Download - National Angus Conference
National Angus Conference
Importance of Beef Carcass Value
J. Brad Morgan
Oklahoma State University
U.S. Standard
U.S. Standard
Yield Grade 4/5
Yield Grade 4/5Heavy Weight Carcass
Yield Grade 4/5
Dark Cutting Beef
Yield Grade 4/5
Heavy Weight Carcass
Yield Grade 4/5
Too Heavy Carcass
Ribeye Too Small
U.S. Standard
$757.00 Range in
Carcass Value
National Beef Quality Audit
• Fourth such audit -- 1991, 1995, 2000, and 2005.
• Survey of producer-related issues:– Management– Genetics
• Focus on end-products of beef production.• Used as a basis for many cattle producers and
animal scientists:– Benchmark to compare to.– Google Search: Over 500,000 web pages!
National Beef Quality Audit -- 2005
• Three phases:– Surveys of the industry, including end-users– In-plant data collection for slaughter and
cooler characteristics– Establishment of goals for 2010
• In-plant data collection over two time periods:– June through September, 2005– March through June, 2006
Data Collection Locations
Location
Brawley Beef – Brawley, CA
Cargill Meat Solutions – Dodge City, KS
Cargill Meat Solutions – Plainview, TX
Cargill Meat Solutions – Schuyler, NE
Greater Omaha Packing – Omaha, NE
Harris Ranch Beef – Selma, CA
Kane Packing Co. – Corpus Christi, TX
Smithfield Beef – Green Bay, WI
Smithfield Beef – Souderton, PA
Swift & Co. – Grand Island, NE
Swift & Co. – Greeley, CO
Swift & Co. – Hyrum, UT
Tyson Fresh Meats – Amarillo, TX
Tyson Fresh Meats – Boise, ID
Tyson Fresh Meats – Joslin, IL
Washington Beef – Toppinish, WA
Top Ten Beef Quality Defects: End Users
(1) Lack of uniformity/consistency in marbling and tenderness.
(2) Cuts are too large for foodservice & restaurant trade.
(3) Excess fat.(4) Abscesses/lesions in cuts, trimmings &
variety meats.(5) Blood-splashed muscle.
Greatest Improvements: End Users
(1) Improved microbiological safety.
(2) Improved cattle genetics (i.e., more Angus) and beef of higher USDA Quality Grades.
(3) Fewer injection-site lesions.
Future Issues for the Beef Industry:End Users
• New bacterial pathogens (especially MDR strains).• Additional BSE issues.• Market access & export requirements (age and
source verification, a must).• Price of beef so high that it cannot compete.• Eating inconsistencies.• Animals keep getting bigger (weight/size
problems).
Global Perceptions of Beef Quality
The Global “Gold Standard” for Beef Quality
• U.S. Prime
Top Five Terms for Simply Describing Exemplary Quality in U.S. Beef
• U.S. Prime• U.S. Choice• Certified Angus Beef• U.S. Beef (in general)• Corn-fed
In the Global Community:• The perception of U.S. beef
flavor: “Excellent” = 70%; “Very Good” = 30%
• The perception of U.S. beef tenderness: “Very Good” = 100%
Beef Quality Concerns of Those Who Trade Beef to Export Markets
Top Five Beef Quality Concerns:• Unknown age and source (need mandatory ID and traceability)• Size and weight variability• Insufficient marbling• Dull and dark lean color• Administration of growth-promoting implants
Other concerns:• Feeding vitamin E should be mandatory• Appropriate animal welfare should be assured• Tenderness should be genetically assured• Beef is excessively fat• Should be injection-site free
Beef Carcasses from which Cuts were Eligible for Export Under BEV-Japan
• 4,625,827 carcasses were presented for grading during this period (12/12/05 - 1/23/06).
• 312,522 (6.75%) qualified under BEV-Japan.
• 255,497 (5.52%) were approved by “A40 Certification.”
• 57,025 (1.23%) were approved by “Age Verification.”
Source: Justin Ransom (LSP, AMS-USDA) NBQA–2005
National Beef Quality Audit -- 2005: In-Plant Data Collection
• Slaughter floor:– Mud, horns, hide color, brands, identification– Bruises, livers, lungs, heads, tongues– Dentition
• Cooler:– USDA Quality Grades– USDA Yield Grades– Apparent breed type -- native, dairy, Bos indicus– Gender, fat color, blood splash, callous– Over 30 months of age
Brands, Horns, & Bruises: 1991 - 2005
All 2005 numbers are the
best ever!
Livers & Tongues: 1991 - 2005
USDA Quality Grade: 1991-2005
*** *** Best Result Ever
Ideal vs. Actual Quality Grade Consist
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
%
Prime TopChoice
LowChoice
Select Standardand lower
IdealActual
Hot Carcass Weight: 1991-2005
USDA Yield Grade: 1991-2005
Steer and Heifer Comparison
816.9
758.3
700
750
800
850
Carcass weight, pounds
Steers
Heifers
0.50
0.57
0.48
0.53
0.58
Fat thickness, inches
Steers
Heifers
2.1
2.5
2.0
2.2
2.4
2.6
2.8
KPH, %
Steers
Heifers
13.4 13.4
12.5
13.0
13.5
14.0
Ribeye area, sq. inches
Steers
Heifers
Ideal vs. Actual Yield Grade Consist
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
%
YG 1 YG 2 YG 3 YG 4 YG 5
IdealActual
Contributors to Lost Opportunities – Carcass TraitsYG 4 & 5 14.1%Carcass weight 5.5%Standard & lower 5.4%Dark cutters 1.9%C-E maturity 1.5%> 30 months 0.8%Blood splash 0.6%Yellow fat 0.3%Callous 0.1%
No defects 77.5%
Lost Opportunities (per head) Due To:
Quality Grade -$26.81
Yield Grade -$20.92
Weight -$4.94
Hide and Offal -$3.01
Total -$55.68
Top Ten Quality Challenges (SW of NBQA -- 2005)
SOURCE: Deb Roeber (Oklahoma State University) October 2005.
(1) Lack of traceability/IAID/source & age verification/chronological age
(2) Low uniformity of cattle, carcasses & cuts
(3) Need to implement instrument grading
(4) Inappropriate market signals
(5) Segmentation within and among industry sectors
(6) Too heavy carcasses & cuts
(7) Too high Yield Grades (low cutability)
(8) Inappropriate ribeye size
(9) Reduced QG & tenderness due to implants
(10) Insufficient marbling
SOURCE: Strategy Workshop of the NBQA -- 2005
(Oklahoma City, OK) October 2005.
(1) Developing "story" beef.
(2) Reducing E.coli O157:H7.
(3) Merchandising "quick" (to prepare) beef.
(4) Merchandising new beef "value" cuts.
(5) Reducing excess fat cover, at the end-user level.
(6) Developing "brands" of beef.
(7) Increasing beef demand.
(8) Making the industry profitable.
What Is The Beef Industry Doing Well?