The quality of the beef the U.S. produces has improved significantly in just the last five years, as evidenced by the percentage of USDA Prime and Choice beef now produced. Cattle graded a new combined record of 83.02 per cent USDA Prime and Choice for the week ended January 25. Cattle graded 9.26 per cent Prime, the 12th week in a row above nine per cent, and 73.76 per cent Choice. They graded 14.190 per cent Select (the third quality grade). Cattle in all of 2018 graded 7.98 per cent Prime and 71.39 per cent Choice, up 1.46 percentage points from 2017.

These are phenomenal numbers when one considers that only five years ago, cattle graded four to five per cent Prime and around 67 per cent Choice. Yet cattle feeders and packers expect grading percentages to remain high this year for several reasons. The U.S. beef cow herd now contains its highest quality genetics in the industry’s history. That is because cow-calf producers forced to reduce their herds because of drought from 2010 to 2012 sold their poorest cows and then rebuilt their herds with much better genetics.

Another reason is that feedlot operators are using more technologies to track how cattle are performing on feed. Also, is that demand for Prime and Choice beef has continued to increase at the expense of Select beef. Another factor is that last year saw little or no dip in grading percentages in April-June because of an expected seasonal increase in calf-fed cattle in the mix. Either there were fewer of these cattle on feed than in prior years or they were fed longer and graded better.

The high grading percentages mean the industry in 2018 produced just over 17.67 billion pounds on a carcass weight basis of Prime and Choice beef from fed steers and heifers. The U.S. beef industry is both producing the highest quality beef in its history and remains the global giant in producing such beef.

Although well behind the U.S. in terms of tonnage, Canada is the world’s second largest producer of high-quality beef. The amount it produces annually is likely to increase in the future because Canada has updated its beef yield standards to mirror those in the U.S. As of January 15, Canada’s standards changed to five yield classes, replacing the former three classes. The new classes mark one of the biggest changes in the Canadian beef industry for some years, as they will change the type of cattle the industry produces, say analysts. The change will encourage the industry, from the seedstock level on, to produce leaner carcasses and eliminate cattle that produce the most fat, they say.

The change will facilitate further segregation of carcasses by packers for the cutting floor, which should result in higher processing efficiencies, says the Canadian Beef Grading Agency. It will also facilitate the identification of cattle that were inefficient in the feedlot (producing more fat than lean as they increased weight) and facilitate future discussion for feeding efficiencies. From a cow-calf perspective, when feedback is communicated from feedlots regarding yield performance, it should facilitate the identification of more desirable genetics, says the agency. Better genetics were the foundation on which the U.S. increased its production of Prime and Choice. Canada can expect something similar to occur.

The post North American beef quality sets industries apart appeared first on Canadian Cattlemen.

Canadian and U.S. beef quality grades are quite similar (i.e. A vs. USDA Standard, AA vs. USDA Select, AAA vs. USDA Choice and Canada Prime vs. USDA Prime), but Canadian and U.S. yield grades currently predict different things. Canada’s three yield grades predict lean meat yield (the percentage of red meat in the entire carcass). This essentially estimates the edible part of the carcass, at least for those consumers who trim the external and seam fat from their steaks and roasts and drain their ground beef. In contrast, the U.S has five yield grades (YG1 to YG5) that predict the retail yield of the four largest primal cuts (chuck, rib, loin and round) that make up 81 per cent of the beef carcass. Unlike Canada’s lean meat yield, U.S. retail yields account for the fact that beef sold in retail stores still carries some fat trim, as well as regular, medium and lean ground beef. The differences between Canada’s lean yield and U.S. retail yield grades has caused some confusion and frustration in cross-border trade.

On January 15, Canada will change from three lean meat yield grades to five retail yield grades. Because both the definition of yield and the number of yield grades are changing, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada’s Lacombe Research and Development Centre worked with commercial packers in Canada to assess how the distribution of Canada’s yield grades may change when the new system is adopted.

What they did: 867,861 carcasses from fed cattle were graded using both Canada’s three lean yield grades and the five U.S. retail yield grades, and the results from the two systems were compared. Another 700 research carcasses were graded for lean and retail yield, fabricated into retail cuts, then fully dissected into lean, fat and bone to validate the grades. This cut-out work is very time-consuming and costly, but the data was also used for several other research projects. This was an efficient use of data and resources.

What they learned: Using Canada’s lean yield grades, 50.7 per cent of carcasses graded Canada 1 (leanest), 33.7 per cent graded Canada 2, and 15.6 per cent graded Canada 3 (fattest). Using the U.S. retail yield grades, 19.6 per cent graded YG1 (leanest), 41.9 per cent graded YG2, 30.1 per cent were YG3, 7.5 per cent were YG4 and 0.8 per cent were YG5 (fattest).

They also compared how carcasses graded under Canada’s lean yield system would have graded under the U.S. retail yield system. Carcasses that graded Canada 1 primarily graded as U.S. retail YG1 (35.6 per cent) or YG2 (51.9 per cent). Canada 2 carcasses mainly graded as U.S. retail YG2 (41.6 per cent) or YG3 (48.4 per cent). Canada 3 carcasses mostly graded as U.S. retail YG3 (49.3 per cent) or YG4 (34.8 per cent).

The five retail yield grades can be easily programmed into the camera grading technology used in large commercial plants, and a new hand-held grading ruler has been developed to allow smaller plants to implement the grades as well.

What it means: In addition to facilitating international beef trade, expanding the number of yield grades will allow packers to identify higher-value carcasses and help producers adjust their management practices accordingly.

Some important legislative changes have also occurred. Previously, beef grading fell under the Canada Agricultural Products Act, while the Livestock and Poultry Carcass Grading Regulations defined the exact levels of marbling score required for each quality grade and the specific lean meat yield percentages required for each yield grade. This meant that creating a new grade, redefining an existing grade or eliminating an irrelevant old grade required a full public consultation and regulatory change. That can take a very long time. Beef grading now falls under the new Safe Food for Canadians Act and Regulations, with one particularly important difference. The new regulations refer to a Grade Requirements Document that defines the specific beef quality and yield grades. The Grade Requirements Document is developed and maintained by the Canadian Beef Grading Agency (CBGA). The CBGA is not a government body, so future changes to grade definitions can be made more quickly, without needing to revise the Safe Food for Canadians Regulations.

The Canadian Beef Cattle Check-Off has increased from $1 to $2.50 per head in most provinces, with approximately 75 cents allocated to the Beef Cattle Research Council to support research. Canada’s National Beef Strategy outlined why the check-off increase was needed, and how it would be invested. In Canada’s National Beef Strategy, the first target outcome under the Beef Demand pillar’s “Validate and Enhance the Canadian Beef Advantage” focus area is to benchmark Canada’s beef carcass quality and yield relative to international competitors. These changes to Canada’s grading system will help international markets fairly compare both the yield and quality of Canadian and U.S. beef.

The Beef Research Cluster is funded by the Canadian Beef Cattle Check-Off and Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, with additional contributions from provincial beef industry groups and governments to advance research and technology transfer supporting the Canadian beef industry’s vision to be recognized as a preferred supplier of healthy, high-quality beef, cattle and genetics.

The post New Year’s resolution: Get better beef grades appeared first on Canadian Cattlemen.

The Canadian Beef Grading Agency announced that the three yield grades of the Canadian beef grading standards will be replaced in January 2019 with five yield grades. The quality grades will remain the same.

The adoption of five yield grade standards is being implemented to align with the American yield grades and create transparency with the U.S., given its role as Canada’s biggest export client of beef. This change will also allow for the industry to develop management practices for targeted finishing by creating a greater distinction between low and high carcass yields.

This change to the beef yield grade standards is connected to the Safe Foods for Canadians Act, coming into effect January 15, 2019. Óscar López Campos, research scientist with Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, and his team at the Lacombe Research and Development Centre were tasked with the research and testing required to develop and validate the new standards. This work was supported by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency’s national standards officer, as well as beef graders across the country.

The original method used to predict lean yield was introduced in April 1992, then updated in 2001 when regulations changed to reduce the minimum amount of backfat thickness. Through the current standards, a grader makes an estimate of lean yield once a carcass is given a Canada Prime grade or one of the A grades. An estimated yield of 59 per cent or more qualifies for Canada 1, or Y1, while 54 to 58 per cent fall into Canada 2 (Y2) and 53 per cent or less is considered Canada 3 (Y3).

In the American standards, United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Yield Grade 1 is given to carcasses with an estimated yield of more than 52.3 per cent. USDA Yield Grade 2 is 50 to 52.3 per cent; Yield Grade 3 is 47.7 to 50 per cent; Yield Grade 4 is 45.4 to 47.7 per cent; and Yield Grade 5 is less than 45.4 per cent.

Once the five new yield grades are finalized and verified, an objective measuring tool will be created to accompany the new standards. More information on this, as well as training for graders, will follow soon. Visit the Canadian Beef Grading Agency’s website for more information.

*UPDATE: A previous version of this article stated that USDA Yield Grade 1 is given to carcasses with an estimated lean yield of more than 52.3 per cent. In fact, USDA yield grades estimate the amount of boneless, closely trimmed retail cuts from the high-value parts of the carcass. They also show differences in the total yield of retail cuts. 

The post Canadian beef yield grade standards change in January appeared first on Canadian Cattlemen.

Under the CPTPP, Canadian beef exports to Japan could double in 2019, up from the $160 million of beef exported to Japan in 2017 under the old tariffs on fresh and frozen beef. On December 30, Japan’s tariff of 38.5 per cent will immediately drop to 27.5 per cent on Canadian fresh beef and to 26.9 per cent on frozen beef. On April 1, 2019, Japan will implement a second tariff cut, down to 26.6 per cent on both fresh and frozen, and eventually down to nine per cent over several years. With CPTPP, Canadian beef will also be exempt from the Japanese safeguard tariff of 50 per cent on beef.

The remaining five countries, Brunei, Chile, Malaysia, Peru and Vietnam, are continuing their ratification processes. Vietnam in particular is an emerging market with important growth potential for Canadian beef. Canadian beef exports to Vietnam in 2017 were $3.9 million with a 20 per cent tariff. Once Vietnam implements CPTPP in 2019, their initial two tariff cuts will immediately bring the tariff down to 6.6 per cent and then to zero in 2020.

The CPTPP, along with the recent United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), will create extraordinary growth opportunity for the Canadian agriculture and food sectors. It remains to be seen if the Democrats winning the House in November’s U.S. midterm elections may have an impact on the final approval of the USMCA. The Canadian Cattlemen’s Association (CCA) will be watching this situation closely in the months ahead.

In November, I participated in Agriculture and Agri-Food Minister Lawrence MacAulay’s trade mission to China, where he promoted Canadian agricultural products, including beef, and discussed ways of strengthening agricultural trade between the two countries. CCA participated in beef events in Shanghai and Beijing and was involved in meetings with the embassy and industry in the latter city. China is an important market with massive potential for Canada’s beef producers and CCA continues to advocate for expanded access in this politically complex market at every possible turn.

The Government of Canada’s renewed focus on trade diversification is very much appreciated by the CCA; however, the ability to meet the potential of new access requires that a number of competitiveness issues be addressed. At a roundtable session with Minister of International Trade Diversification Jim Carr in Winnipeg recently, the CCA and industry partners discussed the need to address, through labour policy changes, the chronic labour shortages within the agriculture and food sectors that will intensify as the global market for Canadian agricultural products rapidly expands. The need to enhance and modernize the capacity of transport routes was also brought forward. Concern was raised with regard to the appropriateness of the federal government’s carbon pricing policy for the Canadian agriculture and food industries. Suggestions were made that other tools may be more effective and less trade-deterring for the highly traded and globally competitive industry. As Canada is a leader in green agriculture and food production, future discussion regarding the appropriate tools to continue this leadership was suggested.

Canada’s leadership in sustainable beef production and the nutritional benefits of beef to human health were the main themes of a meeting I had with Minister of Health Ginette Petitpas Taylor in Ottawa. CCA staff and I shared our perspective about the food guide and front-of-package labelling with the minister, letting her know that red meat is an important part of a healthy and balanced diet, and of the need for Canadian health and nutritional policy to be based on sound and consistent scientific evidence. The perils of including misguided information in the food guide or on warning labels on foods high in saturated fat, like ground beef, could push people away from an affordable nutrient-dense protein staple of benefit to human health.

The CCA also continues to advocate for the need to amend Bill C-68 to protect fish habitat without undermining farmers’ ability to produce food in a sustainable manner. The CCA believes there is opportunity to work with the government to find solutions that will satisfy both perspectives.

In another positive development, in January 2019, Canada’s beef yield grade standards will change from the current three classes to five yield grade standards to mirror U.S. yield grade standards. The Canadian Beef Grading Agency said the move to five yield grade standards will allow alignment and transparency with the U.S. and will also provide enhanced distinction between higher- and lower-yielding carcasses providing the opportunity for improved targeted finishing practices.

The new year will be one of reinvention and re-examination of how best to take advantage of the opportunities. And with that, Bonnie and I would like to extend our heartfelt wishes for a joyous holiday season and a happy new year.

Until next time.

The post CCA Report: Good news to close out the year appeared first on Canadian Cattlemen.

Mark Klassen, director of technical services for the Canadian Cattlemen’s Association, presented an overview of the audit in a webinar hosted by the Beef Cattle Research Council (BCRC). The audit was funded by the BCRC, the Canadian Beef Cattle Check-Off, and Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada.

Klassen reviewed two major components of the audit: the processing floor audit and the cooler audit. The processing floor audit used data gathered through three visits throughout 2016-17 to packing plants “representing more than 75 per cent of Canadian cattle slaughter.” The data for the cooler audit primarily came from statistics provided by the Canadian Beef Grading Agency. A minimum of 25,000 animals were represented in each measurement.

Costs rising on the processing floor

The total cost of quality defects on the processing floor increased from more than $70 million in 2010-11 to about $110 million in 2016-17. “The cost,” said Klassen, “is rising quite consistently, year after year. The attributes measured were tag, horns, body condition score, livers, injection site lesions, brands and bruising.”

Some aspects had positive findings. Horns, which can lead to costs from bruising and additional labour, showed what Klassen called “a slight improvement” from previous audits, with 90.8 per cent of fed cattle and 91.7 per cent of non-fed cattle being polled. The industry loss from horns was about six cents per head, not including the cost of bruising.

As well, the body condition score of the average cow is now in the recommended zone of 2.5 to 3, with the number of very thin (1) and very fat (5) cows decreasing. However, fed cattle continued to be in the 4 to 4.5 range, and the amount of fed cattle with a score of 3 “has greatly decreased since ’98-99,” said Klassen.

Other attributes showed room for improvement. The industry loss from tag, for example, increased to around $10 per head, with tag on 85 per cent of fed carcasses and 57.3 per cent of cow and bull carcasses.

The amount of fed cattle with brands increased to 12.53 per cent, while the number of non-fed cattle with brands dropped to 13.14 per cent. The industry loss from brands was about $1.25 per head, rising from just more than $0.50 per head in 2010-11. This is due to rib brands on fed cattle almost doubling since the last audit. “A rib brand has the most impact on the value of the hide because it’s not on the peripheral edges — it’s right in the centre,” said Klassen.

Some attributes raised larger concerns, such as an increase in abscessed livers, which cannot be sold for human consumption. The audit found that in fed cattle, 68 per cent of livers were fit for human consumption, while 10 per cent went to pet food and 22 per cent were condemned. There was a major increase in fed and non-fed cattle with A+ livers, meaning it has “one or more large active abscess with inflammation of the liver tissue.” The industry cost from liver discounts rose from less than $10 per head in 2010-11 to more than $20 per head in 2016-17.

More research is needed into what is causing this increase in liver abscesses. “Whenever I’ve attempted to explore that with the feedlot sector, I’m told that it’s most likely due to an increased reliance on higher-energy rations, but I think that question needs further examination,” said Klassen.

The number of surface injection site lesions is another area requiring attention. Lesions were graded as minor, major or critical, and the audit found a significant increase in minor and major lesions in both fed and non-fed carcasses. Lesions were most often found at shoulder injection sites, particularly in non-fed cattle. Despite this increase, the actual loss to the industry has decreased, currently at around $0.75 per head, as minor lesions are a smaller cost compared to major lesions, Klassen noted.

“Even though major surface injection site lesions are down, there is still an opportunity to improve on our total number, keeping in mind that now we have one in seven non-fed animals that appear to have a surface injection site lesion.” He added that some believe using a dart gun, particularly when exceeding the recommended amount of product, contributes to this increase.

Bruising also has potential for high costs, given the value of the affected cuts. “The locations of these bruises,” Klassen noted, “is a critical aspect of how much that bruise costs the industry.” The audit scored bruising as minor, major and critical.

The audit found a significant decrease in major bruising for both fed and non-fed cattle from 36.5 per cent of carcasses compared to 44.4 per cent in 2010-11. However, bruising on fed cattle was most often found on the loin and chuck. The number and severity of bruises in non-fed cattle was higher, with the round and loin most affected. The industry loss from bruises is steady from the last audit at about $2 per head.

“The challenge that we have with this is that the producer will lose money due to reduced carcass weight from trimming of bruises, but they won’t necessarily know where those bruises were,” said Klassen. There has been research on using a whole carcass computer grading vision system to identify bruising, though this is not yet available in processing plants. “Our hope is that we could use that camera to provide feedback to producers, and with the knowledge of where these bruises occurred, you might be able to narrow down at your operation or during transport what it was specifically that was causing them.”

Yield grade, carcass weight causes for concern

The cooler audit, measuring yield grade, ribeye area and fat depth, carcass weight, quality grade and dark cutting beef, also highlighted areas needing attention.

Klassen said that yield grade is “trending in a less than ideal manner,” as packing plants noted a significant loss of yield, often due to trimming external fat. About 37 per cent of carcasses were Yield Grade 1, a decline from 52 per cent in 2010-11 and 63 per cent in 2000. “A very core attribute of the Canadian beef advantage… is no longer what it once was.”

The audit found that the average ribeye area has increased to 93.2 cm squared, which Klassen warned isn’t necessarily positive when considering portion sizes. Fat depth in the A Grades increased from 9.42 mm in the previous audit to 16.6 mm, which Klassen called “unequivocally negative, in that it’s up by 76 per cent.” The amount of dark cutting beef is also rising.

Carcass weight has increased steadily over the previous audits, rising from 812 pounds in 2010-11 to 864 lbs. in 2016-17. In fact, the carcass weight of the Canadian steer has increased by an average of seven pounds per year since 1975. “There comes a time when the genetics of the animal and management simply cannot continually put on efficient lean yield while weight is increasing at that rate,” Klassen explained. “The challenge for processors is that they need every animal they can get, and so, at least in Western Canada, there is a real reluctance to institute some of the traditional disincentives for producing heavier than desired carcasses.”

There are positive findings related to quality grade within the A Grades. In 2016-17, 2.6 per cent of the A Grades were Prime, 64.1 per cent were Triple A and 31.7 per cent were Double A. In the previous audit, 1.2 per cent of the A Grades were Prime, 52.5 per cent were Triple A and 43.3 per cent were Double A.

The total cost of quality defects represented in the cooler audit varies based on how discounts for yield grade and carcass weight are applied by packers. “If we applied those as we have in the other audits, we would get a cost of defects which would clearly be higher,” said Klassen. In this case, it would be more than $120 million. If these discounts were not applied, it would be around $100 million. “The truth is likely somewhere in between these lines, and the cost of quality defects is probably above what it was the last audit.”

Consumer satisfaction remains strong

Klassen briefly covered consumer satisfaction, referring to the 2015 retail audit. The audit took samples of four types of steaks from retail chains across Canada, using them in a variety of tests.

The consumer portion of this audit looked at the overall satisfaction with steaks given to consumers to prepare at home, scoring them on a scale of one to 10, with 10 being the best. A score of seven out of 10 or higher was deemed “satisfied.” Of the 1,200 consumers polled in the 2015 audit, 79 per cent were satisfied, maintaining an “increase in overall consumer satisfaction with Canadian retail beef steaks since 2009,” according to the presentation.

“This is the ultimate measurement,” said Klassen. “The importance of these scores has never been higher in my mind. We have record-high beef prices, and I think that equates to record-high expectations that what you pay for is reflected in the quality of the product.”

Going forward

“The cost of quality defects is increasing for the Canadian beef sector,” said Klassen, adding that this is partially due to the current value of the beef carcass.

“We do have an opportunity, I think, to refocus on quality at the primary production level,” he continued. “We will benefit from some investments in targeted research and communication to enhance industry practices to enhance the results for the future.”

The final component of the audit is a survey of producers, processors and retail personnel on the results and their priorities. A series of short videos focusing on each attribute in more detail will soon be released, and results will also be shared through the Verified Beef Production Plus program.

The post Beef quality takes a slight bruising appeared first on Canadian Cattlemen.

That’s what the Certified Angus Beef (CAB) brand believes it has gained by hiring Martin Lemoyne as its director of Canadian business development. Lemoyne will guide food service and retail companies in Canada to develop and implement beef merchandising, marketing and training strategies.

A Montreal native, Lemoyne brings extensive experience in beef marketing to the role, most recently as director of market development for Canada Beef.

“Martin has a deep understanding of high-quality beef from gate to plate and the impact a strong brand can have on the success of food businesses,” says Geof Bednar, CAB international director.

Certified Angus Beef brand products have been available in Canada since 1991 and it is now the top international market for the brand.

Canadian production began in 2000 and continues today supplying 1,300 licensed restaurants and grocery stores in Canada.

A growing share of that beef is produced in-country. That first fiscal year, Canadian Angus farmers and ranchers raised four million of the nearly nine million kg sold in Canada. Eight years later Canadians supplied 6.7 million of 12.6 million kg sold, and last year native Canadian Angus cattle made up 16.2 million kg of the 19.3 million kg of CAB product sold in Canada.

Those cattle have to meet the live specification of a predominantly black hide, plus the brand’s 10 carcass specifications under the auspices of the Canadian Beef Grading Agency.

In his role at Canada Beef, Lemoyne collaborated with industry leaders and food businesses on beef promotions and sales strategies. His prior experience included senior purchasing and merchandising lead, as well as a food service key account director for Loblaw Companies Limited. He worked in sales, buying and production for Canada Packers, a role he began while earning a bachelor’s degree in marketing, finance and business administration from the Université de Montréal.

The post Lemoyne brings Canadian focus to Certified Angus Beef appeared first on Canadian Cattlemen.

CFIA’s current food safety program is managed under 13 different regulations spread over five pieces of legislation covering nine food commodities: dairy, fish and seafood, fresh fruits and vegetables, honey maple products, meat, processed eggs, processed fruit and vegetable products and shell eggs.

Currently the agency operates separate food safety and inspection programs for each of these, often under different rules, using different bureaucracies. As a result not all imported food or food prepared in Canada for export or interprovincial trade is subject to the same regulatory requirements.

The new rules will usher in a more consistent inspection process across all food commodities along with tougher penalties for infractions.

When these regulations are accepted, the Safe Food for Canadians Act, which received royal ascent in 2012, will repeal and consolidate the Canada Agricultural Products Act, the Consumer Packaging and Labelling Act, the Fish Inspection Act and the Meat Inspection Act so all food in Canada covered by the mandate of CFIA will be governed under the Safe Food Act and the Food and Drug Act.

With that will come the power to license food importers and Canadian companies preparing food for export or interprovincial trade and slaughter plants and processors. CFIA will also gain the authority to apply an international standard for traceability on licensees and require companies to establish food safety controls, which are already common practice in beef slaughter plants.

Most of these new rules will be aimed at the packers and processors in the beef sector but there are bound to be some ripples that affect cattle operations. Traceability, for example, has been in the wind for years, and producers now have a pretty good idea of how it will roll out after years of negotiating back and forth with CFIA.

Another you might not be as aware of is the change to Canada’s beef grades that will show up after these new regulations come into force.

The Safe Food regulations include a provision to incorporate documents by reference to the regulation, which is a nifty way of giving an industry standard the force of a regulation while allowing it to be changed without going through all the red tape needed to amend the regulation itself.

• Read more: Upgrading beef grading research
• Read more: Sharing the grade

Since beef grading is incorporated in the Safe Food regulations, the Canadian Beef Grading Agency has gotten the agreement of CFIA to reference a revised version of the grade standards for beef, bison and veal carcasses to the regulation.

This is one of the ways CFIA has come up with to streamline its enforcement of regulations, which is also going to be available to the Health of Animals Act, Feeds Act, Fertilizers Act, Seeds Act and Plant Protection Act.

There are safeguards built into this process to make sure any third-party document allows Canada to meet its international obligations, and other stakeholders have ample opportunity to review and comment on any change to the document before it is made by CFIA.

The Canadian Beef Grading Agency document proposes to change Canada’s Yield Grade classification from three to five classes to harmonize it with the current USDA standard.

This is not a sudden decision. The agency has been trying to get a similar regulatory change through CFIA for years up to 2012 and the introduction of the Safe Food Act. A discussion paper done soon after looked at four alternative approaches that ranged from scrapping a regulatory grade in favour of an industry standard to the status quo with full government control of the standard.

In the end the agency and its industry-driven board settled on the current proposal which had the benefits of a government-backed standard plus the flexibility to make amendments so the industry could adapt to changing market conditions or take advantage of newer technology.

It also seemed like a faster track to making changes to the grading standard back in 2015 when the proposal was first put together, and the Safe Food regulations appeared imminent.

Yet here we are in 2017 waiting for a 90-day comment period to end on April 21 and possibly facing another year after that before the comments are reviewed and the final version approved. Regulation making is a painfully slow business which, when you think of it, is how we got to this point in the first place.

By the way, these grading changes are part of the new regulation and subject to comment, as well. So if you have any concerns about moving to a U.S. yield grade you’ve got another month or so to make your case at www.inspection.gc.ca.

The post Comment: Grading changes still on hold appeared first on Canadian Cattlemen.

The precise relationship between fat depth and muscle area can change over time as breeds, genetics, and feeding practices change. For example, the relationship between fat depth and muscle size that describes lean meat yield in the vast majority of mainstream beef carcasses may not work as well for dairy or double-muscled carcasses. Similarly, an equation from the 1970s when carcasses were a few hundred pounds lighter may not work as well for today’s larger cattle. This means that the yield grade prediction equation needs to be recalibrated periodically. This is very expensive in terms of labour as well as lost product value. It requires measuring weight, backfat depth and rib-eye area on several hundred carcasses, then completely dissecting the carcasses into piles of fat, lean and bone that have significantly less value than the retail cuts they could have been sold as otherwise. Statistical techniques called regression are used to determine the relative weightings and combinations of backfat and rib-eye area measurements that give the best prediction of carcass composition. Due to the tremendous expense, these recalibrations are not done very often. Full carcass dissections are rare in research projects for the same reason.

In 2011, the Beef Cattle Research Council funded a research project led by Dr. Oscar Lopez-Campos at AAFC Lacombe to investigate whether Dual X-ray Absorptiometry technology (DEXA) can allow carcass composition to be measured more quickly, more accurately, and more often. As the name implies, DEXA technology uses two x-ray beams. The two beams differ in intensity, but both are much less intense than a routine medical x-ray. Fat, lean and bone absorb each of the two different x-ray beams to different extents as they pass through. The information generated by the DEXA scan can be reconstructed into a high definition image, and used to estimate the fat, lean and bone content of the carcass. The objective of this study was not to develop a new yield grade equation. The objective was to determine whether DEXA technology has the potential to replace full carcass cut-outs.

What they did: 316 cattle were slaughtered in the federally inspected abattoir at AAFC Lacombe’s research station. The DEXA machine isn’t large enough to accommodate whole carcass sides, so each side was cut into primals (chuck, rib, brisket, flank, foreshank, loin, round and plate). Each primal cut was scanned, then completely dissected into fat, lean and bone. These dissection results were used to determine how well the DEXA technology predicted actual carcass lean, fat and bone percentage.

What they learned: The DEXA scans explained well over 90 per cent of carcass lean content, well over 90 per cent of carcass fat content, and around 90 per cent of carcass bone content. It’s not surprising that the correlations weren’t 100 per cent. For example, DEXA would assign marbling to the “fat” column, while marbling would be included in the “lean” category when the carcass was dissected. So the DEXA scan correlations of 98 per cent are pretty respectable. It’s also important to note that if two sides of the same carcass were completely dissected, those two results wouldn’t agree 100 per cent either. For comparison purposes, the ruler that is currently used to assign yield grades had explained 90 per cent of carcass lean percentage.

What it means: DEXA technology is a rapid, cost-effective, non-destructive alternative to full carcass dissections. Using DEXA, two people can cut a side into primals and scan them in 35 minutes (1.2 person-hours). After the DEXA scan is completed, the primals can still be fabricated into retail cuts. A traditional full dissection of one beef carcass side usually takes five people two hours (10 person-hours). The full carcass dissection also produces a lot of very lean meat that is great for grinding, but is worth a lot less than the retail cuts it could otherwise have been fabricated into. The DEXA technology will allow AAFC Lacombe to accurately evaluate carcass composition on more research cattle, more quickly and more economically. This will make routine research projects more informative and economical, and allow more regular evaluations and updates of the yield grade equations used in commercial packing plants.

The Beef Research Cluster is funded by the National Checkoff and Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada with additional contributions from provincial beef industry groups and governments to advance research and technology transfer supporting the Canadian beef industry’s vision to be recognized as a preferred supplier of healthy, high-quality beef, cattle and genetics.

The post Upgrading beef grading research appeared first on Canadian Cattlemen.

“Now the industry has the opportunity to move forward. All the necessary pieces are in place. Electronic identification tags make it possible to link carcass data to the individual animal. Computerized camera grading technology is available to assess marbling and lean yield. The beef information exchange system (BIXS) can be used to relay that information right back to the original producer,” he told delegates at the Saskatchewan Stock Growers Association convention earlier this summer.

While poor feeding practices can ruin a potentially good carcass, Gracey says it is much more difficult to produce an excellent carcass out of a genetically inferior animal.

The only way to make genetic progress on carcass quality is to get carcass information back to cow-calf producers so that they can produce calves with superior genetics for quality and yield in the same carcass.

Typically, the more fat in a carcass, the lower the lean meat percentage, so shooting for marbling that brings top prices often results in excessive external fat. Gracey and others contend Canadian fed cattle have become too fat resulting is higher feed costs in the feedlot and trim losses for the packer.

The genetics for both marbling and yield from the same animal are available, but it’s not the norm, says Gracey. In a Saskatchewan plant he found one-third of 665 Canada AAA carcasses had between four and 7.5 mm of backfat, another third were between 7.5 and 10 mm, and the last third 10 mm or more. The carcasses ranged from 2.5 mm backfat all the way up to 20 mm.

“Without carcass information you will do it sometimes by accident. With carcass information you will be able to do it by design,” he says.

Lean yield has value

The first grading standards in 1929 promoted quality and eventually resulted in overly fat cattle. Revisions in 1972 led to a focus on lean at the expense of quality. The current version adopted in 1993 was intended to help producers balance quality and lean yield.

While there have been strong market signals to improve marbling, a market signal to improve lean yield hasn’t been there, Gracey says. The cattle feeder has no incentive at all to seek out and pay more for cattle with the genetic capability to deliver a carcass that has both high quality and high yield.

As a result Canada AAA and Prime quality grades increased from approximately 20 per cent in 1995 to over 60 per cent last year, while the percentage of Y1 yield carcasses decreased from near 70 per cent in 1996 to little more than 40 per cent last year. According to Canada Beef, lean meat yield in Canada averages 73 per cent with a range from 64 to 78 per cent.

Canada’s present yield grade system groups lean yield into three classes. Y1 is 59 per cent and over; Y2 is 54-58 per cent; and Y3 53 per cent and under. In effect, these groupings result in owners who sell higher-yielding cattle subsidizing those who sell lower-yielding cattle, he explains.

The reason for establishing yield classes in the first place was because there wasn’t a way to accurately predict lean yield. Now with camera grading, Gracey questions why we even bother with yield classes when we can have actual yield per cent.

He feels industry’s push to move to a five-class yield grade system, along the lines of that in the U.S., would at least be a good starting point because it would narrow the range for each class.

His calculations show that packers wouldn’t end up paying more in total than if they paid a flat price for lean yield. At a recently quoted price of $250 per hundredweight (cwt) for a 750-pound carcass in North Dakota, the prices paid for each yield class based on lean yield should have been $269.70/cwt for Y1; $255.41 for Y2; $241.12 for Y3; $231.83 for Y4; and $217.19 for Y5. That’s with no premium/discount grid involved. It’s simply paying for what the carcass yields.

A new five-class yield grade system for Canada is outlined as part of the “Beef, Bison and Veal Carcass Grade Requirements” document prepared by the Canadian Beef Grading Agency (CBGA) in consultation with industry. It is expected to be incorporated by reference in the Canadian Food Inspection Agency’s (CFIA) consolidation of food regulations being prepared as part of the agency’s modernization process. The advantage of incorporating a document by reference is that requirements can be updated as needed without having to go through the lengthy process of changing a regulation. Details are posted under the news tab on beefgradingagency.ca.

This proposal was submitted some years ago but CBGA manager Cindy Delaloye says there are indications it could be published in Canada Gazette I this fall and possibly finalized sometime in 2017.

The new proposed yield grades Canada 1 through 5 will be based on a formula that includes adjusted back-fat, rib-eye area and carcass weight.

Camera grading

Only youthful carcasses that meet marbling and other criteria to qualify for the Canada A, AA, AAA and Prime grades go on to be assessed for yield. The quality grade is based on the degree of marbling present in the rib-eye. The yield grade is currently determined using an equation and ruler developed at Lacombe Research Centre and implemented in 1992.

Gracey says the ruler is notoriously inaccurate and was intended to be a temporary tool until the computer vision system (CVS) became available.

CVS was approved by the CFIA as an aid for grading in 1999, but commercial uptake was low and the technology was sold.

A cold-carcass camera developed by e+v Technology GmbH in Germany was tested in Canada and approved by the CFIA in fall of 2010 as an aid for grading beef carcasses for quality and yield.

The three plants with moving rails — Cargill at High River, Alta., and Guelph, Ont., and what is now JBS at Brooks, Alta. — which process approximately 90 per cent of fed cattle in Canada, have installed e+v cameras. The Brooks plant was the first to use the technology for grading beginning in fall 2011, although the CBGA graders have the final approval of the camera’s assessment. Cargill plants still only use the cameras as the first step in their internal processing systems.

Given that carcass grading is voluntary, so is the use of computer technology, Delaloye explains.

So far, the e+v camera has performed up to expectations. She says the majority of overrides by CBGA graders are due to yield, either because the fat covering the rib-eye area has been torn during dressing and/or the technology mis-traces the rib-eye area when capturing the image.

The camera measures grade-fat thickness, length and width of the rib-eye, and calculates the estimated lean yield per cent and marbling score to arrive at grades for each carcass, so dressing as well as camera placement are critical to measuring yield accurately, she explains.

The operator has to place the camera flat over the rib-eye because it can only assess the rib-eye in two dimensions and can’t adjust for any tilt.

CBGA graders are incredibly consistent because they have two eyes and a whole lot of experience, Delaloye adds. The camera only sees the rib-eye, whereas graders see the entire carcass and decide whether the camera image is representative. As of yet, camera technology isn’t able to assess other carcass quality factors such as maturity, conformation, as well as meat and fat colour.

The advantage of the camera is that it is even more consistent than the grader because it assesses each rib-eye independently and objectively without memory of the previous carcass. The camera always illuminates the rib-eye in the same way, whereas a grader’s height and angle to the carcass can affect how light hits the rib-eye when evaluating marbling. It’s quick and the image with the accompanying data can be easily stored and shared.

Sharing is the glitch

“The original purpose of grading was to serve as a common language to meet the interests and needs of the entire industry and for the benefit of consumers. The grading system and the individual carcass grades weren’t intended to be owned by anyone, but now packers want to make it a profit centre,” he says.

He could have never imagined this kind of debate 20 years ago when electronic tag technology and camera grading were still in development and BIXS was only a dream. Through the years, the common excuse for not sharing carcass information with cow-calf producers was that they wouldn’t know what to do with it anyway!

Gracey concludes his message with a stern warning. “If the industry hopes to produce animals that produce carcasses that combine high quality with high yield and animals that convert feed more efficiently, it all has to begin with the person who makes the breeding decisions. An industry that does not recognize this and does not do everything possible to relay information back along the supply chain cannot and will not prosper.”

The post Sharing the grade appeared first on Canadian Cattlemen.

Miles Anderson walked away from the Sask­atchewan Stock Growers annual convention with two mem­­­­or­able souvenirs, the provincial environmental stew­ard­ship award (TESA) won by him and his wife Sheri and an autographed copy of Dr. Temple Grandin’s book, Humane Animal Handling, auctioned off during the annual fundraiser. The TESA award recognizes the efforts Miles and Sheri and their family put into managing their native Fir Mountain, Sask., pastures to create a beneficial habitat for their cattle and the Greater sage-grouse that coexist on their place. More details are available in our August issue of Canadian Cattlemen.

Chris Lane is the new CEO of Canadian Western Agribition. The former senior producer at the CBC grew up with an agricultural background in northern Alberta and has over a decade of experience leading teams and organizations.

The Canadian Angus Association honoured Korova Feeders, Doug and Helga Price of Acme, Alta., with its Western Feedlot of the Year Award during the Carcass 101 workshop held in Olds. Korova Feeders has a 30,000-head capacity in two feedlots. The Prices also operate Echo Sand Ranching, a cow-calf operation that runs 4,000 Angus and Angus influence cows in Alberta and Sask­atch­ewan and currently have 8,000 yearlings on grass in Saskatchewan.

Shane Jahnke was elected Saskatchewan Stock Growers Association president at the association’s summer annual convention in Regina. He comes into this role with seven years experience on the board, two as first vice-chair, and is joined on the executive by outgoing president Doug Gillespie of Neville, first vice-chair Bill Huber of Lipton, second vice-chair Kelcy Elford of Caronport and finance chair Jeff Yorga of Flintoft.

Two men well recognized in cattle circles, Bob Switzer and John Willmott, will join the prestigious Canadian Agricultural Hall of Fame November 6 in a ceremony at the Royal Agricultural Winter Fair in Toronto.

Bob Switzer of Sandy Bar Ranch in Aneroid, Sask., was instrumental in introducing the Certified Angus Beef brand to the cattle industry, the Canadian hotel and restaurant trade, and ultimately consumers. He was also involved in the creation of Red Coat Cattle Feeders, a community-based feedlot. Switzer is a distinguished Angus breeder, promoter, mentor and judge, and continues to advocate for the cattle industry within Saskatchewan and across Canada.

John Willmott of Pense, Sask., has served as the president of Canadian Western Agribition and Canada’s Farm Progress Show. He’s an international cattle judge, an Angus breeder and past president of the Canadian Angus Association. He also helped create the first regulations affecting artificial insemination and a standard Record of Performance (ROP) program for the Canadian beef industry.

Brian McKersie of Canal Flats was elected president of the British Columbia Cattlemen’s Association by his fellow directors following the association’s annual meeting in Penticton. He replaces Larry Fossum of Dawson Creek who remains on the executive as past president. Larry Garrett of Vanderhoof is vice-president.

Ian McKillop, a former president of the Ontario Cattlemen’s Association (now Beef Farmers of Ontario) is the new chair of Farm & Food Care Canada. He served on the board of the Canadian Cattlemen’s Association, and chaired the National Farm Care Council’s beef cattle Codes of Practice committee.

Brian Coughlin of Cobden, Ont., has been re-elected president of the Canadian Charolais Association. Andre Steppler of Miami, Man., is first vice-president, and Darwin Rosso of Moose Jaw, Sask., is second vice-president. Brent Sanders of Markdale, Ont., is past president.

Graeme Hedley, the former general manager of the Beef Farmers of Ontario has stepped down as president of the Canadian Beef Grading Agency. He has been replaced by Willie Van Solkema, a long-time veteran of the packing industry.

The post TESA award for environmental stew­ard­ship awarded appeared first on Canadian Cattlemen.