| Literature DB >> 9464889 |
S L Boleman1, S J Boleman, W W Morgan, D S Hale, D B Griffin, J W Savell, R P Ames, M T Smith, J D Tatum, T G Field, G C Smith, B A Gardner, J B Morgan, S L Northcutt, H G Dolezal, D R Gill, F K Ray.
Abstract
The National Beef Quality Audit-1995 was conducted to evaluate the progress of the beef industry since the time of the National Beef Quality Audit-1991 in improving quality and consistency of beef. Nine plants were assigned for auditing to Colorado State University, Oklahoma State University, and Texas A&M University. Personnel from each institution visited three of their nine plants twice, once in the spring/summer and once in the fall/winter. Data were collected on 50% of each lot on the slaughter floor and 10% in the cooler during a single day's production (one or two shifts, as appropriate). Of the cattle audited on the slaughter floor, 47.7% had no brands, 3.0% had a shoulder brand, 16.8% had a side brand, 38.7% had a butt brand, and 6.2% had brands in multiple locations. Data revealed that 51.6% of the carcasses had no bruises, 30.9% had one bruise, 12.8% had two bruises, 3.7% had three bruises, .9% had four bruises, and .1% had more than four bruises. In addition, 7.2% of the bruises evaluated were located on the round, 41.1% were on the loin, 20.8% on the rib, and 30.8% on the chuck. Livers, lungs, tripe, heads, tongues, and whole carcasses were condemned at rates of 22.2, 5.0, 11.0, .9, 3.8, and .1%, respectively. Mean USDA yield grade and quality grade traits were as follows: USDA yield grade, 2.8; carcass weight, 338.4 kg; adjusted fat thickness, 1.2 cm; longissimus muscle area, 81.9 cm2; kidney, pelvic, and heart fat, 2.1%; USDA quality grade, High Select; overall maturity, A60; and marbling score, Small-minus.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 1998 PMID: 9464889 DOI: 10.2527/1998.76196x
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Anim Sci ISSN: 0021-8812 Impact factor: 3.159