report of the june-september 2005 national beef quality audit; a new benchmark for the u.s. beef...

REPORT OF THE JUNE-SEPTEMBER 2005 NATIONAL BEEF QUALITY AUDIT;

A NEW BENCHMARK FOR THE U.S. BEEF INDUSTRY.

G.C. Smith, J.W. Savell, J.B. Morgan and T.E. Lawrence

Colorado State University, Texas A&M University, Oklahoma State University and West Texas A&M University

Funded By:Funded By: Cattlemen's Beef Promotion and Research Board

Through:Through: The $1 per-head checkoff

Conducted For:Conducted For: National Cattlemen's Beef Association

SOURCE: Strategy Workshop of the NBQA -- 2005 (Oklahoma City, OK) October 2005.

"In truth, it is the value of our productvalue of our product to our consumers that determines what beef is worthworth -- and our profitability profitability.

The NBQA provides valuable information to industry stakeholders regarding the monetary consequencesmonetary consequences of notnot truly deliveringdelivering the qualityquality and value value to our consumers."

Terry Stokes (NCBA)


"The forces shaping the beef industry in the 21st century are:

(a) Continued consolidation in all beef sectors.

(b) Loss of export markets.

(c) Greater competition from other countries in the global markets.

(d) Development and implementation of traceability/data-management systems.

(e) Growth of markets for natural and organic food products."

J. Daryl Tatum (Colorado State University)

Concentration In The Food And Beef Industries

SOURCE: Cattle•FAX (2005).

Market ShareCow/calf producers Largest 9% 51%

Feedlot operators Largest 2% 85%

Packing companies Top 5 78%

Supermarket chains Top 10 55%

Food-service distributors Top 10 45%

Restaurant chains Top 10 30%


"Beef in the U.S. is now being sold based upon USDA gradesUSDA grades, USDA brandsUSDA brands, and industry brandsindustry brands; tremendous growth has occurred in the last ten years in USDA certified brands and USDA process verified brands, causing progressively greater emphasis on verifying marketing claimsverifying marketing claims and on authenticity managementauthenticity management for processes and products."

Cara Gerken (IMI Global)

"Tracking cattle from the ranch to the packer is essential because export markets will require itrequire it, Wal•Mart and McDonald's want itwant it, and producers can benefit from it benefit from it."

John Paterson (Montana State University)


"A Partnership For QualityPartnership For Quality (PFQ) can be formed between a beef finishing/harvesting company and progressive producers who are strongly focused on the production of a consistentconsistent, high qualityhigh quality, consumer-drivenconsumer-driven product, with the strictest standards for food food safetysafety, environmental stewardshipenvironmental stewardship, economic sustainabilityeconomic sustainability and animal welfareanimal welfare."

"A Partnership For QualityPartnership For Quality (PFQ) makes possible PFQ Program PFQ Program IncentivesIncentives for geneticsgenetics, vaccinationvaccination, weaningweaning, seasonalityseasonality, naturalnatural (hormone/antibiotic constraints) and carcass characteristicscarcass characteristics."

Mike Smith (Harris Ranch Beef)


"Involvement in alliancesalliances allows beef supply-chain focus upon today's and tomorrow's targets:

(a) A safe beef supply.

(b) Electronic IAID with age records.

(c) Balance in production performance and carcass merit.

(d) Management based upon individuals rather than on pen/lot averages.

(e) Avoidance of 'out cattle' (dark cutters, advanced maturity, etc.).

(f) Control of carcass weight (target = 600 to 949 lb).

(g) Production of High Select or better, and Yield Grade 2 or better, carcasses with ribeye areas of 10.0 to 15.9 sq. in.

(h) Adoption of instrument grading.

(i) Tenderness testing to avoid tough beef."

Glen Dolezal (Cargill Meat Solutions)


"Major trends and opportunities in the U.S. beef industry include:

(1) GlobalizationGlobalization and, thus, increased competition.

(2) Retail and foodservice consolidationconsolidation.

(3) CoordinatedCoordinated production systems.

(4) Increased product brandingbranding and value value differentiationdifferentiation.

(5) Accelerated development of newnew consumer-friendly and convenience-orientated beef products beef products."

Randy Blach (Cattle•FAX)


"The National Beef Quality Audits provide: (a) A snapshotsnapshot of the industry's current quality status, (b) A benchmarking toolbenchmarking tool for the industry's quality improvement strategy, and (c) A driver driver for the industry's Beef Quality Assurance, Producer Education Programs."

Ran Smith (Chairman, BQA Advisory Board)

"The National Beef Quality Audits of 1991, 1995, 2000 have provided valuable industry benchmarks industry benchmarks for use by beef industry stakeholders, and identified areas on which to place identified areas on which to place emphasisemphasis in local, state and national BQA endeavors."

G.C.Smith (Colorado State University)


"Previous NBQAs have identified StrategiesStrategies, Tactics Tactics and GoalsGoals as vision directives for those in the production sector who wish to be more competitivemore competitive and find marketing options marketing options -- now or in the future, in domestic and international venues."

Tom Field (Colorado State University)

"A panel of industry professionals assessed beef industry progress in achieving the 12 'Goals' identified by the NBQA -- 2000. Individually, grades as low as D-plusD-plus (develop and implement electronic cattle identification) and as high as B-plusB-plus (eliminate injection-site lesions; 100% of seedstock producers have genetic data) were assigned. The overall average grade for the beef industry was B-minusB-minus."

Clint Peck (Beef Magazine)

Responses To Questionnaires -- Seedstock Generators, Cow/Calf Producers, Stockers/Backgrounders and

Cattle Feeders (Combined)


(1) Insufficient Marbling

(2) Lack of Uniformity

(3) Inadequate Tenderness

(4) Too High Yield Grades

(5 tie) Low Cutability

(5 tie) Too Heavy Carcasses

(7) Injection-Site Lesions

(8) Inadequate Flavor

(9) Inadequate Muscling

(10) Excess Fat Cover

26.5% Strong Impact

55.4% Moderate Impact

18.1% Weak Impact

Greatest Quality ChallengesGreatest Quality Challenges Influence Of Past NBQAs On Changes Made Since 1991Influence Of Past NBQAs On Changes Made Since 1991

Responses To Questionnaires -- Packers


(1) Reduced Quality Grade & Tenderness Due To Use Of Implants

(2) Lack of Uniformity In Live Cattle

(3 tie) Too Heavy Carcasses

(3 tie) Too High Yield Grades

(5 tie) Presence Of Bruises On Carcasses

(5) tie) Hide Damage Due To Hot-Iron Brands

33.0% Strong Impact


0.0% Weak Impact


Responses To Questionnaires -- Purveyors, Restaurateurs And Supermarket Operators


(1) Insufficient Marbling

(2) Too Heavy Cuts

(3) Lack Of Uniformity

(4) Inadequate Tenderness

(5) Excess Fat Cover

(6) Inadequate Juiciness

(7) Inadequate Flavor

(8) Inadequate Overall Palatability

(9) Low Cutability

(10) Too Large Ribeyes

15.0% Strong Impact


0.0% Weak Impact


Questionnaires Returned By Packers (A, Roeber and B, Scanga, Results)


(A) Purchased harvest-cattle that were individually identified: 31.5%31.5%

(A) Average number of branded-beef programs: 5.35.3Branded-beef programs having specifications for: breed (37%37%),marbling (62%62%), hide color (48%48%), Yield Grade (42%42%)

(B) Changes from 1995, to 2005, in:Average number of branded-beef programs 1.33, to 6.256.25Average number of Angus programs 0.67, to 3.003.00Average number of Natural/Grass-Fed programs 0.50, to 2.252.25

Harvest cattle purchased on a "grid" 15%, to 34%34%Harvest cattle purchased "in the beef" 20%, to 26%26%Harvest cattle purchased as "source verified" 0.4%, to 1.5%1.5%Harvest cattle purchased as "age verified" 0.0%, to 1.0%1.0%

Use Of Food-Safety Interventions


Based on questionnaires returned by packers, those using specific food-food-safety interventionssafety interventions were:

Hide-on carcass washing 16.7%

Steam pasteurization of carcasses16.7%

Hot (>165F) water carcass washing66.7%

Pre-evisceration carcass washing83.3%

Steam vacuuming (spot cleaning) of carcasses100.0%

Organic-acid rinsing/washing of carcasses100.0%

Questionnaires Returned By Packers (A, Roeber and B, Scanga, Results)

(A) Carcasses weighing 600 to 1,000 lb.: 92.1%92.1%

(A) Carcasses grading Prime or Choice: 66.2%66.2%

(A) Carcasses of Yield Grades 1, 2 plus 3: 86.5% 86.5%

(A) Calloused ribeye (0.3%0.3%), dark cutter (1.5%1.5%), blood splash (1.7%1.7%) occurrences.

(B) Changes from 1995, to 2005, in:

Average hot carcass weight 740, to 749 lb749 lbCarcasses grading Prime 1.7%, to 7.3%7.3%Carcasses grading Upper Two-Thirds Choice 21.7%, to 27.9%27.9%

Carcasses yield grading 1 & 2 51.3%, to 47.1%47.1%Carcasses yield grading 4 & 5 7.6%, to 11.5%11.5%Carcasses of "B" maturity 2.2%, to 13.9%13.9%


Responses To Questionnaires -- Purveyors, Restaurateurs And Supermarket Operators


(1) E.coli O157:H7 (7) Salmonella

(2) Hormone Residues (8) Listeria monocytogenes

(3) Desire For "Natural" Products (9) Desire For "Organic" Products

(4) Antibiotic Residues (10) Price

(5) Desire For Traceback (11) Concerns About The Environment

(6) Concerns About Animal Welfare (12) Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy

Special Concerns/Desires Of Customers/ConsumersSpecial Concerns/Desires Of Customers/Consumers

U.S. Meat Case Benchmark Study


• 68% of self-service meat case was as "freshfresh" meat items.

• Of fresh meat items, beef (29%)beef (29%) ranked first (chicken, 16%; pork, 14%).

• Of fresh beef items, 43% was steakssteaks, 30% was ground beefground beef, 14% was roasts roasts.

• Of fresh beef items, 1.5% of packages were "NaturalNatural" or "OrganicOrganic."

• 82% of steak packages and 93% of roast packages were bonelessboneless.

• Ground beef is most often designated by leanness percentage leanness percentage (62%), then by cut source (21%).

• 3% of beef packages (vs. 14%, 10% and 7% for chicken, pork and poultry) were "value addedvalue added."

• 27% of beef was in case-ready packagescase-ready packages (vs. 85%, 83% and 37% for turkey, chicken and pork).

• 46%, 56% and 20% of steak, roast and ground beef SKUs were "out-of-stockout-of-stock" -- less often so if case-ready than store-wrapped.

Face-To-Face Interviews Of Six Government Agencies (FSIS, AMS, GIPSA, FAS, APHIS, FDA/CVM) And Eight Trade Organizations (AMI, USMEF, FMI,

NAMP, NRA, SMA, NMA, NCBA) -- "Quality Defects/Challenges"


(1) Lack of Mandatory Traceability, ID System And NAIS Compliance.

(2 tie) Product Inconsistency.

(2 tie) Food Safety: Pathogens/EHEC/Salmonella/Listeria monocytogenes.

(4 tie) Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy.

(4 tie) Growing Concern About Humane Handling/Animal Welfare/Enviroment.

(6 tie) Inadequate Tenderness/Palatability/USDA Quality Grade.

(6 tie) Appropriate SRM Removal/Disposal and 4-D Animal Disposal.

(8 tie) Growing Concern About Chemical Residues.

(8 tie) Carcass/Cut Weights Too Heavy And Inconsistent.

(10 tie) Shelf-Life; Lack Of Age/Source Verified Cattle; Growing Concern About Antimicrobial Resistance; Meat Color And pH Variation In Ground Beef; Susceptibility To FADs, Agroterrorism and Bioterrorism.

USDA Data For Beef Carcasses Officially Graded (Not All Of The Total Beef Carcass Population)


Prime 5% 3% -2% -1%

Choice 79% 57.5% -21.5% -6.2%

Good/Select 15% 39% +24% par

Standard 0.7% 0.4% -0.3% -0.3%

Change corrected forChange corrected for Officially Graded Officially Graded ApparentApparent Good/Select marketedGood/Select marketed1975 20041975 2004 changechange as "No Roll" as "No Roll"

YG1 2% 10% +8% (0.4% vs. 10% 1973-1974 )

YG2 31% 42% +11% (26% vs. 42% consist )

YG3 64% 41% -23% (43% vs. 41% vs. 2004 )

YG4 3% 7% +4% (21% vs. 7% officially )

YG5 0.2% 0.3% +0.1% (6% vs. 0.3% graded )

Preliminary Data -- Assessments Of Cattle On Harvest Floors (N=16)

Brands:Brands: none, 49.5%; butt, 39.5%; side, 13.8%; shoulder, 2.6%.

Horns:Horns: none, 76%

Hide Color:Hide Color: >51% black, 56%; red, 18%; yellow, 5%; Holstein, 9%; grey, 5%; white, 2%; brown, 4%; brindle, 1%.

Manure:Manure: none, 20%; small, 64%; moderate, 16%; large, 3%; extreme, 0.1%


Preliminary Data -- Identification Methods & Age Approximations

Forms of identification on harvest cattle:Forms of identification on harvest cattle: none, 11.3%; electronic, 2.5%; barcode, 0.5%; individual visual, 33.5%; lot tag, 62.4%; metal clip, 12.7%; other, 3.3%.

Permanent incisors in harvest cattle: Permanent incisors in harvest cattle: 0, 83.1%; 1, 5.5%; 2, 8.7%; 3, 0.6%; 4, 1.5%; 5, 0.1%; 6, 0.3%; 7, 0.03%; and 8, 0.05%.

Overall maturity score of harvest cattle:Overall maturity score of harvest cattle: A, 97%; B, 2%; C, 1%.

Of A maturity carcasses: Of A maturity carcasses: Aoo to A40, 14%.


Update: Carcasses Qualifying For Export To Japan

As of January 9, 2006, and for the period December 12, 2005 through January 9, 2006, 1,379,964 carcasses were presented to USDA for grading.

• 5.7% qualified for BEV-Japan via A40 overall maturity.

• 14.6% qualified for BEV-Japan via "Age Verification."

SOURCE: Rick Jones (AMS-USDA).

Preliminary Data -- Assessments Of Carcasses/Offal On Harvest Floors (N=16)

Condemnations:Condemnations: Carcasses, 0%; livers, 25%; lungs, 11%; tripe, 8%; heads, 5%; tongues, 9%.

Contained a fetus:Contained a fetus: 0.47% of all cattle.

Primary causes forPrimary causes for livers, abscess, 54%; lungs, pneumonia, 41%;condemnation:condemnation: tripe, other causes, 44%; heads, other causes, 68%;

tongues, inflamed lymph nodes, 64%.

Offal condemned dueOffal condemned due livers, 0.3%; lungs, 0.4%; tripe, 0.8%; heads, 3.2%;to >30 MOA:to >30 MOA: tongues, 2.5%.

Bruises per carcass:Bruises per carcass: no, 64%; 1, 25%; 2, 8%; 3, 2%; 4, 0.5%; 5+, 0.01%.

Of bruises, by cut:Of bruises, by cut: round, 10%; loin, 36%; rib, 21%; chuck, 24%; flank/plate/brisket, 9%.


Preliminary Data -- Assessments Of Carcasses In Coolers (N=16)

Genetic type:Genetic type: native, 92.0%; dairy, 7.2%; Brahman (>4" hump), 0.8%.

Gender:Gender: steer, 62.7%; heifer, 37.3%; bullock, 0.06%.

Marbling:Marbling: AB, zero; MAB, zero; SAB, 2%; MD, 5%; MT, 14%; SM, 37%; SL, 37%; TR, 2%; PD, zero.

Overall maturityOverall maturity: A, 97%; B, 2%; C, 1%; D, zero; E, zero.

Quality Grade:Quality Grade: Prime, 2.9%; U 2/3 C, 17.0%; L 1/3 C, 36.2%; Se, 38.5%; St, 4.2%; Com, 0.7%; Ut, 0.5%.

Hot carcass weight:Hot carcass weight: <601 lb, 2%; 601 to 950 lb, 93%; 950 lb, 5%.

Yield Grade:Yield Grade: 1, 15%; 2, 37%; 3, 33%; 4, 13%; 5, 2%.


"Out Cattle" -- Packer Questionnaires (Roeber/Scanga) & Preliminary Cooler Data (N=16)


Carcass weight less than 600 lb: 5.3% ---- 2.0%

Carcass weight more than 1,000 lb.: 3.0% ---- 1.1%

Quality Grade less than Select: 6.3% 4.9% 5.4%

Yield Grade worse than YG 3: 13.5% 11.5% 15.0%

Calloused ribeye: 0.3% ---- ----

Dark cutter: 1.5% ---- 2.6%

Blood splash: 1.7% ---- 0.8%

Yellow fat: ---- ---- 0.5%

>30 MOA ---- ---- 1.1%

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


(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?

Industry Representatives: Strategies, Tactics & Goals


Cow-calf producers:Cow-calf producers: Jeff Windett (Circle A Ranches)John Edwards (Express Ranches)

Stockers/BackgroundersStockers/Backgrounders: Tom Woodward (Broseco Ranches)Charles Nichols (Nichols Ranches)

Cattle feeders:Cattle feeders: Mike Engler (Cactus Feeders)Tony Bryant (Five Rivers Cattle Feeders)

Beef packers:Beef packers: Bruce Bass (Tyson, Inc.)Rod Bowling (Smithfield Beef Company)

Beef end-users:Beef end-users: Paul Heinrich (Sysco, Inc.)Fred Ray (OutWest Meat Company)Molly McAdams (HEB Supermarkets)


(1) Deliver product attributes that meet consumer needs/expectationsmeet consumer needs/expectations for safety, taste, color and convenience.

(2) Improve the cattle by implementing instrument gradinginstrument grading; reducing numbers of carcasses of YG 4 or 5YG 4 or 5; controlling weightweight; increasing marblingmarbling; decreasing variationvariation, and; maximizing profitabilityprofitability.

(3) Expand marketing opportunities marketing opportunities (in domestic and global markets) by developing traceability systems; verifying source and age; reducing costs and waste in the beef value chain, and; continuing new product development.

(4) Strengthen connections among segmentsconnections among segments of the beef supply chain via communication and targeted educational programs.

Key Messages From The NBQA -- 2005 Strategy Workshop

report of the june-september 2005 national beef quality audit; a new benchmark for the u.s. beef...

Documents

beef industry

beef industriessource

beef sectors

oklahoma city

strategy workshop

cattlemens beef promotion

national beef quality

oklahoma state university