1995 NBQA
 

The $47.10 value loss due to management defects can begin to be recovered simply by evaluating and altering the management techniques used in today’s beef production systems.  Current problems that producers have control over include injection site blemishes, hide damage, bruises and dark cutters.

As an example of how improvement can be made, injection site blemishes, or lesions cost the beef industry $188 million annually and individual producers $7.05 per head of fed cattle marketed based on the 1995 NBQA. In 1991, 21.6% of fed cattle marketed had injection site lesions with 14.2% of these lesions being fluid-filled.  In 1998, this defect was down to 5.6% with 0.3% being fluid-filled.  Fluid-filled lesions would be indicative of a lesion that occurred fairly recently, such as during the animal’s time in the feedlot. This dramatic improvement occurred in seven years in fed cattle.

However, the results of the first Market Cow and Bull Quality Audit in 1994 showed that the percent of injection site lesions in non-fed cattle was found to be 28.9 (7.5% fluid-filled). In the November 1997 audit, which included cull dairy cows, this number increased to 40.9%.  Contrary to popular belief, not all beef from market cows is marketed as ground beef.  For example, ribeye rolls and rounds from market cows and bulls are used in products such as Philly Steak and roast beef sandwiches.

Moving the injection site area to the neck stops damage to expensive steak cuts and it is also easier for packers to identify lesions in the plant.  Research sponsored by NCBA uncovered a negative relationship between meat tenderness and injection sites, including injection sites that had no visible lesion. Findings concluded that all intramuscular (IM) injections, including sterile water, create permanent damage regardless of the age of the animal at the time the product was given.  At the very least, tenderness is reduced in a 3-inch area surrounding the injection site.

Excessive external fat cost producers $177.18 per head of fed cattle marketed (1995 NBQA).  Typically, this loss plus those mentioned above are passed along to all cattle sold by our industry.  The result of averaging all losses across all cattle is that the beef industry has a hard time rewarding quality, which allows the commodity mentality to continue.

Responses from the 1995 NBQA indicated that improvements in beef quality have been seen in increased availability of closely trimmed beef, heightened producer awareness of quality problems, improved cutability and extended shelf-life and retail case-life of beef products.  But, at the same time, the results of the 1995 NBQA showed that more work remains to be done to improve product quality and consistency – particularly eating quality and consistency.

Drug residue in livestock products is an important issue confronting the livestock industry.  Consumers are concerned about the drugs used in the industry and how they affect the food they eat.  The livestock industry can address these concerns by assuring the consumer that the necessary steps are being taken by the industry to prevent drug residues in livestock products.  Consumers expect zero tolerance.

Residue violations can be avoided by implementing and following control systems that incorporate the following segments:

        1. Proper individual animal identification.
        2. Maintaining complete medical records.
        3. Properly storing, labeling and accounting for medication.
        4. Obtaining and using only animal health products as they are labeled.
        5. Maintain a good VCPR
        6. Educating all employees and family members about your control systems.

Penicillin accounts for over 20% of all antibiotic residue violations in beef.  It is the most commonly used drug and routinely purchased over the counter.  Gentamicin and streptomycin run a close second in number of residue violations attributed to these antibiotics.

The following are some common mistakes made when label directions on medication are not carefully followed:

        1. Treating a condition that is not indicated on the label.
        2. Treating a type of animal not indicated on the medication label.
        3. Using more than the dosage indicated on the label.
        4. Not following the proper withdrawal time of the medication.
        5. Failing to clean out water and feed systems when medications are used.
        6. Improper administration of a drug.
        7. Improper storage of drugs.

Open and consistent communication between livestock producers and a veterinarian is important for assuring quality control, animal welfare, and preventing drug and chemical residues.  Using animal health products exactly as they are labeled or prescribed and having a valid veterinary-client-patient relationship is required for a BQA program.