4
The U.S. Lamb Industry

The largest downstream component of the U.S. sheep industry supply chain is the lamb industry. Lamb consumers represent the end users of the lamb industry component of the supply chain. Ultimately, production is driven by consumer demand. Signals provided by consumers determine in large part how much lamb moves through market channels. At the other end of the lamb industry component of the supply chain are a relatively few number of packers who transform the live animals to meat and byproducts. Between packers and consumers are breakers, further fabricators, wholesalers, retailers, and foodservice purveyors who transport and further transform the meat for sale to consumers.

Not surprisingly, given the historical contraction of U.S. sheep inventories as chronicled in Chapters 1 and 2, U.S. sheep and lamb slaughter, along with lamb production and demand, have also declined over the years. Lamb production has declined more rapidly than lamb consumption, falling by over 80 percent from a high of nearly 0.50 billion kilograms in 1945 to the low of 84.4 million kilograms in 2006 (USDA, 2007a). Buoyed by growing imports in recent years, however, U.S. lamb consumption hit a low of 134 million kilograms in 1996 and has grown slowly over the last decade. The resilience of lamb consumption in the face of declining domestic production has arrested the slow decline in per capita consumption, which has held steady at 0.50 to 0.55 kg since the mid-1990s. Even so, as a share of total U.S. red meat consumption, lamb has dropped from over 5 percent in the 1930s to just under 1 percent since 2000. While these numbers accurately characterize historical changes in the U.S. lamb industry, focusing on these numbers alone fails to recognize the important contribution of the lamb



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 169
4 The U.S. Lamb Industry T he largest downstream component of the U.S. sheep industry supply chain is the lamb industry. Lamb consumers represent the end users of the lamb industry component of the supply chain. Ultimately, production is driven by consumer demand. Signals provided by consumers determine in large part how much lamb moves through market channels. At the other end of the lamb industry component of the supply chain are a relatively few number of packers who transform the live animals to meat and byproducts. Between packers and consumers are breakers, further fab- ricators, wholesalers, retailers, and foodservice purveyors who transport and further transform the meat for sale to consumers. Not surprisingly, given the historical contraction of U.S. sheep invento- ries as chronicled in Chapters 1 and 2, U.S. sheep and lamb slaughter, along with lamb production and demand, have also declined over the years. Lamb production has declined more rapidly than lamb consumption, falling by over 80 percent from a high of nearly 0.50 billion kilograms in 1945 to the low of 84.4 million kilograms in 2006 (USDA, 2007a). Buoyed by growing imports in recent years, however, U.S. lamb consumption hit a low of 134 million kilograms in 1996 and has grown slowly over the last decade. The resilience of lamb consumption in the face of declining domestic production has arrested the slow decline in per capita consumption, which has held steady at 0.50 to 0.55 kg since the mid-1990s. Even so, as a share of total U.S. red meat consumption, lamb has dropped from over 5 percent in the 1930s to just under 1 percent since 2000. While these numbers accurately characterize historical changes in the U.S. lamb industry, focusing on these numbers alone fails to recognize the important contribution of the lamb 

OCR for page 169
0 CHANGES IN THE SHEEP INDUSTRY IN THE UNITED STATES industry to the U.S. agricultural economy and the potentially industry- transforming changes currently in process, such as the emergence of direct marketing, growth in ethnic demand, and other market forces creating some optimism about the future of the industry. This chapter takes a close look at the U.S. lamb industry, with particular interest in the current status of and changes taking place in lamb produc- tion, marketing, consumption, and trade, along with the market forces and government policies that influence their patterns of change. The discussion is based on a wide range of research on the lamb industry, including supply issues (e.g., Whipple and Menkhaus, 1989; Purcell et al., 1991; Van Tassell and Whipple, 1994), demand issues (e.g., Whipple and Menkhaus, 1989; Williams et al., 1991; Byrne et al., 1993; Purcell, 1998), marketing margin and packer concentration issues (e.g., Menkhaus et al., 1989; Brester and Musick, 1995; Capps et al., 1995; Viator et al., 2007); trade issues and foreign lamb markets (e.g., Richie, 1979; Reynolds and Gardiner, 1980; Babula, 1996, 1997; U.S. International Trade Commission (US ITC), 1999; Vere et al., 2000; Muhammad et al., 2007); and the welfare implications of government policies (e.g., Whipple and Menkhaus, 1990). The chapter concludes with a summary of the major accomplishments, opportunities, and challenges facing the lamb segment of the U.S. sheep industry. LAMB SLAUGHTER AND PRODUCTION Even as slaughter has declined over the years, the average live weight of slaughter lambs has grown, particularly since the mid-1990s, so that lamb production has declined somewhat more slowly than slaughter (Figure 4-1). From 10.5 million head in 1970, federally inspected sheep and lamb slaughter dropped by more than half to 5.0 million head only 9 years later in 1979. Following a brief upsurge over the next few years to nearly 6.8 million head in 1984, slaughter began to decline once again, reaching only 2.5 million head in 2006 (USDA, 2007b). Over the same period, however, the average live weight of slaughter lambs increased from 47.5 kg to around 63.5 kg and dressed weight from 23.45 kg to about 31.75 kg (ASI, 2007). The heavier weights of the slaughter lambs helped slow the decline in lamb production from 250 million kg in 1970 to 80 million kg in 2007. One consequence of the decline in slaughter has been a decline in the number of packers buying sheep and a drop in public and non-public auc- tions by over 70 percent between 1980 and 2005 (Figure 4-2). In turn, the decline in the number of packers has led to both regional and structural concentration in sheep and lamb slaughter. Regionally, about three-quarters of the 2.5 million head slaughtered in 2006 were concentrated in the Mid- west and Mountain states (Table 4-1). Another 9.5 percent occurred in the Northeast, with the rest scattered among a large number of other states

OCR for page 169
 THE U.S. LAMB INDUSTRY 12,000 600.0 10,000 500.0 8,000 400.0 1,000 head Pounds 6,000 300.0 4,000 200.0 2,000 100.0 0 0.0 1970 1972 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 years Slaughter Average liveweight Production Fig 4-01.eps FIGURE 4-1 Lamb slaughter, production, and average liveweight, 1970– 2004. (1 pound (lb) = 0.4536 kg.) Source: USDA (2006). around this country. Structurally, only a few firms slaughter a large share of the sheep produced in the country. In 2005, the four largest slaughtering firms accounted for 69.6 percent of the federally inspected lamb slaughter (USDA, 2007c). The percentage of lambs slaughtered by the four largest packers, termed the four-firm concentration ratio (CR4), however, has declined from a high of 75 to 80 percent in the early 1990s, following a rash of mergers and acquisitions in the meat packing industry (Williams et al., 1991; USDA, 2007c). Most packing facilities are located strategically near lamb feeders, consumers, or both. Of 205 lamb packing plants, one is classified by the USDA Food Safety Inspection Service (FSIS) as large (500 or more employees), while 42 are classified as small (10 to 499 employees) and another 162 as very small (fewer than 10 employees or less than $2.5 million in annual sales). The majority of finished lambs (both grain-fed and grass-fed) are pur- chased by packers for slaughter. Packers separate the pelts and offal from the lamb carcasses, which are inspected by FSIS. Lamb carcasses are also usually quality graded by the USDA Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS). Packers have traditionally marketed their products as hanging carcasses

OCR for page 169
 CHANGES IN THE SHEEP INDUSTRY IN THE UNITED STATES 120 100 Number 80 60 40 20 0 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2002 2003 2004 2005 Year Packers Non-Public Markets Plants Non-Public Markets Packers Public Markets Plants Public Markets FIGURE 4-2 Number of lamb packers and plants by market type.a aNonpublic includes all sources except terminal markets and auctions. Public includes terminal markets and auctions. Fig 4-02.eps Source: USDA (2007c). TABLE 4-1 U.S. Federally Inspected Sheep Slaughter by Region, 2006 Regiona 1,000 head % Northeast 242.2 9.5 Southeast 36.9 1.4 Midwest 770.2 30.3 Central 43.4 1.7 Mountain 1,093.5 43.0 Northwest 23.9 0.9 Other States 335.3 13.2 Total U.S. 2,545.4 100.0 aStates in each region: Northeast = DE, MD, NJ, NY, PA, VA, WV; Southeast = AL, FL, GA, KY, MS, NC, SC; Midwest = IA, IL, IN, KS, MI, MN, MO, NE, OH, WI; Central = AR, LA, NM, OK, TX; Mountain = CO, MT, ND, SD, UT, WY; Northwest = AK, ID, OR, WA; Other States = all states not in any other region. Source: USDA (2007e).

OCR for page 169
 THE U.S. LAMB INDUSTRY or boxed primals of carcass equivalents to breakers for further processing into consumer units. Secondary products include offal moving to rendering plants and pelts moving primarily to industrial leather processors. In 1990, only 38 percent of packer sales went directly to the traditional breakers, 36 percent directly to retailers (primarily supermarkets), 8 percent directly to foodservice (primarily hotels, restaurants, and institutions), and the remain- ing 17 percent directly to nonbreaking wholesalers marketing to both the retail and foodservice channels (Williams et al., 1991). As the demand for case-ready products has grown along with the demand for value-added cuts, packers are now doing much of this further processing themselves, although current data are not available. Lamb Carcass Yield and Quality Perhaps the most difficult challenge in lamb production is excess fat on lamb carcasses (Magagna, 1991; Williams et al., 1991; Tatum et al., 1992). The current market structure and pricing system reward producers and lamb feeders for weight rather than a value based on quality and yield grades. The factors that play an important role in the assessment of value of the lamb carcass include the relationship between weight (live and carcass), genotype, muscling (lean), and how they relate to fat (lipid content) of the carcass. Noticeably more lambs are being harvested when they are in the plateau of their growth curve (rather than in the positive plain of the growth curve), and as a result they are predisposed to depositing more fat than muscle. At the same time, some breeds, and individuals within a breed or population, should be harvested at lighter weights based on their individual maturity patterns to avoid excessive fat depositition whereas others (breeds, indi- viduals within breeds, or populations) are capable of being fed to heavier weights because they have a later maturity pattern that results in heavier carcasses with relatively more muscle and less fat. The tendency is to feed all lambs (regardless of maturity pattern) to about the same average live weight, which leads to excess fat in many breeds and individuals. Without a value-based marketing system in the lamb meat industry, the tendency is to keep all lambs on feed for an extended period of time. In many cases this is done without consideration of lean gain per day. When discussing the importance of introducing a value-based marketing system, it is crucial that the discussion include an assessment of the current USDA lamb grad- ing system. It is imperative that the lamb grading system be reviewed for its ability to accurately predict and/or assess lean versus fat. The standards for slaughter lambs, yearlings, and sheep were revised July 6, 1992, requiring the “coupling” of quality and yield grading to identify both quality and yield when carcasses are officially graded and to require removal of most of the kidney and pelvic fat prior to grading. In

OCR for page 169
 CHANGES IN THE SHEEP INDUSTRY IN THE UNITED STATES addition, leg conformation score was eliminated as a yield grade factor, and the fat thickness range in each yield grade was shifted and narrowed (USDA, 2007d). The changes were made in response to requests by produc- ers as represented by the American Sheep Industry Association (ASI) “to provide an improved communication tool to efficiently reflect consumers’ preferences for lean meat products back to producers” (USDA, 2007d). The changes were overwhelmingly supported by all industry segments except lamb feeders and lamb slaughterers and processors (USDA, 2007d). Those two segments of the industry were split on the changes (USDA, 2007d). The purpose of the grading system is to aid in the pricing and marketing of lamb. Quality grades provide an assessment of two components that in- fluence carcass excellence: conformation and quality (fatness, maturity, and other indicators of differences in palatability of the lean flesh). Conforma- tion is evaluated by averaging the overall thickness and shape of the carcass in the rack, loin, and leg regions. The quality grades for lamb (12 months of age or younger assessed by physiological maturity) and yearlings (12 to 24 months of age) are prime, choice, good, and utility; for sheep (older than 24 months) quality grades are choice, good, utility, and cull. Quality grades are determined based on flank streaking, leg conformation scores, and lean maturity. Sheep must exhibit a higher degree of flank streaking than lambs or yearlings to grade choice. Lamb is more easily labeled as prime with the correct conformation and flank streaking (Purdue University, 2007). Prime is the highest and choice is the second-highest quality grade demanded by consumers. Table 4-2 gives an example of lamb carcass quality grading based on flank streaking and age. TABLE 4-2 Lamb Quality Grading Age of Lamb Young Older Yearling Flank Streaking Lamb Lamb Mutton Mutton Abundant Prime Prime Prime Prime Moderately abundant Prime Prime Prime Prime Slightly abundant Prime Prime Prime Prime/Choice Moderate Prime Prime Prime/Choice Choice Modest Prime Prime/Choice Choice Choice Slight Choice Choice/Good Good Good/Utility Traces Choice/Good Good/Utility Utility Utility Practically devoid Good/Utility Utility Utility Utility/Cull Source: Based on data from Purdue University (2007).

OCR for page 169
 THE U.S. LAMB INDUSTRY Before 1992, yield grades determined the amount of proportional trimmed meat in comparison to fat and bone in the carcass. Yield grades were determined by measuring the external fat thickness between the 12th and 13th ribs of the carcass, an estimate of the kidney, pelvic, heart fat, and conformation of the leg according to the following equation: Before 1992 Yield Grade = 1.66 – (0.05 × leg conformation score) + (0.025 × percentage kidney, pelvic, and heart fat) + (6.66 × adjusted backfat thickness) The current equation that was approved for use on July 6, 1992 only uses adjusted back fat measured at the 12th rib, over the loin eye, Current yield grade equation = 0.4 + (10 × adjusted backfat thickness) Berg et al. (1998) reported that factors that influence the percent bone- less closely trimmed retail cuts (BCTRC) are carcass muscle mass, carcass weight, internal fat, subcutaneous fat, and intermuscular (seam) fat. They also concluded that the current cutability grades (estimation of the percent BCTRC) used in the three red meat species (beef, pork, and lamb) incorpo- rate one or more of these criteria to establish value associated with saleable product. Table 4-3 shows the differences in the current yield grading criteria for beef, pork, and lamb carcasses. Clearly, lamb yield grades are based on the least amount of information when compared to carcasses from beef and pork. Further, the lamb yield grading system is the only one for the three red meat species that does not account for muscling in the measurement equation. External fat is related to total carcass fatness. As the external fat increases, so does the numerical yield grade, resulting in a presumed TABLE 4-3 Comparison of Yield Grade Criteria for Beef, Pork, and Lamb Carcasses Yield Grade Criteria Measurement Beef Pork Lamb Size Carcass weight None None Muscling Ribeye area Muscle score None Trimmable fat 12th rib fat thickness Last rib backfat 12th rib fat thickness Internal fat Kidney, pelvic, and heart fat None None Source: Berg et al. (1998) adapted from Savell (1997). Copyright 1998 by ASI. Used with permission.

OCR for page 169
 CHANGES IN THE SHEEP INDUSTRY IN THE UNITED STATES reduction in carcass value (Field et al., 1963; Carpenter et al., 1964; Garret et al., 1990; Harris et al., 1990; Fritz et al., 1995). The U.S. lamb grading system is a visual appraisal of carcass fatness that leaves room for error due to the subjective nature of the assessment. The original intent of the yield grading system was to assess carcass value based on factors relative to muscle, fat, and weight, but the current system only evaluates fatness of the carcass. When USDA graders evaluate lamb fatness, a subjective visual estimate of fat depth adjacent to the 12th rib, it is used as a predicator of percent BCTRC (Berg et al., 1998). The evaluation can be adjusted for body wall thickness and other indicators of carcass fatness. A single measurement based on a visual appraisal of fat depth can lead to the misclassification of lamb carcasses relative to retail yield (Berg et al., 1998). Heaton et al. (1993) found that visual estimation of a single fat trait (12th rib fat) was, at best, a marginal predictor of lamb carcass composition even when the most expe- rienced lamb carcass evaluators were used. Snowder et al. (1994) reported that backfat depth only accounts for 21–22 percent of the variation in the percentage of major and total retail cuts under commercial conditions. They also found that body wall measurement for fat depth was a better indicator of total carcass fatness, explaining more than 30 percent of the variability for yield of retail cuts as compared to the use of backfat measurement over the 12th rib. Although the yield grade calculation accounts for the fat that is trimmed prior to reaching the retail case, the calculation does not account for seam fat, which is seen by the consumer and possibly affects purchasing decisions at the retail case. If consumers make lamb-buying decisions based on the meat-to-waste ratio or on the perceived healthiness of the cut purchased, seam fat is a negative in the lamb retail case. Accurately predicting seam fat would help the lamb industry to sort and price carcasses that are desirable based on consumer acceptance and purchasing criteria. Although the current yield grading system is not the most accurate or the most useful in determining the value of lamb carcasses, it is easily implemented during the movement of carcasses from the cooler to fabrica- tion. Line speed in the packing plant is the largest hurdle to overcome in implementing new technologies to estimate the percent BCTRC. A number of new procedures to evaluate carcass value based on the relationship be- tween fat and muscle have been investigated. Berg et al. (1998) reported that warm carcass weight, loin eye area, and body wall thickness, when com- bined with external fat depth (12th/13th rib interface), predicted percent BCTRC better than any other measures they tested with the exception of an optical grading probe measurement of a chilled carcass. They concluded, however, that taking all of these linear measurements is time-consuming and labor-intensive and would not be practical in today’s lamb packing plants,

OCR for page 169
 THE U.S. LAMB INDUSTRY particularly since carcasses are not ribbed, which allows the collection of loin eye area measurements. Championed by producer cooperatives and direct marketers, value- based marketing systems would benefit from an accurate evaluation tool to assess BCTRC or something similar. Such a system is designed to pay producers premiums for lamb carcasses that meet particular quality and yield specifications. Although a number of other procedures for estimating the percent BCTRC from lamb carcasses have been investigated, the change in the USDA grading system to require both yield and quality grading has focused research on measures that improve accuracy over the current sub- jective visual assessment. Cattle producers were reluctant to sell beef in a carcass merit system as an assessment of the grading system using humans rather than calibrated technology (Savell and Cross, 1991). Cross and Belk (1994) maintained that a true value-based marketing system will not be accepted by producers unless carcass value is determined through objective mechanical instrumentation. Some of the more effective mechanical mea- surement techniques currently available include the following: • Video Image Analysis (VIA). Of the new technologies that have been introduced over the last decade, VIA, or more commonly referred to in the sheep industry as lamb vision system (LVS), seems to be the most promis- ing. It is relatively accurate and has inline capabilities that do not slow line speed in a commercial packing operation. The measurements that LVS can assess include carcass length, groin to right leg length, groin to left leg length, distance from groin to end of shank, red color score for shoulder, blue color score for shoulder, red color score for loin, blue color score for loin, distance between the two legs, groin area, carcass area, total carcass width, leg area, leg width, and groin angle (Brady et al., 2003). These mea- surements help to assess shape and size of carcass, degree of muscularity, and relative proportions of fat and lean (Brady et al., 2003). When compared to the current yield grade equation, LVS has a more detailed inventory of factors that predict lamb carcass cutability (BCTRC). Assessment of LVS in the United States (Brady et al., 2003; Cunha et al., 2004) has validated the prediction equations and determined that both the accuracy and precision of bone-in cut yields of lamb carcasses were improved by the use of LVS compared with the current grading system. Furthermore, the authors of these reports have reported that predicted accuracy exceeded that of other methods. This equipment is in use in commercial beef plants as a method of assessing and sorting beef carcasses. Brady et al. (2003) concluded that packers would benefit from the use of LVS combined with hot carcass weight by having tighter control on inventories and producers would benefit by receiving feedback regarding lamb carcass data. The Welsh Country Food Group (2007) also reported that LVS will offer considerable benefits to

OCR for page 169
 CHANGES IN THE SHEEP INDUSTRY IN THE UNITED STATES both producer and processor. According a to validation study by Cunha et al. (2003) for USDA AMS, the use of LVS explained a greater proportion of the observed variation in yields of bone-in cuts from carcasses than did expert (whole number) USDA yield grades, expert (nearest tenth) USDA yield grades, or online (whole number) USDA yield grades. The equipment is being used in other countries to sort lamb carcasses and assess value. • Optical Grading Probes (OGP). The basic principle behind the OGP technology is that fat that is predominantly white reflects more light than lean muscle, which would be darker in color. The OGP technology has been used in the pork industry with considerable success over the last two decades. Berg et al. (1998) reported that, in an online industrial setting, the OGP technology (1) is simple to operate, (2) is relatively inexpensive, and (3) can assess carcass composition at rapid line speeds. Hopkins et al. (1995) reported the greatest limitation of the OGP technology is its reliance on a human operator, which creates the potential for error (see also Boland et al., 1995a). • Ultrasound. Although real-time ultrasound technology has been used successfully in the swine industry, the use of the technology with beef and sheep has been less successful due to the presence of hair or wool and/or variations in the thickness of pelt. The use of ultrasound is also dependent on a human operator who is highly trained and versed in interpretation of ultrasonic images. Ultrasound can be used successfully when the integrity of the image being captured is not hindered in any way prior to the image capture. Berg et al. (1998) reported that using ultrasound on carcasses after the pelt is removed introduces error in the measurements. The practice of pelt removal introduces air pockets in the subcutaneous layer of the fat, hin- dering ultrasonographic penetration and resulting in “noise” in the captured image. Using ultrasound on live sheep and lambs prior to harvest, while assuring an accurate reading, would require a patch of wool to be sheared to the skin at the 12th rib. Although this process would help in capturing a more accurate image, it would result in a discounted pelt credit as well as requiring additional labor to take the measurements. Ultrasound can be used as a tool for selection in a breeding flock where time and pelt credits are not at a premium. • Bioelectrical Impedance (BI). BI technology has been used success- fully for measurement of human body composition (Heitmann, 1994). Many of the applications of the BI technology in the livestock industry have been adopted from the human health field. With minor adjustments in programming, the same equipment is used to measure livestock carcass composition. Slanger et al. (1994) tested the BI technology to assess carcass composition in a commercial packing plant and concluded that the tech- nology had great promise for use in the lamb industry as a way to predict kilograms of retail-ready product. Berg et al. (1998) reported that the BI

OCR for page 169
 THE U.S. LAMB INDUSTRY technology is simple, affordable, nondestructive, portable, and a useful tool in live animal and carcass evaluations. • Electromagnetic Scanning or Total Body Electrical Conductiity (TOBEC). As the carcass is passed through on a conveyor, muscle tissue absorbs energy whereas fat and bone do not (Berg et al., 1998). Conse- quently, an electromagnetic absorbance curve can be determined and used to calculate the lean versus fat or bone composition of the carcass. The TOBEC measurement process is highly accurate for determining total body composition. Researchers have determined that this method of body compo- sition estimation is highly accurate for pork (Boland et al., 1995b) and lamb (Berg et al., 1994, 1997). The main drawback to the TOBEC measurement procedure is the amount of space required for equipment. The cost of con- struction and remodeling the slaughter line to allow for the equipment could be substantial for some operations. Also, the TOBEC equipment is more expensive than that required for any of the other measurement procedures previously discussed. Without an accurate assessment of lamb carcass yield (estimation of percent BCTRC), procurement of lambs based primarily on live weight will continue to encourage the purchase of lambs that are overfinished. However, identifying a method that will accurately assess the yield of a carcass has been the challenge. Berg et al. (1998) asserted that carcass procurement based on lean yield would be a strong deterrent to marketing overfinished lambs. They concluded that building producer confidence and packer ac- ceptance for quality grading procedures for lamb carcasses will require a carcass yield pricing system with an acceptable level of accuracy in carcass evaluation (percent BCTRC). Live weight has traditionally been used as a measure of market readi- ness. Many researchers have looked at the relationship between weight (live and carcass) and carcass lean versus fat yield. Wishmeyer et al. (1996) demonstrated that the correlation between harvest weight and measures of carcass fat is positive and moderately high and that there is a negative cor- relation between harvest weight and measures of carcass lean yield. They reported that live weight was highly correlated with whole-body lean tissue (r = 0.96), ether extractable fat (r = 0.86), and crude protein (r = 0.80). Jenkins et al. (1988) found that carcass weight accounts for 91 percent of the variation in fat-free lean tissue. Slanger et al. (1994) found that carcass weight is a reliable predictor of total weight of retail cuts. Tatum et al. (1988) reported that increased carcass weight was highly associated with increased carcass fatness. Garrett et al. (1992) supported this finding and reported that yield grade 2 carcasses are significantly lighter than yield grade 3 and 4 carcasses. Berg et al. (1998) reported that live and carcass weight can explain moderate to high amounts of variation in the weight of total

OCR for page 169
 CHANGES IN THE SHEEP INDUSTRY IN THE UNITED STATES in the eyes of the consumer indeed presents opportunities to increase the demand for lamb. • Better positioning of lamb in the U.S. meat market. Knowledge of cross-price elasticities allows the identification of competitors to lamb, namely beef and pork in that order, in the retail meat case. With this in- formation, opportunities exist to better position lamb vis-à-vis chief com- petitors. Knowledge of consumer sensitivity to changes in retail prices also permits the opportunity to implement pricing strategies designed to increase revenue to retailers and packers in the lamb marketing chain. • Large potential market expansion. Opportunities also are evident through the ALB to persuade consumers who have not consumed lamb previously to consume lamb for the first time. Nearly one-third of all U.S. households have never eaten lamb at all. Developing profiles of households who have not yet eaten lamb could be useful for targeting these households in promotion campaigns with the hopes of improving market penetration of lamb. • Emergence of new lamb markets. The emergence of new markets for lamb products presents arguably the best opportunity for growth of the lamb industry. The growth in the number of Muslims who reside in the United States is one example. According to a recent study conducted by JWT, an advertising agency, these Muslims are, on average, wealthier and better educated than the general population (The Economist, 2007). At the same time, nontraditional markets for lamb serving several ethnic groups appear to be growing rapidly as discussed in more detail in Chapter 7. Several major challenges face the lamb industry from the production side, including the following: • Improing the competitie position of domestic producers. The elastic demand for chilled lamb imports suggests that Australia and New Zealand exporters of chilled products have the ability to increase their revenues with price reductions, all other factors held constant, which will create additional pressures on domestic producers of chilled/fresh lamb. Given the current open U.S. borders to lamb imports, U.S. producers will be challenged to increase their production efficiency and lower their costs in order to improve their competitive position in the domestic market. • Adoption of a alue-based grading system that accurately sorts carcasses based on quality and yield. Developing a system that accurately assesses value on which packers and producers/feeders can agree and trust will be a major challenge. Whatever system is developed will likely be automated and have the capability to uniformly assess carcass value from processor to processor and from day to day within a processing plant. Such

OCR for page 169
 THE U.S. LAMB INDUSTRY an automated system will have to fit into current plant designs and must be in keeping with current processing plant line speeds. A number of challenges also face the U.S. lamb industry from the con- sumer side that affect not only production and profitability, but also the abil- ity of researchers to conduct needed analyses of lamb demand to enhance decision-making in the sheep and lamb industry, including the following: • Lack of a long-standing retail price series. A major problem for both research on lamb demand and decision-making in the lamb industry is the absence of a long-standing retail price series. As a consequence, research on lamb demand has considered only limited time periods or has used proxy data series for retail price, such as wholesale prices (Purcell, 1989) or im- puted retail prices (Byrne et al., 1993; Schroeder et al., 2001). The USDA collected monthly lamb retail prices from 1950 to 1981. The American Sheep Industry Association then continued the collection of retail prices on a bimonthly basis from January 1986 to June 1992 and again from September 1993 to December 1995, leaving holes in the price series between 1981 and 1986 and between June 1992 and December 1993. The USDA commenced collecting monthly prices again from January 2001 to August 2005 under the umbrella of the MPR program, leaving another hole in the retail price data from December 1993 to January 2001. The USDA has once again dis- continued reporting a retail lamb price, so that the latest data on the retail price of lamb are from August 2005. The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (U.S. BLS, 2007) reports monthly price indices for lamb and organ meats, as well as for lamb and mutton. The former series runs from December 1977 to the present while the latter series only runs from December 1997 to December 2005. Efforts in dealing with gaps in retail prices are a key need for conducting effective analyses of lamb consumer behavior. • Measurement and reporting of per capita consumption of lamb. Per capita consumption often is thought to be synonymous with demand. Per capita consumption, however, is calculated by USDA as cold-storage lamb stocks at the beginning of the year plus production plus imports minus end- ing stocks divided by the population of the United States. Consequently, this measure is more akin to disappearance than to consumption. As Shiflett et al. (2007) noted, there is no precision in measurement of the per capita lamb demand series. The USDA publishes per capita lamb demand with only one significant digit. The result often is a series that shows very little variability. Such lack of measurement precision (or variability) complicates any efforts to estimate demand models. Shiflett et al. (2007) and Capps and Williams (2005, 2007) used quarterly measurements of per capita lamb consumption posted on the Livestock Marketing Information Center (LMIC) website, which carries a number of significant digits.

OCR for page 169
 CHANGES IN THE SHEEP INDUSTRY IN THE UNITED STATES Another problem with the reported data on per capita lamb demand is that the data do not differentiate between American lamb and lamb from either Australia or New Zealand. The imported share of lamb in the U.S. market has risen steadily in recent years, up to 45 percent currently. Break- ing out and reporting lamb consumption by country of origin is necessary to understand changes occurring in consumer lamb-purchasing behavior. For example, ALB promotional activities are intended to enhance the demand for domestically produced lamb. Without separate data on the consump- tion of domestic and imported lamb, however, research cannot determine whether the ALB lamb promotion program has a generic impact on lamb consumption or primarily impacts the consumption of domestically pro- duced lamb as intended. These and other issues related to imported lamb, such as the extent to which consumers consider domestic and imported lamb to be substitutes, cannot be reliably addressed unless separate series on lamb demand by country of origin are available. • Consideration of other factors potentially influencing lamb demand. Most research on lamb demand has considered the demand effects of re- tail lamb prices, competing retail meat prices (specifically, beef, pork, and chicken), income, seasonality, and advertising. A case can be made that goat meat could serve as a substitute for lamb meat, especially in the growing ethnic/religious market segment, but not much information exists on goat meat consumption and goat meat prices. At present, no research is available on cross-price elasticities between lamb and goat meats. The effects of diet, health, and nutrition information on lamb consumer purchasing behavior also have not been explored to any degree. Addition- ally, neither away-from-home consumer lamb purchasing behavior nor the demographic characteristics of lamb consumers has been explored adequately. • Increasing the presence of lamb in the foodserice/HRI sector. Shiflett et al. (2007) suggested that the foodservice sector accounts for an estimated 37 percent of domestic lamb volume and is growing. Potential opportunities may exist for increased lamb demand in the foodservice sector, or hotels, restaurants, and other institutions. In the United States, the share of the food dollar spent away from home is nearly 50 percent (Jensen, 2006). Increased training of chefs and overall increased awareness of American lamb could increase lamb offerings in the foodservice sector (Shiflett et al., 2007). Con- sequently, targeted marketing efforts aimed at the foodservice sector would likely prove effective in increasing the demand for U.S. lamb. • Improed understanding of the demographic characteristics of lamb consumers. There exists a pressing need to extend beyond the traditional price and per capita consumption series to provide improved and more detailed socioeconomic profiles of consumers in different market areas so that product offerings can be tailored to meet the desires of consum-

OCR for page 169
 THE U.S. LAMB INDUSTRY ers. The only published study documenting demographic characteristics of lamb consumers used the 1987–1988 Nationwide Food Consumption Survey (NFCS) data to build a profile of lamb consumers (Williams et al., 1991). The demographic characteristics considered included geographic location, season of the year, income quartile, race, age, and urbanization. The study provided information on average weekly per-person expenditures of households by those demographic characteristics for beef, pork, poultry, fish and seafood, and lamb in 1987 and 1988. As well, the study provided a definitive picture of the profile of a lamb consumer in the United States. Region, race, age, and income were the major demographic factors found to influence the probability of consuming lamb in the United States. The Williams et al. (1991) analysis, however, needs to be updated with more current information. Importantly, ethnic markets need to be considered as well in order to better understand the demand for lamb. • Research on the demand for specific cuts of lamb. Most research on lamb demand has considered lamb in the aggregate. Little research has been done regarding the retail demand for specific cuts of lamb, such as legs, chops, shoulder cuts, racks, shanks, ground lamb, and stew meat. Williams et al. (1991) examined the demand for selected individual lamb products in Houston using weekly retail scanner data. The cuts included various types of lamb chops, leg of lamb, lamb shank, and ground lamb. In most cases, the demand for each individual cut was found to be quite responsive to changes in price with own-price elasticities ranging from –1.66 to –3.17. This finding is consistent with demand theory in which the demand for specific compo- nents of a product (e.g., lamb versus all food and lamb cuts versus lamb in the aggregate) is expected to be more price responsive than demand for the product itself. The more price elastic response of lamb cuts than lamb demand in the aggregate to price changes largely reflects the greater degree of substitutability among cuts of lamb than among lamb and other types of meat and foods. This type of information is needed to assist retailers and foodservice purveyors in pricing and price-based promotion of lamb cuts so as to maximize lamb sales revenues. Retail scanner data will be highly useful in conducting these types of analyses in support of retail lamb marketing efforts. REFERENCES Adelaide Bio News. 2005. Harvesting the antibodies. Online at: www.bioinnovationsa.com.au. Accessed April 30, 2008. ALB (American Lamb Board). 2007. How the checkoff works. Online at: http://americanlamb- board.org. Accessed June 7, 2007. Aldrich, G. 2006. Rendered products in pet food. Pp. 159–178 in Essential Rendering: All About the Animal By-products Industry, D. Meeker, ed. Alexandria, VA: National Ren- derers Association.

OCR for page 169
0 CHANGES IN THE SHEEP INDUSTRY IN THE UNITED STATES Anderson, D. P., and O. Capps, Jr. 2004. Country-of-origin labeling and the beef industry. Choices 19(4):1–2. Antweiler, W. 2007. Pacific Exchange Rate Service. Saunder School of Business. The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. Online at: http://fx.sauder. ubc.ca/. Accessed April 10, 2008. ASI (American Sheep Industry Association). 2004. Fast facts about American lamb. Online at: http://www.sheepusa.org/index.phtml?page=site/text&nav_id=06b30b9c925056e3635d 644c8ae9a29b. Accessed April 30, 2008. ASI. 2006. Sheep industry news: ASI board tours industry businesses in Greely. Online at: http://www.sheepusa.org/index.phtml?page=site/newsandevents&nav_id=82ee74b2354 b223f831548af9ef21f5a. Accessed April 30, 2008. ASI. 2007. First-quarter 2007 sheep industry in review. Report prepared for the American Lamb Board. Babula, R. A. 1996. An empirical examination of U.S. lamb-related import and domestic mar- ket relationships near the farmgate. J. Int. Food Agri. Marketing 8(2):65–82. Babula, R. A. 1997. Economic effects of a countervailing duty order on the U.S. lamb meat industry. Agr. Resource Econ. Rev. 26(1):82–93. BBC News. 2001. Sheep yield osteoporosis clues. Online at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/ tech/1480925.stm. Accessed August 8, 2007. Berg, E. P., J. C. Forrest, D. L. Thomas, N. Nusbaum, and R. G. Kauffman. 1994. Electromag- netic scanning to predict lamb carcass composition. J. Anim. Sci. 72:1728–1736. Berg, E. P., M. K. Neary, J. C. Forrest, D. L. Thomas, and R. G. Kaufman. 1996. Assessment of lamb carcass composition from live animal measurement of bioelectrical impedance or ultrasonic tissue depths. J. Anim. Sci. 74:2672–2678. Berg, E. P., M. K. Neary, J. C. Forrest, D. L. Thomas, and R. G. Kauffman. 1997. Evaluation of electronic technology to assess lamb carcass composition. J. Anim. Sci. 75:2433–2444. Berg, E. P., M. K. Neary, and J. C. Forrest. 1998. Methodology for identification of lamb carcass composition. Sheep Goat Res. J. 14(1):65–75. Boal, F. 2001. Sheepmeat: a niche meat product or acceptable world animal protein source? Agribusiness Consulting and Research Services, Rabobank, Wellington, New Zealand. Boland, M. A., E. P. Berg, J. T. Akridge, and J. C. Forrest. 1995a. The economic impact of operator error using optical probes to predict pork carcass value. Rev. Agric. Econ. 17:193. Boland, M. A., K. A. Foster, A. P. Schinckel, J. R. Wagner, W. Chen, E. P. Berg, and J. C. Forrest. 1995b. Alternative pork carcass evaluation techniques. I. Differences in prediction of value. J. Anim. Sci. 73:637–644. Brady, A. S., K. E. Belk, S. B. Levalley, N. L. Dalsted, J. A. Scanga, J. D. Tatum, and G. C. Smith. 2003. An evaluation of the lamb vision system as a predictor of lamb carcass red meat yield percentage. J. Anim. Sci. 81:1488–1498. Braggins, T. J. 1996. Effects of stress-related changes in sheepmeat ultimate pH on cooked odor and flavor. J. Agric. Food Chem. 44:2352. Brester, G. W., and D. C. Musick. 1995. The effect of market concentration on lamb marketing margins. J. Agric. Appl. Econ. 22:145–156. Byrne, P., O. Capps, Jr., and G. W. Williams. 1993. U.S. demand for lamb: The other red meat. J. Food Distrib. Res. 24(1):69–86. Capps, O., Jr., and G. W. Williams. 2005. Measuring the effectiveness of lamb advertising and promotion: An updated analysis. Commodity Market Research Report No. CM-01-05. Texas Agribusiness Market Research Center, Texas A&M University, College Station. September. Capps, O., Jr., and G. W. Williams. 2007. Is lamb promotion working? Commodity Market Research Report No. CM-01-07. Texas Agribusiness Market Research Center, Texas A&M University, College Station. November.

OCR for page 169
 THE U.S. LAMB INDUSTRY Capps, O., Jr., P. J. Byrne, and G. W. Williams. 1995. Analysis of marketing margins in the U.S. lamb industry. Agr. Res. Econ. Rev. 24(2):233–240. Carpenter, Z. L., G. T. King, F. A. Orts, and N. L. Cunningham. 1964. Factors influencing retail carcass value of lambs. J. Anim. Sci. 23:741–745. Cramer, D. A. 1983. Chemical compounds implicated in lamb flavor. Food Technol. 37:249. Cross, H. R., and K. E. Belk. 1994. Objective measurements of carcass and meat quality. Meat Sci. 36:191. Cunha, B. C., K. E. Belk, J. A. Scanga, S. B. Levalley, J. D. Tatum, and G. C. Smith. 2003. Vali- dation of regression equations that utilize lamb vision system (LVS) output to predict lamb carcass fabrication yields. USDA-AMS. Online at: http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/ getfile?dDocName=STELPRD3319271. Accessed May 1, 2008. Cunha, B. C., K. E. Belk, J. A. Scanga, S. B. Levalley, J. D. Tatum, and G. C. Smith. 2004. Development of validation of equations utilizing lamb vision system output to predict lamb carcass fabrication. J. Anim. Sci. 82:2069–2076. Edwards, J. W., R. C. Cannell, R. P. Garrett, J. W. Savell, H. R. Cross, and M. T. Longnecker. 1989. Using ultrasound, linear measurements and live fat thickness estimates to determine the carcass composition of market lambs. J. Anim. Sci. 67:3322–3330. Field, R. A., J. D. Kemp, and W. Y. Varney. 1963. Indices for lamb carcass composition. J. Anim. Sci. 22:3322–3330. Field, R. A., J. C. Williams, and G. J. Miller. 1983. The effect of diet on lamb flavor. Food Technol. 37(5):258. FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations). 2007. FAOSTAT— consumption. Online at: http://faostat.fao.org/site/345/default.aspx. Accessed April 30, 2008. Fox, J. A., L. S. Vander Wal, P. Udomvarapant, D. H. Kropf, E. A. E. Boyle, and C. L. Kastner. 2003. Consumer evaluation of pre-cooked lamb. Sheep Goat Res. J. 18:65–68. Fritz, K. D., M. D. Menzies, S. L. Boleman, J. W. Savell, and C. L. Skaggs. 1995. Effect of breed type, sex class, and antemortem evaluation of yield grade on carcass components of market lambs. Proc. Int. Congr. Meat Sci. Techn. 41:206–209. Garrett, R. P., J. W. Savell, S. G. May, H. K. Johnson, and H. R. Cross. 1990. Role of yield grade and carcass weight on the composition of lamb carcasses. J. Anim. Sci. 68:1299–1310. Garrett, R. P., J. W. Savell, H. R. Cross, and H. K. Johnson. 1992. Yield grade and carcass weight effects on the cutability of lamb carcasses fabricated into innovative style subpri- mals. J. Anim. Sci. 70:1829–1839. Glenn, J. S. 1994. The role of sheep and sheep products in waste management. Sheep Goat Res. J. Special Issue: The Role of Sheep Grazing in Natural Resource Management. Online at: http://www.sheepusa.org/index.phtml?page=site/newsandevents&nav_id=601e0a31 bbf6a0ef56f1f0591aa0dc78&volume=Special%20Issue:%201994%20--%20The%20 Role%20of%20Sheep%20Grazing%20in%20Natural%20Resource%20Management. Accessed May 2, 2008. Greer, H. C., and C. E. Ward. 2000. Regional differences in slaughter lamb marketing and prices. Sheep Goat Res. J. 16(2):52–57. Gross, J. B. 2007. American lamb attitude and usage study 2006. Presentation made at the American Lamb Board Meeting, San Antonio, TX, January 25. Harris Interactive, Inc. 2007. Trends survey—shopper. Online at: http://www.harrisinteractive. com. Accessed May 2, 2008. Harris, J. J., J. W. Savell, R. K. Miller, D. S. Hale, D. B. Griffin, L. C. Beasley, and H. R. Cross. 1990. A national market basket survey for lamb. J. Food Qual. 13:453–465. Heaton, K. L., J. B. Morgan, J. D. Tatum, J. W. Wise, R. P. Garrett, H. G. Dolezal, H. D. Loveday, and G. C. Smith. 1993. Field studies to document efficacy of visual assignments of lamb carcasses to appropriate yield grades. Sheep Res. J. 9:7–15.

OCR for page 169
 CHANGES IN THE SHEEP INDUSTRY IN THE UNITED STATES Heitmann, B. L. 1994. Impedance: A valid method in assessment of body composition? Euro. J. Clin. Nutr. 48:228. Hopkins, D. L., M. A. Anderson, J. B. Morgan, and D. G. Hall. 1995. A probe to measure GR in lamb carcasses at chain speed. Meat Sci. 39:159–165. Huffman, R. D. 2002. Current and future technologies for the decontamination of carcasses and fresh meat. Meat Sci. 62:285–294. Jamora, J. J., and K. S. Rhee. 1998. The uniqueness of lamb: Nutritional and sensory proper- ties. Sheep Goat Res. J. 14(1):53–64. Jenkins, T. G., K. A. Leymaster, and L. M. Turlington. 1988. Estimation of fat-free soft tissue in lamb carcasses by use of carcass and resistive impedance measurement. J. Anim. Sci. 66:2174–2179. Jensen, H. 2006. Consumer issues and demand. Choices 21(3):165–169. Johnson, M. L., and C. M. Parsons. 1997. Effects of raw material source, ash content, and assay length on protein efficiency ratio and net protein ratio values for animal protein meals. Poult. Sci. 76:1722–1727. Johnson, M. L., C. M. Parsons, G. C. Fahey, Jr., N. R. Merechen, and C. G. Aldrich. 1998. Effects of species raw material source, ash content, and processing temperature on amino acid digestibility of animal by-products meals by cecectomized roosters and ileally can- nulated dogs. J. Anim. Sci. 76:1112–1122. Jones, D. K., R. Leu, J. T. Kemp, J. W. Savell, and H. R. Cross. 1988. Consumer evaluation of sodium reduced, restructured lamb roasts. J. Food Qual. 11:235. Kaiser, H. M., J. M. Alston, J. M. Crespi, and R. J. Sexton (eds.). 2005. The Economics of Commodity Promotion Programs: Lessons from California. New York: Peter Lang Publishing. Kamnikar, B. 1992. Bioremediation of contaminated soil. Poll. Eng. (November):50–52. Kansas State University. 2007. Livestock and Meat: Marketing. AgManager.info. Online at: http://www.agmanager.info/livestock/marketing/graphs/. Accessed May 1, 2008. Last updated, January 22, 2007. Kochevar, S. L., J. N. Sofos, S. B. LeValley, and G. C. Smith. 1997. Effect of water tempera- ture, pressure and chemical solution on removal of fecal material and bacteria from lamb adipose tissue by spray-washing. Meat Sci. 45:377–388. Kremar, P., and E. Renova. 2003. Identification of species-specific DNA in feedstuffs. J. Agric. Food Chem. 51:7655–7658. Kunsman, J. E., and M. L. Riley. 1975. A comparison of hydrogen sulfide evolution from cooked lamb and other meats. J. Food Sci. 40:500. Leistner, L., and G. W. Gould. 2002. Hurdle Technologies: Combination Treatment for Food Stability, Safety and Quality. New York: Plenum Publishers. Lyons, K. 2000. How America’s eating has changed since the beginning of the 20th Century. EFood Rap Vol. 10, No. 15, Purdue University School of Consumer and Family Science, West Lafayette, IN. Magagna, J. 1991. Value-based marketing—A panel discussion. Proc. Rec. Meat Conf. 44:133. MC3. 2006. Product pipeline: MC3 artificial lung (Biolung®). Online at: http://www.mc3corp. com/case_studies/artificial_lung_bio/. Accessed May 1, 2008. McCoy, J. H. 1981. Livestock and meat marketing, 2nd Ed. Westport, CT: Avi Publishing Company, Inc. Meat New Zealand. 2007. Production information. Online at: http://www. meatandwoolnz. com/guide/en/product_info.htm. Accessed May 1, 2008. Meeker, D. L., and C. R. Hamilton. 2006. An overview of the rendering industry. Pp. 1–16 in Essential Rendering: All About the Animal By-products Industry. Alexandria, VA: National Renderers Association.

OCR for page 169
 THE U.S. LAMB INDUSTRY Menkhaus, D. J., G. D. Whipple, and C. E. Ward. 1989. Concentration in the lamb slaughter- ing industry: Impact on lamb prices. SID Sheep Res. J. 6:25–29. Millsaps Sorbent and Environmental Laboratory. 1993. Final report on sorbency evaluation for western textile products. Mintert, J. 2007. Annual choice retail beef demand index. Department of Agricultural Econom- ics. Kansas State University. Online at: http://www.agmanager.info/ livestock/marketing/ graphs/Meat%20Demand/Beef%20Demand/Annual%20Beef%20Demand/RetBfDmnd- IndexCPI.htm. Accessed May 2, 2008. Morris, C. E. 2003. Multiple hurdles minimize pathogens. Food Engineering. Online at: http://www. foodengineeringmag.com/CDA/Archives/3ffe92e5a22f8010VgnVCM100000f932a8c0__ __. Accessed March 28, 2007. Muhammad, A., K. G. Jones, and W. F. Hahn. 2007. The impact of domestic and import prices on U.S. lamb imports: a production system approach. Agr. Res. Econ. Rev. 36 (2):293–303. NPD. 2003. Eating Habits in America. NPD Group. Online at: www.npd.com. Perry, J., J. MacDonald, K. Nelson, W. Hahn, C. Arnade, and G. Plato. 2005. Did the man- datory requirement aid the market? Impact of the Livestock Mandatory Reporting Act. Outlook Report No. LDPM13501. Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Ag- riculture, Washington, DC. September. Online at: http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/ ldp/sep05/ldpm13501/. Accessed May 2, 2008. Purcell, W. D. 1989. Analysis of demand for beef, pork, lamb, and broilers: Implications for the future. Research Bulletin 1089. Research Institute on Livestock Pricing, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg. Purcell, W. D. 1998. Measures of changes in demand for beef, pork, and chicken, 1975–1998. Research Bulletin 3-98. Research Institute on Livestock Pricing, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg. Purcell, W. D., J. Reaves, and W. Preston. 1991. Economics of past, current, and pending change in the U.S. sheep industry with an emphasis on supply response. Research Bulletin 6-91. Research Institute on Livestock Pricing. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg. Purdue University. 2007. Lamb, from producer to consumer: Lamb meat product market- ing. Online at: http://ag.ansc.purdue.edu/sheep/ansc442/Semprojs/marketing/LambMeat ProductMarketing.htm. Accessed May 1, 2008. Reno Gazette Journal. 2005. Stem cell work raises hope for organ transplants. Online at: http:// corporate.recruitingnevada.com/newsarticle.php?id=1099. Accessed May 1, 2008. RTI (Research Triangle Institute International). 2007. Livestock and Meat Marketing Study. Volume 5: Lamb and Lamb Meat Industries. RTI Project No. 0209230. Final report pre- pared for the Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC, February. Reynolds, R. G., and B. Gardiner. 1980. Supply response in the Australian sheep industry: A case of disaggregation and dynamics. Austr. J. Agr. Econ. 24:196–209. Rhee, K. S., and Y. A. Ziprin. 1996. Identification and acceptance of lamb versus beef and pork by consumers and experienced sensory panelists. J. Muscle Foods 7:243. Richie, M. M. 1979. New Zealand beef and sheep supply relationships. Austr. J. Agri. Econ. 23:102–115. Savell, J. W. 1997. Animal Science 307 lecture notes. Texas A&M University, College Station. Savell, J. W., and H. R. Cross. 1991. Value-based marketing: Current status. Proc. Recip. Meat Conf. 44:117–120. Schroeder, T. C., R. J. Jernick, R. Jones, and C. Spaeth. 2001. U.S. lamb demand. Sheep Goat Res. J. 17:14–19.

OCR for page 169
 CHANGES IN THE SHEEP INDUSTRY IN THE UNITED STATES Schweigert, B. S. 1987. The nutritional content and value of meat products. Pp. 127–165 in The Science of Meat and Meat Products, J. F. Price and B. S. Schweigert, eds. Westport, CT: Food and Nutrition Press, Inc. Sealed Air Corporation. 2007. National meat case study. Cryovac Food Packaging Division. Online at: http://www.sealedair.com/products/food/nmcs.html. Accessed May 2, 2008. Shiflett, J. S., W. D. Purcell, D. Marsh, and P. Rodgers. 2007. Analysis of lamb demand in the United States. Report to the American Lamb Board, January. Sink, J. D., and F. Carporaso. 1977. Lamb and mutton flavor: Contributing factors and chemi- cal aspects. Meat Sci. 1:119–125. Slanger, W. D., M. J. Marchello, J. R. Busboom, H. H. Meyer, L. A. Mitchell, W. F. Hendrix, R. R. Mills, and W. R. Warnock. 1994. Predicting total weight of lamb retail-ready lamb cuts from bioelectrical impedance measurements taken at the processing plant. J. Anim. Sci. 72:1467–1474. Snowder, G. D., R. A. Field, and J. R. Busboom. 1994. Efficacy of body wall thickness and backfat depth for estimating percentage yield of retail cuts of lamb. Sheep Goat Res. J. 10(3):153–159. Tatum, J. D., J. W. Savell, H. R. Cross, and J. G. Butler. 1988. A national survey of lamb carcass cutability traits. SID Res. J. 5:23. Tatum, J. D., M. S. DeWalt, S. B. LeValley, J. W. Savell, R. P. Garrett, F. L. Williams, Jr., and J. W. Wise. 1992. Development of lamb classification and production systems to facilitate marketing based on carcass cutability. 1992 Sheep Research Highlights. Fort Collins: Colorado State University. Taylor, D. M., S. L. Woodgate, and M. J. Atkinson. 1995. Inactivation of the bovine spongiform encephalopathy agent by rendering procedures. Vet. Rec. 137:605–610. The Economist. 2007. Marketing to Muslims: food, fashion, and faith. August 2. The Freshlook Marketing Group. 2007. Data for lamb for 2003–2005. Online at: http://www. freshlookmarketing.com/. Accessed May 1, 2008. U.S. BLS (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics). 2007. Lamb price indices. Online at: www.bls.gov. Accessed May 1, 2008. USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture). 1996. Pathogen reduction; hazard analysis and criti- cal control point (HACCP) systems; final rule. Fed. Reg. 61(144):38805–38989. July 25. Online at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OPPDE/rdad/FRPubs/93-016F.pdf. Accessed July 25, 2007. USDA. 1999. Generic E. coli testing for sheep, goats, equines, ducks, geese, and guineas. Fed. Reg. 64(228):66547–66553. Online at: http://frwebgate1.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/wais- gate.cgi?WAISdocID=179567267383+0+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve. Accessed November 29, 2007. USDA. 2006. Red Meat Yearbook. Economic Research Service, Washington, DC. Last updated January 2006. Online at: http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/Mann Usda/viewDocumentInfo. do?documentID=1354. Accessed May 2, 2008. USDA. 2007a. Agricultural Outlook: Statistical indicators. Economic Research Service, Washington, DC. August. Online at: http://www.ers.usda.gov/Publications/AgOutlook/ AOTables/. Accessed May 2, 2008. USDA. 2007b. Quick Stats: National Agricultural Statistics Service. Online at: http://www.nass. usda.gov/Data_and_Statistics/Quick_Stats/index.asp. Accessed May 2, 2008. USDA. 2007c. Packers and Stockyards Statistical Report: 2005 reporting year. GIPSA Report No. SR-07-1. Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration, Washington, DC, February. Online at: http://archive.gipsa.usda.gov/pubs /2005_stat_report.pdf. Ac- cessed May 2, 2008.

OCR for page 169
 THE U.S. LAMB INDUSTRY USDA. 2007d. United States Standards for Grades of Slaughter Lambs, Yearlings, and Sheep. Effective date July 6, 1992. Agricultural Marketing Service, Washington, DC. Online at: http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getfile?dDocName=STELDEV3062573. Accessed May 2, 2008. USDA. 2007e. Food availability data system. Economic Research Service, Washington, DC. Last updated February 15, 2007. Online at: http://www.ers.usda.gov/data/foodconsumption/ FoodAvailIndex.htm. Accessed May 2, 2008. USDA. 2007f. Market and trade data. Foreign Agriculture Service. Online at: http://www.fas. usda.gov/markettradedata.asp. Accessed May 2, 2008. USDA. 2007g. Summary livestock and grain market news reports. Agricultural Marketing Service. Online at: http://amsdev.ams.usda.gov/lsgtest/NewMN/NatSum.htm. Accessed May 2, 2008. USITC (U.S. International Trade Commission). 1999. Lamb meat industry adjustment plan. Investigation No. TA-201-68. USITC Publication 3176. Washington, DC. Van Tassell, L. W., and G. D. Whipple. 1994. The cyclical nature of the U.S. sheep industry. J. Agr. Resour. Econ. 19:267–279. Vere, D., G. Griffiths, and R. Jones. 2000. The specification, estimation, and validation of a quarterly structural econometric model of the Australian grazing industries. CRC for Weed Management Systems Technical Series No. 5, University of Adelaide, Glen Osmond, Australia. Viator, C. L., S. C. Cates, M. K. Ruth, S. A. Karns, and G. Brester. 2007. Cash versus contract marketing in the U.S. lamb industry. Sheep Goat Res. J. 22:32–41. Wachenheim, D. E., L. L. Blythe, and A. M. Craig. 1992a. Effects of antibacterial agents on in vitro ovine ruminal biotransformation of the hepatoxic pyrrol-izidine alkaloid jacobine. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 58(8):2559–2564.. Wachenheim, D. E., L. L. Blythe, and A. M. Craig. 1992b. Characterization of rumen bacte- rial pyrroli-zidine alkaloid biotransformation in ruminants of various species. Vet. Hum. Toxic. 34(6):513–517. Welsh Country Food Group. 2007. An evaluation of the use of video image analysis to predict the classification and meat yield of sheep carcasses. http://www.hybucigcymru.org/up- loads/MediaRoot/416.pdf. Accessed May 1, 2008. Whipple, G. D., and D. J. Menkhaus. 1989. Supply response in the U.S. sheep industry. Amer. J. Agr. Econ. 71:126–135. Whipple, G. D., and D. J. Menkhaus. 1990. Welfare implications of the Wool Act. Western J. Agr. Econ. 15:126–135. Williams, G. W., and J. P. Nichols. 1998. Effectiveness of commodity promotion. Consumer and Product Research Report No. CP-01-98, Texas Agribusiness Market Research Center, Texas A&M University, College Station. May. Williams, G. W., and O. Capps, Jr. 2005. Household level lamb consumption patterns. Com- modity Market Research Report No. CM-02-05, Texas Agribusiness Market Research Center, Texas A&M University, College Station, September. Williams, G. W., O. Capps, Jr., R. Dietrich, J. W. Edwards, R. A. Field, H. L. Goodwin, Jr., D. B. Griffin, K. Litzenberg, J. P. Nichols, J. W. Savell, G. Smith, D. Tatum, and J. B. Ward. 1991. Assessment of marketing strategies to enhance returns to lamb producers. Commodity Research Report No. CM-1-91, Texas Agribusiness Market Research Center, Texas A&M University, College Station. Wishmeyer, D. L., G. D. Snowder, D. H. Clark, and N. E. Cockett. 1996. Prediction of live lamb chemical composition utilizing electromagnetic scanning (TOBEC). J. Anim. Sci. 74:1864–1872. Young, O. A., G. J. Cruickshank, K. S. Maclean, and P. D. Muir. 1994. Quality of meat from lambs grazed on 7 pastures in Hawkes Bay. N. Z. J. Agric. Res. 37:177–186.

OCR for page 169