From 1980 through 1998, market-share spending for beef decreased by 13.7 percentage points (from 53.9% to 40.2%). Almost all of the loss was attributable to an increase of 11.6 percentage points (from 16.1% to 27.7%) in market-share spending for chicken (Cattle-Fax, 1999). NCBA (1999) set as its goal in the beef industry long-range plan, “Stabilize beef demand by the year 2001 and increase the opportunity for industry profitability.”
The best news for the year 2000 is that beef demand either has stabilized or, better yet, may actually be increasing. Steve Kay (Cattle Buyer’s Weekly, 2000) said, “The story of the year, without a doubt, was beef’s improved demand.” Bill Helming (Helming Consulting, 2000) remarked, “It appears that the beef cattle industry is now putting into motion the necessary foundation of slowly taking back some of the market share lost to chicken over the past 25 years.” Mike Miller (Cattle-Fax, 2000) reported, “Beef production in the year 2000 has been a bit larger than previously anticipated while beef demand has more than offset the increase; beef demand is expected to remain strong in 2001.” Greg Henderson (Drovers, 2000) said Angus cattle, certainly, have played a role in helping the beef industry stop the 20-year erosion in beef demand, and the American Angus Association has developed and paid for programs that have benefited all beef producers.
What are the “drivers” in the beef industry? NCBA (February 1999) identified as profitability drivers (a) cost efficiencies and (b) value enhancement, and as demand drivers (a) food safety, (b) palatability, (c) health and nutrition, and (d) consumer-friendly products.
At the World Meat Congress (Dublin, Ireland, May 1999), representatives of five countries described demand drivers (in categories of economic, noneconomic, ethical and ecological concerns). Common to all five countries were two of two economic concerns (cost; price/value) and three of four noneconomic concerns (food safety; eating quality; diet/health/nutrition).
Unique to certain of the countries were the noneconomic concern, convenience (United States and European Union); the ethical concern, animal welfare (EU and New Zealand); and the ecological concerns, environment (EU and New Zealand) and food from genetically modified organisms. Two other countries (Argentina and Australia) share the same demand driver concerns, except for convenience, as the United States.
In 1988, when the U.S. beef industry first realized that it must do something very dramatic to arrest the decline in demand and in market-share spending, a group of business and economic experts concluded (in the “Shuh/Johnson Report”) that beef must be produced more efficiently so it can be sold at lower prices. By 1998 John Nalivka (Oregon beef economist) said, “The problem is that, though the beef industry is more efficient, it’s still not producing the right kind of beef.” A part of the problem in producing the right kind of beef is that of differentiating between the customer and the consumer.

Customer vs. consumer
Feedlot operators can say they are “producing for demand” by producing the “most marketable carcass” when that carcass fits a packer’s grid relative to quality grade, yield grade, carcass weight, ribeye area and defect criteria (“outs” for hard-bones, dark cutters, bruises, bloodshots, etc.). In the latter case, the feedlot operator may well be satisfying the customer (the packer) yet not satisfying the consumer (the person who will eat the beef).
The Certified Angus Beef LLC (CAB) Feedlot Licensing Program (FLP) is intended to facilitate information flow across production sectors. Licensed feeders will work closely with cow-calf producers to coordinate management practices and to correlate genetics and carcass quality. CAB staff work with licensed feedlots in identifying and procuring suitable cattle and in coordinating information exchange from the packer back through the system (Drovers, 1999).
Fergal Quinn (International Livestock Congress, 2000) said, “So long as you see meat as a commodity, you will be driven by quantity — and so long as you do, the overall price trend will inevitably be downward. But, if you can get away from the straitjacket of regarding meat as a commodity, you tend to concentrate not on quantity but on how you can best satisfy the needs of the consumer.”
Of the 900,000 cow-calf operations in the United States, 8% produce 50% of the feeder calves (these operations have 100 or more cows), while the other 92% (with an average of 21 cows) produce the other 50% of feeder calves. Bill Helming (Helming Consulting, 1997) said these 92% of cow-calf operators have no incentive to change — no reason to be consumer-driven.

Production-driven vs. consumer-driven
While the cattle industry is changing from being “production-driven” to becoming “consumer-driven,” some who say that really don’t understand that there is much about the end product that must be changed to improve its acceptability to those who eat it.
As an example, a “production-driven beef industry” can justify use of mild, medium or aggressive strategies for growth promotion (using naturally occurring hormones — estrogen, testosterone, progesterone — and/or xenobiotics — Ralgro®, Revalor®) because of improvements in animal performance (gain, efficiency), and because scientific evidence demonstrates that residues of the growth promotants in beef from implanted cattle are very, very low (1.9 vs. 1.4 nanograms of estrogen in a serving of beef from steers that were vs. were not, respectively, implanted with estrogen-containing implants, compared to 35,000 nanograms of estrogen in a single, daily dose of a birth-control pill).
A “consumer-driven beef industry” will consider not using growth-promoting implants because there are domestic and international consumers who will not purchase or consume beef from animals given hormones or xenobiotics because of fears that it might contain harmful residues, or who will consider using only mild strategies for growth promotion to minimize the negative effects of use of growth promotants on likelihood of grading Choice or Prime and on likelihood that middle-meat steaks will be tender. A study by Colorado State University (CSU) for the NCBA (Roeber et al., 2000) determined that use of no, mild, medium or aggressive growth promotion resulted in percentages grading Choice or Prime of 94, 93, 73 and 79, respectively, and yielded percentages of steaks considered “tough” by members of a consumer taste panel of 8, 8, 17 and 29, respectively.
To retain market share, beef producers must learn to meet consumers’ needs, rather than try to change consumers’ minds. Mary Adolph (NCBA, January 1999) said, “Consumers do not want your products and services … consumers only want their needs and wants met.” An article in Food Processing (May 1999) was entitled “Selling Is Not Telling … Your Customers Don’t Want To Be Sold Anything … They Want Someone To Help Them Buy What They Need.”
The Food Marketing Institute (2000) identified as the eight factors considered very important in food selection for supermarket shoppers: (1) taste, (2) nutrition, (3) product safety, (4) price, (5) storability, (6) ease of preparation, (7) food-preparation time and (8) recyclable packaging. Steve Harper (HEB Supermarkets, November 1999) described the six questions asked by consumers when they make decisions about purchasing beef as: (1) Will it hurt me? (food safety), (2) Is it good for me? (nutrition/health), (3) Can I afford it? (value), (4) Do I know how to fix it? (cooking/preparation), (5) Do I have time to fix it? (convenience) and (6) Do I like it? (preference).
Consumers’ needs include: (a) properties of fresh (unprocessed/unprepared) beef and factors involved in its production and processing, as well as (b) properties of beef products (processed/prepared) that are modernized to make their use in meal preparation simple and convenient.

Processed and prepared
Properties influencing consumer demand for processed/prepared beef products include:
(a) Novelty (new and different, changed in form, modernized, with added value);
(b) Quality (taste, tenderness, physical attractiveness, storage stability);
(c) Simplicity (quick, fast, time-saving, uncomplicated);
(d) Convenience (easy to prepare, easy to serve, easy to clean-up after);
(e) Safety (bacteriologically safe, chemically safe); and
(f) Consistency (sameness in appearance from purchase to purchase, sameness in performance from preparation to preparation, sameness in palatability from eating experience to eating experience).
The need for such properties in processed/prepared beef products is justified because:
(a) Beef’s primary competitor, chicken, has changed the form in which it is marketed, from 7% (in 1975) to 43% (in 1998) further-processed product;
(b) 70% of women are in the U.S. work force, and 28% to 58% of women and men say they have “lack of time” or “too busy schedules” to cook because of their lifestyle;
(c) Two-thirds of all dinner decisions are made the same day and, of those, 73% of dinner preparers don’t know at 4:30 p.m. what they’re going to have for dinner;
(d) Simplicity and convenience are the most important factors driving meal-preparation decisions;
(e) 41% of consumers under the age of 25, and 50% of those aged 26 to 35, say their lack of cooking knowledge keeps them from buying certain cuts of beef;
(f) To satisfy home and foodservice preparers, beef must be made easier to purchase, prepare, place on a menu, fit into consumers’ busy lifestyles and fit into changing foodservice environments; and
(g) During the week, 40% of households spend less than 30 minutes on meal preparation, while 78% of households spend less than 45 minutes on meal preparation.
Wayne Purcell (Virginia Tech University, October 1998) said, “Beef prices to consumers need to go up, and go up on the strength of value-added activity, new-product offerings, and modernized product lines. Boosting prices by offering consistent, delicious and easy-to-prepare beef products and by cutting cattle/beef production costs are complementary and both are needed.”
The Harris Ranch Beef Alliance developed a beef tri-tip roast [fully cooked, 2 pounds (lb.) each, feeds four people] from the bottom sirloin in 1992 because, in the words of Brad Caudill (July 1999), “We had to change or die. To meet consumer needs, sure; but also to add value for the packer and add value for consumers (convenience, home-meal replacement, grab-and-go, speed of preparation).” Since introduction of their first successful value-added product, the Harris Ranch Beef Alliance has added beef pot roast in 1995, beef stew in 1997, beef short ribs and beef Swiss steak in 1998. And, four more products are on the way for 2000-2001.
In 1999, Certified Angus Beef™ (CAB®) was sold in 459 restaurants and 495 supermarkets. Among CAB heat-and-serve products are prime rib slice, top sirloin steak, beef in barbecue sauce, tri-tip roast, pot roast and meat loaf (all can be microwaved in 2 to 10 minutes). Among CAB ready-to-prepare entrées are frankfurters, Bubba® Burgers, knockwurst and “Thick N’ Juicy Beef Patties.” Among CAB deli selections are roast beef, bologna, corned beef, pastrami and beef summer sausage.
Wayne Purcell (Virginia Tech, January 2000), commenting on the stabilization of beef demand during 1999, said, “It’s the most encouraging thing I’ve seen in 20 years. Beef checkoff programs are working and so are the efforts of private firms, which are putting out more-convenient precooked products.”

Fresh and unprocessed
Properties influencing consumer demand for fresh, unprocessed/unprepared beef include:
(a) Quality (taste, tenderness, physical attractiveness, storage stability);
(b) Consistency (sameness in appearance from purchase to purchase, sameness in palatability from eating experience to eating experience);
(c) Safety (bacteriologically safe, chemically safe); and
(d) Caring attitude (by producers, about the environment and animal welfare).
Means for improving fresh, unprocessed/unprepared beef, with regard to those properties that influence consumer demand, include:
(a) Source-verification (brings promise of greater control of quality, consistency, safety and caring attitude);
(b) Production-practice verification (brings promise of greater control of safety and caring attitude); and
(c) USDA process-verification (brings promise of greater control from ranch-to-retail of quality, consistency, safety and caring attitude).
What can producers do to improve the quality, consistency, safety, palatability and healthfulness of beef and to assure domestic and international consumers of U.S. beef that it was produced by cattlemen with a caring attitude about the environment and animal welfare? If it is true that the U.S. beef industry is changing from being production-driven to becoming consumer-driven, it is imperative that beef producers accept the challenge of making such change gradually and in an evolutionary, rather than revolutionary, manner. Such change must occur gradually because, otherwise, producers could lose economic viability while chasing someone’s ideal (presumed to be based on what consumers want) and not being rewarded for achieving that new standard.
To be consumer-driven means that cattle producers can no longer just produce what they (individually or collectively) think is best (or easiest or most economical) and expect the world to come begging for more. Rather, it means that, at each critical juncture in the beef-production sequence, consideration must be given to what the consumer wants and is willing to buy.
During Meat Standards Australia meetings, at which no consumer is present, an empty chair is placed prominently in the room as a constant reminder that the Australian beef industry must be consumer-driven. On a recent trip to Argentina, my host (Raoul Marcus Firpo of the Argentina Angus Association) responded to my query regarding the primary drivers of their beef industry by saying, “For us, it is that lady (here, in Argentina, or in places like Chile, Germany or Switzerland) who buys, cooks and serves the product … she must be glad … otherwise, we are finished!” The American Angus Association has a brand-building campaign for CAB emphasizing Life Can’t Have Too Much Flavor™.
Now and in the future, the guarantee that must be provided by those in the beef industry to consumers of U.S. beef is that of assuring that domestic and international consumers receive bacteriologically and chemically safe, healthful, high-quality and consistently palatable beef that was produced without compromising the environment or the animal’s welfare. Piece by piece, let’s dissect that statement.

Assuring …
For beef producers to guarantee that all of their fresh, unprocessed/unprepared beef meets these qualifications at end-user (consumer) levels necessitates source verification, encourages branded beef and forces partnerships and alliances. Principles incorporated in concepts of total quality management (TQM), good manufacturing practices (GMPs), good management/production practices (GM/PPs), statistical process control (SPC), standard operating procedures (SOPs), hazard analysis and critical control point (HACCP) systems and palatability assurance critical control point (PACCP) systems can be used by those in each sector of the beef production system as a means for measuring/monitoring/managing progress toward assuring that consumer expectations are well and truly met.
Source verification allows for a source of a particular type/kind/quality of beef to be identified and for a supply of that beef to be sent to the next adjacent sector (one step closer to the consumer) with a guarantee (verification) that the beef is as specified. Source verification of beef is accomplished in some relatively small enterprises — for example, in Doc and Connie Hatfield’s Oregon Country Beef™, which is a “partnership in profit from pasture to plate” — and in some large enterprises — for example, U.S. Premium Beef’s (USPB’s) mission statement for their partnership with the production sector states, “to increase the quality of beef and long-term profitability of cattle producers by creating a fully integrated producer-owned beef-processing system that is a global supplier of high-quality value-added beef products responsive to consumer desires.”
Production-practice-verification might involve assuring that, for example, no growth promotants or subtherapeutic antibiotics are used in finishing of the cattle. USDA process-verification is accreditation that the company has implemented production/processing procedures described in its “process-verified program.”
Premium Standard Farms has a USDA process-verified program for pork that involves a 12-step-process control system for pork production. Included in those 12 steps are animal welfare, food safety, product quality and environmental management.
Better Beef™, a branded beef program based on use of Piedmontese cattle, is a USDA process-verified program owned by the Leachman family in Billings, Mont.
On May 31, 2000, PM Beef Group received approval to display the USDA process-verification shield on its branded beef products going to Ukrop’s Supermarkets. It is the first “ranch-to-retail” approval.
An article in BEEF magazine (May 1998) quoted meat merchandising guru Joe Gordon as saying that 50% of all beef will be branded by the year 2005. NCBA (November 1998) reported that: (a) Branded beef programs are expected to grow to 35% to 40% of the meatcase in the next decade (according to NCBA estimates). (b) Consumers look for brands they know and trust; consumers would buy branded beef if they knew that branded (vs. nonbranded) beef offered higher quality (based on studies by Moeller and Associates). (c) Research shows that more than one-third of consumers interviewed believe a farmer-owned brand means higher quality (concluded in the Murphy pre-advertising test).
James Salter of Total Research Corp. uses an integrated model to describe consumer loyalty to food products that involves the interaction of quality, price, image and value (relative to the competition) to achieve attraction and loyalty to a brand of food products. Salter believes that brand image translates to brand loyalty and that advertising/promotion effectiveness is largely premised on increasing brand equity. “Keep the customer happy — for a lifetime,” an article in USA Today (July 1999), discusses customer loyalty and says that the estimated lifetime value of a customer loyal to General Motors is $276,000 and of a shopper loyal to Safeway/Albertsons is $192,000 (based on 40 years at $4,800/year of grocery purchases). Tom DeMott (Safeway Stores, December 1999), discussing that article in USA Today (July 1999), said he believes that the value of a shopper loyal to his company is worth more than $10,000/year.
Since 1980, CAB has had an average annual growth rate of more than 40%, and sales have increased from less than 1 million pounds (lb.) to more than 300 million lb./year (Mick Colvin, 1998). In 1999, CAB product sold, by division, was 57% retail, 28% foodservice, 14% international and 1% miscellaneous. CAB will gain added exposure to domestic and international customers and consumers as the official branded beef supplier for 2002 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games in Salt Lake City. CAB will also supply beef to the Winter and Summer U.S. Olympic teams until the end of 2004 (Meat International, 2000).
Harlan Ritchie (Michigan State University) reported that a group of agricultural economists concluded at a 1998 NCBA strategy conference that:
(a) Sixty alliances will form in the next five years. Four to 11 of those will control the U.S. supermarket meatcase. And, once an alliance gets a foothold, it will be able to dictate animal husbandry practice as well as quality, consistency and safety; and/or
(b) By 2010, the 30 largest cattle feeders will generate 50% of all finished cattle. They will align with cow-calf producers, packers, retailers and foodservice operators to produce branded, source-verified beef. Those producers who resist this paradigm shift will fall further and further behind until they have no market at all.
In an article entitled “Vertical Coordination: Surviving in a Changing Beef Industry Will Require Greater Cooperation Between Production Segments” (Drovers, 1999), Angus breeder Dave Nichols is quoted as saying, “You need 350 to 400 cows to sell load lots of the same sex, same size, same outcome kind of cattle. People are going to have to join together.”
A December 1998 article in BEEF magazine entitled, “The Alliances Yellow Pages,” identified 30 beef alliances that are already in existence. A “Beef 2010” survey by BEEF (January 2000) reported that 22.6% of respondents said they are “in an alliance now,” while more than 50% said they’d be in an alliance by the year 2010.
The advantages of alliances are these:
1. At every sector, participants are full partners (not sharecroppers or tenant farmers);
2. At every sector, participants need not be predatory or cannibalistic and need not have island mentality;
3. At appropriate sectors, costs of changes in genetics, production practices and technology can be recovered (e.g., costs for better seedstock, vaccination/immunization programs, correlated growth-promotion implant programs, vitamin E supplementation, cautious animal handling, cattle/carcass evaluation instrumentation, bacterial decontamination technology);
4. At the packing/processing sector, with guaranteed supplies of high-quality raw materials and fewer discounted edible/inedible products and byproducts, attention can be focused on further processing, adding value and making beef more convenient to use; and
5. At the customer and consumer sectors, the alliance can deliver high-quality, consistent, safe food, produced by people with a caring attitude and with accountability (through source-verification and production practice-verification). Examples of alliances that have fulfilled these promises to customers and consumers are:
• Farmland Supreme Beef Alliance — generates consistently palatable fresh beef (e.g., Farmland Black Angus Beef) and convenient, quick-and-easy, heat-and-eat prepared beef products (e.g., Farmland Philly Steaks); and
• Harris Ranch Beef Alliance — generates certified residue avoidance fresh beef (e.g., Harris Ranch GrainFed Beef) and convenient, simple-to-prepare, versatile, heat-and-eat prepared beef products (e.g., Harris Ranch Beef Pot Roast).

Domestic and international consumers …
Beef’s five markets are: (1) international markets for beef in all forms; (2) domestic ground beef sold in foodservice operations; (3) domestic ground beef sold in supermarkets; (4) domestic steaks/roasts sold in foodservice operations, and; (5) domestic steaks/roasts sold in supermarkets.
Beef sold internationally approximates 10% of present production and nearly 20% of sales value of U.S. beef; so we must meet the requirements of international customers (i.e., traders, wholesalers, brokers) and consumers (i.e., end users). And, because we cherry-pick the carcasses used to supply cuts to international buyers, all of our beef must meet the minimum standards for the safety, quality and environmental/welfare constraints set by our customers in other countries.
For domestic beef customers and/or consumers, the “Top 10 Quality Concerns” were identified by the Response/ Reaction/Consensus Panel of the National Beef Quality Audit — 1995. These are: (1) low overall uniformity and consistency; (2) low overall palatability; (3) insufficient marbling; (4) inadequate tenderness; (5) excess external, seam and beef-trim fat; (6) excessive weights of cuts and weights of boxes of cuts; (7) too high incidence of injection-site lesions; (8) too high price for the value received; (9) excessive live and carcass weights, and (10) too frequent hide problems.
For international beef customers and/or consumers, we know that the most important reasons that importers in other countries purchase U.S. beef (according to the 1994 International Beef Quality Audit) are:
(1) Our ability to supply individual cuts (i.e., chucks, rounds or loins, etc.) and items (as opposed to selling only “full sets,” i.e., whole carcass-equivalents);
(2) Its exemplary tenderness and flavor;
(3) Its high value perception (i.e., it is considered worth the price);
(4) Its high overall quality (in both appearance and palatability);
(5 tie) The desirable image of the USDA beef quality grading system; and
(5 tie) Their confidence in U.S. food safety. There are 46 CAB-licensed international distributors selling CAB product in 51 countries. In the 1994 International Beef Quality Audit, the most widely recognized symbol of quality/palatability in the world was “U.S. Choice.” Second was “Certified Angus Beef.”
Inasmuch as there are domestic consumers who want (or will not otherwise purchase beef) to buy “natural,” “organic,” “lean,” “extra-lean,” etc., products, it is incumbent on the beef industry to produce products of all kinds, at several value-price ratios and for diverse end uses. Domestically, beef is sold to consumers in supermarkets (largely as steaks, roasts, ground beef and processed meat), as well as to the foodservice industry (again, as steaks, roasts, ground meat and processed meat) with specific-target needs/costs differing widely. A truly “consumer-driven” industry will generate every kind and form of product that is desired by domestic and international customers and/or consumers and the raw material (fresh beef) from which to generate these kinds and forms of product.

Bacteriologically and chemically safe …
Factors considered “very important” to supermarket shoppers in food selection (Food Marketing Institute Trends — 2000) were: (1) taste, (2) nutrition and (3) product safety. When asked, in 1997, which was more important to consumers — diet/health/nutrition vs. food safety concerns, Cary Humphries Jr. (Excel Inc.) said, “Consumers say to themselves ‘If I consume food with too much fat, calories and cholesterol, it might kill me 30 or 40 years from now … but if I consume food with bad bacteria, it may kill me in three or four days.’ Consumers are much more concerned about the safety of food than in its nutritional content.” An article entitled “What Americans Fear” in USA Weekend (August 1997) reported that the things about which respondents were “afraid” or “very afraid” were ranked: (1) being in a car crash, (2) having cancer, (3) inadequate Social Security, (4) not enough money for retirement, (5) food poisoning from meat, (6) getting Alzheimer’s Disease, and (7) pesticides on food.
The beef industry has searched diligently for pathogen control points that could be used in the feedlot or on the farm but, as Meat Marketing & Technology magazine (April 2000) reports, quoting Dr. Gary Cowman of NCBA, “We don’t have a true HACCP-type program, focusing on specific, production-related critical control points because we just don’t have the science yet; we need better direction on how to deal with pathogen control on ranches and at feedlots.” In another article in Meat Marketing & Technology (April 2000), Dr. James Reagan of NCBA is quoted as saying, “We are interested in dehairing technology. Cattle would be stunned, hung up and treated with a chemical and then go through a washing cycle; the chemical would remove the hair and the washing process would remove all dirt and feces.”
A study in the Pathogen Reduction Laboratory by Delmore et al. (1998) at CSU identified a multiple-hurdle system for reducing the probability of contamination of beef carcasses with bacterial pathogens. That study was conducted for NCBA and identified a four-step, multiple-hurdle microbiological intervention sequence that reduced total plate counts, total coliform counts and Escherichia coli (E. coli) counts by about four logs (i.e., by about 99.99%).
Monfort Inc. used their own information, plus results of the CSU/NCBA study, to devise a “Chain of Beef Safety™” beef carcass decontamination system that was installed in all eight of the Monfort/ConAgra beef plants (five steer/heifer plants; three cow/bull plants). The Monfort system consists of (a) steam-vacuuming, (b) pre-evisceration washing (90°F water) and rinsing (2% acetic acid in 120°F water), (c) thermal pasteurization (165°F water) and (d) final-carcass washing (90°F water) and rinsing (2% acetic acid or lactic acid in 125°F water).
Bacon et al. (1999) of CSU completed a study of the efficacy of the Chain of Beef Safety in the eight Monfort/ConAgra beef plants for NCBA that confirmed the effectiveness of the four-step, multiple-hurdle microbiological intervention sequence because its use achieved reductions of 99.9% or more in total plate counts, total coliform counts and E. coli counts on the surfaces of chilled carcasses.
Twelve beef packing plants, in a study conducted by American Meat Institute Foundation and analyzed by Bacon et al. (2000), collected E. coli O157:H7 incidence data from 2,245 cattle and carcasses and 1,342 lots of beef trimmings. The incidence of confirmed positive E. coli O157:H7 tests was 3.56% for hide samples, 0.44% for side samples prior to washing, 0.00% for side samples after application of final carcass decontamination interventions and 0.00% for beef trimmings samples, demonstrating the effectiveness of packing plant process control in reducing incidence of this foodborne pathogen.
A study entitled “Microbial Mapping II. Determining Microbial Counts on Beef Carcasses, Wholesale Cuts and Retail Cuts to Assist Those in the Fabrication, Distribution and Retailing Sectors to Deliver Safe Beef to Retail Consumers,” sponsored by NCBA, was also completed in early 1999. At six U.S. locations, counts for bacteria and incidences of foodborne pathogens (Salmonella spp., Listeria spp. and Listeria monocytogenes) were determined; results revealed that counts/incidences of bacteria/pathogens were higher on wholesale (subprimal) and retail cuts than on the carcasses from which they originated in three to five of six comparisons.
A study designed to identify a multiple-hurdle microbiological intervention sequence for use during fabrication of beef carcasses into subprimal cuts and beef trimmings, funded by NCBA and being conducted by CSU, was scheduled for completion in May 2000. A study of microbiological interventions for use on beef variety meats, funded by U.S. Meat Export Federation and conducted by CSU, has identified efficacy of use of acetic-acid solutions, hot water, lactic-acid solutions, steam and solutions of trisodium phosphate for successfully decontaminating beef offals.
A research project conducted in 1999 for NCBA by scientists from Pennsylvania State University, University of Nevada, Oklahoma State University, University of Wisconsin and CSU determined that 9% of supermarket shoppers intercepted in stores in those five states during this study took more than two hours after purchase of beef cuts to put them in their home refrigerator or freezer. For fresh beef sold at retail supermarkets, consumers must be educated to: (a) cook ground beef to 160°F, measured with a thermometer or t-stick; and (b) refrigerate or freeze beef purchased at retail as soon after purchase as is possible. The “Fight BAC!” (Keep Food Safe From Bacteria) literature has been provided (through February 2000) to 72,000 preschools, reaching 2.9 million moms (NCBA, March 2000). With approval of irradiation in early 2000, opportunity exists to provide a sterile beef product to those at greatest risk (infants, immunocompromised patients, etc.) to foodborne illness.
Pesticide analyses by the Food and Drug Administration in the All-Foods Study and the Total Diet Study (completed on an annual basis) help assure that domestic and imported foods are safe to eat. Each year, the National Residue Monitoring Program of the Food Safety and Inspection Service of USDA performs nationwide chemical residue testing efforts in U.S. meat and poultry. The National Residue Monitoring Program for 1997 (reported to the public by USDA in 1999) tested for 57 chemicals in seven classes of animal drug and pesticide compounds and reported that “Only 0.27% of the 26,626 samples of livestock and poultry meats tested by FSIS/USDA during our domestic routine residue-monitoring program showed illegal levels (violative concentrations) of pesticide, hormone, antibiotic, drug and other chemical residues.” In December 1999, FSIS/USDA released results of its domestic routine residue-monitoring program for 1997 and reported that 7,260 samples of beef (from steers, heifers, beef cows, dairy cows and bulls) were analyzed for antibiotics, pesticides, drugs, sulfonamides and clenbuterol residues; the incidence of violative residues in all beef was 0.07% while that in steer and heifer beef was 0.03%.
A CSU study, for the U.S. Meat Export Federation, of muscle, fat, liver and kidney samples from “conventional,” “natural,” “organic” and “realizer” (chronically ill) steers and heifers, as well as “cull (beef/dairy) cows,” detected no violative residues of five anabolic steroids, two heavy metals, three stress reducers, six thyrostats/sulfa-drugs, as well as chlorinated hydrocarbon and chlorinated organophosphate pesticides.
A second study by CSU, funded by NCBA, of muscle, fat, liver and kidney samples from “conventional,” “natural” and “organic” steers and heifers detected zero violative residues in 558 tests for three anabolic steroids, zero violative residues in 558 tests for three xenobiotics, zero violative residues in 1,810 tests of 10 sulfa-drugs/antibiotics and 15 violative residues (three in “conventional” beef; six in “natural” beef; six in “organic” beef; all of which were in liver samples and none of which were in muscle, fat or kidney samples) in 4,650 tests for 25 chlorinated hydrocarbon and chlorinated organophosphate pesticides.
Failure to detect violative residues of harmful chemicals in beef can be directly attributed to national and state beef quality assurance programs (BQA). BQA programs concentrate on producer and veterinarian awareness of daily management practices that influence the safety, quality and wholesomeness of beef by focusing on violative residue avoidance and prudent use of animal health products.
The Texas Cattle Feeders Association implemented a Feedlot HACCP Program in July 1998 that has third-party verification for four critical control points: (a) broken hypodermic needles, (b) mycotoxins in feed, (c) residues in feed and (d) residues in cattle. The latter program does not have a critical control point for microbiological contamination on cattle; the cattle/beef industry has searched diligently for preharvest pathogen control points but has not identified anything promising. The most plausible approach for decontaminating steers and heifers from feedlots, as well as cull cows and bulls, is use of a cattle-cleaning system that would remove hair, dirt, feces and debris from cattle immediately prior to harvest.
The sight/touch/smell concepts of federal/state meat inspection have served us well for identifying unaesthetic and diseased meat but are of little use for lessening occurrence of foodborne pathogens on beef or chemical residues in beef. The National Residue Monitoring Program serves us well for “in general” assuring that “on average” there “won’t be many” harmful “residues of chemicals” (pesticides, drugs, growth promotants, antibiotics, etc.) “in the nation’s beef supply.” Consumers, though, both domestically and internationally, will be much more comfortable about the safety of beef if we can provide assurance (through source-verification, production-practice verification and USDA process-verification) that everything that can possibly be done … farm-to-table; preharvest-harvest-postharvest … has been done, to assure the bacteriological and chemical safety of specific (branded or otherwise identified) beef products.
Several pork packers announced in late 1998 that they would buy hogs for slaughter only from swine producers who qualify for NPPC, Pork Quality Assurance Level III (the most stringent of NPPC’s on-farm pork safety standards). The largest supermarket chain in Australia announced in April 1998 that they would purchase beef only from farms/ranches that qualify for the “Cattle·Care” farm safety designation. It seems highly probable that similar things will happen in the U.S. beef industry. The NCBA BQA program has served us well but may eventually move from an industry-oversight status to one of a farm/feedlot-specific beef safety verification overseer, as customers (retailers and foodservice operators) search for ways to reduce risk (and avoid litigation) of food safety hazards and to allay fears and concerns of consumers (end users) about the safety of beef.

Healthful …
From the late 1970s to the year 2000, the fat cover on most beef cuts at retail has shrunk from 0.50 inch (in.) to less than 0.08 in.; that decrease resulted from changes in cattle genetics, improved production practices and more extensive trimming of cuts by packers and retailer. Not enough attention is paid to the contributions of key vitamins and minerals that are provided by one 3-ounce (oz.) serving of beef; beef’s contributions of key nutrients (expressed as a percentage of daily values in a 2,000-calorie reference diet) are 9% of calories, 50% of protein, 14% of iron, 39% of zinc, 37% of vitamin B12 and 16% of vitamin B6 (NCBA, 1996). When it comes to energy, some foods have a competitive advantage; following is the quantity (based on the USDA Nutrient Database for Standard Reference, Release 12) of other popular food sources required to get the same amount of three nutrients found in a 3-oz. cooked serving of beef: (1) zinc, 3 oz. of beef or three 4-oz. cans of tuna; (2) iron, 3 oz. of beef or 5.25 cups of spinach; and (3) vitamin B12, 3 oz. of beef or 8.5 chicken breasts (BEEF magazine, April 1999).
A five-person panel of cognition experts concluded that beef consumption plays a critical role in normal brain growth and function by guarding against iron and zinc deficiences (BEEF magazine, June 1999). Research evidence, according to Nancy Krebs, M.D. (University of Colorado), shows that (a) 40% of Americans (56% of infants) don’t meet their needs for iron; (b) 73% of Americans (85% of infants) don’t meet their needs for zinc; and (c) beef supplies 58% of the iron and 67% of the zinc in the American diet. Dr. Krebs said (1) “Even mild, short-term deficiencies may impair mental activity.” (2) “Beef should first be introduced to 6-month-old infants.” (3) Beef consumption should continue through life” (BEEF magazine, June 1999).
Researchers at Baylor College of Medicine have suggested that a high-protein, high-monounsaturated fat diet may favor positive changes in the lipoprotein profile (Quarterly Research Update, 1998). Research evidence indicates that overweight human subjects with Type II diabetes and dyslipidemia need a diet that includes lean beef that will result in weight loss and lower plasma LDL without adversely affecting glucose and HDL levels; the diet is composed of 25% of protein (from lean red meat), 40% from fat and 35% from carbohydrate (Quarterly Research Update, 1998).
Experts have touted the “evils” of fat for two decades — many refer to it as “a guilty pleasure.” Now, though, experts have begun parroting the advantages that research has uncovered (Montana Beef Council, 1999). Why? Because monounsaturated fat is protective against heart disease and because conjugated linoleic acid (CLA) has several human-health benefits. Conjugated linoleic acid (abundant in meat and dairy products) has the following benefits (Montana Beef Council, 1999).
(a) It inhibits development of tumors and sloughs off existing ones.
(b) It lowers total blood cholesterol and “bad cholesterol” (low-density lipoproteins).
(c) It reduces body fat (it is a fat that “burns” other fats).
(d) It may regulate blood glucose levels thereby delaying onset of diabetes.
“This research adds to the wealth of other data supporting beef’s positive dietary role,” said Mary Young, M.S., R.D., of NCBA. “CLA is one of the most exciting new discoveries in meat and will give consumers even more reasons that beef should be included in their diets” (Render magazine, October 1998).
Young (at Cattlemen’s College, February 1999) reported results of the “Parity Study” (published in Archives of Internal Medicine and described in a feature article in USA Today) conducted by Michael Davidson, M.D. (Chicago Center for Clinical Research), which concluded that patients with high blood cholesterol levels who went on diets that included 6 oz. of lean red meat five or more days a week had the same health benefits as those who ate 6 oz. of white meat. Dr. Davidson summarized his findings by saying, “Lean red meat is just as effective in lowering cholesterol as chicken. One of the problems of low-fat diets is that people stay on them for only a few weeks. Lean red meat gives people a greater variety of food from which to choose.” Dr. Peter Kwiterovich, M.D. (Johns Hopkins University Lipid Clinic) added that, “Since lean cuts of red meat are now readily available to consumers, eliminating lean red meat is unnecessarily restrictive — and advising against consumption may actually negatively impact long-term dietary compliance.”
The beef industry has identified “The Skinniest Six” — very closely trimmed retail cuts from the round and loin that have contents of calories, total fat and saturated fat comparable to those of chicken. And because 79%, 59% and 37%, respectively, of supermarket shoppers in the Food Marketing Institute TRENDS — 2000 report say they “seek out and purchase” products “low in fat,” “natural” and “organic,” there is need to make such beef available in supermarkets. Maverick Ranch Beef (Denver, Colo.) has successfully merchandised Natural Lite Beef™ and will soon offer Organic Lite Beef™ to satisfy demand for such product. Some, but not all, beef must meet the needs of consumers who seek beef that is lean to very lean, and low to very low in calories, fat, saturated fat and cholesterol, because of concerns about diet/health/nutrition as well as beef that can be defined as natural or organic.
It is easy to accomplish leanness, especially in ground products, but harder to do this in solid-muscle cuts while simultaneously assuring satisfactory palatability. It can best be done for solid-muscle cuts by using raw materials from carcasses that can be source-verified (as originating from genetically superior — in palatability, especially tenderness — lines of cattle that have been produced/managed to minimize production of excess fat). Healthful ground beef can originate from the trimmings from commodity cattle; healthful steaks/roasts should come, exclusively, from source-verified, branded beef programs. And, natural and organic beef — by definition — must come from source-verified, production-practice-verified and perhaps USDA process-verified programs.

High quality …
In this context, high quality is used to connote beef that is consistently and uniformly bright-colored, firm, dry and capable of being stored (in vacuum packages) and displayed (in retail packages) for consistently long periods of time. Mine-run beef generated from the heterogeneous supplies in the sales cooler of any packing company is likely to be inconsistent in appearance/shelf-life properties; source-verified and/or branded beef can be uniformly high in these quality attributes.
For example, feeding cattle supplemental vitamin E during the finishing period can reduce premature darkening (and, thus, discounting and discarding) of retail cuts during display in meatcases. If product is branded, there is greater probability that cattle feeders can recover costs of using technologies, like that of high-E beef, that generate revenue only at the extreme other end of the beef production system.
Ground beef is presently being merchandised in modified-atmosphere (usually, 20% to 30% carbon dioxide plus 70% to 80% oxygen) packages that have a gaseous atmosphere that preserves attractiveness of the product for extended times. Much of the ground beef sold in such packages is branded.

Consistently palatable …
Fergal Quinn (World Meat Congress, 1999) said, “The end product is not meat, the end product is taste. Consumers won’t pay more for food to satisfy their nutritional requirements; neither will they pay more for it to conform to their needs for food safety. On the other hand, people will pay more for greater satisfaction, and taste is their measure of satisfaction in food.” Russ Wulfe (Topco Associates) says, “We have become the largest purchaser of Certified Angus Beef™ in the U.S. We buy CAB because many of our clients (supermarket and foodservice operators) want to up the odds of giving their customers consistent eating quality.”
It is the combined effect of differences in flavor, juiciness and tenderness that determines the overall palatability of and eating satisfaction gained from beef. A study at Texas A&M University in 1982 confirmed that beef from grain-fed cattle, with at least 0.30 in. of subcutaneous fat (external fat on the carcass measured at the 12th/13th-rib interface) and with higher marbling scores was more palatable than beef from forage-fed cattle, with less than 0.30 in. of subcutaneous fat and/or with lower marbling scores.
CSU scientists, in 1997, compared the palatability of Japanese, Canadian, American and Australian beef steaks purchased in Japan and evaluated for palatability in the United States. They reported that Japanese Shimofuri (“sprinkled with snow”) beef and Japanese Black Wagyu beef (those with the highest levels of marbling) were most palatable, followed by Australian Ravensworth, U.S. Certified Angus Beef and Canadian AAA beef (those with high-intermediate levels of marbling) and followed by Australian 100 days-on-feed, Australian 160 days-on-feed and U.S. low-Choice beef (those with low-intermediate levels of marbling), while Australian grass-fed and U.S. Select beef (those with the lowest levels of marbling) were the least palatable.
An American Hereford Association study conducted by CSU (Huffhines et al., 1992) involved 1,004 cattle and carcasses and revealed the following percentages of “desirable overall palatability ratings” by taste panelists for steaks from carcasses having Modest (58%), Small (40%), Slight (33%) and Traces (12%) of marbling.
Since the outbreak of E. coli O157:H7 in the Pacific Northwest in 1993, U.S. consumers have preferred meat cooked more well-done than was the case prior to that incident. Unless beef is well-marbled, it will not be satisfactorily juicy or tender if it is overcooked. As the beef industry attempts to improve marketability of the “end cuts” — those muscles from the round and chuck — the problem with consumer cuts from those anatomical areas of the carcass is that they are often dry and tough if they are prepared by use of dry-heat cookery.
Pork has very little marbling; so the pork industry has partially solved that inadequacy by “enhancing” fresh pork — by pumping solutions of water, phosphate and/or salt and flavorings into the product at 7% to 12% gain levels. CSU scientists have mimicked what is done in fresh pork-cut enhancement by marinating sirloin steaks and injecting fluids into top loin steaks. Marination of sirloin steaks with solutions of phosphate, beef flavoring and/or calcium chloride improved flavor, juiciness and tenderness. Injection of solutions of water, sodium tri-poly phosphate, sodium chloride and sodium lactate at 7.5%, 10%, 12.5% and 15% gain levels into top loin streaks improved flavor, juiciness and tenderness.
In May 2000, ConAgra introduced a “Guaranteed Tender” beef product line in the Plant City, Fla., region for Albertson’s that uses “Enhancement” (injection of solutions of water, salt and phosphate).
Tenderness is the most important determinant of overall palatability in beef. Jeremiah and Phillips (Meat Science, 2000) reported that studies in the U.S. and Canada indicate that 25% to 30% of beef received by supermarkets and foodservice operations is unacceptable in eating quality, primarily as a result of toughness. Tenderloin steaks (low in gristle and with long sarcomeres) sell — routinely — at retail for twice as much as top sirloin steaks and for four times as much as chuck steaks (high in gristle and with short sarcomeres). Not much can be done about the gristle (actually, connective tissue) in muscle because locomotive muscles (like those in the round) need connective tissue for work and strength, while support muscles (like those in the loin) don’t do as much work and, thus, don’t need as much connective tissue. There are things though, like slow/gentle chilling and use of high-voltage electrical stimulation, that will keep the sarcomeres (the contractile units in muscle fibers) long and thus tender.
The USDA beef quality grading system has served us well, especially at the extremes of Prime vs. Standard and particularly in identifying and excluding problematic carcasses (bullocks, heiferettes, hard-bones) to facilitate and enable sorting of the beef supply into groups (quality grades) in which customers (buyers for supermarkets and foodservice operation) have confidence. The “Retail Beef Loin Palatability Study,” conducted by CSU for NCBA, determined that U.S. Prime strip loin steaks purchased from supermarkets in eight U.S. cities were never unsatisfactory in tenderness, while one in 19 upper-two-thirds Choice, one in nine lower-one-third Choice and one in six U.S. Select steaks were unsatisfactory in tenderness.
Studies comparing tenderness/toughness of CAB steaks to those of Choice and Select have been conducted at two universities. Nelson et al. (1999) at Oklahoma State University reported that 90%, 84% and 70%, respectively, of strip loin steaks from CAB, Choice and Select carcasses were “tender” based on Warner-Bratzler shear force values and 54%, 36% and 24%, respectively, were “tender” based on taste-panel ratings. Percentages of steaks that were “tough” based on Watner-Bratzler shear force values (Nelson et al., 1999) for CAB, Choice and Select, respectively, across six subprimals were 25%, 33% and 42% with strip loin steaks the best (2%, 10% and 24%), knuckle steaks intermediate (24%, 26% and 38%) and top sirloin steaks the worst (58%, 78% and 76%).
George-Evins et al. (2000) at K-State reported percentages of steaks that were “tough” based on Warner-Bratzler shear-force values for CAB, Choice and Select, respectively, for top sirloin steaks (28%, 37% and 67%), strip loin steaks (44%, 46% and 63%) and top round steaks (30%, 39% and 43%). Studies at CSU reported percentages of strip loin steaks that were “tough” based on Warner-Bratzler shear-force values for upper-two-thirds Choice (included CAB, Chef’s Exclusive, Sterling Silver and other packer-branded product lines), lower-one-third Choice and Select, respectively, of 8%, 10% and 25% (Wyle et al., 2000) and 20%, 30% and 39% (Cannell et al., 2000).
Based on research results conducted largely by scientists at Texas A&M University and CSU during the past 20 years, the odds of having an unpleasant eating experience are greatly reduced if the steak comes from a higher-grading beef carcass. Based on results of those studies, the odds of having an unpleasant eating experience are one in 33 (3%) if a steak comes from a Prime carcass, as compared to one in 10 (10%), one in six (16%), one in four (27%), or one in two (50%), if a steak comes from a carcass of upper-two-thirds Choice, low-Choice, Select or Standard grades, respectively. Unfortunately, though, approximately 1%, 11%, 36%, 47% and 6%, respectively, of steer/heifer carcasses produced in the United States grade Prime, upper-two-thirds Choice, low-Choice, Select and Standard; thus, 83% (36% low-Choice; 47% Select) of U.S. beef carcasses produce steaks for which — because of within-grade variability — the odds of consumers having an unpleasant eating experience would be one in five (one in six for low-Choice; one in four for Select).
In 1997, the NCBA Beef Palatability Task Force issued “Preharvest Means For Improving Beef Palatability.” In that list are recommendations related to genetics, time on feed, anabolic implants, intramuscular injections and age at castration. In addition, there are many postharvest interventions [e.g., electrical stimulation (ES) of carcasses, pelvic suspension of carcasses, aging of carcasses or cuts, blade/needle tenderization of cuts, calcium-chloride injection, etc.] that will increase tenderness of beef.
Recent CSU studies of ES involving 2,126 steer/heifer carcasses in a commercial beef-packing plant (Cannell et al., 1999) demonstrated dramatic improvements in USDA Quality Grade and, in tests of 450 steaks from ES vs. non-ES carcasses, documented improvements in flavor, tenderness and overall palatability.
Several instruments (Nip Tenderometer, Armour Tenderometer, TenderTec, Swatland’s CT Probe, USMARC System, Color Difference Meters, Hunter/CSU BeefCAM) have been tested as means for sorting carcasses according to toughness/tenderness of their cuts, and only the Hunter/CSU BeefCAM has emerged as being both practical and useful for that purpose. A CSU study (Cannell et al., 2000) using the Hunter/CSU BeefCAM technology on 296 steer/heifer carcasses found that “of those carcasses certified as expected to produce tender beef, 98.6% produced tender steaks” (based on Warner-Bratzler shear-force data and consumer sensory-panel ratings).
Consumers will pay more for guaranteed-tender beef, and they will buy beef (among animal-protein foods) more often if it is more tender. NCBA has just completed a study of guaranteed-tender (“TenderSelect”) beef; 40% of those consumers involved in that investigation said they would pay an extra 50¢/lb. for guaranteed-tender beef, and 36% of those said they would buy more beef and less pork and poultry if the beef they buy is truly tender.
In November 1998, the Texas and Southwestern Cattle Raisers Association passed a resolution asking packers to (a) employ high-voltage electrical stimulation; (b) segment carcasses into tenderness groups by use of sorting technology; (c) age middle meats for at least 14 days, and (d) use tough meat in non-retail markets or tenderize it by use of tenderization technologies. CSU scientists recently completed a study for Monfort Inc. that identified an ideal protocol for using high-voltage electrical stimulation of beef carcasses in its beef plants. And Monfort will soon install CSU BeefCAM in its plants for use as a sorting technology for segmenting carcasses into tenderness groups.
Research indicates that efforts to control beef tenderness should begin with the seedstock producers’ genetic decisions. And, fortunately, Bruce Golden (CSU) says there are 10-12 traits in cattle that influence profitability, including sale weight, probability of calving ease, cow maintenance feed requirement, stayability, heifer pregnancy probability, tenderness, feed requirement for gain, and docility (Drovers, 1999).
Evidence supporting successful exploitation of genetics plus carcass-selection criteria to develop and merchandise branded beef includes the dramatic growth of sales for Certified Angus Beef product as contrasted with the decline in sales (proportionate to sales of pork and poultry) for beef as a commodity from 1979 through 2000.
As of May 2000, USDA has certified 41 branded beef programs; of those 41 “brands” (a) 33 “name” a breed, (b) 40 use a minimum marbling score, (c) 28 have a maximum maturity score of “A,” (d) 34 specify a minimum muscling score, and (e) 37 have a maximum hump height. The latest branded beef program is “Nolan Ryan Tender Aged Beef,” introduced in Randall’s Supermarkets in May 2000. That program is USDA process-verified and includes use of electrical stimulation, 14-day aging and Hunter/CSU BeefCAM to improve palatability as well as dietary supplementation with vitamin E to improve retail case life.
An NCBA study, conducted by CSU, investigated use of a PACCP (Palatability Assurance Critical Control Point) system for optimizing beef tenderness. Use of genetic selection (the 25% of sires that produced progeny with the most tender beef) reduced the percentage of tough top sirloin steaks from 17% to 5% and the percentage of tough top loin steaks from 18% to 1%. In the final report of the PACCP study, CSU scientists described the importance of high-quality raw materials (using that as a corollary to improved cattle genetics) by quoting Bob Reed of the Llano Estacado Winery as saying, “Once the grapes hit the dock, it’s too late for us to correct the fruit. You can make good or bad wine from good grapes … but you can’t make good wine from bad grapes! So we try to help farmers grow premium grapes for our wines.”
A Drovers (1999) article quoted Angus breeder Ken Stielow as saying, “If you want to make some drastic improvements in a good herd, you are going to have to get a top bull, and that bull will cost more because he is more in demand.” The percentage of commercial cow-calf producers in the United States who said they had purchased an Angus bull in the previous 12 months was 27% in 1989, 39% in 1996, 47% in 1998 and 59% in 2000 (Rockwood Research; ABG Inc., Farm Journal). The CAB Program is moving toward sire-identified slaughter cattle; results in 1997 revealed that, on average, across the industry, 17.4% of phenotypically eligible cattle produced carcasses that qualified for CAB while 31.2% of sire-identified cattle met carcass standards.
A major U.S. supermarket chain is presently in the terminal stages of a test of source-verified branded beef (“Future Beef”) produced in a vertically coordinated, strategic alliance program (cow-calf operators, feedlot, packing plant, fabrication facility, retail supermarket chain) that includes genetic interventions, feeding of vitamin E (to improve retail case life) plus vitamin D3 (in an attempt to increase cooked-beef tenderness), postmortem-treatment interventions and implementation of the latest technological advancements to assure a low rate of nonconformance in physical appearance and palatability in beef steaks and roasts.
Brad Graham (Harris Teeter Supermarkets), at the North Carolina Cattlemen’s Association convention in February 1999, said: (a) Complaints about beef in our supermarkets have increased from 1 per 100 customers in 1975 to 1 per 10 customers in 1998; (b) We sell cuts from the middle meats at four times the rate that we sell cuts from the chuck and round — we can’t sell the whole animal; and (c) We can sell genetically defined, source-verified beef for 30¢ to 80¢ more per pound than Choice beef. The genetically defined, source-verified beef sold by Harris Teeter is Certified Angus Beef product.
A BEEF (1999) article quoted Angus breeder Dave Nichols as saying “I believe by 2010 there will be 100 seedstock providers; in 2020 there will be four.”
Seedstock producers can identify bulls likely to sire progeny with tender beef by use of:
(a) progeny testing (this is time-consuming and costly because 35 progeny per sire and cooked-steak shear-force analyses are required);
(b) EPDs for tenderness (eventually, if enough progeny testing is done, it will be possible to compute EPDs for tenderness); and
(c) marker-assisted selection (if gene markers prove useful, DNA analysis of blood or semen will identify superior cattle).
NCBA is sponsoring a National Tenderness EPD Project (conducted by scientists from K-State, West Texas A&M University and CSU) involving (a) 10 to 17 breeds and 12,000 to 20,000 progeny of about 15 heavily used sires per breed; (b) from 35 to 40 progeny per sire, carcass data plus cooked-loin tenderness evaluations and blood samples will be collected, and (c) carcass-trait EPDs, tenderness EPDs and validation of gene markers for tenderness will be determined.
An article in Drovers (March 2000) announced that Ohio State University scientists had developed a new DNA-based genetic test for tenderness and marbling. This new technology, licensed exclusively to the American Angus Association, can break marbling and tenderness down by degrees of potential, assessing each individually and in combination. Results rank expected tenderness from “tough” to “very tender” and quality grades from Prime to Select or lower.

Without compromising the
environment or the animal’s welfare …
Especially in Europe, but also in the Orient and emerging in the United States, is a commitment on the part of some individual citizens to do whatever they can to show disapproval for certain industries or companies — by not buying their products — that (a) cannot be traced back to the farm or ranch of origin; (b) befoul the environment; or (c) tolerate the mishandling or mistreatment of farm animals.
Evidence that this trend is not just a passing fancy is provided by (a) demand for identification — individually — of all farm animals in the EU; (b) mandatory individual-animal identification of market cattle in Canada; (c) emphasis on animal welfare by a major grocery company (Tesco) in the United Kingdom; and (d) McDonald’s Corp. creating a staff position with responsibility to assure that no beef used in a McDonald’s burger — worldwide — was derived from beef trimmings generated in situations or under conditions that compromised the welfare of the animals from which that beef originated. An article in Meat & Poultry magazine (October 1999) by Dr. Temple Grandin (CSU) reported that the McDonald’s audits have motivated beef packers, in the United States and globally, to dramatically improve their animal-handling practices.
The terms “traceback,” “traceability” and “source verification” are used to refer to the ability to identify animals or meat products according to their origin, as far back in the production sequence as is necessary to accomplish the intended purpose. Traceability can be important for ascertaining ownership, identifying parentage, improving palatability, assuring meat safety and determining compliance in “branded beef” programs.
Horn branding, hide branding, ear tagging (metal, plastic, electronic), tail tagging and retinal scanning work for individual animal identification (IAID) up to the point of slaughter. In the United Kingdom, each bovine animal must have a “passport”; this method of IAID is used to help allay consumer fears about bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) and new variant Creutzfeldt Jakob Disease (nvCJD). IAID can be maintained through slaughtering/dressing by use of animal/carcass tagging or trolley tracking. IAID can be maintained through fabricating/boning by keeping units separated (small plants), tagging and bagging (medium-size plants) and DNA fingerprinting (large plants). DNA fingerprinting is the only reasonable method for maintaining IAID of steaks, roasts, trimmings and ground product through retail sales and is being used, for example, by Superquinn Supermarkets in Ireland and by Meat Standards Australia.
In the United States, Merial, Allflex and AgInfoLink have formed the Beef Results Network based on IAID using electronic ear-tag technology; NCBA has developed the USA Cattle Identification System based on IAID using metal, plastic or electronic ear-tag technology; and CSU has developed Optibranding based on IAID using retinal scanning. All three of those programs are voluntary and encompass birth to carcass IAID.
Animal Group Identification (AGID) is being used in the United States for branded beef, beef from alliances and beef from supply chains for purposes of source verification, production-practice verification and USDA process verification for purposes of: (a) assuring palatability, (b) assuring chemical food safety and (c) assuring microbiological food safety. Traceability requirements in the EU are a moving target, but at the time (May 1999) of the World Meat Congress (Dublin, Ireland) were explained as, “If a claim is made about meat in the EU, groups — not individual animals — must be traceable, and identity must be established by traceback for steaks, roasts and stew meat — but not for cured or fresh minced (ground) meat.”
Inasmuch as some U.S. export markets may eventually have mandatory traceback (perhaps even IAID through retail) for food safety purposes, the U.S. beef industry maintains an open mind on this issue and continues to explore possibilities. Source verification and branding of beef will be the means for providing assurances to both customers and consumers that neither the environment nor animal welfare were compromised by producers of beef. Texas A&M University scientists just completed the Texas First Trace-Back Study that concluded that supermarket shoppers would pay 4¢-10¢ more per pound for source verification.
Five conclusions were reached at the 1998 Alltech Symposium on Biotechnology in the Feedlot Industry, the first of which was, “Consumers have specific and challenging demand regarding food safety and the environment.” During the World Meat Congress in Dublin, Ireland (May 1999) the two topics discussed most were meat safety and ecological concerns (e.g., use of GMOs, such as “Roundup-Resistant Soybeans” and “Bt corn”). Concerns about GMOs arose because of concerns that Bt corn threatened lepidopterans, like the Monarch butterfly (Genetic Engineering News, June 1999). Articles began to appear in the U.S. print media (e.g., “Who’s Afraid Of Frankenfood?, Time, November 1999), causing three U.S. organic-food supermarket chains (Whole Foods, Alfalfas, Wild Oats) to ban the sale of genetically modified food in their retail outlets. Charles Margulis, head of Greenpeace’s Genetic Engineering Campaign in the EU said, “The FDA needs to stop providing cover for biotechnology companies and take these genetically modified products off the market” (Meat Marketing & Technology, January 2000).
Food Technology (January 2000) countered with the following question/answer series developed by scientist-members of the Institute of Food Technologists:
(1) What is genetic modification? Recombinant DNA technology.
(2) What are the benefits? Resistance, adaptability, tolerance, functionality.
(3) Is such technology safe? Yes, according to National Academy of Sciences, Food and Agricultural Organization and World Health Organization.
(4) Are foods from GMOs Safe? Yes, according to FDA.
(5) Who ensures no environmental threat? USDA, EPA and state agricultural experiment stations.
(6) Can outcrosses to weedy relatives occur? Yes, but Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) guards against this.
(7) Will this cause super-pests? Resistant pests, yes; super-pests, no.
(8) Will Bt corn harm Monarch butterfly larvae? Yes, but less than pesticides.
(9) Are there non-plant applications? Yes, BST, chymosin, human insulin.
(10) Should foods derived from GMO’s be labeled? Yes, but it will be costly and misleading.
Genetic Engineering News (January 2000) presented new scientific information and research findings suggesting that “Recombinant corn is viewed as no great threat to Monarch butterflies.”
Key findings in a report released in early April 2000 by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) could help reassure consumers about the safety of foods made from GMO, pest-protected crops. An NAS Committee headed by Dr. Perry Adkisson (Chancellor Emeritus of the Texas A&M University System) reported that:
(a) Pest-protected transgenic plants such as Bt corn present no human health risks;
(b) The committee could find no evidence suggesting that foods on the market today are unsafe to eat as a result of genetic modification; and
(c) The committee found no strict distinction between the health and environmental risks posed by plants modified through modern genetic engineering techniques and those modified by conventional breeding practices (Feedstuffs, April 2000). But, don’t expect this issue to die. Another article in Feedstuffs (April 2000) states that the EU is expected to enact, in the near-term, legislation that will undoubtedly restrict movement and sales of GMO feedstuffs — and, perhaps, products from animals fed GMOs — in member countries.

Conclusion
Richard Spader (Drovers, 2000) said, “Despite the trends and fads the purebred beef cattle business has seen in the past, Angus breeders have managed to ignore the roar of the crowd and have kept their eye on the ball. Certified Angus Beef and the Feedlot Licensing Program, the world’s largest database of beef cattle performance records and the Angus Sire Evaluation Report have helped committed breeders to pursue aggressive goals to propel beef back to the top of the protein business.”
It now seems certain that, in the future, most of retail beef will be source-verified, production-practice-verified, USDA process-verified, branded and produced in supply chains by partnerships and alliances. And, there will likely be three or four quality/palatability categories (including “guaranteed tender”) of branded beef (determined by use of genetics, carcass trait selection, instrument grading and sorting, tenderization technology, and/or aging specifications) plus other branded beef categories emphasizing “natural,” “organic,” “nutritional” and perhaps “humanely produced” or “environmentally friendly.”
One of the really great benefits of a beef industry predicated on source verification and branded beef is that, with such change will come value-based marketing. Just imagine a beef industry in which the targets are agreed upon in the beginning and based upon what customers want and what consumers will purchase and eat and enjoy. Just imagine a beef industry in which you are paid for producing cattle that hit the targets and discouraged, economically, if you produce cattle that do not. Just imagine a part of the foundation of a new beef industry has been progressively greater reliance on Angus genetics by cow-calf producers of North America.