• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Beef Quality....do we know the status?

mrj

Well-known member
New Beef Quality Audit Shows Gains, Sets New Benchmark

Report shows a "snapshot" of industry's quality status

Centennial, CO, 10-27-'06---The executive summary of the 2005 Beef Quality Audit, partially funded by the beef checkoff, establishes a new benchmark for quality goals and targets by the year 2015.

Contacts: Stephanie Darling 303/850/3359 or [email protected]
Diane Henderson 303/850/3465 or [email protected]

"The audit results prove producers are doing things right to improve beef quality---and the findings support the idea that improved quality has a positive impact on beef demand and our bottom line," said Ran Smith, a KS veterinarian and chair of the checkoff-funded Quality Assurance Advisory Board.

The report, titled STAYING ON TRACK, follows previous beef quality audits in 1991, 1995, and 2000. Among other uses, the results will be incorporated into the Beef Quality Assurance (BQA) program that is now active in 47 states to certify and train producers in quality pre-harvest practices.

Based on the audit, the checkoff-funded BQA program will target five specific education efforts to improve quality: (1) the effects of animal health product use; (2) quality assurance in care, handling and transportation; (3) record-keeping practices.

Initial results of the 2005 audit were discussed at the 2006 National Cattle Industry Conference in Reno, Nev., in July. The final report provides additional insight into beef quality successes and future challenges over which producers have some or all control.

The latest audit further identifies the top three quality gains since 2000: (1) improved microbiological safety; (2) improved cattle genetics resulting in higher quality beef; and (3) fewer injection-site lesions. The rankings are from interviews with beef end-users, including exporters, purveyors, foodservice and retail channels.

"Lack of uniformity/inconsistency in quality" was ranked by end users as the most prevalent defect in the U.S. beef industry. That shortcoming was segregated into four areas: marbling; tenderness; palatability; and inconsistency among and within quality grades.

The audit also cited 10 industry goals:

(1) Clarify beef market signals that encourage production of cattle, carcasses and cuts that conform to industry targets

(2) Foster communication and understanding between industry groups/beef supply chain

(3) Move expeditiously toward source and age verification to build supply lines of cattle to fit domestic/export markets

(4) Minimize production of excess fat

(5) Strive for uniformity/consistency in cattle production

(6) Consider how genetics and management affect tenderness

(7) Target weights that optimize profitability without creating quality problems

(8) Recognize marbling as a value-determining trait

(9) Use results from instrument assessments of cattle, carcasses and cuts to make genetic and management decisions

(10) Select management practices that increase value

With funding through the Beef Checkoff Program, the national audit was conducted by researchers and scientists from Colorado State University (Ft. Collins); Texas A&M University (College Station); Oklahoma State U&niversity (Stillwater); and West Texas A&M University (Canyon).

The study, conducted between June 2005 and June 2006, collected quality data at 16 U.S. packing plants. The audit collected data from live cattle, carcasses/offal items on the harvest floor and carcasses after chilling and after ribbing at the 12th/13th rib interface.

Copies of the full audit are available: Ryan Ruppert 303-850-3369

MRJ
 

mrj

Well-known member
I don't know how "mr. cool" got on point #8 in my previous post but it is ok.......but the full smile would have been better!

MRJ
 

ocm

Well-known member
MRJ said:
I don't know how "mr. cool" got on point #8 in my previous post but it is ok.......but the full smile would have been better!

MRJ

These are some good things, but I think one thing missing in order to make sure consumer buying signals get to the producer would be to use a grading system that is understandable and meaningful for the consumer.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
ocm said:
MRJ said:
I don't know how "mr. cool" got on point #8 in my previous post but it is ok.......but the full smile would have been better!

MRJ

These are some good things, but I think one thing missing in order to make sure consumer buying signals get to the producer would be to use a grading system that is understandable and meaningful for the consumer.

Instead of the corrupt system being developed. The packers want to get all the value for these things and keep it for themselves. If they have lower value animals, they want to still get that value by adulterating the product instead of sending the market signals to producers. They did this in the Pickett case to lower their costs while still trying to get the same or more for their poor purchases by adulterating the meat or selling it at Walmart as a lower grading product. Selling meat this way does not help consumption in the long run. It is just a short term gain by packers.
 

William Kanitz

Well-known member
Record keeping rule to come into effect

By Ahmed ElAmin;Get the latest Market Reports on
FDA
SRMs
BSE


10/12/2006 - Starting next year food processors and cosmetic manufacturers will be required to keep records to show that their products are not manufactured using prohibited animal parts.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) this week issued a final rule making notice on the requirement, which will take effect from January 9, 2007. The records must be made available to FDA for inspection and copying within five days of a request.

The rule is another traceability requirement, on top of regulations on trace-back or trace-forward activities under the Bioterrorism Act. Traceability records allow manufacturers and regulators to track food from the source to the consumer. This makes it easier to pinpoint problems when a food safety incident occurs, and make recalls if necessary.

" We believe that records sufficient to demonstrate the absence of prohibited cattle materials in human food and cosmetics are critical for manufacturers, processors, and FDA to ensure compliance with the ban on prohibited cattle materials," the agency stated.

The rule requires that manufacturers and processors of human food and cosmetics main traceability records for products that are "manufactured from, processed with, or otherwise contain, material from cattle". The records must have sufficient information to demonstrate that the human food or cosmetic is not "manufactured from, processed with, or does not otherwise contain, prohibited cattle materials."

The recordkeeping provisions of the rule apply to food and cosmetics, including food additives, dietary supplements, and dietary ingredients.

The FDA has also clarified that manufacturers and processors of certain cattle-derived products, such as tallow derivatives, milk and milk products, are exempt from the recordkeeping requirements.

In relation to the type of records that must be kept, the FDA recommends that manufacturers and processors update the information at least annually, from suppliers of cattle materials and of products. Manufacturers and processors should also maintain a record of the source, type, volume, and date of receipt for the cattle material or product manufactured from, processed with, or otherwise containing, cattle material.

The FDA plans to publish guidance describing in detail the types of records that would comply with the rule.

The rule was originally proposed in a FDA notice of July 14, 2004 in a bid to ensure high risk animal parts, such as those specified as banned due to bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), do not end up in foods or cosmetics.

The ban was made in response to the December 2003 discovery in Washington state of BSE in an adult cow imported from Canada. The FDA subsequently made a rule requiring that specified risk materials (SRMs) not be used for FDA-regulated human food and cosmetics.

SRMs include the small intestine of all cattle, tissue from nonambulatory disabled cattle, tissue from cattle not inspected and passed for human consumption, and mechanically separated beef. SRMs also include the brain, skull, eyes, trigeminal ganglia, spinal cord, vertebral column, and dorsal root ganglia from cattle 30 months and older.
 

William Kanitz

Well-known member
"Lack of uniformity/inconsistency in quality" was ranked by end users as the most prevalent defect in the U.S. beef industry.

Not every packing plant knows how quality mistakes add up to less buyers of beef because of the lack of recordkeeping.The FDA rule is another traceability requirement, on top of regulations on trace-back or trace-forward activities under the Bioterrorism Act. Traceability records allow manufacturers and regulators to track food from the source to the consumer. Maybe recordkeeping will force a better quality of beef.
 
Top