CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 193Meat and Animal Product QualityLivestock Farming and ManagementFood Supply Chain Traceability

National Beef Quality Audit-1995: Survey of producer-related defects and carcass quality and quantity attributes

Boleman, S L, Boleman, S J, Morgan, W W, Hale, D S, Griffin, D B, Savell, J W, Ames, R P, Smith, M T +9 more·1998·Journal of Animal Science
DOI 10.2527/1998.76196x
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

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.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2527/1998.76196x

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Condemnation rates for non-fed cattle, particularly cows, were higher than for fed cattle, but the rate in 2007 (2.49%) was similar to that reported in cattle in 1994 (2.6%) before the introduction of GE crops.

    “Condemnation rates for non-fed cattle, particularly cows, were higher than for fed cattle, but the rate in 2007 (2.49%), the last year for which data are available, was similar to that reported in cattle in 1994 (2.6%; Boleman et al., 1998), before the introduction of GE crops.”

    From Prevalence and impacts of genetically engineered feedstuffs on livestock populations1 (2014) · cites this paper as Boleman et al., 1998

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Boleman, S. L., Boleman, S. J., Morgan, W. W., Hale, D. S., Griffin, D. B., Savell, J. W., Ames, R. P., Smith, M. T., Tatum, J. D., Field, T. G., Smith, G. C., Gardner, B. A., Morgan, J. B., Northcutt, S. L., Dolezal, H. G., Gill, D. R., & Ray, F. K.
Affiliations
  • Texas A&M University (US)
  • Colorado State University (US)
  • Oklahoma State University (US)
Corresponding author
Savell, J W
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Animal Science
Publisher
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Published
1998
Volume
76
Issue
1
Pages
96
ISSN
0021-8812 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.2527/1998.76196x
OpenAlex
W2244004032
Cited by
193
References
1
Citations by year
2025: 3 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 12 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 13
FWCI
13.41
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Animal Science (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Animal Science and Zoology › Meat and Animal Product Quality
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Agronomy and Crop Science › Livestock Farming and Management
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Food Science › Food Supply Chain Traceability
Keywords
beef quality, carcass characteristics, carcass defects, bruising, cattle brands, carcass condemnation, USDA yield grade, USDA quality grade, beef marbling, slaughter plants
MeSH terms
Animals, Animal Identification Systems, Cattle, Data Collection, Female, Food Technology, Male, Meat, Quality Control, United States, United States Department of Agriculture

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review