Published November 24, 2014
History of the meat animal evaluation contest: A pedagogical stimulant
R. G. Kauffman,*1 R. L. Russell,* B. R. Skaar,† J. J. Kiser,† R. W. Mandigo,‡ T. R. Carr,§ and D. F. Parrett§
*Department of Animal Science, University of Wisconsin–Madison, Madison 53706; †Department of
Animal Science, Iowa State University, Ames 50010; ‡Department of Animal Science, University of Nebraska,
Lincoln 68583; and §Department of Animal Sciences, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana 61801
ABSTRACT: A century ago students were exposed
to livestock judging and meat judging, though each
was taught as an independent entity. Fifty years ago
universities started combining subjects involving the
evaluation process, whether characteristics involved
traits of the live animal or those related to meat value.
Universities developed a meat animal evaluation contest (MAEC) that included breeding livestock, market
livestock, and meat products. Using production records,
students culled, ranked, priced, and answered questions
about breeding and market cattle, swine, and sheep. For
market livestock, ranks and values were scored on carcass data after the livestock were harvested. Students
graded, ranked, answered questions, and priced meat
products. A communications component involved students being given a problem to be discussed as a group
presentation. In 1964, the first MAEC was conducted at
Rath Packing Co., Waterloo, IA, and included 40 students. In 1967, the contest was held at The Farmbest
Co. and IBP of Denison, IA, and included 87 students.
In 1968, the MAEC moved to the Knights of Ak-SarBen, Omaha, NE, and by 1988, 187 students (22
universities) competed. In 1995, the MAEC moved to
the United Stockyards Co., St. Joseph, MO. Starting in
2004, it moved to various universities (South Dakota
State University, Oklahoma State University, University
of Nebraska, and Texas Tech University). The MAEC
has stimulated students to better learn and understand
the details of meat animal evaluation and has encouraged the development of evaluation courses as well as
satellite and symposia programs. To date, over 6,000
students representing 40 universities have participated.
Key words: combining livestock and meat for economic evaluation, contests as stimulants to learning,
market and breeding cattle hogs and sheep with performance records, meat composition and quality, pricing
grading ranking culling and communications, using carcass data to score market livestock estimates
© 2013 American Society of Animal Science. All rights reserved. J. Anim. Sci. 2013.91:4553–4562
doi:10.2527/jas2013-6406
INTRODUCTION
“Meat animal evaluation” was not a new concept
nor was it the creation of a single individual. For more
than a century, teachers of livestock and meat judging
have known the importance of combining livestock
and meat characteristics so that students could better
appreciate the practicalities of producing livestock as
a major source of the food supply for society. But such
a curricula merger did not occur. Teachers knew that
factors such as heredity, production functionality, and
other economically important live characteristics could
1Corresponding author: [email protected]; [email protected]
Received February 25, 2013.
Accepted May 24, 2013.
not be intelligently understood simply by evaluating
the ultimate product, meat, and vice versa. Making
efforts to interrelate live animal and meat characteristics collectively made sense! This is a history of how
livestock and meat evaluation were combined into a
competitive event to stimulate animal science students.
This methodology required them to focus on all aspects
of subjective and objective measurements as they related to value variations of livestock and meat.
This account describes how such a teaching concept was cradled into an event which would encourage students to learn details related to the production of
livestock for food. The event emphasized objectivity,
practicality, and the inclusion of subject matter related
to genetics, reproduction, production, meat quality, and
composition as illustrated in the flow diagram shown
4553
4554
Kauffman et al.
IN THE BEGINNING
Figure 1. Flow diagram.
in Fig. 1. The aim of such an event was to maximize
objectivity and minimize subjectivity pedagogically in
an environment conducive to stimulating and recognizing progressive learning. It is a history of the efforts of
many educators, industry leaders, and organizations that
helped perpetuate a concept that has endured 50 yr. It
is called the Meat Animal Evaluation Contest (MAEC),
and this report provides the details of how it happened.
The details are included in Tables 1–4.
In 1961, R. G. Kauffman accepted a faculty position
at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. One
of his responsibilities was to teach meat judging. The
University of Illinois had not fielded competitive meats
teams and Kauffman wished to make changes. His first
meat judging team was competitive at the American
Royal and ranked high at the Chicago International contest. Kauffman wished to double the number of competitions by participating at Ft. Worth and Baltimore.
After consulting with his Department Head, Dr. O. Burr
Ross, the request was denied. Instead, Ross encouraged Kauffman to be imaginative by thinking broader
and developing a program having more substance and
meaning rather than adding more contests. This was a
challenge, and Kauffman recognized the validity of the
advice. Thus he began formulating the idea of a meat
animal growth and evaluation course and a MAEC (R.
Kauffman, personal communication).
Traditional meat and livestock judging contests had
changed very little over the years, and each discipline
was isolated from the other. Livestock students did not
study meat and meat students did not learn about livestock. They may have thought about the connection, but
Table 1. Chronological development of the meat animal evaluation contest (MAEC)
Year
1955–1957
1962
1962
1963
1964
1964
1964
1965–1966
1967
1967
1968
1968–2013
Development
Edwin Kline and colleagues helped National Livestock & Meat Board establish meat/animal clinics at Chicago Stock Yards
O. Burr Ross advised Robert Kauffman to create a new program in evaluation.
Waco Albert and Robert Kauffman outlined original details of MAEC
MAEC Planning Committee organized
January. Bob Fix finalizes plans for first MAEC at Wilson & Co., Cedar Rapids, IA
February. Wilson & Co. declined to host MAEC.
March. Louis Thompson & Rath Packing Co. conducted first MAEC at Waterloo, IA (40 students representing 6 universities)
MAEC conducted at Waterloo, IA (72 students representing 8 universities)1
MAEC conducted at Denison, IA (Gene Leman & Bob Rust encouraged Farmbest Co. and IBP to be hosts; 87 students representing 11 universities)
Robert Volk and Knights of Ak-Sar-Ben Committee endorsed MAEC program
MAEC moved to Omaha, NE and sponsored by Knights of Ak-Sar-Ben. (117 students representing 11 universities)
R. G. Kauffman initiated Triathlon MAET at Madison, WI as a field trip and practical ‘review’ for universities preparing students to compete
at Ak-Sar-Ben MAEC. R.L. Russell at Madison currently hosts the Triathlon.
1968–1995
MAEC sponsored by Knights of Ak-Sar-Ben, Omaha, NE (In 1988, 187 students representing 22 universities)*
1969
Through R.B. Warren’s recommendation, oral (Breeding Division) and written (Meats) reasons were replaced with 10 questions for each
ranking class. Change was initiated in 1970.
1990
Universities could enter more than 10 students; all eligible for individual recognition but 10 identified to qualify for team recognition.
1990
R.W Mandigo arranged for Meats Division at the University of Nebraska, Lincoln
1994
Brad Skaar and Deb VanOverbeke initiated the Communications Challenge Division in which students as a team made a presentation.
1995–2003
Ed Czerwein, United Stockyards, St. Joseph, MO. hosted MAEC (128 students representing 15 universities)* Name of contest changed to
United National Collegiate MAEC
1996
Ed Czerwein, United Stockyards, St. Joseph, MO initiated market feeder calf class to replace 1 market cattle pricing class.
2004–2005
Kelly Bruns & Duane Wulf of South Dakota State University-Brookings hosted MAEC (84 students representing 10 universities)* Name of
contest changed to National Collegiate MAEC.
2006–2011
Brad Morgan, Kim Brock, Debra VanOverbeke and Gretchen Mafi, Oklahoma State University-Stillwater hosted the MAEC (122 students
representing 15 universities)*
2012
Dennis Burson and University of Nebraska-Lincoln hosted MAEC (59 students representing 8 universities)
2013
Mark Miller and Texas Technological University-Lubbock will hosted 50thMAEC (120 students representing 14 universities)
1Maximum number of participants for 1 yr during that time span.
History of the meat-animal evaluation contest
4555
Table 2. Individuals contributing to successes of the MAEC, 1955 to 2013
Organization
Aksarben Beef, Omaha, NE
Auburn University, AL
Beef Products Inc., Dakota Dunes, SD
Colorado State University, Ft. Collins, CO
Douglas County Computing, Omaha, NE
Ewell Educational & Technology Services, College Station, TX
Farmland Foods, Denison, IA
IBP, Denison, IA & Dakota City, NE
Iowa State University, Ames, IA
John Morrell Packing Co., Ottumwa, IA
Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS
Knights of Ak-Sar-Ben, Omaha, NE
Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA
Michigan State Univeristy, East Lansing, MI
North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND
Ohio State University, Columbus, OH
Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK
Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN
Rath Packing Co., Waterloo, IA
Safeway Stores, Omaha, NE
South Dakota State University, Brookings, SD
Texas Technological University, Lubbock, TX
Tyson Fresh Meats, Springdale, AR
USDA, Washington, DC
Union Stockyards Co, Omaha, NE
United Stockyards Co., St. Joseph, MO
University of Florida, Gainesville, FL
University of Idaho, Moscow, ID
University of Illinois, Urbana, IL
University of Missouri, Columbia, MO
University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN
University of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE
University of Wisconsin–Madison, Madison, WI
University of Wisconsin, Platteville, WI
University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY
Virginia Poly Tech University, Blacksburg, VA
West Texas A&M Beef Carcass Research Center, Canyon, TX
Wilson & Co., Cedar Rapids, IA
Persons
Artie Kulakovsky
Don Mulvaney
Eldon Roth
Scott Howard
Art Coate, Paul Nickle
Clay Ewell
Frank Crabb, Gene Leman, Roger Johnson
Gene Leman, Jim Lochner, Currier Holman, Andy Anderson
Edwin Kline, James Kiser, Bob Rust, Brad Skaar, Fred Parrish, Don Warner, David
Topel, Lauren Christian, Alan Christian, Lenoy Hazel, Richard Willham, Cliff Iverson,
Jon DeClerck, Brady McNeil
Russell Plager
David Schaefer, Mike Dikeman, Bob Hines, Harold Tuma, Don Good, Dell Allen, Terry
Hauser, Hyatt Frobose
Bob Volk, Tom Brock, Sherman Berg, Norma Hanson, Marj Kramer, Mary Ethan
Tom Bidner
Tom Bidner, Bob Merkel, Harlan Ritchie
Paul Berg, Bert Moore, Russell Danielson, Martin Marchello, Justin Crosswhite
Tom Turner
Brad Morgan, Kim Brock, Blake Bloomberg, Debra VanOverbeke, Gretchen Mafi
David Gerard, Elton Aberle, Roger Hunsley, Andrew Boston, Jack Frost
Louis Thompson, Bernard Ebbing, John Coverdale
Elmer Harder
Paul Kohler, Daniel Gee, Roger Johnson, Kelly Bruns, Duane Wulf, Jeff Held, Tanner
Marchado, Donald Boggs
Mark Miller, Ryan Rathmann, Joshua Criffs, Dustin Mohrhauser, Travis O’Quinn,
Bradley Price, Chance Brooks, Sam Jackson, Aaron Jennings, Brady Ragland
Jim Lochner, Craig Bacon
Jerry Alexander, Jim Wise, Corbit Wall, Tina Colby
Tom Gilmore
Ed Czerwein
Chad Carr
Michael Colle
O. Burr Ross, Robert Kauffman, Waco Albert, Tom Carr, Doug Parrett, Jay Zimmerman,
Dick Carlisle, John Romans, Dan Shike, Dave Thomas, Chris Cassady, Diana Clark,
Katelyn Jones-Hanlow
Jerry Lipsey
Richard Epley, Gene Allen, Jerry Hawton
R. B. Warren, Roger Mandigo, Elton Aberle, Doyle Wolverton, David Williams, Dennis
Burson, Keith Gilster, Vince Arthaud, Bryan Reiling, Ted Doane, Jim Wise, Jay Nordhausen
Robert Kauffman, Jim Lochner, Ronald Russell, Bernie O’Rourke, Greg Rindsig,
Steven Stark, Jane Clark, Debra Brinkman, Bill Pope, Daniel Sandwick, Bill Angel, Tom
Lewis, Art Pope, Bob Grummer, Bob Bray, Dennis Buege, Jack Rutledge, Tim Erickson
Bob Nusbaum
Melvin Riley, Kelsey Christensen
Wayne Purcell, Bob Kelly
Ted Montgomery, Ty Lawrence
Bob Fix, Gene Leman
there was little effort to coordinate livestock and meat
concepts collectively. Kauffman believed this should
change, so he developed a learning methodology to
coordinate meat animal evaluation into an activity that
would combine breeding livestock evaluation, market
livestock evaluation, and meat evaluation.
Developing a Meat Animal Evaluation Contest
Judging courses had been in animal science curricula for nearly 100 yr and making changes would be
traditionally difficult and would require careful planning. It had to be accomplished with the approval and
cooperation of many persons, ones who were willing to
4556
Kauffman et al.
Table 3. Major meat animal evaluation contest (MAEC)
sponsors and hosts, 1964 to 2013
Table 4. Participating meat animal evaluation contest
(MAEC) universities, 1964 to 2013
Sponsor
Host(s)
American Food Co., Omaha, NE
American Meat Institute, Washington D. C.
American Meat Science Association,
Savoy, IL
Armour and Co., Omaha, NE
Beef Products Inc., Dakota Dunes, SD
Cargill Co., Friona, TX
Con-Agra Co., Omaha, NE
O. Burr Ross
Douglas County Computer Center,
Art Coate, Paul Nicole
Omaha, NE
Express Ranches, OK
Farmbest Co., Denison, IA
Frank Crabb, Gene Leman, Bob Rust
George A Hormel Co., Fremont, NE
IBP, Denison, IA & Dakota City, NE
Currier Holman,
Jim Lochner
Knights of Ak-Sar-Ben, Omaha, NE
Bob Volk
Merck Animal Health, Amarillo, TX
National Livestock & Meat Board,
Chicago, IL
Oklahoma Cattlemans Association, OK
Oklahoma City Stockyards, OK
Oklahoma State University,
Brad Morgan,
Stillwater, OK
Kim Brock, Deb Van Overbeke,
Gretchen Mafi
Rath Packing Co., Waterloo, IA
Louis Thompson
Safeway Stores, Inc., Omaha, NE
Elmer Harder
South Dakota State University,
Kelly Bruns, Duane Wulf
Brookings, SD
Texas Technological University,
Mark Miller
Lubbock, TX
Tyson Foods Inc., Springdale, AR
Jim Lochner
Union Stockyards Co., Omaha, NE
Tom Gilmore
United States Department of Agriculture,
Jim Wise
Washington, DC
United Stockyards Co., St. Joseph, MO
Ed Czerwein
University of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE
Roger Mandigo, Dennis Burson, R.
B. Warren
West Texas A&M Beef Carcass Research
Ted Montgomery, Ty Lawrence
Center, Canyon, TX
Wilson and Co., Cedar Rapids, IA
Bob Fix, Gene Leman
University
Arkansas State University
Auburn University
Brigham Young University
California State Polytechnical University
Colorado State University
Fresno State University
Iowa State University
Kansas State University
Louisiana State University
Michigan State University
Montana State University
North Dakota State University
Ohio State University
Oklahoma State University
Oregon State University
Panhandle State University
Purdue University
South Dakota State University
Southern Illinois University
Tarleton State University
Texas A&M University
Texas Technological University
University of Arkansas
University of Florida
University of Georgia
University of Idaho
University of Illinois
University of Kentucky
University of Minnesota
University of Missouri
University of Nebraska
University of Tennessee
University of Wisconsin–Madison
University of Wisconsin–Platteville
University of Wisconsin–River Falls
University of Wyoming
Utah State University
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
Washington State University
West Texas A&M University
accept new ideas at the expense of tradition. Therefore
Kauffman, with the cooperation of his Illinois colleague,
W. W. Albert, planned a meat animal evaluation course
that would combine all aspects of evaluation as well as
many other related topics, including growth and development, objective measures of composition, marketing,
and statistics. They also developed details for an intercollegiate contest that would stimulate students to learn
as well as to provide a competitive and recognizable
conclusion to their course work. Kauffman and Albert
consulted with students and then contacted teachers
from other universities who were willing to provide input even if it meant risking criticism from those object-
Location
State University, AR
Auburn, AL
Provo, UT
Pomona, CA
Ft. Collins, CO
Fresno, CA
Ames, IA
Manhattan, KS
Baton Rouge, LA
East Lansing, MI
Bozeman, MT
Fargo, ND
Columbus, OH
Stillwater, OK
Corvallis, OR
Goodwell, OK
West Lafayette, IN
Brookings, SD
Carbondale, IL
Stephenville, TX
College Station, TX
Lubbock, TX
Fayetteville, AR
Gainesville, FL
Athens, GA
Moscow, ID
Urbana, IL
Lexington, KY
St. Paul, MN
Columbia, MO
Lincoln, NE
Knoxville, TN
Madison, WI
Platteville, WI
River Falls, WI
Laramie, WY
Logan, UT
Blacksburg, VA
Pullman, WA
Canyon, TX
ing to such a contest. Most teachers contacted were enthusiastic and supportive.
In retrospect, E. A. Kline of Iowa State University
and others cooperated with the National Livestock and
Meat Board to institute a marketing workshop program
at the Chicago Stockyards. Teachers brought their students to Chicago and for 2 d completed a series of exercises to assess grades and monetary values of live market cattle, hogs, and lambs. The animals were harvested
in local packing plants so the students could examine
carcasses of the live animals they had evaluated earlier.
The event was educational with no efforts to score or
History of the meat-animal evaluation contest
critique the estimates of the students. Student motivation depended entirely on their pride of excelling and the
challenge of prediction. This program was organized in
1955 and was continued only briefly. It did not replace
livestock or meat judging, and it was never designed for
competition. Nonetheless, it served to encourage departments of animal science to spend more efforts evaluating carcasses of market animals and to objectively review carcass data rather than relying on speculation. By
1960, many universities had developed courses specifically related to practical livestock marketing concepts
which emphasized the use of carcass data.
Planning the Meat Animal Evaluation Contest
In 1962, Kauffman and Albert recruited teachers from other institutions. Many judging coaches
were convinced that changing the traditional ways
was counterproductive. However, not only were the
contacted teachers interested in participating, there
were industry leaders equally enthused in creating
a new approach to meat animal evaluation. In addition to Kauffman and Albert, the colleagues included
E. A. Kline, J. J. Kiser, and C. Iverson of Iowa State
University; P. Kohler and D. Gee of South Dakota State
University; H. Tuma and R. Hines of Kansas State
University; R. Fix of Wilson & Co., Cedar Rapids, IA,
and L. Thompson of Rath Packing Co., Waterloo, IA (
D. Gee, personal communication). This committee
made worthy contributions, and members were willing
to commit their time, energy, and intellect.
The contest procedures were reviewed by undergraduate students at the University of Illinois, and then
the formalized proposal was shared with the committee.
The proposal was approved after several revisions before the concepts could be tested in a contest format.
The next effort was to solicit universities to participate. Students with limited training had to be recruited.
More importantly, departments of animal science had to
approve funding for the “field trip” experience. It was
necessary to find a suitable location that had a meat
packing plant surrounded by sufficient numbers of market and breeding animals. The geographical site needed
to be centrally located to provide for minimal travel.
Because of content complexity, the contest required 4
d of student time. Because this was pre–computer days
where scoring was complicated for producing calculations for immediate results, many scoring assistants were
needed. Extensive assistance was required for selecting
livestock and meat classes; securing desirable physical
locations for conducting market animal and breeding
animal appraisals; a place to harvest the market animals;
sufficient packing plant space for evaluating beef, pork,
and lamb carcasses; and places for students to write
4557
reasons and present oral reasons, as well as locations to
score the contest and house and feed the students. These
challenges created complicated logistics.
In December 1963, the committee convened with
R. Fix in Cedar Rapids, IA, where Wilson & Co. had
offered its facilities and employees to help conduct
the MAEC. In March 1964, the program was finalized. The design of classes, the details for scoring, and
all personnel were in place. Forty students representing 6 institutions (University of Illinois, South Dakota
State University, Iowa State University, Michigan State
University, University of Nebraska, and Kansas State
University) were to participate. Unfortunately, Fix had
to inform the committee that the Wilson plant manager
had decided the Cedar Rapids plant was too small and
the expense too great to accommodate the contest and
that another location would be needed. Fortunately, L.
Thompson and the Rath Packing Company of Waterloo,
IA, offered to host the MAEC. Because Thompson had
been involved in the initial planning, he knew the needs
and assured the committee that the MAEC could be
moved to Waterloo. As promised, all plans and schedules went forward with success, and the MAEC was
completed satisfactorily (Fig. 2).
The participating universities were enthusiastic
about continuing the MAEC, and for the next 2 yr, with
the leadership of Thompson, Rath Packing Co. served as
the contest host. In 1965, 7 universities participated. For
the final year at Waterloo in 1966, 72 students representing 8 universities participated.
In 1967, the contest was moved to Farmbest Co. (later named Farmland Industries) and IBP at Denison, IA.
It was then that R. Rust of Iowa State University and E.
Leman of Farmbest Co. were successful in convincing
the General Manager of the company, F. Crabb, to help
with the program. It is likely that such support also was
received from IBP administrators. Leman, a member of
the first MAEC team of the University of Illinois, played
a significant role with Rust in helping perpetuate the
MAEC for 1 more yr. Leman later became Vice President
of IBP in charge of pork operations and continued for the
next 30 yr to help support the MAEC sponsorships (R.
Rust and E. Leman, personal communication).
The arrangements that Leman and Rust organized
at Denison adequately served the program as an interim
location, but, by now, 11 universities were attending and
most of them brought the maximum of 10 students (4
high scores automatically counted for team competition
but all students competed for individual recognition). As
many as 110 students had to be accommodated, placing pressures on costs of housing and meals as well as
on calculating results fast enough to provide information for the recognition program. A change was essential to perpetuate the contest. The timing proved to be
4558
Kauffman et al.
Figure 2. MAEC.
a challenge in the days when computer scoring had not
evolved. It was then that R. Volk and T. Brock (General
Manager of Ak-Sar-Ben) became interested in the program. Brock asked D. Williams, University of Nebraska
Animal Science Department, to review the 1967 program
and provide a report (R. Volk, personal communication).
The Ak-Sar-Ben committee of R. Volk, T. Gilmore
(Omaha Stockyards), E. Harder (Safeway Stores), and
A. Kulakovsky (Ak-Sar-Ben Beef Co.) reviewed the
report of Williams and then visited the 1967 MAEC at
Denison. The committee concluded that it should be included as an Ak-Sar-Ben sponsored activity. Along with
the cooperation of the Omaha Stock Yards, Wilson Meat
History of the meat-animal evaluation contest
Figure 3. Medals/awards.
Co., Safeway Stores, and area livestock producers, as
well as cooperation from the University of Nebraska
and Iowa State University, the Ak-Sar-Ben organization
agreed to provide courtesy housing, meals, scoring, livestock transportation, facilities, and awards (see Fig. 3).
In 1968, 117 students from 11 universities participated
under the sponsorship of the Knights of Ak-Sar-Ben organization. The only change was that as more students
and universities attended, the logistics of conducting
and scoring written and oral reasons became complicated. Upon the suggestion of R. B. Warren, University of
Nebraska, Lincoln, it was decided to substitute 10 questions to be answered for each of the 11 ranking classes
for the oral and written reasons. This change eliminated
the communication element of the contest but did provide for easier scoring, eliminating the need for officials and providing more objectivity in determining the
knowledge of a student. The number of schools (22) and
students (187) had quadrupled by the 25th anniversary
of the contest from that modest beginning in 1964, and
the contest became 1 of the most popular meat animal
educational events in the United States. The Ak-Sar-Ben
organization advertised the event as the “World Series of
Livestock Judging”!
Procedures Used at the Ak-Sar-Ben Maec
The Ak-Sar-Ben MAEC was a detailed and exhausting 2-d learning and testing event, determining the knowledge of students of meat animal evaluation. The first half
day was conducted at the Omaha Stock Yards auction arena. Eleven classes of market livestock (4 classes of cattle,
4 classes of hogs, and 3 classes of lambs) were evaluated.
One class required visual estimates for yield and quality
grade, fat thickness, and muscling for 6 individual animals. Two classes required the determination of an average live price of a group of 4 animals based on provided
current carcass values. The final class required ranking 4
animals based on their overall excellence. The official answers for the market livestock were based on carcass data
4559
collected after the animals had been harvested. An official
committee of teachers and industry representatives discussed the classes.
In the afternoon at the Ak-Sar-Ben auction arena, 10
classes of breeding livestock (4 classes of bulls and heifers, 4 classes of boars and gilts, and 2 classes of rams
and ewes were evaluated). There were 3 ranking classes
for cattle and hogs and 1 class for sheep. Performance
records (e.g., ADG, birth weight, twinning, EPD, weaning weight) were provided. For each species there was 1
culling class in which 4 of the 8 animals were culled, and
for the 7 ranking classes, 10 questions were asked. After
all livestock had been evaluated and questions answered,
classes returned for discussion and answering questions.
The next morning an official committee obtained the
carcass information for the market livestock evaluated the
previous day. Students then started their third period of
testing by evaluating various meat classes. They ranked
4 carcasses for beef, pork and lamb, and retail cuts. Ten
questions were asked about each ranking class. Also, pricing information was provided to determine wholesale values ($/cwt) for 6 carcasses (2 of each species). Finally, 8
pork carcasses were ranked and 10 beef carcasses quality
and yield graded. This division consisted of 10 separate
classes, each requiring 15 min for evaluations. After all
classes had been evaluated and questions answered, the
Official Carcass Committee (teachers and packing plant
representatives) met with the students and discussed the
classes and answered questions. Students were given the
opportunity to review carcasses of the market animal
classes, which were discussed by the Official Committee.
In 1992, a proposal was made by instructors to formulate a communications component to the event. This was
in response to the growing demand for improved communications, problem solving, and interpersonal skills
required of students. The goal was to develop a “team
work” aspect to the contest similar to the Animal Sciences
Academic Quadrathlon. The formalization of this fourth
division was approved and conducted on an experimental basis in 1993 and then became an official part of the
MAEC in 1994. B. Skaar (Iowa State University) and D.
VanOverbeke (Oklahoma State University) were instrumental in the development and continuance of it. Student
teams addressed a contemporary issue facing the whole of
the meat animal industry, and then presented their ideas to
an official panel of judges. The team was evaluated on its
ability to clarify the issue, to identify the perspective of
the 3 main segments of the meat animal industry (producers, packers, retailers), and primarily on its ability to communicate ideas in a public setting. This division served as
a viable substitute for oral and written reasons.
There were a total of 43 classes in the contest, and
all student responses were scored electronically for the
recognition program. Changes were made each year for
4560
Kauffman et al.
Figure 4. Reports.
improvement, and this is 1 of the major strengths of the
MAEC that continues currently.
During the years in which the MAEC was conducted
at Ak-Sar-Ben, certain persons played key roles in insuring the success of the contests. The focal point was R.
Volk and his staff at Ak-Sar-Ben. They provided funding
for housing, meals, scoring, awards, and sponsorships and
provided all financial arrangements to conduct the contest.
Because the Ak-Sar-Ben was in close proximity to the
University of Nebraska and Iowa State University, some
of the more fundamental details of establishing the evaluation classes depended on those people. R. B. Warren
and D. Wolverton of the University of Nebraska and J. J.
Kiser and A. Christian of Iowa State University selected
breeding and market livestock. R. W. Mandigo and D.
Burson of the University of Nebraska and E. A. Kline of
Iowa State University organized the collection of carcass
information and selecting the meat classes. Unlike traditional meat or livestock judging competitions, university
teachers were intimately involved in helping collect data,
serving on official committees, and scoring the results (D.
Wolverton, personal communication).
R. G. Kauffman, University of Wisconsin–Madison
was responsible for scoring. For the first 4 yr, scoring
was accomplished by hand using desk calculators. All
hand-written reports (Fig. 4) used by students were organized in duplicate to provide 1 copy for hand-scoring
and the other as the personal record of the student. This
was particularly important for the market livestock classes because official information was based on carcass
data. In 1968, G. Rindsig, a student at the University of
Wisconsin–Madison developed the first Fortran program
for electronically scoring the contest, using IBM cards
(Fig. 4) for reporting results. Later, S. Stark, another stu-
History of the meat-animal evaluation contest
dent at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, modified
and improved the program. A separate IBM card was designed for each class, and after answers of students had
been recorded, the cards were assembled for Ak-Sar-Ben
personnel to electronically make holes in the cards. This
required 3 persons for 20 h to complete the transfer of
data for scoring. The cards were satisfactory, but many
problems arose (e.g., bent cards, lost cards, incorrect entries) causing delays. During the years at Ak-Sar-Ben, the
system failed twice and the results were assessed the next
week. S. Stark improved the program again and helped
develop a method for transferring data by providing data
sheets (Fig. 4) in which each student simply filled in the
circles corresponding to their answers. Each sheet could
be quickly machine scanned for computing. Unfortunately,
this scanning sheet did not provide a duplicate copy for
the personal record of the student.
With the assistance of A. Coate and P. Nickel of
the Douglas County Computer Center, Omaha, NE, the
program and procedures were greatly improved. Other
students from the University of Wisconsin–Madison assisting scoring included W. Pope, J. Clark, D. Brinkman,
and D. Sandwick. In 1984, R. L. Russell, University of
Wisconsin–Madison, replaced Kauffman, and with the assistance of D. Burson of the University of Nebraska, scoring was perfected and became a routine responsibility (R.
L. Russell, personal communication).
In 1976, the George A. Hormel Co. of Fremont, NE,
and Armour Food Co. of Omaha, NE, had joined as sponsors of the event. In 1990, ConAgra, Inc. of Omaha, NE,
became a major sponsor of what was deemed a national
contest. In the same year, R.W. Mandigo arranged for meat
evaluation to be moved to the University of Nebraska.
In addition to Warren and Mandigo, others at the
University of Nebraska played important roles in administering the contest, including T. Doane (sheep specialist), D. Burson (meat science), and K. Gilster (livestock
production). Furthermore, it became difficult to process
the market lambs in Nebraska, so they were shipped to
Kansas State University where M. Dikeman collected and
reported the carcass data (M. E. Dikeman, Kansas State
University, Manhattan, KS, personal communication).
The MAEC: Post Ak-Sar-Ben
In 1995, the Knights of Ak-Sar-Ben could no longer
sponsor the program because their budget was severely
reduced in part due to the discontinuation of horse racing.
Revenues from horse racing had previously provided the
necessary funding for the MAEC, and when dog racing
and slot machines replaced betting on horse races, the
program stopped. Furthermore, the Omaha Livestock
Market was being phased out and Safeway Stores headquarters moved, so it became necessary for the MAEC
4561
to relocate. E. Czerwein and the United Stockyards of St.
Joseph, MO, accepted the challenge of hosting the contest, and it was renamed the United National Collegiate
Meat Animal Evaluation Contest. The IBP continued as
a major sponsor. With encouragement from Czerwein
and others, in 1996, a feeder calf grading and pricing
component was added to the contest with the support
of the USDA Livestock Market Reporting Service. The
purpose of this class was to reflect the importance of
the feeder cattle industry which was indicative of the
large feeder calf marketing program at the St. Joseph
Stockyards. This exemplified the flexibility of the
MAEC in incorporating current industry practices.
Due to a change in management, the last contest
held in St. Joseph was in 2003. With support from
K. Bruns, D. Wulf, T. Marchado, and D. Boggs, the
MAEC was moved to South Dakota State University,
Brookings, SD, in 2004 and 2005, and the name
was again changed to the National Collegiate Meat
Animal Evaluation Contest. From 2006 through 2011,
Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK, served as
the MAEC host, and in 2011, 117 students representing 14 Universities participated. Key sponsors assisting Oklahoma State University in hosting the event included Express Ranches, the Oklahoma City Stockyards,
and the Oklahoma Cattlemans’ Association. In 2009, D.
VanOverbeke was instrumental in helping transition the
scoring to a state-of-the-art approach, working with a
program developed by Clay Ewell of Ewell Educational
and Technology Services, College Station, TX. Fig. 4
includes the currently used scoring sheet.
In 2011, the participating universities decided that
the responsibility of hosting the contest should be shared
by various schools, and in 2012, the contest was moved
to the University of Nebraska where 59 students representing 8 universities participated. In 2013, Texas Tech
University, Lubbock, TX, hosted the 50th annual MAEC,
and 120 students from 14 universities participated. Texas
Tech University will host the 51st MAEC in 2014.
The University of Wisconsin–Madison, Madison, WI,
initiated a similar program to the MAEC in 1968, and it
has continuously attracted participation from many institutions throughout the United States including several
community colleges. Its specific purpose was to provide
a field trip activity to educate and test students interested
in meat animal evaluation as well as to prepare both students and teachers for competition in the MAEC. Similar
meat animal evaluation programs have been conducted in
some western states as well as in the eastern and southeastern United States. From the time of inception of the
MAEC program, more than 6,000 students from 40 universities have been stimulated to learn about meat animal
evaluation through their participation in the MAEC.
4562
Kauffman et al.
Figure 5. Award winners.
Impact and Future of the MAEC
It is probable that the major impact of the MAEC has
been to encourage departments of animal science to develop
evaluation and growth courses that include both livestock
and meat with a specific goal to teach the subjects required
to be competitive in the MAEC. The first such course was
established at the University of Illinois, and as a measure
of its success, Illinois students have ranked first in 22 of the
50 MAEC contests (Fig. 5; South Dakota State University
ranked next with 10 firsts). Illinois has placed first 38 times
in the 4 divisions; Iowa State and South Dakota each accomplished this feat 29 times.
Several universities have not sustained traditional meat
judging and livestock judging courses, replacing them with
the combined approach to evaluation. Examples include
the Universities of Wisconsin at Madison, River Falls, and
Platteville, and the University of Florida. Some advantages
for such changes include 1) permitting an unlimited number of students at each school to participate (over twice as
many as traditional contests), 2) requiring university teachers to conduct, officiate, and score the contest (not permitted for fear of favoring students in traditional contests), 3)
providing instructive opportunities for graduate students to
learn as well as to teach undergraduates about meat animal
evaluation, 4) administratively allowing university departments to consolidate teaching responsibilities by replacing 2 courses (meat judging and livestock judging) with
1 meat animal growth and evaluation course, 5) providing
the flexibility to continually incorporate new concepts of
evaluation related to current industry practices, and 6) most
importantly, including all subjects related to livestock and
meat evaluation that can be taught collectively in 1 coordinated course.
In 1995, teachers representing the University of Illinois,
University of Missouri, University of Wisconsin, Purdue
University, and Iowa State University, through the sponsorship of a USDA grant, pioneered an experimental televised
meat animal evaluation and growth course. Teachers from
these institutions provided lectures by closed-circuit satellite. Students from these institutions plus 3 community
colleges enrolled in the course for 3 credits. The course included subjects directly stimulated by the MAEC. Another
example of a benefit of the MAEC was its inspiration of
a national meat animal evaluation symposium held at the
University of Wisconsin–Madison in which the topics
embraced by the MAEC and the teachers involved in the
MAEC were directly involved in the successful completion
of the symposium in 1991.
What impact the MAEC will have in the next 50 yr is
speculative at best. The principles of objectivity, practicality, applicability, and thoroughness of evaluating meat animals to include both livestock and meat, which the MAEC
embraces, remain permanently in place. Even though participation has decreased from the time of the “peak” years
at Ak-Sar-Ben, it is the convictions of the authors that for
at least many universities, the goals and focus related to
MAEC objectives will continue to evolve into meaningful,
stimulating pedagogical consequences for the classroom.
Some universities that either cannot (for financial reasons)
or choose not (for reasons of tradition) to participate in the
MAEC will continue to apply those MAEC principles in
the courses they teach. The ultimate goals of the MAEC
have always been to stimulate learning and provide an extracurricular activity beyond the classroom that further tests,
stimulates, and recognizes students for their knowledge of
meat animal evaluation. If these goals have been met and if
they continue to be met, then it must be concluded that the
MAEC has not been in vain and will remain a pedagogical
measure for effective and motivational learning.