Producers made few changes in branding

and injection practices from 1992 to 1993 in

spite of efforts at local and regional levels to

boost producers’ awareness of beef quality

issues.

In 1992, the USDA’s National Animal Health

Monitoring System began a 16-month study of

the cow/calf industry called the Beef Cow/Calf

Health and Productivity Audit (CHAPA). During

one phase of CHAPA, producers from 18 targeted states with large beef

cow populations1 were asked about branding and

injection practices on their operations.2

In October of 1992, 16.3 percent of producers reported

hide branding unweaned calves on their operation, resulting

in 35.4 percent of calves being branded. The reported

number of operations branding in 1993 (16.0 percent) was

virtually identical to that for 1992. The proportion of

calves branded in 1993 (38.5 percent) was up slightly from

the year before.

Distribution of branding sites for unweaned calves also

showed little change (Figure 1). Just less than one-third

of producers who brand still reported branding calves on

the side or rib in 1993. In addition, there was little

evidence to suggest producers were preferentially

branding heifers that were more likely on the operation, as

replacements, than steers destined for slaughter (not

shown).

Another initiative of beef quality assurance programs

around the country has been to reduce intramuscular

injection site blemishes in carcasses. Periodic monitoring

of top sirloin butts for injection blemishes by the National

Cattlemen’s Association has shown some progress in

reduction of the prevalence of this condition over time.

However, recent surveys reveal that prevalence has not

continued to decline (Figure 2). In the CHAPA, more

producers indicated they gave some injections to their cattle

in 1993 (72.9 percent) compared to 1992 (65.3 percent).

There was little evidence that producers shifted away from

giving injections in the muscle (not shown).

1992 - 1993:

Branding & Injection Practices

in Beef Cow/Calf Herds

National Animal Health Monitoring System

United States

Department of

Agriculture

Animal and

Plant Health

Inspection

Service

Veterinary

Services

December 1994

Of Operations Branding, Percent

Branding Unweaned Calves by Site, 1992 & 1993*

* Some producers used mutiple sites.

Rump along Tail (E), Head (F), and Neck (G) were all under 1 percent.

Figure 1

C: Upper Hip

1992 57.6

1993 63.9

D: Lower Hip

1992 5.4

1993 9.7

A: Shoulder

1992 12.3

1993 5.9

B: Side/rib

1992 27.6

1993 29.0

Figure 2

#2485

1 The reference population for this phase of the CHAPA were producers from AL, AR, CA, CO, FL, GA, IA, KS, KY, MS, MO, NE,

NM, OK, TN, TX, VA, and WY who had at least 50 percent of their calves born in the months of January through June and had at least five

cows or heifers.

2 Information on other management practices was also collected. For more information, contact the address shown at the end of this

report.
When asked where producers preferred to give

intramuscular injections in 1993, over half (52.0

percent) indicated the upper hip as the preferred site

(Figure 3). Distribution of preferred sites changed

little from 1992 to 1993. The rear leg (upper and

lower hips and rump) was still the preferred injection

site for 76.3 percent of producers giving intramuscular

injections, despite industry efforts to move

intramuscular injections to less valuable cuts of meat.

Nearly 50 percent of producers indicated

veterinarians gave some injections on their operation

in 1993. On average, more veterinarian-delivered

injections were given under the skin in 1993 (Figure

4). For intramuscular injections given by the

veterinarian, producers perceived the preferred site to be

the upper hip in 47.7 percent of operations (Figure 5).

This percentage is virtually unchanged from that reported

in 1992.

The information reported here may help explain lack

of progress in further reducing the prevalence of

injection blemishes. From the CHAPA data, it was not

possible to separate injections of nonirritating substances

regarding preferred injection site. Producers and

veterinarians may have been preferentially using lower

value areas of the animal for injection of irritating

substances. Facilities may still be limiting where

products are injected and may be a stumbling block for

quality assurance efforts relative to injection blemishes.

For further information on beef quality assurance

programs, contact state cattlemens’ associations or the

National Cattlemen’s Association in Denver, Colorado.

Other CHAPA information is available on the

following topics: Branding, Injection sites,

Identification methods, Breeding management, and

Calving management. For more information, contact:

Centers for Epidemiology & Animal Health

USDA:APHIS:VS, Attn. NAHMS

2150 Centre Ave., Bldg. B, MS 2E7 

Fort Collins, Colorado 80526-8117

Telephone: (970) 494-7000

NAHMSweb@usda.gov

N170.1194

Figure 3

Figure 4

Percent of Operations by Main Location of

Veterinarian-delivered Injections in the Muscle

Figure 5

E: Rump Along Tail

1992 13.5

1993 8.9

F: Head

1992 3.7

1993 0.0

G: Neck

1992 22.6

1993 27.0

A: Shoulder

1992 13.9

1993 6.5

B: Side/Rib

1992 0.0

1993 1.2

C: Upper Hip

1992 44.8

1993 47.7

D: Lower Hip

1992 1.5

1993 8.7

#2535

#2390