Beef Quality Assurance Research Articles

Calf Care & Quality Assurance program – best management guidelines for the calf raising sector

The cattle raising sector has played an important role for devel­oping male or female calves with dairy genetics destined for the dairy breeding herd or the beef production system. Quality as­surance programs have become commonplace for food produc­ing enterprises to build consumer confidence that food is ethi­cally and responsibly produced. Calf raisers are a critical piece to this. Healthy calves are the cornerstone of every beef, dairy and veal facility. As no single organization or program covers all calves to ensure optimal health and welfare throughout the supply chain, the Calf Care and Quality Assurance program (CCQA; funded by the Beef Checkoff) was created through the collaboration of 4 industry groups. The National Dairy Farm­ers Assuring Responsible Management (FARM), Beef Checkoff-funded Beef Quality Assurance (BQA), Veal Quality Assurance (VQA), and the Dairy Calf and Heifer Association (DCHA) are na­tional recognized programs that collaborated to create the CCQA program. Included in the program are science-based guidance for calf raisers covering employee training, continuing educa­tion, emergency preparedness, calf health, animal handling and stockmanship, and management and care. Producers and veterinarians are encouraged to review the tools and resources, get certified in CCQA, and ensure they are following best man­agement practices for calves in their care. It is important that the education that producers, veterinarians and transporters receive is current and up to date, and adapts to this changing industry.

Small ruminant quality assurance (SRQA) – considerations and practices

There are multiple quality assurance programs in existence for livestock industries in the United States. This includes the Beef Quality Assurance program and Pork Quality Assurance Program. Although technically a Sheep Safety and Quality As­surance program does exist through the American Sheep In­dustry Association, it is not as nationally known or recognized compared to programs featuring major food animal species. No formal quality assurance programs exist for goats in the United States. This proceeding will discuss aspects of small ruminant (sheep and goat) management, preventive medicine and medi­cal treatment that influences quality assurance..

National Beef Quality Audit-2022: Transportation, mobility, live cattle, and hide assessments to determine producer-related defects that affect animal welfare and the value of market cows and bulls at processing facilities.

The National Beef Quality Audit (NBQA)-2022 serves as a benchmark of the current market cow and bull sectors of the U.S. beef industry and allows comparison to previous audits as a method of monitoring industry progress. From September 2021 through May 2022, livestock trailers (n = 125), live animals (n = 5,430), and post-slaughter hide-on animals (n = 6,674) were surveyed at 20 commercial beef processing facilities across the U.S. Cattle were transported in a variety of trailer types for an average distance of 490.6 km and a mean transport time of 6.3h. During transit, cattle averaged 2.3 m2 of trailer space per animal indicating sufficient space was provided according to industry guidelines. Of all trailers surveyed, 55.3% transported cattle from an auction barn to a processing facility. When surveyed, 63.6% of all truck drivers reported to be Beef Quality Assurance certified. The majority (77.0%) of cattle were sound when evaluated for mobility. Mean body condition scores (9-point scale) for beef cows and bulls were 3.8 and 4.4, respectively, whereas mean body condition scores (5-point scale) for dairy cows and bulls were 2.3 and 2.6, respectively. Of the cattle surveyed, 45.1% had no visible live animal defects, and 37.9% had only a single defect. Of defects present in cows, 64.6% were attributed to an udder problem. Full udders were observed in 47.5% of all cows. Nearly all cattle were free of visible abscesses and knots (97.9% and 98.2%, respectively). No horns were observed in 89.4% of all cattle surveyed. Beef cattle were predominantly black-hided (68.9% and 67.4% of cows and bulls, respectively). Holstein was the predominant dairy animal observed and accounted for 85.7% of the cows and 98.0% of the bulls. Only 3.1% of all animals had no form of identification. Findings from the NBQA-2022 show improvements within the industry and identify areas that require continued education and research to improve market cow and bull welfare and beef quality.

427 A Survey of Mississippi Beef Cattle Producer Attitudes, Practices, and Demographics

Abstract As input costs increase, producers need to be mindful of management practices to maintain profit margins and it is important to understand current management practices. Therefore, the objective of this study was to investigate current beef marketing strategies and beliefs of beef producers in the state of Mississippi in 2019. This survey was distributed to cattle producers in Mississippi in the June/July issue of “Cattle Business in Mississippi” magazine with return postage. There also was a link included in the “Monday Memo” email sent to members of the Mississippi Cattlemen’s Association. The survey consisted of 22 questions that were divided into three sections: current practices, current cow-calf marketing practice, and general information. Responses from the survey were anonymous and confidential and were received via paper mail or electronic responses. Responses were stored and analyzed using Qualtrics. Data collected from this study were compared with 1999 data from a similar study conducted by Little et al. (2000). Out of 148 respondents, there was a 95% completion rate of surveys taken. Most respondents were 51 years and older with 54% of the respondents being part of the cattle industry for over 31 years. Ninety percent of respondents were members of the Mississippi Cattlemen’s Association and almost 60% were certified in Beef Quality Assurance. The majority, 122 of 148 producers, stated their cattle operation was not the primary source of income for their household. The average number of cows, bulls, stockers/yearling, replacement heifers and cattle on-feed on an operation was greater in the 2019 data compared with 1999. On average, the number of cows per operation increased from 40 to 68 animals, bulls increased from 2 to 5 animals, and replacement heifers increased from 7 to 17 animals from 1999 to 2019. There was also an average increase from 30 to76 animals of stocker/yearling and an increase from 2 to 27 animals of on-feed cattle. Most producers vaccinate (81%) and deworm (85%) according to recommendations and indicated a lack of labor and time as reasons for not implementing some common management practices such as preconditioning. Respondents mainly purchased calves directly from a producer (61%) or from special sales (59%). In 1999, over one-half of respondents purchased from an auction. When it came to selling cattle, 58% of respondents sold at auction regularly in 2019. In 1999, 73% of respondents sold at auctions. In 2019, 72% of respondents stated they did not retain ownership while in 1999 only 58% of respondents did not retain ownership. In conclusion, our results suggest there have been key changes within the cattle industry regarding herd size increases and a shift in selling and purchasing habits since 1999.

321 Rancher Motivations for Joining Sustainability Programs

Abstract Livestock’s environmental footprint has become a pivotal concern for both consumers and investment corporations. To stay competitive in the sustainable foods movement, the beef industry has sought to improve sustainability within their own supply chains. However, before system sustainability can be achieved, more sustainability practices must be adopted and implemented by the foundation of the system. Therefore, to gain insight into motivations of ranchers for adopting new sustainable practices we administered an online multi-state survey to cattle ranchers in collaboration with state Cattlemen’s Associations. In total, the survey consisted of 45 questions and was divided into four sections including: 1) rancher demographics, 2) ranching educational resources, 3) current best management practices, and 4) willingness to join new rancher sustainability program. Of the survey participants (n = 884), when asked what made them trust/ believe in a ranching educational program, 64% of ranchers stated they trusted (very or extremely) science, 55% or ranchers stated they trusted a ranching educational program if the program was partnered with state cattlemen’s associations, and 32% of ranchers stated they trusted the program if other ranchers they knew were currently enrolled in the program. When survey participants were asked who they trusted most to dispense ranching educational information 79% trusted veterinarians (very or extremely), 63% trusted extension agents/ farm advisors, 57% trusted professors (very or extremely), and 54% trusted other cattle producers. In regards to where cattlemen acquired ranching information 94% utilized trade publications or magazines, 90% utilized university or extension, 70% utilized state or national cattlemen’s meetings, and 52% utilized social media. The top three reasons why survey participants would choose to adopt a new ranching practice included increases profitability 79%, improves animal health 78%, and expected benefits greatly outright the cost or effort to implement 51%. Meanwhile, only 18% of ranchers selected improving environmental health as one of their top 3 reasons for adopting a new ranching practice. In terms of best management practices, 77% of producers stated they had a grazing management practice, however only 29% had their plane written down. Finally, the survey indicated that ranchers who were male, had been through the Beef Quality Assurance training, and were enrolled in a land assistance program were more likely to state that joining a sustainability program would be beneficial to their operation (P < 0.05). Overall, this survey provides the necessary insight into why and how ranchers learn about new ranching practices and provides a possible framework for how to develop successful ranching educational and sustainability programs in the future.

Developing a welfare assessment protocol for Australian lot-fed cattle

Lot feeding of cattle has gained momentum in recent years to improve efficiency in meeting market demands for high quality protein. Concurrently, societal concern for the welfare of animals raised in intensive farming systems has increased. Thus, the reporting of animal health and welfare measures is a key goal for the Australian cattle lot-fed industry. Although feedlots vary in location, climate, capacity, cattle genotype, and feeding programs, many welfare concerns are applicable across the industry. Despite this, no recognised standardised animal welfare assessment protocol exists for the Australian lot-fed industry. This study aimed to identify relevant measures to develop an assessment protocol, by identifying key welfare issues and their relevant measures, considering the validity, reliability, and practicality of each when applied to the feedlot context. An advisory model was derived after reviewing the relevant literature and five international protocols for the assessment of beef cattle (Welfare Quality®, AssureWel, US Beef Quality Assurance assessment tool, Canadian Feedlot Animal Care Assessment program, and an Australian Live Export industry protocol), followed by stakeholder consultation. A total of 109 measures were evaluated, with 99 environmental-, management-, resource- and animal-based measures being proposed. Piloting of the protocol on commercial feedlots will enable further refinement and validation, to provide an evidence-based, practical protocol to facilitate standardised monitoring of cattle welfare. Such a protocol could promote continued advances in animal welfare at a feedlot level and support a sustainable industry by addressing societal concerns.

Practical biosecurity – an integral piece to herd health planning

Biosecurity is the one aspect of a cattle operation that the pro­ducer has the most control over. Each producer has practices in place to protect their cattle and optimize their health. Vet­erinarians are purposefully trained to understand the compo­nents of biosecurity including animal health, epidemiology, infectious disease and public health consequences. Biosecurity planning is an important piece to herd health planning that can benefit the producer and the veterinarian. The National Cattle­men’s Beef Association (NCBA) Producer Education team works on the Beef Quality Assurance (BQA) and other Beef Checkoff-funded programs each day to ensure cattle producers and vet­erinarians have industry-leading information and resources. Several resources developed by the Producer Education team at NCBA, and the separately managed Secure Beef Supply, are available for producers, veterinarians and transporters to re­view for more information on biosecurity to improve cattle wel­fare before and during potential disease outbreaks.

179 Today's Beef Quality Assurance Program: Rancher Involvement and the Future of Developing Sustainability Programs

Abstract To date the most successful rancher educational program has been the beef quality assurance (BQA) program. However, it is not understood why ranchers chose to become BQA certified. Without this knowledge it becomes increasingly difficult to build new rancher educational and sustainability focused programs. To gain insight on current BQA program involvement and application of BQA best management practices (BMP) we administered an online multi-state survey to cattle ranchers in collaboration with state Cattlemen’s Associations. In total, the survey consisted of 45 questions and was divided into 3 sections including: 1) rancher demographics, 2) BQA participation and current BQA BMP, and 3) willingness to join new rancher sustainability program. Of the survey participants (n=884) ranchers that were BQA certified at any time were less likely to administer injections in areas other than the neck compared with ranchers who were not certified (p< 0.05), demonstrating the effectiveness of the BQA program. More than 87% (n=542) of survey respondents listed “improving animal health and welfare” as one of their top three reasons for joining BQA, while only 22% (n=137) listed “animals fetching a higher price”. This result highlights that although financial incentive was a factor in program adoption, animal health and welfare was at the forefront of ranchers’ minds. The survey indicated that ranchers who were male, ranched for a greater number of years, grazed more total acres, and received a larger percent of income from ranching were more likely to be BQA certified (p< 0.05). Finally, those who were BQA members were more likely to state that joining a rancher sustainability program would be beneficial to their operation (p< 0.05). Overall, this survey provides insight into BQA program and BMP adoption and demonstrates that the BQA program could be a possible framework for creating a successful rancher sustainability program.

Beef Quality Assurance national rancher survey: program participation, best management practices, and motivations for joining future sustainability programs.

Till date, with over 137,000 certified members, the most successful rancher educational program has been the Beef Quality Assurance (BQA) program. The BQA program was established in the mid-1990’s to improve animal health and welfare with a primary objective to reduce the incidence of injection site lesions by instructing producers to administer injections in the neck only. The present study investigated the drivers of this success to inform future rancher education programs around agricultural sustainability. An online multistate survey was administered to cattle ranchers in collaboration with state cattlemen’s associations to better understand rancher motivations for adopting new practices and to gain insight on current involvement in BQA. In total, the survey consisted of 45 questions and was divided into 3 sections: (1) rancher demographics, (2) BQA participation and current best management practice (BMP) application, and (3) willingness to join new rancher educational programs. Data from 842 respondents are including in this study. Of the survey participants, 70% were currently BQA certified or had been BQA certified at one time, and 30% had never been certified. Ranchers who were BQA certified at any time were less likely to administer injections in areas other than the neck compared to ranchers who were not certified (P < 0.05), demonstrating the effectiveness of the BQA program. More than 80% of survey respondents who joined the BQA program stated they believed the BQA program improved animal health and welfare on their operation (n = 617). Among those who had not joined the BQA program, 40% believed BQA practices did not align with their ranching operation, while 38% had not heard of the BQA program (n = 256). The survey indicated that male ranchers, those with more years ranching, those with a larger percent of income coming from ranching, and ranches with larger total acres grazed were more likely to be BQA certified at any time (P < 0.05). Finally, ranchers who were BQA certified at any time were more likely to state that joining a rancher sustainability program would be beneficial to their operation. In conclusion, not only did the survey provide valuable insight into BQA program adoption but highlighted how BQA pedagogy and program structure may be a suitable framework for creating future rancher sustainability programs.

Benchmarking animal handling outcomes on cow-calf operations and identifying associated factors.

The assessment of animal handling is commonly included in cattle care programs. The guidelines set in the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association Beef Checkoff funded Beef Quality Assurance (BQA) program are often used for assessing handling on feedlot, stocker, and cow-calf operations. There is limited information about animal handling on cow-calf operations. Thus, the objectives of this study were to: (1) quantify handling outcomes on cow-calf operations and compare them to national BQA program thresholds, and (2) investigate factors associated with handling outcomes. Researchers visited 76 operations across the United States to observe the following outcomes, adapted from the BQA program, during the processing of cows or yearling heifers: Prod Use, Miscatch, Vocalization, Jump, Slip/Stumble, Fall and Run. One hundred cows or less (depending on herd size) were observed moving through a restraint system at each operation. Other information specific to the animal type, facilities, and management were also gathered to be explored as potential predictors of handling outcomes. Data were summarized using descriptive statistics on an operation basis and analyzed with multi-predictor ANOVA or Kruskal–Wallis tests to assess the relationship between outcomes and possible explanatory factors. Predictors included in the final analyses were: BQA certification (BQA), animal temperament (TEMP), region (REGION), chute style (CHUTE), and visual contact with humans (VISUAL). The 76 operations were sampled in 24 states (Central, n = 17; East, 30; West, 29), with herd sizes ranging from 10 animals to more than 5,000 animals. A total of 4,804 animals were observed. There were a substantial number of operations exceeding BQA thresholds for Prod Use (34.0%, 26), Miscatch (46.0%, 35), and Fall (31.6%, 24); the averages of these outcomes also exceeded the BQA thresholds (< 10%, 0%, and 2%, respectively). There was an association between Prod Use and several explanatory factors, including SIZE (P = 0.072), TEMP (P = 0.001), VISUAL (P = 0.027), and BQA (P = 0.104). Miscatch, Vocalization, and Fall all had single associated factors (REGION, P = 0.019; REGION, P = 0.002; VISUAL, P = 0.002, respectively). The VISUAL and TEMP factors had an association with the majority of outcomes. The findings suggest an opportunity for improving handling outcomes, which could be achieved through education and training support regarding the importance of animal handling on-farm. Future work should consider additional aspects of facilities and management that could impact cattle handling outcomes.

Effects of delivery via pressure-adjustable pneumatic gas-powered dart gun of three antimicrobial drugs (ceftiofur crystalline free acid, tildopirosin, and tulathromycin) on drug disposition and meat quality in cattle.

BackgroundAlthough Beef Quality Assurance guidelines do not recommend use of darting methods to deliver drugs, cattle in the US may be raised on farms and ranches without restraint facilities, and reports from the field suggest that dart guns are being used to deliver antimicrobial drugs. Few studies report whether this route of administration results in altered drug disposition or carcass quality.MethodsForty steers were blocked by sire and then randomly assigned to treatment with saline, ceftiofur crystalline free acid, tildipirosin, or tulathromycin delivered via dart gun. To assess drug disposition, eight ceftiofur, six tulathromycin, and six tildipirosin-treated calves were selected to measure plasma concentrations of drugs up to 10 days after drug administration. Steers were then fed a balanced ration for approximately 6.5 months and slaughtered. To evaluate carcass quality, tenderness of steaks from darted-side and non-darted sides was evaluated via Warner–Bratzler shear force testing. Due to the prohibition of extralabel routes of administration for ceftiofur in the U.S., animals treated with this drug did not enter the food supply.ResultsCeftiofur disposition differed from published reports with lower mean Cmax but similar mean apparent elimination half-life. Tildipirosin disposition differed from published reports with lower Cmax and shorter apparent elimination half-life. Tulathromycin was similar to previous published reports but Cmax and apparent elimination half-life was highly variable. All steaks (from darted and non-darted sides) from cattle treated with ceftiofur and saline were more tender than from cattle treated with tulathromycin or tildipirosin (P = 0.003). There was a trend toward more tenderness in steaks from the non-darted compared to the darted side. Steaks from the darted side for one treatment, tildipirosin, were less tender than the non-darted side.ConclusionsPharmacokinetic parameters of ceftiofur crystalline free acid, tildipirosin, and tulathromycin to cattle using pressure-adjustable pneumatic gas-powered dart gun were estimated in this study. Delivery of tildipirosin and tulathromycin to cattle with dart gun may also result in detectable decreases in tenderness of harvested steaks.

Adding value to your veterinary practice with producer education resources

The National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA) Producer Education team works on the Beef Quality Assurance (BQA) and other Beef Checkoff-funded programs each day to ensure cattle producers have industry leading information and resources. Veterinarians can use these resources to build on new or existing producer relationships to enhance the care and productivity of the operation. These opportunities not only add value to your practice, but they also reinforce livestock veterinarians’ dedication to healthy animals and a safe food supply. It is important not only to the producer and veterinarian, but to the industry as a whole, that cattle are responsibly handled and transported, and welfare of the animal is always a priority. Several resources developed by the Producer Education team at NCBA are available for producers, veterinarians, and transporters to review for more information on cattle welfare. Producers and veterinarians are encouraged to review the tools and resources, get certified in BQA, and ensure they are following best management practices for cattle in their care. It is important that the education producers, veterinarians, and transporters receive is current and up to date, but not all groups have the time or resources to leave their operation.

Beef quality assurance schemes: Can they improve farm economic performance?

AbstractBeef quality assurance initiatives have been developed to assure consumers of the quality and safety of supplied beef, as well as the environmental‐orientation of farm production practices. However, the potential economic benefits of quality schemes to European beef cattle farmers have been overlooked. This paper uses farm‐level data to identify the drivers of Irish farmers’ participation in Bord Bia's Beef and Lamb Quality Assurance Scheme (BLQAS) in 2012, and assesses the impact of participation on farm gross margins. After controlling for potential self‐selection bias, we cannot find reliable evidence that the gross margins of participants in beef quality assurance schemes have been affected by their decision to participate. Consequently, lack of financial incentives can be a barrier to farmer participation in beef quality assurance schemes [EconLit citations: L25, M21, Q12].

172 The Mississippi Beef Quality Assurance Program: Certification Demographics from 2015 to 2019

Abstract The Mississippi Beef Quality Assurance Program (BQA) has been in place since the early 1990s. In 2015, program materials and format were updated to reflect changing needs of clientele. The current program is a combination of in-person presentation with demonstration of tools such as castration equipment, needles, syringes, etc. to supplement the educational materials. Each registered participant receives a manual, tri-fold supplement, cooler, bumper sticker, and certificate upon completion of the certification. After viewing the presentation, participants complete a 14-question exam to test their knowledge of materials important to the BQA program. Upon passing the exam, participants receive certification, which is valid for 3 yr. Certification events are encouraged to include multiple counties, and reach a wide range of producers. In 2015 to 2017, events were specifically scheduled by state coordinators to ensure cattle producers in all areas of the state had the opportunity to attend a nearby program. Events were also held on an as requested basis. At the end of each certification, participants completed an anonymous survey reporting information on demographics and program effectiveness. From 2015 to 2019, there were 1,734 total certifications through 57 BQA programs provided. At these events, 26 states were represented. From Mississippi, 64 of 82 counties were represented. When describing total number of cattle, the majority of producers reported owning 1 to 50 head (46%) while only 3% reported owning over 1000 head. Producers also listed the total number of acres in pasture, where the majority reporting 1 to 100 acres (32%) and 6% reporting over 1000 acres. When asked to rank economic impacts, most (26%) reported an estimated more than $25 per head benefit due to increased production and marketing. In summary, producers had small number of cattle and acres of pasture but reported large economic benefits to the certification.

76 Shipping calves to the Southern Great Plains: Impact of mode, timing, distance and cattle type

Abstract This presentation will discuss historical transportation information, recommendations and available transportation data. Stocker and feeder cattle transportation in the U.S. is virtually unchanged in the last five decades. Transportation stress continues to be accepted as an important factor in the morbidity and mortality of cattle shipped to Southern Great Plains feedyards and stocker operations. Transportation research has occurred in bits and pieces that provide glimpses into mechanisms involved but in general the results are puzzle pieces that have had little influence on transportation techniques. The Electronic Logging Device (ELD) use mandate in livestock hauling will impact stocker and feeder transport to the Great Plains. The extent of which is not yet known and recent delays in implementation with concurrent “exceptions” and “adjustments” make it unclear what the future will hold for stocker and feeder cattle transportation. The Livestock Marketing Association (LMA) has in recent decades developed voluntary livestock handling and transportation training for their customers. Some of the training has been accomplished in a partnership with the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA). The first of these were the “Focal Point” training and “Master Transporter Guide.” More recent, NCBA has developed Beef Quality Assurance (BQA) Transportation certification training for both “Farmer/Rancher” and “Professional Drivers.” Packers have embraced this effort and the major packers currently require all drivers delivering livestock to their operations to be certified. The NCBA BQA Transportation training certification is applicable to stocker and feeder drivers hauling cattle to the Great Plains, but currently it is rare that stocker and feeder operations require drivers to have transportation certification that bring cattle to their operations. Interesting and useful data will be reviewed, such as transportation data collected from Dr. Richeson and Dr. Lawrence at West Texas A&amp;M University. Finding examples include; cattle during transportation can take thousands of steps while on in the semi-trailer with differing number of steps and G-Forces being recorded for cattle on the top deck compared to cattle on the lower deck.

Survey of cow-calf producer perspectives on management strategies and industry challenges. Part 2. Marketing and selection decisions.

The objective of this study was to benchmark how cow-calf producers were marketing their calves, their priorities when selecting replacements, and if producers saw value in a quality assessment focusing on animal handling and care. A total of 1,414 responses from cow-calf producers in 44 states were collected through a survey conducted in partnership with BEEF. Thirty questions were asked of respondents to gather demographic information, establish at what age and through what avenue respondents were marketing their calves, and gauge respondent perspectives on selection decisions, pain management and a quality assessment outlining handling and care guidelines. The percentage of respondents who marketed their calves at certain ages varied by herd size (P < 0.001). Respondents with 50 head or less or more than 1,000 head most commonly retained their calves through finishing and respondents with 51 to 200 head and 201 head to 500 head more frequently backgrounded and then sold their calves. Respondents’ top priorities when selecting bulls were calving ease, followed by growth and feed efficiency traits. When selecting females, top priorities were reproductive efficiency, followed by mothering ability. The percentage of respondents using pain management differed by whether a veterinarian had offered to administer a drug for pain management (P < 0.001). 13.5% of respondents answered yes, and a veterinarian had offered to administer a drug for pain management when castrating or dehorning. Of those 13.5% who responded yes pain management had been offered, and 54.55% of respondents chose to use a pain relief method. A higher percentage of respondents that precondition also more frequently indicated that they used a pain relief method when castrating or dehorning, though it was still a low percentage (P = 0.006). Overall, 46.3% of respondents saw value in handling and care guidelines and 54.9% of respondents saw value in a program including source and age verification, a vaccination plan, and handling and care guidelines. Respondents who were Beef Quality Assurance (BQA) certified had a beef cow inventory of 501 to 1,000 head, who preconditioned their calves and backgrounded them before selling, and who lived in the West most commonly saw value in a quality assessment outlining handling and care guidelines.

Survey of cow-calf producer perspectives on management strategies and industry challenges. Part 1: handling practices, and health and industry challenges.

The objectives of this study were to benchmark cow-calf producer perspectives on management strategies and challenges, and to determine if demographic differences and Beef Quality Assurance (BQA) certification status influenced the frequency of certain management strategies. A total of 1,414 responses from cow-calf producers in 44 states were collected through an online survey conducted in partnership with BEEF, a producer-focused magazine. Survey recipients were asked 30 questions to gather demographic information, respondents’ current handling and health management practices, and how they prioritized industry challenges. The frequency of management methods and decisions such as preconditioning and identification methods were impacted by respondent age, operation size, location, and BQA certification (Ps ≤ 0.009). BQA-certified respondents more frequently used electronic ear tags and freeze branding (Ps = 0.009). Overall, 74.5% of respondents were preconditioning their calves. Respondents who were BQA certified more frequently preconditioned their calves (449; 81.5%) compared with those who were not BQA certified (582; 70.4%) (P < 0.001). BQA training seems to be having a positive impact on production practices. Respondents identified cow-calf health as the biggest beef industry challenge and identified land availability or price as the biggest challenge to producers’ own operation. Respondents identified bovine respiratory disease, flies, pinkeye, and reproductive health as the most important animal health issues on producers’ operations. Health challenge responses varied significantly by producer age, beef cow inventory, and region of the United States (Ps < 0.001). Calf or neonate health was most commonly identified as the biggest challenge for respondents under the age of 30 years. Producers between the ages of 55 and 70 years most commonly responded that the Veterinary Feed Directive or regulations were more of a challenge than other age groups. Respondents clearly identified managing herd health as a challenge throughout the survey. Respondents with similar herd health challenges were identified based on demographic categorization, such as age of respondent and region.

Frequencies and severity of injection-site lesions in muscles from rounds of cow carcasses.

The frequency and severity of injection-site lesions in the outside round muscles of both beef and dairy cattle were evaluated through a series of audits. Audits were conducted in 2017 on 1,300 rounds from dairy and beef cows from seven locations throughout the United States. Outside round muscles were butterfly cut into 1.25-cm slices and, if present, lesions were counted, measured, and categorized. Rounds from beef (7%) and dairy cattle (15%) had at least one injection-site lesion present. The most common location of injection-site lesions was quadrant 2 and 3, which contained both the biceps femoris and semitendinosus muscles. Injection-site lesions were more frequent (P < 0.05) in the biceps femoris for both beef and dairy rounds. Clear lesions accounted for 57% of injection-sites in both beef and dairy rounds, whereas metallic lesions made up 23% of the total in beef and 25% in dairy. Overall, there was a dramatic decline in the frequency (P < 0.05) of injection-site lesions since the 1998 (24 and 45 percentage units greater in beef and dairy rounds, respectively) and 2000 audits (13 and 20 percentage units greater in beef and dairy rounds, respectively). Educational programs, such as Beef Quality Assurance (BQA) and requirements for BQA training, have resulted in substantial improvements in beef management practices for both the beef and dairy industries.

Comparison of luteolysis and timed artificial insemination pregnancy rates after administration of PGF2α in the muscle or the ischiorectal fossa in cattle

Prostaglandin F2α (PGF2α) is commonly injected intramuscularly (IM) in female cattle in synchronization protocols. A novel site for administration of PGF2α that improves beef quality assurance is the ischiorectal fossa (IRF). The objective of this study was to determine whether administration of PGF2α in the IRF results in a similar physiological response to an intramuscular injection.Yearling angus-cross heifers (n = 112) were blocked by weight and randomly assigned within blocks to be injected with 5 mL PGF2α either IM in the neck or in the IRF. Blood samples taken at 0, 8, 16, 24, 36, and 48 h post-injection were analyzed for serum progesterone concentration using a radioimmunoassay. Progesterone concentration curves for each heifer were plotted to determine luteolysis. The median times to luteolysis for neck and IRF injections were 18.1 h and 20.0 h, respectively (p = 0.06).Angus cross commercial beef cows (n = 1471) at least 30 days post-partum were blocked by age and randomly assigned within blocks to be injected with 5 mL PGF2α either IM in the neck muscle or in IRF as part of a 7-Day CO-Synch + CIDR synchronization protocol. Pregnancy diagnosis was performed via ultrasound at 60 days post insemination. Results were analyzed with Proc Glimmix (SAS). Pregnancy rates for neck and IRF injections were 52.6% and 57.2%, respectively (p = 0.06).In summary, injection of PGF2α in the IRF for synchronization of estrus and luteolysis did not differ from IM injection. Utilizing the ischiorectal fossa as an injection site for PGF2α may serve as an alternative that more closely aligns with beef quality assurance.

Current situation and future prospects for global beef production: overview of special issue.

The demand for beef as a protein source is increasing worldwide, although in most countries beef accounts for considerably less than half of total meat consumption. Beef also provides a highly desirable eating experience in developed countries and, increasingly, in developing countries. The sustainability of beef production has different meanings in the various geographical and socio-economic regions of the world. Natural resources including land mass and uses, rainfall and access to livestock feed, and the robustness of the economy are major determinants of the perception of beef sustainability. In this overview of the 2016 International Symposium on “Future Beef in Asia” and this subsequent Special Edition of the Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences on “Current Situation and Future Prospects for Global Beef Production”, the contributions have been grouped into the following categories: Countries in Southeast Asia; Europe; and Countries producing highly marbled beef for export and/or domestic consumption. They also include reference to Special Topics including marbled beef production, and use of “omics” technologies to enhance beef quality assurance. Among these broad categories, notable differences exist across countries in the production and marketing of beef. These reflect differences in factors including natural resource availability and climate, population size, traditional culture and degree of economic development including industrial and technological developments. We trust that the International Symposium and this Special Edition on Current Situation and Future Prospects for Global Beef Production, the contents of which that are briefly summarized in this paper, will serve as a valuable resource for the livestock industries, researchers and students with an interest in enhancing the prospects for sustainable, efficient beef production that satisfies the growing size and complexity of consumer demands and markets for beef.