172 The Mississippi Beef Quality Assurance Program: Certification Demographics from 2015 to 2019

The Mississippi Beef Quality Assurance Program (BQA) has been in place since the early 1990s. In 2015, program materials and format were updated to reflect changing needs of clientele. The current program is a combination of in-person presentation with demonstration of tools such as castration equipment, needles, syringes, etc. to supplement the educational materials. Each registered participant receives a manual, tri-fold supplement, cooler, bumper sticker, and certificate upon completion of the certification. After viewing the presentation, participants complete a 14-question exam to test their knowledge of materials important to the BQA program. Upon passing the exam, participants receive certification, which is valid for 3 yr. Certification events are encouraged to include multiple counties, and reach a wide range of producers. In 2015 to 2017, events were specifically scheduled by state coordinators to ensure cattle producers in all areas of the state had the opportunity to attend a nearby program. Events were also held on an as requested basis. At the end of each certification, participants completed an anonymous survey reporting information on demographics and program effectiveness. From 2015 to 2019, there were 1,734 total certifications through 57 BQA programs provided. At these events, 26 states were represented. From Mississippi, 64 of 82 counties were represented. When describing total number of cattle, the majority of producers reported owning 1 to 50 head (46%) while only 3% reported owning over 1000 head. Producers also listed the total number of acres in pasture, where the majority reporting 1 to 100 acres (32%) and 6% reporting over 1000 acres. When asked to rank economic impacts, most (26%) reported an estimated more than $25 per head benefit due to increased production and marketing. In summary, producers had small number of cattle and acres of pasture but reported large economic benefits to the certification.

76 Shipping calves to the Southern Great Plains: Impact of mode, timing, distance and cattle type

This presentation will discuss historical transportation information, recommendations and available transportation data. Stocker and feeder cattle transportation in the U.S. is virtually unchanged in the last five decades. Transportation stress continues to be accepted as an important factor in the morbidity and mortality of cattle shipped to Southern Great Plains feedyards and stocker operations. Transportation research has occurred in bits and pieces that provide glimpses into mechanisms involved but in general the results are puzzle pieces that have had little influence on transportation techniques. The Electronic Logging Device (ELD) use mandate in livestock hauling will impact stocker and feeder transport to the Great Plains. The extent of which is not yet known and recent delays in implementation with concurrent “exceptions” and “adjustments” make it unclear what the future will hold for stocker and feeder cattle transportation. The Livestock Marketing Association (LMA) has in recent decades developed voluntary livestock handling and transportation training for their customers. Some of the training has been accomplished in a partnership with the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA). The first of these were the “Focal Point” training and “Master Transporter Guide.” More recent, NCBA has developed Beef Quality Assurance (BQA) Transportation certification training for both “Farmer/Rancher” and “Professional Drivers.” Packers have embraced this effort and the major packers currently require all drivers delivering livestock to their operations to be certified. The NCBA BQA Transportation training certification is applicable to stocker and feeder drivers hauling cattle to the Great Plains, but currently it is rare that stocker and feeder operations require drivers to have transportation certification that bring cattle to their operations. Interesting and useful data will be reviewed, such as transportation data collected from Dr. Richeson and Dr. Lawrence at West Texas A&M University. Finding examples include; cattle during transportation can take thousands of steps while on in the semi-trailer with differing number of steps and G-Forces being recorded for cattle on the top deck compared to cattle on the lower deck.

Survey of cow-calf producer perspectives on management strategies and industry challenges. Part 2. Marketing and selection decisions1

The objective of this study was to benchmark how cow-calf producers were marketing their calves, their priorities when selecting replacements, and if producers saw value in a quality assessment focusing on animal handling and care. A total of 1,414 responses from cow-calf producers in 44 states were collected through a survey conducted in partnership with BEEF. Thirty questions were asked of respondents to gather demographic information, establish at what age and through what avenue respondents were marketing their calves, and gauge respondent perspectives on selection decisions, pain management and a quality assessment outlining handling and care guidelines. The percentage of respondents who marketed their calves at certain ages varied by herd size (P < 0.001). Respondents with 50 head or less or more than 1,000 head most commonly retained their calves through finishing and respondents with 51 to 200 head and 201 head to 500 head more frequently backgrounded and then sold their calves. Respondents’ top priorities when selecting bulls were calving ease, followed by growth and feed efficiency traits. When selecting females, top priorities were reproductive efficiency, followed by mothering ability. The percentage of respondents using pain management differed by whether a veterinarian had offered to administer a drug for pain management (P < 0.001). 13.5% of respondents answered yes, and a veterinarian had offered to administer a drug for pain management when castrating or dehorning. Of those 13.5% who responded yes pain management had been offered, and 54.55% of respondents chose to use a pain relief method. A higher percentage of respondents that precondition also more frequently indicated that they used a pain relief method when castrating or dehorning, though it was still a low percentage (P = 0.006). Overall, 46.3% of respondents saw value in handling and care guidelines and 54.9% of respondents saw value in a program including source and age verification, a vaccination plan, and handling and care guidelines. Respondents who were Beef Quality Assurance (BQA) certified had a beef cow inventory of 501 to 1,000 head, who preconditioned their calves and backgrounded them before selling, and who lived in the West most commonly saw value in a quality assessment outlining handling and care guidelines.

Frequencies and severity of injection-site lesions in muscles from rounds of cow carcasses

The frequency and severity of injection-site lesions in the outside round muscles of both beef and dairy cattle were evaluated through a series of audits. Audits were conducted in 2017 on 1,300 rounds from dairy and beef cows from seven locations throughout the United States. Outside round muscles were butterfly cut into 1.25-cm slices and, if present, lesions were counted, measured, and categorized. Rounds from beef (7%) and dairy cattle (15%) had at least one injection-site lesion present. The most common location of injection-site lesions was quadrant 2 and 3, which contained both the biceps femoris and semitendinosus muscles. Injection-site lesions were more frequent (P < 0.05) in the biceps femoris for both beef and dairy rounds. Clear lesions accounted for 57% of injection-sites in both beef and dairy rounds, whereas metallic lesions made up 23% of the total in beef and 25% in dairy. Overall, there was a dramatic decline in the frequency (P < 0.05) of injection-site lesions since the 1998 (24 and 45 percentage units greater in beef and dairy rounds, respectively) and 2000 audits (13 and 20 percentage units greater in beef and dairy rounds, respectively). Educational programs, such as Beef Quality Assurance (BQA) and requirements for BQA training, have resulted in substantial improvements in beef management practices for both the beef and dairy industries.

CONSUMER WILLINGNESS TO PAY FOR TENNESSEE CERTIFIED BEEF

Although Tennessee has Advanced Master Beef Producer (AMBP) and Beef Quality Assurance (BQA) certifications for cattle producers, currently there is no state-certified beef labeling program. A choice experiment was administered to Tennessee consumers to determine their willingness to pay for Tennessee Certified Beef (TCB) and other attributes such as labels indicating producer participation in AMBP and BQA. Random parameter logit model results indicate consumers most valued TCB steak and no-hormones-administered ground beef. Consumers also valued many labels when appearing alongside the TCB label. The impact of providing participants label definitions prior to the choice experiment was examined.