National Beef Quality Audit-2016: Transportation, mobility, and harvest-floor assessments of targeted characteristics that affect quality and value of cattle, carcasses, and by-products

The National Beef Quality Audit-2016 (NBQA-2016) was conducted to assess current transportation, mobility, and quality characteristics of U.S. fed steers and heifers. Data were collected at 17 beef processing facilities between March and November 2016. About 8,000 live cattle were evaluated for transportation and mobility, and about 25,000 carcasses were evaluated on the slaughter floor. Cattle were in transit to the slaughter facility for a mean duration of 2.7 h from a mean distance of 218.5 km using trailers with dimensions ranging from 17.84 m2 to 59.09 m2. Area allotted per animal averaged 1.13 m2 and ranged from 0.85 m2 to 2.28 m2. A total of 96.8% of cattle received a mobility score of 1 (walks easily, no apparent lameness). Identification types (35.1% had multiple) were lot visual tags (61.5%), individual tags (55.0%), electronic tags (16.9%), metal-clip tags (9.2%), bar-coded tags (0.05%), wattles (0.01%), and other (2.6%). Cattle were black-hided (57.8%), Holstein (20.4%), red-hided (10.5%), yellow-hided (4.8%), gray-hided (2.9%), brown-hided (1.3%), and white-hided (1.1%). Unbranded hides were observed on 74.3% of cattle; 18.6% had brands located on the butt, 6.3% on the side, and 1.3% on the shoulder (values exceed 100% due to multiple brands). For hide-on carcasses, 37.7% displayed no mud or manure; specific locations for mud or manure were legs (40.8%), belly (33.0%), tail region (15.5%), side (6.8%), and top-line (3.9%). Cattle without horns represented 83.3% of the sample, and cattle that did have horns measured: \u3c 2.54 cm (5.5%), 2.54 to 12.7 cm (8.3%), and \u3e 12.7 cm (2.9%). Carcasses without bruises represented 61.1% of those sampled, whereas 28.2% had 1, 8.2% had 2, 2.1% had 3, and 0.3% had 4 bruises. Of those carcasses with a bruise, the bruise was located on the loin (29.7%), round (27.8%), chuck (16.4%), rib (14.4%), and brisket/plate/flank (11.6%). Frequencies of offal condemnations were livers (30.8%), lungs (18.2%), viscera (16.3%), hearts (11.1%), heads (2.7%), and tongues (2.0%). Compared to NBQA-2011, fewer cattle were identified for traceability, fewer were black-hided, a greater number were Holstein cattle, more with no brand and no horns, fewer without bruises, more liver, lung, and viscera condemnations, and fewer heads and tongues were condemned. The NBQA remains an influential survey for the U.S. beef industry to provide benchmarks and strategic plans for continued improvement of beef quality and consistency

MEAT PACKAGING AND HANDLING FOR EXPORT MARKETS: PROBLEMS AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR RESEARCH

Exporting beef products has been given high priority status by a number of producer and packer groups in the United States. The primary advantage that the U.S. beef industry has to offer foreign consumers is the excellent taste reputation of grain-fed beef. Although the U.S. beef industry does not have competition with respect to palatability, other countries that specialize in exports currently offer products at a much lower price because of either the strong dollar, government subsidization or both. The U.S. meat industry has made some inroads into expanding the export of fresh chilled beef, but tremendous opportunity still exists for even greater expansion . One criticism that has been levied against fresh-chilled beef from the U.S. is the lack of sufficient shelf-life. Australian fresh-chilled beef is reported to have a shelf-life of at least 100 days while fresh-chilled beef from the U.S. is said to have only a 45 day shelf-life. Although this large difference in shelf-life is unlikely, important foreign end-users of U.S. beef perceive this to be fact and attribute this difference to: (1) lack of proper sanitary conditions and temperature control during slaughter-dressing and fabrication; (2) the use of indiscriminate spray-chilling after slaughter; (3) ineffective packaging materials and equipment for export needs; and (4) inherent differences between forage-fed beef (Australian) and grain-fed beef (United States). If the U.S. meat industry is to become more competitive in fresh-beef export markets, they must use state-of-the-art technology to make certain that they can meet the shelf-life demands for their markets. Some of this technology is available, much is not. This paper will discuss the current state of the knowledge in the following areas: a) slaughter-dressing for maximum shelf-life; b) carcass/primal cut spray chill systems; c) role of fat on microbial growth; and d) barrier properties of packaging materials. The paper will conclude with a discussion of research voids in these and other areas