Submission THE AUSTRALIAN BEEF LANGUAGE WHITE PAPER

Transcription

1 Submission THE AUSTRALIAN BEEF LANGUAGE WHITE PAPER

2 I. INTRODUCTION The Cattle Council of Australia is the peak industry body representing Australia s grassfed beef producers. Cattle Council appreciates this opportunity to comment on the existing Australian beef language and make recommendations to progress the Australian beef industry immediately and into the future. Cattle Council is seeking a progressive and dynamic beef language to be used consistently post farm gate for both domestic and international markets. This reformed beef language will improve the systems accountability and transparency, and be based on objective measurements supported by current scientific evidence. The language should send clear market signals to economically reward members of the supply chain that deliver products that meet the expectations and wants of consumers. The current beef language requires immediate and continual development. Producers are currently receiving discounts based on company specifications that have no relevance to consumer requirements and deductions that are not based on objective carcase assessments, resulting in high eating quality products not receiving their full market value. This is distorting key market indicators that need to be corrected to ensure that the whole beef supply chain is driven in a productive and progressive direction. II. EXISTING BEEF LANGUAGE A Dentition Recommendation: Cattle Council recommends that dentition ciphers be removed from the Australian beef language. The use of dentition ciphers is creating significant disadvantage for the Australian beef industry. The inclusion of dentition within the beef language is not based on current scientific evidence, as it is an unreliable indicator of age and eating quality. Its continual use is hindering the primary focus of industry, to produce high eating quality products demanded by consumers. (a) Signals to Producers The use of dentition in the Australian beef language is a weakness of the existing system. The current language underpins a pricing structure that incentivises producers to present cattle for processing, based primarily on dentition, and not on the animal s highest point of eating quality. A 2015 grid was offering the same price for cattle of 0-2 teeth that failed to grade MSA compare to a 4 tooth animal that gained MSA grading, boning groups 1 to 11. The language should drive the whole supply chain to produce the highest quality beef for consumers and the pricing structure should reward producers who deliver that product. The future sustainable profitability of the beef industry is reliant on its ability to effectively compete with other protein sources, especially pork and chicken. It is essential that the beef language is reformed to support a pricing structure that rewards producers for delivering high quality eating products. (b) Restricting MSA Australia has an outstanding meat grading system in MSA that can accurately evaluate eating quality, the development of which has been funded through government and industry levies. As producers have invested heavily in the development of MSA, it must be the focal point for identifying and marketing premium products. The inclusion of dentition in the existing beef language is limiting the effectiveness of MSA. Currently the limited volume of MSA product restricts the ability of brands to distinguish between 3, 4 and 5 star products. To date brands have been identifying MSA products on compliance with grade 3, meaning that 4 and 5 star products have been packed down. This creates discernable variation in eating outcomes within a single brand and this is a factor that creates disappointment for consumers. A fundamental goal of MSA is to remove eating quality variation and to ensure that consumers are able to enjoy a consistent eating experience. The removal of dentition would enable a greater volume of MSA product to be available to the market, giving brands the opportunity to differentiate between the 3, 4 and 5 star. This would enable MSA to reach its full potential with the consumers through removing variation in products and presenting a consistent means for identifying premium products.

3 The development of 4 and 5 star MSA product lines would allow for additional economic benefits to be gained throughout the supply chain. Research has consistently displayed that consumers are willing to pay a substantial premium for products that are guaranteed to have superior eating quality. Consumer data from over 10, 000 Australia, since 1996 has consistently indicated that consumers value 4 star at 145% of the 3 grade price and 5 star at 198%. (c) Not an Indicator of Eating Quality Current science demonstrates that the use of dentition does not improve the accuracy of predicting eating quality outcomes in the MSA model and the language must be progressed to reflect this. MSA data demonstrates that the eating quality of animals with a dentition grade above milk and 2 teeth is often of equal or greater quality, and there is great disparity between the eating quality scores within dentition groups. These results illustrate that dentition has no value in predicting eating quality performance. (d) Age Verification Dentition and ossification are accepted methods of age verification within export markets. Scientific research has consistently illustrated that both dentition and ossification are poor measurements for determining chronological age. It is a priority for industry to develop a new age verification method which is simple, cost effective, verifiable and accepted by our international markets. Until an alternate is developed, ossification or other age verification programs, such as recording a month of birth, should be utilised as they are currently acceptable methods for other countries in fulfilling the trade requirements. Cattle Council supports the development of alternate age verification methods to meet the needs of export markets. This must be undertaken after extensive consultation with our export markets to ensure that the measurement of BSE risk is satisfactory, i.e. whether they have a preference for chronological or physiological age verification. To ensure that the best result is achieved it must be a priority for industry to research the correlation between BSE risk and an animal s physiological age. to Beef Language Cattle Council recommends that dentition be removed from the Australian beef language. The use of dentition in the language is having a negative impact on the supply chain as high quality product is being underutilised and the full economic benefits of MSA are not being received throughout the supply chain. B Meat Colour Recommendation: Cattle Council recommends that the beef language incorporates a meat colour assessment based on proven consumer demands. Current research suggests that meat colour at grading has little correlation with meat colour at the point of retail as various factors, such as packaging methods, have differing effects on colour changes. The future inclusion of meat colour within the language must be dependent on its utility with the end consumer, determined though continual research. The current meat colour grading system does not have a scientific basis as an eating quality predictor and the ph measurement provides a superior means for predicting eating quality, as it has proven accuracy and is objectively applied. The inclusion of meat colour in the beef language is important as the subjective determination can result in negative economic outcomes for producers. Meat colour is measured through an appropriately trained person making a subjective decision on where the carcase falls on the meat colour spectrum, this determination is not a linear progression. This assessment is open to error due to its subjective nature but the current system does not allow for meat colour determinations to be contested or reexamined. The economic shortfalls created by negative meat colour assessments are significant. Throughout 2014 discounts received were very significant for accredited MSA grade cattle and those that failed due to unfavourable meat colour scores, the average deduction being around a 60 cent per kilo. Cattle Council recommends that the beef language incorporates a meat colour assessment based on proven consumers needs and that practices outside the producers control do not affect the price received. Current research into consumer habits in relation to meat colour, and also fat colour, is required. Industry needs to

4 gain a clear understanding of whether consumers tolerance or preference for meat and fat colour differ in relation to particular raising claims, i.e. grassfed products. The language must be altered, if necessary, to reflect these consumer demands to ensure that clear economic signals are received throughout the beef supply chain on the optimal product to produce. The beef industry needs to develop technology that objectively assesses meat colour. The tool needs to be based on a linear progression to place the meat colour determination to the closest marker, allowing for slight difference to be accurately determined. C Butt Shape Recommendation: Cattle Council recommends that butt shape is removed from the beef language. Butt shape is historically included in the Australian beef language as an indicator of yield. The use of butt shape in beef language is a weakness, as modern science has shown that it is a poor indicator of yield. The detrimental impacts that butt shape measurements have on producers is based on a subjective assessment that offer producers no means of appeal. The assessment is conducted through a visual assessment making it subjective and open to human error. These errors can have large economic impacts on producers with grids providing for heavy discounts based on D butt shape scores. Cattle Council recommends that butt shape is removed from the beef language and further funding be directed to the development of an objective measure of carcase yield. Butt shape has no scientific basis and it can result in significant economic deductions for producers, with no benefit to the supply chain or end consumer. D Standard Carcase Trim Recommendation: Cattle Council recommends that there be greater scrutiny placed on Standard Carcase Trim prior to HSCW being determined, to allow greater transparency and accountability. Standard carcase trim guidelines provide clear definitions on the limits and boundaries of objects that can be removed from the carcase prior to the Hot Standard Carcase Weight (HSCW) being determined. The current system lacks full transparency and this has created concern that trimming is not consistent. This concern is being highlighted by information received by producers on their carcase feedback that is difficult to explain. Producers are receiving variations between P8 and rib fat measurements that are not consistent with current understanding of the correlation between these two measurements. To ensure that Standard Carcase Trim is being effectively applied there is a need for greater transparency and accountability throughout the beef supply chain. E Meat Standards Australia (MSA) The strength of the current beef language is due to the utilisation of MSA, as the majority of its grading measurements are based on scientific evidence and through objective determinations. These elements ensure that the producers receive accurate assessments of the product that they have produced and as a result gain the economic benefit. Additionally, the objective and scientific based elements ensure that consumers are getting the high eat quality meat, which is what the market demands. Cattle Council supports further research and development into objective carcase measurements, to ensure that the strength of MSA remains and that the system is continually improved into the future.

5 III. FUTUTRE CHANGES Technology is advancing rapidly and this progress offers highly desirable outcomes for the whole beef supply chain, but especially with increasing the accountability and transparency throughout the industry. A On-Farm Yield Calculations The current system requires and allows a number of activities to occur post-farmgate which can impact on the eating quality and also the grading of a carcase. Activities that negatively affect the returns received by producers include trimming at assessment sites, ungrades caused by hide puller damage and the application of hot water as an anti-microbial prior to carcases entering spray chillers. Hide puller damage over a primal that has an area greater than 10cm x 10cm results in the carcase being ineligible for MSA. These activities are not within the producers control but they receive the financial penalty for the resulting downgraded quality of the product. The existing system is difficult for producers to effectively operate within and future developments in technology offer the possibility of a more equitable system being established. Technological improvements offer the potential of greater transparency and accountability across the beef supply chain. Allowing all parties the ability to objectively assess the eating quality and yield of the animal pre-slaughter and determine the economic value. The benefits that this type of technology would generate for producers are great. It would allow them to clearly identify when their cattle were ready to sell, the most profitable market for them to operate within and it would ensure that any actions that result in a downgrade to eating quality would not affect the price received. This type of technology would generate extensive benefits across the whole beef supply chain through sending clear market signals about the type of animals the market generates premiums for. B Transparent and Accountable Processing Technological advancements create the possibility that the results for cattle assessments could be far more readily available to producers and this development could increase the transparency and accountability of the beef supply chain. As highlighted above, currently there are no effective mechanisms available for producers to contest their cattle grades. The time delay between the assessment, the meat being identifiable and producers receiving their grading prevents scores from being effectively contested. Currently the only recourse available for an unfavourable grading is for a complaint to be lodged and an AusMeat member can be sent to assess the accuracy of the assessment. This is a flawed and ineffective process, for two reasons. Firstly the graders ability to make sound grading determinations under monitored conditions is not an accurate reflection of the assessment of the producers cattle. The auditing of the graders is a clear process and human nature ensures that people perform their duties to a stricter and higher standard when placed under examination conditions. Secondly, the Aus-Meat monitored assessments do not allow for a re-examination of the affected producers products and thus the producer must accept the economic shortfall without the confidence that the grading was correct. An accountable and transparent objective grading system is a possibility in the future with the advancement of technology. The system would allow for producers to be updated in real time of their grading results and this quick data flow would allow unsatisfied producers to contest their grades. The contested measurements could be re-examined in the presence of a third party and a true re-assessment could occur. In the interim, until technology has improved to allow for such a system, there is need for greater transparency and accountability across the beef industry. Increasing the accountability and transparency of the beef supply chain is essential to ensuring that producers receive the correct market signals. The whole of the beef sector needs to examine methods to improve the transparency and accountability, to ensure that activities which detrimentally impact upon members are identified and effective corrective actions are taken.