Realizing More Value for Cull Cattle
Results of the 1999 National Market Cow and Bull Quality Audit.
By Dr. Todd A. Thrift
Assistant Professor, Extension Livestock Specialist
Texas A&M University-Overton

Regardless of size, all beef cow operations will eventually produce some cull animals. Many times these are older cows that are past their prime producing years. Other culls may result from failure to reproduce in a given breeding season. There are many reasons for cows and bulls to leave a herd.

Most producers make the assumption that if the animal is of little value to them, then it can’t be worth much to anyone else. Contrary to that belief is the fact that cull cows and bulls do in fact have real value (15 percent to 20 percent of producer revenue), and with proper management and timely marketing, the value of market cows and bulls can be increased.

Cull animals (non-fed beef and dairy animals) supply about 20 percent of the total U.S. beef production. Most producers assume that the major product from cull cows is ground beef that is marketed through fast-food restaurants in the form of hamburgers.

In reality, ground beef is a very important product of cull cattle, but it’s only one of many products that are procured from cull animals. Depending upon the operation, it is typical for cull cow packers to utilize tenderloins, ribeyes and strip loins, particularly from younger cows.

These cuts will be merchandised through family steakhouses. The outside round is often pressed into deli-style meats and inside rounds are routinely used for beef jerky. Many of the individual muscles are utilized for specific manufactured products. These products are all completely wholesome and the animals from which these products are derived must pass inspection by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food Safety and Inspection Service.

As the beef industry moves towards merchandising more valued-added, consumer-friendly products, the processors of market cows and bulls will look for ways to utilize their products to fill these needs. Unfortunately, not all cull animals will be suitable for these value-added processes.

Many simply won’t meet the specifications. Some will not even be allowed into the food chain resulting in significant losses to the industry—losses that are ultimately passed back to the producer!

In 1994, the National Cattlemen’s Association (now NCBA) conducted a study in cooperation with Colorado State University to look at the quality shortcomings in cull cows and bulls. The national study revealed some interesting statistics that led to recommendations for optimizing value from cull livestock.

In 1999, the study was repeated to see if the concerns of packers and purveyors had changed and if progress had been made in improving the value of market cows and bulls. Beef quality and consistency begins on the ranch, so it is every producer’s obligation to utilize management and judgment that ultimately leads to a positive eating experience for the consumer.

The 1999 Non-Fed Quality Audit revealed that 96 percent of market cows and bulls have clear eyes, 96 percent are without abscesses, 85 percent are sound or have only minor structural problems, 97 percent have a Body Condition Score of 3 or higher. In general, producers do a fair job of managing and marketing surplus animals.

However, in 1999, it was estimated that 6,190,000 head of market cows and bulls were harvested in federally inspected plants. With this number in mind, it is easy to see that if only 1 percent of cull cows and bulls have some sort of a quality defect, that may actually mean that thousands of cattle are below acceptable standards.

Table 1 (see page 11) summarizes some of the quality defects and the potential number of cattle that would be affected based on the 1999 slaughter figures.

The 1999 Non-Fed Quality Audit identified specific areas where the quality of market cows and bulls could be improved. Realizing that some of these defects are impossible to avoid completely, producers should pay close attention to marketing in order to return maximum value from cull livestock.

For example, cancer eye is one of those defects that can’t always be avoided. But it can be managed through proper marketing. The 1999 audit revealed that 0.4 percent of cull cattle had a tumor that involved the bone of lymph tissue around the eye. These advanced stages of tumor development, which involve bone and lymph, generally result in the head of the animal being condemned.

Head condemnations result in a loss of approximately $18 per affected animal. The most severe stages of cancer eye, involving a prolapsed eye, were detected in 0.2 percent of cull cattle. The good news is the incidence of this advanced stage had been significantly reduced from the 1.1 percent incidence detected in the 1994 audit.

This indicates that producers are marketing cows in a more timely fashion prior to advanced stages, or they are euthanizing cows with advanced stages at the ranch. Cows that are detected with cancer eye should be marketed as quickly as possible. Many producers prefer to wait until the cow has finished raising her calf before merchandising a cow with a bad eye.

In most cases, selling the cow and calf at first sign of an eye problem will bring greater returns because the cow still has some value. The fact that cows with advanced stages of cancer eye are a major cause of whole carcass condemnation makes packers unwilling to even bid on these cows at times.

Horns were identified as a quality defect in the 1999 audit for two reasons: horns are a major cause of carcass bruising, which was the No. 1 concern of packers; additionally, horns must be removed prior to the removal of the hide. This leaves the sinus cavities exposed to hair or foreign material contamination.

If the inspector suspects contamination of the sinus cavities, the head must be condemned resulting in a loss of value. Dehorning at a young age is a good animal husbandry practice that should be routine on all operations.

Brands continue to be a quality concern relating to hide value of cull cattle. Branding is the only permanent, easily readable means of identification that is currently available. Placement of the brand is an important decision that affects hide value.

Rib brands reduce the value of the hide as much as $25 in fed steers and heifers and probably result in a $5 to $15 reduction in the value of cull-cow hides. When considering placement of brands, the optimum place is up high on the hip, close to the tail head.

In general, the hides from cull cows and bulls are not utilized for the higher-quality products, like automobile upholstery, because of scars and insect damage. A brand on the rib, however, further devalues the hide so that its uses are limited to manufacture of smaller items like tennis shoes.

The 1999 audit revealed that 28.8 percent of beef cows had a rib brand, 29 percent had multiple (two to three) brands and 1.6 percent had four or more brands. These trends are very similar to the 1994 audit.

Lameness and disabled cattle represent a problem to the industry from a public perception standpoint. The 1999 audit showed that nearly 12 percent of beef cows and 18 percent of beef bulls had arthritis or a stifle injury. Admittedly, there are situations were these problems are unavoidable. Bulls in particular are prone to injury while fighting.

Many lame cattle, however, are the result of failure to cull animals before they become excessively aged and start to develop feet and leg problems. The packer is required to remove all tissue associated with an arthritic joint. In the 1999 audit, the average trim loss associated with an arthritic joint was nearly 40 pounds!

More than 7 percent of cattle had at least one arthritic joint, and nearly 4 percent had two bad joints. With an average trim loss of 40 pounds, that means that more than 37 million pounds of product would have been lost last year due to joint problems alone. It is easy to see why packers listed this as one of their top concerns.

Downer cattle still represent a significant problem to beef producers with 0.7 percent of beef cows (nearly 25,000 head) classified as disabled. This group of cattle typically gets special scrutiny from the inspectors. Additionally, these cattle often have excessive bruising resulting in large trim losses. Disabled cattle should be merchandised directly to the packer or euthanized at the ranch.

Since lean muscle is the principal end product of cull cattle, it is important that cull animals do have adequate muscling and do not have excessive amounts of fat. However, the 1999 audit suggested that 44.4 percent of beef cows were inadequately muscled. This does not imply that the nation’s cow herd is inherently light-muscled.

Certainly, some cows are insufficient in muscling. The greater concern is that the poor meat yield from these cows is a result of emaciation. Indeed, cattle that are on an inadequate plane of nutrition will eventually lose muscle mass. As a cow loses weight, the loss is composed of fat and muscle when the Body Condition Score drops below 5 (on a scale of 1 to 9).

The 1999 audit revealed that more than 40 percent of beef cows were at or below a BCS 4, suggesting that some of the "inadequate muscle" was due to thin condition. Extremely thin cows (BCS 1 to 2) were estimated to comprise 2.3 percent of beef cows harvested. These cows produce product that is greater than 90 percent lean, but their yield of lean is extremely poor, which limits the salvage potential of emaciated cows.

In many cases, the most valuable part of a thin cow is her hide. Additionally, emaciated cows are much more prone to bruising because they have no fat to serve as padding, and they are more likely to be disabled upon arrival at the packing plant. Many producers assume cows that are sold at their local auction barn are harvested within the state.

In fact, the ultimate destination of cull cows from Texas and Oklahoma is just as likely to be Iowa, Georgia or Wisconsin. Thin cows will not make a long trip prior to harvest, consequently the number of buyers for emaciated cattle are limited. In most cases, the prices received for canner/cutter cows (the thin cow grade) are the lowest of any of the cow grades.

At the other extreme, excessively fat cows (BCS 8 to 9) also represent a significant problem. These cows often yield cuts that can be salvaged and merchandised for higher value (i.e. strips, ribs, tenderloins) but there is a tremendous amount of waste fat associated with fabrication of fat cows.

The yield of lean cuts and 90-percent lean trimmings is very low from these overly fat carcasses. The 1999 audit revealed that 4.5 percent of beef cows were excessively fat. The ideal condition to merchandise cull cows would be somewhere around BCS 4 to 5. These cows have optimal red meat yield without excessive fat and generally bring the highest price per pound at the auction market.

The No. 1 concern of packers in the 1999 audit was the high incidence of bruising. Only 11.8 percent of cow carcasses did not have a bruise. The good news is that fewer medium and major bruises were detected in 1999 than in 1994. It was estimated that minor, medium, major and extreme bruises results in 0.69, 1.42, 4.78 and 15 pounds of trim loss, respectively.

Using these estimates, more than 14 million pounds of product were lost due to bruising. Unfortunately, the bruises do not just occur on the lower-valued portion of the carcass. The 1999 audit revealed that similar trim loss was observed in the top sirloin, loin, rib, round and chuck.

When a bruise is created on an animal, it takes time for the body to heal. Handling practices at the ranch are very important in minimizing bruises. It is estimated that one-third of bruises occur on the ranch, and the other two-thirds occur in transport and marketing. Close scrutiny of handling facilities to eliminate sharp, protruding corners can help reduce bruising.

Producers should also merchandise cull cattle before they become emaciated and are more susceptible to bruises.

Whole carcass condemnations also result in significant losses to the industry. Cows that have advanced stages of cancer eye or are disabled result in a significant number of carcass condemnations. Whole carcasses are also condemned for the presence of birdshot.

This may seem trivial, but it is estimated that 10,000 carcasses were condemned last year for the presence of birdshot or buckshot. The Food and Drug Administration considers lead an adulterant. It goes without saying that cattle should not be gathered with shotguns. But producers who are aware of a birdshot problem, regardless of the source, should take measures to make certain that the animal does not ever have a chance to enter the food system.

Another major concern of packers was the incidence of injection-site lesions and the potential for antibiotic residues. A recent study at Colorado State University revealed that approximately 29 percent of the rounds of cull cows contain an injection-site lesion. Most of these lesions were detected in the upper portions of the hip.

These lesions do not represent a food safety concern, but they are a beef quality problem. Scar tissue from intramuscular (IM) injections of antibiotics or vaccines causes the muscle tissue to be tougher, producing a product that may be unacceptable to the consumer. Producers should follow Beef Quality Assurance guidelines and give all injectable products in front of the shoulder—not in the hip or round.

Producers should carefully avoid marketing cattle that have been treated with antibiotics or other animal health products until the specific withdrawal time has passed. The USDA currently monitors the incidence of antibiotic residues in cull cattle, and a traceback system is already in place through the use of back tags at the auction barn.

When you look at the overall picture, the 1999 audit suggests that nearly $70 is lost in value for every cull cow or bull that is merchandised. Most of this loss comes from merchandising thin, emaciated animals that are more susceptible to bruises and trim loss and have poor yields.

A portion of these losses can be captured by producers who only market cattle that:

• Do not pose a public health threat.
• Have cleared proper withdrawal times.
• Do not have a terminal condition.
• Are not disabled.
• Are not severely emaciated.
• Do not have advanced eye lesions.

In reality, producers should give more consideration to culling cattle. Dr. Bill Mies of Texas A&M University, encourages producers to have the same mind-set when selling cull cows and bulls that they have when they are trading in a pickup.

Most people will clean up an old pickup so they can realize more value from it before trading in on a new model. Cull cows and bulls should be viewed as "trade-ins," not just "junk."