Processes for Safety and Quality

The safety of US beef is ensured through the combined efforts of governmental and industry regulation to maintain multiple safeguards throughout the beef production chain. Antemortem and postmortem inspections at USDA-inspected abattoirs serve to remove animals unfit for human consumption. The Federal Meat Inspection Act established sanitary standards for slaughter and processing establishments and mandated antemortem inspection of animals and postmortem inspection of every carcass.² Currently, FSIS PHVs are charged with visual inspection of all livestock before slaughter. The PHVs are responsible for making dispositions of healthy and diseased animals, carcasses, and their products. The disposition of animals is directed by criteria in the Meat and Poultry Inspection Regulations.³

Dispositions require a science-based method of evaluating the eligibility of livestock for human consumption. There are 4 basic components in this decision-making process³:

• • History, which includes history data (such as ownership, geography, and herd or lot of origin and special handling and additional information such as knowledge that livestock are from a producer with a history of residue violations, all of which will have a bearing on the PHV's decisions).

• • Examination through routine antemortem and postmortem inspection procedures to identify abnormalities in a live animal or in a carcass.

• • Diagnosis, which is a definitive summary of all the factors observed during antemortem or postmortem examinations, including correlation of antemortem findings with postmortem lesions, determination of whether pathological processes are acute or chronic, and determination of generalized or localized conditions.

• • Disposition, which is the process of actually enforcing the Meat Inspection Act requirements.

There are 3 potential outcomes for animals after antemortem inspection. These include passed for slaughter, US suspect, or US condemned. Several disease processes exist that are of major public health concern and would warrant a suspect designation; these include CNS derangements, metabolic abnormalities, viral and prion diseases, toxicoses, and nonambulatory animals. If an animal has obvious clinical signs of disease during antemortem (live animal) inspection, it is condemned (identified as US condemned) and not allowed to enter the human food chain.² During antemortem inspection, animals suspected of having a disease condition or other conditions that might result in condemnation are retained (identified as US suspect) and slaughtered as a group for postmortem inspection.

The most intense phase of the meat inspection process is postmortem inspection. Postmortem inspection covers the inspection of carcasses and parts of meat used for human consumption.² Similar to antemortem inspection, this is performed by, or under the supervision of, a veterinary inspector. Organs, lymph nodes, and the entire carcass are examined for evidence of unwholesome conditions. All animals slaughtered in an inspected facility are examined during postmortem inspection. An animal, its carcass, or any of its parts that are condemned are subjected to high-temperature denaturation treatment (under the supervision of the FSIS inspector) and do not enter the human food chain. Similar potential outcomes for animals following antemortem inspection also pertain to postmortem inspection (ie, US inspected and passed for human food, US inspected and condemned for human food, and passed with restrictions).²

Condemnations for any reason represent losses to packers, feeders, and the beef industry as a whole. Prevention practices implemented at farms and feedlots could potentially reduce a number of these losses. The use of antemortem and postmortem inspection data could be used in producer education programs to focus on prevalent and important reasons for cattle condemnation. The purpose of the information reported here is to summarize reasons for condemnation for various classes of slaughtered cattle in the United States. This information could then be used as motivation for producers to engage in quality assurance educational programs and could provide veterinarians with areas in which to focus on-farm interventions.

Antemortem and Postmortem Condemnations

Data were obtained through a 2008 Freedom of Information Act request of the USDA FSIS. The hard-copy summary data included information on total number of cattle slaughtered by class of cattle in the United States for the years 2003 through 2007. In addition, numbers of antemortem and postmortem condemnations by class of cattle and reasons for condemnation were provided for the same time period. The data were entered into a spreadsheet^a and summarized.

Of the > 163 million cattle (excluding bob veal, veal, and heavy calves) arriving at USDA-inspected slaughter facilities for the years 2003 through 2007, 769,339 (0.47%) were condemned at either antemortem or postmortem inspection. Fed cattle, consisting of heifers and steers, comprised the majority (82%) of the cattle at harvest (Table 1) but represented a minority of the cattle condemned (Table 2). From 2003 through 2007, 96,880 of 134,260,523 (0.072%) fed cattle were condemned at slaughter. During that same period, 667,530 of 26,694,317 (2.50%) cull cows, which was 34 times as many cull cows as fed cattle, were condemned at slaughter.

Cow condemnations—Of all cows at packing plants in 2003 through 2007, approximately 131,279 of 26,694,317 (0.49%) were condemned during antemortem inspection, and 536,257 (2.01%) were condemned during postmortem inspection. The most common reasons for antemortem condemnations of cows included dead animals (n = 84,653 [64.5%] cattle), nonambulatory or moribund cattle (42,561 [32.4%]), and epithelioma (ie, ocular neoplasia; 2,348 [1.8%]). The 5 most common reasons for 536,257 cows condemned during postmortem inspection included malignant lymphoma (119,569 [22.30%]), pneumonia (58,132 [10.84%]), septicemia (55,721 [10.39%]), epithelioma (49,058 [9.15%]), and peritonitis (42,089 [7.85%]). After 2004, the USDA FSIS began reporting dispositions for cull beef cows separately from those of cull dairy cows. Cull dairy cows were 3.26 times as likely to be condemned as were cull beef cows. Differences in reasons for condemnation between these 2 groups of cattle could be used to identify class-specific prevention strategies.

Reasons for condemnation of beef cows—From 2005 through 2007, 102,374 of 8,704,377 (1.18%) cull beef cows sent for slaughter in the United States were condemned. Approximately 22,760 of 8,704,377 (0.26%) beef cows were condemned during antemortem inspection, and 79,614 (0.91%) were condemned during postmortem inspection. Dead cattle (n = 12,652 [55.59%]), nonambulatory or moribund cattle (9,088 [39.93%]), epithelioma (701 [3.08%]), CNS disorders (144 [0.63%]), and parasitic conditions (53 [0.23%]) were the 5 most common reasons for antemortem condemnation of 22,760 beef cows. Common conditions that resulted in postmortem condemnation of 79,614 beef cows were epithelioma (17,919 [22.51%]), malignant lymphoma (10,629 [13.35%]), carcinoma (9,210 [11.57%]), pneumonia (5,163 [6.49%]), and septicemia (5,117 [6.43%]).

Reasons for condemnations of dairy cows—From 2005 through 2007, 274,029 of 7,138,997 (3.84%) cull dairy cows sent to slaughter in the United States were condemned. Approximately 56,758 of 7,138,997 (0.80%) were condemned during antemortem inspection, and 217,271 (3.04%) were condemned during postmortem inspection. The most common reasons for antemortem condemnation of dairy cows were dead cattle (n = 35,487 [62.52%]), nonambulatory or moribund cattle (19,879 [35.02%]), epithelioma (483 [0.85%]), pneumonia (281 [0.50%]), and pyrexia (180 [0.32%]). The most common reasons for postmortem condemnation of dairy cows were malignant lymphoma (58,387 [26.87%]), pneumonia (28,560 [13.14%]), septicemia (22,239 [10.24%]), peritonitis (19,382 [8.92%]), and pericarditis (14,888 [6.85%]).

Control Points for Intervention

Four of every 1,000 cattle (excluding bob veal, veal, and heavy calves) were condemned at USDA-inspected slaughter facilities for a variety of reasons during the 5-year period. Fed fat cattle, such as feedlot steers and heifers, are considered the primary source of beef in the United States. However, cull beef and dairy cows constitute a substantial portion of the total number of cattle slaughtered and represent the majority of cattle condemned. When market cows arrived at packing plants, > 2/100 cattle were condemned on inspection, and cull dairy cattle were 3 times as likely to be condemned at slaughter, compared with the likelihood for condemnation of their beef cow cohorts. This disparity among the classes of cattle represents a critical control point for education, intervention, and prevention.

Although many beef quality assurance educational and certification programs exist across the United States, the large number of condemnations of beef cows still represents a challenge to the beef industry. This is particularly evident after identifying that the most common causes are potentially preventable, including the common reasons of dead, moribund, and nonambulatory cattle during antemortem inspection and malignant lymphoma, epithelioma, and pneumonia during postmortem inspection. Most beef quality assurance programs have focused on cow-calf, stocker, or feedlot cattle, but few have devoted attention to dairy cattle. The bulk of these educational programs has been focused on reduction of injection site lesions, bruising, and other quality defects as well as education on reduction of violative antimicrobial residues. The dairy industry has received the attention of some beef quality assurance programs; however, even as recently as 2006, a National Cattlemen's Beef Association recommendation⁴ was to “continue to invest in Dairy-Beef Quality Assurance. Dairy-Beef should remain an important area of emphasis for… Quality Assurance, particularly because of the risk of violative residues in this group.” Condemnation because of violative residues is an important and preventable quality problem, but they represent a small number, compared with the total number of cattle condemned for other reasons. For example, the US FDA sent slightly more than 50 warning letters regarding residues in US livestock between March 2008 and March 2009.⁵

To understand the challenges to packers, sales yard managers, and veterinarians working with producers, it is necessary to understand some of the possible reasons that some beef and dairy producers send potentially unfit cull animals to slaughter. Five broad categories of reasons can be identified, including lack of awareness of a problem with the cull animals; lack of incentive, disincentive, or competing priorities; lack of reasonable alternatives for cull animals; lack of early recognition of disease or disability; and lack of protocols for evaluation of cattle to be marketed for beef or euthanized.

Lack of awareness or knowledge—In a national survey of dairy producers,⁶ 85% had never been to a slaughter establishment and 42% were unaware of the amount of beef derived from dairy cattle. Most producers market their herd removals through sales yards or auctions and thus are removed from the direct influence of packers.^7–9 The underlying reasons and prevention strategies for condemnation may elude most producers. However, in a survey conducted in New Mexico,¹⁰ 86% of producers had at least 1 cow carcass condemned, with a mean annual rate of condemnation of 5%, primarily as a result of cancer, nonambulatory cattle, and pneumonia.

Lack of incentive, disincentive, or competing priorities—Many packing plants continue to accept cattle that are eventually condemned, thereby providing no incentive for producers. Packers are likely to discount all cull cattle because of their expected rates of condemnation and then spread the costs to the entire industry. From a producer's standpoint, the benefits of sending cattle to a packing plant are likely greater than the probability or risk of having an animal condemned. In a survey in California,⁹ 22% of producers had a cow carcass condemned for drug residues, whereas 71% had carcasses condemned for some other reason. Although > 60% said they would join a quality assurance program, 91% preferred a program managed by their milk processor. But because milk processors are primarily concerned with milk quality, they may not have an incentive to focus on dairy beef quality. For producers to change their behaviors with regard to market cows, 65% indicated that they would want incentives from the packing plants and subsidies for euthanizing and disposing of sick or nonambulatory cattle.⁶

Dairy producers also have a number of other issues that might compete with their need to change culling policies. In a national survey,⁶ foot-and-mouth disease and environmental issues were major concerns for the dairy industry as a whole. For individual farms in that survey,⁶ the priorities were milk production, herd reproduction, and prevention of health conditions such as mastitis.

Lack of reasonable alternatives for cull animals—The costs of euthanasia and disposal of cull animals may induce producers to send cattle to market. With a new FDA rule and pressure exerted on renderers to change their methods for handling carcasses of cattle > 30 months old, local rendering capacity may be an issue for many producers and could result in them channeling cattle to a sales yard or slaughter facility.¹¹ In addition, states may impose restrictions against any number of on-farm disposal mechanisms, such as burial, incineration, or composting.¹² The lack of reasonable alternatives for these cull cattle is an important industry-wide issue over which individual producers have little control but that represents a great challenge.

Lack of early recognition of disease or disability—Although a number of advances have been made during the past few decades with regard to dairy cattle medicine, ranging from disease treatment to disease prevention,¹³ the preventable reasons for condemnation are still a challenge. The major reasons for removal of cattle from herds provided by producers include poor reproduction, mastitis, lameness, and low production.^8,14 However, the true conditions for which cows are condemned may be masked by these common diagnostic categories. Early detection and appropriate treatment for disease conditions seen on farms are the purview of the veterinary profession. On a dairy, for example, training herd managers, those who work with cattle in periparturient pens, and other farm personnel to recognize signs of disease, how to provide effective treatment, and how to assess a cure is essential to reducing the numbers of cattle culled as a result of illness or chronic disease.

Lack of protocols for evaluation of cattle to be marketed for beef—Many producers have established criteria for when a cow should be culled from a herd because of production or reproduction variables. However, most lack an evaluation protocol for assessing the suitability of market animals to enter the food supply. Working with their veterinarians, producers could develop a standard procedure to ensure that each cow going to market is fit for human consumption. A decision tree for such a protocol has been developed as part of an education program on dairy market cows.¹⁵

Condemnation Prevention Strategies

Motivating and educating producers and their employees is 1 part of an overall strategy to reduce carcass condemnations. Finding on-farm control points for disease and injury prevention should also be part of any strategy.

Prevention of antemortem condemnations—Non-ambulatory cattle represent a risk for bovine spongiform encephalopathy (although the risk is extremely small in the United States)¹⁶ and an animal welfare concern. Several critical control points exist for intervention by producers and veterinarians to ensure that cows at risk for condemnation are not marketed for slaughter. These include areas of care, handling, and transport of cows at risk for becoming nonambulatory cattle. Causes of nonambulatory cattle include injuries, metabolic imbalances, and infectious and toxic diseases.¹⁷ Risk factors for injury include slipping, lameness, rough handling, and contacts with other animals (eg, fighting or mounting). In a 2007 National Cattlemen's Beef Association report¹⁷ on a national market cow and bull beef quality audit of 23 packing plants, 35% of market cattle loads consisted of mixed sexes of cattle (which could increase the potential for injury through their behavior), 35% of cattle slipped during unloading, and approximately 30% of cows and bulls had signs of lameness (prevalence of lameness in dairy cattle was 49%).¹⁷

Bovine practitioners can assist producers with cattle management and help them assess the reasons for culling and the suitability of cattle to enter the food supply. Management areas, including breeding programs, herd health, cow comfort, sanitation, and calving management, should also be addressed, and management decisions should focus on preventing nonambulatory cattle.^18,19 For example, cattle should be in good body condition and should not be emaciated, and diseased animals should be culled prior to becoming excessively weak. Protocols (such as a decision tree) can be developed on farms for assessment of cull cows.¹⁵ Quality of market cows can improve when a short-duration feeding program is used before culling.²⁰

Prevention of postmortem condemnation—Several disease processes exist that render a carcass unfit for human consumption; some of these diseases may be preventable or detected earlier than at slaughter. Currently, there are 35 disposition categories listed and reported by the USDA FSIS. Of these, the 4 most common reasons for condemnation (malignant lymphoma, pneumonia, septicemia-toxemia, and epithelioma) are responsible for 305,578 of 536,251 (56.98%) cow carcass condemnations.

Malignant lymphoma is most commonly associated with an infection with BLV; it develops in 1% to 5% of BLV-infected animals.²¹ Results of the National Animal Health Monitoring System Dairy 2007 study²² revealed widespread distribution of BLV in US dairy herds. Results of the bulk-tank milk antibody analysis indicate that 83.9% of US dairy operations had positive results for BLV.²² In the National Animal Health Monitoring System Beef 1997 study,²³ 39% of participating beef herds had cattle with positive results for BLV.²³ There are model BLV control programs in the United States that can provide guidance to practitioners and producers.^24,25

The reduction in condemnations as a result of pneumonia and septicemia would require an on-farm diagnostic protocol, early disease detection, and assessment of treatment efficacy (such as that provided for beef calves,²⁶ which involves defining therapeutic success and failure so that they can be monitored and measured).

Cattle with epithelioma are condemned if the affected eye has been destroyed, there is extensive infection, the animal is in poor condition, or there is evidence of the cancer spreading to other parts of the body, including the bony structures around the eyes.²⁷ Cattle with small, localized lesions may pass inspection after condemnation of affected parts and completion of a thorough inspection. Reduction in condemnations as a result of epithelioma also requires a program for early detection and treatment. The incidence of ocular neoplasia can be reduced by selecting breeding stock with dark pigmentation or color around the eyes; checking eyes whenever cattle are gathered for other routine procedures, especially breeds known to be commonly affected and cattle > 2 years old; treating or reexamining cattle with early lesions every 2 to 6 months; and separating cattle with lesions for veterinary evaluation and treatment. Evaluation of the eyes of dairy cattle is easily accomplished when they are in lockups or other holding facilities. Treatments include surgery, cryosurgery (freezing), hyperthermia (heating), or combinations of these.²⁸

Conclusions

Inspection of cattle at packing plants represents one of the steps to ensure a safe and high-quality food supply. On the basis of condemnation data, there appear to be a number of opportunities for veterinarians to work with cattle producers and have an impact on animal welfare, the number of cattle condemned at slaughter, and losses to the beef industry. In all cases, early detection and intervention could help reduce condemnations for many of the major reasons. It requires a focus on disease prevention, education, and creative forms of monitoring success. It has been stated, “There is an ongoing challenge for prevention of many diseases; although there is still much to learn, information already exists to substantially reduce or prevent the disease altogether—the challenge is in effectively and consistently implementing the required management practices.”¹³ Providing veterinary guidance to producers for animals sold for beef may be the easy part—the difficulty for the beef and dairy industries is in addressing incentives or disincentives to change producer attitudes about sending potentially unfit cattle to market.