pillars of beef chain success - uf/ifasanimal.ifas.ufl.edu › beef_extension › bcsc › 2013 ›...

Executive Summary: The 2011 National Beef Quality Audit

Pillars of Beef Chain Success

Executive Summary: The 2011 National Beef Quality Audit Slides courtesy of Dr. Deb VanOverbeke


National Beef Quality Audit - 2005

National Beef Quality Audit 5th audit -- 1991, 1995, 2000, 2005 and 2011 2011 Audit-Three phases:

Face-to-face interviews of feeders, packers, retailers, foodservice, government & allied industry

In-plant data collection for slaughter and cooler characteristics & instrument grading data

Producer beef quality/production practice survey

Why conduct the National Beef Quality Audit?

Proactive solutions

• The simplest approach to getting out from under the weight of a problem is to identify it, face it and then solve it.

• Courage, determination and discipline are prerequisite to success.


PHASE I: MAJOR FINDINGS OF SCIENTIFIC FACE-TO-FACE INTERVIEWS


Each Market Sector Defines ‘Quality’ Differently, & This Appears To Be Caused By

Incongruence In Economic Signals Which Contributes To Discontinuity In Messaging

Food safety

Eating satisfaction

How & where cattle were raised

Lean, fat, & bone

Weight & size

Cattle genetics Visual

No detectable

E. coli O157:H7

Tenderness Origin Lean to fat ratio

Carcass weights

Primarily black hide

Correct product

color

Tested for pathogens Flavor Animal

well-being Quality grade

Uniformity in cuts

Genetic potential

for marbling

Amount of marbling

Produced in effective

food safety environment

Customer satisfaction

Feed ingredients

Yield grade 2s and 3s

Appropriate ribeye size

Primarily British

Phenotypic attributes

Top Three1 Definitions By Quality Category When Answers Were Pooled

Across Market Sectors?

1 Based on the number of times that each characteristic was mentioned as a response to the question.

Best-worst Scaling1: Ranking of Seven “Quality” Attributes 2011 - Phase 1 Cattlemen’s College Strategy Workshop

Food safety Eating satisfaction Food safety

Eating satisfaction Food safety Eating satisfaction How & where the cattle were raised

How & where the cattle were raised

How & where the cattle were raised

Lean, fat, & bone Lean, fat, & bone Cattle genetics

Weight & size Cattle genetics Lean, fat, & bone

Cattle genetics Visual characteristics Weight & size

Visual characteristics Weight & size Visual characteristics

1 Based on computed Shares-of-Preference derived from BW-Scaling questions.

Most Companies, In Each Market Sector, Suggested That Our Industry Is Not Transparent

Enough & Does Not Do A Good Job Of ‘Telling Our Story’ To The

General Public

Strengths Of The U.S. Beef Industry1

Retailers Foodservice Packers Feeders

Government & Allied Industry

Food safety Product quality

Premium product

Quality product;

wholesome

Safe eating experience; consumer demand

Product quality Food safety Taste

Taste & eating

satisfaction

Research, technology, &

innovation Promoting the industry & the image of the

industry

Marketing program

People – how they care for the animals &

land Food safety Food safety


Weaknesses Of The U.S. Beef Industry1

Retailers Foodservice Packers Feeders

Government & Allied Industry

Not telling our story Cost Variability Not telling our

story Too

fragmented

More concerned with exporting product than

keeping it domestic

Marketing Food safety Consumer perception

Not telling our story to improve image

Food safety Too fragmented

Too fragmented/

Not transparent

(tie)

Too fragmented

Lack of education & knowledge about our industry


Typical Week in 21st Century Beef Packing Plant

Shift Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday

A-shift

U.S. cattle Non-hormone treated cattle

Canadian cattle

Age and source verified

U.S. cattle

B-shift

U.S. cattle Mexican cattle Canadian cattle

Branded beef program

U.S. cattle

Slaughter Data Collection Locations

Types of Identification

63.2

38.7

3.5 11.8

85.7

50.6

20.1 15.7

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Lot visual tag Individual visualtag

Electronic tags Metal clip tags

%

NBQA-2005

NBQA-2011

Predominantly Black-Hided Cattle

45.1

56.3 61.1

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

NBQA-2000 NBQA-2005 NBQA-2011

%

Brands 62.0

55.2

26.8

35.2

7.5 9.0

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

NBQA-2005 NBQA-2011

%

No brandsButt brandsSide brands

No Mud and/or Manure on Hide

25.8

50.8

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

NBQA-2005 NBQA-2011

%

Carcasses Without Bruises

64.8 77.0

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

NBQA-2005 NBQA-2011

%

Condemnation Frequencies

Product 1991 1995 2000 2005 2011 Liver 19.2 22.2 30.3 24.7 20.9 Lung 5.1 5.0 13.8 11.5 17.3 Viscera 3.5 11.0 11.6 11.6 9.3 Head 1.1 0.9 6.2 6.0 7.2 Tongue 2.7 3.8 7.0 9.7 10.0


Cooler Data Collection Locations

Slight 00 Slight 50

Small 00 Small 50 Modest 00 Moderate 00

Slightly Abundant 00

USDA Yield Grades

Certified and/or Marketing Programs: Cooler Assessment

10.7 10.0 9.3

4.1

0.6 0.5 0 0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

ASV A40 CAB Top Choice Natural NHTC Organic

Perc

enta

ge

Carcass Traits: Steers versus Heifers

0.48

0.56

0.40

0.45

0.50

0.55

0.60

Fat thickness, inches

852.7

776.3

725.0750.0775.0800.0825.0850.0875.0

Carcass weight, pounds

2.6 2.6

2.02.22.42.62.83.03.2

USDA yield grade

13.8 13.6

12.0

12.5

13.0

13.5

14.0

Ribeye area, square inches

SteersHeifers

USDA Quality Grade Distribution by Sex Class: Cooler Assessment

2.0

58.6

34.0

5.4 2.4

59.8

30.2

7.7

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

Prime Choice Select No Roll

Perc

enta

ge

SteersHeifers

Carcass Traits: USDA Quality Grades 0.66

0.55 0.45

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

Fat thickness, inches

850.0

833.1

808.8

780.0

800.0

820.0

840.0

860.0

Carcass weight, pounds

3.3 2.8

2.2

1.41.92.42.93.43.9

USDA yield grade

13.0

13.6 14.1

12.012.513.013.514.014.5

Ribeye area, square inches

PrimeChoiceSelect

Changes in Prime and Choice Over Time: Cooler Assessment

74%

55% 49% 51%

55% 61%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

1974 1991 1995 2000 2005 2011

Perc

enta

ge

NBQA-2011: Instrument Grading

• n = 2.4 X 106

• Data collected from November 2010 to November 2011 every other month for one week (about 20 days worth of data overall per month)

• Multiple plants (n = 17) from multiple companies (n = 4)

Comparisons Between Cooler and Instrument Data

Trait

Cooler mean (n = 9,802)

Instrument mean

(n = 2,427,074) USDA yield grade 2.6 2.9

Adj. fat thickness, in. 0.51 0.47

Hot carcass weight, lbs 825 819

Ribeye area, in2 13.8 13.7

Marbling score Small 40 Small 50


Phase lll: Quality Enhancement

by the Seedstock, Cow/calf, &

Stocker Sectors

Results of a Nationwide Survey

Phase III…

Leveraged harvest floor & cooler audit data

Incorporated data from producers (seedstock, commercial cow/calf, and stocker) as to how they influence beef quality

The First of its Kind!

3,755 completed surveys (55% online; 45% written)

45 states represented

75% in the cow/calf segment (avg. = 192 cows)

Years working in cattle industry: >10 yrs = 84%

>25 yrs = 55%

Survey Respondents

Definition of “Quality”

When you hear the term “quality” in relation to the beef industry, what comes to mind? 1 = Strongly Agree, 2 = Agree, 3 = Neutral, 4 = Disagree, 5 = Strongly Disagree

Rank Definition Score 1 (T) Producing safe & wholesome beef 1.3 1 (T) Raising cattle that are healthy 1.3 3 High level of eating satisfaction 1.4 4 (T) Cattle are free from defects 1.5

4 (T) Cattle are profitable for you 1.5

6 (T) Cattle are profitable for others 1.7

6 (T) USDA Quality Grade 1.7

95% had some level of routine health protocol(s) they followed; yet,

only 31% had this plan in writing

**Producers need to document their efforts via record-keeping to assure

consumers of their hard work


Eating Satisfaction

Product Integrity

Te

ll Story


Total Quality Management

$1 to Prevent Defect $10 to Fix Defect at Manufacturing

$100 to Fix Defect for Customer

http://beefproductsinc.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/get-the-facts.png

Marbling • Approximately 60% of all fed cattle

harvested in the US fall between a marbling score of Slight50 to Small50

(Cargill, 2011)

Small50 Slight50

Changes Since 2005 • Strong cattle prices + Drought related

cowherd “liquidation” = • ↑ % Heifers

Changes Since 2005 • Greater % “A” designation

– 2000- 47.5% “A” designation – 2011- 63% “A” designation

• Annual increase of 1.6%

Changes Since 2005

• Greater input costs – Older, heavier cattle, fewer days on feed

• Corn ethanol by-products – 20-30% DDGS tends to improve marbling

Changes Since 2005

• Zilpaterol hydrochloride • + 30 lbs carcass wt • - 30 degrees marbling • Some 21 d tenderness

differences


Questions?

Slides courtesy of Dr. Deb VanOverbeke

pillars of beef chain success - uf/ifasanimal.ifas.ufl.edu › beef_extension › bcsc › 2013 ›...

Documents