National Academies Press: OpenBook

Beef for Tomorrow: Conference Proceedings (1960)

Chapter: How to Identify the Quality of Beef

« Previous: The Beef We Want
Suggested Citation:"How to Identify the Quality of Beef." National Research Council. 1960. Beef for Tomorrow: Conference Proceedings. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18571.
×
Page 37
Suggested Citation:"How to Identify the Quality of Beef." National Research Council. 1960. Beef for Tomorrow: Conference Proceedings. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18571.
×
Page 38
Suggested Citation:"How to Identify the Quality of Beef." National Research Council. 1960. Beef for Tomorrow: Conference Proceedings. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18571.
×
Page 39
Suggested Citation:"How to Identify the Quality of Beef." National Research Council. 1960. Beef for Tomorrow: Conference Proceedings. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18571.
×
Page 40
Suggested Citation:"How to Identify the Quality of Beef." National Research Council. 1960. Beef for Tomorrow: Conference Proceedings. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18571.
×
Page 41
Suggested Citation:"How to Identify the Quality of Beef." National Research Council. 1960. Beef for Tomorrow: Conference Proceedings. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18571.
×
Page 42
Suggested Citation:"How to Identify the Quality of Beef." National Research Council. 1960. Beef for Tomorrow: Conference Proceedings. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18571.
×
Page 43
Suggested Citation:"How to Identify the Quality of Beef." National Research Council. 1960. Beef for Tomorrow: Conference Proceedings. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18571.
×
Page 44
Suggested Citation:"How to Identify the Quality of Beef." National Research Council. 1960. Beef for Tomorrow: Conference Proceedings. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18571.
×
Page 45
Suggested Citation:"How to Identify the Quality of Beef." National Research Council. 1960. Beef for Tomorrow: Conference Proceedings. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18571.
×
Page 46
Suggested Citation:"How to Identify the Quality of Beef." National Research Council. 1960. Beef for Tomorrow: Conference Proceedings. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18571.
×
Page 47
Suggested Citation:"How to Identify the Quality of Beef." National Research Council. 1960. Beef for Tomorrow: Conference Proceedings. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18571.
×
Page 48
Suggested Citation:"How to Identify the Quality of Beef." National Research Council. 1960. Beef for Tomorrow: Conference Proceedings. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18571.
×
Page 49
Suggested Citation:"How to Identify the Quality of Beef." National Research Council. 1960. Beef for Tomorrow: Conference Proceedings. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18571.
×
Page 50
Suggested Citation:"How to Identify the Quality of Beef." National Research Council. 1960. Beef for Tomorrow: Conference Proceedings. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18571.
×
Page 51
Suggested Citation:"How to Identify the Quality of Beef." National Research Council. 1960. Beef for Tomorrow: Conference Proceedings. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18571.
×
Page 52
Suggested Citation:"How to Identify the Quality of Beef." National Research Council. 1960. Beef for Tomorrow: Conference Proceedings. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18571.
×
Page 53
Suggested Citation:"How to Identify the Quality of Beef." National Research Council. 1960. Beef for Tomorrow: Conference Proceedings. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18571.
×
Page 54
Suggested Citation:"How to Identify the Quality of Beef." National Research Council. 1960. Beef for Tomorrow: Conference Proceedings. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18571.
×
Page 55
Suggested Citation:"How to Identify the Quality of Beef." National Research Council. 1960. Beef for Tomorrow: Conference Proceedings. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18571.
×
Page 56
Suggested Citation:"How to Identify the Quality of Beef." National Research Council. 1960. Beef for Tomorrow: Conference Proceedings. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18571.
×
Page 57
Suggested Citation:"How to Identify the Quality of Beef." National Research Council. 1960. Beef for Tomorrow: Conference Proceedings. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18571.
×
Page 58
Suggested Citation:"How to Identify the Quality of Beef." National Research Council. 1960. Beef for Tomorrow: Conference Proceedings. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18571.
×
Page 59
Suggested Citation:"How to Identify the Quality of Beef." National Research Council. 1960. Beef for Tomorrow: Conference Proceedings. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18571.
×
Page 60
Suggested Citation:"How to Identify the Quality of Beef." National Research Council. 1960. Beef for Tomorrow: Conference Proceedings. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18571.
×
Page 61
Suggested Citation:"How to Identify the Quality of Beef." National Research Council. 1960. Beef for Tomorrow: Conference Proceedings. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18571.
×
Page 62
Suggested Citation:"How to Identify the Quality of Beef." National Research Council. 1960. Beef for Tomorrow: Conference Proceedings. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18571.
×
Page 63
Suggested Citation:"How to Identify the Quality of Beef." National Research Council. 1960. Beef for Tomorrow: Conference Proceedings. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18571.
×
Page 64
Suggested Citation:"How to Identify the Quality of Beef." National Research Council. 1960. Beef for Tomorrow: Conference Proceedings. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18571.
×
Page 65
Suggested Citation:"How to Identify the Quality of Beef." National Research Council. 1960. Beef for Tomorrow: Conference Proceedings. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18571.
×
Page 66
Suggested Citation:"How to Identify the Quality of Beef." National Research Council. 1960. Beef for Tomorrow: Conference Proceedings. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18571.
×
Page 67
Suggested Citation:"How to Identify the Quality of Beef." National Research Council. 1960. Beef for Tomorrow: Conference Proceedings. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18571.
×
Page 68
Suggested Citation:"How to Identify the Quality of Beef." National Research Council. 1960. Beef for Tomorrow: Conference Proceedings. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18571.
×
Page 69
Suggested Citation:"How to Identify the Quality of Beef." National Research Council. 1960. Beef for Tomorrow: Conference Proceedings. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18571.
×
Page 70
Suggested Citation:"How to Identify the Quality of Beef." National Research Council. 1960. Beef for Tomorrow: Conference Proceedings. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18571.
×
Page 71
Suggested Citation:"How to Identify the Quality of Beef." National Research Council. 1960. Beef for Tomorrow: Conference Proceedings. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18571.
×
Page 72
Suggested Citation:"How to Identify the Quality of Beef." National Research Council. 1960. Beef for Tomorrow: Conference Proceedings. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18571.
×
Page 73
Suggested Citation:"How to Identify the Quality of Beef." National Research Council. 1960. Beef for Tomorrow: Conference Proceedings. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18571.
×
Page 74

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

SECOND SESSION How to Identify the Quality of Beef C. Peairs Wilson, presiding Factors Indicative of Quality in Beef and Their Measurements A. M. Pearson Michigan State University THE WORD QUALITY has many connota- tions and each of us probably has a different conception of quality in beef. In speaking of quality in beef, I am referring to that combination of physical, struc- tural, and chemical characteristics which result in a maximum desirability from the standpoint of appearance and cat- ability. Thus, beef of the highest quality is attractive to the eye and produces a maximum of satiety upon consumption. Such a combination of traits will not only contribute to impulse buying at the meat counter but to continued consumption of beef. Factors Contributing to the Appearance of Beef Three attributes of meat would seem to contribute towards the desirability of its appearance: (1) color of lean, (2) color of fat, and (3) firmness of the cut. •Color of Lean Color of lean is seemingly the most im- portant factor from the appearance stand- point. The effect of discoloration or off-color upon the saleability of beef is well recognized by the meat retailer. Most of the color problems with beef are not directly related to production, but are associated with handling at the retail level. A discussion of the handling prob- lems is not feasible, but suffice it to say, a number of compounds, such as nico- tinate, ascorbate, and carbon monoxide, are available for color stabilization. How- ever, approval for usage is necessarily con- trolled by Federal laws. A problem of more importance is that of dark-cutter beef, or beef which fails to brighten on cutting and exposure to air. Hall, Latschar, and Mackintosh (1) in- vestigated the characteristics of dark cut- ting beef and established the fact that the brightness or darkness was pH dependent. At pH 5.6 or below, the color was nor- mally bright, and at 5.7 commenced to become shady or dull, while at 6.5 or above was dark. The oxygen uptake ca pacity of the dark muscles was greater than for the bright muscles, which indi- cated the failure to brighten was a direct consequence of the higher pH. Analysis showed the muscle glycogen reserves were partially depleted at death making less glycogen available for breakdown to lac- tic acid, which is directly responsible for the ultimate pH of the tissues. Proper handling prior to slaughter can materially reduce the incidence of this problem (2). Work with pork reported by Wilson et al. (3) indicated a marked breed varia- tion in color of lean. Differences were especially marked in the darker colored muscles. The major differences in color appeared to be related to variation in myoglobin content of the dark muscles between breeds. Whether variation in 37

38 BEEF FOR TOMORROW myoglobin content occurs between breeds or lines of cattle is not known, but studies are needed to ascertain if myoglobin con- tent may be a factor in color of beef. Color Measurement. Color is difficult to measure since it is composed of three independent variables: hue, chroma, and value. Nickerson (4) has written an ex- cellent review on the subject of color. As mentioned earlier, myoglobin con- tent can be used as an indication of color, but is not an accurate measure (5). Wink- ler (6) developed a photoelectric color comparator, which has seen limited usage in meat studies. The Hunter Color and Color Difference Meter (7) has been widely used in meat studies and operates as a tristimulus colorimeter that meas- ures color directly on three scales, bright- ness, redness, and yellowness. Disk color- imetry was developed by the USDA (5) and makes use of varying the proportion of red, yellow, black, and white. The percentage of these colors can then be converted to Munsell renotations of hue, value, and chroma. A number of work- ers (8, 9) have used the spectrophotometer for color measurements, while color paddles have been used in most work on the dark-cutter beef (1). Unfortunately, none of the methods for measuring color is easily described in terms which can be readily understood. However, it would appear that either the Hunter Color and Color Difference Meter or the Munsell Spinning Disks are the best methods currently available. A simple, rapid method is still needed which can be used to express meat color in a di- rect meaningful manner. Color of Fat USDA grade specifications for color of fat have been deleted, but many graders and most retailers discriminate against cattle with yellow fat. The basis for the objection is that cattle with yellow fat "lack in quality" or are of "inferior breeding.' To my knowledge, there is no basis for such discrimination. Consumer studies in Washington (10) and Texas (11) have indicated that yellow fat per se is not objectionable to the consumer. Color of fat can be influenced by breed- ing and feeding. It is well established that Jerseys and Guernseys (12) tend to store their vitamin A reserves in the form of carotene, which imparts the yellow color to fat. Grass-fed cattle also tend to store carotene, and thus, have yellow fat. Therefore, the discrimination against yel- low-fat seems to be largely a result of the association with certain dairy breeds or with feeding on grass. In final analysis, color of fat would ap- pear to be of little importance from the consumer standpoint. Any advantage in color of fat from cattle having similar breeding and finish would tend to favor yellow fat, because of the greater potential vitamin A potency (13). Measurement of Fat Color. Determina- tion of color of fat can best be accom- plished by extracting the fat and meas- uring the concentration of carotene per unit of fat by either a colorimeter or spec- trophotometer (14). Although attempts have been made to develop visual stand- ards for fat color, application has been difficult. Firmness of Cuts Soft watery cuts are unattractive and move slowly at the retail outlets. Because measurement of firmness is difficult, studies have necessarily been limited. The factors responsible for softness are not well-known in beef, although exten- sive studies have been conducted with pork (15). Results of the studies on pork would lead one to believe the major causes of softness are related to diet. How- ever, according to Maynard (12), cattle tend to deposit their fat in a characteristic manner for the species regardless of diet. This has been borne out by studies at the Iowa station (16, 17) showing that firm- ness of fat and lean was not altered by the addition of high levels of oils to a basal ration. Age appears to have a definite effect upon firmness, with calves and veal being soft and watery while

IDENTIFYING THE QUALITY OF BEEF 39 older cattle are more firm. Recent work by Swift and Berman (18) would indi- cate that firmness varies from muscle to muscle in the same carcass and tends to follow the same pattern between car- casses. Measurement of Firmness. Subjective visual ratings appear to be the most re- liable means of measuring firmness. This would seem to generally be adequate, since only major differences appear to be important. Recent studies by U.S.D.A. workers (18) indicate that water reten- tion of muscles may possibly be used as an index to firmness, but this has not been definitely established. Factors Contributing to Eatibility of Beef From the standpoint of the greatest amount of satisfaction upon consumption, the consumer appears to desire a maxi- mum of tenderness combined with his ideal for juiciness, aroma, flavor, and tex- ture. It is obvious that all may not de- sire the same combination of factors since preferences vary from person to person. Tenderness Consumer surveys have indicated that tenderness is the most important single characteristic desired from the palatibility standpoint. Recognition of tenderness in the beef carcass without subjective or ob- jective testing is much more difficult. Many different factors have been sug- gested as possible indicators of tender- ness including such items as conforma- tion, maturity, finish, marbling, and his- tological structure. Conformation does not appear to be related to tenderness ac- cording to recent studies (19). Maturity. It has been generally ac- cepted that older animals are not so tender as young animals. Work at the Iowa Station (20) indicated that age was related to tenderness, while more recently work at California (21, 22) has shown that cattle finished at 18 months were more tender than those finished at 30 months. This was true for both a large scale household type panel and for a trained taste panel. Thus, maturity of beef at the time of slaughter appears to be an important factor in aiding tender- ness. Determination of maturity is a much more difficult task. Maturity in the car- cass is generally ascertained by subjective judgment as to the appearance of the bone and cartilage. It is apparent that this may not be an indication of age per se. In fact, McCay, Crowell, and Maynard (23) have shown with rats that when growth was slow, the rats grew longer and the epiphysis did not ossify until they reached a more advanced age. Although Winchester and others (24, 25) found de- layed growth did not effect the tenderness of cattle, they did not make studies upon the nature of the bone and cartilage at slaughter. It is evident that bone appearance or maturity alone is not responsible for tenderness since some 3 to 5 per cent of all cutter and canner cows are as tender as young beef. Thus, work is needed to ascertain if a relationship exists between hardness of bone and tenderness. Meas- urement of hardness of bone is difficult. Breaking strength has been used but is not a true measure of hardness (26). Rockwell numbers cannot be used for measuring bone hardness, as the spongi- ness and resiliency of bone makes such determinations meaningless. Measure- ment of bone hardness by total ash de- termination per unit of weight appears to be the most feasible method. Finish. The amount and distribution of fat covering has been emphasized in the past. The trade has required a com- pletely and uniformly covered carcass. The reasoning behind such requirements has been that the fat prevents the carcass from drying out and allows for aging and shipping. It has also been claimed that the thicker covered carcasses are more tender, if other things are equal. It has been reported by several workers (27, 28, 29) that as a stepwise decrease occurs in grade, the average tenderness score is lowered. However, there is generally con- siderable over-lap between grades, and dif-

40 BEEF FOR TOMORROW ferences between adjacent grades are usually not greatly different. Whether this effect is due to fat per se or due to some other associated factor is not known. Measurement of finish can be accom- plished by specific gravity determinations on the entire carcass or for any particular cut. A number of workers have indi- cated the reliability (30,31,32) of specific gravity as an indicator of finish. Linear fat measurements can be used to measure exterior fat thickness, but variation from site to site may minimize its value. Fur- thermore, linear measurements do not ac- count for either intra or inter-muscular fat deposits. Actually, the most accurate way of measuring fatness is by grinding and chemical analysis or by physical sepa- ration. However, both chemical analysis and physical separation are time con- suming, tedious, and expensive. Selection of a method for determining fatness would therefore depend upon the nature of the study being conducted and the availability of facilities, funds, and manpower. Marbling. The amount and distribu- tion of intramuscular fat, commonly called marbling, has been quite generally accepted as an indicator of tenderness by the trade. The basis for stressing marbling is unquestionably the result of earlier experiments (20, 34) which showed higher finished cattle to be more tender. Furthermore, there should be a mechanical advantage to marbling, if the fat and its supporting connective tissue are more tender than lean. However, Ramsbottom, Strandine, and Koonz (33) found extreme variation existed in tender- ness readings from external fat samples taken from different sites. Although no feasible method of measuring the tender- ness of marbling is available today it is conceivable that the resistance offered by marbling could differ from location to lo- cation and from animal to animal. Although Hostetler, Foster, and Hank- ins (34) obtained evidence that marbling was not an important factor in tender- ness over 20 years ago, marbling has con- tinued to be stressed by trade practices as important. The earlier work was further collaborated by Ramsbottom, Strandine, and Koonz (33) who in 1945 stated, "The data show that there was no relationship between the amount of fat within the muscle and the shear of the raw or cooked muscle." Cover, Butler, and Cartwright (35) studied the effect of marbling (ether ex- tract) upon tenderness, and found a disappointingly low relationship for a fac- tor receiving such homage. The correla- tion of coefficients are summarized in Table 1. Palmer et al. (36) obtained similar relationships between marbling and tenderness of loin steaks which has since been further substantiated by Well- ington and Stouffer (37). Thus, results would indicate some factor other than marbling is responsible for tenderness variation. TABLE 1 Relationship between Ether Extract and Tenderness Tenderness Score Shear Force Loin Broiled Braised Bottom Round Broiled Braised .34 .30 .50 .54 -.33 -.34 -.35 -.52 Measurement of marbling can be accom- plished by ether extraction of the ground muscle, which is probably the accepted method. Orme et al. (38) were able to obtain a good estimate of marbling by specific gravity determinations, which is a fairly simple, non-destructive, but painstaking method. Visual estimation of marbling deposits has been made with good accuracy, but the method is too sub- jective for worker to worker comparisons. Recently, Blumer and Fleming (39) have proposed the use of a colony counter as a visual means of determining the amount

IDENTIFYING THE QUALITY OF BEEF 41 and distribution of marbling. Interest- ingly enough, they found considerable variation in marbling from side to side and location to location within the same muscle. Histological Structure. As the science of biochemistry has come into its own, little emphasis has been placed upon his- tological structure as it is related to tenderness. Most of the work has come from the laboratory of John Hammond (40) at Cambridge or from the American Meat Institute where Wang (41) has conducted some excellent studies. Joubert (42) at Cambridge has recently shown that there was no increase in the number of muscle fibers after birth, with muscular growth during post-natal life oc- curring as a hypertrophy of individual fibers. This is in agreement with earlier statements of Hammond (40). Joubert (42) studied the effect of breeds of cattle upon muscle fiber diameter and found that Friesan and Friesan crossbred steers had significantly thicker muscle fibers than the pure- or crossbred Dairy Short- horn steers. Table 2 gives a summary of mean fiber diameters for the different breeds and crosses. The effect of fiber diameter upon tenderness is not clear-cut, although with beef a low relationship be- tween fiber diameter and tenderness has been verified by a number of workers (43, 44) . Thus, fiber diameter is obviously not directly responsible for tenderness variation, although other structural dif- ferences may be primarily responsible for tenderness. The amount and character of connec- tive tissue has been extensively studied. Ramsbottom, Strandine, and Koonz (33) studied samples of white and yellow con- nective tissue both before and after cook- ing. Both types of raw connective tissue had very high shear readings, while after cooking considerably less force was re- quired to shear the white connective tis- sue than the yellow. However, data available indicates that connective tissue is not the major contributor to tender- ness as Wierbicki et al. (45) have been TABLE 2 Muscle Fiber Diameter of Different Breeds and Crosses Muscle fiber diameter (u.) Dairy Shorthorn X Dairy Shorthorn X Hereford X Angus Mean—Dairy Shorthorn Crosses Friesian X Friesian X Hereford X Angus Mean—Friesian Crosses 44.00 45.75 46.50 45.36 49.50 47.50 49.25 48.63 unable to relate hydroxyproline content, which is a good index for amount of col- lagen, to tenderness. Recently Pearson, Spooner, and Orme (46) at the Michigan Station investigated the distance between the A-Z bands as a possible measure of thickness of the sar- colemma, which could possibly be related to tenderness. Results showed no rela- tionship between tenderness and the dis- tance between the A-Z bands. However, the technique was such that the work should be repeated. Muscle fiber extensi- bility has been shown to be significantly related to tenderness in studies by Wang et al. (41), with "r" values ranging from —.43 to —.65. New tools are available for histological research today, which could be used for investigating the structure of muscle as related to tenderness. They include such items as the electron microscope for de- tailed study, and the use of carbowax and freeze drying as a means of preventing tissue distortion. New methods of light- ing such as phase contrast and the use of polarized light offer new possibilities, especially when coupled with special staining techniques. In light of these new tools, a completely different approach should be made on histological studies.

42 BEEF FOR TOMORROW Effect of Rigor Mortis on Tenderness. Since most meat in this country goes through rigor mortis prior to consump- tion, changes occurring and their effect on tenderness are of interest. It has been established that beef (47, 48) is quite tender at slaughter, becomes less tender as rigor occurs and then becomes more tender as aging is extended (Table 3). TABLE 3 Effect of Storage After Slaughter on Shear Values of Steaks Hours after Slaughter Semitendinosus Biceps Femoris 0 12.26 10.95 5 17.02 15.15 12 19.10 14.85 24 18.89 14.73 48-53 17.14 12.35 144-149 11.66 9.86 Two theories of rigor have been ad- vanced and an excellent review has been written by Bate-Smith (49). He con- cluded that rigor mortis is due to the dis- appearance of ATP and can occur regard- less of pH. Szent-Gyfirgyi (50) concluded that myosin A, Actin, ATP, K, Ca, and Mg ions are essential components of the muscle system. In resting muscle, myosin A was believed to be present as a stable complex with a complement of K, Ca, Mg, and ATP which is uncombined with actin. In relaxed living muscle, a stimulus or nerve impulse dislodges the combined ion, and the actin then combines with myosin A and ATP. In regeneration or the rest- ing phase, the myosin A-K-ATP complex is again formed with the loss of some ATP. In death the ATP is used up and the K diffuses out and is combined with acids for buffering. The myosin A and actin combine to form actomyosin, which in the absence of ATP is extended and confers rigidity to the dead muscle. Bate-Smith (49) went a step further and on the basis of evidence postulated that an additional cross-linkage occurs be- tween the muscle filaments, which is probably of the hydrogen bridge type. Further studies of this nature are needed to clarify what is happening in rigor and to perhaps solve the basic reason for the changes in the properties of the meat pro- teins during rigor. Wierbicki (51) and others have worked on the ionic shifts as responsible for changes in the amount of hydration and possibly tenderness. Al- though there is a relation between hydra- tion and tenderness, it does not appear to be responsible for tenderness per se. Measurement of Tenderness. Although consumer acceptance provides the ulti- mate test for measuring tenderness or any other desired attribute of meat, the use of small taste panels is involved and poses many problems, such as the method of presentation, score cards, and selection of panel members. Although taste panek are not strictly objective and results may vary, their usage is still believed to be a useful adjunct in measuring tenderness. Lowe (52) suggested the chew count method, which we have satisfactorily adopted to measuring tenderness in our laboratory. More recently, Cover (53) has described a method of scoring tender- ness on the basis of softness (sensations from tongue and cheek and ease with which the teeth sink into meat on first bite), friability (crumbliness of muscle fibers) and tenderness of connective tissue (rated as no connective tissue, some is felt or heard during chewing but disappears, or some is left after chewing and must be gulped or discarded). This method ap- pears to be a logical way of scoring for tenderness, and should help to explain the variation observed. Both the chew count and the method of Cover appear to offer distinct advantages in research over the more common subjective methods of scoring. Wierbicki and others (54, 55) have found water binding capacity is re- lated to tenderness and have developed a method for measurement of water reten- tion. However, the effect of water bind- ing capacity on tenderness appears to be an associative phenomena rather than a direct causative effect (56).

IDENTIFYING THE QUALITY OF BEEF 43 Most researchers have looked towards objective methods of measuring tender- ness. Schultz (57) has written an excel- lent review on the mechanical methods for measuring tenderness, which range from artificial dentures attached to a strain gauge to penetration devices. Briefly, the methods can be divided into shear devices, penetration devices, and food grinder methods. The shear meth- ods most commonly used are the Warner- Bra tzler shear and the Kramer shear press. The Warner-Bratzler shear is correlated with panel scores for tenderness to the ex- tent of approximately .70 in numerous studies. The Kramer shear press, which has been used primarily for measuring tenderness in vegetables, shows some promise for meats work. Probably, the most interesting device is the Recording Strain-Gauge Tenderometer, which was developed by Proctor, Davison, and Brody (58) at MIT and simulates the chewing mechanism of the human. The food grinder has been used as a tenderometer and by wiring the grinder in series with an A.C. ammeter, it is pos- sible to plot power consumption in watts as a function of time to represent total energy expended in grinding the sample. This method was developed by Miyada and Tappel (59), but more recently, Emerson and Palmer (60) reported the Warner-Bratzler shear gave a better rela- tionship to panel scores than the food grinder. As a parting shot on tenderness, I should like to question the validity of our present emphasis upon tenderness in view of enzyme treated steaks, enzyme injec- tions in the live animal, and the possible use of ultrasonics for tenderization. Juiciness Relationship to Marbling. Cover, But- ler, and Cartwright (35), found that marbling (ether extract) and juiciness scores were related. However, the "r" values were only .51 for broiled loin steak, .36 for braised loin steak, .38 for broiled bottom round, and .25 for braised bottom round. These relationships, although low, were considerably higher than the correlation coefficients for marbling and tenderness, which indicates marbling is more closely related to juiciness than to tenderness. Effects of Moisture Content. Neither moisture content nor press fluid have been found to be closely related to juiciness. Effects of Age. The effects of age and degree of fatness on juiciness is presented in Table 4 (20). There appeared to be a slight advantage in both quality and quantity of juiciness as the animals be- came older, but the changes with age were more regular for quality. Quantity of juiciness seemed to be influenced more by the amount of finish, as the feeder cattle were always rated lower than the finished animals of the same age. This is in agreement with other work indicating that marbling is related to juiciness but the relationship is not high (35, 36, 37). TABLE 4 Effects of Age and Finish Upon Juiciness Quality of Quantity of Juiciness Juiciness Calves — feeders 11.13 5.68 Calves — fattened 11.37 7.37 Yearlings — feeders 11.57 5.63 Yearlings — fattened 11.92 8.04 2-yr. old — feeders 12.44 6.33 2-yr. old — fattened 13.11 8.04 Methods of Measuring Juiciness. Al- though press fluid and total moisture would both be logically believed to be related to juiciness, such has not been the case. There appears to be some evi- dence that waterbinding capacity may be related to juiciness, but as yet the evidence is not adequate. At present the only legitimate way of scoring for juiciness ap- pears to be by subjective panel ratings. Texture Little is known about the influence of texture upon eatability, although it is generally accepted that texture is closely

BEEF FOR TOMORROW allied with tenderness. Even though the size of the muscle fibers as determined histologically is associated with tender- ness to a limited extent (43, 44), no at- tempt has been made to relate visual tex- ture ratings with the microscopically de- termined texture to my knowledge. Con- sequently, we cannot say that texture as felt upon eating meat is associated with its microscopic appearance, although they would logically be expected to be related. However, Kropf and Graf (61) have re- cently shown that visual ratings for tex- ture were related to mechanical shear readings with an "r" value of —.54. If such a relationship exists between texture and eatability, logically it can be asked whether such an effect is due to a direct causative effect of texture or whether the association is indirect. Consequently, studies on texture and its effect upon the eatability of meat are definitely needed. Aroma and Flavor For the purposes of this discussion, aroma and flavor are being grouped to- gether since Crocker (62) reported that flavor of cooked beef consisted more of odor than of taste. This was verified by Kramlich and Pearson (63) who found that the flavor of cooked beef could not be detected when the taster held his nostrils, but on release of the nostrils a flood of flavor filled the mouth. Conse- quently, flavor as used in this discussion shall include aroma. Chemically, flavor of meat is compli- cated and until recently had been at- tributed to the nitrogenous extractives, such as creating creatinine, the various purines, and pyrimidines. However, re- cent work (64, 65) has shown a number of compounds appear to be possible con- tributors to meat flavor. Kramlich (65) found, using gas chromatography, that the volatiles expelled during cooking beef gave six distinct peaks which were tenta- tively identified as carbon dioxide, methyl mercaptan, acetaldehyde, methyl sulfide, acetone and water. It is obvious that all of these compounds may not be contribu- tors to flavor, although it is possible that a combination may be responsible for beef flavor. Measurement of Flavor. In the past, studies on flavor have necessarily been limited to subjective panel ratings. Even today we must lean heavily upon such techniques, as instruments do not record taste sensations but merely can be used for identification of such compounds. However, during recent years several of the newer techniques for identification of compounds have been applied to flavor problems. Both paper chromatography (67) and gas chromatography (64, 65) have been ap- plied to studying beef flavor, although the major amount of effort has been ex- pended in studying irradiation-induced flavors in meat. Mass spectroscopy (65) has also been used in attacking the same problems. In addition, chemical ap- proaches have been made to measurement of flavor contributing components by quantitative methods of determining single components such as methyl mer- captan (68), carbonyls (69), and hydro- gen sulfide (70). Final identification and establishment of the importance of the various flavor components will unquestionably be the result of chemical methods of identifica- tion of their importance by trained taste panels. This will be an interesting field to watch, and one that could well result in tremendous expansion of meat substi- tutes unless producers, processors, and re- searchers combine to make meat more economical than possible substitutes. Another point of interest is that of flavor enzymes. Recent work with vege- tables has shown that the addition of cer- tain natural enzymes will materially en- hance flavor (71). As yet no work has been done with flavor enzymes in meat, but it appears probable that certain naturally occurring enzymes would greatly accelerate and improve the de- velopment of beef flavor.

IDENTIFYING THE QUALITY OF BEEF 45 Summary This discussion has been an attempt to point out some of the basic problems in evaluating quality of beef in light of our present knowledge. Coupled with the problems, possible research tools for studying them have been suggested. It is realized that objective tools are not always at hand for measuring quality in beef, but subjective methods can often be used effectively. The methods men- tioned would appear to be useful for measurement of quality, but there are other methods available and unquestion- ably new methods will be developed that will supercede many of those mentioned. References 1. Hall, J. L., E. E. Latschar and D. L. Mackin- tosh. 1944. Characteristics of dark cutting beef. Survey and preliminary investigation. Kansas Agr. Exp. Sta. Tech. Bui. 58. 2. Ramsbottom, J. M., E. J. Czarnetzky, H. R. Kraybill, B. M. Shinn, A. I. Coombes, D. H. LaVoi and D. A. Greenwood. 1949. Dark Cutting Beef. Factors Affecting the Color of Beef. Report of the Committee on Chem- istry of Dark Cutting Beef, American Meat Institute. National Live Stock and Meat Board, Chicago, 11i. 3. Wilson, G. D., I. D. Ginger, and B. S. Schwei- gert. 1959. A study of the variations of myoglobin concentration in "two-toned" hams. J. An. Sci. 18:1080. 4. Nickerson, D. 1929. Method of determining color of agricultural products. U.S.D.A. Tech. Bui. 154. 5. Henry, W. E. 1959. The effect of mineral supplementation on the color and myo- globin concentration of pork muscle. M. S. Thesis, Michigan State University. 6. Winkler, C. A. 1939. Color of meat; appara- tus for its measurement and relation be- tween pH and color. Can. J. Res. 17:1. 7. Hunter, R. S. 1948. Photoelectric Color- Difference Meter. J. Opt. Soc. of America. 38:661. 8. Kennedy, R. P. and G. H. Whipple. 1926. The identity of muscle hemoglobin and blood hemoglobin. Am. J. Physiol. 76:685. 9. Bull, S., and H. P. Rusk. 1942. Effects of Exercise on Quality of Beef. Illinois Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. 488. 10. Van Syckle, C. and O. L. Brough. 1958. Cus- tomer acceptance of fat characteristics of beef. Washington Agr. Exp. Sta. Tech. Bui. 27. 11. Branson, R. E. 1957. The consumer market for beef. Texas Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. 856. 12. Maynard, L. A. 1937. Animal Nutrition. 1st ed. McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., New York, N. Y. 13. Morrison, F. B. 1956. Feeds and Feeding. 22nd ed., Morrison Pub. Co., Ithaca, N.Y. 14. Bunnell, R. H., J. E. Rousseau, Jr., H. D. Eaton and G. Beall. 1954. Estimation of vitamin A and carotenoids in calf liver. J. Dairy Sci. 37:1473. 15. Ellis, N. R. 1933. Changes in quantity and composition of fat in hogs fed a peanut ration followed by a corn ration. U.S.D.A. Tech. Bui. 368. 16. Thomas, B. H. and C. C. Culbertson. 1933. The effect of soybeans on the firmness of beef fat. Proc. Am. Soc. An. Prod., p. 65. 17. Thomas, B. H., C. C. Culbertson, F. Beard, J. A. Shulz and B. Lowe. 1935. Effects of oils of different iodine numbers upon qual- ity and palatability of beef fat. Proc. Am. Soc. An. Prod., p. 286. 18. Swift, C. E. and M. D. Berman. 1959. Factors affecting the water retention of beef. I. Variations in composition and properties among eight muscles. Food Tech. 8:365. 19. Orme, L. E., J. W. Cole and C. M. Kincaid. 1959. The effect of types and breeds upon tenderness in beef. Unpublished data. Uni- versity of Tennessee. 20. Helser, M. D., P. M. Nelson and B. Lowe. 1930. Influence of the animals age upon the quality and palatability of beef. Iowa Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. 272. 21. Dunsing, M. 1959. Visual and eating prefer- ences of consumer household panel for beef from animals of different age. Food Tech. 13:332. 22. Simone, M., P. Carroll and C. O. Chichester. 1959. Differences in eating quality factors for beef from 18 and 30 month steers. 23. McCay, C. M., M. Crowell and L. A. Maynard. 1935. The effect of retarded growth upon the length of life span and ultimate body size. J. Nutr. 10:63. 24. Winchester, C. F. and P. E. Howe. 1955. Relative effects of continuous and inter- rupted growth on beef steers. U.SJJA. Tech. Bui. 1108. 25. Winchester, C. F. and N. R. Ellis. 1957. Delayed growth of beef cattle. U.S.D.A. Tech. Bui. 1159.

BEEF FOR TOMORROW 26. Orme, L. E. 1958. Methods for estimating carcass characteristics in beef. Ph. D. Thesis. Michigan State University. 27. Cover, S., G. T. King and O. D. Butler. 1958. Effect of carcass grades and fatness on ten- derness of meat from steers of known his- tory. Texas Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. 889. 28. Lasley, F. G., E. R. Kiehl and D. E. Brady. 1955. Consumer preference for beef in re- lation to finish. Missouri Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. 580. 29. Brady, D. E. 1957. Results of consumer pref- erence studies. J. An. Sci. 16:233. 30. Brown, C. J., J. C. Hillier and J. A. Whatley. 1951. Specific gravity as a measure of the fat content of the pork carcasses. J. An. Sci. 10:97. 31. Whiteman, J. V., J. A. Whatley and J. C. Hil- lier. 1956. A further investigation of spe- cific gravity as a measure of pork carcass value. J. An. Sci. 12:859. 32. Pearson, A. M., L. J. Bratzler, R. J. Deans, J. F. Price, J. A. Hoefer, E. P. Reincke and R. W. Luecke. 1956. The use of specific gravity of certain untrimmed pork cuts as a measure of carcass value. J. An. Sci. 15:86. 33. Ramsbottom, J. M., E. J. Strandine and C. H. Koonz. 1945. Comparative tenderness of representative beef muscles. Food. Res. 10: 497. 34. Hostetler, E. H., J. E. Foster and O. G. Han- kins. 1936. Production and quality of meat from native and grade yearling cattle. North Carolina Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. 307. 35. Cover, S., O. D. Butler and T. C. Cartwight. 1956. The relationship of fatness in year- ling steers to juiciness and tenderness of broiled and braised steaks. J. An. Sci. 15:464. 36. Palmer, A. Z., J. W. Carpenter, R. L. Als- meyer, H. L. Chapman and W. G. Kirk. 1958. Simple correlation between carcass grade, marbling, ether extract of loin eye and beef tenderness. J. An. Sci. 17:1153. 37. Wellington, G. H. and J. R. Stouffer. 1959. Beef marbling. Its estimation and influence on tenderness and juiciness. Cornell Univ. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. 941. 38. Orme, L. E., A. M. Pearson, L. J. Bratzler and W. T. Magee. 1958. Specific gravity as an objective measure of marbling. J. An. Sci. 17:693. 39. Blumer, T. N. and H. P. Fleming. 1959. A method for the quantitative estimation of marbling in the beef rib eye muscle. J. An. Sci. 18:959. 40. Hammond, J. 1932. The Growth and Devel- opment of Mutton Qualities in Sheep. Oliver and Boyd. London. 41. Wang. H., D. M. Doty, F. J. Beard, J. C. Pierce and O. G. Hankins. 1956. Extensi- bility of single beef muscle fibers. J. An. Sci. 15:97. 42. Joubert, D. M. 1956. An analysis of factors influencing post-natal growth and develop- ment of the muscle fiber. J. Agr. Sci. 47:59. 43. Brady, D. E. 1937. A study of the factors influencing tenderness and texture of beef. Proc. Am. Soc. An. Prod. 30:246. 44. Hiner, R. L., O. G. Hankins, H. S. Sloane, C. R. Fellers and E. E. Anderson, 1953. Fiber diameter in relation to tenderness of beef muscle. Food Res. 18:364. 45. Wierbicki, E., L. E. Kunkle, V. R. Cahill and F. E. Deatherage. 1954. The relation of tenderness to protein alterations during post-mortem aging. Food Tech. 8:506. 46. Pearson, A. M., M. E. Spooler and L. E. Orme. 1958. The relationship between dis- tance of the A-Z bands and tenderness. Unpublished data. Michigan State Univ. 47. Paul, P., L. J. Bratzler, E. D. Farwell and K. Knight. 1952. Studies on tenderness of beef. I. Rate and heat penetration. Food Res. 17:504. 48. Ramsbottom and Strandine. 1949. Initial physical and chemical changes in beef as related to tenderness. J. An. Sci. 8:398. 49. Bate-Smith, E. C. 1948. The physiology and chemistry of rigor mortis with special ref- erence to the aging of beef. Adv. in Food Res. 1:1. 50. Szent-Gyorgyi, A. 1945. Studies on muscle. Acta Physiol. Scrand. 9. Suppl. 25. 51. Wierbicki, E., V. R. Cahill and F. E. Deather- age. 1957. Effects of added sodium chlo- ride, magnesium chloride and citric acid on meat shrinkage at 70°C. and of added so- dium chloride on drip losses after freezing and thawing. Food Tech. 11:74. 52. Lowe, B. 1949. Organoleptic tests developed for measuring palatability of meat. Proc. 2nd Ann. Recip. Meat Conf. 2:111. 53. Cover, S. 1958. An approach to measuring beef tenderness. Proc. 11th Ann. Recip. Meat Conf. 11:217. 54. Wierbicki, E., L. E. Kunkle and F. E. Dea- therage. 1957. Changes in the water-hold- ing capacity and cationic shifts during the heating and freezing and thawing of meat as revealed by a simple centrifugal method for measuring shrinkage. Food Tech. 11:69. 55. Wierbicki, E. and F. E. Deatherage. 1958. Determination of water-holding capacity of fresh meats. J. Agr. and Food Chem. 6:387. 56. Webb, N. B. 1959. The tenderness of beef as related to tissue components, age, stress and post-mortem biochemical changes. Ph. D. Thesis. Univ. of Missouri. 57. Schultz, H. W. 1957. Mechanical methods of measuring tenderness of meat. Proc 10th Ann. Recip. Meat Conf. 10:17.

IDENTIFYING THE QUALITY OF BEEF 47 58. Proctor, B. E., S. Davison and A. L. Brody. 1956. A recording strain-gage denture ten- derometer for foods. II. Studies on the masticatory force and motion, and the force-penetration relationship. Food Tech. 10:327. 59. Miyada, D. S. and A. L. Tappel. 1956. Meat tenderization. I. Two mechanical devices for measuring texture. Food Tech. 10:142. 60. Emerson, J. A. and A. Z. Palmer. 1957. A motorized food grinder-recording ammeter technique in determining beef tenderness. J. An. Sci. 17:1154. 61. Kropf, D. H. and R. L. Graf. 1959. Interre- lationships of subjective, chemical and sensory evaluations of beef quality. Food Tech. 13:492. 62. Crocker, E. C. 1948. Flavor of meat. Food Res. 13:179. 63. Kramlich, W. E. and A. M. Pearson. 1958. Some preliminary studies on meat flavor. Food Res. 23:567. 64. Merritt, O. D., S. R. Kresnick, M. L. Bazinet, J. T. Walsh and P. Angelini. 1958. The determination of volatile components of foodstuffs. I. Techniques and some pre- liminary studies on irradiated beef. Res. Rpt.—Analyt. Chem. Ser. #9. Q. M. Re- search and Engineering Command, p. 19. 65. Si.,hi, W. H. 1957. Gas chromatography and mass spectrometry. Chemistry of natural food flavors—a symposium. Q. M. Food and Container Inst., p. 58. 66. Kramlich, W. E. 1959. Separation and iden- tification of beef flavor components. Ph. D. Thesis, Mich. State Univ. 67. Wood, T. J. 1956. Some applications of paper chromatography to examination of meat extract. J. Sci. and Food Chem. 1956:57. 68. Sliwinski, R. A. and D. M. Doty. 1958. De- termination of micro quantities of methyl mercaptan in gamma-irradiated meat. J. Agr. Food Chem. 6:41. 69. Batzer, O. F., M. Sribney, D. M. Doty and B. S. Schweigert. 1957. Production of carbonyl compounds during irradiation of meat and meat fats. J. Agr. Food Chem. 5:700. 70. Marbach, E. P. and D. M. Doty. 1956. Sul- fides released from gamma-irradiated meat as estimated by condensation with N, N- dimethyl-p-phenylene-diamine. J. Agr. Food Chem. 4:881. 71. Mackay, D. A. M. and E. J. Hewitt. 1959. Application of flavor emymes to processed foods. //. Comparison of the effect of flavor enzymes from mustard and cabbage upon dehydrated cabbage. Food Res. 24: 253.

Beef Grades and Standards—Past and Present John C. Pierce United States Department of Agriculture THE ORIGIN of beef grading probably dates back to the time when man first started trading in this commodity. Cer- tainly, in appraising the relative merits of beef, the buyer or seller instinctively applied some of the principles of grading. Grading is merely the process of dividing a commodity into segments or groups which have similar characteristics. Obvi- ously, to perform a useful service in the marketing process, grading must be based on those factors that are important to buyers and sellers and which affect the utility of the product. The early markets in this country were highly localized and a distinct vocabulary or terminology evolved to describe the grading or segregation of cattle and beef at each market. However, with the growth of large urban centers and the de- velopment of improved transportation, refrigeration, and communication facili- ties, large competitive markets developed. This created the need for standardization of grades and terminology in order that prices between markets could be equitably compared. National standards for grades of cattle and carcass beef were first pro- posed by the U. S. Department of Agri- culture in 1916 as a prerequisite for the operation of a national market news serv- ice. These original standards were pat- terned after the only published standards existing at that time—those proposed by the Agricultural Experiment Station of the University of Illinois between 1902 and 1910. These standards for carcass beef were further refined and finally promulgated as the official standards of the U. S. Department of Agriculture on June 3, 1926. In 1923, the Department began the grading of beef for two govern- ment agencies—the U. S. Shipping Board and the Veterans Administration. The Federal grade stamping of beef, as we know it today, started in 1927. The program was started as a result of the ac- tion of a producer organization known as the Better Beef Association. That organi- zation consisted of approximately 250 cattle breeders and feeders from all parts of the country and was formed for the primary purpose of sponsoring a meat grading service. It was the contention of that organization that if a system were developed for labeling the different quali- ties of beef so that consumers would have a reliable guide to identify the quality they desired, it would encourage the con- sumption of beef and indirectly stimulate the production of better beef cattle. The Secretary of Agriculture assured the Bet- ter Beef Association that the Department would provide the grading and stamping of beef on an experimental basis for one year. The Federal grading of beef actually began on May 2, 1927, and the records also indicate that packer brand identification of carcass beef began in August of that same year. During the experimental year, only Choice and Prime grades were graded and this was provided at no cost to the packer. At the end of the experimental period, it was decided to continue grading on a permanent basis and to charge a fee to cover the cost of the service for those requesting grading. Ex- cept for city ordinances in Seattle, Wash- ington; Ogden, Utah; and Miami, Florida requiring Federal grading of beef sold in

IDENTIFYING THE QUALITY OF BEEF these cities and for two periods of com- pulsory grading during emergency price control programs, meat grading has con- tinued on the same voluntary self-sup- porting basis. The growth of the service was rather slow in the beginning and was apparently definitely stimulated by the two periods of compulsory grading. In 1940 only about eight per cent of the beef produced was federally graded. After the compulsory grading period of 1942 to 1947, this leveled off at approximately 25 per cent. After the compulsory grading period of 1951 to 1953, the volume of federally graded beef leveled at about 50 per cent of the total beef production. The prevailing pattern has always been, and still remains, that the large volume of beef graded is in the higher grades—Prime, Choice, and Good. There are many explanations for this growth of the grading service. The in- fluence of compulsory grading has been mentioned. Many have attributed its growth directly to the demands of the consumers for graded meats. This, in our opinion, is not the case. The demand of the consumer has been very indirect. It has long been recognized that consumers are not well informed on Federal grades. However, they apparently tend to pur- chase meat and become repeat customers at stores that handle the quality of meat that suits their particular needs. There- fore, the retailer's use of graded meat is not based alone on the request for graded beef. Many retailers use federally graded beef to simplify procurement to eliminate the necessity of personal inspection and, thereby reduce a marketing cost, and to assure uniformity in quality. Small inde- pendent meat packers without widely recognized brand names have utilized grading as a means of competing with the recognized brands of larger packers in the national market. The grade standards for beef are the tools that make the grading service pos- sible and the effectiveness with which con- sumer demand can be reflected back through the marketing channel to the producer is directly dependent upon the adequacy of these tools. The original grade standards were based upon the best information available at that time. How- ever, they were largely a result of trade experience and opinion. The grade standards have undergone four major re- visions since they were adopted. These changes have been primarily for one of the following reasons: (1) to reflect the results of research with respect to the im- portance of various grade factors, (2) to clarify the intent of the standards or other- wise to improve the ease or uniformity of their interpretation, and (3) to re-define the grade where the range has been effec- tively demonstrated to be either too wide or too narrow in scope to be practical and workable. I would like to comment briefly on the limitations of the present grade standards and the grading program as we see them and to point out some of our efforts for improvement. You are all, no doubt, aware of the fact that criticism of the grading program and the grade standards has been frequent and there is some indi- cation that this has been increasing in recent years. While there may be many reasons why this situation exists, I would like to mention one point which we feel is most important and that is the in- creasing extent to which grading has been used in merchandising beef in recent years. This is, of course, strictly a volume situation where the considerable growth not only results in more opportunities for controversy but makes the operation one of greater concern to the industry. Most of the complaints regarding grad- ing naturally originate with packers. Pro- ducers also criticize grading. In both instances, the volume of complaints is usually influenced by the supply and price situation. The subjective nature of the grade standards and the necessity of re- lying on human judgment in their appli- cation are the two aspects of the grading program most criticized and which in- fluence the degree of uniformity that can

50 BEEF FOR TOMORROW be attained. However, in our opinion, the major limitation of the grade standards is not their subjective nature. It is the need for more factual information relating to (1) the identification and relative impor- tance of the factors that influence quality in beef and, (2) the factors that influence the yield of salable meat from the carcass. In evaluating the present grade stand- ards and areas for improvement, it is es- sential to remember that grades are predi- cated on two considerations: (1) the evaluation of the characteristics of the flesh that are believed to be associated with the palatability of the beef and, (2) the evaluation of conformation or the proportion of the various cuts within the carcass and the ratio of meat to bone. You will note that I did not include finish or fatness as a grade factor. This was intentional because the quantity of surface fat on a beef carcass is a rather inefficient indicator of beef quality and therefore, in our opinion, should not be a factor in the grading of beef. Quality of beef is measured primarily by marbling, firmness, color, and texture of lean in re- lation to the indications of maturity of the carcass. It is quite obvious, however, that the quantity of fat that is trimmed in making retail cuts is a very important value determining factor. We have been keenly aware of the need for more information on the factors af- fecting the eating quality of beef. Several years ago, the Livestock Division effected a contract with the American Meat Insti- tute Foundation in an effort primarily to evaluate the relationship between various physical, chemical, and histological char- acteristics of beef and its eating quality. A Department manuscript on this project has been prepared and is now being edited for early publication. During the course of this study a very significant statement was made by the project leader to the effect that the grad- ers' estimate of palatability was almost as accurate as that which was based on a laboratory analysis of the characteristics of the beef. Such a statement is both re- assuring and discouraging. It may indi- cate that the present standards evaluate fairly efficiently the same characteristics of the flesh that the laboratory is able to measure. On the other hand, it also indi- cates the complexity of the problem and the difficulty of developing an objective technique for evaluating quality. There is still a great need for additional basic research information relative to the fac- tors that affect palatability in beef. Our present grade standards provide for full consideration of those factors that are believed to influence palatability. However, since they do not provide for consideration to quantity of outside fat, the only differences that they reflect in yields of salable meat are those that are related to conformation or those that oc- cur incidentally between grades. That is, no effort is now made to differentiate be- tween carcasses of a given grade on the basis of their salable meat even though it is quite obvious that such differences must be quite large. Unfortunately, yield of salable meat and quality of carcass are factors that are far from being perfectly correlated. Therefore, even if our pres- ent standards were formulated on a basis which accurately predicted both of these value-determining considerations, their combination into a single grade as pro- vided in our present standards, would in many cases result in a compromise be- tween these two factors that would be representative of neither. Such a compro- mise grade would be far less meaningful than would a separate grade identification for each of these value-determining fac- tors. In the same general area, there are many who feel that conformation should play a more prominent role in deter- mining the final grade. However, we be- lieve this problem should be approached in an objective manner. If conformation is to be used, it should be used because of its relationship to the total yield of red meat in the carcass and because of its in- fluence on the proportion of preferred cuts to the less desirable ones.

IDENTIFYING THE QUALITY OF BEEF 51 Factors Influencing Yield Our technicians have been concerned recently with a study of the factors that influence the yield of trimmed cuts from a carcass. In 1956 we completed the col- lection of data on a study of 459 beef car- casses including all weights and grades from Prime through Canner. This study involved more than 100,000 measurements and observations. From our studies, it appears that beef carcasses may yield from 40 per cent to 70 per cent of their carcass weight in trimmed retail cuts from the round, full loin, rib, and square cut chuck. These four major cuts represent about 85 per cent of the retail value of the carcass. Our studies indicated that variations in "cu tability" are influenced primarily by the conformation and fatness of the car- cass. Unfortunately, perhaps, conforma- tion and finish tend to have opposite effects on the retail yield of these cuts. Superior conformation increases "cuta- bility" while the addition of finish de- creases it. Within a particular grade, the finish of a carcass has considerably greater influence on "cutability" than does its con- formation. We were quite hopeful that it would be possible to measure conformation and finish objectively by simple techniques that could be used in a grading program similar to those used in the carcass grad- ing of pork. However, while several measurements were highly correlated with "cutability" these particular combinations of measurements were difficult to make and were not substantially more accurate than our subjective evaluation of con- formation and finish. During the past year we have tested one possible method of identifying cut-out differences in the beef grading system. It has been referred to as a "dual grading" system. Essentially this is a system in which separate identification is given to the "cutability" factor within each of the quality grades. For example, carcasses with Choice quality were further classified into three different groups representing high, intermediate, and low yields. In practical application, these might be iden- tified as Choice No. 1, Choice No. 2, and Choice No. 3, or with some similar term for use in trade by the packer and retailer. Such a system may appear to add com- plexity to the grading system but would it provide an improved market identifica- tion? Some indications to the answer of this question were obtained in recent test- ing of this system through selecting some 245 carcasses representing Prime, Choice, Good, and Standard grades. Within each of these grades, carcasses were selected to represent three different ranges in "cuta- bility" of major retail cuts. In this test, the differences in yield of major retail cuts and the differences in sales value per hun- dred pounds between the high and low yielding groups within the respective grades are found in Table 1. TABLE 1 Differences in Yield and Sales Value Average differ- Average differ- ence in "cut- ence in retail ability" be- sales value per tween high and hundred pounds low yielding between high groups and low yield- ing groups Prime 7 . 6 per cent $6.29 Choice 5.4 " 5.07 Good 5.1 " 4.25 Standard 4.6 " 4.49 Note that these were differences be- tween the averages of the high and the low groups within grades. Differences be- tween individuals within grades were even more pronounced. Between individuals, differences in value of over $10 per hun- dred pounds, or over $60 per carcass, were not uncommon. Another method of applying the "dual grading" system is presently being tested. This involves the estimation of cutability independent of the quality grade. In this respect, the approach is similar to that being utilized by some packers in the pur-

52 BEEF FOR TOMORROW chase of slaughter hogs on the basis of their yield of lean cuts. Preliminary re- sults with this technique indicate that carcasses can be segregated with acceptable precision under this system. Our data emphasize the fact that there is considerable variation in the "cuta- bility" within each of the grades and that it is highly important to identify this fac- tor in our marketing system. There are greater differences in value, attributable solely to the differences in "cutability," within each of the grades than normally exist between adjacent quality grades. The results of our study also emphasize the fact that "meat-type" cattle do now exist even though little direct selection effort has been aimed toward identifying cattle that combine thickness of muscling, high quality meat, and a minimum of excess fat. Our studies also indicate that "cutability" can be predicted with reason- able accuracy in the carcass, but consid- erable work is yet to be done in relating these carcass characteristics to the live ani- mal. The problem is little different from that existing in the swine industry 10 years ago. At that time, few believed that it was possible to predict the yield of cuts in a live hog. Today it is an accepted factor of live hog marketing. A similar approach in beef appears logical. There is at the present time some in- terest in revising the existing grade stand- ards by lowering the quality lines of the higher grades. This is advocated by some as a means of reducing excess fat on beef. If this is the objective, it is a very indi- rect method which does nothing to pro- vide identification for carcasses of the same quality but which vary in fatness and muscularity. This may be a misin- terpretation of the problem. Beef is re- ceiving unparalleled acceptance by Ameri- can consumers. There is little indication of dissatisfaction with the quality of beef being produced; there is considerable evi- dence that consumers are becoming in- creasingly averse to excess fat on beef. The beef producer can and, no doubt, will meet the challenge to produce high quality muscular cattle that are not overfat. How- ever, it is the job of grade standards and a grading program to furnish the neces- sary market identification for reflecting trade preferences back through the mar- keting channel to the producer. Rather limited progress in improving the present grade standards appears possible through the mere juggling of grade lines. Perma- nent improvements will undoubtedly be the product of good research designed to furnish additional factual information that can be used to provide a more pre- cise market identification of the beef car- cass.

Relationships Between Beef Quality, Grades, and Standards D. M. Doty American Meat Institute Foundation TJERHAPS no single term used in con- Xnection with food has as many shades of meaning as the word "quality." Its use to describe beef is certainly no excep- tion. "High quality" to the beef pro- ducer implies characteristics that are en- tirely different than those expected by the beef processor, and, in turn, are somewhat different than the properties expected by the ultimate consumer. Thus, even in the meats field, no single set of quality stand- ards apply universally to beef. For this discussion, quality may be de- fined as the summation of the distinctive traits or special features that determine the ultimate acceptability of the product to the consumer. Even this somewhat limiting definition immediately raises questions and problems—what consumer, what cut or kind of beef, what method of cookery? Quite obviously, any attempt to evaluate the relationships between quality and grade, or quality as it relates to more definitive characteristics of beef, must con- sider quality factors for specific cuts of meat, prepared by known, carefully con- trolled procedures. Quality Factors of Fresh Beef For the consumer, tenderness is perhaps the quality factor of greatest importance. Unfortunately for the researcher, this im- portant quality factor is not really a single characteristic. Recent investiga- tions (3, 10) have suggested that at least two or three properties are involved in the sensation of tenderness. These are the initial resistance or tenderness of the cooked meat tissue, the amount of residue remaining after mastication of a bite of meat, and the "friability" or nature of the residue. The relative importance of these characteristics in an overall tender- ness evaluation depends upon the cut or type of meat, method of cookery, and many other factors that cannot be dis- cussed here. Juiciness, like tenderness, is not truly a single taste sensation. The original sen- sation of juicines may be due primarily to the moistness or amount of fluid in the cooked meat, while the sensation of sus- tained juiciness probably depends upon stimulation of salivary action by fat and other physiological effects. We know so little about meat flavor, the third important beef quality factor, that it is difficult to suggest precise tech- niques for its evaluation. For taste test- ing, flavor usually is separated into "quality" and "intensity." Several re- search teams are now attempting to sepa- rate and identify the constituents in meat that are responsible for meat flavor. When this has been accomplished, it should be possible to measure beef flavor much more objectively and to evaluate the factors which influence it. Relationship of Grade to Beef Quality Factors and Other Properties of Beef For purposes of this discussion, the term "grade" will be used generally to mean U. S. Government grade. There are, of course, many other standards and speci- fications for beef, but most of the research reported in the scientific literature on quality-grade relationships has been based on U. S. Government grades. 53

54 BEEF FOR TOMORROW Tenderness There are numerous reports on the re- lationship between tenderness of beef and grade. Unfortunately, the data are con- flicting and it is almost impossible to ar- rive at positive and definite conclusions. Black et al. (2) found that differences in tenderness of 9-11 rib roasts from 3-year old steers were not consistent with respect to grade ("good" and "medium"). Roasts from steers fed grain on grass were more tender than those from steers fin- ished on grass alone. Wanderstock and Miller (9) found that rib roasts from fed steers were somewhat more tender than those from steers finished on pasture alone. Carcasses from the fed steers were one or two grades higher than those from pasture finished steers. Wierbicki et al. (11) reported that for bulls and steers tenderness was highly correlated with car- cass grade, but that when bulls and steers were considered separately, the relation- ship was not as close. Hiner (7) has re- ported a correlation coefficient of 0.20 be- tween carcass grade and tenderness. Texas workers (4) have recently reported that panel scores for loin steaks broiled well- done were significantly correlated with carcass grade of Santa Gertrudis steers. The authors emphasize, however, that "carcass grade was not homogenous for tenderness and that tender meat was not confined to carcasses of the higher grades." Alsmeyer et al. (1) found a highly significant correlation between taste panel scores of loin steaks cooked "medium" and carcass grade of steers sired by Brahman and Shorthorn bulls. Again, the authors emphasize that the relation- ship was not close, and that breed of sire and specific sire within breed were better indices of tenderness than was carcass grade. Our own studies at the American Meat Institute Foundation (5) have shown that the Longissimus dorsi of rib steaks (broiled medium rare) from Prime grade carcasses was significantly more tender than that from Good or Commer- cial grade carcasses (Table 1). However, TABLE 1 Tenderness Scores for Broiled Ribeye Commercial Light Good Heavy Good Light Prime Heavy Prime 5.6' 5.9 6.2. 7.0 7.2 (Differences between means not enclosed in brackets are statistically significant) variations in tenderness within grade were very great; for unaged rib, the observed ranges in panel tenderness scores were as follows: Commercial—2.2 to 6.2; Good— 2.7 to 8.5; Prime-3.7 to 8.6 (scores on scale of 1 to 10). From these data, it can be safely con- cluded that there is a definite and signifi- cant relationship between carcass grade and tenderness of the cooked Longissimus dorsi muscle. However, the great varia- bility in tenderness within grade indicates that selection for tenderness on the basis of grade alone would be unsatisfactory in many cases. Juiciness Results of investigations that have at- tempted to determine whether or not there is any relationship between carcass grade and juiciness of cooked beef are even less definite than those attempting to establish grade-tenderness relationships. The data of Wanderstock and Miller (9) suggest that both quality and quantity of juice were less in rib roasts from car- casses of lower grade. Results presented by Black et al. (2) do not indicate any significant relationship between grade and quality or quantity of juice. Hiner (7) has reported a correlation coefficient of 0.34 for carcass grade and juciness of cooked meat. Data obtained in our labor- atories on broiled rib steaks from carcasses of different grades and weights showed only that the cooked meat from light- weight Good grade carcasses was signifi- cantly less juicy that that from heavy Good, Commercial, and Prime grade car- casses.

IDENTIFYING THE QUALITY OF BEEF 55 It appears from these results that juici- ness of cooked meat, at least from the loin and rib, cannot be predicted on the basis of present U. S. carcass grade. How- ever, it should be emphasized that, in gen- eral, the meat from higher grades tends to be more juicy because of its higher intramuscular fat level. Flavor The data of some investigators (2, 9) suggest that flavor of cooked lean meat (steaks or roasts) is related to carcass grade. However, careful evaluation of results suggests that flavor differences may well be more dependent upon type of feed than on carcass grade. Usually, in- vestigators have found that beef from animals fed or finished on grain has a better flavor than that from animals fin- ished on pasture. Hiner (7) found that the correlation coefficient between lean flavor and carcass grade was 0.25. Our own data (5) show that flavor of broiled rib steaks was related significantly to both grade and weight (Table 2). TABLE 2 Lean Flavor Scores for Broiled Ribeye Light Good Commercial Heavy Good Heavy Prime Light Prime 6.8' 6.9. 7.2. 7.4 7.7J (Differences in means not enclosed in brackets are statistically significant) Chemical, Physical, and Histological Prop- erties of Beef as Related to Carcass Grade and Beef Quality Factors The information presented above indi- cates rather clearly that carcass grades as now used do not reflect adequately the palatability characteristics of beef. Dr. A. M. Pearson suggested a number of ob- jective techniques that have been reported to be of some value in evaluating beef quality. It is of interest to see how some of these properties are related to carcass grade as well as beef quality charac- teristics. Most of the data on this sub- ject as presented here was obtained in our laboratories and was supported in part by contract with the Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA (6). Intramuscular fat and marbling It is significant, but perhaps not sur- prising, that the intramuscular fat con- tent and subjective marbling rating of raw ribeye is closely correlated with car- cass grade and weight (Table 3). TABLE 3 Intramuscular Fat, Marbling, and Juiciness Scores of Ribeye from Carcasses of Different Grades and Weight Juici- Tender- Fat Marbling ness ness % Rating Score Score Light Good Heavy Good Commercial Light Prime Heavy Prime 3.1 4 6 8 1 3.7 6.2 .6 2.8l 6.8" 31. 2.3T1 6.9 lJ| 2.0J 7.0 7_j 1.9_J 7.2. 5.8 6.2 5.6. 7.0" 7.2 (Differences in means not enclosed in brackets are statistically significant) It is interesting to note that the various carcass grades and weights rank in the same order for juiciness score as for intra- muscular fat and marbling. The tender- ness score for Commercial grade ranks out of order, though not significantly. These data suggest strongly that intramuscular fat is associated with juiciness and tender- ness of broiled ribeye. In fact, our data show highly significant linear correlation coefficients between intramuscular fat and both juiciness and tenderness of unaged ribeye. For juciness-intramuscular fat, the relationship is actually curvilinear (Figure 1), and a curvilinear correlation coefficient would be somewhat higher. These data suggest that tenderness and juiciness of broiled ribeye may well be re- lated to carcass grade to the degree that intramuscular fat and/or marbling is used as a quality index in the grading system.

56 BEEF FOR TOMORROW FAT % 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 8 JUICINESS SCORE Figure 1. Relationship Between Intramuscular Fat and Panel Score for Juiciness. (Broken lines show confidence limits with 95% probability.) Other Chemical Components The amounts of non-protein nitrogen, amino nitrogen, soluble protein, creatine, creatinine, ammonia, urea, and extract- able pigment were not significantly differ- ent in raw or cooked ribeye from carcasses of different grades and weight. Physical Characteristics Some physical determinations as shear strength, press fluid, electrical conduct- ance, and penetrometer reading have been used in studies on meat as possible objec- tive means for evaluation of quality fac- tors. In our studies, the values obtained by these physical measurements were not consistently related to carcass grade or weight (except for shear values as shown in Table 4). TABLE 4 Shear Values for Broiled Ribeye from Carcasses of Different Grades and Weights Shear Tenderne Value Score Heavy Prime 8.1~1 7.2"! Light Prime 9. 2IT 7.oJ Heavy Good 10.1 _: h 6.2' Commercial 11.1 1 J 5.6 Light Good 11.6 — F 5.8J (Differences in means not enclosed in brackets are statistically significant) It can be noted here that there ap- peared to be fairly good agreement be- tween tenderness score and shear values on cooked meat. This relationship was

IDENTIFYING THE QUALITY OF BEEF 57 highly significant for unaged meat, but much less so for aged meat. Histological Characteristics Muscle fibre diameter was slightly greater in Commercial grade Longissimus dorsi than in the same muscle from Good or Prime grade carcasses. This agrees with results reported by Hiner et al. (8) who found that muscle fibre diameter increased with increasing animal age. Other struc- tural properties of beef muscle—muscle bundle size, elastin fibre diameter, and the presence of liposomes (intracellular fat) —were not consistently related to car- cass grade or weight. Histochemical de- terminations for collagen and elastin like- wise failed to show any consistent rela- tionships between collagen or elastin and carcass grade and weight. These histologi- cal and histochemical properties did not show any consistent significant relation- ships to tenderness, juiciness, or flavor of cooked meat. Carcass Grade as Related to Consumer Acceptability of Beef This discussion would be incomplete without some reference to consumer pref- erence studies as related to grade. Dr. Mrak has given an excellent evaluation of these studies, and it is perhaps sufficient to state that these investigations for the most part tend to confirm conclusions that may be drawn from the more carefully controlled technical research reported here. It would appear that U. S. carcass grade is related to beef quality factors and to consumer acceptance, but it must be emphasized that this relationship is not close, particularly in the lower grades. Unfortunately, our present knowledge on properties of beef that influence tender- ness, juiciness, and flavor is inadequate. We are not able at this time to suggest positive, objective techniques for the rapid, accurate evaluation of quality in carcass beef. References 1. Alsmeyer, R. H., A. Z. Palmer, M. Kroger, and W. G. Kirk. 1959. The relative sig- nificance of factors influencing and/or as- sociated with beef tenderness. Proc. llth Res. Conf. Am. Meat Inst. Foun. Cir. 50:85- 94. 2. Black, W. H., H. F. Warner, and V. C. Wil- son. 1931. Beef production and quality as affected by grade of steer and feeding grain supplement on grass. U.S.D.A. Tech. Bui. 217. 3. Cover, Sylvia. 1959. Meat cookery from the scientific viewpoint. 1959. Proc. llth Res. Conf. Am. Meat Inst. Foun. Cir. 50:99-111. 4. Cover, Sylvia, G. L. King, and O. D. Butler. 1958. Effect of carcass grade and fatness on tenderness of meat from steers of known history. Texas Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. 889. 5. Doty, D. M. 1956. Laboratory characteristics of graded beef carcasses. Proc. 9th Ann. Recp. Meat Conf. pp. 10-18. 6. Doty, D. M., and J. C. Pierce. Beef muscle characteristics as related to carcass grade, carcass weight and degree of aging. U.S.D.A. Tech. Bui. (Submitted for editing and publication). 7. Hiner, R. L. 1956. Visual evidence of beef quality as associated with eating desirabil- ity. Proc. 9th Ann. Recp. Meat Conf. Nad. Live Stock and Meat Bd. Chi., I1i. 8. Hiner, R. L., O. G. Hankins, H. S. Sloane, C. R. Fellers, and E. E. Anderson. 1953. Fibre diameter in relation to tenderness of beef muscle. Food Res. 18:364-76. 9. Wanderstock, J. J., and J. I. Miller. 1948. Quality and palatability of beef as affected by method of feeding and carcass grade. Food Res. 13:291-303. 10. Wang, H., C. Edith Weir, Marion L. Birkner, and Betty Ginger. 1958. Studies on enzy- matic tenderization of meat. HI. Histologi- cal and panel analysis of enzyme prepara- tions from three distinct sources. Food Res. 23: 423-38. 11. Wierbicki, Eugen, V. R. Cahill, L. E. Kunkle, E. W. Klosterman, and F. E. Deatherage. 1955. Effect of castration of biochemistry and quality of beef. Agr. and Food Chem. 3:244-49.

The Economic Impact of Identified Beef in the Marketplace Herrell De Graff Cornell University 1 SHALL INTERPRET the term "identified beef" to mean a uniform, repeatable product which can be found and identified in the market either in the carcass or the consumer cut. It may wear a brand or grade label which denotes quality, and which may be either proprietary or offi- cial. Or, it may be unlabeled and yet readily identifiable in the trade by its own obvious characteristics. It may be bought and sold on specifications stated in terms of age, weight, and finish, and with or without any brand or grade designation. Its essential repeatability must rest, first, on being widely and readily available and, second, on the fact that, other than for obvious weight and finish differences, the total supply of block beef is highly uni- form in all other major characteristics. In the form of consumer cuts it need not be identifiable by any brand or grade mark. The reasons are that consumers have shown little understanding or in- terest in grades, but depend instead on the reliability of the distributor from whom they buy. Such additional identification as has any meaning to most consumers is that which is perfectly obvious on the face of the cut meat in the retail case. What we now know, or probably ever will learn, of consumer preferences is in terms of product characteristics per se, not in brand or grade labels. Mrs. Homemaker selects meat that appeals to her in the cut, and then if it appeals equally to her family at the table, she goes back for more. Thus, the "identity" that is desired and which I assume to be implied in the topic assigned to me is, first and most impor- tant, the production of a block beef supply from which the undesirable types have been eliminated and which has the uniformity and repeatability that con- tributes effectively to trading on a speci- fication basis. Then, second, how the specifications are worded is of minor im- portance, as long as they contribute to the selection of meaningful categories by age, weight, and finish. The Competitive Market for Food Food, as one category of economic goods and one item in consumer expendi- tures, long has been regarded primarily as a necessity. However, the changing pattern of American life, the rising level of consumer real incomes, and the changing budgetary distribution of con- sumer spending, makes this concept less true today than ever before. Food is not bought by American consumers merely to fill their stomachs. It is purchased against a rising understanding of the more subtle nutritional factors, against an increasing desire to eat well, and against an ability and a willingness to spend for what we refer to broadly as "quality." Moreover, food in this sense has come to compete strongly with a broad spec- trum of other demands on consumer spending—for housing, household con- veniences, automobiles, personal care, rec- reation, and the like. To the degree that food becomes more a combination of quality and quantity, or a combination of food and food services, it becomes a com- petitor with other forms of spending. The point must be carried still another step. Food competes not only with other 58

IDENTIFYING THE QUALITY OF BEEF 59 demands on spending, but food also com- petes with food. The abundance and diversity evident on the shelves of any supermarket reflect the remarkable de- gree to which consumers have alternatives before them, and potentials for substitu- tion of product for product. This competitive battle deserves more recognition than typically it has been given. It reveals, for example, the degree to which agriculture has become a large number of competitive sub-groups of pro- ducers, with each group trying to build the largest possible demand for its own product. This is illustrated by the fact that the family who had chicken for din- ner did not have beef. Why was chicken selected? The answer is important not only to poultrymen but to every other group whose product was bypassed when chicken was chosen. More than anything else, it is the competitive drive of poultry- men to foster the selection of chicken, versus swine producers to foster the selec- tion of ham, versus cattlemen to foster the selection of beef—and all similar com- petitive drives—that explain the highly dynamic production and marketing de- velopments in today's food industry. And let's add one more point to this sequence. How successful each product- group of producers may be—cattlemen, for example—hinges not alone on their own efforts, but also on the marketing organi- zations that process and distribute their product. As never before, competitive success comes from production and mar- keting teams working together to move a product that has been carefully tailored to its market potentials. In an economy that is increasingly and inescapably market-oriented, this interde- pendence of producer and distributor in- terests has a number of meanings. One meaning which has been difficult for many producers to accept is that if and when there is a difference in view between pro- ducers and distributors about what the characteristics of a product should be, it is the distributor's view that usually pre- vails in successful marketing. Take to- day's supermarket operator, for example. His business is to sell food in successful competition with many other similar mer- chants all within convenient driving dis- tance of the customer who typically shops with the family automobile. In an important sense he does not care what products he sells. He "rents" his shelf space to the merchandise which will earn him the most money. But in order to meet his objectives, he clearly has to have products which will satisfy his cus- tomers and bring them back repeatedly to his store. Thus, he writes specifications for products which his experience has taught him will be successful. When he has found a product that is successful in attracting and holding customers, he wants to get it again. He wants it in his store at all times. He wants suppliers who will furnish it in desired quantity, at prescribed times of delivery, and in strict compliance with specifications. One of the strictest features of his speci- fications is for product uniformity. The customer who was satisfied yesterday must also be satisfied today, and he wants the product there for her tomorrow with equal assurance that she will be satisfied then. There is, in fact, no other fea- ture more important than uniformity in any product that has been successful un- der the conditions of impersonal selling in today's self-service food store. The Changed Character of the Beef Supply Twenty-five years ago our beef supply was much more seasonal than it is today. Neither the retailer nor his customer are happy with a superabundance of supply at one season of the year and dearth at a later time. Thus, the even flow of slaugh- ter cattle from present day feed lots has contributed both to the stability of the beef market and to total consumer beef purchases. Likewise, a quarter of a century ago, we had a beef supply far more variable in quality. Many slaughter animals were carried to three or more years of age and went to the packer directly off grass.

60 BEEF FOR TOMORROW More of the beef supply was cow beef, and cows as low as the Utility grade en- tered considerably into the supply of block beef. More of the beef came from dairy animals and from a very ordinary class of cattle euphemistically called dual- purpose, but really not much good for either or any purpose. These facts meant that yesterday's beef supply was far below the quality and uni- formity that is in the market today. In the last couple of decades the aged steer has practically disappeared from our slaughter cattle. The dual-purpose ani- mals are largely gone. Dairy cattle have dropped far below the proportion which they formerly contributed to the beef supply. Beef herds have improved amazingly in conformation, rate of gain, and early maturity. Exclusive of culled breeding stock, the age bracket of slaugh- ter cattle has been greatly compressed from both ends—and now centers on steers and heifers in a narrow age bracket of 18 to 24 months. This type of animal lends itself to quick and efficient feed-lot finishing, and has been an indispensable factor in the rise of fed beef from barely 25 per cent of the beef supply 30 years ago to over 50 per cent of the supply at present. Thirty years ago between 35 and 40 per cent of the slaughter steers received at the Chi- cago market were directly off grass. The proportion of such animals is now neg- ligible, not only at Chicago but at the River Markets and other packing centers as well. And considering that most of the cow and bull beef now ends up in the expanding market for hamburger, frank- furters, and other sausages, we have in consequence a supply of block beef having behind it a quality of beef flood lines at an amazingly high level compared with the past—and having within it a uni- formity of conformation, age, and finish that is unlike anything we have ever had before. All of these factors lie behind the re- markable success which beef has been en- joying in the highly competitive market for food. That 80 pounds of beef per person per year could sell at today's prices, in competition with abundant and cheaper pork and poultry is nothing less than amazing against our historical ex- perience. This could not have happened with the lower quality and more variable beef supply of the past. Beef has enjoyed the benefits of intense merchandising efforts by today's food re- tailers. This is because beef is the pre- ferred meat by most consumers, and the largest single item in dollar volume in the food store. The general experience of retailers is that they cannot have a suc- cessful store without a good meat depart- ment, and they cannot have a successful meat department without good beef. This has led retailers to work diligently to de- velop beef specifications that would give them a product highly acceptable in their own region. Practically without excep- tion, they have been able to get the type of carcass they want, in abundant and de- pendable supply. But this could not have been done without the changes that have occurred in our beef cattle, in the feeding industry, and in the character of the slaughter animals that produce our pres- ent supply of block beef. New Concept of Acceptable Quality Recently, while analyzing the develop- ment of the cattle feeding industry over the last 30 years, I was intrigued to find that there have been three distinct waves of different grades of cattle marketed from feed lots. The first of these was a sharp expansion in the proportion of the Prime grade. In 1930 at Chicago 13.7 per cent of the steers sold out of first hands were classed as Prime. The proportion in- creased to 36.0 in 1945—and since has de- creased again, to about 10 per cent. The second wave was the rise of the Choice Grade. In 1930 this was 42 per cent of the slaughter steers at Chicago, and has slowly crept up to about 60 per cent at present. The third and most recent wave has been a rise in the Good grade. These were

IDENTIFYING THE QUALITY OF BEEF 61 16.8 per cent of the slaughter steer supply at Chicago when first reported separately in 1951, and have since increased to a little over 25 per cent. Similar trends have been evident at Sioux City and Omaha, the other two markets for which we have a number of years of this type of market report. Good-grade steers now exceed one-third of the slaughter supply at Omaha. It is my belief that these trends have meaning of major significance to the cattle industry. Repeated studies of consumer prefer- ence in beef indicate that consumers want two characteristics in the meat which his- torically have been at opposite ends of the range of beef grades. The first of these is tenderness—which we have long associated with highly finished beef. The other is leanness which historically has not been found to the desired degree in association with tenderness. Now we have evidence that acceptable beef from the point of view of tenderness is coming to market with lesser finish than has been true, or has been thought pos- sible, in the past. The market for Prime beef if diminishing even in the high class hotel and restaurant trade, where price has not typically been a primary consid- eration. The use of Prime is diminishing because beef finished at a lower level has been found increasingly acceptable. Now the increasing proportion of cattle mov- ing to slaughter in the Good grade indi- cates that distributors are experiencing a growing degree of consumer acceptance at something less than Choice finish. Bear in mind that no distributor writes specifications or accepts products to which his customers object. If he did he would shortly be out of business in today's ever more intense competition between one food store and another. If more distribu- tors are accepting the Good grade, it is be- cause their customers have liked it and have come back for more. Customers are increasingly accepting beef with lesser finish—from Prime down to Choice, to low-Choice, and now down into the Good grade—because of changes that have taken place in the quality of blood lines in our beef herds and because of new characteristics and uniformity in the cattle that are producing the block beef supply. The new characteristic of age—meaning uniform youthfulness in the slaughter cattle—is gaining supremacy over the historic characteristic of finish- meaning fat—in the production of an ac- ceptable consumer product. This new product is combining the two most de- sired characteristics, tenderness and lean- ness, in a degree never before possible. Of course, we are talking about a trend, not about an ultimate goal completely attained. But no longer is it necessary, as in the past, to put an uneconomic total of fat in and on the meat in order to make it tender and tasty. Youth in the slaughter cattle is providing the tender- ness in wholly new degree—and the num- ber of consumers to whom taste difference between young beef and aged beef has any importance is negligible. It is interesting to note that the Prime steers offered on the Chicago market in the last couple years have an average live weight of just short of 1,250 pounds. The Choice steers average 1,150; the Good steers, 1,050. Since these grades average only slightly different in age, the weight difference is primarily 100 pounds more tallow from grade to grade. The market is beginning to discriminate against what is regarded by consumers as unnecessary increments of fat beyond the amount that makes acceptable eating quality by their standards. This discrimination is reflected in the narrowing price differentials across all the grades of fed beef. Some people, no doubt, will still prefer Prime for some time to come. Others will persist in a demand for Choice. And the evidence is that an increasing number are accepting Good—and not especially for price differ- ence, because the price difference is be- coming less. Specification Beef Perhaps some of these comments may seem remote from "the economics of

62 BEEF FOR TOMORROW identified beef." I submit that they are not, because the trends discussed have con- tributed so fundamentally to the produc- tion of a block beef supply highly uniform and readily identifiable. It is a beef sup- ply remarkably adaptable to the specifica- tions of distributors. Moreover, it was moving rapidly in the direction of serving precisely the kind of specifications now in use, long before the specifications were developed. This does not mean that breeders and producers anticipated the specifications. Rather, they were striving to upgrade the quality of their herds, to improve confor- mation, to achieve efficiency of gain and early maturity as factors long recognized to be significant in successful cattle pro- duction. These are the circumstances back of the calves and yearlings with which the feeding industry has had notable suc- cess in producing specification carcasses. And of course, again we are talking about trends, not about goals ultimately achieved. Today's beef has had its acceptance and success in the competitive market for food because, whether or not it is the ultimate in desirable characteristics, it is notably acceptable to the consumer. Retailers' specifications call, obviously, for an identi- fiable product. That product has been available to deliver against the specifica- tions. These specifications have had an impact on packers, and in turn on feeders, and in turn on ranchers-stimulating each one to produce in increasing quantity the calves, the fed animals, and the carcasses which will provide a specified consumer product. Government Grading Government-grading was a war-induced marketing tool. Of course, it had an earlier beginning but was not used for any major part of the beef supply until it became compulsory under OPA regula- tions. On the so-called voluntary basis it has been widely used only since the war. It came into voluntary use mostly because it proved to be a convenient component of the purchase specifications written by mass retailers. It cannot be regarded, however, as primarily responsible for the uniform beef supply of today and for the marked success of beef in the consumer market, as some people have claimed was the case. This is because our uniform beef supply—our identifiable, specification beef—came out of the long-developing im- provements in our beef stock already dis- cussed. This beef supply began when the first shorthorn bull was put on the first longhorn cow, and the process of im- provement has been going on ever since. Government grading has contributed to the beef we have because, under the compulsory wartime regulations, it set up one system of identity standards across the whole industry. This contributed to what packers are now calling "only one kind of cattle." But it was no more than a further stimulus to the improvements in breeding and feeding that already had been long under way. Government grading probably also was a stimulus to specification buying. But this system of buying would have come anyway, as an almost necessary tool in present-day retail procurement. Practi- cally the total retail supply is now pro- cured on specification, with any require- ment as to Government grade being only one among several specifications. My carefully considered belief is that Government grading is probably today at its peak of use and influence, and that from this point it is more likely to dimin- ish than to increase. It has been a useful tool in beef merchandising, but seems likely to be less so in the future. I know several retailers, including some large chain operators, who have been shifting down in the grade range of the beef they are merchandising. They began to do this in the price competition be- tween retailers. They concluded that the acceptance differential among their custo- mers for Good versus Choice was less than the then prevailing price differential for the two grades. They concluded further that with most retailers pushing the

IDENTIFYING THE QUALITY OF BEEF 63 Choice grade, and with the four or five cents price difference that prevailed until recently between Good and Choice, they 'would shift to Good and take the price advantage. A yet small but significant fraction of retailers have been quite suc- cessful with this change, because the fac- tors we have already discussed—mainly the ascendancy of youthfulness over finish- have been working with them. I believe that more retailers in the fu- ture will make a similar change, and as they do so they will tend to shift away from the use of Government grades. They will shift down in the grade range be- cause their customers will find that some- thing less than the Choice grade, as it now stands, will be entirely acceptable from an eating standpoint. And, if a retailer does not merchandise U. S. Choice, he prob- ably will not promote his beef by any Government grade designation—because he is not at all likely to find it to his advantage to merchandise the grade-names "U.S. Good" or "U.S. Standard." Rather, he will probably be putting his own repu- tation behind the beef, and then look to his packer and wholesaler suppliers to provide him with what he needs and to stand behind the acceptability of what they deliver. In this setting, Government grades will have diminishing significance. Thus, it seems to me that they will be less used in the future, for these reasons: 1. Government grades have been more useful to retailers than to other segments of the cattle and beef industry, 2. An insignificant fraction of con- sumers know anything about grades and seem to care less, 3. The increasing acceptance of less- finished beef indicates the obviously greater efficiency of putting on less fat as long as the end product has equal accept- ability, 4. The fact that any grade designation below Choice will be far less desirable as a merchandising tool. It may well be that a Government grade stamp will persist in purchasing specifica- tions beyond its use in merchandising. But the whole beef industry is moving so rapidly toward "specification orientation" both in product and organization—to- wards still increasing uniformity from calf to fed animal to carcass—that the result will be diminishing significance for Gov- ernment grading even in purchasing speci- fications. As this whole commentary has at- tempted to emphasize, the fundamental development of today's young, lean, and tender supply of block beef is something bigger and more potent than anyone's grade stamp, including the Government's. It began in the cattle-producing industry, and that is where it will be carried for- ward.

Discussion Session II How to Identify Quality of Beef E. J. WARWICK: I would like to ask Dr. Doty the approximate place on his scales of tenderness where beef became objectionable to the average consumer, and then whether he would be willing to hazard a guess as to the per cent of prime, good, and commercial cattle beef, that would fall in that unacceptable range? DR. DOTY: Actually, the data which I showed were made with a so-called ex- pert panel and not with a consumer panel. I cannot relate that to acceptability. I think acceptability is important, but I think there are other factors that should carry more weight than they do. If I had to guess, I would say anything scoring above 6 on that 10 point scale would be considered acceptable by a great many people. H. H. STONAKER: Assuming that we are going to go ahead with grading, and that we will continue to make improve- ments in the grading scheme leads to this matter of increased ability to predict cutability. First, how much of this cor- relation is just a matter of fatness or finish to the animal? Second, along the same lines, there was some indication that we can predict the lean bone ratio by means of conformation. I wonder if perhaps we could go into that with some detail as to the background with what we need for conformation in relation to bone ratio? DR. PIERCE: With respect to your first question relating to cutability, I think our original data indicated that on the basis of present grades, fatness influenced cutability about four times as much as conformation. In other words, for a third of a grade change in conformation it took four-thirds of a grade change in the finish normally associated with these thirds of grade to affect the same change in cuta- bility. Your second question relating to the relationship of conformation to ratio of lean to bone is one that we have only recently got into. I don't feel that we have very qualitative analysis at this point. Conformation, of course, has two influences. One is as it relates to propor- tion of various cuts from the carcass, and the other is as it relates to yield of salable meat. We found a rather wide ratio of bone to lean meat. We found the lower and canner grades, as I recall, one part bone to 2.38 portions of lean. This is a low. A high was encountered somewhere up in the good grade, with one part bone to something over six parts lean. This is not strictly lean. This is salable meat with the normal amount of fat left on a cut as it moves through the retail market, but with all of the bone removed. I think that our emphasis on conforma- tion throughout the years has influenced or has tended to emphasize thickness of muscling, which would be reflected in dif- ferences of ratio of lean to bone. When you expect differences in proportion of cuts from a carcass, you are essentially ex- pecting differential development. I think it is possible to make some progress in this direction, but certainly it is not as easy as it was in the past. V. H. BRANDENBURG: It seems to me that there is a thought that grading is not uniform geographically; that in Colorado, a man can receive a choice grade on cattle, where he may not be able 64

IDENTIFYING THE QUALITY OF BEEF 65 to receive a choice grade in Sioux City, Omaha, or Chicago. I think that is a general feeling among cattle producers. I wonder if Dr. Pierce could explain why the thinking is along that line, or if that is true. DR. PIERCE: This seems to be tied in a little bit with pride of ownership. I can't recall discussing grading with a member of the trade when someone didn't influ- ence me that this was the toughest grading in the country. Apparently it is a matter of where you sit. I am sure we would be the first to tell you that we recognize that there are errors in grading. We have no reason to believe that there would be an unusual geographic distribution. We have a fairly intensive system of super- vising grading, and I think it keeps errors down to about the minimum that can be expected under this kind of a system. WISE BURROUGHS: I would like to ask Dr. Pierce about the various indexes for determining within a grade those car- casses which are least wasty versus those that are the most wasty. Is thickness of fat over the loin one of the better indexes that you get so far as the better cut (out) value, say within the choice grade or good grade, or is it more complicated than that? DR. PIERCE: Correlation of thickness of fat over rib area with cut out in our data is something like 0.4. We have cor- relations, as I indicated earlier, that had gone up to 0.921. However, it isn't this simple. We have some fairy usable in- dexes, but most of them involve several measurements; they are cumbersome to make, and we have found that consider- ing the entire disposition of fat over the carcass inside and out, we can do a pretty reasonable job of predicting this. MR. RALPH BIERMAN: I would like to ask Dr. Pierce what would happen at Sioux City, Omaha, Chicago, Phoenix, Cincinnati, and so forth, if the graders were transferred over the weekend and had to grade beef without any further instruction? DR. PIERCE: I think if you trans- ferred all graders over night, I would not be the one to tell you we wouldn't run into some new problems. I think new problems would be primarily that of sub- jecting graders to a different type cattle from that normally seen. This would probably cause some temporary problems. However, I would like to emphasize that insofar as maintaining uniformity is con- cerned, we have a corps of national super- visors who are constantly traveling. They are not limited to any one geographic location. I think they are trying to do about all that is humanly possible to get an accurate and uniform interpretation. Certainly the situation that you bring up would create some problems, because a man who is accustomed to grading 1,250- pound cattle, thrown into Texas where they may be marketing 700-pound steers of a likely different type would find him- self confounded with new problems. This, as I see it, is in no way an indication you cannot obtain a reasonable uniformity through a national system of supervision, which is what we are trying to do.

Committee Recommendations Quality standards are important in the pricing, merchandising, and market communication between rancher, farmer, feeder, buyer, proces- sor, distributor, and consumer. U. S. government grades and pro- pietary brands are presently being used to reflect the application of these standards and are useful means of identifying beef of different qualities for merchandising. However, variations within such grades or brands is very great. Future beef merchandising will include quality control in the pro- duction of beef. Quality control includes control of breeding, nutri- tion, and management of beef cattle, pre-slaughter treatment of slaughter animals, and post-slaughter treatment of beef. Standards should be improved through research to develop more accurate, more practical, and more objective tests for cutability, tenderness, flavor, and juiciness which preferably may be applied to raw meat, and to identification of these factors in live animals. 66

Marketing Beef on the Hoof Joe B. Finley Callaghan Ranch, Encinal, Texas PRACTICALLY SPEAKING, there is HO Such thing as discussion among people who have livestock to sell as to the manner in how it is to be done. Almost every indi- vidual has already decided how he will accomplish this. There is much talk about how much the animals brought. Braggingly when the sale was good; dis- gustingly when it was bad. Generally every delivery nets a different price even though the animals come from the same group with all conditions the same. It is very difficult to secure uniform feeders in numbers except from the reputation brand herds. Marketing beef on the hoof has more variations in handling than al- most any practice you can imagine. The product is not consistent enough to accom- plish the best marketing. Still, every ani- mal regardless of its age, flesh condition, color, shape, or size has value and will produce a nourishing meat product. I shall use "range areas" to mean all sections of the U.S.A. from which stockers and feeders are sold. Fattening cattle in the feed lot has some mechanical aspects. For example, averages for daily consump- tion, daily gains, feed conversion, and cost of gain can be detailed with reason- able accuracy if the weights, ages, weigh- ing conditions, and flesh conditions are known. Occasionally you will be taken for a big surprise. Fortunately though, it is not always unpleasant. Gains can be surprisingly favorable as well as dis- appointing. Development of beef on the range, as you know, is uncertain depend- ing on the vagaries of the elements. Drought is almost as bad as poor manage- ment. The combination of the two can- not be made to produce desired results. Custom feed lots are set up on a produc- tion line basis. The latest modern feed mill has turned to automation. It is so accurate in the mixing process that a shortage of 5 pounds of one ingredient in a batch of 1,000 pounds will stop the operation. As long as the various feed ingredients are maintained in the flow pattern the finished mixed feed will be delivered to the mechanical feed wagon without delay. This operation requires no more than casual supervision. Buzzers and/or lights may advise of impending shortage and/or tanks or bins nearing capacity. Grain-fed beef seems to have hit a pop- ular chord with the American Public. I, for one, subscribe to that. Until 1952, I could not realize how unpopular grass beef could become. We did have ample warning that the aged steer fattened on grass was not selling with the ease that he formerly enjoyed. The average west- ern rancher from the great range states does not know what good meat is. I readily admit I was not fully aware of what I had been missing through the years until we arranged to eat from the choice animals finished in the feedlots. You can get the same results by patron- izing and encouraging a butcher who con- sistently handles the better grades of beef. It is convincing now, after a few years' experience in the California feed lots, that unless our taste buds for good red beef change, we can look forward confi- dently to increased per capita beef con- sumption as we learn to produce consist- ently more of the popular beef and less of 67

68 BEEF FOR TOMORROW the unpopular quality that has to get into the trade. It would be ideal if tough and unsavory pieces of beef could be cut back and de- stroyed before ever getting into the trade —a method similar to culling vegetable produce. Most all beef production goes into consumption at some price, as even the tough unsavory pieces are nourishing food. Very small quantities of beef are wasted. Quality meat will promote con- sumption. Quality beef in quantity will move into consumption with the least disruption in price. We are hopeful that the abundance of forage and grains, to- gether with the capacity of our farmers to produce more, will not overload the market during this present cattle inven- tory cycle. You scientists are giving us both pleas- ure and pain by helping to grow more feed per acre and more beef for less feed. The advantage to the industry, if we can make the adjustment, will be that the consumer will learn to use and require more meat in his diet. With pork and poultry selling so much cheaper, beef has never had such notable competition. It takes time, patience, and experience to make a fine cut of beef; quality products are always more expensive to produce and enjoy. We could exist, I am sure, on chicken and pork, but who among us wants to sleep on a straw mattress or use or consume any product that does not warrant some pride in its ownership or use. This nation has the outlet for qual- ity in all products and beef most certainly is no exception. We are now making beef animals at near 1,000 pounds average per animal in less than 20 months of age. Formerly, it took as long as 36 months to produce grass-fattened beef whose quality was not attractive. The beef cow herd in our United States had expanded to 25,584,000 head by Janu- ary 1, 1959, from 15,919,000 head 10 years prior. Numbers will be up again in the January 1, 1960 estimates. In the last two years calves have not been slaughtered in their usual numbers, resulting in a greater percentage of the annual calf crop being pushed to make beef and their average dressed carcass weighing more. I am sure we have less of what are classified as heavy carcasses in the trade. Also, with less of the light car- casses, the middle weights are up by large relative percentages. I hope this means we are moving toward more consistent quality in beef. We need that badly. Beef carcasses weighing more than 700 pounds are usually sold to the Armed Forces or are used for breaking purposes. These weights are not in popular demand. It is estimated that 1,500,000,000 more pounds of meats will be produced in 1959. This means that beef production is gain- ing faster than the increase in population. More pounds of beef per capita are being made available. This is causing some concern among all operators who have given it some thought. Beef Importation I am not certain what prices will stop the excessive importation of meat prod- ucts. It is not important to this group when this will transpire, but let it be known that this is causing a very severe headache to the producer at this time. Many thousands of tons of beef have been imported from areas not accustomed to selling on our shores. The beef pro- ducers of America should be compli- mented in not heretofore seriously ob- jecting to this importation—a competition that has lowered the prices of their prod- uct from the level at which they would have sold. It is estimated by good authority that this competition has kept prices down through what I call the remunerative period of the present cycle by an esti- mated $5.00 per cwt. I have been un- able to determine at what price level this importation will be shut off, but it is my own estimate that 15 cents for the com- mercial cow will do the job.

IDENTIFYING THE QUALITY OF BEEF The tight money policy of the Federal Reserve Bank has contributed immeasur- ably in recent weeks to a lowering of prices in the range side of our industry. Beef producers in the Central United States have been advised that liquidation of their fattened cattle must be well ad- vanced before replacements from the range areas will be financed. The result of this, combined with some increase in finished beef, has brought about a loss in net returns to the range and feed lot pro- ducers alike averaging between $25.00 to S40.00 per head below the average 3 to 4 months ago. Considering this foregoing statement I am fearful that we are now in the declin- ing price side of the present cattle cycle. Other more competent authorities than I contend that the remunerative period will last into late 1960. In either event, this will be the shortest remunerative period in a cattle inventory cycle ever experi- enced. With forage and grain production for 1959 now assured, meat production will be even greater per capita for 1960 than 1959. To keep our business normal the Beef Councils over the country are mak- ing every effort available to them to in- crease consumption of beef. We can as- sist by feeding well and making our product as consistent as possible. There is no better food for man than beef. Buying and Selling Methods Buying and selling between the pro- ducer and processor of beef is made in many different ways. The great public markets were conceived originally to afford a great gathering of all classes of livestock at central points to which all comers could go to select their needs. It was expected that the great packers would be able to slaughter all animals suitable for beef that were not taken as stockers and feeders. This is no longer true. What has actually happened is that these mar- kets have served a very useful purpose. But, from the producer standpoint, he has many times gone away unhappy. He was rubbed wrong—he went home grumbling that something was lacking. The public market did not do a good enough job. Lack of public relation understanding helped competition to spring up through local packing plants and country selling. The public market owners were adamant in stating that cattle producers could not afford to sell except through their facili- ties. The security the public yard owners felt was not shared by the producer. The producer, however, liked the few sales he did make direct to stocker and feeder buy- ers and to local packers in his area. Maybe good roads, motor transportation, and wonderful communications helped to bring the change. Whatever it was, we now have auction sales and country buy- ing that are handling an increasing vol- ume of the sales. Volume on the public markets has decreased to the point where country buying by the commission mer- chants serving the public markets is needed in order to keep their offices open. Do not feel that the commission mer- chants have lost out entirely. They have been dependable and useful friends for many years to the cattle industry. They will meet their problems and I am cer- tain that the industry will have need for their services in the merchandising of livestock. Local packing plants have increased enormously and seem to get all the kill they need as they increase their volume at prices that keep the animals from the market centers. The auction markets have an attraction for the producer. An auction sale is available locally. Animals in small numbers can be delivered readily in a trailer or pick-up. The many miles to the public market make it impos- sible for the small operator to transport small numbers economically. It is nota- ble that most of the small operators go to see their cattle sell and, having time on their hands are afforded an opportunity for diversion. In addition, I suppose there are other psychological factors that are unfavorable for the public markets.

70 BEEF FOR TOMORROW Buyers will, and do, go any place cattle are accumulated in numbers. The auc- tions handle sizeable volume in numbers. The public stockyards could not handle the volume if all cattle sold each week were forced into their markets. Stockers and feeders make up the big volume at the auction markets, but packers are avail- able to take all beef offered. Trucks now handle the volume of live- stock on the shorter hauls. The railroads that were so important to the large public market do not serve the local markets suc- cessfully. No longer are many cattle driven to the railroads. It is easy to see that once livestock are on the truck why unload onto slower transportation, except for long hauls. Taking California as an example, it would seem that packers will be adjust- ing their kill to the supplies within truck delivery distances. It is almost certain the big public markets, as we have known them, will continue to lose ground except for favored spots that will afford large volume delivered by highway transporta- tion. We still depend on about three of the public markets to influence general price levels in the California and western trade areas, and we determine volume of sup- plies for day and week by that reported for the twelve principal markets. This is a service supplied by the Department of Agriculture gathering market reports from various markets, including some auctions and also some country sales. Beef prices are quoted regularly for some markets- Chicago and New York being more regu- larly reported. There are those who expect Los Angeles to become a beef market similar to New Yorjc, with the bulk of the meats for the Los Angeles market being shipped into the area and little local kill. In this I do not concur since California is a great agri- cultural state. Of course, in any event, much meat will be moved into the Los Angeles area—there is not enough rough- age in California to feed all the beef. This cattle inventory cycle previously referred to has not been determined defi- nitely by any means. Advantages in prices did not appear until July, 1957, so you will see the recovery period which I have called the remunerative period of the cycle covers not much more than 24 months to now. Fat cattle sold since Au- gust, 1959, have been losing the feeder money in many instances and more recent sales in September and October show less favorable results. I am convinced, however, that commer- cial breeders can take their production to finished beef with less risk than is now done with one or more changes in owner- ship, before the beef is finished for slaugh- ter. Workable only though, as, and if the commercial feed operation takes hold in the Midwest. The large commercial feed lot may never replace the small feeder who does his own work, feeding his own farm- raised feed. There seems to be an effi- ciency in the commercial feed operation that is not truly defined as yet. The ad- vantages of favorable climate coupled with mechanization, plus higher feed costs against the disadvantage of less favorable climates with lower feed costs add up to the uncertainty. I do not have the ex- perience nor do I know any operator who can answer this comparison. There are commercial feed lots in the Midwest that seem to no more than compete with the lots serving the West Coast. Merchandising beef on the hoof takes in every classification of cattle sales. Every cattle sale beginning with the first as stacker or feeder is one step closer to beef on the hook. The registered cattle breeder produces the bulls for our commercial herds. His culls go into meats as they cease to be breeders. The commercial breeder furnishes the animals that make up the bulk of meats that sell into the popular grades. Prepared meats and ham- burger are certainly in constant demand, but they are not ordinarily produced from the grades of meats that get preferential feeding through the feed lots We are

IDENTIFYING THE QUALITY OF BEEF 71 concerned here with all meats, certainly, but the Beef for Tomorrow must be the delight on every table it is served. The beef that goes into most hamburger and the prepared meats is at this time a consistent product, and is taken from boned meats of animals which are not considered the most important sales in any production operation. These cull cattle from the breeding herds generally go to the closest market or auction and their sale is ultimately to the packers. The stockers and feeders from the com- mercial herds are the important sales for every range area. Since the advent of the supported prices on basic farm products, stocker and feeder animals are produced in greater numbers in many states that previously produced very few stockers and feeders. These animals may go to the West Coast or any feeding area across the nation as far east as New York state. The New England states surely feed livestock, but they do not come into any scope. We, from the western areas, do not know they exist. The Beef of Tomorrow will come from the commercial breeding herds from all over the nation. Maybe this beef will be defined here at this conference. If so, it might still be years before the animal will be generally known. This is an im- portant meeting—competent breeders will take new appraisals of their problems if they have not already done so. Big commercial feed lots may be put up in all areas where there is ample roughage to go with grain. Many range states will be producing more grain fattened animals. Transition is in the making—those that make no mistakes in making adaptions to the trend will be termed intelligent op- erators. Others will earn less favorable comment, not because they were not mak- ing an effort, but because they were not fortunate with their appraisal. I do not see anything but trial and error for some time to come, unless the answers may de- velop more quickly than I anticipate from meetings of this sort. Beef transported some distance is less in demand than the locally dressed carcasses. When this difference is solved, live cattle will move only that distance that takes them to where they can be fattened the cheapest to the popular meat grade. I could use the words "choice grade of meat" rather than popular, but in defer- ence to my colleagues and to the estimates you may make or have made here at this conference, I shall prefer the term "pop- ular" to define what the Beef of Tomor- row will be. After all, commercial opera- tors like ourselves who wish to handle numbers are very anxious to have answers in order to make their operations better. With greater production a certainty, and greater production needed each year to meet population increases we need to de- termine definitely how the beef product must be finished. We need to know it soon. May I repeat—production of beef will surge ahead of consumption needs in the near future. Better Beef Provides Challenge This is America at its best—no holds barred in developing a better product so that our meat consumer will give more working time towards obtaining it for his table. Grading done by the Department of Agriculture should and will eventually place the term "choice" on the type meat that by volume meets popular consumer preference in all respects. This will be the Beef of Tomorrow. Three Steps to Good Merchandising of Beef on the Hoof 1. Well owned is half sold. This is the old proverb changed to fit our occasion "well bought is half sold." 2. Develop the customers needed for your particular size of business. 3. Plan with all responsible persons available to you and plan with your customers what to produce and when to have it on the mar- ket. These steps have been learned through experience. They have given our family

72 BEEF FOR TOMORROW a better than average result financially and it has also given us much satisfaction in our association with the good people who have been our customers throughout the years. Step 1. Well owned means much in this instance. The necessity of owning well may awaken you at night. You should look well into every step of your pur- chasing, breeding, and production pro- cedures and do it often. I suggest for the actual selling of your beef on the hoof that you should continue to do as you have always done—attempt changes only after you understand what you are doing, regardless of what others may tell you. Do not try to guess the highs in any market year. It can hardly be done and will create trouble for that operator who supposes he can do so. You should develop a formula to guide you in your purchasing. It is not enough to say that you bought cattle on the day of purchase in line with the market of that particular day. Plan by use of your formula the price you can pay in order to sell your produce in a market months ahead. You cannot buy prudently with- out anticipating what price will be needed to get your money back. The most de- pendable advice you can have is your own hard-headed experience and the mis- takes of others. Don't be led too fast by the seeming success of others. If you produce your own stockers and feeders you will strive to grow them so their cost will give you satisfactory results in low price periods. If you purchase all or a part of your animals your formulas will still be the basis for your decision. You can't afford to be a high pressure salesman. It is wiser to base your business on live and let live prices. High pressure salesmen generally lose the perspective of producing or purchasing wisely. Accurate bookeeping today is a must. We have long passed the era that we can survive without adequate records for com- parisons and estimates. Agricultural ad- visors and publications can assist with formulas if you need them. The above tells you then that you must set price goals that you consider possible lows for the period in which your animals will sell. Then apply your formula in reverse—so to speak—by which method you will determine what you can or cannot pay for stockers and feeders that are to sell in that projected market price range. The answers you get from your formu- las will also give you some basis for de- ciding the extent of your operation. And you can, with these answers, balance your operation with some "sense of proportion" that will expose your operation only to the risk that you feel will be prudent. There is one more important caution that I find many operators do not con- template. Never plot a purchase or pro- duction program planning that certain amounts of profits will return. Plan only that your capital will return with some margin of error against the low side. I assure you that profits will be the reward on the average. You may decide, as we have had to do often since grain comes to the commercial feeder at a protective price, that competition is going to be rough, but we do have to do a certain volume of business to hold our organiza- tion intact. We ranchers and livestock farmers make our living from efficient operations; we have no control over prices nor the elements. It is an exceptional rancher or farmer who makes much more money annually than that required to provide his family with a reasonable living. He, though, who lives with the same farm or ranch over a long period of years—operating it effici- ently, will develop into a substantial citi- zen. The proverb that "a rolling stone gathers no moss" must have been invented to suit an agricultural society. You may ask what this last statement has to do with merchandising beef on the hoof. You have to be on the field to play the game, which means that its value to you will be beneficial if it causes you to get your feet firmly on the ground. Step 2. Develop a customer or customers for the kind of beef animals you can best

IDENTIFYING THE QUALITY OF BEEF 73 handle or which fit into your b'uyers mer- chandising programs. Merchandising in all fields is best accomplished where con- fidence has been established between buyer and seller. This can be done through your commission man on the public mar- kets as well as through direct contacts. Unfortunately, for the commission mer- chant more sales are being made outside public stockyards each year. The com- mission man is working diligently in the country and we should not discount his value. It is fallacy to feel that you must get the last dollar available for your livestock. It is wiser to be considerate of your buyer so that you do not have to find a new cus- tomer for each sale. The time wasted looking for new customers can be utilized for valuable planning—worth much more to you than the extra money you may get. Step 3. Seek advice from every source available to you—your banker, commission man, your buyers and good trade litera- ture. Never has there been so much in- formation available to the cattleman as comes to him now. Much of it is basic in our operation—thanks to all who have made it available. Finally, however, your decision must be your own and, since a program once set up takes time to accom- plish, it is practical to stay by it to the end. In fact, that is about all you can do. Explain to your buyer what your feed- ing program will be. Employ advice on feed formulas if necessary. Show him by example that you do produce a good beef carcass for the grade of your animal. Let him know when your animals will be ready to slaughter—maybe he will drop by to see your cattle and together you may plan when the animals will be ready. Very few cattlemen or feeders know much about their beef in the carcass and miss the quality on the hoof, notable unless the cattle are very close to one grade. If you are fortunate to deal with a high class packer, you will find that selling your beef on grade and yield will net the best averages. To do this you must feed well and know something about beef or have confidence in your packer. There are very few packing plants who do not order their buyers to purchase only certain types of animals for each day's kill. Sometimes the kill will be bought ahead on certain types, particu- larly if the plant is buying to fill a con- tract or if the management anticipates a rising trend in the market. You will be benefited by staying with a consistent program of selling. Sell by contract ahead of the time your cattle are ready or sell for fair prices the day your animals are ready. You should realize that your packer cus- tomer has a three department team that practically runs his operation. The man- ager (if not the owner), the beef sales de- partment, and the livestock buyers. The beef sales department wields the big stick. They tell the story of why or why not the beef is moving or not moving and at what price. So learn, if possible, all you can about the ability of the sales depart- ment where you sell. They are not all good and I have known companies that did not deserve to do business with clean cut operators because of the inability or the uncooperative attitude of the head beef salesman. This head beef salesman, together with management and the cattle buying de- partment, determine purchase price and the cattle buyer is so limited by this de- cision. If you can pick your choice, avoid pack- ers who are erratic in their purchases or those who may have volume ideas rather than a good consistent business. No more beef can be put into the coolers from the killing floor than goes out through the sales door. A packer who allows his cool- ers to become over-loaded too often should be avoided. Since there are relatively few packers and many producers, keep your buyer constantly advised so that your animals will be placed in the kill without delay. No plan is automatic. You have to ride herd on your operation. Sometimes you

74 BEEF FOR TOMORROW can wait several days if the market is high or rising. On the low market, however, it is doubly important to move livestock as they are ready. Delay means money out of your pockets where the cost of gain is higher than the sales price. The customer who will take your cattle without delay as they are finished for slaughter should be cultivated when prices are high and cattle hard for him to buy. See that he gets your cattle in the high priced, shortage periods but tie him to you by so doing since you will need him much more in the low periods, and he can easily repay you for your previous consideration without cost to him or his plant. Beef on the hoof is nothing more to you than the merchandise, relatively speak- ing, found on your neighborhood grocer's shelf. Some different kind of a store, I grant, but still just your stock in trade. Your inventory turnover is as important to you to sell prudently as it is for the grocer. Do not allow yourself to fall in love with your beautiful cattle. Love your family, respect your home but sell your production as it is ready. I would almost guarantee if you can master these "Three Steps to Merchan- dising Beef on the Hoof," that you will be in the business when others are having more troubles than you. I believe these steps will keep your operation adaptable to the changes in the industry.

Next: How to Produce Beef Economically »
Beef for Tomorrow: Conference Proceedings Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF
  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!