Influence of beef genotypes on animal performance, carcass traits, meat quality, and sensory characteristics in grazing or feedlot-finished steers.

A 2-yr study was conducted to evaluate the effects of beef genotypes and feeding systems on performance, carcass traits, meat quality, and sensory attributes. A 2×2 factorial experiment was used to randomly allocate 60 steers in year 1 (YR1) and 44 steers in year 2 (YR2). The two beef genotypes evaluated were Red Angus (RA), and RA x Akaushi (AK) crossbreed. The steers were allotted to two finishing feeding systems: grazing, a multi-species forage mixture (GRASS) and feedlot finishing, conventional total mixed ration (GRAIN). All steers were slaughtered on the same day, at 26 and 18 mo of age (GRASS and GRAIN, respectively), and carcass data were collected 48 h postmortem. Growth and slaughter characteristics were significantly impacted by the finishing system (P < 0.01), with the best results presented by GRAIN. Beef genotype affected dressing percent (P < 0.01), ribeye area (P = 0.04), and marbling score (P = 0.01). The AK steers had a tendency (P = 0.09) for lower total gain; however, carcass quality scores were greater compared to RA. There was a genotype by system interaction for USDA yield grade (P < 0.01), where it was lower in GRASS compared to GRAIN in both genotypes, and no difference was observed between the two genotypes for any GRASS or GRAIN systems. There was no difference in meat quality or sensory attributes (P > 0.10) between the two genotypes, except that steaks from AK tended to be juicier than RA (P = 0.06). Thawing loss and color variables were impacted by the finishing system (P < 0.01). L* (lightness) and hue angle presented greater values while a* (redness), b* (yellowness), and chroma presented lower values in GRAIN compared to GRASS. Sensory attributes were scored better in GRAIN than GRASS beef (P < 0.01). There was a genotype by system interaction for flavor (P = 0.02), where beef from RA had a lower flavor rating in GRASS than in GRAIN, and no difference was observed for AK. Within each system, no difference was observed for flavor between RA and AK. Beef from steers in GRASS had greater (P < 0.01) WBSF than those from GRAIN. These results indicate that steers from GRAIN had superior performance and carcass merit and that AK enhanced these traits to a greater degree compared to RA. Furthermore, the beef finishing system had a marked impact on the steaks' sensory attributes and consumer acceptability. The favorable results for texture and juiciness in GRAIN, which likely impacted overall acceptability, may be related to high marbling.

Comparison of beef traceability in serial and parallel fabrication systems using RFID and two-dimensional barcodes.

Traceability of beef attributes from small- and mid-sized farms through supply chains is a market barrier. The objective of this trial was to determine the influence of fabrication method on beef traceability system requirements. Individual identities of 54 animals were maintained through harvest, processing, packaging, and distribution. At harvest, each animal's unique radio frequency identification (RFID) animal identification number was transferred to a harvest label on each carcass quarter. Following transportation to a processor, nine carcasses were processed on alternating days by one of the two methods. Carcasses were fabricated, using a serial fabrication method (SFM), into wholesale cuts one at a time or fabricated using a parallel fabrication method (PFM), by processing multiple hindquarters or forequarters simultaneously into wholesale cuts. In-process labels were generated by scanning the two-dimensional (2D) barcode on the harvest label with a handheld mobile computer and printed from a wireless mobile printer. Tracking of SFM and PFM carcass quarters was accomplished by creating in-process labels for lugs and individual wholesale cuts, respectively. The process was recorded and the data was captured from video analysis. The mean number of in-process labels generated per carcass for SFM was 3.7 and for PFM was 30.9 (P < 0.01). The amount of time required for generating in-process labels for SFM (2 min 16 s) was less than PFM (8 min 45 s) (P = 0.01). The amount of time required to label each carcass was less (P < 0.01) for SFM (18 s) than for PFM (3 min 10 s) with in-process labels. Total cost of traceability, including fixed and consumable cost per carcass, was nearly twice as much for PFM ($17.98) than SFM ($9.02). Traceability, within both processing methods, was found to have 100% fidelity, as verified using DNA marker genotyping. Overall, the number of labels generated for traceability was less for SFM than that for PFM. The overall time spent on generating, applying, and removing labels was less for SFM than that for PFM. The total cost of traceability was approximately half for SFM compared with that for PFM; however both methods were able to track product accurately. Tracking of beef from individual animals, using RFID ear tags and 2D barcodes, appears to be feasible for the fabrication methods used in this study.

Effects of tail docking on behavior of confined feedlot cattle.

Tail tip injuries occur in some feedlot cattle housed in slatted-floor facilities typically found in the midwestern United States. The practice of tail docking cattle on entry into these feedlot facilities was initiated to prevent tail injuries. Tail docking is a welfare concern from the standpoint that an important method of fly avoidance is removed and the tail docking procedure is painful and often excludes local anesthesia or extended analgesia. The primary objective of this study was to describe the behavioral responses of feedlot cattle following tail docking. Thirty-six heifers were randomly assigned to 1 of 2 treatment groups: docked (DK) or control (CN). All calves received an epidural following surgical preparation of the sacrococcygeal area and postoperative intravenous flunixin meglumine. A portion of the tail of DK calves was removed using pruning shears. An elastrator band was placed near the tail tip for hemostasis and tail tips were sprayed with fly spray. IceQube accelerometers collected step counts, motion index, lying time, lying bouts, and lying bout duration during d -4 through 13. Direct observations of cattle behavior were performed on d 0, 1, and 2. Step counts of DK calves were increased (P < 0.05) on d 0, 2, 3, 4, 6, 9, 10, and 13, and motion index of DK calves was also increased (P < 0.05) on d 0, 3, 4, 9, 10, 11, and 13. Docked cattle performed rear foot stomp behavior more (P < 0.001) than CN on d 0, 1, and 2. Forty-eight hours after tail docking, DK calves had increased lying bouts per hour (1.7 vs. 0.9 on d 0; P < 0.001; 1.1 vs. 0.8 on d 1; P < 0.01) but reduced lying bout durations (12.6 vs. 47.1 min on d 0; P < 0.001; 22.6 vs. 44.7 min on d 1; P < 0.001). On d 0, DK calves twitched tails more (P < 0.05) and ruminated less (P < 0.001). Despite provision of perioperative and postoperative analgesia, we identified altered behavior in DK cattle that may reflect a compromised welfare state for tail-docked feedlot cattle. We recommend that alternative strategies to reduce tail tip injury be explored.

Effects of tail docking on health and performance of beef cattle in confined, slatted-floor feedlots.

Tail docking of feedlot cattle is a management practice used in some confined, slatted-floor feedlots of the midwestern United States. Justification for tail docking in these management systems is to reduce tail injuries and their sequelae and improve performance, but limited evidence exists to support these claims. The primary objective of this study was to determine the effect of tail docking on performance, carcass traits, and health parameters after tail docking in feedlot cattle raised in slatted-floor feedlots. Three separate trials were performed. Trial 1 consisted of 140 Angus-cross (370-kg) yearling steers that spent 144 to 160 days on feed (DOF). Trial 2 consisted of 137 Angus-cross (255-kg) weaned steers that spent 232 DOF. Trial 3 consisted of 102 Holstein steers (370 kg) that spent 185 to 232 DOF. Cattle were randomly assigned to 1 of 2 treatment groups: docked (DK) or control (CN). All steers received an epidural following surgical preparation of the sacrococcygeal area and postoperative intravenous flunixin meglumine. Approximately two-thirds of the tail of DK calves was removed and an elastrator band was placed near the tail tip for hemostasis. Performance parameters collected included daily gain, final weight, feed intake, and feed efficiency. Carcass data included HCW, subcutaneous fat thickness, LM area, KPH percent, marbling, USDA yield grade, and USDA quality grade. Morbidity, mortality, incidence of lameness, and incidence of tail lesions were recorded. Across all 3 trials, there was no significant effect (P < 0.05) of treatment on performance parameters, carcass traits, or health parameters. In all 3 trials, tail tip injuries occurred in 60 to 76% of undocked (CN) calves, developed while living in the slatted-floor environment, compared to 100% of DK calves, whose injuries were a result of the tail docking procedure. We were unable to identify a performance or significant health advantage to tail docking. However, tail tip injuries still occur in cattle raised in slatted-floor facilities. Because of the animal welfare issues associated with tail docking and tail injuries, we recommend pursuing alternative solutions to reducing the incidence of tail tip injury in feedlot cattle housed in confined slatted-floor facilities.