Investigating the relationship between hoof, liver, and heart abnormalities in grain-fed beef cattle (Bos taurus) <30 months at slaughter

Abstract

Hoof abnormalities, liver abscesses, and congestive heart failure (CHF) are animal welfare concerns that have increased in fed cattle. Our objective was to determine whether relationships between these issues exist in fed cattle at slaughter. Each condition was evaluated at a slaughter establishment in the Great Plains region of the United States (1,417 m elevation) on cattle (Bos taurus, beef-type only) <30 months of age (N = 398). Statistical analysis was performed to determine relationships between the prevalence of hoof abnormalities, liver abscesses, and CHF between each other and selected carcass characteristics: USDA quality grade (QG), USDA yield grade (YG), hot carcass weight (HCW), ribeye area (REA), and fat thickness (FT). Of the cattle, 85% had at least one hoof abnormality, 13% had a liver abscess, 52% had CHF, and 5% had all three disorders. There were no differences (p > 0.4955) within the proportion of CHF, liver abscess, and hoof abnormality scores. Cattle with both a wide toe and inward curve (421.62 ± 10.45 kg) had lighter carcasses (p < 0.034) than cattle with only an inward curve (460.95 ± 2.72 kg) or cattle with a shovel hoof (470.16 ± 6.79 kg). The HCW was heavier (p = 0.0295) for cattle with mild CHF (463.60 ± 3.24 kg) than those with no CHF (451.51 ± 3.22 kg). The REA for cattle with no CHF was 103.17 ± 0.93 cm², for those with mild CHF was 104.51 ± 0.88 cm², and for those with severe CHF was 98.63 ± 2.46 cm² (p = 0.0711). There was a greater proportion (p = 0.0099) of heifers with no CHF (70.97 ± 8.17%) than steers (45.78 ± 2.61%). There were no differences (p > 0.1025) in the REA, FT, and QG across hoof, liver, and CHF scores. Differences were present (p < 0.034) in the HCW between the hoof and CHF scores. Further research is required to guide actions to address the animal welfare and productivity concerns associated with these issues.

1 Introduction

In 2023, there were more than 25 million steers and heifers slaughtered in federally inspected establishments (USDA-NASS, 2024). Cattle and carcass sizes have increased over the past 40 years (Vogel et al., 2015; Eastwood et al., 2017; Grandin, 2022, 2024). By producing larger cattle, more meat can be produced from fewer cattle and less feed (Eastwood et al., 2017; Coleman et al., 2023). There has been a consumer demand for increased meat quality. One factor influencing meat quality is intramuscular fat, or “marbling,” which is located within the cross-section of the muscle and gives the meat enhanced flavor (Chambaz et al., 2002; Bures and Barton, 2012; Eastwood et al., 2017). The move toward heavier carcasses and increased intramuscular fat is accomplished by higher-energy diets (Irschad et al., 2012; Pauling et al., 2023) and selection for such traits (American Angus Association, 2021; Pauling et al., 2023).

In the past 10 years, there has been an increase in the occurrence of health and conformation disorders in fed cattle (Vogel et al., 2015; Edwards-Callaway et al., 2017; Losada-Espinosa et al., 2018; Grandin, 2022, 2024; Pauling et al., 2023). These issues include an increase in hoof abnormalities and lameness (Grandin, 2001; Franks and Grandin, 2015; Edwards-Callaway et al., 2017; NBQA, 2022), an increase in liver abscesses and subsequent condemnations (Fox et al., 2009; Eastwood et al., 2017; Losada-Espinosa et al., 2021), and an increase in the presence of congestive heart failure (CHF) (Neary et al., 2016; Heaton et al., 2019; Johnson et al., 2021; Grandin, 2022, 2024). All three of these issues compromise animal welfare and have significant financial impacts on the cattle industry (Laven et al., 2008; Edwards-Callaway et al., 2017; Losada-Espinosa et al., 2018; Buchanan et al., 2023; Grandin, 2024).

Compared to 20 years ago, more cattle have been reported to have inhibited mobility and apparent lameness upon arrival at slaughter establishments (Grandin, 2001; Franks and Grandin, 2015; Edwards-Callaway et al., 2017; Grandin, 2022; NBQA, 2022). Lameness may be a result of increased cattle size and genetic components (Grandin, 2001; Thomson et al., 2015; Frese et al., 2016; Pauler et al., 2020) or various metabolic and dietary disorders (e.g., ruminal acidosis, vitamin and mineral toxicities and/or deficiencies, and nutrient deficiencies), which decrease the positive gains from feed efficiency to the carcass (Boettcher et al., 1998; Lean et al., 2013; Freitas et al., 2023). Lameness is an animal welfare concern as it can be painful and may inhibit the ability of an animal to walk normally and keep up with the pace and flow of other cattle during handling events (Laven et al., 2008; Franks and Grandin, 2015; Edwards-Callaway et al., 2017).

The American Angus Association (AAA) developed a nine-point scale to assess lameness at the claw level (American Angus Association, 2017). On this scale, a score of 5 is ideal, which features a hoof with two evenly shaped and distributed claws, neither one featuring any excessive curve, and a normal gap between the two (American Angus Association, 2017). As the scale deviates from a 5 to a 9, the hoof presents the beginning of a corkscrew, where each claw is curving inward, and then finally deviates to a complete corkscrew claw with pronounced curling of one or both of the claws (American Angus Association, 2017). The opposite end of the scale is a score of 1: a hoof where each claw is splayed outward and there is a large gap between the two claws at the interdigital cleft. There is another hoof conformation concern in feedlot cattle: “shovel” foot. Shovel foot, also referred to as laminitic hooves, indicates hooves that are extremely long and are often thickened at the base, with a bend at the corium curving upward (Ossent and Lischer, 1998; Thoefner et al., 2005; Lean et al., 2013). Shovel foot may be linked to ruminal acidosis as the physiological outcome of acidosis can cause damage to the hoof (Thoefner et al., 2005; Nagaraja and Lechtenberg, 2007). Several studies have observed hoof conformation issues in dairy cattle (e.g., Fjeldaas et al., 2011; LokeshBabu et al., 2018). However, there did not appear to be any peer-reviewed literature identifying and describing hoof conformation issues in beef steers and heifers at the time of this study.

The first National Beef Quality Audit (NBQA) in 1991 reported that 19.2% of fed cattle had their livers condemned and 72.7% of those condemnations resulted from liver abscesses (Lorenzen et al., 1993). Since then, liver condemnations have increased over 10% and were most recently reported at a prevalence of 30.8% for steers and heifers in 2016 (Eastwood et al., 2017). Liver abscesses are costly to the beef industry as they result in organ condemnations and a resultant loss of marketable product (NBQA, 2022). As liver abscesses increase in severity, they can adhere to the body wall, diaphragm, and other organs (Rezac et al., 2014) and must be trimmed and removed from the carcass and condemned (Herrick et al., 2024). The presence of liver abscesses has been linked to changes in the operations and management at feedlots that have happened over time, including feeding increased concentrate diets, greater feed intake, and more days on feed (Fox et al., 2009). In a physiological sense, the presence of liver abscesses has been strongly associated with ruminal acidosis (Losada-Espinosa et al., 2021). Fox et al. (2009) observed that cattle with abscessed livers had reduced average daily gain (ADG) and hot carcass weight (HCW) and a greater proportion of carcasses graded Select as compared with Choice. It has also been reported that cattle with liver abscesses may be more prone to lesions and bruising, reducing the meat yield (Losada-Espinosa et al., 2021). In 1991, an annual loss greater than US $14 million was reported due to liver abscesses (NBQA, 1992). Recently, an estimated US $400 million loss was attributed to liver abscesses annually (Broadway et al., 2024). This is a great concern for feedlot economic health.

CHF has been reported at high altitudes in feedlot cattle since the 1970s (Heaton et al., 2019), but frequent investigations began picking up in the last 10 years and have observed that the disorder was prevalent at lower altitudes as well (Neary et al., 2016; Moxley et al., 2019; Kukor et al., 2021). CHF is a costly problem that contributes to feedlot morbidity and mortality rates (Buchanan et al., 2023; USDA-ARS, 2024). Neary et al. (2016) reported that the CHF increased from 2.10 to 4.0 animals per 10,000 head placed on the feedlot between 2000 and 2012. More recently, Buchanan et al. (2023) observed that 4.14% of cattle that died at the feedlot had a heart score of 4 or 5 (severe CHF) on a five-point scoring system. Exercise intolerance is a clinical symptom of CHF, which may make it difficult for animals to walk through lairage and up a ramp or into a restrainer at the slaughter plant (Bastianello et al., 1996). Some potential causes of CHF at lower altitudes include genetic results of intensive selection for traits, such as birth and weaning weight (Shirley et al., 2008; Heaton et al., 2019; Kukor et al., 2021), increased size and growth rate (Neary et al., 2016; Kukor et al., 2021; Johnson et al., 2021), and heat stress (NBQA, 2022). Heaton et al. (2019) reported that some producers estimated an annual loss exceeding US $250,000 attributable to CHF. This cost may not include all externalities associated with CHF and is an issue that warrants further research to attempt to fully understand the costs and reduce them.

There has been an increase in public interest in the welfare of animals raised for food (Ventura et al., 2013; Schütz et al., 2023). One common framework for assessing animal welfare is the Three Circles Model, developed by Fraser et al. (1997). This framework includes affective states, natural living, and biological functioning (Fraser et al., 1997; Fraser, 2008). When assessing the welfare of fed cattle, it is important to consider each of these areas. Increases in mobility issues, liver abscesses, and CHF indicate that biological functioning is compromised, and cattle may experience negative affective states and limited ability to engage in behaviors that have evolutionary value (natural living). In addition, the clinical symptoms of the aforementioned issues result in pain experienced by the animal, which causes suffering in the feedlot, during transport, and in lairage (Laven et al., 2008; Franks and Grandin, 2015; Kukor et al., 2021). To maintain consumer trust, as well as to work toward minimizing pain and distress during animal production, it is important to continue to investigate and understand the causative factors of these diseases and modes of prevention.

Rollin (2005) defined production diseases as, “… diseases that would not arise, or not be of significance, were it not for the means of production used to create the animal.” Hoof conformation issues, liver abscesses, and CHF may be considered production diseases because all have been linked to increased growth rates with the potential for genetic contributions as well. Lameness in feedlot cattle has been linked to increased muscling (Boettcher et al., 1998) and body mass (Radišić et al., 2012). Liver abscesses have been linked to animals with a lighter HCW (Fox et al., 2009). CHF has been linked to animals with a lower HCW, a less efficient feed-to-gain ratio and ADG, and breed type (Bostaurus and Bos indicus, beef type and dairy type) (Heffernan et al., 2020; Buchanan et al., 2023). With each of these issues having relationships with carcass characteristics and being traced back to similar causes, exploration of the potential for shared etiologies is warranted and necessary. The objective of this preliminary study was to explore the relationships between hoof conformation issues, liver abscesses, and CHF in a sample of conventionally fed cattle from one feedlot. A secondary objective was to evaluate the differences in the presence of carcass characteristics for each hoof, liver, and CHF score.

2 Materials and methods

2.1 Ethical statement

The cattle observed in this study were slaughtered at a commercial slaughter establishment in accordance with the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act (7 USC 1901) (United States Electronic Code of Federal Regulations, 2025) and the regulations that enforce it (9 CFR 313) (United States House of Representatives Office of the Law Revision Counsel, 2025) under inspection by the United States Department of Agriculture Food Safety and Inspection Service (USDA FSIS). All cattle were rendered insensible with a penetrating captive bolt and then exsanguinated before data collection procedures began; therefore, a waiver was submitted to the Colorado State University Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (CSU IACUC). The IACUC waiver for this study (6089) was approved by the CSU IACUC on August 26, 2024.

2.2 Source animals

All animals were sourced from a convenience sample within a single large feedlot in the Great Plains region of the United States (1,417 m elevation; FAA, Washington, DC, USA). Source animals entered the feedlot at varying weights, and data on total days on feed were not made available to the researchers. A total of 398 (31 heifers and 367 steers) B. taurus beef animals, <30 months of age, were evaluated in this study (HCW = 457.36 ± 44.32 kg, mean ± SD). Information on which cattle were penned together at the feedlot was not made available to the authors as data collection took place only at the slaughter establishment. In addition, the data collection team did not have control over the proportion of heifers and steers in this study. The animals were observed at the slaughter establishment, and the carcass data were received post-data collection. Cattle with dairy or B. indicus phenotypes were excluded from this study. The specific breed of each animal was not known; however, 64.57% of the animals were black-hided (no white present). All animals received a viral vaccine [infectious bovine rhinotracheitis/bovine viral diarrhea (IBR/BVD) types 1 + 2] and seven-way clostridial vaccine at the feedlot. The supplier feedlot indicated that the cattle were also administered an implant [either Synovex (Zoetis, Troy Hills, NJ, USA) or Revalor (Merck Animal Health, Rahway, NJ, USA) products] according to label instructions. The timing of the vaccine and implant administration was not available. When the animals reached finishing weight, they were shipped <32.2 km on double-deck livestock trailers to a USDA-inspected commercial beef slaughter establishment in the Great Plains region of the United States (1,416 m elevation; FAA, Washington, DC). Upon arrival to the slaughter establishment, all cattle from the single feedlot were unloaded into lairage pens and further identified as one lot. All data collection occurred on a single day in August 2024 with animals who reached finishing weight during the summer season.

2.3 Study design

A convenience sample was used similar to the methods described by Van Os et al. (2018) and Huser et al. (2023) from a single feedlot. Sample size was determined using WinEpi (Working in Epidemiology, 2010) with the ‘Estimate Percentage’ option within the ‘Sample Size’ program. A confidence level of 95%, an accepted error of 5%, an expected proportion of 30.8%, and a known population of 98,000 were utilized. The expected proportion was based on the prevalence of liver abscesses from the 2016 National Beef Quality Audit (NBQA) for Fed Cattle (Eastwood et al., 2017), and the population size was based on the capacity of the feedlot where the source animals were finished. This sample size calculation yielded N = 328 animals. Due to the rapid line speed at the slaughter establishment, every other animal was evaluated. The data collection team evaluated the full lot of cattle from the source feedlot until a total of 425 scores were collected; this was to reach the target sample size with consideration for potential lost scores (i.e., lost identification tags, railed-out carcasses, and condemnations, for example).

2.4 Scorecard development

Three scorecards were developed for data collection: hoof conformation, liver abscesses, and CHF. All images for scorecards were collected using one of two cameras (camera 1: Olympus Tough TG-6 Waterproof Camera, OM Digital Solutions Corp., Tokyo, Japan; camera 2: GoPro HERO 10, GoPro, Inc., San Mateo, CA, USA), and all images were taken of a group of cattle similar to the sample population of those in the study. The lead investigator (EMH) developed each scorecard (Figures 1, 2, and 3), and the group of co-authors agreed on each reference image. Irrelevant parts of the background in each image were cropped. No further editing software was utilized during scorecard development.

Figure 1

Figure 2

Figure 3

To determine inter-observer reliability, a series of images for each score was compiled, and a group of co-authors (EMH, KNA, AAK, and KDV) met to reach an agreed score for each sample image. The individual tasked with each scoring role was trained with sample images by the lead investigator. Each observer completed a randomized survey with at least 25 images each and scored 80% accuracy on two different randomized tests (McHugh, 2012). Scorecards were available during the randomized survey and data collection.

2.5 Hoof scoring

The hoof scorecard consisted of a five-point categorical scale where each of the front two hooves of each animal was scored. The scorecard included the name of the conformation presentation (i.e., Normal, Corkscrew, Inward curve, Shovel, or Wide), a written description, and a visual reference image. The five conformation types evaluated were based on the prevalence observed by the co-authors and previously reported concerns (Fjeldaas et al., 2011; American Angus Association, 2017; Freitas et al., 2023). All reference photos were taken in the same slaughter establishment as data collection, except for the example of the “corkscrew” hoof, which was taken from a live animal that was on their side on a tilt table. The scorecard can be referenced in Figure 1. For each animal, all of the scores that were visually present on either of the front two hooves were assigned, including if one hoof displayed more than one conformation type. A study by Enevoldsen et al. (1991) described that dairy cows with one foot disorder can suffer from others as well. Therefore, it was important for the observers to fully describe the anatomy of each animal.

2.6 Liver scoring

Livers were scored with the four-point Elanco liver scoring system as a reference (0 = no abscess; A− = one or two small abscesses; A = two to four well-organized abscesses less than 1 in. (2.54 cm) in diameter; and A+ = one or more large, active abscesses greater than 1 in. (2.54 cm) in diameter with inflammation into hepatic parenchyma) (Fox et al., 2009). In addition to the Elanco liver score, a score of “B” was added to the final five-point scale for livers and referred to body wall adhesions (Rezac et al., 2014). A body wall adhesion was classified as a liver that was adhered to the diaphragm, other organs, or the abdominal cavity (Rezac et al., 2014). If an adhesion was present on the liver, this was the final score given. Only one score could be assigned per liver. The liver score card was developed with photos taken in previous visits to the slaughter establishment and can be observed in Figure 2. Information was added to the description to include further instructions on how to score a liver with a combination of small and large abscesses.

2.7 CHF scoring

Hearts were scored for CHF using a three-point scale adapted from the five-point scale used by Kukor et al. (2023) and Buchanan et al. (2023). A three-point scoring system was used due to the line speed and slaughter establishment configuration. The score card depicted the changes from a normal heart to a heart displaying mild changes, and finally a heart displaying extreme changes. As heart swelling due to CHF is a continuous trait that develops and worsens, the authors considered any deviation from a normal heart as potential development of CHF in this study. The heart score card that was used can be visualized in Figure 3. Each heart could only receive one score. All images used in the heart score card were collected during previous visits to the slaughter establishment.

2.8 Slaughter facility data collection

Hoof conformation was scored directly after exsanguination and before the individual slaughter plant carcass identification sticker was placed. Line speed was 390 animals per hour. The first observer (EMH) at the hoof score station scored all hooves and wrote the score on the right shoulder of the animal with either fluorescent pink or orange livestock chalk (SyrVet Livestock Marker, item no. LMFLPK-F; SyrVet, Inc., Waukee, IA, USA). A singular line was made with chalk on the left shoulder of the animal and was used as an aide in the tracking of every other animal that was scored for the study. At this time, all animals had their hides and heads attached. A second observer (OB) at this station recorded the hoof score identified by the first observer and the hide color (i.e., predominant color and whether white was present).

A third observer (AAK), who was located behind the slaughter establishment employee, was responsible for placing the carcass identification tags. This individual recorded the hoof score that was visible on each animal’s hide and the carcass identification number. A food-grade metal pin with two food-grade strings was attached to the exposed brisket of the animal so that the final two observers could identify the carcass at the viscera conveyer. The carcasses underwent hide removal, cleaning, and evisceration according to normal slaughter establishment procedures before the livers and hearts were evaluated. The individual (AM) scoring the liver abscesses stood on the side of the viscera conveyer prior to USDA inspection; USDA liver condemnations did not impact the liver scores in this study. Each liver was placed directly in front of the ventral side of each carcass. Each liver associated with a carcass that had strings was scored and the corresponding carcass identification number was noted.

Slaughter establishment employees removed the heart from the pericardial sac and turned it so that the right atrium was visually to the left of the observer’s line of sight. The final observer (KNA) was located on the side of the conveyer where the hearts were placed prior to USDA inspection. One plant employee at the liver station vocalized each carcass identification number, and the heart observer used this indication to identify which carcass to score. The liver and heart observers each recorded their own scores along with the corresponding carcass identification number. The observers at the liver and heart station were completely blinded to the hide color and the hoof score for each carcass.

The collaborating slaughter establishment provided carcass data for all animals enrolled in the study. The HCW was collected from a digital scale, while the quality grade (QG), yield grade (YG), ribeye area (REA), and fat thickness (FT) were recorded from an imaging device used as a standard part of operating procedures (e+v Standard Grading Camera, e+v Technology GmbH & Co. KG, Brandenburg, Germany). The final USDA QG and YG were confirmed in-person for grading.

2.9 Statistical analyses

A convenience sample of cattle from one feedlot was evaluated for this observational study. Hand-written scores were scanned and saved to Microsoft OneDrive (Microsoft, Redmond, WA, USA), and each carcass ID was matched across each hide color and score observation. There were some carcasses where either the CHF or the liver scores were missed due to the high speed of the plant and the placement of observers relative to the USDA FSIS employees. Carcasses that did not have all three (i.e., hoof, liver, and CHF) scores present were removed from the study. Additional exclusion criteria for this study included the removal of cattle >30 months (n = 3) and carcasses with a QG of Cutter (n = 3). This yielded a total of 398 carcasses that were included in the statistical analyses.

Prior to statistical analysis, all measurements were converted into metric units. Animals were put into a HCW, REA, and FT category using increments of 100 lbs, 1 in.², and 0.1 in., respectively. These categories were then converted to kilograms, square centimeters, and centimeters, respectively. Pivot tables within Excel (Microsoft) were used to determine the proportion of animals within each HCW, REA, and FT category and hide color, QG, and YG. Pivot tables were also used to determine the proportion of animals with the presence of liver abscesses, CHF, and hoof abnormalities within each category. Microsoft Excel (Microsoft) was used to calculate the percentage for each group.

The binom package in R version 4.4.1 and R Studio version 2024.04.2 + 764 (R Core Team, 2024) was used for descriptive statistics to report the 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of the hoof, liver, and CHF scores within hide color, as well as the overall presence of each hide color, hoof score, liver score, and CHF score. For all further statistical analyses, liver scores A+ and B were combined because only one liver was classified as B.

SAS Enterprise Guide 7.1 (Statistical Analysis System Institute, Inc., Cary, NC, USA) was used with the UNIVARIATE procedure and the histogram statement to assess normality for all continuous outcomes within categories. A variable was considered normal if two out of the three following criteria were met: the histogram was normally distributed, the Cramer–von Mises p-value was >0.05, and the QQ plot appeared normal. The following results were not identified as normally distributed: the HCW for the hoof score SW (with a shovel and wide toe), the FT for the hoof scores SW and WI (with a wide toe and inward curve); and the REA for the liver scores A+/B. For all non-normal data, R version 4.4.1 and R Studio version 2024.04.2 + 764 (R Core Team, 2024) were used to perform the Kruskal–Wallis test to determine significant differences in the outcome variables (HCW and REA) between their corresponding scores (hoof score and liver score) for all scores within those categories. If this overall difference was significant, a Dunn’s test was used to determine differences between specific scores (Dinno, 2015).

SAS Enterprise Guide 7.1 (Statistical Analysis System Institute, Inc., Cary, NC, USA) was used to apply Student’s t-tests with the Bonferroni–Holm adjustment for multiple comparisons for normally distributed levels of the hoof, liver, and heart conditions with continuous variables (HCW, REA, and FT). Interactions between sexes were checked and considered present if p < 0.05 for each continuous outcome variable. No interactions were present; therefore, the interaction term was not included in the model (Engle et al., 2024; Loh et al., 2025). During data collection, an equipment malfunction resulted in 147 animals for which the REA and FT were not recorded; therefore, comparisons between scores for these outcomes only included a portion of the sample (n = 181). For this analysis, scores that did not meet the requirement of ≥5 animals per group were also excluded from the comparisons between means. Exclusions are reported in each corresponding table.

Comparisons between the proportion of animals with each score present (hoof, liver, and CHF) among the categorical carcass variables (QG and YG), animal characteristics (sex and hide color category), and other scores (hoof, liver, and heart) were completed using SAS Enterprise Guide 7.1 (Statistical Analysis System Institute, Inc.) in the GLIMMIX procedure as a binomial distribution with the Satterthwaite adjustment and the random statement with residual. Sex was tested as an interaction and was considered present if the interaction p < 0.05. No interactions were present; therefore, means were reported from a statement without the interaction term (Engle et al., 2024; Loh et al., 2025). Categories that did not meet the requirement of ≥5 animals per group were excluded from the comparisons between means and are identified in their corresponding tables. For analyses including hide color, the animals were grouped into two categories: black (which included animals that were black or black and white) and not black (which included animals that were red, red and white, gray, gray and white, tan, and tan and white). For all comparisons between means, statistical significance was defined as p ≤ 0.05. Trends were defined as p < 0.10 and warrant further investigation.

3 Results

3.1 Feedlot cattle sample

The descriptive statistics for source animals can be seen in Table 1 and are reported as the mean ± SD. The average HCW for the entire sample of animals (N = 398) was 457.36 ± 44.32 kg. The average HCW for steers (n = 367) was 462.95 ± 40.64 kg and that for heifers (n = 31) was 392.22 ± 31.97 kg. The average REA for the sample of animals was 103.54 ± 0.89 cm². The average FT for the sample of animals was 1.79 ± 0.25 cm. The presence of hide color is reported in Table 2 (proportion, percentage, and 95% CI).

Supplementary Table S1 reports the HCW, REA, and FT categories, with the presence of each condition (i.e., hoof abnormality, liver abscess, and CHF) reported as percentage and proportion on a yes/no basis. Supplementary Table S1 also includes the presence of each condition within each QG, YG, and hide color.

3.2 Hoof abnormalities

Of the cattle in this study, 85% had at least one hoof abnormality (e.g., inward curve, wide toe, shovel, or corkscrew present). The hoof conformation scores can be seen in Table 2 (proportion, percentage, and 95%CI). Proportions are reported as the number of cattle with each condition out of all cattle (or carcasses) observed. The total proportion of animals in this study with no hoof abnormalities (HOOF N) was 15.33% (61/398, 95%CI = 11.93%–19.25%). The total proportion of animals with a corkscrew hoof (HOOF C) was 6.28% (25/398, 95%CI = 4.11%–9.13%). The total proportion of cattle with an inward curve (HOOF I) was 56.78% (226/398, 95%CI = 51.76%–61.71%). The total proportion of cattle in the study with a shovel hoof (HOOF S) was 4.27% (17/398, 95%CI = 2.51%–6.75%). Cattle with a wide toe (HOOF W) represented 4.77% (19/398, 95%CI = 2.90%–7.35%) of the animals enrolled in this study. Cattle that had a shovel and corkscrew hoof (HOOF SC) represented 0.25% (1/398, 95%CI = 0.00%–1.39%) of the proportion of animals in this study. The proportion of cattle with a shovel and inward curve (HOOF SI) was 5.28% (21/398, 95%CI = 3.30%–7.95%). The proportion of cattle with a wide toe and inward curve (HOOF WI) was 3.77% (15/398, 95%CI = 2.12%–6.09%). The proportion of cattle with a shovel and wide toe (HOOF SW) was 3.74% (12/398, 95%CI = 1.57%-5.21%). One animal had three hoof abnormalities, which included a shovel, wide toe, and inward curve (HOOF SWI), representing 0.25% (1/398, 95%CI = 0.00%–1.39%) of the animals in this study.

3.3 Liver abscesses

Of the cattle in this study, 13% had one or more liver abscesses. The prevalence of liver abscesses reported in this study can be seen in Table 2. Animals with no liver abscesses represented 86.93% (346/398, 95%CI = 83.22%–90.09%), those with a liver score of A− represented 4.02% (16/398, 95%CI = 2.32%–6.45%), animals with a liver score of A represented 5.53% (22/398, 95%CI = 3.50%–8.25%), and those with a liver score of A+ represented 3.27% (13/398, 95%CI = 1.75%–5.52%) of this group of cattle. Only one animal had a body wall adhesion, representing 0.25% (1/398, 95%CI = 0.00%–1.39%) of the cattle evaluated.

3.4 Congestive heart failure

Of the cattle in this study, 52% had heart scores of 1 and 2, indicating potential development of CHF. The prevalence of CHF reported in this study is reported in Table 2. Cattle with no signs of CHF represented 47.74% (190/398, 95%CI = 42.74%–52.78%) of the animals in this study. The total proportion of animals in this study (elevation = 1,417 m) scoring CHF 1 (mild development of CHF) was 46.98% (187/398, 95%CI = 41.99%–52.02%). The total proportion of cattle in this study (elevation = 1,417 m) that scored CHF 2 (severe presence of CHF) was 5.28% (21/398, 95%CI = 3.30%–7.95%).

3.5 Relationships between hoof conformation, carcass characteristics, and hide color

Sample values for HCW, REA, and FT for the hoof scores can be seen in Table 3 and are reported as the mean ± SE. Cattle with HOOF WI (n = 15; HCW = 421.62 ± 10.45 kg) were lighter (p ≤ 0.0393) than cattle with HOOF I (n = 224; HCW = 460.95 ± 2.72 kg), cattle with HOOF C (n = 23; HCW = 465.40 ± 13.30 kg), and cattle with HOOF S (n = 17; HCW = 470.16 ± 6.79 kg). The mean HCW for HOOF SWI (n = 1) was 452.15 kg and that for HOOF SC (n = 1) was 425.85 kg. SE was not available for HOOF SWI and HOOF SC as they were only observed for one animal. The individual p-values for these groups were not reported as they did not meet the requirement of ≥5 animals. There was no evidence (p > 0.218) to support a difference between HOOF S and HOOF I (n = 223; HCW = 460.95 ± 2.72 kg), HOOF C (n = 23; HCW = 465.40 ± 13.30 kg), HOOF SW (n = 12; HCW = 454.08 ± 9.42 kg), HOOF N (n = 61; HCW = 452.31 ± 5.95 kg), HOOF W (n = 19; HCW = 434.92 ± 13.69 kg), or HOOF SI (n = 20; HCW = 464.44 ± 9.03 kg).

The REA and FT were only available for a portion of cattle included in this study (n = 181) due to an electronic grading malfunction. REA was not available for animals with HOOF SC and HOOF SWI. For the remaining animals, there was no evidence (p = 0.2955) to support a difference in the average REA between hoof scores. The average REA for HOOF S (n = 10) was 107.88 ± 3.12 cm², for HOOF N (n = 38) was 104.78 ± 1.6 cm², for HOOF I (n = 143) was 103.96 ± 0.82 cm², for HOOF SW (n = 7) was 103.79 ± 3.73 cm², for HOOF W (n = 13) was 102.29 ± 2.73 cm², for HOOF SI (n = 19) was 100.85 ± 2.26 cm², and for HOOF C (n = 16) was 98.59 ± 2.47 cm².

There were no FT data for animals with HOOF SC and HOOF SWI. For the remaining animals, there was no evidence (p = 0.1356) to support significant differences for the FT between hoof scores. The average FT for HOOF SI (n = 18) was 1.86 ± 0.06 cm, for HOOF C (n = 16) was 1.85 ± 0.06 cm, for HOOF SW (n = 7) was 1.84 ± 0.07 cm, for HOOF I (n = 144) was 1.79 ± 0.02 cm, for HOOF S (n = 10) was 1.78 ± 0.08 cm, for HOOF W (n = 13) was 1.74 ± 0.07 cm, for HOOF WI (n = 6) was 1.72 ± 0.06 cm, and for HOOF N (n = 38) was 1.70 ± 0.04 cm.

The mean proportion and the SEM for each hoof score within each QG can be seen in Table 4. There was no evidence (p > 0.8228) to support differences in the proportion of cattle with each hoof score within each QG. The mean proportion of each hoof score within YG 1–5 is reported in Table 5. There was no evidence (p > 0.6713) to support differences in the proportion of cattle with each hoof score within each YG.

The proportion of each hoof score present within sexes (steer and heifer) can be seen in Table 6. There was no evidence (p > 0.5196) to support a difference in the proportion of cattle with each hoof score between steers and heifers.

The proportion of cattle with each hoof conformation score present within each hide color recorded is reported in Supplementary Table S2. The hide colors were sorted into two categories (any black present and no black present). The proportion with each hoof score within these categories is presented in Table 7. There was no evidence (p = 0.1463) to support a difference in the proportion of cattle in the black-hided category versus the non-black-hided category within each hoof score.

3.6 Relationships between liver abscesses, carcass characteristics, and hide color

The average HCW, REA, and FT were compared between liver scores for cattle and are displayed in Table 8. These are reported as the mean ± SE. There was no evidence (p = 0.1032) to support a difference in HCW between liver scores. For cattle with LIVER 0, the average HCW was 459.15 ± 2.39 kg. For cattle with LIVER A−, the average HCW was 433.11 ± 11.04 kg. For cattle with LIVER A, the average HCW was 449.04 ± 9.63 kg. Cattle with LIVER A+/B yielded an average HCW of 453.90 ± 11.80 kg.

There was no evidence (p = 0.1597) to support a difference for REA between LIVER 0 (103.59 ± 0.67 cm²), LIVER A− (96.94 ± 3.47 cm²), LIVER A (102.73 ± 3.47 cm²), and LIVER A+/B (108.07 ± 1.75 cm²). There was no evidence (p = 0.6052) to support a difference for the mean FT between liver scores. The average FT for cattle with LIVER 0 was 1.79 ± 0.02 cm, for LIVER A− was 1.85 ± 0.09 cm, for LIVER A was 1.79 ± 0.07 cm, and for LIVER A+/B was 1.71 ± 0.07 cm.

Comparisons between the proportion of each liver abscess score across each QG observed in this study are reported in Table 4. There was no evidence (p = 0.7577) to support a difference between the proportion of cattle with a LIVER 0 graded as Prime (90.32% ± 5.33%), Choice (87.07% ± 1.89%), or Select (84.44% ± 5.42%). Comparisons between means for cattle with LIVER A−, LIVER A, and LIVER A+/B within each QG were not completed as these groups did not meet the requirement of ≥5 animals to complete analyis. Cattle with LIVER A− comprised 6.45% ± 4.43% of those graded as Prime, 3.47% ± 1.03% of those graded as Choice, and 6.67% ± 3.73% of those graded as Select. Cattle with LIVER A comprised 3.23% ± 3.19% of those graded as Prime, 5.68% ± 1.31% of those graded as Choice, and 4.44% ± 3.08% of those graded as Select. Lastly, cattle with LIVER A+ and LIVER B comprised 0.00% ± 0.00% of those graded as Prime, 3.79% ± 1.03% of those graded as Choice, and 0.44 ± 2.96% of those graded as Select.

The proportion of cattle with each liver score distributed across YG is reported in Table 5. There was no evidence (p = 0.7174) to support a difference between the proportion of cattle with LIVER 0 within YG 2 (87.72% ± 4.36%), YG 3 (85.40% ± 2.14%), YG 4 (92.59% ± 3.57%), or YG 5 (90.00% ± 9.51%). Cattle that scored LIVER 0 within the YG 1 (100.00% ± 0.00%) category were not included in this comparisons, and scores LIVER A−, LIVER A, and LIVER A+/B were not included as these groups did not meet the requirement of ≥5 animals to complete analyis.

The proportion of cattle with each liver score within each sex (steer and heifer) is reported in Table 6. There was no evidence (p = 0.9778) to support a difference between the proportion of steers within LIVER 0 (86.92% ± 1.76%) and the proportion of heifers within LIVER 0 (87.10% ± 6.04%). Comparisons between the proportion of steers and heifers with each liver score, A−, A, and A+/B, were not performed as each of these groups did not meet the requirement of ≥5 animals to complete analyis.

The proportion of cattle with each liver score present within each hide color observed is reported in Supplementary Table S3. Hide colors were broken down into two groups (i.e., any black present and no black present) to determine differences between the presence of liver scores. These results are reported in Table 7. Cattle with LIVER 0 (no abscesses present) with no black on their hides tended (p = 0.0906) to have a greater prevalence (92.31% ± 2.80%) than cattle with black present on their hides (85.34% ± 2.02%). Comparisons between the mean prevalence of LIVER A−, LIVER A, and LIVER A+/B within hide color are not reported as these groups did not meet the requirement of ≥5 animals to complete analyis. The proportion of cattle that had black on their hide within LIVER A− was 4.56% ± 1.19%, while the proportion of cattle that did not have black on their hide was 2.20% ± 1.54%. Cattle with LIVER A comprised 6.52% ±%1.41% of the black-hided group and 2.20% ± 1.54% of the non-black-hided group. Lastly, cattle with LIVER A+/B comprised 3.58% ± 1.06% of those with any black on their hide and 3.30% ± 1.88% of those without black on their hides.

3.7 Relationships between congestive heart failure, carcass characteristics, and hide color

Sample values for HCW, REA, and FT between heart scores can be seen in Table 9 and are reported as the mean ± SE. Cattle with CHF 1 (463.60 ± 3.24 kg) were heavier (p = 0.0254) than those with no CHF (451.15 ± 3.22 kg). However, there was no evidence (p = 1.000) to support a difference in HCW between CHF scores 0 and 2 (454.26 ± 9.85 kg) or 1 and 2.

Cattle with CHF 1 (n = 124) tended (p = 0.0711) to have the largest REA (104.51 ± 0.88 cm²), followed by cattle with CHF 0 (n = 112; REA = 103.17 ± 0.93 cm²) and cattle with CHF 2 (n = 16; REA = 98.63 ± 2.46 cm²). There was no evidence (p = 0.7420) to support a difference between the mean FT for each CHF score (0, 1, and 2) in this study.

The proportion of cattle with CHF 0, CHF 1, and CHF 2 within each QG is reported in Table 4 as the mean ± SE. There was no evidence (p > 0.1846) to support a difference between the proportion of animals within each CHF score graded as Prime, Choice, and Select. Comparisons of the means between the prevalence of CHF 2 within each QG were not made due to the requirement of ≥5 animals needed per group to complete analyis.

The proportion of cattle with CHF scores 0, 1, and 2 within each YG is reported in Table 5. Cattle with YG 1 tended (p = 0.0808) to have the greatest proportion of cattle with CHF 0 (68.38% ± 26.70%), followed by YG 3 (51.94% ± 3.07%) and YG 2 (35.14% ± 6.43%). For comparisons between means, CHF 0 for YG 1 and YG 5 were not included as they did not meet the requirement of ≥5 animals to complete analysis. The proportion of cattle with CHF 0 within YG 1 was 68.38% ± 26.70%, while the proportion within YG 5 was 21.28% ± 13.36%. For comparisons between means, cattle with a CHF 1 within YG 1 (31.73% ± 26.77%) were not included as they did not meet the requirement of ≥5 animals to complete analyis. Cattle with CHF 1 tended (p = 0.0922) to vary across YG as their presence was 68.44% ± 15.05% of the animals with YG 5, followed by 59.52% ± 6.61% of those with YG 2, then 52.30% ± 6.91% of those with YG 4, and lastly 42.49% ± 3.04% of those with YG 3. For cattle within CHF 2, there were no comparisons between means for their prevalence within each YG as these groups did not meet the requirement of ≥5 animals to complete analyis. The proportion of cattle within CHF 2 comprising the YG 1 group was 0.00% ± 0.00%, within YG 2 was 5.26% ± 2.97%, within YG 3 was 5.47% ± 1.38%, within YG 4 was 3.70% ± 2.58%, and the proportion within YG 5 was 10.00% ± 9.51%.

The proportion of each CHF score represented within sexes (steer and heifer) is reported in Table 6. A greater (p = 0.0099) proportion of heifers (70.97% ± 8.17%) had CHF 0 than steers (45.78% ± 2.61%). Alternatively, more (p = 0.0182) steers (48.77% ± 2.62%) had a CHF 1 than heifers (25.81% ± 7.88%). Comparisons between the proportion of steers and heifers within CHF 2 were not completed as these groups did not meet the requirement of ≥5 animals to complete analyis. The proportion of steers within CHF 2 was 5.45% ± 1.19%, while the proportion of heifers was 3.23% ± 3.18%.

The proportion of each CHF score present within each hide color observed is reported in Supplementary Table S4 (percentage, proportion, and 95%CI). Hide color was consolidated into two categories (any black present and no black present) and reported in Table 7. There was no evidence (p > 0.3321) to support a difference between the proportion of cattle with black present versus the proportion without black present for each CHF score. The proportion of cattle within CHF 2 within each hide category was not included in statistical comparisons as these groups did not meet the requirement of ≥5 animals per group to complete analyis.

3.8 Cattle with more than one production disease

Table 10 reports the proportion of cattle with multiple disorders present. Cattle with two disorders present comprised 56.03% (223/398) of those in this study. Within this group, 43.22% (172/398) had at least one hoof abnormality and CHF present, 11.81% (47/398) had a hoof abnormality and a liver abscess present, and 6.28% (25/398) had a liver abscess and CHF present. There were 21 animals (5.28%, 21/398) who had all three disorders present: hoof abnormalities, liver abscesses, and CHF.

The proportion of cattle with liver abscesses within each hoof score can be observed in Supplementary Table S5. The prevalence of each liver score within hoof scores is reported in Table 11. There was no evidence (p = 0.7686) to support a difference between the proportion of cattle with LIVER 0 within HOOF N (91.80% ± 3.55%), HOOF C (80.00% ± 8.08%), HOOF I (85.40% ± 2.37%), HOOF S (88.24% ± 7.89%), HOOF SI (100.00% ± 0.00%), HOOF SW (75.00% ± 12.63%), HOOF W (89.47% ± 7.11%), or HOOF WI (93.33% ± 6.51%). HOOF SC (100.00% ± 0.00%) and HOOF SWI (100.00% ± 0.00%) were not included in the comparisons between means for the presence of CHF 0 as these groups did not meet the requirement of ≥5 animals to complete analyis. For the remaining liver scores indicating the presence of abscesses (A−, A, and A+/B), comparisons were not made between prevalence within each hoof score as these groups did not meet the requirement of ≥5 animals to complete analyis.

The proportion of cattle with CHF present for each hoof score can be seen in Supplementary Table S5. The proportion of cattle with CHF scores 0, 1, and 2 within each hoof score is reported in Table 12. There was no evidence (p = 0.7446) to support a difference between the prevalence of cattle with score CHF 0 within HOOF N (40.38% ± 6.44%), HOOF C (42.85% ± 10.17%), HOOF I (50.30% ± 3.41%), HOOF S (37.35% ± 12.05%), HOOF SI (54.60% ± 11.00%), HOOF W (34.45% ± 11.16%), or HOOF WI (60.61% ± 12.84%). The means for HOOF SC (100.00% ± 0.00%), HOOF SW (60.48% ± 14.20%), and HOOF SWI (0.00% ± 0.00%) were not included in the comparisons for CHF 0 as these groups did not meet the requirement of ≥5 animals to complete analyis. There was no evidence (p = 0.5761) to support a difference for the proportion of cattle that scored CHF 1 within HOOF N (54.57% ± 6.53%), HOOF C (44.77% ± 10.22%), HOOF I (44.95% ± 3.39%), HOOF S (62.77% ± 12.04%), HOOF SI (40.82% ± 10.82%), HOOF W (60.05% ± 11.54%), and HOOF WI (39.45% ± 12.84%). Cattle with HOOF SC (0.00% ± 0.00%), HOOF SW (23.46% ± 12.14%), and HOOF SWI (100.00% ± 0.00%) were not included in this comparison as these groups did not meet the requirement of ≥5 animals to complete analyis. There was no evidence (p = 0.8603) to support a difference between the prevalence of CHF 2 within HOOF I (4.87% ± 1.39%) and HOOF SI (4.76% ± 4.50%). Comparisons between means for HOOF C (12.00% ± 6.30%), HOOF N (4.92% ± 2.68%), HOOF S (0.00% ± 0.00%), HOOF SC (0.00% ± 0.00%), HOOF SW (16.67% ± 10.42%), HOOF SWI (0.00% ± 0.00%), HOOF W (5.26% ± 4.96%), and HOOF WI (0.00% ± 0.00%) were not reported as these groups did not meet the requirement of ≥5 animals to complete analyis.

The proportion of animals with each liver score within the CHF categories is reported in Table 13. There was no evidence to support differences (p = 0.4955) in the proportion of cattle with LIVER 0 within CHF 0 (85.79% ± 2.54%), CHF 1 (88.77% ± 2.32%), and CHF 2 (80.95% ± 8.60%). For the remaining liver scores (i.e., A−, A, and A+/B), comparisons between means were only completed between CHF 0 and CHF 1 as the categories within CHF 2 did not meet the requirement of ≥5 animals to complete analyis.

4 Discussion

4.1 Hoof abnormalities

Of the cattle in this study, 85% had at least one hoof abnormality. Majority of the existing studies evaluating hoof abnormalities focused on dairy cattle. Fjeldaas et al. (2011) assessed several dairy herds and reported a 24.2% prevalence of corkscrew claw. Fjeldaas et al. (2011) did not report whether cattle had twisting in the horn of the hoof or just an inward curve. In our study, a total of 6.48% had a corkscrew claw, which is less than that in Fjeldaas et al. (2011), and 56.61% had an inward curve, which is greater than that in Fjeldaas et al. (2011). It is possible that the proportion of cattle experiencing any level of twisting in the horn capsule has increased since the proportion reported as corkscrew claw in 2010. At the time of our study, there were no published data evaluating the presence of corkscrew hooves in beef cattle; however, Fjeldaas et al. (2011) accounted for a variety of laminitis-related lesions and reported a prevalence of 25.9%. Freitas et al. (2023) reported that 8.75% of 24-month-old Nellore bulls had clinical laminitis. These bulls were confined to stalls for 20 days and then measured for evidence of clinical laminitis. This was closer to what we observed for B. taurus fed beef cattle. One animal in our study had a shovel claw and a corkscrew present. Huang et al. (1995) evaluated the hoof characteristics in five different breeds of lactating and dry dairy cows and reported that corkscrew claw was highly correlated with laminitis (represented in this study as shovel claw). Although we observed only one animal with corkscrew and shovel hoof, it is possible that more animals could develop this disorder based on the findings of Huang et al. (1995). Odegard et al. (2014) studied both corkscrew claw and laminitis-related lesions, concluding that there is a small potential for genetic predisposition to laminitis, and the management of conformation issues such as corkscrew claw must be done with genetic changes for future generations of cattle.

4.2 Liver abscesses

Of the cattle in this study, 13% had one or more liver abscesses. A total of 86.78% of the cattle in this study had normal livers, which is consistent with the findings of Baier et al. (2020), who reported that 87.05% of crossbred beef steers (N = 363) had no liver abscess. The cattle in Baier et al. (2020) were fed a diet including steam-flaked corn and silage, similar to the cattle in this study. Losada-Espinosa et al. (2021) scored livers in feedlot cattle, free-range cattle, and dairy cattle and reported a total proportion of 3.17% from those combined populations having liver condemnations, which aligns with the 3.49% of cattle with liver scores A+ and B in this study. Baier et al. (2020) scored liver abscesses in categories of mild liver abscess presence (MLA; equivalent to LIVER A) and severe liver abscess presence (SLA; equivalent to LIVER A+) in B. taurus, beef-type cattle. Baier et al. (2020) also reported 5.79% of livers to be MLA and 6.61% as SLA, which yields a smaller proportion of more severe liver abscesses than this study, indicating an overall increase in severe liver abscesses in a similar group of cattle since 2020. The most recent NBQA reported that 45% of livers were condemned in 2022, with the leading cause being liver abscesses (NBQA, 2022). This is greater than what was observed in this study, but represents a broader group of cattle types, breeds, and feeding regions.

4.3 Congestive heart failure

Of the cattle in this study, 52% had heart scores of 1 and 2, indicating the development of CHF. Of the cattle, 48% had no signs of CHF. Kukor et al. (2023) measured CHF in beef-on-dairy (breed composition including Angus, Simmental, Jersey, and Holstein) fed cattle in Texas (1,103 m elevation) and reported that 73.13% had heart scores that indicate no presence of CHF, which is greater than what was observed in this study, but was with dairy-influenced cattle. The same study measured beef-on-dairy (breed composition including Angus, Simmental, Jersey, and Holstein) fed cattle in western Kansas (elevation = 846 m) and reported that 89.13% had heart scores indicative of no presence of CHF, which is greater than what was observed for the same type of cattle in Texas (elevation = 1,417 m) (Kukor et al., 2023). Heffernan et al. (2020) measured the CHF scores for Black Angus cattle fed in Wyoming (elevation = 2,165 m) and reported that 78.65% had heart scores indicating no presence of CHF. Among the previously completed studies, our study had the greatest proportion of cattle with no presence of heart changes indicating CHF. Buchanan et al. (2023) reported the CHF scores of fed cattle at an elevation of 756 m. Culminating all of the beef breed types, 87.65% of the cattle in this observational study had heart scores indicating no presence of CHF. Kukor et al. (2021) also reported the proportion of fed cattle (elevation = 1,062 m) harvested in the winter months in the southern region of the United States with no presence of CHF at 66%. Of the cattle in this study, 47% scored CHF 1, indicating mild changes leading to CHF. For the Kukor et al. (2023) beef-on-dairy cattle, 22.71% had mild heart changes indicating CHF in Texas (elevation = 1,103 m) and 9.66% in Kansas (elevation = 846 m). Heffernan et al. (2020) measured the CHF in Black Angus cattle in Wyoming (elevation = 2,165 m) and reported that 15.73% had mild presence of CHF. Approximately 5% of the cattle in this study scored CHF 2, indicating severe changes suggestive of CHF. Heffernan et al. (2020) observed a greater proportion of cattle (5.62%) at a higher elevation (elevation = 2,165 m) with severe CHF. Buchanan et al. (2023) reported that 2.84% of the cattle (elevation = 756 m) had severe CHF present. Kukor et al. (2023) reported that 4.16% of the cattle had severe CHF in Texas (elevation = 1,103) and 1.2% in western Kansas (elevation = 846 m). There are genetic factors that contribute to CHF. Grandin (2024) noted that deaths associated with CHF were traced back to one single Angus sire. These genetic differences are supported by the reduced prevalence of signs of CHF in cattle with dairy influence. Other contributing factors to the development of CHF include elevation (Heaton et al., 2019), muscle mass (Pauling et al., 2023), and previous respiratory illnesses (Hussein and Staufenbiel, 2014). The use of ionophores in cattle production poses a risk to cattle if a toxic dose were consumed. However, this is rare in production settings. For example, the lethal dose of monensin for a 600-kg steer would be 15,000 mg (Galitzer et al., 1986), whereas the approved range is 50–360 mg/day for this animal (Elanco, 2019).

4.4 Relationships between hoof conformation, carcass characteristics, and hide color

Cattle with a wide toe and inward curve were lighter than cattle with only an inward curve, cattle with a corkscrew hoof, or cattle with a shovel hoof. In this study, all cattle were <30 months of age, which is generally younger than lactating dairy cows. Boettcher et al. (1998) postulated that body weight relative to frame size might be a more important contributing factor than the overall carcass weight. In addition, it may be important to identify breed differences in the overall capacity for weight gain and how these factors impact lameness in a feedlot setting.

There was no evidence to support a differences in the average REA between the assessed hoof scores. Boettcher et al. (1998) reported that clinical lameness is more common among the daughters of bulls breeding for wider rumps, which is a muscling trait that could be represented by the REA size. Further investigation of the relationship between muscling and lameness in feedlot cattle is needed.

There was no evidence to support a difference in QG or YG between hoof scores. Despite this, several other papers have noted that a decreased body condition is associated with clinical lameness (Boettcher et al., 1998; Manson and Leaver, 1988). While this study did not evaluate lameness, it did report hoof conformation scores deviating from normal, which is an issue that has been discussed throughout literature as linked to lameness (Murray et al., 1996; Odegard et al., 2014; Franks and Grandin, 2015; Cortes et al., 2021). Potential causes of the association between lameness and decreased body condition include thinning of the fat pad at the sole of the foot compounded by the assumption that lameness causes pain, making cattle less likely to walk to the feed bunk and stand or compete with other cattle for a space to eat, resulting in a reduced feed intake (Manson and Leaver, 1988).

There was no evidence to support a difference within each hoof score for the hide color category (black or not black). The results suggest that the disorder may have shared etiology across breed types rather than just a condition of one breed type.

4.5 Relationships between liver abscesses, carcass characteristics, and hide color

There was no evidence to support a difference in HCW between liver scores. Fox et al. (2009) scored livers on beef cattle that were either in a control group (natural) or administered one of two vaccines—Fusobacterium necrophorum (FNB) or Arcanobacterium pyogenes–F. necrophorum toxoid (APFNT)—and observed that, in all groups, cattle with severe liver abscesses at slaughter had lighter HCW than cattle without severe liver abscesses. A potential reason for the consistent HCW across the liver abscess scores in this study could be attributed to the low proportion of cattle with severe liver abscesses (3.52%).

There was no evidence to support a difference between the proportion of cattle with each liver score between QG or YG. Fox et al. (2009) evaluated cattle fed under natural conditions (cattle could not receive antibiotics or growth-promoting hormones) and reported a decrease in the proportion of cattle with liver abscesses grading Choice as compared with Select (Fox et al., 2009). This difference may not have been observed in our sample due to the conventional-based feeding program these animals were sourced from. Regarding YG, our findings are consistent with those of Fox et al. (2009), who reported that liver abscesses had no effect on YG.

Of the cattle with no liver abscesses (LIVER 0), there was a greater proportion of animals without black on their hides (92.31 ± 2.80%) than animals with black present on their hides (85.34% ± 2.02%). These proportions are consistent with the observations by Baier et al. (2020) on B. taurus beef cattle, who reported that 87.2% of the black-hided cattle had no liver abscesses and that 90.91% of the non-black-hided cattle had no liver abscesses. This warrants further investigation to determine the true genetic impact of hide color on the potential to develop liver abscesses.

4.6 Relationships between congestive heart failure, carcass characteristics, and hide color

Cattle with CHF 1 were heavier than cattle with CHF 0. Buchanan et al. (2023) observed that cattle with severe CHF had significantly lighter HCW than cattle with mild CHF or no CHF. Heffernan et al. (2020) also reported that, as the CHF score increased, the HCW decreased. Based on the findings of this study, it is possible that a heavy HCW is associated with the early stages of CHF. Further investigation is warranted to address these concerns.

Cattle with CHF 1 tended to have the largest REA, followed by cattle with no CHF, and then lastly cattle with severe CHF. The REA size difference between cattle with CHF 0 and CHF 2 is corroborated by the findings of Heffernan et al. (2020), who observed that, as the severity of CHF increased, the REA decreased. Pauling et al. (2023) supported this finding as they reported a positive genetic correlation (0.25 ± 0.12) between the pulse arterial pressure (PAP) score and the REA. The PAP score indicates the presence and severity of pulmonary hypertension, which can cause right-sided heart failure. In this case, a positive correlation (an increase in PAP score that indicated an increase in the REA size) is undesirable as it indicates that breeding for REA size can also lead to a greater (i.e., less favorable) PAP score (Pauling et al., 2023). This is especially concerning because producers have been working toward an overall increase in REA, which is economically favorable to the industry (Woerner, 2025).

There was no evidence to support a difference between the proportion of animals within each CHF score graded as Prime, Choice, and Select. These findings are consistent with those of Buchanan et al. (2023), who reported that the marbling scores—a measurement similar to QG—did not differ between the heart score categories for a variety of fed cattle (cow-calf, beef-on dairy, and dairy bred). The findings of Buchanan et al. (2023) and the present study differ from those of Heffernan et al. (2020), who observed that marbling appeared to increase from cattle with no presence of CHF to a mild presence of CHF, but then decreased as CHF became more severe.

Cattle with no CHF tended to compose the greatest proportion of those with YG 1, followed by YG 3, and then YG 2. Cattle with mild signs of CHF tended to compose the greatest proportion of those with YG 5, followed by YG 2, then YG 4, and lastly YG 3. Again, further investigation is warranted to determine whether there is a true relationship between the presence of mild CHF and each specific YG. Buchanan et al. (2023) observed that cattle with severe CHF had a significantly higher YG than cattle with no CHF, indicating that the presence or an increase in the severity of CHF has the potential to be linked to fatter carcasses. The tendency for cattle with CHF 0 to have a lower YG and CHF 1 to have a higher YG supports this finding as well.

A greater proportion of heifers had normal hearts than steers. Alternatively, more steers had mild CHF than heifers. This could be explained by the findings of Johnson et al. (2021), which indicated that fed steers impacted by CHF died later in the feeding period than heifers, leading to the consideration of survival bias, which could not be accounted for in this slaughter establishment data collection. Neary et al. (2016) obtained data from five feedlots in the US and reported that steers had 39% greater odds of having CHF than heifers. In addition, there was an observed variation in the HCW in this study, where steers had an average HCW of 462.95 ± 2.14 kg and heifers were 392.22 ± 5.74 kg. This might be a contributing factor to a difference in the presence of CHF as well, based on our findings relative to CHF and HCW.

There was no difference between the proportion of cattle with black present and the proportion of cattle with no black present between CHF scores. Buchanan et al. (2023) reported that Angus breed type fed cattle had the greatest percentage of severe CHF in comparison to all other breed types observed, and cattle classified as a crossbreed of Charolais, Angus, or Hereford had the least observed prevalence of severe CHF at 1.42%. Breeding cattle with black on their hide is desirable due to a consumer-driven support of beef marketing programs (USDA-AMS, 2017). Angus cattle can have two hide colors—black and red—and are a prevalent breed in the beef industry; however, our comparison between cattle with black present on their hides and cattle without black present is not in line with the findings of Buchanan et al. (2023) for Angus cattle and cattle of other breeds. This result, as well as the industry tendencies to crossbreed animals, suggests that a proportion of cattle in our study categorized as having black present on their hide likely comprised multiple breeds. It is important to evaluate the genetic factors related to CHF in cattle as hide color and breed are economic drivers of the industry.

4.7 Relationships between production diseases

Cattle with two disorders present comprised 56.03% (223/398) of those in this study. There were 21 animals (5.28%, 21/398) who had all three disorders present: hoof abnormalities, liver abscesses, and CHF. There was no evidence to support a difference in the proportion of cattle with each liver abscess score within each hoof score category, or with each CHF score within each hoof score. There was no evidence to support a difference in the proportion of cattle with each liver score within each CHF score. Recent literature has evaluated the relationships between production diseases (hoof conformation issues, liver abscesses, and CHF) and carcass characteristics, hide color, and sex in feedlot cattle (Irshad et al., 2012; Baier et al., 2020; Heffernan et al., 2020). However, to the authors’ knowledge, this is the first study directly evaluating the differences in hoof abnormalities between CHF and liver abscess scores, as well as the relationships between liver abscesses and CHF. Although this study reported limited relationships between these production diseases, the presence of differences in common carcass characteristics as identified by the hoof, liver, and CHF scores indicates a need to continue research in these areas to inform improvements in breeding, nutrition, and management choices.

5 Conclusion

Of the B. taurus beef animals (N = 398) in this small sample from a single large feedlot, 85% had hoof abnormalities present at slaughter, 52% had signs of CHF, 13% had liver abscesses, and 5% had all three disorders present. There were no differences within the proportion of hoof abnormalities, liver abscesses, and CHF scores in this group of cattle. There are 25 million steers and heifers slaughtered in the US each year, and this study represents only a portion of animals from one sample feedlot. Although this is an observational study on a convenience sample of animals, it is important to monitor these production diseases when making selection and management decisions. Ultimately, all three of these diseases impact animal welfare and cause financial loss during the feeding period or at slaughter.

In addition to their prevalence, multiple diseases yielded significant differences in HCW and sex. This study consisted of a mixed group of steers (n = 367) and heifers (n = 31) that is not proportional to what is typically seen in the fed cattle industry in this region. It is important to be mindful of these differences between sexes, which were represented in this paper. Cattle with both a wide toe and an inward curve had significantly lighter carcasses than cattle with only an inward curve and cattle with only a shovel hoof. Cattle with mild CHF had heavier carcasses than cattle with no CHF. It is possible that severe hoof abnormalities can impact an animal’s ability to feed and result in lighter HCW. This may be associated with genetic selection for weight gain. There was a greater proportion of steers with heart scores indicative of CHF than heifers. Likely, there are genetic linkages to CHF that result from an overall larger animal and carcass size. Further research on the direct cause of these issues would benefit the industry so that producers can work toward preventing them in the future.

References

• 1

  American Angus Association (2017). Foot score guidelines. Available online at: https://www.angus.org/performance/Documents/footscorebrochure.pdf (Accessed 06 August 2025).

  • Google Scholar

• 2

  American Angus Association (2021). Heritabilities and genetic correlations. Available online at: https://www.angus.org/Nce/Heritabilities (Accessed 05 August 2025).

  • Google Scholar

• 3

  BaierF. S.GrandinT.EngleT. E.ArchibequeS. L.WagnerJ. J.Edwards-CallawayL. N. (2020). Effects of liver abscess presence on stress-related physiological parameters associated with well-being in beef feedlot cattle. Appl. Anim. Sci.36, 437–446. doi: 10.15232/aas.2019-01942

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 4

  BastianelloS. S.McGregorH. L.PenrithM. L.FourieN. (1996). A chronic cardiomyopathy in feedlot cattle attributed to toxic levels of salinomycin in the feed. J. S. Afr. Vet. Ver.67, 38–41.

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • Google Scholar

• 5

  BoettcherP. J.DekkersJ. C. M.WarnickL. D.WellsS. J. (1998). Genetic analysis of clinical lameness in dairy cattle. J. Dairy Sci.81, 1148–1156. doi: 10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(98)75677-2

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 6

  BroadwayP. R.NagarajaT. G.LawrenceT. E.GalyeanM. L.HalesK. E. (2024). Liver abscesses—New perspectives on a historic fed-cattle issue. Appl. Anim. Sci.40, 237–243. doi: 10.15232/aas.2023-02498

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 7

  BuchananJ. S.FlagelL. E.MacNeilM. D.NillesA. R.HoffJ. L.PickrellJ. K.et al. (2023). Variance component estimates, phenotypic characterization, and genetic evaluation of bovine congestive heart failure in commercial feeder cattle. Front. Genet.14. doi: 10.3389/fgene.2023.1148301

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 8

  BuresD.BartonL. (2012). Growth performance, carcass traits and meat quality of bulls and heifers slaughtered at different ages. Czech J. Anim. Sci.57, 34–43. doi: 10.17221/5482-CJAS

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 9

  ChambazA. M.ScheederR. L.KreuzerM.DufeyP. A. (2002). Meat quality of Angus, Simmental, Charolais, and Limousin steers compared at the same intramuscular fat content. Meat Sci.63, 491–500. doi: 10.1016/S0309-1740(02)00109-2

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 10

  ColemanL. W.SchreursN. M.KenyonP. R.MorrisS. T.HicksonR. E. (2023). Growth, carcass and meat quality characteristics of Charolais-sired steers and heifers born to Angus-cross dairy and Angus breeding cows. Meat Sci.201, 109178. doi: 10.1016/j.meatsci.2023.1091789

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 11

  CortesJ. A.ThomasA.HendrickS.JanzenE.PajorA.OrselK. (2021). Risk factors of digital dermatitis in feedlot cattle. Transl. Anim. Sci.5, 1–9. doi: 10.1093/tas/txab075

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 12

  DinnoA. (2015). Nonparametric pairwise multiple comparisons in independent groups using Dunn’s test. Stata J.15292–300. doi: 10.1177/1536867X1501500117

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 13

  EastwoodL. C.BoykinC. A.HarrisM. K.ArnoldA. N.HaleD. S.KerthC. R.et al. (2017). National beef quality audit-2016: Transportation, mobility, and harvest-floor assessments of targeted characteristics that affect quality and value of cattle, carcasses, and by-products. Transl. Anim. Sci.1, 229–238. doi: 10.2527/tas2017.0029

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 14

  Edwards-CallawayL. N.Calvo-LorenzoM. S.ScangaJ. A.GrandinT. (2017). Mobility scoring of finished cattle. Vet. Clin. Food Anim.33, 235–250. doi: 10.1016/j.cvfa.2017.02.006

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 15

  Elanco (2019). Elanco AF1404 rumensin 100 monensin sodium. Available online at: https://assets.elanco.com/7eafa302-37b3-00f8-2e74-bb902d1a0ba2/34ab423a-984a-4855-99b3-8fafe1dc4f01/Rumensin%20100%20Label.pdf (Accessed 21 January 2026).

  • Google Scholar

• 16

  EnevoldsenC.GröhnY. T.ThysenI. (1991). Heel erosion and other interdigital disorders in dairy cows: Associations with season, cow characteristics, disease, and production. J. Dairy Sci.74, 1299–1309. doi: 10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(91)78285-4

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 17

  EngleT. E.GuimaraesO.LohH. Y.ThorndykeM. P.CampenH. V.KincadeJ. N.et al. (2024). Late gestation maternal infection with bovine viral diarrhea virus impacts offspring feedlot performance, digestion, blood parameters, and hot carcass weights. J. Anim. Sci.102, skae334. doi: 10.1093/jas/skae334

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 18

  FjeldaasT.SogstadA. M.OsterasO. (2011). Locomotion and claw disorders in Norwegian dairy cows housed in freestalls with slatted concrete, solid concrete, or solid rubber flooring in the alleys. J. Dairy Sci.94, 1243–1255. doi: 10.3168/jds.2010-3173

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 19

  FoxJ. T.ThomsonD. U.LindbergN. N.BarlingK. (2009). A comparison of two vaccines to reduce liver abscesses in natural-fed beef cattle. Bov. Pract.43, 168–174. doi: 10.21423/bovine-vol/43no2p168-174

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 20

  FranksM. K.GrandinT. (2015). A high percentage of beef bull pictures in semen catalogues have feet and lower legs that are not visible. Animals5, 536–544. doi: 10.3390/ani5030370

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 21

  FraserD. (2008). Understanding animal welfare. Acta Vet. Scand.50, S1. doi: 10.1186/1751-0147-50S1-S1

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 22

  FraserD.WearyD. M.PajorE. A.MilliganB. N. (1997). A scientific conception of animal Welfare that reflects ethical concerns. Anim. Welf.6, 187–205. doi: 10.1017/S0962728600019795

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 23

  FreitasS. L. R.QueirozP. J. B.FernandesJ. J. R.NascenteE. P.SantosA. S.NascimentoK. S.et al. (2023). Occurrence of clinical laminitis after adaptation to confinement: effects on morphology, density, and mineral composition of the hoof of Nellore cattle after finishing. Presq. Vet. Bras.43, e07131. doi: 10.1590/1678-5150-PVB-7131

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 24

  FreseD. A.ReinhardtC. D.BartleS. J.RethorstD. N.HutchesonJ. P.NicholsW. T.et al. (2016). Cattle handling technique can induce fatigued cattle syndrome in cattle not fed a beta adrenergic agonist. J. Anim. Sci.94, 581–591. doi: 10.2527/jas.2015-9824

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 25

  GalitzerS. J.KruckenbergS. M.KiddJ. R. (1986). Pathologic changes associated with experimental lasalocid and monensin toxicosis in cattle. Am. J. Vet. Res.47, 12.

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • Google Scholar

• 26

  GrandinT. (2001). Welfare of cattle during slaughter and the prevention of nonambulatory (downer) cattle. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc.219, 1377–1382.

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • Google Scholar

• 27

  GrandinT. (2022). Bad becoming normal is detrimental to beef cattle welfare. J. Appl. Anim. Ethics Res.4, 151–157. doi: 10.1163/25889567-bja10031

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 28

  GrandinT. (2024). Problems with congestive heart failure and lameness that have increased in grain-fed steers and heifers. Animals14, 2824. doi: 10.3390/ani14192824

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 29

  HeatonM. P.BassettA. S.WhitmanK. J.KrafsurG. M.LeeS. I.CarlsonJ. M.et al. (2019). Evaluation of EPAS1 variants for association with bovine congestive heart failure. F1000Res8, 1189. doi: 10.12688/f1000research.19951.1

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 30

  HeffernanK. R.ThomasM. G.EnnsR. M.HoltT.SpeidelS. E. (2020). Phenotypic relationships between heart score and feed efficiency, carcass, and pulmonary arterial pressure traits. Transl. Anim. Sci.4, S103–S107. doi: 10.1093/tas/txaa114

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 31

  HerrickR. T.RogersC. L.JonesT. A.McEversT. J.BrownT. R.MaxwellC. L.et al. (2024). Association of liver-abscess presence and severity with trim loss, slaughter yield, carcass grading performance, lung lesions, and value of fed-Holsteins. Appl. Anim. Sci.40, 376–385. doi: 10.15232/aas.2023-02471

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 32

  HuangY. C.ShanksR. D.McCoyG. C. (1995). Evaluation of fixed factors affecting hoof health. Livest. Prod. Sci.44, 115–124. doi: 10.1016/0301-6226(95)00062-5

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 33

  HuserS. M.LarsonR. L.TaxisT. M.AlmarazJ. M.ReifK. E.WeaverD. E.et al. (2023). Cross-sectional study to describe bovine leukemia virus herd and within-herd ELISA prevalence and bovine leukemia virus proviral load of convenience-sampled Kansas beef cow-calf herds. Am. J. Vet. Res.84, 2. doi: 10.2460/ajvr.22.09.0156

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 34

  HusseinA.StaufenbielR. (2014). Clinical presentation and ultrasonographic findings in buffaloes with congestive heart failure. Turk. J. Vet. Anim. Sci.38, 534–545. doi: 10.3906/vet-1404-111

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 35

  IrshadA.KandeepanG.KumarS.Ashish KumarA.VishnurajM. R.ShuklaV. (2012). Factors influencing carcass composition of livestock: a review. J. Anim. Prod. Adv.3, 177–186. doi: 10.5455/japa.20130531093231

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 36

  JaborekJ. (2023). Industry concerns with liver abscesses in finishing cattle. Available online at: https://www.canr.msu.edu/news/industry-concerns-with-liver-abscesses-in-finishing-cattle (Accessed 06 August 2025).

  • Google Scholar

• 37

  JohnsonB. T.AmineD. E.LarsonR. L.WeaberR. L.WhiteB. J. (2021). Retrospective analysis of cohort risk factors and feeding phase timing associated with noninfectious heart disease deaths in U.S. feedlot cattle. Transl. Anim. Sci.5, 1–11. doi: 10.1093/tas/txab220

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 38

  KukorI. R.EnnsM.HoltT. N.ClevelandM.HollandB. P.WordA. B. (2023). Prevalence of right sided heart failure in Angus influenced and beef on dairy fattening feedlot cattle. J. Anim. Sci.101, 24. doi: 10.1093/jas/skad281.029

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 39

  KukorI. M.ThomasM. G.EnnsR. M.HoltT.SpeidelS. E.ClevelandM. A.et al. (2021). Sire differences within heart and heart fat score in beef cattle. Transl. Anim. Sci.5, S149–S153. doi: 10.1093/tas/txab147

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 40

  LavenR. A.LawrenceK. E.WestonJ. F.DowsonK. R.StaffordK. J. (2008). Assessment of the duration of the pain response associated with lameness in dairy cows, and the influence of treatment. N. Z. Vet. J.56, 210–217. doi: 10.1080/00480169.2008.36835

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 41

  LeanI. J.WestwoodC. T.GolderH. M.VermuntJ. J. (2013). Impact of nutrition on lameness and claw health in cattle. Livest. Sci.156, 71–87. doi: 10.1016/j.livsci.2013.06.006

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 42

  LohJ. Y.SpearsJ. W.GuimaraesO.MillerA. C.ThorndykeM. P.ThomasT. A.et al. (2025). Trace mineral source influences trace mineral solubility in water and mineral binding strength to ruminal digesta. Biol. Trace Elem. Res.203, 1830–1838. doi: 10.1007/s12011-024-04318-x

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 43

  LokeshBabuD. S.JeyakumarS.VasantP. J.SathiyabarathiM.ManimaranA.KumaresanA.et al. (2018). Monitoring foot surface temperature using infrared thermal imaging for assessment of hoof health status in cattle: a review. J. Therm. Biol.78, 10–21. doi: 10.1016/j.jtherbio.2018.08.021

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 44

  LorenzenC. L.HaleD. S.GriffinD. B.SavellJ. W.BelkK. E.FrederickT. L.et al. (1993). National beef quality audit: Survey of producer-related defects and carcass quality and quantity attributes. J. Anim. Sci.71, 1495–1502. doi: 10.2527/1993.7161495x

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 45

  Losada-EspinosaN.Estévez-MorenoL. X.Bautista-FernándezM.LosadaH.MaríaG. A.Miranda-de la LamaG. C. (2021). Integrative surveillance of cattle welfare at the abattoir level: Risk factors associated with liver condemnation, severe hoof disorders, carcase brusing and high muscle pH. Anim. Welf.30, 393–407. doi: 10.7120/09627286.30.4.003

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 46

  Losada-EspinosaN.VillarroelM.MaríaG. A.Miranda-de la LamaG. C. (2018). Pre-slaughter cattle welfare indicators for use in commercial abattoirs with voluntary monitoring systems: A systemic review. Meat Sci.138, 34–48. doi: 10.1016/j.meatsci.2017.12.004

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 47

  MansonF. J.LeaverJ. D. (1988). The influence of concentrate amount on locomotion and clinical lameness in dairy cattle. Anim. Prod.47, 185–190. doi: 10.1017/S0003356100003251

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 48

  McHughM. L. (2012). Interrater reliability: the kappa statistic. Biochem. Med.22, 276–282. doi: 10.11613/BM.2012.031

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 49

  MoxleyR. A.SmithD. R.GroteluschenD. M.EdwardsT.SteffenD. J. (2019). Investigation of congestive heart failure in beef cattle in a feedyard at moderate altitude in western Nebraska. J. Vet. Diagn. Investig.31, 509–522. doi: 10.1177/1040638719855108

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 50

  MurrayR. D.DownhamD. Y.ClarksonM. J.FaullW. B.HughesJ. W.MansonF. J.et al. (1996). Epidemiology of lameness in dairy cattle: description and analysis of foot lesions. Vet. Rec.138, 586–591. doi: 10.1136/vr.138.24.586

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 51

  NagarajaT. G.LechtenbergK. F. (2007). Acidosis in feedlot cattle. Vet. Clin. Food Anim.23, 333–350. doi: 10.1016/j.cvfa.2007.04.002

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 52

  NBQA (1992). Executive summary national beef quality audit. Available at: https://extension.animalscience.tamu.edu/meat/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2015/11/NBQA-1992.pdf (Accessed February 11, 2026).

  • Google Scholar

• 53

  NBQA (2022). 2022 national beef quality audit – executive summary. Available online at: https://www.bqa.org/Media/BQA/Docs/nbqa-executive-summary-2022-updated_v1-compressed.pdf (Accessed 8 October 2025).

  • Google Scholar

• 54

  NearyJ. M.BookerC. W.WildmanB. K.MorleyP. S. (2016). Right-sided congestive heart failure in North American feedlot cattle. J. Vet. Intern. Med.30, 326–334. doi: 10.1111/jvim.13789

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 55

  OdegardC.SvendsenM.HeringstadB. (2014). Genetic correlations between claw health and feet and leg conformation in Norwegian Red cows. J. Dairy Sci.97, 4522–7837. doi: 10.3168/jds.2013-7837

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 56

  OssentP.LischerC. (1998). Bovine laminitis: the lesions and their pathogenesis. In Pract.9, 415–427. doi: 10.1136/inpract.20.8.415

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 57

  PaulerC. M.IsselsteinJ.BerardJ.BarunbeckT.SchneiderM. K. (2020). Grazing allometry: anatomy, movement, and foraging behavior of three cattle breeds of different productivity. Front. Vet. Sci.7. doi: 10.3389/fvets.2020.00494

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 58

  PaulingR. C.SpeidelS. E.ThomasM. G.HoltT. N.EnnsR. M. (2023). Genetic parameters for pulmonary arterial pressure, yearling performance, and carcass ultrasound traits in Angus cattle. J. Anim. Sci.101, 1–5. doi: 10.1093/jas/skad288

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 59

  RadišićB.MatičićD.VnukD.LiparM.Majić BalićI.ĐitkoB.et al. (2012). Measurements of healthy and pathologically altered hooves, their interrelation and correlation with body mass in Simmental breeding bulls. Vet. Arh.82, 531–544.

  • Google Scholar

• 60

  R Core Team (2024). The R project for statistical computing. Available online at: https://www.r-project.org (Accessed 1 September 2024).

  • Google Scholar

• 61

  RezacD. J.ThomsonD. U.SiemensM. G.ProutyF. L.ReinhardtC. D.BartleS. J. (2014). A survey of gross pathologic conditions in cull cows at slaughter in the Great Lakes region of the United States. J. Dairy Sci.97, 4227–4235. doi: 10.3168/jds.2013-7636

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 62

  RollinB. E. (2005). Reflections on stewardship. 439–442 proc North American Vet Conf. North Am. Veterinary Conf. –005 Proc., 539–442.

  • Google Scholar

• 63

  SchützA.SonntagW. I.Christoph-SchulzI.Faletar.I. (2023). Assessing citizens’ views on the importance of animal welfare and other sustainability aspects in livestock farming using best–worst scaling. Front. Anim. Sci.4. doi: 10.3389/fanim.2023.1201685

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 64

  ShirleyK. L.BeckmanD. W.GarrickD. J. (2008). Inheritance of pulmonary arterial pressure in Angus cattle and its correlation with growth. J. Anim. Sci.86, 815–819. doi: 10.2527/jas.2007-0270

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 65

  ThoefnerM. B.WattleO.PolittC. C.FrenchK. R.NielsenS. S. (2005). Histopathology of oligofructose-induced acute laminitis in heifers. J. Dairy Sci.88, 2774–2782. doi: 10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(05)72957-X

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 66

  ThomsonD. U.LongeragenG. H.HenningsonJ. N.EnsleyS.BawaB. (2015). Description of a novel fatigue syndrome of finished feedlot cattle following transportation. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc.1, 66–72. doi: 10.2460/javma.247.1.66

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 67

  United States Electronic Code of Federal Regulations (2025). eCFR:: 9 CFR part 313 – humane slaughter of livestock. Available at: https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-9/chapter-iii/subchapter-A/part-313 (Accessed February 11, 2026).

  • Google Scholar

• 68

  United States House of Representatives Office of the Law Revision Counsel (2025). Available online at: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelimtitle7/chapter48&edition=prelim (Accessed 06 August 2025).

  • Google Scholar

• 69

  USDA-AMS (2017). Live animal specification: American Angus Association’s specification for characteristics of cattle eligible for approved beef programs claiming Angus influence. Available online at: https://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/AAALiveAnimalSpecification.pdf (Accessed 05 August 2025).

  • Google Scholar

• 70

  USDA-ARS (2024). Bovine congestive heart failure (BCHF) in feedlot cattle. Available online at: https://www.ars.usda.gov/plains-area/clay-center-ne/marc/bchf/bchf-main/ (Accessed 05 August 2024).

  • Google Scholar

• 71

  USDA-NASS (2024). Livestock slaughter 2023 summary. Available online at: https://downloads.usda.library.cornell.edu/usda-esmis/files/r207tp32d/wh248d422/p5549g65c/lsan0424.pdf (Accessed 04 August 2025).

  • Google Scholar

• 72

  Van OsJ. M.WincklerC.TriebJ.MatarazzoS. V.LehenbauerT. W.ChampagneJ. D.et al. (2018). Reliability of sampling strategies for measuring dairy cattle welfare on commercial farms. J. Dairy Sci.101, 1495–1504. doi: 10.3168/jds.2017-13611

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 73

  VenturaB. A.von KeyserlingkM. A. G.SchuppliC. A.WearyD. M. (2013). Views on contentious practices in dairy farming: the case of early cow-calf separation. J. Dairy Sci.96, 6105–6116. doi: 10.3168/jds.2012-6040

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 74

  VogelG. J.BokenkrogerC. D.Rutten-RamosS. C.BargenJ. L. (2015). A restrospective evaluation of animal mortality in US feedlots: rate, timing, and cause of death. Bov. Pract.49, 113–123. doi: 10.21423/bovine-vol49no2p113-123

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 75

  WoernerD. R. (2025). Part 3: The evolution of cattle type and management. Natl. Cattlemen.41, 8–9.

  • Google Scholar