Pillars of Beef Chain Success xecutive Summary: The 2011 National Beef Quality Audit lides courtesy of Dr. Deb VanOverbeke Executive Summary: The 2011 National Beef Quality Audit
Executive Summary: The 2011 National Beef Quality Audit National Beef Quality Audit - 2005
Executive Summary: The 2011 National Beef Quality Audit National Beef Quality Audit - 2005
Executive Summary: The 2011 National Beef Quality Audit National Beef Quality Audit - 2005
National Beef Quality Audit 5 th 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 Executive Summary: The 2011 National Beef Quality Audit Audit
Each Market Sector Defines Quality Differently, & This Appears To Be Caused By Incongruence In Economic Signals Which Contributes To Discontinuity In Messaging
Top Three 1 Definitions By Quality Category When Answers Were Pooled Across Market Sectors? Food safety No detectable E. coli O157:H7 Tested for pathogens Produced in effective food safety environment Eating satisfaction Tenderness Flavor Customer satisfaction How & where cattle were raised Origin Animal well-being Feed ingredients Lean, fat, & bone Lean to fat ratio Quality grade Yield grade 2s and 3s Weight & size Carcass weights Uniformity in cuts Appropriate ribeye size Cattle genetics Primarily black hide Genetic potential for marbling Primarily British Visual Correct product color Amount of marbling Phenotypic attributes 1 Based on the number of times that each characteristic was mentioned as a response to the question.
Best-worst Scaling 1 : 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 Industry 1 Retailers Foodservice Packers Feeders Food safety Product quality Promoting the industry & the image of the industry Product quality Food safety Marketing program Premium product Taste People how they care for the animals & land Quality product; wholesome Taste & eating satisfaction Government & Allied Industry Safe eating experience; consumer demand Research, technology, & innovation Food safety Food safety 1 Based on the number of times that each characteristic was mentioned as a response to the question.
Weaknesses Of The U.S. Beef Industry 1 Retailers Foodservice Packers Feeders Not telling our story Cost Variability Not telling our story Government & Allied Industry Too fragmented More concerned with exporting product than keeping it domestic Food safety Marketing Too fragmented Food safety Too fragmented/ Not transparent (tie) Consumer perception Too fragmented Not telling our story to improve image Lack of education & knowledge about our industry 1 Based on the number of times that each characteristic was mentioned as a response to the question.
Pillars of Beef Chain Success Executive Summary: The 2011 National Beef Quality Audit
Typical Week in 21 st 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 90 85.7 80 NBQA-2005 % 70 60 50 40 63.2 38.7 50.6 NBQA-2011 30 20 10 0 Lot visual tag Individual visual tag 3.5 20.1 Electronic tags 11.8 15.7 Metal clip tags
70 60 Predominantly Black-Hided Cattle 61.1 56.3 50 45.1 40 % 30 20 10 0 NBQA-2000 NBQA-2005 NBQA-2011
70.0 60.0 50.0 40.0 % 30.0 62.0 26.8 Brands 55.2 35.2 No brands Butt brands Side brands 20.0 10.0 7.5 9.0 0.0 NBQA-2005 NBQA-2011
No Mud and/or Manure on Hide 60 50 50.8 40 % 30 20 25.8 10 0 NBQA-2005 NBQA-2011
90 80 70 60 50 % 40 30 20 10 Carcasses Without Bruises 77.0 64.8 0 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 National Beef Quality Audit - 2011
Slightly Abundant 00 Moderate 00 Modest 00 Small 50 Small 00 Slight 50 Slight 00
USDA Yield Grades
Certified and/or Marketing Programs: Cooler Assessment 12.0 10.0 10.7 10.0 9.3 8.0 Percentage 6.0 4.0 2.0 0.0 4.1 0.6 0.5 0 ASV A40 CAB Top Choice Natural NHTC Organic
0.60 0.55 0.50 0.45 0.40 Carcass Traits: Steers versus Heifers 0.48 0.56 Fat thickness, inches 14.0 13.5 13.0 12.5 12.0 13.8 13.6 Ribeye area, square inches Steers Heifers 875.0 850.0 825.0 800.0 775.0 750.0 725.0 852.7 776.3 Carcass weight, pounds 3.2 3.0 2.8 2.6 2.4 2.2 2.0 2.6 2.6 USDA yield grade
USDA Quality Grade Distribution by Sex Class: Cooler Assessment 70.0 60.0 50.0 58.6 59.8 Steers Heifers Percentage 40.0 30.0 34.0 30.2 20.0 10.0 0.0 5.4 7.7 2.0 2.4 Prime Choice Select No Roll
Carcass Traits: USDA Quality Grades 0.80 0.60 0.40 0.20 0.66 0.55 0.45 14.5 14.0 13.5 13.0 12.5 13.0 13.6 14.1 Prime Choice Select 0.00 Fat thickness, inches 12.0 Ribeye area, square inches 860.0 840.0 820.0 850.0 833.1 808.8 3.9 3.4 2.9 2.4 3.3 2.8 2.2 800.0 1.9 780.0 Carcass weight, pounds 1.4 USDA yield grade
Changes in Prime and Choice Over Time: Cooler Assessment 80% 74% 70% 60% 50% 55% 49% 51% 55% 61% Percentage 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 1974 1991 1995 2000 2005 2011
NBQA-2011: Instrument Grading n = 2.4 X 10 6 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 Instrument Trait Cooler mean (n = 9,802) 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, in 2 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 Executive Summary: The 2011 National Beef Quality Audit
The First of its Kind! 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
Survey Respondents 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%
Definition of Quality 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 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
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
Pillars of Beef Chain Success Executive Summary: The 2011 National Beef Quality Audit
Eating Satisfaction Product Integrity Tell Story Executive Summary: The 2011 National Beef Quality Audit
Total Quality Management $1 to Prevent Defect $10 to Fix Defect at Manufacturing $100 to Fix Defect for Customer National Beef Quality Audit - 2005
Marbling Approximately 60% of all fed cattle harvested in the US fall between a marbling score of Slight 50 to Small 50 (Cargill, 2011) Slight 50 Small 50
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? Executive Summary: The 2011 National Beef Quality Audit Slides courtesy of Dr. Deb VanOverbeke