meat standards and grading 1. 1. introduction this paper seeks to address principles relating to...
TRANSCRIPT
1
Meat standards and grading
2
1. Introduction
This paper seeks to address principles relating to meat standards and grading that apply globally. In the interest of brevity discussion is confined to beef, although the principles involved are believed to be also relevant to other species.
Furthermore we do not seek to provide a definitive discussion of all systems used globally, or their development history.
The concept advanced is that potential exists to achieve significant desirable change from adopting more consumer focused systems within accurate value-based payment frameworks.
3
Definitions
Meat standards and grading are terms that require some definition for accurate discussion as, together with classification, they are often used interchangeably in discussing carcass appearance, cuts, estimated yield and eating quality.
Classification is defined as a set of descriptive terms describing features of the carcass that are useful to those involved in the trading of carcasses. On the other hand, grading is defined as the placing of different values on carcasses for pricingn purposes, depending on the market and requirements of traders.
4
5
Generally classification or grading schemes have been introduced to address perceived deficiencies in the system. However whilst the purpose may be clear at inception, it is often seen by some sectors of the industry to change over time.
A good example of this was the AUSMEAT language in Australia, which was introduced in response to issues over truth in labeling and substitution of product between different species and yet over time has been criticized because it did not perform well as a grading schem.
Generally this involves ranking carcasses in a hierarchy for the traits of interest. This paper introduces the term consumer grading, which refers to grading systems that seek to define or ,predict consumer satisfaction with a cooked meal.
6
A brief history and summary of major grading schemes aroundthe world .The need for formal published standards arose as carcasses were traded unseen by the buyer.
This situation developed with transport and refrigeration advances, with the frozen beef trade from South America, Australia and New Zealand to Europe in the late 1800s as an early example.
The first shipment of frozen beef and mutton from Australia was made in 1879. New Zealand commenced supply of frozen meat to the Smithfield market in England in 1882.
7
The marketing of livestock and meat is often conducted through several different competing and lengthy channels, each with its own set of deficiencies.
Generally current livestock and meat marketing systems all share the major defects of poor market transparency, imprecise product description at the point of first hand selling and invariably inadequate feedback of the consumer requirements back along the supply chain to the beef producer.
8
Early systems only needed to describe intact carcasses as thebreakdown of the carcass into cuts was done by the buyer of the carcass.
Key parameters to describe the carcass included carcass weight, age or maturity of the animal (often using dentition or ossification as a proxy for age), sex, fat cover and colour, conformation and freedom from bruising and blemishes.
9
These parameters remain relevant and are in use today in most beef grading schemes. Table 1 displays principal components of a number of grading and classification schemes.
There are differences however in the use of these characteristics to describe carcasses of similar appearance, often termed classification, versus description of quality with inferences regarding ultimate palatability of the component parts.
In Australia grading standards were once defined by export regulations with beef sides or quarters graded on the basis of conformation, age and fat cover as first, second and third grade.
10
This was replaced in 1987 by the AUS-MEAT language reflecting a deliberate change from very subjective quality assessmentto tight specification enabling a carcass to be described in relation to sex, dentition and carcass weight without quality connotation.
11
This reflected the view that the definition of “carcass quality” varied depending upon its destination. For a exporter servicing the hamburger market “first quality” may have been an old lean cow, or bull carcass having a high yield of boneless cuts which .when minced would have a high water holding capacity.
12
In contrast a wholesaler servicing domestic butcher shops selling fresh retail cuts would define “first quality” as a very young, well muscled, and generally fatter carcass, where grilling cuts would be tender upon cooking.
Individual buyers and sellers could define their specific standards in terms of cuts within a specified weight range, trimmed to an agreed defined standard and derived from a YPS or YG (0–4 tooth male or 0–2 tooth steer or heifer) carcass for example.
13
The base AUS-MEAT language components were augmented by optional chiller assessment measures of marbling, fat and meat colour and also intended to be used in defining beef grades.
As consumer testing through Meat Standards Australia (MSA) proceeded from 1995 the base components (sex, dentition, carcass weight and rib fat) proved ineffective as eating quality predictors and additional or refined factors were added including ossification and marbling based on USDA scales.
14
A fundamental change, incorporated within the AUS-MEAT language to deliver MSA consumer grading was a shift from classifying carcasses as the base unit to the ultimate grading unitbeing a cooked meal portion.
Rather than a carcass being assigned a grade its' component parts were assigned individual grades describing their predicted eating quality (3* good everyday, 4* better than everyday and 5* premium) when cooked .by a designated cooking method at a defined ageing period.
15
In the USA the growth of large competitive livestock markets as a consequence of urban growth and improved transportation created a need for greater uniformity in the terminology used for describing livestock and meat, and uniform use of such terms, so markets could be equitably compared.
The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) formulated tentative beef carcass grades in 1916 with the standards intended as a basis for a National Meat Marketing Reporting Service.
16
The USDA grading system has endured remarkably well since its‘ inception with periodic adjustment to individual grade standard involving marbling and ossification relationships and a change in name of the former Good grade to Select.
There are currently eight beef quality grades applicable to steer and heifer carcasses, Prime, Choice, Select, Standard, Commercial,Utility, Cutter and Canner and five yield grades designated by number from 1 to 5.
17
Retail trade in table cuts is largely limited to the top three grades within which Choice is often subdivided into thirds reflecting the three marbling levels (moderate, modest and small) within the grade.
Bull beef is not eligible for USDA quality grading and bullock beef is also graded separately to steer, heifer and cow beef. Cow beef is not eligible for the Prime grade and Commercial, Cutter and Canner grades are not applicable to bullock beef.
Quality grading therefore firstly determines the animal type, then sex to determine the relevant grading standard and then primarily evaluates marbling and maturity measures to establish the quality grade.
18
There are nine marbling levels, progressing from practically devoid at the low end through traces, slight, small, modest, moderate, slightly abundant and moderately abundant to abundant at the high extreme.
Graders are trained to evaluate to 1/10ths within each of these levels which are published as photographic standards. Maturity standards involve colour and texture of the lean evaluated in the surface of the M. longissimus dorsi at the quartering point in combination with skeletal maturity determined by cartilage ossification and observation of the ribs.
Five maturity groups, designated as A to E, define increasing maturity levels which graders are also able to describe in 1/ 10th intervals within each.
19
The USDA quality grade is determined by considering the degreeof marbling and firmness, as observed in the cut surface of the M.longissimus dorsi in relation to the carcass maturity.
Higher graded carcasses are characterised by higher marbling levels at lower maturity.
.
20
USDA Yield grades are based on a regression equation with inputs the amount of external fat, the amount of kidney, pelvic and heart fat, the area of the quartered M. longissimus dorsi and the hot carcass weight.
The external fat is evaluated as the thickness at a point over the ribeye but may be adjusted to reflect unusual amounts of fat at other points.
21
The Canadian grading system which was introduced in 1929 also utilises maturity and marbling in assigning quality grades.
The system standards have been adjusted over time with bulls allowed into the top grade in 1966, but removed in 1972 with further extensive modification in 1992 and adjustment in 1996 to align marbling standards with USDA.
22
There are four quality grades for youthful cattle being Prime, AAA, AA and A complemented by mature cattle grades. There are four D grades, designated by defined combinations of muscling, fat depth and fat colour, for cows and anE grade for bulls. While the minimum marbling standards for Canadian Prime, AAA, AA and A mirror the USDA Prime (Slightly Abundant), Choice (Small), Select (Slight) and Standard (Traces) requirements the Canadian grades exclude carcasses with yellow fat and require good or better muscling and firm lean texture.
23
Maturity is assessed as youthful or mature on the basis of skeletal development. Meat colour is assessed at the ribeye (M. longissimus dorsi) surface quartered between the 12th and 13th ribs.
Fat colour including confirmation with minimum standards for each a prerequisite for the youthful gradesinternal fat is also assessed together with meat texture and carcass.
24
Canadian yield grades relate to the amount of muscle in the carcass calculated using measurements which calculate andcombine determined fat classes and muscle score. The three yield grades are designated Canada 1, Canada 2 and Canada 3.
In Japan the law concerning price stabilization of livestock products came into force in 1961 and lead to establishment of a carcass evaluation system with five quality grades. A further “Tokusan” or premium grade was added in 1971.
25
The Japanese Meat Grading Association (JMGA) was established in 1975 to assume administration of grading activities.
Again a driving reason for establishing a national system was the need to describe carcasses produced and sold in different locations using common terminology for price comparison and market reporting.
The carcass grading standards were revised in 1976, 1979 and in 1988 at which point separate meat quality and yield grades .were adopted
26
Meat quality grade parameters are assessed after quartering between the 5th and 6th ribs in JMGA grading. Marbling is assessed against twelve beef marbling score (BMS) standards increasing in amount from 1 to 12.
Meat colour is assessed against colour standards (BCS) whereas brightness is judged by visual appraisal. Five firmness classifications are also utilised (Very good, good, average, belowaverage and inferior) and five texture categories described as: very fine, fine, average, below average and course.
27
A final firmness and texture grade is produced from a combination of the two standards. In addition seven Beef Fat Standards (BFS) are used to describe fat colour and a fat texture, luster and quality grade is assigned from a combination of the BFS number and visual appraisal of fat luster and quality.
The fat colour, luster and quality grades are described as excellent (BFS 1–4 and excellent luster and quality), good (BFS1–5 and good luster and quality), average (BFS 1–6 and good luster and quality), below average (BFS 1–7 and below average luster and quality) and Inferior.
28
The marbling, meat colour and brightness, firmness and texture and fat colour, luster and quality grades are then all considered in assigning the carcass quality grade with the lowest result determining the quality grades, designated from 1 to 5
Japanese yield grades are determined by estimated percentage yield calculated by a regression equation utilising ribeye (M. longissimus dorsi) area, rib thickness (a measured muscle thickness above the rib), cold left side weight and subcutaneous fat thickness.
All measurements are at the 6th/7th rib. Yield grades are designated A (72% and above — cut yield above average), B (69–72% and average yield) or C (under 69% and below average range).
29
The yield and quality grades are then combined in the carcass stamp as a B3 or A5 for example. A further carcass stamp is used as required to indicate damage codes (muscle bleeding, muscle edema, inflammation, external wound, part missing and other)
The Korean Government introduced beef carcass grade specifications in 1992. These included quality and yield grades, with the former having 5 levels and the latter 3 categories, giving a total of 15 possible categories.
30
The quality grade is based on marbling score, lean colour, fat colour, firmness and texture of lean meat, and maturity of the exposed M. longissimus dorsi muscle at the 13th rib interface.
The yield grade is based on carcass weight, subcutaneous fat thickness, eye muscle area and ossification score. In practice thequality grades reflect differences in marbling score.
31
Again the major function of the quality grades was to segment carcasses into groups which reflected differences in consumer preferences.
In the United Kingdom the initiation of large scale beef supply from South America, Australia and New Zealand in the late 19th century created a need for standardised grading or description systems.
32
Similar aims of enabling uniform carcass description across multiple remote markets were envisaged by the Verdon-SmithCommittee of enquiry into fatstock and carcase meat marketing and distribution in 1964 which recommended that classification schemes for carcase meat be introduced and that a controlling body, established as the Meat and Livestock Commission (MLC), be created to develop, implement and operate them.
Similar aims of enabling uniform carcass description across multiple remote markets were envisaged by the Verdon-SmithCommittee of enquiry into fatstock and carcase meat marketing and distribution in 1964 which recommended that classification schemes for carcase meat be introduced and that a controlling body, established as the Meat and Livestock Commission (MLC), be created to develop, implement and operate them.
33
Similar schemes were developed in other European countrieswith Germany adopting a compulsory scheme in 1968 referenced to a 4×3 conformation/fatness grid.
Work in Ireland and France was similar in nature and cooperative work under European Commission structures led to a regulated beef carcass classification scheme in 1981.
34
Adoption of the EUROP system within the EU enabled those involved in the production, slaughtering, cutting, distribution and retailing of meat to describe carcasses in terms that others would understand and that were of commercial relevance in trading.
In addition to market reporting standardised description also provided a base for administration of support payments. While the support payment role has now ceased the market reporting function system remains central to beef marketing in Europe.
35
In contrast to the USDA, Canadian, JMGA and Korean gradingsystems the primary emphasis of the EUROP system is yieldestimation. The system is centred on a grid describing carcassconformation on one axis and external fat level on the other. Theconformation axis is divided into five main classes designated as E (extremely muscled), U, R, O and P (very poorly muscled).
36
In South Africa beef description systems have also evolved over along period from 1932 with the carcass grading system used from1985 being replaced by a carcass classification system from 1992.
This reflected the objective, common to other countries including Australia and Canada, to describe carcasses in more objective terms which allowed buyers to select their ideal article for a purpose rather than impose a universal hierarchical grade structure.
37
The South African system classifies carcasses into four age categories derived from dentition denoted as A (no permanent incisors), AB (1–2 permanent incisors), B (1–6 permanent incisors) and C (greater than six permanent incisors). Bulls in age category B or C are noted and denoted MD.
Seven fat classes denoted as numerals from 0 (no visible fat) to 6 (excessively fat) are added to the age cypers and the combination applied as a coloured roller brand to carcasses after classification. Colours (purple for A, green for AB, brown for B, red for C and black for MD) represent the age classification.
38
Five numerical conformation classes — 1 (very flat), 2 (flat), 3 (medium), 4 (round) and 5 (very round) are also designated together with three damage codes of 1 (slight), 2 (moderate) and 3 (serious) where applicable
The South American countries including Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay and Chile all have slightly different beef carcass grading systems, but all have common elements in that within sex categories carcasses are classified on maturity and yield with varying emphasis on quality traits.
39
A common theme in many of the early grading and classificationschemes was the use of subjective language — “first, second and third” grade in Australia; “relatively adequate but not excessive” in the United Kingdom, “slightly red and slightly soft” in USDA grades and so on.
40
The United States General Accounting Office advised the US Congress that USDA needed to increase research efforts to develop instruments to accurately measure beef carcass characteristics in 1978.
Considerable work in the USA, Canada, Germany, Denmark, New Zealand and Australia amongst others has occurred in the intervening period investigating a range of technologies.
41
During this period there was considerably more research taken into techniques to assess composition or yield of carcasses than into on-line measurement of eating quality. This may have occurred for several reasons.
Firstly the value associated with variation in carcass yield was immediately apparent in the weights of wholesale cuts packed in the boning room, whereas price differentials for eating quality were generally only evident in the relative price of different cuts in many countries.
42
Classification schemes by definition are well suited to standarddefinition of carcass appearance and general yield estimates. Aconsequence of this is their widespread use in market reporting and extension into commercial use as a basis for producer payment and Government support programs, the most notable of which has been European Union support payments based on EUROP classification.
EUROP classification can be a base for differentiated commercial payment structures with relative prices for different conformation and fat combinations signaling relative commercial values or as a base to standardise or differentiate Government subsidies designed to encourage or discourage production of alternative specifications in response to policy or market demand functions.
43
Carcass classification after the point of animal purchase has however become less useful and less used as the trade has moved from marketing of carcass beef to butchers to sale of vacuum packed primals and more recently centrally packed retail product to retailers.
More detailed description relating to individual cuts and retail products has evolved to meet this need. The advent of vacuumpackaging technologies in the late 1960s facilitated a transition from international trading of frozen quarters and carcasses to chilled cuts with the carcass trade declining from that time. The first Australian shipment of chilled vacuum packed cuts to Japan occurred in 1970.
44
Extension of classification language and standards evolved to provide cut specifications to “prevent confusion both from the buyers' and suppliers' point of view”.
These guides described detailed cutting lines and trim levels, predominantly relating to appearance and yield.
45
Extension of descriptions to claim or infer an eating quality resulthave mostly been added to a base classification structure with the use of combined quality and yield grades common.
The most established and widely known example is the USDA Grading System which describes carcasses in terms of quality grades (Prime, Choice, Select, Standard, Commercial, Utility, and Cutter) and yield grades of 1 to 5.
46
The Japanese Meat Grading Association (JMGA) uses a similar combination of quality grades numbered 1 to 5 in combination with three yield grades of A through C.
In these systems a common national standard is adopted with an assumed quality hierarchy. The Canadian system originated applying similar principles to the USDA system but was modified in 1972 to place more emphasis on the identification of carcass lean yield and in 1992 to refine the yield equation.
47
The extension from classification to grading generally involves consideration of palatability indicators with marbling a major feature in most systems. Traders use the grade descriptions as a specification and pricing mechanism. Where trading is reported the systems provide a means of price discovery and comparison across markets.
48
The Australian industry adopted a different approach when itintroduced the AUS-MEAT language in 1987 utilising standardised classification terms to allow individual buyers and sellers to set specific standards.
Marbling, fat colour and meat colour terms were incorporated in the language to facilitate this. This reflected the industry view that the “best” meat for one buyer could be dramatically different to that of another with examples being buyers desiring high marbling versus those desiring extreme lean and hamburger manufacturers seeking lean beef trimmings versus food service table cuts.
Other systems such as EUROP retained a tight focus on yield without eating quality connotations.
49
4. The evolution of carcass grading into cuts based grading schemes All these systems remained carcass based with all carcass components conferred the same grade. Variations within the carcass were assumed to be understood by the buyer and reflected by cut or muscle description.
50
In an endeavour to move from describing carcasses to describing individual beef meals, MSA has adopted a modeling approach that seeks to predict consumer satisfaction at a cooked portion level. This continues to use the traditional carcass grading inputs but applies them differentially to individual muscles using statistical data generated by extensive consumer testing.
51
The application of consumer grading provides an opportunity tomove from cut based retail description to cooked result baseddescription and pricing. This can provide an incentive to improve eating quality of the full range of carcass muscles as the return is based on performance rather than traditional cut relationship
5. Current position and opportunities for beef grading World trade in beef is expected to increase despite the small setbacks resulting from the recent global financial crisis. The methods of storage and transport have become more sophisticated allowing a very high quality product to be traded and a large proportion of meat is now boned before export.
52
This growth in world trade and the extensive interchange of meatbetween regions mirrors the conditions of a century ago that first gave rise to the need for uniform description as a communication basis between remote buyers and sellers. This must raise the question regarding uniform international description to facilitate .trade
“clearly, grading standards are neither set nor changed easily, but it would be a great help to international trade to have an international carcass grading (or preferably classification) system, which would allow adequate description of carcasses to be universally available and intelligible.
53
Advances in instrument grading technologies and their adoption in Ireland, some EU states, Australia and the USA should provide further potential to standardise description through objective measures, although current practice reflects country differences and efforts to mirror existing national systems suchas EUROP, USDA, or AUS-MEAT. l
The degree to which common consumer grading outcomes can be applied globally is heavily dependent on the degree to whichconsumers in general and in different markets are consistent in their sensory ratings and rankings.
54
Across all these studies consumer response has proved to be remarkably consistent with consumers in all countries and within all cooking methods consistently allocating samples to four alternate categories of unsatisfactory, good everyday (3*), better than everyday (4*) and premium (5*) eating quality.
A statistically derived MQ4 score calculated by combining a weighted combination of individual tenderness, flavour, juiciness and overall satisfaction scores has provided classification accuracy in the .order of 60 to 70% in these studies
55
The conclusion from these international sensory studies is that while local variations in scoring exist the principals appear consistent across a diverse range of consumer groups leading to the proposition that beef can be categorised by suitable consumer grading methodology and that beef allocated to different grades will be perceived to be of different eating quality by consumers.
56
As part of the international consumer beef tasting sessions undertaken by MSA the concept of surveying consumers on whatthey were willing to pay for the various quality grades (i.e. 2, 3, 4 and 5 star) was introduced. These surveys were conducted after the consumer taste tests were finished so that the question on value did not impact on sensory responses.
6-Willingness to pay for beef eating quality It follows that beef graded to reflect different agreed eating quality ranges may be valued differently by consumers, providing the potential to price on a predicted outcome basis. Although this may seem self evident an argument often put forward by sectors of the meat trade is that consumers buy purely on price and will not pay for quality.
57
7 .Value-based trading for beef All beef industry revenue is derived from the ultimate consumer, including any Government support payments derived from taxation, and then allocated to the different supply chain sectors by variousmeans, the most being supply and demand forces .
Government interventions of various types may influence revenue allocation or stimulate production responses but are assumed in this instance to be consistent, at least in objective, with the free market response .
With all industry revenue linked directly to consumer satisfaction and purchased volume it appears logical that payment at any point of the supply chain should ideally reflect the consumer value delivered by that sector. Value can be defined as a combination quality. This is the notion of value-based trading and payment.
58
The second component of increased industry profitability from VBP derives from efficiency improvement stimulated by effective VBP rewards and sufficiently detailed transfer of data between sectors.
By transferring cut pricing from cut names to eating quality outcomes an incentive is provided to enhance the performance of many cuts by techniques such as tenderstretch carcass suspension, seam boning of muscles, extended ageing or other interventions without price being constrained by traditional cut value relationship.
59
Advances in carcass classification, grading and consumer gradingcan all contribute to the commercial application of true VBP systems. Adoption and further development of consumer grading as practiced by the MSA grading system provides a base for accurate individual meal cooked result description and pricing.
60
Conclusion
It is our view that beef grading schemes that are focused on a consumer outcome need to be developed and implemented to underpin VBP systems. This is despite the considerable challenges that exist in developing consumer based grading schemes and in achieving active cooperation between countries and industry sectors within each country.
A first step has been taken by Australia in developing the MSAsystem.A logical next step would be the formation of a large scale international collaborative effort which would be directed at transforming the meat industry into marketing a contemporary consumer product that may grow demand, while also improving production efficiency through transparent VBP systems.
Conclusion
It is our view that beef grading schemes that are focused on a consumer outcome need to be developed and implemented to underpin VBP systems. This is despite the considerable challenges that exist in developing consumer based grading schemes and in achieving active cooperation between countries and industry sectors within each country.
Conclusion
It is our view that beef grading schemes that are focused on a consumer outcome need to be developed and implemented to underpin VBP systems. This is despite the considerable challenges that exist in developing consumer based grading schemes and in achieving active cooperation between countries and industry sectors within each country.
Conclusion
It is our view that beef grading schemes that are focused on a consumer outcome need to be developed and implemented to underpin VBP systems. This is despite the considerable challenges that exist in developing consumer based grading schemes and in achieving active cooperation between countries and industry sectors within each country.
Conclusion
It is our view that beef grading schemes that are focused on a consumer outcome need to be developed and implemented to underpin VBP systems. This is despite the considerable challenges that exist in developing consumer based grading schemes and in achieving active cooperation between countries and industry sectors within each country.
61
The global nature of meat production and trading, the similarity between consumer response in all markets and the high cost ofpursuing research in a climate of scarce resources emphasises the desirability of pursuing a collaborative research agenda across institutions and countries. We have a global consumer and market in which competitiveness relative to alternate foodstuffs is far more important than competition between the meat industries of individual countries.
62
R.J. Polkinghorne and J.M. Thompson (2010). Meat standards and grading A world view. Meat Science 86 : 227–235
Reference