1 / 80

REPORT OF THE JUNE-SEPTEMBER 2005 NATIONAL BEEF QUALITY AUDIT; A NEW BENCHMARK FOR THE U.S. BEEF INDUSTRY.

. 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

zelig
Download Presentation

REPORT OF THE JUNE-SEPTEMBER 2005 NATIONAL BEEF QUALITY AUDIT; A NEW BENCHMARK FOR THE U.S. BEEF INDUSTRY.

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. 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: Cattlemen's Beef Promotion and Research Board Through: The $1 per-head checkoff Conducted For: National Cattlemen's Beef Association

  2. "In truth, it is the value of our product to our consumers that determines what beef is worth -- and our profitability. The NBQA provides valuable information to industry stakeholders regarding the monetary consequences of not truly delivering the quality and value to our consumers." Terry Stokes (NCBA) SOURCE: Strategy Workshop of the NBQA -- 2005 (Oklahoma City, OK) October 2005.

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

  4. Concentration In The Food And Beef Industries Market Share Cow/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% SOURCE: Cattle•FAX (2005).

  5. "Beef in the U.S. is now being sold based upon USDA grades, USDA brands, and industry 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 claims and on authenticity management for processes and products."Cara Gerken (IMI Global) "Tracking cattle from the ranch to the packer is essential because export markets will require it, Wal•Mart and McDonald's want it, and producers can benefit from it."John Paterson (Montana State University) SOURCE: Strategy Workshop of the NBQA -- 2005 (Oklahoma City, OK) October 2005.

  6. "A Partnership For Quality (PFQ) can be formed between a beef finishing/harvesting company and progressive producers who are strongly focused on the production of a consistent, high quality, consumer-driven product, with the strictest standards for food safety, environmental stewardship, economic sustainability and animal welfare." "A Partnership For Quality (PFQ) makes possible PFQ Program Incentives for genetics, vaccination, weaning, seasonality, natural (hormone/antibiotic constraints) and carcass characteristics." Mike Smith (Harris Ranch Beef) SOURCE: Strategy Workshop of the NBQA -- 2005 (Oklahoma City, OK) October 2005.

  7. "Involvement in alliances 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) SOURCE: Strategy Workshop of the NBQA -- 2005 (Oklahoma City, OK) October 2005.

  8. "Major trends and opportunities in the U.S. beef industry include: (1) Globalization and, thus, increased competition. (2) Retail and foodservice consolidation. (3) Coordinated production systems. (4) Increased product branding and value differentiation. (5) Accelerated development of new consumer-friendly and convenience-orientated beef products." Randy Blach (Cattle•FAX) SOURCE: Strategy Workshop of the NBQA -- 2005 (Oklahoma City, OK) October 2005.

  9. "The National Beef Quality Audits provide: (a) A snapshot of the industry's current quality status, (b) A benchmarking tool for the industry's quality improvement strategy, and (c) A 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 for use by beef industry stakeholders, and identified areas on which to place emphasis in local, state and national BQA endeavors." G.C.Smith (Colorado State University) SOURCE: Strategy Workshop of the NBQA -- 2005 (Oklahoma City, OK) October 2005.

  10. "Previous NBQAs have identified Strategies, Tactics and Goals as vision directives for those in the production sector who wish to be more competitive and find 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-plus (develop and implement electronic cattle identification) and as high as B-plus (eliminate injection-site lesions; 100% of seedstock producers have genetic data) were assigned. The overall average grade for the beef industry was B-minus." Clint Peck (Beef Magazine) SOURCE: Strategy Workshop of the NBQA -- 2005 (Oklahoma City, OK) October 2005.

  11. Responses To Questionnaires -- Seedstock Generators, Cow/Calf Producers, Stockers/Backgrounders and Cattle Feeders (Combined) Greatest Quality Challenges Influence Of Past NBQAs On Changes Made Since 1991 (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 SOURCE: Strategy Workshop of the NBQA -- 2005 (Oklahoma City, OK) October 2005.

  12. Responses To Questionnaires -- Packers Greatest Quality Challenges Influence Of Past NBQAs On Changes Made Since 1991 (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 67.0% Moderate Impact 0.0% Weak Impact SOURCE: Strategy Workshop of the NBQA -- 2005 (Oklahoma City, OK) October 2005.

  13. Responses To Questionnaires -- Purveyors, Restaurateurs And Supermarket Operators Greatest Quality Challenges Influence Of Past NBQAs On Changes Made Since 1991 (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 85.0% Moderate Impact 0.0% Weak Impact SOURCE: Strategy Workshop of the NBQA -- 2005 (Oklahoma City, OK) October 2005.

  14. Questionnaires Returned By Packers (A, Roeber and B, Scanga, Results) (A) Purchased harvest-cattle that were individually identified: 31.5% (A) Average number of branded-beef programs: 5.3Branded-beef programs having specifications for: breed (37%),marbling (62%), hide color (48%), Yield Grade (42%) (B) Changes from 1995, to 2005, in:Average number of branded-beef programs 1.33, to 6.25Average number of Angus programs 0.67, to 3.00Average number of Natural/Grass-Fed programs 0.50, to 2.25Harvest cattle purchased on a "grid" 15%, to 34%Harvest cattle purchased "in the beef" 20%, to 26%Harvest cattle purchased as "source verified" 0.4%, to 1.5%Harvest cattle purchased as "age verified" 0.0%, to 1.0% SOURCE: Strategy Workshop of the NBQA -- 2005 (Oklahoma City, OK) October 2005.

  15. Use Of Food-Safety Interventions Based on questionnaires returned by packers, those using specific food- safety interventions were: Hide-on carcass washing 16.7% Steam pasteurization of carcasses 16.7% Hot (>165F) water carcass washing 66.7% Pre-evisceration carcass washing 83.3% Steam vacuuming (spot cleaning) of carcasses 100.0% Organic-acid rinsing/washing of carcasses 100.0% SOURCE: Strategy Workshop of the NBQA -- 2005 (Oklahoma City, OK) October 2005.

  16. Questionnaires Returned By Packers (A, Roeber and B, Scanga, Results) (A) Carcasses weighing 600 to 1,000 lb.: 92.1% (A) Carcasses grading Prime or Choice: 66.2% (A) Carcasses of Yield Grades 1, 2 plus 3: 86.5% (A) Calloused ribeye (0.3%), dark cutter (1.5%), blood splash (1.7%) occurrences. (B) Changes from 1995, to 2005, in: Average hot carcass weight 740, to 749 lbCarcasses grading Prime 1.7%, to 7.3%Carcasses grading Upper Two-Thirds Choice 21.7%, to 27.9%Carcasses yield grading 1 & 2 51.3%, to 47.1%Carcasses yield grading 4 & 5 7.6%, to 11.5%Carcasses of "B" maturity 2.2%, to 13.9% SOURCE: Strategy Workshop of the NBQA -- 2005 (Oklahoma City, OK) October 2005.

  17. Responses To Questionnaires -- Purveyors, Restaurateurs And Supermarket Operators Special Concerns/Desires Of Customers/Consumers (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 SOURCE: Strategy Workshop of the NBQA -- 2005 (Oklahoma City, OK) October 2005.

  18. U.S. Meat Case Benchmark Study • 68% of self-service meat case was as "fresh" meat items. • Of fresh meat items, beef (29%) ranked first (chicken, 16%; pork, 14%). • Of fresh beef items, 43% was steaks, 30% was ground beef, 14% was roasts. • Of fresh beef items, 1.5% of packages were "Natural" or "Organic." • 82% of steak packages and 93% of roast packages were boneless. • Ground beef is most often designated by leanness percentage (62%), then by cut source (21%). • 3% of beef packages (vs. 14%, 10% and 7% for chicken, pork and poultry) were "value added." • 27% of beef was in case-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-stock" -- less often so if case-ready than store-wrapped. SOURCE: Strategy Workshop of the NBQA -- 2005 (Oklahoma City, OK) October 2005.

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

More Related