Search
Author
Title
Vol.
Issue
Year
1st Page

Abstract

 

This article in JAS

  1. Vol. 90 No. 13, p. 5152-5158
     
    Received: June 11, 2012
    Accepted: Aug 9, 2012
    Published: January 20, 2015


    3 Corresponding author(s): j-savell@tamu.edu
 View
 Download
 Share

doi:10.2527/jas.2012-5551

National Beef Quality Audit–2011: Survey of instrument grading assessments of beef carcass characteristics12

  1. G. D. Gray*,
  2. M. C. Moore*,
  3. D. S. Hale*,
  4. C. R. Kerth*,
  5. D. B. Griffin*,
  6. J. W. Savell 3,
  7. C. R. Raines,
  8. T. E. Lawrence,
  9. K. E. Belk§,
  10. D. R. Woerner§,
  11. J. D. Tatum§,
  12. D. L. VanOverbeke#,
  13. G. G. Mafi#,
  14. R. J. Delmore,
  15. S. D. Shackelford,
  16. D. A. King,
  17. T. L. Wheeler,
  18. L. R. Meadows** and
  19. M. E. O’Connor††
  1. Department of Animal Science, Texas A&M AgriLife Research, Texas A&M University, College Station 77843-2471
    Department of Dairy and Animal Science, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park 16082
    Department of Agricultural Sciences, West Texas A&M University, Canyon 79016
    Department of Animal Sciences, Colorado State University, Fort Collins 80523-1171
    Department of Animal Science, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater 74078
    Department of Animal Science, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo 93407
    Roman L. Hruska US Meat Animal Research Center, ARS-USDA, Clay Center, NE 68933-0166
    Agricultural Marketing Service-USDA, 13952 Denver West Parkway, Building 53, Suite 350, Golden, CO 80402
    Agricultural Marketing Service-USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Stop 0249, Washington, DC 20250-0249

Abstract

The instrument grading assessments for the 2011 National Beef Quality Audit evaluated seasonal trends of beef carcass quality and yield attributes over the course of the year. One week of instrument grading data, HCW, gender, USDA quality grade (QG), and yield grade (YG) factors, were collected every other month (n = 2,427,074 carcasses) over a 13-mo period (November 2010 through November 2011) from 4 beef processing corporations, encompassing 17 federally inspected beef processing facilities, to create a “snapshot” of carcass quality and yield attributes and trends from carcasses representing approximately 8.5% of the U.S. fed steer and heifer population. Mean yield traits were YG (2.86), HCW (371.3 kg), fat thickness (1.19 cm.), and LM area (88.39 cm2). The YG distribution was YG 1, 15.7%; YG 2, 41.0%; YG 3, 33.8%; YG 4, 8.5%; and YG 5, 0.9%. Distribution of HCW was <272.2 kg, 1.6%; 272.2 to 453.6 kg, 95.1%; and ≥453.6 kg, 3.3%. Monthly HCW means were November 2010, 381.3 kg; January 2011, 375.9 kg; March 2011, 366.2 kg; May 2011, 357.9 kg; July 2011, 372.54 kg; September 2011, 376.1 kg; and November 2011, 373.5 kg. The mean fat thickness for each month was November 2010, 1.30 cm; January 2011, 1.22 cm; March 2011, 1.17 cm; May 2011, 1.12 cm; July 2011, 1.19 cm; September 2011, 1.22 cm; and November 2011, 1.22 cm. The overall average marbling score was Small49. The USDA QG distribution was Prime, 2.7%; Top Choice, 22.9%; Commodity Choice, 38.6%; and Select, 31.5%. Interestingly, from November to May, seasonal decreases (P < 0.001) in HCW and fat thicknesses were accompanied by increases (P < 0.001) in marbling. These data present the opportunity to further investigate the entire array of factors that determine the value of beef. Data sets using the online collection of electronic data will likely be more commonly used when evaluating the U.S. fed steer and heifer population in future studies.

  Please view the pdf by using the Full Text (PDF) link under 'View' to the left.

Copyright © 2013. American Society of Animal Science