Pillars of Beef Chain Success - UF/IFASanimal.ifas.ufl.edu › beef_extension › bcsc › 2013 ›...
Transcript of 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
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 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.
Executive Summary: The 2011 National Beef Quality Audit
PHASE I: MAJOR FINDINGS OF SCIENTIFIC FACE-TO-FACE INTERVIEWS
Executive Summary: The 2011 National Beef Quality Audit
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
1 Based on the number of times that each characteristic was mentioned as a response to the question.
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
1 Based on the number of times that each characteristic was mentioned as a response to the question.
Executive Summary: The 2011 National Beef Quality Audit
Pillars of Beef Chain Success
Executive Summary: The 2011 National Beef Quality Audit
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
National Beef Quality Audit - 2011
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
Executive Summary: The 2011 National Beef Quality Audit
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
Executive Summary: The 2011 National Beef Quality Audit
Pillars of Beef Chain Success
Executive Summary: The 2011 National Beef Quality Audit
Executive Summary: The 2011 National Beef Quality Audit
Eating Satisfaction
Product Integrity
Te
ll Story
National Beef Quality Audit - 2005
Total Quality Management
$1 to Prevent Defect $10 to Fix Defect at Manufacturing
$100 to Fix Defect for Customer
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
Executive Summary: The 2011 National Beef Quality Audit
Questions?
Slides courtesy of Dr. Deb VanOverbeke