Figure 1.
Figure 1.

National Beef Quality Audit (NBQA): Percentage of sound (normal mobility) cattle observed in each of the National Market Cow and Bull Beef Quality Audits. Total number of observations were National Non-Fed Beef Quality Audit-1994: beef cows (n = 1,548), dairy cows (n = 1,013), beef bulls (n = 254), dairy bulls (n = 38); National Market Cow and Bull Beef Quality Audit-1999: beef cows (n = 2,237), dairy cows (n = 1,108), beef bulls (n = 419), dairy bulls (n = 79); NMCBBQA-2007: beef cows (n = 2,807), dairy cows (n = 2,112), beef bulls (n = 431), dairy bulls (n = 130); NBQA–2016: beef cows (n = 1,557), dairy cows (n = 1,743), beef bulls (n = 321), dairy bulls (n = 52; Smith et al., 1994; Roeber et al., 2000; Nicholson, 2008).

 


Figure 2.
Figure 2.

National Beef Quality Audit (NBQA): Frequency of muscle scores observed in surveyed animals. Muscle score was determined based on a 5-point scale: 1 = extremely light muscled, 3 = average muscled, 5 = extremely heavy muscled. Total number of observations were beef cows (n = 1,860), dairy cows (n = 2,809), beef bulls (n = 399), dairy bulls (n = 119).

 


Figure 3.
Figure 3.

National Beef Quality Audit (NBQA): A comparison between the percentage of cattle that were inadequately muscled (assigned a muscle score 1 (extremely light muscled) and 2 (light muscled) on a 5-point scale) in 1994, 1999, 2007, and 2016. Total number of observations were National Non-fed Beef Quality Audit–1994: beef cows (n = 1,548), dairy cows (n = 1,013), beef bulls (n = 254), dairy bulls (n = 38); National Market Cow and Bull Beef Quality Audit–1999: beef cows (n = 2,237), dairy cows (n = 1,108), beef bulls (n = 419), dairy bulls (n = 79); NMCBBQA–2007: beef cows (n = 2,501), dairy cows (n = 1,954), beef bulls (n = 385), dairy bulls (n = 127); NBQA–2016: beef cows (n = 1,860), dairy cows (n = 2,809), beef bulls (n = 399), dairy bulls (n = 119; Smith et al., 1994; Roeber et al., 2000; Nicholson, 2008).

 


Figure 4.
Figure 4.

National Beef Quality Audit (NBQA): A comparison between the percentage of cattle that were assigned “too low” of a body condition score (beef score 1 and 2 (extremely thin) on a 9-point scale; dairy score 1.0 and 1.5 (extremely thin) on a 5-pt scale) in 1994, 1999, 2007, and 2016. Total number of observations were National Non-fed Beef Quality Audit–1994: beef cows (n = 1,548), dairy cows (n = 1,013), beef bulls (n = 254), dairy bulls (n = 38); National Market Cow and Bull Beef Quality Audit–1999: beef cows (n = 2,237), dairy cows (n = 1,108), beef bulls (n = 419), dairy bulls (n = 79); NMCBBQA–2007: beef cows (n = 2,800), dairy cows (n = 2,103), beef bulls (n = 431), dairy bulls (n = 124); NBQA–2016: beef cows (n = 1911), dairy cows (n = 2,878), beef bulls (n = 406), dairy bulls (n = 121; Smith et al., 1994; Roeber et al., 2000; Nicholson, 2008). Dairy cattle in 1994 and 1999 were condition scored based on the same 9-point scale as beef cattle.

 


Figure 5.
Figure 5.

National Beef Quality Audit (NBQA): A comparison between the percentage of cattle that were over-conditioned [beef score 8 and 9 (extremely fat) on a 9-point scale; dairy score 4.5 and 5.0 (extremely fat) on a 5-pt scale] in 1994, 1999, 2007, and 2016. Total number of observations were National Non-fed Beef Quality Audit–1994: beef cows (n = 1,548), dairy cows (n = 1,013), beef bulls (n = 254), dairy bulls (n = 38); National Market Cow and Bull Beef Quality Audit–1999: beef cows (n = 2,237), dairy cows (n = 1,108), beef bulls (n = 419), dairy bulls (n = 79); NMCBBQA–2007: beef cows (n = 2,800), dairy cows (n = 2,103), beef bulls (n = 431), dairy bulls (n = 124); NBQA–2016: beef cows (n = 1,911), dairy cows (n = 2,878), beef bulls (n = 406), dairy bulls (n = 121; Smith et al., 1994; Roeber et al., 2000; Nicholson, 2008). Dairy cattle in 1994 and 1999 were condition-scored based on the same 9-point scale as beef cattle.

 


Figure 6.
Figure 6.

National Beef Quality Audit (NBQA): Distribution of defects observed on cattle surveyed. Total number of observations were beef cows (n = 1,912), dairy cows (n = 2,855), beef bulls (n = 402), dairy bulls (n = 120). Defects included: bottle teats, broken penis, failed suspensory ligament, foot abnormality, full bag, lumpy jaw, mastitis, multiple udder problems, retained placenta, swollen joints, and warts.

 


Figure 7.
Figure 7.

National Beef Quality Audit (NBQA): Distribution of live animal defects pertinent to all surveyed cattle. Total number of observations were beef cows (n = 1,913), dairy cows (n = 2,856), beef bulls (n = 402), dairy bulls (n = 120).

 


Figure 8.
Figure 8.

National Beef Quality Audit (NBQA): Distribution of defects associated with reproductive soundness in cows. Total number of observations were beef cows (n = 1,913) and dairy cows (n = 2,856).

 


Figure 9.
Figure 9.

National Beef Quality Audit (NBQA): Percentage of cattle with no brands, single brands and multiple brands. Total number of observations were all cattle (n = 5,262), beef cows (n = 2,106), dairy cows (n = 2,618), beef bulls (n = 403), dairy bulls (n = 84).