REVIEW OF THE EU CARCASE
CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM FOR
BEEF AND SHEEP
(EPES 0708/01)
A Report for DEFRA
Prepared by
AHDB Industry Consulting
November 2008
Review Of The EU Carcase Classification System For Beef And Sheep
CONTENTS
Introduction
3
Summary
5
Recommendations
10
1. Foreword
12
2. Definitions
14
3. Historical Background
16
3.1 The Assessment of Quality
3.2 Industrial Revolution, New World, and War
3.3 Agricultural Produce Grading and Marking
3.4 The Verdon-Smith Inquiry
3.5 The Agriculture Act, 1967
3.6 Carcase Classification Schemes
4. The Case For and Against Classification
24
4.1 Aims and Objectives
4.2 Objections to the Development of Such Schemes
5. The Technical Basis and Development of Classification
27
5.1 Carcase Traits of Value in Commerce
5.2 The Validation of Potential Measurements
5.3 Measurements Chosen
5.4 Measurements Rejected
5.5 Sheep Carcase Classification
5.6 Meat Quality Characteristics
5.7 Checking of Classification
6. Objective Measurements in the EU Beef Carcase
Classification Scheme
39
6.1 Background
6.2 Technical Considerations
6.3 Trial Work on VIA in Some Member States
6.4 Future Development
7. Developments in Predicting Eating Quality
45
7.1 The Importance of Eating Quality
7.2 Has the Technology Improved?
1
AHDB Industry Consulting 2008©
Review Of The EU Carcase Classification System For Beef And Sheep
7.3 Has Classification Evolved?
7.4 The Way Forward for Eating Quality
8. Beef Grading Schemes in USA and Australia
50
8.1 Classification in Other Countries
8.2 The USDA Beef Grading Scheme
8.3 Meat Standards Australia (MSA)
9. The Legislative Dimension
56
9.1 The Legislative Relevance of the Carcase
Classification Scheme in the Past and Today.
9. 2 The Beef Carcase Classification Scheme
and How it is Implemented.
9.3 Sheep Carcase Classification
9.4 Role of RPA in England and Wales and its
Equivalent in Other UK Regions.
10. Industry Views on Classification in 2008
64
10.1 Methodology
10.2 Views of Abattoirs on Beef Carcase
Classification
10.3 Views of Abattoirs on Sheep Carcase
Classification
10.4 Views of Producers on Beef Carcase
Classification
10.5 Views of Producers on Sheep Carcase`
Classification
10.6 Deadweight Price Reporting Some
General Comments
11. Discussion and Conclusions
85
References
89
Appendix 1 Companies and Organisations Contacted
91
Appendix 2 Extent of Beef Classification in the EU, 2007
95
2
AHDB Industry Consulting 2008©
Review Of The EU Carcase Classification System For Beef And Sheep
INTRODUCTION
The Need for the Study
Since carcase classification systems were first introduced over forty years
ago, EU support schemes and the red meat industry have changed
considerably, in particular the reform of the CAP and the structure and
demands of the beef and sheep supply chains. The recent changes to the
CAP regimes, ending production based subsidies and the demands within the
meat supply chain have increased the need for producers to more closely
meet market and customer specifications to sustain viable businesses.
But at the same time, many issues facing those involved in producing,
marketing and processing cattle and sheep, particularly in the nature of the
commercial relationships, remain similar to those that in part encouraged the
development of classification systems i.e. there are still many, fragmented
producers facing often adversarial buyers and the problem of market failure
still looms (as identified by the Radcliffe report 2005).
A review to assess the extent to which the current systems meet the needs of
the EU and the current and likely future market for red meat is therefore
timely.
Scope of the Study
This report, undertaken in 2008 in response to Defra Project Bid No EPES
0708/01, reviewed the EU carcase classification schemes for cattle and sheep
and in particular their relevance to the UK industry.
Two fundamental aspects of the classification system were reviewed:
1. The appropriateness of regulated systems in the changed EU
environment since the removal of direct livestock support measures;
2. The need for classification as a tool for the beef and sheep supply
chains in improving efficiency, providing transparency and meeting
the needs of the consumer.
The study reviewed the current operation of these systems and the attitude of
the industry, industry organisations and the EU Commission to them, and also
considered the future classification needs of the cattle and sheep industries in
the UK.
3
AHDB Industry Consulting 2008©
Review Of The EU Carcase Classification System For Beef And Sheep
In undertaking the project the views of a wide cross section of representatives
of the cattle and sheep industries in the UK were sought, these included
a) Abattoirs that purchase cattle and sheep (that use or do not use the
system of classification for this purpose),
b) Bodies that represent abattoirs,
c) Bodies that represent producers of finished cattle and sheep,
d) Producer marketing organisations that sell finished cattle and sheep
to abattoirs,
e) Representatives of statutory organisations with an interest in
classification.
The study also took into account the latest views of representatives of the EU
Commission, as well as abattoir and producer trade associations in some
other EU countries.
In preparing the report, the authors considered the extent to which
classification is used in the industry, by policy makers and regulatory bodies,
together with its costs and benefits. The need for changes in the light of
present day conditions and possible future requirements were assessed.
The main body of this report is organised into three sections:
Chapters 3 to 8 review beef and sheep carcase classification – its
technical basis, historical development and possible future
enhancement by objective (instrumental) measurements. The last part
of this section examines examples of schemes from outside Europe as
possible models for the inclusion of ‘quality’ parameters.
Chapter 9 describes the mandatory nature of carcase classification, the
legislation that has been implemented and how it is used by the
industry and regulators to improve market transparency. The roles of
classification providers together with UK and EU statutory bodies are
considered.
Chapter 10 describes the current views and attitudes of stakeholders
towards the classification schemes, based on interviews with a
structured sample of producers, slaughterers and industry
organisations. In addition, some background and detail on the
operation of the related price reporting schemes is also given.
4
AHDB Industry Consulting 2008©
Review Of The EU Carcase Classification System For Beef And Sheep
SUMMARY
Review of the Development of Classification
Definitions
For the purposes of this review classification is taken as a common
descriptive language that defines – without any cachets of quality – those
characteristics of carcases and meat that would be useful in trading. Its
development covered many years and varying conditions of supply, but it was
adopted primarily to address poor market transparency and to improve the
feedback of consumer needs to primary producers of cattle sheep and pigs.
The classification system is defined as that involving the identification of the
animal, the dressing specification, the weighing, the assessment on
conformation and fatness (under the SEUROP grid), the documentation of the
attributes and related price reporting issues.
The term classification and grading are frequently misunderstood and indeed
have been, and still are, used to describe the same process. The review
clarifies these terms and, leaving aside the now discarded process of ‘grading’
animals or carcases in terms of their eligibility to receive a subsidy payment,
grading is taken as a separate process involving the placing of premiums and
discounts according to different market requirements.
Technical and Political Background
Following the recommendations of the Verdon-Smith Inquiry, the Agriculture
Act of 1967 established the Meat and Livestock Commission (MLC) in GB and
one its first tasks was to devise implement and operate national systems of
carcase classification for cattle sheep and pigs. There followed an intensive
period of technical work involving regional and national surveys of carcase
types, and large-scale dissection trials to evaluate the basis of carcase
composition and its prediction in the abattoir.
MLC established, in common with much trial work throughout the world, that
for beef and sheep carcases a visual assessment of external fatness and of
conformation (shape) together with carcase weight, and category would
predict - as well as any other technique available at the time – carcase meat
yield, probably the most important factor to a meat trader. In addition, fatness,
shape and weight were those characteristics most often used by traders – and
crucially producers – in their day-to-day trading descriptions.
5
AHDB Industry Consulting 2008©
Review Of The EU Carcase Classification System For Beef And Sheep
Beef and Sheep Carcase Classification schemes were launched in GB in
1974 and 1975, respectively. Uptake by slaughterers varied but never
achieved the penetration of the Pig scheme, which consistently covered
around 75 per cent of the national kill. The report details the reasons for this
situation and describes the technical and political changes necessary to adopt
the EU Beef Carcase Classification grid on implementation of (EEC)
Regulation 1208/81.
Possible Improvements
a)
Meat quality
At the time of the schemes’ development it was appreciated that meat quality,
in all its guises, was of importance to the meat trader and also of principal
interest to the consumer in the form of eating quality. This was, and still is,
especially relevant in the case of beef.
MLC and many other R&D bodies around the world spent a great deal of
research effort to develop a satisfactory method of assessing meat quality in
the carcase at the time of classification. No practical, reliable and costeffective measure emerged and subsequent efforts embracing improved
technology are perhaps at best equivocal.
There are however, other schemes in use – principally the USDA Beef
grading scheme and the MSA (Meat Standards Australia) beef scheme which attempt to predict some aspects of eating quality at the abattoir stage,
in addition to estimating meat yield. The report details these schemes and
assesses their possible benefits for the EU and UK situation.
It is concluded that the USDA scheme has very little relevance here, but one
or two features of the MSA scheme would merit re-appraisal. At the same
time, the features of the MSA scheme which affect meat quality were – almost
without exception – included in the ‘Blueprints for Quality Beef’ programme
pioneered in the UK by MLC some eight years earlier. The report argues that
these additional quality factors are better suited to principles of good practice
and total supply chain management, rather than classification per se.
b)
Prediction of meat yield
A firm foundation of MLC’s beef and sheep classification schemes was, and
remains, the strong relationship between assessments of conformation and
fatness and saleable meat yield of the carcase.
But over the past thirty years or so, this fundamental point appears to have
been lost sight of by many observers - particularly primary producers. It is
often argued that developments like VIA (Video Image Analysis), an objective
system now adopted officially for EU Beef classification, offer significant
advantages over visual assessments of conformation and fatness. The
review examines published trial work on VIA which shows, at best, marginal
improvements in precision over visual assessments.
6
AHDB Industry Consulting 2008©
Review Of The EU Carcase Classification System For Beef And Sheep
It concludes that the perceived advantages of VIA - principally objectivity and
consistency - should be weighed very carefully against the difficulties of
ensuring comparability of results when (as would almost inevitably be the
case) manual classification would continue to be used in other plants. In
particular the current EU requirement for validating VIA installations (where to
pass the test VIA has to mimic an expert panel of judges), seems to the
authors to be a somewhat convoluted process failing to exploit the full
potential of the equipment. The example set by the EU Pig Carcase
Classification scheme where the new equipment (in this case automaticrecording probes) was calibrated against carcase lean content would appear
to be a much more satisfactory, if difficult, way forward.
The Current and Future Operation of Classification
Cattle
The general view from all those interviewed, both abattoirs, producers and the
regulatory bodies was that on the whole the beef carcase classification
system worked well, and was by and large delivering, particularly for
producers, a trusted basis for the deadweight sale of finished cattle.
In addition, the price reporting arrangements appeared to serve a useful
function to all sectors including organisations at national and European levels
including the EU Commission.
However, there was also a small but significant minority view that while the
system may be fit for purpose today, the continuing changes in the production
and marketing of cattle would require the carcase classification system to
deliver additional measures of quality in the future.
Respondents who raised the quality issue were, in the main, unspecific in
terms of what attributes should be measured, but frequently referred to those
related to better eating quality. Several producers who saw the merit of
possible quality measurements were equally cautious in that they were aware
that these characteristics could also be influenced by abattoir practice and
were not keen to see the introduction of “another price stick with which to be
beaten.”
It was noted that past attempts to adopt a more quality-oriented approach
through the supply chain have been held back by the separate ownership of
production, slaughtering and processing facilities. Supply chains are now
becoming increasingly integrated, bringing about a different management
perspective on quality enhancement and with it a positive influence on the
future commercial relationship between producers and slaughterers.
Regarding any new measurements of quality attributes, the EU Commission
believes that these could be introduced if or when there is a EU-wide need for
them and when the measures are shown to work.
7
AHDB Industry Consulting 2008©
Review Of The EU Carcase Classification System For Beef And Sheep
Some respondents – again a minority, roughly equally divided among
producers and slaughterers – saw the need for objective measurements in
classification, if only to give a perception of better standardisation and
consistency within and between plants, therefore improving confidence in the
system. Many of this group conceded that while desirable in principle, the
benefits of VIA and similar techniques could easily be outweighed by cost and
technology-related complications. Several respondents were aware that new
equipment is relatively expensive to install, still giving problems with the
measurement of fatness and possibly subject to bias.
The expense of VIA equipment may not be an insuperable problem for the
‘very large’ cattle abattoirs that supply some of the large multiple
supermarkets, but for many, such as the still relatively large number of
‘large/medium’ sized plants in the beef sector that still account for over 50% of
UK cattle slaughter, it would be. For them the current system is both
convenient and cost effective and they would not even begin to consider
changing without financial help.
Similarly the EU Commission does not see any reason to review the
legislation to take account of any new systems of classification, until these are
more effective and are being used more widely.
Notwithstanding the above, the pressure to consider and develop alternative
systems and the means of using them to pay on a different basis e.g. on meat
yield will continue.
Sheep
In contrast to cattle, the classification system for sheep was seen to have
major problems in the view of many of those interviewed for this report. While
some of the aspects of the system, particularly the assessment of fatness and
conformation, were seen to work if carried out by trained personnel, the
overall classification system for finished sheep, particularly from the point of
view of many producers left a lot to be desired.
Nationally as far as producers and some abattoirs were concerned, the sheep
carcase classification system was not seen to be delivering what it should –
that is a trusted and transparent basis for the deadweight sale of finished
sheep between producers and abattoirs. The main reason for this was seen to
be the lack of standardisation of dressing specifications and weighing and the
problems in application and comparison that this caused. Thus comparison of
prices quoted on a carcase weight basis were, from a producer perspective,
confusing and misleading.
To date the attempts to tackle the problem of the lack of standardisation of
dressing specification and weighing, through meetings between
representatives of producers and abattoirs have failed. The majority of the
representatives of producers interviewed saw it as a major problem, which is
severely hampering the development and health of the sheep industry.
8
AHDB Industry Consulting 2008©
Review Of The EU Carcase Classification System For Beef And Sheep
Some abattoirs see it as a problem that inhibits competitiveness; others see it
merely as a ‘terms of trade issue’ in the trading of livestock between the
abattoir and the producers, which should be dealt with on a one to one basis
(i.e. ‘let the seller beware’). Other abattoirs maintained that producers were
also not averse to indulging in ‘sharp practice’ (e.g. in the manipulation of the
quality of sheep/lambs in batches), and that abattoirs needed to be able to
manipulate the ‘terms of trade’ to protect themselves.
Given the attitudes in the industry it is difficult to see that the problems with
sheep classification will be resolved by multilateral agreement, so what are
the options for change?
1) To some farmers the only solution was further support for the radical option
that they needed to control the entire supply chain (e.g. learn from the Danish
and New Zealand experience).
2) A second option was that government could intervene (as with cattle) and
establish a more standard system, carried out by an independent
classification body policed by the RPA. Or it could first try a Northern Irish
approach and broker a voluntary standardisation and supervisory scheme.
3) A third option was to introduce standard new technology in the larger plants
(for example VIA equipment), which to work properly would need independent
calibration and monitoring and an agreement on the use of standard dressing
specification.
However, it has been pointed out that a move to an objective system such as
VIA (claimed to give greater standardisation and transparency) still may not
benefit all producers. In a market with decreasing supplies for example, there
will still be some who will be very happy to sell sheep of heterogeneous
quality on a flat rate basis.
Similarly, as with cattle, such a move may also not be seen as a cost effective
solution for some of the main sheep abattoirs, particularly the large
export/Halal plants that accounted for almost 30% of sheep slaughtering in
2007 (but who by and large do not supply the supermarkets).
Given the nature and structure of the sheep industry it is difficult to envisage a
move towards greater standardisation without some form of legislative
compulsion or incentives to introduce new methods of working.
9
AHDB Industry Consulting 2008©
Review Of The EU Carcase Classification System For Beef And Sheep
RECOMMENDATIONS
A. Cattle
1. Beef Carcase Classification is accepted by the overwhelming majority
of industry stakeholders as a cost effective trading tool, which, while
being less than perfect, is used by all sectors. The absence of
significant criticism of standards of application, bearing in mind that
independent providers and abattoir staff are authorised to classify,
speaks well for the system of checks and balances put in place by the
Rural Payments Agency and the EU. While its use for market support
measures has almost entirely disappeared, the current use to which
classification is put accords well with the original aims of the scheme’s
architects. Some forty years later however, many of the market
inefficiencies – especially price opacity – still persist, but they would be
markedly worse without a classification scheme.
We recommend, therefore that the classification scheme continues in its
present form. For the public good the EU and Defra should continue to
implement the mandatory system and bear the relatively small cost (related
to the size of the industry) required to do this.
2. The parallel activity of price reporting, given in terms of prices carcases
achieve according to classification, was considered by almost all
respondents interviewed to be extremely valuable market information.
The delay between published prices and those in the market at any
particular time was regarded as almost inevitable but not, in the view of
most, a significant inconvenience.
We recommend that price reporting information continues to be collected
and published, and the agencies involved in the gathering and collation of
data pursue every opportunity to do so efficiently and effectively.
3. In the course of conducting interviews a recurring topic concerned the
possible measurement of quality parameters such as those of
importance to the consumer, notably tenderness, juiciness and flavour.
There is keen debate over both the utility of possible measurements
and whether they fit within the ambit of classification (of necessity
carried out on the hot carcase at the point of weighing) or within a wider
‘good practice’ procedure.
We recommend that additional measurements of quality, in particular those
claimed to predict eating quality by the use of on-line instruments are not
adopted by the industry for use in classification at this time. As technology
advances, the effectiveness of these techniques should be kept under
review by the competent authorities.
We recommend that other measures to enhance quality generally by the
application of good practice across all or most production should be
incorporated in to whole chain approaches but not be seen as part of
carcase classification.
10
AHDB Industry Consulting 2008©
Review Of The EU Carcase Classification System For Beef And Sheep
4. Objective systems of beef carcase classification (for example Video
Image Analysis – VIA) may offer marginal improvements over visual
operation in some respects, but their current performance in some
areas is not as good as it should be (e.g. in measuring fat class) and
they bring significant cost implications and operational complications
for regulators and operators. We are aware that Ireland, for example,
has adopted this technique in all their major beef plants, but the issues
and conditions that stimulated and made possible this approach are not
present in the UK.
We recommend that these techniques are currently not appropriate for
mandatory use in the UK for beef carcase classification. If individual or
groups of plants wish to introduce such systems for commercial reasons, a
better system of validation is necessary.
B. Sheep
1. The many different dressing specifications in use by UK abattoirs
impedes market and price transparency, is confusing to producers and
complicates any statistics produced on national or regional production
and price levels. In addition, weighing practices vary, particularly over
hot to cold weight rebates and rounding procedures. The damage
these inconsistencies inflict on confidence in deadweight selling in
general and classification in particular cannot be underestimated.
We recommend that the industry is encouraged to adopt a unified carcase
dressing specification and weighing procedure.
2. While many respondents considered that these problems attendant on
sheep carcase classification could be addressed by bringing in a
mandatory scheme, they accepted that this was not likely to become a
reality. Reluctance on the part of the EU Commission to propose
compulsion for a ‘minority product’ was seen as being an insuperable
hurdle. In addition, some respondents saw the lack of mandatory
status as undermining not just confidence in the carcase dressing
procedures but also in the standards of classification applied towards
conformation and fatness assessment. Some of this unease was due
to confusion in the minds of some producers as to who carried out the
‘classification’, bearing in mind that abattoir staff can assess carcases
and award them categories that reflect the sheep carcase classification
scheme operated by qualified MLC Services Ltd staff.
We recommend that efforts are made by the relevant bodies responsible for
improving efficiency in the industry (e.g. AHDB/EBLEX, LMC, QMS and
HCC) to improve the implementation and effectiveness of sheep carcase
classification by encouraging voluntary standardisation and validation (e.g.
this could be done by using RPA or qualified independent classifiers to
validate standards).
11
AHDB Industry Consulting 2008©
Review Of The EU Carcase Classification System For Beef And Sheep
1. FOREWORD
Meat in general and beef in particular is a varied and infinitely variable
product. Its production, distribution, processing and retailing in the UK are
beset by many problems, notably fragmented production and retailing,
frequent mis-alignment of supply and demand, a long history of government
intervention in the market and a high level of imports.
The marketing of livestock and meat is conducted through several different
competing and lengthy channels, each with its own set of deficiencies but all
often share the major defects of poor market transparency, imprecise product
description at the point of first hand selling and inadequate feedback of
consumer requirements to the primary producer. The effect of this last factor
has been made worse over many generations by a widespread dependence
on market support and producer subsidy. Thus historically production
considerations, rather than market requirements, have overwhelmingly
influenced livestock producers when making business decisions.
A series of Parliamentary Committees of Inquiry have identified many of these
shortcomings and posed solutions; usually without great effect. A notable
exception was the Verdon-Smith Committee of Inquiry into Fatstock and
Carcase Meat Marketing and Distribution of 1964. Their report catalogued
exhaustively the above failings, and more, and recommended that
classification schemes for carcase meat be introduced - by compulsion, if
necessary – and that a body be created to develop, implement and operate
these classification schemes. A common descriptive language for carcases,
Verdon-Smith argued, was the sine qua non of firsthand trading and market
intelligence.
The subsequent Agriculture Act (1967) established the Meat and Livestock
Commission (MLC) who first met later that same year. The Act defined
classification as one of MLC’s principal tasks and by the early 1970s schemes
were in operation covering significant proportions of the cattle, sheep and pigs
killed in GB.
The last 30 years have brought huge changes to the UK meat industry: EU
membership, a radical overhaul of subsidy and support payments, and a
retailing revolution that has changed the way that consumers purchase meat.
This has seen the demise of many traditional high street butchers and the
growth of meat sales in the large supermarkets. The supply chain servicing
the retail (and food service sector) has also changed drastically over this
period, with a reduction in the numbers of slaughterhouses and a
concentration of ownership and throughput. Two animal disease epidemics BSE and Foot & Mouth – caused severe problems in the industry and
countryside (and still reverberate today) changing the way both authorities
and consumers view animal production in general and beef – perhaps
because of its premium status – in particular.
With UK membership of the EU came the eventual adoption here of
mandatory beef and pig carcase classification and its extension currently to all
12
AHDB Industry Consulting 2008©
Review Of The EU Carcase Classification System For Beef And Sheep
27 Member States. Sheep carcase classification although covered by EU
regulations, was not made mandatory (although price reporting was), and is
only undertaken on a voluntary basis, principally in the major sheep producing
countries (of which the UK is the main one).
The use of classification in the UK is today arguably (even with compulsion),
more or less still what it was in the early days of development. The beef
scheme itself remains remarkably unaltered, although many if not all the EU
market support measures (based on carcase payments and therefore mostly
based on classification) had by 2008 been swept away.
13
AHDB Industry Consulting 2008©
Review Of The EU Carcase Classification System For Beef And Sheep
2. DEFINITIONS
It is important in the context of this report to define what are meant by the
terms ‘classification’ and ‘grading’, as they have been (and continue to be)
used synonymously, causing considerable confusion.
The following
definitions, enjoying majority support and understanding at least in Europe,
are proposed for the purposes of this report:
CLASSIFICATION is a set of descriptive terms describing features of the
carcase that are useful to those involved in the trading of carcases.
The classification system is defined as that involving the identification of the
animal, the dressing specification, the weighing, the assessment on
conformation and fatness (under the SEUROP grid), the documentation of the
attributes and related price reporting issues.
GRADING is the placing of different values on carcases for pricing purposes,
depending on the market and requirements of traders.
Thus classification seeks to be a universal language of sufficient breadth to
cover the vast majority of carcases traded (as originally envisaged at least
within one country, but now also across the entire EU). It enables those
involved in the production, slaughtering, cutting, distribution and retailing of
meat to describe carcases in terms that others will understand and that are of
commercial relevance in trading.
Grading invariably involves value judgements, the concept of ‘better’ and
worse, and the use of price differentials between grades for carcases
according to the buyers’ and their customers’ needs. In practice there are no
universal grades, but they will vary from buyer to buyer, reflecting local and
regional tastes and requirements and the relative importance of different
carcase characteristics, although at times a consensus of opinion can appear
that gives the impression of a universal truism (e.g. that lean lambs are better
than fat ones).
Classification, on the other hand, makes no attempt to confer these attributes
to a carcase. ‘Quality’ with its many meanings and subjective nature is used
in grading but usually avoided in classification discussions. Grading is
frequently based on classification information and many classification classes
can be aggregated into fewer buying grades. Premiums and discounts
reflecting consumer requirements should stimulate producers to modify their
production and increase returns by matching more closely their production to
the market.
The long-standing practice in the UK of ‘grading’ livestock in terms of their
entitlement to receive a subsidy payment of one sort or another was a further
cause of confusion. The Fatstock Guarantee Scheme and Deficiency
Payments were originally applied to animals at auction markets and also
administered on carcases. Such schemes were devised in response to
wartime conditions or to periods of variable and uncertain supply immediately
14
AHDB Industry Consulting 2008©
Review Of The EU Carcase Classification System For Beef And Sheep
following the two World Wars. Grading was seen as a way to protect the
consumer and aid the producer of home produced beef, lamb and pork in the
face of widespread imports, occasionally of doubtful provenance and - in the
hands of less than scrupulous traders – sometimes passed off as home
produced.
On a wider scale and more recently, EU support payments to cattle and sheep
producers were also given on carcases, which met certain criteria, related to
market acceptability (the last being the Beef Special Premium, which ended in
2004 with the introduction of the Single Farm Payment).
15
AHDB Industry Consulting 2008©
Review Of The EU Carcase Classification System For Beef And Sheep
3. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
3.1 The Assessment of Quality
‘He who buys meat buys many bones,
He who buys land buys many stones,
He who buys eggs buys many shells,
But he who buys good ale buys nothing else.’
The significance most of us attach to meat eating and the universal desire for
it to be a pleasurable experience more or less guarantees that the pursuit of
quality - however it is defined – and its assessment has been and will continue
to be a topic of considerable importance.
The need to assess quality in meat, the carcase from whence it came, and
before that the animal, has engaged producers, slaughterers, processors,
wholesalers and retailers for many centuries, to say nothing of the more
recent recruitment of economists, marketing analysts, politicians and
scientists. Carcase classification has played an important part in the story in
recent years. The following section introduces the background to the
development of classification.
3.2 Industrial Revolutions, New World, and War
The Agricultural Revolution and more significantly the Industrial Revolution
changed forever the social and technological landscape of Western Europe.
One of the most obvious features – a mass move of the people from the
country to the new centres of urban population – separated man from his
domesticated ruminant animals on which he depended for his meat and milk.
Farmers with better cropping systems; new crop varieties and more intensive
animal husbandry methods met the new city dwellers’ taste for more meat,
fuelled by higher real wages. Perishable agricultural products could be
transported to the centres of consumption rapidly on the newly developed
railways. The old system - where consumers either produced their own meat
or at least knew, or knew of, the producer - contrasted starkly with the new
system of longer distribution chains requiring several agents and many
transactions between farm gate and consumers plate. The potential for
passing off or, at best, mis-description was high and consumers, uninformed
by plausible labelling, could be misled as to the provenance of their meat.
In addition, the late 19th century saw the opening up of huge areas for
livestock grazing in Australasia, North and South America and later Africa,
particularly for beef and mutton production. Exports of frozen or chilled meat
found their way to the UK in such vast tonnages that British Agriculture
seriously declined until the First World War. From this period through the
Second World War and up to the late 1940s there followed a repeated
16
AHDB Industry Consulting 2008©
Review Of The EU Carcase Classification System For Beef And Sheep
sequence of shortages, rationing and price controls, large-scale meat imports
(often of dubious quality).
This led up to the 1948 Agriculture Act, that set out to better manage
agricultural production, encourage an increase in domestic supply and reduce
imports, such as with the mechanism of deficiency payments, (i.e. subsidies to
make up to the producer the difference between the market price and a return
that was deemed to be reasonable). From this time on the search for a better,
more consistent and well understood way to assess live animals and the
quality of meat that could be derived from them, that was begun after the end
of the First World War in 1918, then put on hold at the beginning of the
Second in 1939, was resumed.
3.3 Agricultural Produce Grading and Marking
It was shortly after the First World War that the UK Government attempted to
address what it saw as several related issues:
• Market inefficiency,
• Poor market transparency,
• Lack of consumer confidence in the retail product caused by among
other things poor labelling and marking,
• A desire to aid the UK producer by reduction of imports and stimulation
of the home-produced article.
A number of Parliamentary Committees of Inquiry on Beef and Lamb
marketing matters were established and in time duly reported.
An early Committee (HMSO, 1930) recommended that a grading and marking
scheme for beef be introduced as part of a wider initiative to cover
homegrown agricultural produce in general (under the Marking of Produce
Act, 1928 and revisions). The beef scheme was welcomed by producers,
received guarded support from many retail butchers but was met with outright
opposition by the slaughter and meat trade organisations. This latter group
saw the scheme as unnecessary and heavily skewed in favour of producers
(and so presumably contrary to their own interests).
The ‘grading’ proposed was a visual inspection of the live animal or the
carcase, based primarily on certifying that the animal had reached a suitable
stage for slaughter (in wartime conditions the premature slaughter of animals
would represent a serious waste of valuable resources), that the killing-out
percentage would be reasonably high (again attempting to minimise waste),
and that fat cover was adequate, without being excessive. In addition the
conformation was usually assessed, as it had long been traditionally valued as
an indicator of carcase and meat quality.
While some photographs of the grades were later produced much of the
language chosen to define the grades was subjective and judgemental, such
as ‘relatively’, ‘adequate but not excessive’, ‘in proportion’, ‘rounded’, ‘plump’
and so on. Grade names were Prime, Good, Standard etc but they were
17
AHDB Industry Consulting 2008©
Review Of The EU Carcase Classification System For Beef And Sheep
really reflections of show ring standards and Christmas Fatstock exhibits of
usually what we now would call over fat stock. To some extent the growth
and development theories of the day which perhaps over emphasised that late
maturity of animal produced better high-priced parts such as hindquarter and
back, were adopted with too much enthusiasm. Certainly in the breeds and
crosses of that period a high degree of fatness was associated with the later
stages of finishing, deemed necessary at the time.
It was perhaps no surprise, when price support mechanisms were extended
after the Second World War, that the basis of the schemes was largely the
earlier marking and grading scheme. The Fatstock Guarantee Scheme
(FGS), as it became known, underpinned producer beef prices from 1954 to
1973 (and to 1980 in the case of sheep).
The eventual demise of the FGS came about as a result of Government
unease over the extent of Exchequer liability (more or less open-ended), the
concern over its effect of insulating producers from market signals and the
general feeling that eventually a freer market must be established (ironically it
was the arrival of another very managed market - the EEC Common
Agricultural Policy (CAP) - that finally caused the termination of the FGS). It
was many years before this, however, that the Verdon-Smith Committee of
Inquiry (HMSO, 1964) set out many of the problems together with some
possible solutions.
3.4 The Verdon-Smith Inquiry (Committee of Inquiry into Fatstock and
Carcase Meat Marketing and Distribution, 1964)
The Verdon-Smith Inquiry analysed the major problems of the meat industry
at the time as follows:
• Lack of product uniformity
• Seasonal and (in the short term) unpredictable demand
• Absence of standard measures of quality
• Poor market intelligence, “price information almost non-existent”
• Irregular and unpredictable supply with up to three years lag in
production
• The Fatstock Guarantee Scheme distracted producers from consumer
requirements
• Perishable product
• High level of imports
• Production led (as opposed to market led)
• Fragmented production and retail operations
• Many complex marketing channels
• Not easily amenable to large-scale organisation
• Auction mart impeded feed back of consumer quality requirements
• Chaotic policies of Governments with respect to slaughterhouses
• Lack of precise description at the retail level with little or no visible
marking of prices …’the consumer depends, more than is usually
acceptable today, on the advice of the salesman.’
18
AHDB Industry Consulting 2008©
Review Of The EU Carcase Classification System For Beef And Sheep
To address these shortcomings a range of recommendations were made. The
following are those most closely concerned with carcase classification and
related matters:
•
•
•
Establish, by Statute, a Fatstock and Meat Authority (FMA) in GB to be
an independent, supervisory, advisory and development agency for
fatstock and meat marketing;
This agency (that was subsequently established in 1967 as the Meat
and Livestock Commission [MLC]) was to be responsible for the
design, introduction and operation of carcase classification schemes
for cattle sheep and pigs;
The FMA should collect, analyse and disseminate data on livestock,
carcase and meat quantities traded, and prices, together with
slaughtering, through all the channels of marketing. Live and dead
weight comparisons should also be made available to aid producers.
In addition, Verdon-Smith supported the practice of dead weight marketing,
and offered encouragement to its advance, but also saw the merits of the
auction mart and accepted its continued presence on the marketing scene.
It considered that the FGS had outlived its usefulness, insulated farmers from
the market and encouraged them to take marketing decisions that were not in
line with consumer requirements. The Inquiry recommended that the scheme
be drastically modified so as to encourage more efficient marketing or else be
progressively dismantled.
3.5 The Agriculture Act, 1967
Following this Committee of Inquiry, the Agriculture Act of 1967 (HMSO, 1967)
set up MLC and as one of its primary functions gave it the following mandate:
“For the purpose of providing a standard method of describing as fully as
practicable those characteristics of a carcase which are the principal features
of interest to persons trading in livestock and carcases. The Commission
shall, as soon as practicable, compile systems for the descriptive classification
of all types of livestock slaughtered in Great Britain and for marking carcases
according to that classification”.
In addition, the Act paved the way for the transfer of several hundred Ministry
of Agriculture Fatstock staff over to MLC’s employment. At the time of the
transfer, these staff were chiefly engaged in duties connected with livestock
and carcase certification under UK statutory schemes such as the Fatstock
Guarantee Scheme, principally the inspection of animals and carcases to
ascertain their suitability for subsidy payment. At this time support payments
were applied to cattle, sheep and pigs.
In the parlance of the day these staff were known as ‘graders’ and the
operation of inspection and certification for subsidy was known as ‘grading’.
This represents a further historical cause of confusion over the term grading.
19
AHDB Industry Consulting 2008©
Review Of The EU Carcase Classification System For Beef And Sheep
3.6 Carcase Classification Schemes
In 1967 these staff formed the body of what was then termed the Fatstock
Division of MLC and together with new recruits would become the classifying
officers responsible for delivering in abattoirs the Beef, Sheep and Pig
Carcase Classification schemes about to be developed.
In carrying out their responsibilities to develop classification schemes under
the 1967 Agriculture Act, MLC faced many challenges – technical,
administrative, political and economic.
3.6.1 Pigs
In the case of pig carcase classification - the detail of which is outside the
remit of this report, but in terms of generalities offers some useful
comparisons with beef and sheep schemes – MLC’s scheme made rapid
initial progress. This was due, in no small part, to the industry’s familiarity with
and use of deadweight trading coupled with producer payment schedules that
rewarded leaner carcases. This followed the lead established in Denmark
many years before, where producers were paid on the basis of carcase back
fat measurements. The entire industry, almost without exception, accepted
that pigs could be described in terms of classification criteria, could be
conveniently traded based on such, and agreed that further reductions in
fatness remained the major consumer requirement and improvement
objective.
Further it was recognised – in contrast to cattle and sheep - that live appraisal
of pigs to predict carcase qualities (apart from emaciated or grossly over fat
pigs) was extremely difficult, not to say impossible for the average person
engaged in livestock and meat activities. In addition it was generally agreed
that eating qualities of pig meat were on average quite acceptable and little in
the way of visual appraisal of the live animal or knowledge of its breed or type
would be of use in further predicting this feature.
Thus by 1985, 13 years after beginning the scheme, the MLC pig carcase
classification scheme covered some 80 per cent of the kill in GB.
3.6.2 Beef and sheep
Following wide industry consultation, MLC launched a pilot, or experimental,
Beef Carcase Classification scheme in (1972). The scheme was based on:
• The establishment/verification of carcase weight (derived from a
nationally agreed and verified carcase dressing specification),
• Visual appraisal of conformation and fatness
• Category
• Age.
20
AHDB Industry Consulting 2008©
Review Of The EU Carcase Classification System For Beef And Sheep
The scheme achieved coverage of around 45 per cent of the national kill by
1976. This was accompanied by intensive promotional activities by MLC:
technical literature for all sectors of the industry, a strong focus on
classification at local, regional and national Agricultural shows and livestock
events, Christmas Fatstock shows and countless demonstrations at farm and
abattoir open days, markets and other venues where producers and meat
industry people gathered.
Yet it was also the case that while beef classification was achieving a
satisfactory, if not universal, coverage on a voluntary basis, the information
recorded in the scheme was often little used by the meat trader as a basis to
price carcases.
Similarly many slaughterers did not pass back the
classification information to the producer, nor did they describe carcases or
cuts taken from them in classification terms to their customers – the
wholesalers, processors and retailers.
There were (and still are), many reasons why classification information was
under utilised but one important reason in the early years of development was
connected to the method of charging for classification and financing the staff
carrying it out. At this time MLC Fatstock officers were present in the abattoir
(as well as the auction market) undertaking duties on behalf of the
Government to certify and inspect carcases for their eligibility for subsidy
payment. Later this extended to EU (then EEC) schemes for market support
based on individual carcase inspection. Thus classification was often carried
out as an ‘add on’ or shadow exercise at little or no extra cost – often for
demonstration or publicity purposes at the time when the scheme needed all
the support it could get. The danger was that slaughterers accepted or
suffered classification while it was provided at no extra cost but apart from a
few more progressive companies, many ignored it and made little effort to use
it, indeed could be cynically obstructive.
This began to change from the late 1970s when due to new calls on MLC levy
income and progressive change from UK to EU support schemes, the cost of
classification had to be increasingly borne by the industry. This at first
resulted in a decline in the use of the service but a subsequent increase as
the more progressive companies that saw a value in the activity gradually
became more dominant in the industry and as it became a requirement of new
EU schemes. The level of participation can be seen at certain points as shown
in Table 1.
21
AHDB Industry Consulting 2008©
Review Of The EU Carcase Classification System For Beef And Sheep
Table 1.
Percentage of Carcases Classified by MLC in GB
1974 to 2008
Year
Beef %
Sheep %
1974
Scheme introduced
Scheme introduced
1975
1976
45
na
1978
na
30
1980
20
12
1985
29
25
1990
41
27
1995
41
27
2000
52
34
2008
78
42
Source: MLC
3.6.3 Classification in other EU states and the EU scheme
As in the UK, the roots of classification development in other parts of Europe
are to be found some time before discussions in Brussels about the adoption
of a common EEC/EU scheme.
Several European countries had, as in the UK, operated grading /
classification/sorting schemes for trading or livestock improvement
programmes as an essential pre-requisite to price reporting and market
support.
Germany was among the first to adopt a compulsory classification
scheme for trading purposes in 1968 and used a 4 x 3 conformation /
fatness grid in which the fatness scale was differently aligned
depending on the class of animal under scrutiny.
Ireland also had been developing a grading/classification scheme,
principally as an aid to their beef exports, and used seven-point
conformation and fatness scales. The scheme became mandatory in
export plants, as was the passing back of classification information to
the producer.
In France trials were also under way with fatness and conformation
descriptive schemes for market reporting purposes in live cattle
markets and later in carcase trading. They were also the first, under
the guidance of the state organisation ONIBEV, to adopt the
22
AHDB Industry Consulting 2008©
Review Of The EU Carcase Classification System For Beef And Sheep
nomenclature EUROPA for describing conformation classes –
presumably as a move to be considered the ‘model’ should a wider
unified scheme come under discussion. The French moves more or
less mirrored, in terms of timing and form of the scheme, the UK
developments.
The schemes described above were to a large degree similar and based on:
• Carcase weight,
• Sex/category
• Age,
• Fatness and conformation (both visually assessed)
These formed the five foundation points. In addition, they had benefited (in
both technical and comparability terms) from the attention of several
international working groups of meat scientists (under FAO, OECD or EAAP
guidance) looking at the harmonisation of carcase measurements - mainly for
other R&D purposes. These methods had to be cheap, quick and reasonably
precise (just as they need to be for classification purposes) since very few
R&D programmes had the resources to dissect (and devalue) much prime
beef.
So when the many working groups were convened later under the auspices of
the European Commission’s Beef Management Committee, to discuss
classification, many of the technical experts who had worked on prototype
schemes were now advising member state officials. The Beef Carcase
Classification scheme that finally emerged in 1981 under Council Regulation
1208 and Commission Regulation 2930 was a committee creation and,
perhaps not surprisingly, contained many if not all the features seen in the
European schemes described above (see Section 9, The Legislative
Dimension).
It was thus a relatively simple process to amend the UK’s classification grid to
compare with that adopted by the Community, and Britain adopted the
scheme on 9 November 1981. But in the words of Kempster et al., (1982) ’
the challenge in the 1980s in beef classification in Europe will be to achieve
standardised application of this scheme. Photographic standards and/or
international inspection teams will be used. But it is clear that the wording of
the official scheme adopted is a ‘committee-table’ compromise of rather
different national approaches and some problems in interpretation, as well as
standardisation, can be expected.’
Problems of interpretation and standardisation did occur and still do occur, but
detached observation would on balance suggest that most of these pitfalls
have been overcome with the result that a unified beef classification scheme
operates reasonably well across 27 member states. Differences in application
and interpretation, where they do occur, will be described later in this report.
23
AHDB Industry Consulting 2008©
Review Of The EU Carcase Classification System For Beef And Sheep
4. THE CASE FOR AND AGAINST CLASSIFICATION
4.1 Aims and Objectives
The aims and objectives of carcase classification were stated by MLC in
similar terms to those highlighted in the Verdon-Smith report, as a set of
hoped for improvements to the meat marketing system. These were:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
To provide a common language for use by those in trading livestock
and carcases to facilitate trade and intensify competition;
To develop clearer market signals from the consumer to the producer
by the use of premiums for desirable stock and discounts for less
desirable stock;
To act as a catalyst for breed and national herd / flock improvement;
To act as a framework for the development of national price reporting
schemes to enable those trading (and others such as statutory
organisations) to determine what prices were paid for differing types of
stock in different areas;
To assist producers market their stock more effectively, aided by better
‘market transparency’;
To improve efficiency in transactions in what is today referred to as the
‘supply chain’ between producer, slaughterer and retailer; encouraging
buying specifications to be used that could be filled and verified against
classification descriptions. In other words, carcases and primal cuts
could be traded unseen;
To allow those cutting meat to monitor and control their operations on
a yield basis. Classification has a direct relationship with the amount of
saleable meat in a carcase. Yields and returns from cutting and
processing can therefore be predicted and monitored with a knowledge
of the classification of the carcase raw material;
To promote, by the marking or labelling of classification information on
meat up to the point of retail sale, a basis for ‘quality’ marks or
promotional brands;
To facilitate the development of any export markets.
Livestock producers and their organisations, which saw it as a positive aid to
producing what the market demanded, in general, supported classification.
4.2 Objections to the Development of Such Schemes
On the other hand, classification met (and still meets), considerable opposition
from many companies in almost all sectors of the meat industry, notably
slaughterers, wholesalers and traditional butchers, that saw (and still see)
their business model in primarily ‘trading’ rather than in ‘linked supply chain’
terms. These sectors claimed that the points above contained many
advantages for producers and few if any for themselves.
24
AHDB Industry Consulting 2008©
Review Of The EU Carcase Classification System For Beef And Sheep
Ironically, it was largely because of the existence and activities of such
traders, who depended on and exploited a certain amount of ‘market opacity’
that Verdon-Smith and previous Parliamentary Committees of Inquiry called
for classification to be set up on a national basis.
When classification was being set up there were also large sections of the
meat trade and their organisations vehemently and openly opposed to the
setting up of MLC (as they saw it, predominantly a producer oriented body).
After its establishment MLC’s activities were in most cases met with
indifference or hostility and the statutory levy (“a tax on meat”) was strongly
resented by the slaughterers and wholesalers who had to pay it. Almost
inevitably then, MLC’s first major project – carcase classification - became
branded as an unnecessary and unwanted scheme from an unloved
organisation.
A recent comment from a senior member of the National Federation of Meat
Traders (an organisation by and large representing the independent
butchers), indicates how deep this view is still imprinted into certain sections
of the industry:
‘“Over the lifetime of the MLC the NFMT has believed that it pursued some
pie-eyed schemes. Carcase classification was thought to be unnecessary as
any craft butcher knew his trade and developments of that kind were seen as
aids to supermarket specification buying and assistance to that sector
prevailing over the independent.’ (R. Tyler Food Trade for Butchers (editorial)
March 2008 on reviewing the demise of MLC)
What is enlightening is that NFMT passed a similar resolution at its meeting of
September 1929, stating’“… the scheme (National Grading and Marking of
beef carcases) was unworkable and unlikely to accomplish its objects …’.
(HMSO 1932. Report of the Second Inter-Departmental Committee [The
Kirkley Committee] on the Grading and Marking of Beef. Cmnd. 4047
Over many years of consultations, those in opposition to the development of
classification schemes would most frequently raise the following points:
•
•
•
In the first instance classification was seen as unnecessary, since
those operating successfully in the meat trade knew their suppliers and
their product and also their customers’ requirements. Their trading and
craft skills matched sales to purchases and ensured continued survival
and success. Classification was seen as merely a prop to less efficient
and knowledgeable traders;
Price clarity and market transparency were only demanded by
meddling officials and bureaucrats. The tried and tested mechanism of
supply and demand was claimed to work well enough for everyone
else;
The proposed system of visual inspection and appraisal would be –
because of its subjectivity – inaccurate, inconsistent and not amenable
to national standardisation;
25
AHDB Industry Consulting 2008©
Review Of The EU Carcase Classification System For Beef And Sheep
•
•
•
A rapid visual inspection of the hot side that forms the basis of
classification was held to be totally inadequate to assess a carcase for
trading purposes. It would be unable - with just a few descriptive
variables - to encompass and describe the widely variable carcase
output from GB, let alone provide an adequate guide to carcase
‘quality’ and the almost infinite number of different market
requirements;
The prevalence of the auction market in beef and sheep marketing in
the early days of classification posed major difficulties in passing back
information to the producer. The selling of sheep in batches or lots
through the ring rather than as individual animals added to this
problem. In any case the ring was seen as the ultimate arbiter of
quality by both parties involved (a view not seriously challenged by the
livestock auctioneers and their shareholders). Moreover, if these
animals were subsequently classified any information produced would
be of academic interest only to the slaughterer;
Many abattoirs bought cattle and sheep direct from the producer at a
‘flat rate’, that is at a single price for the whole batch, irrespective of
variation in carcase characteristics. This system was claimed to be
easy to administer (but offered little incentive to the producer to
improve his output) and slaughterers feared two related consequences
of classification and any grading system that might go with it:
a)
That by changing to classification and offering premiums and
imposing discounts they would have to pay more for their stock
overall, and
b)
They might lose some producers who, fearing discounts on their
stock, would switch supply to competitors who remained outside
the classification schemes;
• Classification might drastically reduce traders’ flexibility to use their
skill in matching a variable supply of carcases to customers’
requirements. In particular marking or labelling with the classification
information would present a ‘trading strait jacket’, which would
seriously restrict the day-to-day negotiations on price that would
normally accompany a slight variation from customers’ requirements.
A written specification – in classification terms – would represent the
handcuffs and chains to complete the strangulation of trade.
Anecdotal evidence of traders removing classification labels from
carcases before dispatch illustrates most graphically this fear.
• Traders were concerned that classification would become a ‘quality
stamp’ that would make the ‘smart’ selling of for example, overfat or
carcases of poor conformation (below average or ‘inferior’ carcases in
some traders view) more difficult;
• Traders objected to funding a scheme (from MLC levy) of no benefit to
them.
Many of these points still resonate today in any discussions with stakeholders
from both sides of the industry about classification, and many similar views
were encountered during the fieldwork for this project (see Section 10 -The
Views of the Industry Towards Classification in 2008)
26
AHDB Industry Consulting 2008©
Review Of The EU Carcase Classification System For Beef And Sheep
5. THE TECHNICAL
CLASSIFICATION
BASIS
AND
DEVELOPMENT
OF
5.1 Carcase Traits of Value in Commerce
The concept of classification as conceived by the Verdon-Smith Inquiry report
and in the Agricultural Act that followed it, was that it should be a language of
use to those involved in the sale and purchase of meat and livestock.
Classification would therefore be expected to describe carcases in terms of
their commercial importance, throughout the meat supply chain from farm to
retailer.
It was generally agreed at the time that the commercial value of a carcase to a
retailer depended to a large degree on three factors:
•
•
•
The yield of saleable meat (SM%)- usually expressed as a percentage
of carcase or side weight;
The distribution of saleable meat between the higher and lower-priced
cuts and
The characteristics (quality) of the saleable meat.
It is not possible to directly assess any one of these characteristics from the
carcase, so for classification to be useful the measurements taken should be
related to, or be able to predict, these economically important factors. If
market signals are to find their way back to the point of production then these
factors should also be relevant to all in the meat supply chain
MLC held a series of consultation meetings with all sectors of the industry
throughout GB at the time of the development of its classification system. The
importance of these factors was agreed and there was further consensus that
the following carcase characteristics were most important in trade:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Carcase weight, and the definition of what a carcase comprises – the
‘dressing specification’;
Degree of fatness or ‘finish’;
Conformation or beef shape;
Sex/Category (steer, heifer, young bull. mature bull, cow);
Age;
Meat characteristics – primarily those that might influence eating
quality.
In addition, other characteristics held to be important by some included:
•
•
•
•
Fat quality, mainly colour and avoidance of yellow fat;
Lean colour, avoiding dark, sticky meat;
Uneven external (subcutaneous) fat distribution;
Excessive internal fat (kidney or cod/udder fat).
27
AHDB Industry Consulting 2008©
Review Of The EU Carcase Classification System For Beef And Sheep
The field work carried out for this project (see Section 10) showed that in
general all of the above are still relevant for the trade today, but because of
changes in certain systems of beef and lamb production and changes in the
final market, certain factors are seen as more or less important (for example
the colour of fat – yellow fat is often associated with grass-fed beef, believed
by some to have enhanced nutritional qualities).
5.2 The Validation of Potential Measurements
At the time of these early discussions MLC was also beginning major
programmes of evaluation of the important beef and sheep breeds and the
lines produced by the major pig breeding companies. This work covered
production traits and carcase and meat evaluation in great detail, across a
range of production systems, on a scale larger than any similar programme
undertaken elsewhere up to that point. Carcase appraisal was based on
physical dissection on a representative sample of carcases and across all
species every carcase was subject to a battery of simple measurements.
These would prove invaluable when the data were analysed to examine the
value of alternative measurements for classification purposes. (For a
comprehensive review of these programmes see Kempster et al., 1982).
Exhaustive analysis of the data together with information collected from
commercially classified beef and sheep carcases showed that:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
External or subcutaneous fatness measurement was a good indicator
of saleable meat yield;
A trained operator could make an accurate and consistent visual
assessment of that fat cover;
Visual assessment of subcutaneous fat cover was more a precise
predictor of SM% than any instruments available at the time for fat
depth measurement;
Conformation, that is ‘blockiness’ or shape – essentially a judgement of
thickness of flesh in relation to bone length – was related to meat
thickness or depth in steaks and retail joints, a factor held by the trade
to increase the saleability of a cut;
A trained operator could make an accurate and consistent visual
assessment of carcase conformation;
The combination of carcase weight and sex together with assessments
of conformation and fatness gave a very useful prediction of SM% one that was eminently useful in classification terms (see Table 2).
Accuracy and consistency of visual assessments improved markedly
when conformation and fatness scales were augmented by
photographic examples of each scale point;
Beef carcases of good conformation – that is of a blocky shape with
thick flesh and rounded profiles – tended to have slightly higher SM%
through having slightly lower amounts of bone (that was and still is
almost completely removed during retail preparation of beef), but for
sheep the relationship was less strong;
28
AHDB Industry Consulting 2008©
Review Of The EU Carcase Classification System For Beef And Sheep
•
Such carcases also had a small but measurable advantage in terms of
distribution of SM% in the higher-priced cuts (principally the back and
hind quarters).
Table 2.
Cattle - Saleable Meat Yield as a Percentage of Carcass Weight by
Classification Grid (using a standard cutting method)
CONFORMATION
FAT CLASS (1 low, 5 high)
1
2
3
4
5
E
78
75
72
69
66
U
77
74
71
68
65
R
76
73
70
67
64
O
75
72
69
66
63
P
74
71
68
65
62
Source: MLC (1980a)
From Table 2, it can be seen that fatness and conformation affect SM%, both
separately and in combination, but it is fatness that has the greater effect.
5.3 Measurements Chosen
5.3.1 The MLC beef scheme
The carcase characteristics finally included in the MLC scheme were chosen
on their ability to satisfy the following criteria:
•
•
•
•
To achieve a sensible balance of simplicity and precision
To be capable of being applied to hot carcasses on line
To be as 'objective' as possible
To be easily understood by all users.
Initially 5-point scales were chosen for both conformation and fatness
assessment; in the language of the techniques a 5 x 5 grid was established.
This was a compromise in the face of, on the one hand trade pressure for
fewer points (a 3 x 3 was considered quite sufficient) and on the other, MLC
data which showed 10 or 15 points could be consistently applied by trained
operators and which provided useful increases in precision (the EU beef scale
that followed allows for up to 15 sub classes of conformation and fatness, and
is currently employed in at least one plant in the UK).
29
AHDB Industry Consulting 2008©
Review Of The EU Carcase Classification System For Beef And Sheep
Both visual assessments of conformation and fatness were based on
photographic reference scales. In the case of fatness, the scale ranges were
defined by percentage of subcutaneous fat in the carcase as found by
dissection data of thousands of carcases. (see Table 3). This provided an
objective foundation to the all-important assessment (in terms of predicting
SM%) of fatness.
Table 3.
Subcutaneous Fat % Ranges Defining the MLC Beef Classification Fat
Classes.
Fat class
1
2
3
4
5
% Subcutaneous fat in carcase
Less than 4.5
4.5 – 7.4
7.5 – 10.4
10.5 – 13.4
13.5 or more
Source: Harrington, (1973)
In the original MLC scheme, carcases were described by visual appraisal of
fatness and conformation on a 5 x 5 grid.
Table 4.
MLC Beef Carcase Classification Grid in Use Before Adoption of EU
Scheme
FAT CLASS (1 low, 5 high)
1
2
3L
3H 4
5
CONFORMATION
5
4
3
2
1
Z
In addition, the following were recorded as part of classification:
•
•
Identification of the carcase, central to payments, trading confidence
and veterinary inspection;
Carcase weight determination at a prescribed time after slaughter,
according to agreed and verified carcase presentation and hot to cold
weight rebates;
30
AHDB Industry Consulting 2008©
Review Of The EU Carcase Classification System For Beef And Sheep
•
•
•
Sex / category;
Patchy or uneven fat development;
Excessive internal fat (KKCF);
Subsequent changes to the fat and conformation nomenclature included:
•
•
Subdivision of fat classes 3 and 4 into L (low) and H (high) leading to a
seven point fat scale to give more discrimination at important fatness
points for trading;
The addition of a very poor conformation class (Z) to cover extreme
dairy cows.
An average carcase from the centre of the grid would be classified as 3L 3
(that is 3L for fatness and 3 for conformation).
A carcase of low fat cover and good conformation would be classified a 2 4,
and so on, fatness being described first and conformation second.
Fatness was allowed to play its full part in the assessment of conformation.
No attempt was made to see through the fat to appraise the underlying
‘muscularity’, as was done in some other European schemes. This point led
to misunderstanding and some ill-informed criticism.
A further point of detail is that only in the assessment of conformation do the
qualitative and judgemental terms ‘good’ and ‘poor’ appear in classification
terminology. While classification language strictly avoided inferring ‘quality’ to
a carcase, such was the trade agreement that ‘blocky’ conformation was to be
desired and ‘rangy’ was not, that the terms good and poor conformation were
adopted.
5.3.2 The EEC/EU beef scheme
The adoption of the EU Beef Carcase Classification scheme in 1981 required
the following changes:
• The addition of a new definition for fat class 1 and re-numbering of the
other fat classes accordingly;
• Adoption of E, U, R, O, and P to replace the numeric conformation
scales;
• Conformation was described first and fatness second (e.g. R3, E2, etc.)
In addition, every conformation and fatness class could be subdivided in up to
three sub classes, +, average and -. In theory, then, a 15 x 15 grid could be
used. UK opted to subdivide conformation classes U, O and P into + and –
and fat classes 4 and 5 into L (low) and H (high) to give more discrimination
close to some important trading boundaries of market acceptability.
Thus the grid used by most beef slaughterers in the UK at the time of writing
this report is as shown below:
31
AHDB Industry Consulting 2008©
Review Of The EU Carcase Classification System For Beef And Sheep
Table 5.
The EU Beef Carcase Classification Scheme Grid as Used in UK
FATNESS
CONFORMATION
1
2
3
4L
4H
5L
5H
E
U+
-U
R
O+
-O
P+
-P
With the exception of the above amendments (mostly due to the EU scheme)
the Beef Carcase Classification scheme has remained remarkably unaltered
over the years. Critics may point to this as a reason for it still not being fully
taken up by the industry; supporters on the other hand might point to the farsightedness of the scheme’s architects.
5.4 Measurements Rejected for Cattle
While inspection of the cut surface of the ‘eye muscle’ (M. longissimus dorsi)
and overlying fat measurements at the 10th rib quartering point would be
useful to judge muscle depth, fat cover, lean colour and marbling fat (of
possible use in estimating aspects of eating quality) it was judged impractical
for use in classification schemes for beef. At first sight, this procedure has
appeal, not least because many sides would be quartered cold in the chillers
24h after slaughter before dispatch, or on entry to the cutting hall.
The practical problem however, is that classification staff need to be situated
at the weighing point at slaughter to identify the carcase, authenticate the
carcase dressing specification, record its weight and complete documentation
for payment (and, until relatively recently, certify it for support or subsidy
purposes). In addition as a parallel consideration to classification, the carcase
needs to be reconciled with the offals at the slaughter point for health
inspection purposes and other veterinary procedures, thus making the hot
weighing point the pivotal focus point for carcase appraisal.
Recent developments in requirements for traceability, identification (animal
passports) and additional removal of tissue samples for analysis (after BSE
and Foot and Mouth disease) seem to reinforce the hot weighing point as the
hub of these critical operations, requiring the attendance of classifying staff.
Quartering measurements were considered by MLC but dismissed on the
grounds of expense of a second appraisal of the carcase. But technology in
the meat plant for data capture and carcase identification continues apace
32
AHDB Industry Consulting 2008©
Review Of The EU Carcase Classification System For Beef And Sheep
and the utility of these additional measurements should be kept under review.
These aspects will be considered further in a subsequent section of this
report.
MLC also carried out much research and development on the value of fat
depth measurements taken by a variety of devices – probes of both simple
and sophisticated construction. In common with work elsewhere they found
that one or indeed several probe fat dept measurements were less accurate in
predicting saleable meat % than a trained classifier’s subjective assessment
of fat cover, on either 5, 7 or 15-point scales. (Chadwick and Kempster, 1982;
Kempster et al., 1986)
This is partly due to the patchy nature of bovine subcutaneous fat and the
added unevenness caused by manual or machine-aided hide removal.
Whereas a trained classifier could take this into account visually, a fat depth at
one or two points would be inadequate to account for this variation.
5.5 Sheep Carcase Classification
It could be said that sheep carcase classification has played a secondary role
to that of beef on the European stage, reflecting the low volume of sheep
production in most member states and the absence of a mandatory scheme.
The development of classification in the UK - its aims and objectives, the
influence of meat trade politics and the technical basis underpinning the
assessments used - is very much a reflection of the beef story, but played out
a few years later and with varying amounts of déjà vu.
However in 2008 the GB sheep industry finds itself at a difficult, possibly
crucial, point. It can highlight the central role that carcase classification has
played in terms of producer education and realignment of their thinking
towards market requirements for carcase characteristics. The earlier MLC
‘Meeting the Market’ and ‘Target Area’ campaigns and latterly the EBLEX
Better Returns programmes were central in this process. But, at the same
time, evidence from our interviews for this project (set out in Section 10), point
to the problems now occurring through widespread differences between
abattoirs in lamb carcase specification and dressing standards. This is having
a deleterious effect on producer confidence in standards of assessment and
the classification scheme as a whole and indeed on the entire deadweight
marketing system.
The following section gives an outline of the origins of Sheep Carcase
Classification in GB. A more important consideration – where do we go from
here? – Is contained in Section 9.
MLC introduced Sheep Carcase Classification somewhat later than that for
pigs and beef since the basic information on carcase variability of the many
breeds and crosses across GB was not available at the time of MLC’s
establishment. Following the collection of much data across the major
carcase types marketed throughout GB a pilot classification scheme was
33
AHDB Industry Consulting 2008©
Review Of The EU Carcase Classification System For Beef And Sheep
introduced in 1973, developing into a national scheme by 1975 with some
12% of the national lamb crop being classified.
As with beef, visual appraisal of conformation and fatness were combined into
a two-way grid, with fat class being defined in terms of percentage
subcutaneous fat and conformation defined by silhouettes and later by
photographs.
The case for using visual appraisal at the time was – as with beef (outlined in
Section 5.3) – that it provided an adequate description of carcase composition
and, equally important, there was no realistic prospect of using objective
measurement. The industry agreed that over fatness was the major problem
facing lamb, representing a significant barrier to increased demand.
Conformation was held to be less important, since lamb was sold at retail
more or less universally with the bone in and the usefulness of conformation
as an indicator of meat yield (as is the case for beef) was not valid. In
addition, measurements on the cut surface of the rib area were not
considered, as sheep carcases were not frequently quartered in the abattoir.
This still remains the case at the time of writing this report.
The grid was based on ten class combinations of conformation (Extra, E;
Average, Poor, C; and Very Poor, Z) and fatness (Very Lean, 1 through to
very Fat, 5). Only fat classes 2, 3 and 4 were divided into Extra or Average
conformation and carcases of Poor and Very Poor conformation were not
assessed for fatness. The asymmetric nature of the grid was justified on the
basis of very few carcases falling into the extremes of fat classes 1 or 5 and
Poor or very Poor conformation (see Table 6). In addition, carcase weight and
category (lamb, hogget and sheep) together with an appraisal of excessive
internal fat development were included as fundamentals of the scheme.
Table 6.
The Sheep Carcase Classification Grid and Proportions of Carcases
Falling in to Each Cell in 1975
Fat Class
C
O
N Subcutaneous fat %
F
O Extra (E)
R
M Average
A
T Poor (C)
I
O Very Poor (Z)
N
1
2
3
4
5
< 6.0
6.0-9.9
1.1
14.017.9
6.5
>17.9
0.4
10.013.9
12.3
16.6
47.1
10.5
1.6
3.5
0.4
Source MLC (1975)
34
AHDB Industry Consulting 2008©
Review Of The EU Carcase Classification System For Beef And Sheep
Since 1975 the Scheme has developed along similar lines to beef, in that the
important fat and conformation classes were subdivided (+ and – for
conformation, L and H for fat) to give more discrimination. Boundaries
between some classes were adjusted to take account of official support
scheme influences and, most importantly latterly, the advent of the EU Sheep
Classification Grid.
The first sub-division was that of the central fat class 3, into L and H. Data
published in 1980 showed the importance of fat class in defining leanness of
the retail product. If the amount of lean (fat-free) meat is calculated from
Table7 (below) for an 18kg carcase it differs by 1.5 kg between fat class 2 and
4.
Table 7.
Sheep – Saleable Meat Yield as a Percentage of Carcase Weight by
Classification Grid (using a standard cutting method)
FAT CLASS
1
SM%
94.5
Fat
4
trim%
Lean%
64
of SM
Fat% of 10
SM
2
93
6
3L
91.5
7
3H
90
8
4
89.5
9.5
5
85.5
13.5
59.5
57
54.5
52
48
15
17
19
22.5
24.5
Source: MLC (1980b)
The scale and standards used in GB for sheep carcase classification is
effectively the same as the EU grid as shown below in Table 8.
35
AHDB Industry Consulting 2008©
Review Of The EU Carcase Classification System For Beef And Sheep
Table 8.
Lamb Classification Grid in Use in GB at Time of Writing
Fat class
Increasing fatness
Conformation class
Improving conformation
1
2
3L
3H
4L
4H
5
E
U
R
O
P
5.6 Meat Quality Characteristics
It was appreciated by MLC from the outset that classification had less
predictive value in respect of meat eating characteristics. In the 35 years of
classification proper this omission (as seen by the meat trade) has been a
constant source of criticism and calls are still made for this to be rectified. This
is especially the case for beef, where eating quality problems tend to be seen
as more significant than those for pork or lamb. Critics point to schemes such
as the USDA beef grading scheme and the Meat Standards Australia (MSA)
beef scheme which purport to identify and reward carcases more likely to eat
well – in terms of tenderness, juiciness and possibly flavour (Yeomans, 2008)
The view of those that developed the classification schemes such as MLC
(backed by much research and development in the UK and overseas), was
that while some intrinsic factors in the animal may well be important in
affecting meat quality, the overwhelming influences (both good and bad) on
meat eating quality occur immediately before and soon after slaughter,
through the all-important ageing and tenderisation process extending to 10 to
14 days post mortem and beyond. (See MLC, 1990, 1992 and 1994).
Few observers would deny that breed, feeding and sex for example, to name
the most frequently mentioned ‘farm effects’ do have some influence on meat
eating quality (at least, within the range of variation seen in GB). What is
undisputed is that the overwhelming body of research available points to the
relatively minor effects of these in comparison with other factors outside the
producers’ control. (Tatum et al., (1999); Maher et al., (2004).
36
AHDB Industry Consulting 2008©
Review Of The EU Carcase Classification System For Beef And Sheep
Additionally, a point that supports MLC’s exclusion of meat quality
characteristics can be found in Cmnd paper 2737 – a statement to Parliament
by Ministers in 1964 entitled ‘Marketing of Meat and Livestock’. The
document concerned the proposal to establish MLC and its functions and
describes classification as “related primarily to the needs of firsthand selling
and the wholesale trade, although it might have some application and value to
the retail trade.”
So it would seem that Verdon-Smith’s vision of a two-pronged scheme that
related to ‘eatability’ as well as ‘cutability’ (akin to USDA grading) seems to
have been refined in this Command paper to those areas useful to
transactions at the farm gate and slaughterhouse, that is yield or ‘cutability’.
Thus MLC spent considerable time and effort in the 1980s and 90s developing
‘Blueprints for Beef’ as well as for lamb and pork. This vade mecum of good
practice from farm to kitchen has been shown to both raise overall eating
quality and reduce the inherent variation by a measurable and commercially
significant amount (Richardson, 2005).
MLC argued, with some force, that raising the general standard across the
spectrum is more effective than trying to identify extremes of eating quality in
individual carcases by some (as yet) unknown technique. MLC’s view was
consistent over the years and it is only very recently that emerging technology
for more rapid sensor measurement of meat quality may give cause for
reflection and updating of this view.
It is likely however that these
measurements are best suited to process control and information feedback in
dedicated supply chains, rather than for classification purposes. This aspect
is dealt with in detail in Sections 7 and 8.
5.7 Checking of Classification
MLC was well aware that visual assessment of conformation and fatness
would be criticised on the grounds of subjectivity, accuracy and consistency.
It was well known through experience and also shown in controlled
comparisons, that an operator when making his appraisal of a carcase will be
influenced by the generality of the carcases he sees on a daily basis.
For example in the North East of Scotland the predominant type marketed in
the late 1970s would be small, well finished, beef breed carcases, whereas in
the East of England larger, less fat and ‘plainer’ (poorer conformation) cattle
would be the norm.
The appearance of a Scotch beef type carcase amongst a run of plain cattle
(and vice versa) may well present a challenge to the classifier in terms of
accuracy of assessment. Accordingly a system of supervision, checking and
standardisation was put in place involving hierarchical checks of classification
officers by Divisional, Regional and National MLC Headquarters staff.
37
AHDB Industry Consulting 2008©
Review Of The EU Carcase Classification System For Beef And Sheep
Today the EU scheme delivered commercially by MLCS Ltd is operated in the
same way. Over and above this, standards in England and Wales are
scrutinised by the Inspectorate of the Rural Payments Agency (RPA) of
DEFRA on behalf of the Government in all plants (and by equivalent
organisations in Scotland and Northern Ireland), irrespective of who carries
out the classification and now, overseen from time to time also by a panel of
experts from EU Member States (see Section 9 – The Legislative Dimension)
In the development stage of classification MLC were candid about the results
of checks and some results from the proving phase are given below in Table
9.
The commentary to this table (Harrington, 1973) offers the view that at the
time, these results would be difficult to improve upon in the practical
environment in which they were undertaken.
Table 9.
Classifiers Results for 1,000 Cattle Carcases Classified as 3 3 (average
for fat and conformation) by the supervisory officers
FAT CLASS (1 low, 5 high)
1
2
3
4
5
5
47
CONFORMATION
4
3
67
831
15
2
2
37
1
1
Source Harrington, (1973)
Unfortunately, while this is probably the case, it seems likely that the trade
were seeking perfection and rarely if ever subjected themselves or their
buyers to similar checks. Differences between classifier and checker,
however few, were seen as failures and seized upon by critics of the scheme
then (and now) as evidence of their point of view. MLC rarely publicised
results of staff checks after the proving phase.
38
AHDB Industry Consulting 2008©
Review Of The EU Carcase Classification System For Beef And Sheep
6. OBJECTIVE MEASUREMENTS IN THE EU BEEF CARCASE
CLASSIFICATION SCHEME
6.1 Background
Council Regulation 1208/81 of April 1981 laid down the defining framework for
the EU Beef Carcase Classification Scheme. It is worth noting again here that
the regulation’s preamble (unlike the pig scheme which followed it) did not cite
the establishment of fair prices for producers as a reason for bringing it
forward, but rather for the purpose of recording prices and for intervention
buying in the beef and veal sector.
Following a development period, legislation in 1990 brought mandatory status
to the scheme as well as dealing with related matters such as carcase
marking and labelling (see Section 9 – The Legislative Dimension)
One major change to the scheme however was contained in Commission
Regulation 1215 / 2003 (amending Commission Regulation 344/91) which
allowed for the use of objective equipment to measure conformation and fat
class as an alternative to ‘direct visual assessment’. This followed a number
of ad hoc trials of Danish, French, German and Australian Video Image
Analysis (VIA) equipment in several member states. Pressure from some
member states for the introduction of objective methods seemed to result from
industry criticism in those countries over variability in standards of application
of visual scores.
The 2003 Regulation sets down the procedure by which objective methods
are to be approved for use for beef carcase classification (a “certification
test”). In summary:
• The results obtained from the machine are compared with those
obtained from a panel of 5 licensed experts.
• Points are allocated based on the “error” of the machine against the
median of the panel scores. The machine must achieve a minimum
number of points for both fatness and conformation to pass the test.
• There are minimum requirements for bias and slope of the regression
between the machine classification and the panel median (again
separate criteria for fat and conformation).
Assuming a successful outcome to the certification test the member state may
grant a licence authorising automated classification for application in their
territory or part thereof. The fact that licenses are issued by the member state
means that it is almost impossible to obtain details of the certification tests
(the European Commission maintains that they remain the property of the
member state) and there are no published Commission Decisions (unlike the
situation with pig carcase classification.
Two member states have adopted VIA technology on a significant scale, with
28 installations in France (out of a total of 270 plants classifying) and 25 in
Ireland (out of a total of 32 plants) in place in 2007. This is reported to have
39
AHDB Industry Consulting 2008©
Review Of The EU Carcase Classification System For Beef And Sheep
increased subsequently. Objective classification accounted for 38% of
classifications in France and 94% in Ireland in that year. In the case of
Ireland, added incentive was given by the National Beef Plan of 1999, which
called for ‘automated grading’ as an important part of the strategy to reestablish the position of Irish beef. Further impetus was given in the form of a
capital grant for the equipment from the Irish Government.
Denmark, whose beef industry makes up a relatively small part of their
agricultural output, also has VIA in operation in a very small number of beef
plants. It is understood that the Danish authorities have not formally certified
the equipment and use continues on a trial basis. In Denmark, each
equipment classification result is checked by an operator, who can override
the result and record a visual assessment where necessary, should the two
differ.
6.2 Technical Considerations
Section 5, outlined some of the measurement techniques evaluated and
eventually discarded in favour of visual scores for estimating conformation
and fatness. At that time, objective methods of fat measurement were largely
restricted to probes (often developed for measuring subcutaneous fat depth in
pigs). Objective measurement of conformation was in its infancy and
developments almost exclusively pursued laboratory techniques from other
industries to measure shape, volume or contours. It was perhaps not
surprising that these techniques were inappropriate for hazardous abattoir
conditions and unsuitable for use at that time.
In developing suitable methods of objective classification the approach
adopted by most research groups was that of trying to predict the
conformation and fatness scores (often defined by a panel of experts
assembled to assess carcases at the same time as the equipment under
evaluation). Indeed the criteria laid down in the detailed rules are defined in
these terms (see above). In many cases carcase dissection work was not
carried out because of the prohibitive cost; the opportunity to evaluate the
machine against a more fundamental baseline - for example saleable meat %
- was thus lost.
A major issue of the type of equipment that has been adopted/tested to
provide more objective results, is the potential for there to be a bias.
As the EU conditions of approval now stand equipment has to be calibrated to
predict conformation and fat class (as defined by an expert panel of
classifiers). The data used by the machine is often very different indeed from
that gathered by the classifier. For example,
• A classifier will assess fat cover by not only estimating the degree of fat
cover in terms of area, but also by taking into account the depth or
thickness of external fat, while a machine may be analysing proportions
of light and dark areas.
40
AHDB Industry Consulting 2008©
Review Of The EU Carcase Classification System For Beef And Sheep
•
For conformation assessment, the regulations refer to the degree of
‘roundedness’ of a carcase and its effect on conformation - this is likely
to be assessed differently by man and machine. A machine may be
estimating carcase volume or weight /length ratio as a predictor of
conformation in its calculations; classifiers almost certainly will not do
this knowingly.
So a machine - and this applies to VIA as well as many other techniques such
as Near Infra Red Spectroscopy (NIR) – has to be first calibrated against one
or more set of carcases during development and then validated against
another set of carcases under commercial conditions in the certification test
prior to commercial use.
Clearly the samples of carcases used to calibrate and validate the equipment,
is of crucial importance in terms of its representativeness and variation. The
defined criteria limit the bias - consistent over or under estimation of the
predicted characteristic - that can be allowed in the certification test. Biases
can, however, occur when these differ from the carcases the machine “sees”
in everyday use. In addition conditions in the abattoir (lighting, carcase
presentation etc) may also differ and affect the results.
6.3 VIA in Some Member States
6.3.1 Ireland
Allen and Finnerty (2000) reported the results of two trials of three makes of
Video Image Analysis (VIA) equipment evaluated in 1999 and 2000. The
Danish BCC 2 (SFK), the German VBS 2000 (E&V) and the Australian
VIAscan (SASTEK) were compared against visual classification (by an expert
panel) and, in one trial, also against dissected carcase saleable meat %.
The results suggested that there was little to choose between the machines –
either when compared against the panel of classifiers or against dissection –
and in general they were more efficient at predicting conformation class than
fat class. After calibration the overall prediction rate across all the machines
was 96% and 77% correct to within + / - one subclass (using a 15 x 15 grid)
for conformation and fat, respectively.
Saleable meat % was predicted accurately by both man and machine: the
residual standard deviation of prediction (rsd) was 1.2 to 1.3% for the panel
and 1.1 to 1.2% for the machines (the EU pig grading scheme regulations, for
example, require equipment to predict % lean with a maximum rsd of 2.5%).
In the Irish trial carcases given U conformation by the panel were consistently
given R by the equipment and carcases judged conformation class R were
also frequently given O conformation class by the equipment. This is an
example of bias, which occurred after calibration of the equipment. Ironically
much of the producer pressure for automatic systems in Ireland was as a
41
AHDB Industry Consulting 2008©
Review Of The EU Carcase Classification System For Beef And Sheep
result of Ministry classifiers allegedly awarding too few U classes for
conformation.
The conclusion of the authors was that while all makes of VIA equipment had
performed well in predicting the panel’s scores for classification and very well
in predicting saleable meat %, none of them would be likely to pass the EU
requirements for approval as they were drafted at the time (2000). There
followed a protracted period of negotiations in Brussels, informed by the Irish
results and, after much debate in the Beef Management Committee and
elsewhere, acceptance criteria were defined (European Commission
regulation 1215/2003).
Following agreement of the criteria, an Irish
certification trial was undertaken with the three pieces of equipment already
described. All three passed the criteria and the German system was chosen
and subsequently installed in some 25 beef classifying abattoirs, with a
government grant.
The machine is reported to have resulted in a marked reduction in disputes
over classification. This is in part due to the robust stance that the supervising
authority has taken on the classifications awarded (the machine is now the
standard and classifications given cannot be changed). There is some
concern over the performance of the equipment on fat classification, but this is
minimised as an issue because the current price differentials for fat class are
minimal.
6.3.2 UK cattle
At the time of writing, trials on beef carcases (at least according to the
procedure required for certification) have not been undertaken in the UK.
Difficulties over agreeing a single carcase dressing specification delayed
implementation of a trial planned initially in 2004, although this has been
resolved during 2008. A small number of abattoirs have carried out their own
in-plant evaluations. There would appear to be no longer any great appetite
on the part of the industry or its regulators for cattle trials in GB, although
there are still some discussions in Scotland and particularly Northern Ireland
on the value of undertaking trial work.
6.3.3 UK sheep
Since there is no mandatory EU classification scheme for sheep, let alone an
objective alternative to visual assessment provided in the regulations, the
significance of VIA as an alternative to visual classification is rather different
from that in cattle.
Nonetheless, extensive trials of German-manufactured VIA equipment have
been carried out on sheep carcases in UK recently by MLC in association with
HCC, LMCNI and QMS (see - An evaluation of the use of video image
analysis to predict the classification and meat yield of sheep carcases.
[EBLEX et al, 2007]).
42
AHDB Industry Consulting 2008©
Review Of The EU Carcase Classification System For Beef And Sheep
An objective of the work was to evaluate VIA as a means of predicting
saleable primal meat yield as well as a potential alternative to visual
classification.
Video image analysis provided a repeatable, automated objective assessment
of sheep carcase conformation and fatness. Video Image Analysis was as
accurate and more consistent than the expert classifiers at predicting
conformation, however it was less accurate and less consistent than the
expert classifiers at predicting fatness.
VIA predicted both meat yield and primal joints weights well. The evaluation
demonstrated that VIA was more precise in predicting meat yield than current
EUROP class/sub class based systems (Rius’ Vilarrasa et al, 2007).
6.3.4 Future developments
It would appear that while conformation can be adequately measured by VIA,
there are still unresolved technical problems in the assessment of fat cover of
beef and lamb carcases by VIA.
Putting this concern aside however, it also seems illogical to program a
sophisticated electronic device to attempt to mimic a subjective visual
operation (which itself is accepted as imperfect).
A more logical approach would be to use the machines to predict saleable
meat %, or lean meat percentage, and to re-organise the BCC scheme on this
basis together with price reporting and associated market management
measures. Many observers would discount the prospect of such a radical rethink of the EU scheme and associated market management measures on
this scale, but others may have opted for machine introduction as a first step
of a long journey.
A further complication of machine measurement is the finding that
slaughterers are very wary of introducing better incentives for good carcases
(and bigger discounts for poor ones) and equally if not more cautious in
moving towards payment on a lean meat % basis. Just as pig slaughterers,
when faced 20 years ago with the possibility of lean meat payment schedules
facilitated by EU Pig Grading and automatic-recording probes, were cautious
of change lest they misjudged any new system and lost producers to
competitor slaughterers, so it remains today with the beef sector.
For beef in summary, an imperfect classification system is just one of many
deficiencies in the current beef marketing system. The replacement of visual
assessment by VIA would represent a very small overall improvement to the
status quo. The maxim “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” has been encountered
more than once in our interviews.
For sheep however, the situation is somewhat different, and as discussed in
Section 10 - The Views of the Industry Towards Classification in 2008, parts of
43
AHDB Industry Consulting 2008©
Review Of The EU Carcase Classification System For Beef And Sheep
the industry may be more willing to contemplate a more radical change
because of the perceived problems with the operation of the existing sheep
classification system. Very large-scale slaughterers for example, who cut and
pack for supermarkets, could perhaps use VIA to better control and monitor
butchery yield and carcase selection. The ability of VIA to predict cutout yield
and variation in higher-priced cuts could be helpful especially when filling
supermarket specifications.
Given the present inactivity over wider SCC implementation in the EU, this
would largely be a business decision for the plant(s) concerned, rather than a
development of an official scheme, but some may wish to see it adopted for
commercial reasons in the UK on a regional or even countrywide basis.
44
AHDB Industry Consulting 2008©
Review Of The EU Carcase Classification System For Beef And Sheep
7. DEVELOPMENTS IN PREDICTING EATING QUALITY
7.1 The Importance of Eating Quality
As outlined in Section 5, an ideal classification system would describe with
some degree of reliability all the important factors important in buying and
selling carcases. To the consumer the overriding quality attribute – on the
plate, at least – would be eating characteristics, principally:
•
•
•
Tenderness;
Juiciness; and
Flavour.
The relative importance of these varies between consumers, and is also
affected by the cut of meat and other influences. In the case of beef it is
generally agreed that tenderness is the most important - being the first
character to assert itself.
The reasons given by MLC in the early 1970s for their approach to the
importance of meat eating quality in classification have already been
summarised. Perhaps a relevant set of questions 30 years on would be:
•
•
•
Has eating quality become more or less important?
Has the technology of predicting eating quality improved?
Has classification, or our use of it, evolved, so that other factors (such
as eating quality) can be included?
7.2 Has Eating Quality Become More or Less Important?
Eating quality, in beef at least, would seem to be just as or perhaps more
important now compared with 40 years ago. In real terms meat is cheaper
than before and the choice of protein in general and meat dishes in particular
has widened out of all recognition. Moreover, the meal experience has
perhaps diversified into at least two separate types - the weekday versus the
leisure meal, and expectations for each are different. Thus when beef – still
the premium meat - is chosen for grilling or roasting at the weekend or special
occasion the eating experience must, above all, be pleasurable.
At the same time to a greater extent than 40 years ago there are growing
sections of the beef and lamb supply chain that are attempting to differentiate
their product (e.g. direct sale by farmers of beef with various attributes –local,
organic, natural, matured etc; and the premium ranges of the large
supermarkets), all of whom are also trying to make the point that their beef
and lamb tastes better because of these attributes, and all of whom are keen
to adopt new measures of eating quality.
45
AHDB Industry Consulting 2008©
Review Of The EU Carcase Classification System For Beef And Sheep
7.3 Has the Technology Improved?
It is perhaps an overstatement, but not a great one, to say that 40 years ago
there was no technology – or at least precious little – to help predict the likely
eating quality of a carcase. The craft butcher used his eyes, fingertips,
knowledge of the animal’s background and his experience. The meat
technologist might have resorted to a pH meter and – for insurance - a
thermometer. A lock on the chiller door for three weeks might also have been
helpful.
Today, a range of new techniques has been, or is being, developed. Sensors
to detect levels of a muscle substrate or enzyme, Near Infra-Red
Spectroscopy (NIR), or ISFETs to monitor muscle pH over time, are just a
small selection. Some are suitable for in-line use, perhaps at or near the
classification point while others may be used off-line, requiring meat samples
to be removed from the carcase and the results reconciled later with the
carcase or cuts or meat (bringing in to play a different set of requirements for
data capture).
7.3.1 Problems of meat quality prediction
Despite many decades of research in dozens of meat research institutes
throughout the world, the underlying science of the causes of variation in meat
quality remains imperfectly understood. A review of the processes during
growth, around the time of death and in the post mortem period that affect the
ultimate eating quality is outside the scope of this paper and comprehensive
reviews are in the literature.
Briefly, toughness is affected by:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Intrinsic parameters including rate of growth,
Amount and type of collagen (gristle),
Muscle fibre type,
Proteolysis (post mortem degradation of structural proteins) is of
crucial importance as is the opportunity for it to continue for up to two
or three weeks after slaughter - the 'ageing', ‘maturation’ or
conditioning process.
Extrinsic factors of importance include 'cold shortening', a toughening
brought about by too rapid chilling of the carcass too early.
Finally, the cooking process. The unfavourable relationship between
toughness and degree of doneness is well known, as is the preference
in the UK for well-done meat, or at least the aversion to ‘bloody’ meat.
In addition many of the techniques for predicting meat quality have limitations:
•
Many techniques developed were designed for use when the meat had
reached a stable point in terms of post-mortem glycolysis (say 24h
after slaughter). Therefore many of these would be expected to show
46
AHDB Industry Consulting 2008©
Review Of The EU Carcase Classification System For Beef And Sheep
•
•
•
little promise as a prediction tool when used within the first hour after
slaughter.
Many techniques measure at a single point, often only a few square
mm in size, and may therefore be affected by variation in the structure
of muscle (collagen, inter and intramuscular fat or membranes).
Due to the different function and characteristics of the musculature
(with over 250 separate muscles in pigs, for example) it has been
shown that correlations between muscles in physiology and eventual
quality are not high.
The M Longissimus dorsi (the ‘eye muscle’) accounts for less than 10%
of muscle weight but it often represents the bulk of our knowledge on
meat quality and clearly more work is necessary on other muscles.
Thus a sensor, which attempts to examine more than a fraction of a percent of
the meat in a carcass must increase the chances of success. Intuitively, an
assay type of test (to detect biochemical activity or circulating level of some
compound in the meat) might be expected to be a better predictor than a
physical test at one small point such as tenderness of a muscle sample.
7.3.2 MLC’s sensor programme
In the 1990s, MLC funded a number of projects aimed at developing and
testing a wide range of devices for meat quality measurement in pork and
beef. The programme involved three approaches:
•
•
•
Evaluation of existing meat quality sensors
Exploration and development of sensors used by other industries
Development of novel sensors
The use of a sample removed on-line for quality measurement was
discounted at the start of the programme due to the expectation that samples
removed from a hot carcase would behave abnormally in terms of rigor
development and shortening.
The active programme ended in the late 1990s after the results of many tests
were equivocal or worse, finding the sensors available at the time lacked the
required precision for predicting eating quality on an individual carcase. A
watching brief has been maintained subsequently. The technique showing
the most promise at the time was that of - Near Infra Red Spectroscopy (NIR)
-has and this has continued to be studied by several teams of meat scientists
across the world.
7.3.3 Near Infra Red Spectroscopy (NIR)
NIR has been used to measure quality attributes in many foodstuffs and
animal feeds over the years, e.g. flour, fruit and silage and since the
completion of MLC’s Sensor programme, two teams, one under USDA
management and one at MIRINZ New Zealand, have been refining NIR for
47
AHDB Industry Consulting 2008©
Review Of The EU Carcase Classification System For Beef And Sheep
commercial use. At the present time the technique is being marketed only in
the US as a plant-ready tool. There remains a need for further calibration for
UK cattle to fully evaluate the system in this country.
Research is in progress in Britain, for example EBLEX have funded work to
evaluate the US device under commercial conditions in the UK. Scottish
Agricultural Colleges (SAC) are leading a programme of work assessing
measures for meat quality, including NIR, the MIRINZ tenderometer, meat
colour, slice shear force, temperature and pH, as well as live animal and
carcase assessment, but as yet no results are publicly available.
7.4 Has Classification Evolved?
The third part of the question rose at the beginning of this section: has
classification, our use of it, or even our expectation of it, changed since its
introduction? Certainly the EU scheme (objective measurements apart), as
outlined earlier, remains remarkably similar to the scheme as first introduced.
Its use remains central to price reporting and other measures to improve
market transparency. On the other hand, support measures (that in the past
required some form of standardised carcase assessment) have decreased
greatly in importance and look set to further diminish in the face of more
administratively attractive single farm payment schemes.
A later section deals with the European meat industries’ attitudes to, and use
of, carcase classification – possibly one of the most important factors under
consideration. It will consider whether there is a desire or need to enhance
the scheme with some form of assessment of eating quality - as is carried out
for example in the USDA Beef Grading Scheme or the Meat Standards
Australia (MSA) system - or indeed with other measurements of relevance in
trading.
7.5 The Way Forward for Measuring Eating Quality
From the information currently available it would seem that:
1. It remains the case that no cost-effective technology is available to
predict meat eating quality with sufficient accuracy in the individual
carcase by testing at the immediate post slaughter phase or soon
after. There may be a case however for some technique to evaluate
an already pre-selected group of carcases (e.g. destined for the
restaurant sector) in order to pick out extremes of toughness.
2. While better eating quality remains the topic of much discussion, the
industry’s adoption of proven programmes such as MLC’s ‘Blueprint
for Beef’ has been variable. At its peak, the most important elements
of the Blueprint were applied to about 70% of the UK beef kill (MLC
estimate). In many cases adoption requires substantial investment
48
AHDB Industry Consulting 2008©
Review Of The EU Carcase Classification System For Beef And Sheep
on the part of the abattoir and when margins are reduced so uptake
declines. Today, uptake has declined to less than 50%. As will be
shown in the next section, the Meat Standards Australia scheme is
very similar indeed to the MLC Blueprint, launched some eight years
earlier.
3. It is important to recognise that ultimate eating quality is influenced
not only by the inherent quality of the animal delivered to the abattoir,
but also by practices in the plant (that can both enhance and damage
eating quality), which reinforces the view that eating quality is a post
classification issue and should not be mixed in with techniques that
are intrinsically trying to measure something different.
4.
Producers and slaughterers must share responsibility for optimising
eating quality in order to jointly reap the rewards that should be
available for delivering what the consumer requires.
5. Any sensor technology that might be introduced is likely to be costly.
Central support for investment is thought to be unlikely in the
circumstances prevailing today and for the foreseeable future.
6. Data handling and analysis is becoming extremely complex,
especially in techniques such as NIR, which generate multivariate
data and spectra, often requiring the use of innovative statistical
analysis techniques.
7. There are no published studies on the fundamental relationship
between NIR spectra and meat quality characteristics.
8. A related point on data capture is that any test which requires
samples to be taken, or produces results, after the carcase has
entered the chiller will involve a further investment in data capture
and identification technology in some plants. Additionally, capital
investment for carcase and cut sorting would probably be required.
9. A recurring problem from ‘field scale’ trials is the need to calibrate the
NIR equipment to each batch of cattle, day of kill, abattoir or other set
of conditions. Thus the use of a universal prediction formula across
different abattoirs– as would be desirable for any national or
internationally applicable scheme – may not be possible. This
reason alone will greatly hinder adoption of this technology;
10. On a positive note, past moves to adopt a more quality-oriented
approach through the supply chain have been held back by the
separate ownership of production, slaughtering and processing
facilities. Operations are now becoming increasingly integrated, in
some cases reaching back to farm production level, bringing with it a
different management perspective on quality enhancement.
49
AHDB Industry Consulting 2008©
Review Of The EU Carcase Classification System For Beef And Sheep
8. BEEF GRADING SCHEMES IN USA AND AUSTRALIA
8.1 Classification in Other Countries
In a review of EU carcase classification it may be useful to consider other
related schemes, principally those in USA and Australia. Frequently industry
observers visit these countries and from their studies compare EU schemes
unfavourably with the USDA Beef Grading scheme or, more frequently, the
Meat Standards Australia Beef system. It is sometimes asserted that these
schemes are more consumer-oriented in their approach to quality assessment
and in particular are able to sort carcases into grades according to their likely
eating quality.
These schemes were developed in response to different circumstances from
Europe - principally in the case of Australia and New Zealand as an export
marketing tool but also in the US – as in Europe - to help producers gain
some price comparison data in a vast market with highly localised variations.
They were seen as an essential tool in an industry of huge national
importance and have been, and continue to be, modified in response to
market demands, industry pressures and national politics.
They are usually referred to as Grading Schemes since the grades used are
quality related and reflect this in their price differentials. The US scheme also
combines a yield grade (saleable meat in the higher-priced cuts %) together
with a ‘quality’ grade (based on an association with eating quality). A further
distinction from the EU scheme is that the USDA grade names are relevant to,
and are recognised by, consumers at the point of purchase.
8.2 The USDA Beef Grading Scheme
This began in the 1920s largely as a result of pressure from beef producers
who were in a weak selling position due to a lack of comparative market price
information. In addition, the trade – largely in live cattle – developed a
terminology suited to local conditions and sellers seeking to market their stock
in another area were often confronted with very different descriptive terms or
even in some instances similar terms describing different types of animal.
It began therefore principally as a price-reporting scheme and from the outset
the types or grades of cattle were described in terms of quality reflecting the
demands of the consumer. For the first 50 years or so the scheme was
entirely devoted to describing carcases on the basis of the expected
palatability of the meat. There was general agreement in the industry that the
best quality meat would most likely come from a youthful steer or heifer of the
traditional beef breeds, which had spent its last few months on a ‘feedlot’
under semi-intensive conditions, and liberal feeding of grain-based rations.
This rapidly finished and fattened animal would be expected to give meat with
adequate to high levels of marbling - a factor then, as now, deemed crucial by
50
AHDB Industry Consulting 2008©
Review Of The EU Carcase Classification System For Beef And Sheep
many advocates of the scheme in the US for good eating quality. It has to be
said however, that increasingly research evidence (Morgan et al 1991,
Wheeler et al 1994, Wulf et al 1996) points to the rather weak link between
marbling fat and eating quality. Inevitably, the carcase would also have an
abundant covering of subcutaneous fat and liberal amounts of other fat –
around the kidney, for example.
From very early in the development of the USDA schemes, grading was
carried out by USDA officials on the cold, quartered (‘ribbed’) side, 24 hours
after slaughter. On the exposed 10th rib cut surface the following subjective
judgements would be made:
• Amount of marbling fat
• Colour of lean
• Depth of external fat
• Rib eye area.
Age or stage of maturity was also judged by inspection of the lean colour and
the degree of ossification, based on an assessment of the vertebra, chine
bones and ribs.
The current grade names are as follows:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
U.S. Prime - Highest in quality and intramuscular fat, limited supply.
Currently, only four percent of cuts sold are USDA certified Prime.
U.S. Choice - High quality, widely available in foodservice industry and
retail markets.
U.S. Select - Leanest grade commonly sold, acceptable quality but
less juicy and tender.
U.S. Standard - Lower quality yet economical, lacking marbling.
U.S. Commercial - Low quality, lacking tenderness, produced from
older animals.
U.S. Utility
U.S. Cutter
U.S. Canner
A major development came in the mid-1960s with the introduction of yield
grading – the optional additional calculation of yield of fat-trimmed, deboned
primal cuts in the high priced back and hind quarter as a percentage of
carcase weight.
Yield grade was predicted – in theory by use of a formula but in practice often
by subjective weighting - from the following characteristics:
•
•
•
•
Fat thickness over the rib eye;
% KKCF (kidney knob and channel fat);
Area of rib eye;
Carcase weight.
Five yield grades are used as follows:
51
AHDB Industry Consulting 2008©
Review Of The EU Carcase Classification System For Beef And Sheep
1
2
3
4
5
over 52.3%
52.3 – 50.0
50.0 – 47.7
47.7 – 45.4
Below 45.4%
The grading scheme is voluntary and carcases can be graded at the request
of the slaughterer for quality, or yield grade, or both. In practice most of Prime
grade meat finds its way in to the luxury end of the market – hotels and
restaurants – being considered too fat (and expensive) for most domestic
consumption. Yield grading is thus considered somewhat academic for Prime
carcases. In the Choice and Select grades, most popular for domestic
purchase, yield grading is more common and Choice 2 represents a carcase
with ‘adequate’ marbling but without excessive external fat development.
Consumer recognition of the grades is almost universal in the US due to
liberal use of strip brands on the product and retail labelling of beef with the
grade names.
As outlined earlier, USDA Beef grading has been a contentious subject in the
industry since its beginnings. The different debates, disputes and even
lawsuits concerning its development are too numerous to cover here. In
summary, however, the scheme’s critics would argue that:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Yield grades are not accurate estimators of actual yield of boned prime
cuts;
Palatability varies almost as much within a quality grade as between
the different grades;
The scheme has taken on an importance and impetus of its own,
outweighing its overall usefulness to the industry. Debate over the
techniques and minutiae of application are often conducted in isolation
from its effect on beef carcase quality;
Emphasis on fatness, especially marbling, and its claimed importance
in the maintenance of eating quality have held back the introduction of
leaner more efficient beef breeds. More recently, the wisdom – not to
say ethics – of producing high levels of fatness has been questioned in
the face of scarce resources, environmental (carbon footprint),
escalating feed (especially grain) prices and cardio-vascular health
concerns.
The requirement for cutting the cold carcase to grade it has held back
abattoir developments such as hot boning;
In the words of one commentator “the servant has become the
master”.
A quote from 28 years ago is no less relevant today: “ if the purpose of beef
grading … is to provide the American consumer with a means of purchasing
the quality of beef desired, but if the present grades do not do this with a high
degree of accuracy, then the salient question is – why guess what the
palatability might be, when we can better assure what it will be?” (Smith,
1980).
52
AHDB Industry Consulting 2008©
Review Of The EU Carcase Classification System For Beef And Sheep
The implication here is that a Blueprint approach would be more effective in
raising and assuring eating quality. Furthermore what is clear now is that the
interest in the US in NIR and other non-destructive methods for potentially
measuring eating quality stems from a concern over the variability in eating
quality evident within a given single grade.
Supporters, on the other hand, claim that USDA grading – even with its many
changes and gradual reduction of the emphasis on marbling – has
safeguarded the quality of US beef, so ensuring the survival and occasional
expansion of an agricultural sector of prime national importance.
Given the overwhelming evidence of hundreds of research findings pointing to
the relative ineffectiveness of USDA grading to predict with acceptable
accuracy either quality grade or yield grade, it is difficult to identify any feature
of the scheme that would be of merit in a European context.
8.3 Meat Standards Australia (MSA)
The present Australian Beef grading scheme - Meat Standards Australia
(MSA) – is different in concept from both the EU classification scheme and the
USDA grading scheme. It shares with the latter scheme however the
attempted ‘assurance’ of eating quality and also a similar history of local, state
and national political interference.
In the 1980s and 1990s Australian beef grading went through several
development stages and at times was not dissimilar from the EU scheme. So
weight, sex, age, conformation and fatness were combined to sort carcases
into grades of estimated lean meat percentage. Some visual assessments of
quality were included, for example freedom from bruises, blemishes and
pigmented fat, reflecting Australia’s position for many years as the world’s
largest exporter of beef.
The details are well documented (for example, see Charles, 1964, but it is
worth noting here that much effort was spent over many years in developing
an objective index of conformation (the weight / length ratio) and also in
attempting to introduce probe measurement of subcutaneous fat depths. Both
were eventually abandoned after much research and development work
produced ambiguous results.
The MSA scheme operating since 1999 (now available on a voluntary basis
nationwide and operated by Meat & Livestock Australia – MLA) represents a
different approach from previous schemes. Individual carcase measurements
of conformation and fatness have been discarded in favour of the adoption of
a number of pre and post slaughter treatments representing good practice
with the aim of raising quality across the range of production. This is very
similar - in terms of the good practice adopted - to MLC’s Blueprint approach
discussed earlier. It is also a reflection of the very wide variation in cattle
53
AHDB Industry Consulting 2008©
Review Of The EU Carcase Classification System For Beef And Sheep
types in Australia and the climatic zones where they are raised – a range that
adds to the problems of ‘predicting’ quality in individual animals.
This range in cattle genotypes (with widespread use of some tropical breeds Bos Indicus - in Australia) is more extreme than in Europe, though a wide
variation in productions systems is common to both areas. The presence of
extreme genotypes in Australia is one of the key reasons given for
development of the MSA system. The scheme is also noteworthy in that the
treatments imposed to raise quality have been evaluated for different muscles
in the side against many thousands of consumer panel tasting sessions.
Individual carcase measurements taken on the cold side include:
• Carcase weight
• Sex
• Ossification (indicative of age) –defined as the gradual replacement of
cartilage by bone on the vertebral spines and other skeletal articulating
surfaces.
• Breed type (some tropical breeds, Bos Indicus, are known to produce
tougher meat than European breeds).
The side is cut at the 10th rib and assessed for:
•
•
•
•
•
Marbling fat
Rib fat (3mm minimum is required for protection against too rapid
chilling)
Meat and fat colour
Muscle pH and temperature – pH must be greater than 6.0 for muscle
temperatures above 35 deg C, and less than 6.0 for muscle
temperatures below 12 deg C
Eye muscle area.
Hanging method – either from the Achilles tendon or from the pubic (aitch)
bone (‘tender stretch’) - is recorded, with aitchbone hanging being favoured
(similar to the MLC Blueprint). In addition, ageing period is recorded, with a
linear increase in tenderness assumed for an ageing period between 5 and 21
days post mortem. Increases in tenderness beyond 21 days ageing are
regarded as less important. Palatability scores are awarded for each muscle
according to the measurements recorded above. Maximum scores are given
when the values of each measurement are optimal.
It is estimated that approximately 20-30% of the Australian beef kill is MSA
graded. One supermarket chain is known to use the MSA grading system to
underpin its own brand as a means of differentiating product. Other
supermarkets have not adopted MSA. It is in the independent sector that
MSA has been most enthusiastically adopted.
The MSA scheme is essentially a system of classification of meat cuts
according to the use to which they are suited and their expected eating
54
AHDB Industry Consulting 2008©
Review Of The EU Carcase Classification System For Beef And Sheep
quality. It does not measure eating quality directly but predicts it from the
origin and treatment of the animals, carcases and cuts and simply allocates a
score to cuts on the basis of the treatments applied.
It should be noted that while MSA attempts to predict eating quality, variation
still remains within each quality grade. Indeed Australian research has shown
that up to 50% of meat graded is mis-categorised when compared with
consumers’ assessments (Thompson, 2002).
In summary, the MSA scheme is less about carcase description and more
about Quality Assurance and conditions imposed in the abattoir. In its main
features of good practice it differs little from MLC’s Blueprint - a development
tried, tested and validated some eight years in advance of MSA.
There are some specific areas from which the British industry can learn from
the experience of the MSA scheme. The scheme includes an assessment of
“weight for age” – i.e. an indication of animal growth rate. This is based on
the finding that those animals that have grown more rapidly to slaughter
weight have better eating quality. It would be possible to use age (from cattle
passports) and carcase weight to segregate animals that have had faster or
slower growth to slaughter.
The MSA scheme also takes greater account of flavour than the Beef
Blueprint. This has been addressed by separate review of the literature
resulting in guidelines for enhancing beef flavour. This can be used to build
on the Blueprint specification.
The opportunity exists for a move from quality specifications alone to Quality
Assurance. Either the MSA approach or Blueprint could be used as the basis
for Quality Assurance for beef eating quality. Measurements such as pH,
shear force and chilling rate could be used as tools to monitor meat quality
within a supply chain and feedback information to producers. In particular
assessment of pH and temperature relationships post slaughter would enable
control of carcase electrical stimulation and chill rates to optimise tenderness.
55
AHDB Industry Consulting 2008©
Review Of The EU Carcase Classification System For Beef And Sheep
9. THE LEGISLATIVE DIMENSION
9.1 The Legislative Relevance of the Carcase Classification Schemes in
the Past and Today.
9.1.1 Historical development
The beef carcase classification scheme was "formalised" in 1980/81 as a
result of the need to have a Community-wide common system on which to
base the system of price reporting. This need was created by the introduction
of the Guide Price and the Intervention Price, these being "indicators" against
which the opening of private storage aids and intervention buying-in could be
considered. In those days the two prices could be changed as part of the
annual Price Fixing negotiations in the Agriculture Council.
As part of the 1999 reform of the CAP beef regime the two terms were deleted
and a Reference Price, set at 2224 euros/tonne, was introduced "for carcases
of male bovine animals of grade R3 as laid down in the Community scale for
the classification of carcases". When the average Community market price is
and is likely to remain at less than 103% of the Reference Price (i.e. less than
2290.72 euros/tonne) the Commission may decide to grant aid for private
storage.
The 1999 reform also provided for intervention buying-in to be opened if, for a
period of two consecutive weeks, the average market price in a Member State
(or region of a Member State in the case of the UK) recorded on the basis of
the Community scale falls short of 1560 euros/tonne for an R3 male carcase.
In the past the EU Commission made widespread use of intervention buyingin, the last occasion being in 2001/02 at the time of the BSE crisis on the
Continent. In the light of its experience of intervention buying-in over a period
of approximately 15 years, it is thought that the EU Commission is most
unlikely to implement intervention buying-in in the future but to turn instead to
the less expensive and more efficient in terms of market disposal, system of
purchase for destruction schemes. Private storage aid was used significantly
but with hindsight unsuccessfully in 1987/88. Apart from small-scale use for
veal more than 10 years ago it has played no part in the EU Commission’s
market management "armoury".
Provision for intervention buying-in and private storage aid still exists in the
current market management/support rules. While, as stated above, the EU
Commission is unlikely ever to use these provisions in the future, it is believed
that their removal from the beef regime would be strongly opposed by some
Member States (e.g. France, the ROI, Italy and Belgium) and is therefore
unlikely to occur in the short to medium term.
56
AHDB Industry Consulting 2008©
Review Of The EU Carcase Classification System For Beef And Sheep
9.1.2 The EU Commission’s view of the Beef Carcase Classification
Schemes in 2008
The EU Commission (based on interviews with EU officials) sees a continuing
benefit in the continuance of the mandatory scheme for beef carcase
classification beyond its role in support measures. This benefit is seen in three
main areas:
1. Market monitoring – the classification system is the basis for price
reporting and provides the best information on what is happening in
the market. The fact that the actual price reports have an inherent lag
of 1 to 2 weeks behind the spot market is not seen as a problem.
2. Market management - the classification based price reports are still
seen as a safety net trigger for the market support measures that are
still in place but which from the current viewpoint will probably only
ever be used sparingly, for e.g.:
Safety net intervention
Private storage aid
Exceptional market support measures
The Commission feels that the uncertain and unstable food situation that is
possible in international markets for the foreseeable future means that it is
important to have these market management safeguards.
3. Trading usage/transparency – the evidence is that the sector utilises
the EU harmonised classification and related price reporting system
as an important aid in undertaking day to day business in the
commercial markets.
EU Commission staff reported that the Commission sees no reason for any
major changes to the current system (echoing the sentiment found during the
interviews with abattoirs and producers -‘If it isn’t broke why fix it’), and the
single CMO which entered into force from 1 January 2008 (Council Regulation
1234/2007), only introduced minor changes to simplify the working of the
system. As regards any new attributes the EU Commission believes that
these could be introduced if and when there is a EU wide need for them and
when such measures are shown to work.
Further, the draft Commission regulation laying down detailed rules on the
implementation of the community scales for the classification of beef, pig and
sheep carcases and the exporting of prices thereof (agreed at the 49th CMO
Management Committee for Animal Products (Beef, Sheep, Pigs, Poultry and
Eggs) held on 23 October 2008) brings together existing legislation rather
than introducing any major changes.
Similarly they do not see any reason to review the legislation to take account
of any new systems of classification until these are more effective and are
being used more widely.
57
AHDB Industry Consulting 2008©
Review Of The EU Carcase Classification System For Beef And Sheep
In brief the situation in countries that have experimented/installed such
systems is:
Germany – seem to have lost interest in the VIA machines (and in the
criticism of the present system that surfaced 2/3 years ago in a letter to
the Commission but now seems to have been forgotten).
Ireland – have introduced VIA machines and seem happy with their
operation (these were paid for by the Irish Government, but the whole
possible issue that this could be thought of as a ‘state aid’ to their
industry seems to have been ‘brushed under the carpet’ as it means
that the Irish can now better meet their EU obligations.
Under the system operating in Ireland the arrangements to appease
the farmers meant that the reporting even allows farmers to look at
individually company prices (on the their web site).
France – their VIA machines still have difficulty with measuring fat and
the progress of the implementation in France has slowed down.
Denmark – have quietly gone about introducing VIA machines, but as
they have a small beef industry this is not seen as significant by the EU
Commission.
The experience gained from the trials and operation would suggest that if a
VIA system was adopted in any country; it is best to use only one make of
machine.
9.1.3 The EU Commission’s view of the Sheep Carcase Classification
Schemes in 2008
Despite the fact that the EU sheep sector may benefit from a mandatory
carcase classification and related price reporting system in the same way as
described above for beef, the EU Commission thought it would be very difficult
to make the sheep system compulsory because of the limited nature of sheep
production in some member states.
Under the terms of the Sheep regime any member state could enhance the
system in its own country at its own expense (provided this was not seen as
benefiting one member state to the expense of others).
9.1.4 The EU Commission’s view of the Cost of the Carcase
Classification Schemes in 2008
The EU Commission saw the operation of the classification and related price
reporting system as minimal in EU terms. Much of the cost was routine and
borne by individual member states.
For price reporting all data is now received electronically and after a small
amount of labour involved with expert checking, is routinely processed to
58
AHDB Industry Consulting 2008©
Review Of The EU Carcase Classification System For Beef And Sheep
produce comparative EU prices. This is carried out for what is seen as a small
comparative cost.
The only other cost for the EU Commission are the control visits that are
conducted 5 times a year when 9 experts (from the Commission and member
states) will visit one to two member states each visit (see Section 9.2 below).
In addition a Working Group is held once a year to review the operation of the
system.
9.2 The Beef Carcase Classification Scheme and How it is Implemented.
Beef carcase classification schemes became mandatory in 1992, following the
introduction of regulation (EEC) no 1208/81 (that determined the Community
scale for the classification of adult bovine carcases), and EEC (No 344/91)
that set out detailed rules.
The basic information recorded in this scheme is:
•
•
•
•
Cold carcase weight (hot weight of carcase less the appropriate rebate)
Conformation class (SEUROP)
Fat class 1 to 5
Sex/category (young bull less than 2yrs, bull, steer, heifer, cow
Additional division of conformation and fat classes- up 15 sub classes for
each, and an indication of age are optional to the scheme participants
Today under Community legislation (Council Regulation (EC) No. 1234/2007
Article 43) all carcases of adult bovine animals should be classified. However,
under Commission Regulation (EC) No. (currently under negotiation), Member
States may decide that this requirement shall not be compulsory:
a) For approved establishments which slaughter not more than 75 adult
bovine animals per week as an annual average
And,
b) For retailers who purchase live animals and have them slaughtered under
contract on their account.
Details for the implementation of Community rules for the classification of beef
carcases are currently set out in various Commission Regulations. These are
to be brought together under a single Regulation agreed at the 49th CMO
Management Committee for Animal Products (Beef, Sheep, Pigs, Poultry and
Eggs) held on 23 October 2008, which will apply from 1 January 2009
(according to Council Regulation 1234/2007). This regulation sets out the
specification for classifying carcases according to their conformation and
degree of cover fat. It also defines a reference dressing specification and
provides a list of coefficients for variations in the dressing specification in
different Member States so as to take account of weight differences for the
purposes of comparing reported average market prices.
59
AHDB Industry Consulting 2008©
Review Of The EU Carcase Classification System For Beef And Sheep
Classification has to be carried out by qualified technicians who have obtained
a licence granted by the Member State. Classifiers may be abattoir
employees or members of an approved agency (e.g. in GB MLCS Ltd and in
Northern Ireland LMC). Checks on the performance of classifiers must be
carried out on the spot and without prior warning at least twice every three
months in all approved establishments, which practice classification and must
normally relate to at least 40 carcases. The checks must be carried by an
independent body of licensed classifiers (e.g. in England and Wales the RPA
Inspectorate – see Section 9.4).
The standards are subject to on the spot checks by a Community inspection
committee ((EEC) No 2137/92.
In recent years Commission rules have been amended to provide for the
licensing of automated carcase grading techniques for which a similar regime
of frequent performance checks is provided. To date, automated grading
techniques have been introduced in Denmark, France and the ROI.
Installation of licensed classification machines does not obviate the need for
the presence of a licensed classifier for example, to monitor the performance
of the machine and to take action in the event of any technical breakdown.
Experience of classifying machines to date suggests that the machine used in
the ROI and Denmark classifies conformation well and fat levels less well. In
France however, other problems remain concerning the classification of the
fat level e.g. in cases where extensive areas of fat have been removed from
the carcases (‘emoussage’) prior to classification.
Average weekly deadweight cattle prices are required to be reported from
member states, as set out in regulation (EEC) No 563/82 and No 295/96. As
interpreted by the UK these are required from all abattoirs in GB that slaughter
more than 20,000 head of cattle annually. Prices must represent at least 25%
of slaughtering in the main production regions and 30% nationally. In GB the
collection, analysis and reporting of prices is carried out by AHDB Meat
Services Economics.
Primarily the deadweight cattle price is collected to provide an average GB
deadweight cattle price to the European Commission as set out in Regulation
295/96. However, the new EC dressed average price is also used by industry
to monitor movements in the market and track trends.
No details are readily available of the costs of classification in each member
state, whether for abattoirs or Member States competent authorities but
Appendix 2, shows the scale of magnitude of the classification task.
60
AHDB Industry Consulting 2008©
Review Of The EU Carcase Classification System For Beef And Sheep
9.3 Sheep Carcase Classification
Although regulation (EEC) No 2137/92 also introduced a Community
classification scheme for sheep, this regulation has not been enforced and
classification of carcases remains voluntary.
The CAP Sheepmeat regime is regarded as a "light regime". The EU is not
self-sufficient in sheepmeat and therefore market support measures are
limited to the provision of the possibility of Private Storage Aid (PSA). There
is no provision for intervention buying-in, export refunds or protective import
tariffs. The regime does not provide therefore any reference price with regard
to the granting of PSA. Instead Council Regulation (EC) No. 1234/2007
states only that the Commission may decide to grant aid for private storage
"when there is a particularly difficult market situation for sheepmeat and
goatmeat in one or more of the following (price) quotation areas: a) Great Britain
b) Northern Ireland
c) Any Member State other than the UK, taken separately."
For this reason and probably acknowledging the widely varied production and
consumption structures in the EU sheepmeat sector, use of carcase
classification in the sheepmeat sector is implemented on a voluntary basis.
Presumably therefore where classification is practiced it is principally to meet
the requirements of abattoirs customers.
Community rules concerning classification of sheep carcases broadly follow
those in the beef regime in that they require classification to be carried out by
sufficiently qualified technicians; there are on the spot checks by a body
independent of the participating abattoir and, where appropriate, the
committee of Commission and Member States experts may inspect and report
on the standard of sheep carcase classification in Member States.
In order to provide for the differing aspects of the sector across the
Community the rules contain two different classification scales. One, for light
lambs of less than 13 kilograms, is split by weight bands into three different
categories A, B and C, which are based on meat colour and fat cover. The
other scale for heavier sheep carcases is divided into one category (A) for
sheep under 12 months old and (B) for "others" and is based, like the scale for
beef carcases, on assessment of conformation and degree of fat cover.
However, Member States whose sheepmeat production exceeds 200
tonnes per year are required to record and report prices on a weekly basis. In
theory prices reported can be based on information from both live markets
and abattoirs using, where necessary, a system of co-efficients to reflect the
proportion of classified carcases included in the average price reported.
Member States are also required, on an annual basis, to supply the
Commission with a list of abattoirs participating, for the establishment of
prices, in carcase classification according to the appropriate EU scale,
together with an indication of the approximate annual throughput of those
participating abattoirs.
61
AHDB Industry Consulting 2008©
Review Of The EU Carcase Classification System For Beef And Sheep
In GB deadweight sheep price is collected to provide an average GB
deadweight heavy lamb price to the European Commission as set out in
Regulation (EC) No 315/02. However, the average deadweight Standard
Quality Quotation (SQQ) price, is also used by industry to monitor movements
in the market and track trends. It is a voluntary agreement for abattoirs to
supply their deadweight sheep information.
There is little, if any, statistical information on sheep carcase classification in
the EU. Moreover, because classification is carried out on a voluntary basis,
in practice the committee of Commission and Member States experts do not
carry out any inspections.
The insignificance of sheepmeat production in some Member States means
that currently only 20 of the EU-27 Member States report prices. It appears
that only five of them, Denmark, France, Finland, Sweden and the UK
(Northern Ireland only), make use (in all cases partially) of prices recorded on
the basis of the EU scales for sheep carcase classification.
In 2002 the EU Commission carried out a survey to evaluate whether use
of the EU scales for sheep carcase classification should be made compulsory
(EU Commission 2002). They decided, because of the very limited use made
of the EU scales that such classification should continue on a voluntary
basis.
9.4 Role of RPA in England and Wales and its Equivalent in Other UK
Regions.
A small inspectorate team of the RPA (staff numbers in England and Wales –
6), and the equivalent bodies in Scotland (staff- 2) and Northern Ireland (staff–
4), plus a small number of administrative staff in each region, have as part of
their duties responsibility for checking the operation of the beef classification
scheme.
This involves them in England and Wales as an example, in undertaking a
minimum of two unannounced control visits per quarter to all plants that have
to classify under the EU scheme (i.e. those plants killing more than 75 cattle
per week), or more to plants seen as posing a risk. This involves checking the
operation of the whole classification process (i.e. dressing, weighing,
assessment, documentation and where applicable price reporting).
In order to help maintain standards with the carcase assessment they
undertake a ‘standardisation’ exercise twice a year involving RPA staff from
the UK and MLCS Ltd Senior Managers (the only known provider of an
independent service).
The RPA also licences all those undertaking beef classification whether
abattoir staff or MLCS Ltd (this takes the form of a standard assessment test
62
AHDB Industry Consulting 2008©
Review Of The EU Carcase Classification System For Beef And Sheep
over 40 carcases). In principle abattoir staff that move plants have to be relicensed.
The RPA also act as audit agents for the system of price reporting checking
that the price reporting is done to the standards required at the plants and
liaising with Defra about when plants reach the required target level.
63
AHDB Industry Consulting 2008©
Review Of The EU Carcase Classification System For Beef And Sheep
10. INDUSTRY VIEWS ON CLASSIFICATION IN 2008
10.1 Methodology
10.1.1 The representative sample
In order to understand the attitudes of the industry towards classification,
structured interviews were conducted with a representative sample of:
a) Key UK producer organisations
b) Producer marketing groups and groupings of producers
c) Industry and government bodies in the UK and EU
d) UK abattoirs (reflecting their views and those of their customers)
e) UK abattoir organisations
In total useable information was received from all of the 45 companies and
organisations contacted as part of the project. This included 20 interviews with
the representatives abattoir companies, and 25 with the representatives of
producers, producer marketing groups, industry and government bodies and
abattoir organisations in the UK.
See Appendix1, for a listing of those companies and organisations contacted.
Meetings were also held with representatives of the EU Commission, Animal
Products Unit (responsible for classification and price reporting), and the
views were solicited of industry organisations in other EU countries (but only
two replies were received from organisations in Spain and Germany).
It was explained to all that the classification system which was being reviewed
was defined as that involving the identification of the animal, the dressing
specification, the weighing, the assessment on conformation and fatness
(under the SEUROP grid), the documentation of the attributes and related
price reporting issues.
10.1.2 Profile of the abattoirs contacted
The 20 abattoir companies interviewed were chosen to represent the views of
both large and medium sized companies (that between them operated 30
plants). Some of the companies killed cattle, some sheep and some both
(sometimes at different plants).
In 2007 GB slaughtering statistics (source: AHDB Meat Services) show that
total slaughtering of cattle were just over 2.2 million and sheep almost 15
million. Of these it was estimated (source: AHDB Meat Services) that in 2007
79% of cattle and 54% of sheep were sourced on a deadweight basis.
The GB abattoirs contacted accounted for 42% of total GB cattle slaughter
and 23% of total GB sheep slaughter in 2007. From the information provided
64
AHDB Industry Consulting 2008©
Review Of The EU Carcase Classification System For Beef And Sheep
by these companies of their estimates of what when interviewed they were
purchasing deadweight, applied to 2007 throughput figures, deadweight
purchases represented 87% of cattle and 81% of sheep.
The two companies interviewed in Northern Ireland purchased almost of their
livestock on a deadweight basis.
The difference in the proportion of GB deadweight purchase between the
national estimates and those provided by the plants interviewed was because
a larger proportion of those larger companies supplying supermarkets were
interviewed than others. The representative sample however took views from
across the spectrum of abattoir company types (e.g. from medium sized
abattoirs supplying butchers to specialist ethnic and sheep export plants,
those buying the majority on a deadweight basis to one buying only 5% of
cattle on a deadweight basis) and these views were assessed and taken into
account as to representing their sector (and not weighted by throughputs).
65
AHDB Industry Consulting 2008©
Review Of The EU Carcase Classification System For Beef And Sheep
10.2 Views of Abattoirs on Beef Carcase Classification
10.2.1 Is the overall system of classification for cattle important to the
operation of the business?
All bar one smaller plant (of the 19 abattoir companies and 2 representative
bodies that commented on cattle) thought it was an important (some thought
essential) tool for the buying of cattle on a deadweight basis, establishing a
price for the transaction between abattoir and producer.
The majority of the abattoirs interviewed paid producers based on complete
classification results; those that did not were 2 smaller abattoirs and a major
OTM plant that mainly paid on the basis of weight.
The majority were today recording information through electronic means and
all but two of those interviewed, said that they passed back full details to
producers on a combination of remittance advice and kill sheets
There was less agreement that it was as useful as a tool for selling
carcases/meat. Some abattoirs were obliged to use it for sales to some
supermarkets and increasingly if involved in the export trade. Overseas
customers were more likely to specify their needs in classification terms and it
was useful in establishing a relationship with new domestic customers. In
Scotland classification attributes are part of the QMS quality beef standard for
the Scotch Beef brand.
10.2.2 Who classifies?
All of the abattoir companies contacted were classifying cattle (under EU
regulations all those slaughtering 75 or more a week have to). Of the 19
companies in GB killing cattle, 8 used there own staff to do this and the
remainder used an outside independent assessor. This was MLCS Ltd
(previously the MLC), except for the 2 in Northern Ireland that used LMC.
10.2.3 Should cattle classification be carried out by an outside
independent company or by the abattoirs own staff?
Those using an independent classifier used them because it:
• Overcame the difficulties that could arise with the farmer supplier if the
plant was using its own staff
• Sent a good message to the farmers
• Enabled them to supply a regular service without worrying about staff
shortages
Some abattoirs were of the view that for fairness and transparency the service
should be provided independently in all plants.
66
AHDB Industry Consulting 2008©
Review Of The EU Carcase Classification System For Beef And Sheep
Those not using them compromised mostly medium sized plants that were put
off by the cost of the independent service (although in practice this coat is
passed back by many abattoirs to the producer within the deductions to the
bid price). It was also believed by some that as the cattle system was
overseen by the RPA (see Section 9.4) it did not matter who classified as long
as it was consistent, although there were mixed views about the operation of
the RPA and its equivalent in other regions.
Of the plants interviewed, 9 of them and their representative bodies had no
problems with the RPA role and 2 made no comment. The remainder had a
general gripe about bureaucracy, red tape and interference and would like to
see fewer inspection visits based on risk. One bone of contention was the
need for the RPA to re-license abattoir classification staff that moved between
plants and the onerous nature of this process.
10.2.4 Do variations in dressing specification cause problems?
For cattle, although the RPA believe that the recent agreement and the
adoption of three dressing standards have improved matters, others are not
so sure. Some abattoirs still see this as the greatest concern for many
preventing the working of a consistent and transparent system.
The challenge is that if consistency and transparency is what is wanted why
not standardise and use only one, as happens in Northern Ireland?
An opposite view expressed by one cattle abattoir maintained that dressing to
specific standards disadvantages the business as different customers ask
them to supply different trim levels.
A further issue of which some farmers are less aware is that further dressing
can also be carried out by the MHS staff when hygiene trimming (e.g. with gut
spills). This is a problem as there are differences both within and between
plants as when such trimming is necessary, and this impacts on weight and
thus returns without producers being properly informed. This tends to be a
problem with high throughput and is more of an issue with sheep.
10.2.5 Are there any issues in with regard to weighing?
The recording of weight is a crucial part of the deadweight classification
process, but the whole issue of when to weigh (linked to the dressing
specification), the rounding of weights by some abattoirs (to the nearest 0.5
kg) and the hot/cold rebate system causes a degree of disquiet to many
abattoirs. Seen today as crude, the method was set up many years ago when
the systems available were less sophisticated (i.e. when such as digital
electronic probes and calibrated devices were not available).
67
AHDB Industry Consulting 2008©
Review Of The EU Carcase Classification System For Beef And Sheep
To many this is another area that would benefit from standardisation; why not
weigh at a standard temperature (e.g. use a temperature probe at a specific
time to establish), although many others do not see an issue.
One cattle abattoir doing OTM cattle, maintained that using the 2% rebate
disadvantages the business because the drip loss on cows is far greater than
2%, meaning that they lose money.
10.2.6 Is the current
applied/carried out well?
method
of
carcase
assessment
being
None of the abattoirs we spoke to has a major concern with how the current
method of assessment using the SEUROP grid was being applied/ carried out
(as opposed to if it should be improved).
Plants had varying views on which was more important fatness or
conformation and whether a 15x15 grid was a better predictor of carcase
yield, but on the whole they found that the ‘classification’ language was widely
understood by many producers and abattoirs.
Issues of consistency in its application still crop up, which is not surprising
given that it is a ‘visual’ assessment but the mandatory nature of the beef
classification. We still found a view from a number of abattoirs that cattle from
the North are on average different from those in the South (Trent/Mersey
divide) and they are not classified consistently (i.e. cattle from the South West
are upgraded and those from the North downgraded).
By and large the overarching checking role of RPA (together with the
independent service provided by MLCS Ltd and LMC) has prevented the
issues regarding consistency from becoming a major issue, even where plants
use their own staff to classify.
10.2.7 Could the system be improved?
The general view from the abattoirs and their representative bodies
interviewed was that as the current system is well understood and works well,
there is no point in tinkering with it, unless it is replaced by a leap forward,
such as may be provided by new technology, but to do that we must be clear
of what it is we want to measure (i.e. Should we describe the carcase in the
same way or introduce new factors/attributes to measure?).
Many regarded the introduction of such as VIA technology in an ambivalent
way. From their knowledge of various trials and its operational use in the Irish
Republic, most did not feel that at the moment it could offer a marked
improvement on the current assessment system, other than adding what was
perceived as a greater degree of objectiveness/consistency on conformation
assessment if the equipment could be calibrated correctly.
68
AHDB Industry Consulting 2008©
Review Of The EU Carcase Classification System For Beef And Sheep
Many were aware that VIA was not a good predictor of the level of fat. Most
however, were interested if it could reduce cost and improve the perception of
consistency, and supported it being investigated further, although it was seen
as a tool for the larger plants and not the medium and smaller abattoirs.
Some form of quality assessment would, it was believed improve the system,
but there would have to be an agreement throughout the industry as to what
constitutes quality (e.g. better eating –flavour, tenderness); one step forward
could be to introduce an ‘internal assessment’ (as discussed in the early days
of classification), such as one that assesses the shape and size of the eye
muscle and degree of marbling.
Where eating quality is concerned many abattoirs are willing to consider this
only if the right measure of eating quality can be agreed upon, which they
know will be very difficult. Abattoirs often take a cynical view when this is put
forward by producers as being yet another attempt by them to get additional
returns, particularly as abattoirs regard what they do pre and post slaughter as
having the biggest impact on eating quality (e.g. reduced stress handling prior
to slaughter, correct dressing procedures, carcase treatment, chilling and
maturation regimes – see: MLC Blueprints for Consistent Quality Beef and
Lamb)
10.2.8 Should the cattle classification system remain mandatory?
The views of the abattoirs about this followed closely their views on the RPA
and their cultural attitude to government interference in what many see as
commercial issues.
Of the abattoirs interviewed, 7 of them and their representative bodies thought
it should remain mandatory, 6 made no comment and 6 thought the
government should stay out of these affairs.
10.2. 9 Are the average deadweight cattle prices reported useful?
The majority opinion was that the prices were useful guides that aided market
transparency, although the strength of this view varied by company (with
some that had to provide them seeing them as a chore). Some who were tied
up in contracts with large supermarkets saw them as essential for dealing with
clients and managing this business (detailed deadweight price information
were sent by AHDB MS Economics in 2008 on request, to 15 of the large
companies that supplied supermarkets each week, and to one of the
supermarkets).
Some see such deadweight price reports as becoming more important in the
future (as in the pig sector), if abattoirs and producers have to tie themselves
closer in production contracts (e.g. many see beef from the dairy herd as
becoming more important as the overall cattle population falls).
69
AHDB Industry Consulting 2008©
Review Of The EU Carcase Classification System For Beef And Sheep
There was a concern from some that the price reports are overly influenced by
reports from the larger abattoirs, and that the regional information particularly
(which is based on only a part of the national sample) does not fully reflect the
actual trading conditions and misleads producers.
The input from only the larger abattoirs in their opinion leads to inaccurate
price reporting because of the difference in the type of cattle that these plants
process (i.e. largely for the supermarket trade). Other slaughterers take
different types of cattle, which are reflected in the prices paid but not in those
reported. This leads to regional reports in particular sending at times wrong
messages to producers as to local prices.
The system could be improved by allowing for the inclusion of information
from medium and small abattoirs, which price cattle on the EUROP
classification grid. This may increase the sample size and ensure that all
sectors of the industry are represented in the sample.
Some abattoirs exporting beef maintained that price reports were
detrimentally affecting their trade across the EU, as they are used by
customers to push the prices down!
[See also 10.6 general comment on prices]
70
AHDB Industry Consulting 2008©
Review Of The EU Carcase Classification System For Beef And Sheep
10.3 Views of Abattoirs on Sheep Carcase Classification
10.3.1 Is the overall system of sheep classification important to the
operation of the business?
Similar to abattoirs killing cattle, the 11 abattoir companies who were buying a
large number of sheep on a deadweight basis and their two representative
bodies thought it was important (some thought it was essential) to the running
of their business. The remaining 5 who were all smaller plants buying mostly
on a liveweight basis (bar one) thought it was not and did not classify
The abattoirs interviewed buying on a deadweight basis all classified and also
paid producers based on complete classification results. They also recorded
information through electronic means and maintained that they passed back
full details to producers on a combination of remittance advice and kill sheets
(although with some full details were only given on request)
As with cattle there was less agreement from those involved with classification
that it was as useful as a tool for selling carcases/meat. Some abattoirs were
obliged to use it for sales to some supermarkets and increasingly if involved in
the export trade. Overseas customers were more likely to specify their needs
in classification terms and it was useful in establishing a relationship with new
domestic customers. In Scotland classification attributes are part of the QMS
quality lamb standard for the Scotch Lamb brand.
10.3.2 Who classifies?
Of the 10 companies in GB classifying sheep, 3 used their own staff to do this
and the remainder used an outside independent assessor. This was MLCS
Ltd (previously the MLC), except for the 1 in Northern Ireland that used LMC.
10.3.3 Should classification be carried out by an outside independent
company or by the abattoirs’ own staff?
The main reasons why abattoirs used an independent assessor for sheep is
the same as for cattle.
The main difference to the system that operates for cattle is that as the sheep
system is not mandatory under EU regulations, the RPA have no role in
overseeing the sheep classification system and there is a lack of
standardisation of methods of operation.
The independent assessors offer some consistency in the abattoirs they
operate in, but in GB on a national basis their coverage is less than for cattle.
As a result nationally the sheep classification system is seen as being less
consistent and causes more concern about not delivering the market
71
AHDB Industry Consulting 2008©
Review Of The EU Carcase Classification System For Beef And Sheep
transparency it should. Many abattoir companies see this as causing major
competitive disadvantages as it is more difficult for producers to understand
the bid prices from different plants.
The standardisation issue starts with dressing specifications.
10.3.4 Do variations in dressing specification cause problems?
For sheep, the current situation with a lack of standardisation of dressing
specifications is seen by many abattoirs and their representative bodies to be
a mess that does nothing to help the industry develop (even 3 of the abattoirs
interviewed who buy most liveweight and do not classify saw this as a major
cause of concern.
The challenge is as with cattle, that if consistency and transparency is what is
wanted why not standardise and use only one specification (or as one abattoir
said all in or all out!).
The issue of hygiene trimming (e.g. with gut spills) discussed under cattle,
also tends to be a bigger problem with high throughput sheep abattoirs. As
with cattle this is a problem as there are differences both within and between
plants as when such trimming is necessary, and this impacts on weight and
thus returns without producers being properly informed.
10.3.5 Are there any issues with regard to weighing?
As with cattle the recording of weight is a crucial part of the deadweight
classification process, but because of the problems of the wide variations in
dressing specification and its influence on recorded weight, they are less
concerned about the issue.
Some who are weighing to 0.1 kg feel disadvantaged over those that do not
but see it as important to maintain customer relations.
10.3.6 Is the current
applied/carried out well?
method
of
carcase
assessment
being
None of the abattoirs interviewed had a major issue with how the current
method of assessment using the SEUROP grid was being applied/ carried
out, where it was being used (as opposed to if it should be improved), other
than the major concern about whether it was being applied consistently, given
the situation in the sheep industry.
For most abattoirs killing sheep the issue of fatness was more important to
them and their customers than conformation.
72
AHDB Industry Consulting 2008©
Review Of The EU Carcase Classification System For Beef And Sheep
10.3.7 Could the system be improved?
The lack of standardisation is seen as a problem by many abattoirs of all sizes
due to the lack of transparency, which makes it difficult for plants to
demonstrate that their terms of trade are as good as/ better than others.
For many abattoirs anything to improve this situation would be welcome,
although it has to be said that some abattoirs prefer to work in a trading
system that has as much fog in it as possible. It is difficult to see how the
current sheep system could get murkier.
10.3.8 Should the sheep system be made mandatory as with cattle?
Only 4 abattoirs of those interviewed saw that the way to solve the problem of
the lack of standardisation was through government intervention to impose
standards, although the representative bodies were not averse to the
imposition of some ‘light’ level of imposition if this would improve matters (one
possibility worth considering is the voluntary system for sheep that operates in
Northern Ireland).
10.3.9 Are the average deadweight sheep prices reported useful?
None of those we interviewed regarded the reports favourably, as they are
based on a system that is not standardised. At best the some of the abattoirs
interviewed saw them as a guide.
However, similar to cattle, detailed deadweight sheep price reports were sent
by AHDB MS Economics in 2008 (on request), to almost the same number of
the large companies that supplied supermarkets each week, and to one of the
supermarkets (even large companies that would not provide deadweight
sheep price information took the price reports).
[See also 10.6 general comment on prices]
73
AHDB Industry Consulting 2008©
Review Of The EU Carcase Classification System For Beef And Sheep
10.4 Views of Producers on Beef Carcase Classification
10.4.1 Overall is the cattle classification system important for
producers?
The situation is the same today as when the current carcase classification
system was set up, in that the cattle population throughout the UK is made up
of a large variety of breeds, with large variations in the key carcase attributes
both within and between breeds (exacerbated by the different systems of
production in different geographical areas), which means that an accepted
common mean of carcase description and trading standards is essential for
transparent trade.
The feedback from the system is also seen as an important tool to aid the
improvement of the herd, although it was recognised that this was more of an
immediate tool for those that had completely integrated (breeder/feeder)
systems, than for those buying/feeding stores.
Although as demonstrated by such as the EBLEX Better Returns Programme
there were ways in which all could benefit from the results
The linkages between such as classification results and breed indexes need
to be improved.
10.4.2 Should classification be carried out by an outside independent
company?
All of the key UK producer organisations, producer marketing groups and
groupings of producers we interviewed
(hereafter referred to as the
representatives of producers), maintained that there was still in the minds of
many producers a basic distrust with abattoirs (even though they are the
essential trading partners of finished cattle producers).
As a result all of those we interviewed (but for one small producer group)
believed that classification should be carried out by an independent provider
(such as MLCS Ltd and LMC), but believe that this is less of an issue for cattle
because of the ‘independent verification activity’ carried out by the RPA. The
small producer group was selling everything to one abattoir on a regular basis,
and maintained that they were well aware of its terms of trading.
There was a belief that many plants that use their own staff have over the
years used trained MLC staff (that have been released for various reasons).
There is a concern that this work force is ageing and that it will be more
difficult for abattoirs to pick up trained staff in the future
74
AHDB Industry Consulting 2008©
Review Of The EU Carcase Classification System For Beef And Sheep
10.4.3 Do variations in dressing specification cause problems?
Despite the recent agreement and the adoption of three dressing standards
this was still a concern to most of the representatives of producers
interviewed. This was because even a reduced number of three dressing
standards, still inhibit the working of a consistent and transparent system (the
producer groups we spoke to maintained that it was also still common in
plants for additional trimming to take place on the brisket and neck).
The challenge is that if consistency and transparency is what is wanted why
not standardise and use only one dressing standard, as happens in Northern
Ireland?
10.4.4 Are there any issues with regard to weighing?
The views of the representatives of producers reflect those of some abattoirs
recorded in the previous section, that the recording of weight is a crucial part
of the deadweight classification process, but the whole issue the rounding of
weights by some abattoirs (to the nearest 0.5 kg) and the hot/cold rebate
system causes the same degree of disquiet. It is seen today as crude. The
method was set up many years ago when the systems available were less
sophisticated (i.e. when such as digital electronic probes and calibrated
devices were not available), and appears to many producers to reflect the
widespread existence of ‘sharp practice’ in many parts of the industry.
10.4.5 Is the current
applied/carried out well?
method
of
carcase
assessment
being
As with the abattoirs, the main issues that the representatives of producers we
interviewed raised concerning how the current method of assessment using
the SEUROP grid was being applied/ carried out (as opposed to if it should be
improved), was the concern that it should be consistent. The overarching
checking role of RPA (together with the independent service provided by
MLCS Ltd and LMC) was seen as preventing the issues regarding
consistency from becoming a major issue, even were plants used their own
staff to classify.
Some maintained that there will always be a feeling that while the system is
based on a ‘visual assessment’ it will not be as objective as a machine, hence
the interest in new technology such as VIA.
10.4.6 Is the feed back of information from abattoirs adequate?
Producers need feedback on the carcase quality. They need to know what is
wanted and when they are meeting this to allow them to plan their businesses
and breeding programmes to improve the product.
75
AHDB Industry Consulting 2008©
Review Of The EU Carcase Classification System For Beef And Sheep
While most abattoirs maintain there is no problem and that they pass back the
classification details to producers with the payment details, many producers
still see this as a major issue.
10.4.7 Could the system be improved?
There is a widespread view that overall the cattle classification system as it is
applied generally works well. It is widely understood by many producers but a
periodic updating of knowledge for some, through such as the Better Returns
Programme, is seen as very worthwhile.
Having said this some representatives of producers think that the SEUROP
grid may be in need of review, to reflect changing industry needs. Some
believe that it would be better (easier to understand) to have less divisions,
although others allow that abattoirs want to make use of the 15 point grid,
which it is maintained is a better predictor of meat yield (and livestock
producers are happy with this as long as they do not get penalised).
The measure of the relationship between classification and meat yield is dated
and in the light of changing industry practices could be reviewed. For
example, the assessment system measures overall meat yield related to
fatness and conformation, with the operatives trained to assess three key
parts of the carcase (i.e. shoulder, loin, hind) and the classification
(fatness/conformation assessment) as an average; however, since the system
was set up the demand for different cuts has changed, as the sources from
which consumers purchase meat and their tastes/preferences, have changed
(e.g. the growth of the supermarkets). This is not a problem for many, but
some question whether the classification system should be changed/improved
to reflect this different market (e.g. some abattoirs want what is regarded as
good conformation on loin and leg but not on the shoulder).
Any system needs to reflect the carcase attributes consistently and rightly or
wrongly the current assessment system based on a visual appraisal is seen
by some as biased if not ‘archaic’ and open to influence, leading to
accusations that it is not standard across plants (or across the EU). The
development/introduction of VIA technology is seen by some as a means of
addressing these issues, although there is a concern that because trials have
shown that this system has problems in assessing fatness, it may not be as
good a predictor of meat yield as some hoped (Note: as referred to earlier, the
evidence is that the 15x15 point SEURUP scale is a better predictor of yield
and the VIA machines in the Irish republic are set up on this basis.
This interest in meat yield however, does not mean that this should herald a
move to payment only being made on meat yield, many producers are
concerned that any ‘new ‘ system must not ignore eating quality.
There is a perception that the differential in price between the grid’s boxes
with the current system is not, and never has been sufficient and it is hoped
by producers that a new system would address this.
76
AHDB Industry Consulting 2008©
Review Of The EU Carcase Classification System For Beef And Sheep
Similarly it is hoped that if a way of measuring eating quality could be agreed,
this could result in an additional payment to producers. The system of pricing
is seen as unfair by some as they believe that from cattle of the same age,
breed, category eating quality will be the same whether it is an E or an R, but
there are currently price penalties.
Despite the 2008 agreements to reduce the number of dressing specifications,
which has gone a long way to placate many (and open the door for a
standardised system that would more easily allow for VIA measurement), the
system is still not standardised and not as transparent as it could be. It is still
perceived by farmers as being able to be manipulated by the large abattoirs to
suit their ends.
10.4.8 Should the system remain mandatory?
All of the representatives of producers interviewed said that it should, with the
limit remaining at 75 cattle per week and the RPA continuing in their
overarching supervisory/checking role.
10.4.9 Are the deadweight cattle price reports useful for producers?
The opinion of all the representatives of producers interviewed was that the
reports provided a useful background against which the industry operated,
although improvements could be made.
In addition to the improvements suggested in the Abattoir Section 10.3, the
price reporting system could also allow for the collection of more detailed
information from abattoirs including organic status and passport information
such as date of birth and sire breed.
Organic or breed specific contracts can influence the average price. In
practice in some cases the commercial value of a R4L steer may bear no
resemblance to the deadweight average price quoted. If figures can be
broken down to reflect the segmentation in the market this would be more
meaningful for producers.
[See also 10.6 general comment on prices]
77
AHDB Industry Consulting 2008©
Review Of The EU Carcase Classification System For Beef And Sheep
10.5 Views of Producers on Sheep Carcase Classification
10.5.1 Overall is the sheep classification system important to
producers?
As with cattle, the situation is the same today as when the current carcase
classification system was set up, in that the sheep population throughout the
UK is made up of a large variety of breeds, with large variations in the key
carcase attributes both within and between breeds (exacerbated by the
different systems of production in different geographical areas), which means
that an accepted common means of carcase description and trading
standards are essential for transparent trade.
Unfortunately for the sheep industry the lack of standardisation (as set out in
the abattoir section), exacerbated by the fact that the sheep classification
system is not mandatory and does not have an RPA to oversee it, make
transparent trade much more difficult.
The feed back of classification results should be, as with cattle, an important
tool for the producer to use to improve the flock, but given the lack of
standardisation in the sheep carcase classification system, it is not seen as
being anything like as useful as it should be.
10.5.2 Should sheep classification be carried out by an independent
company?
All of the key UK representatives of producers, maintained that the basic
distrust with abattoirs that was outlined in the cattle sector is exacerbated in
the sheep sector because of the lack of standardisation
As a result all of those we interviewed believed that classification should be
carried out by an independent provider (such as MLCS Ltd and LMC),
particularly if there was not an organisation like the RPA to oversee it. But
even with independent classification the transparency could still be inhibited
unless there was greater standardisation
10.5.3 Do variations in dressing specification cause problems?
The issue of the wide variations that exist in the dressing specifications was
seen by all the representatives of producers interviewed as the main problem
in the sheep classification system.
78
AHDB Industry Consulting 2008©
Review Of The EU Carcase Classification System For Beef And Sheep
10.5.4 Are there any issues with regard to weighing?
For the same reasons as with abattoirs above, many producers would like to
see the system of hot/cold rebates abolished and the rounding down of
weights (to the nearest 0.5kg), With the digital technology available today it
should be possible to improve on this crude system.
10.5.5 Is the current method of sheep carcase assessment being
applied/carried out well?
Given the lack of standardisation in the above two areas, most producers are
cynical about the consistency with which the assessment of fat and
conformation is carried out. Most are more reassured if independent providers
carry it out but against the overall background of uncertainty, for many
producers the classification system for sheep is very suspect. This is a major
reason why nationally so many producers still prefer to sell sheep on a
liveweight basis.
The experience of the EBLEX Sheep Better Returns Programme has shown
that fewer producers are as familiar or as comfortable with the sheep
classification system, particularly the carcase assessment part, than with
cattle.
10.5.6 Is the feed back of information from abattoirs adequate?
While most abattoirs maintain there is no problem and that they pass back the
classification details to producers with the payment details, many producers
see this as a major issue. Some abattoirs are better than others, but many
producers complain that for sheep the kill sheet information is not as good
/timely as it could be or as accurate because of problems over identification.
Because of the batch nature of sheep/lamb collection and sales, the mixing of
loads from different producers on transporting lorries, the anecdotal evidence
is that for many identification is compromised immediately the animal is killed
and it is common for animal identification numbers on grade sheets not to
tally.
10.5.7 Could the system be improved?
It is clear from the representative of producers interviewed and the major
issues raised in the above comments, that most producers have a problem
with the operation with the current carcase classification system for sheep.
These can be summarised as:
1. The main problem stems from the fact that there is no
standardisation/ uniformity with the dressing specification and by
implication point of weighing for sheep between plants. This not only
79
AHDB Industry Consulting 2008©
Review Of The EU Carcase Classification System For Beef And Sheep
leads at the outset to a distinct lack of transparency but to
accusations of ‘sharp’ practice.
From the viewpoint of the producer it is very easy for the abattoir to remove
weight before the point of weighing (e.g. through the removal of KKCF, the
tail, the neck chops and the lap); anecdotal evidence is that it is not un
common for this to be done by the abattoir to even compensate (the abattoir)
for having to offer a higher price on a rising market! Actual evidence given to
the consultants for prices and deductions for similar batches of lamb
presented to different outlets clearly demonstrated the impact such nonuniformity can have on producer returns.
2. The non-involvement of the government /RPA in the sheep
classification system means that compared to cattle, producers have
far less trust of abattoirs who classify using their own staff.
3. The distrust is further exacerbated by the use of hot/cold rebates for
weighing.
4. This distrust is even further exacerbated by the practice in some
plants of rounding down to the nearest 0.5kg.
5. The lack of transparency is further inhibited, as with cattle, by the
additional deductions to bid prices that are typically made [See
general comment on prices]
6. The issues outlined in 1 and 4, have a greater impact on the
producer return for sheep compared to cattle, because the lower
carcase weight means that any reductions in weight (i.e. through
dressing, rebates) have a greater proportional effect on overall value.
10.5.8 Should the system for sheep be mandatory as with cattle?
All of the representatives of producers interviewed thought that the
government should have a role in helping to standardise the system, and that
it should be a made mandatory if this was the only way of achieving this.
In Northern Ireland they have tried to help this by introducing some voluntary
supervision of the operation of the scheme.
10.5.9 Are the deadweight sheep price reports useful for producers?
The opinion of all the representatives of producers interviewed was that the
reports provided a background against which the industry operated, but the
deadweight prices for sheep are much less well regarded than with cattle,
because of the lack of standardisation and the small sample size, and as a
result producers remain more interested in the ‘spot’ liveweight quotes.
80
AHDB Industry Consulting 2008©
Review Of The EU Carcase Classification System For Beef And Sheep
The least requirement to improve the system would be to increase the number
of participating abattoirs in the sample. The size of the sample is vulnerable
and if one centre stops sending through data then the survey is likely to be
suspended due to commercial sensitivities of other participants.
However, to date non-contributing abattoirs have resisted further participation
and more political pressure may be required to increase the sample.
[See also 10.6 general comment on prices]
81
AHDB Industry Consulting 2008©
Review Of The EU Carcase Classification System For Beef And Sheep
10.6 Deadweight Price Reporting Some General Comments
In a market system that comprises many buyers and sellers, economists see
the availability of information on prices and their accuracy, as essential in
maintaining the transparency of the market, confidence in the system and
overall market efficiency.
10.6.1 Both cattle and sheep prices are reported historically - do these
reporting lags cause problems?
Because of the way in which they are collected both the weekly deadweight
cattle and sheep average prices are quoted a week after the period to which
they refer (i.e. they are lagged). As a result they are less well regarded/used
as aids in the day-to-day ‘spot’ trading of livestock between producers and
abattoirs. Most abattoirs and dealers buying/selling cattle and sheep on a
regular basis overcome this by having their own market intelligence networks
to keep abreast of daily changes.
However, the majority of producers who sell livestock more periodically, and
many small and medium abattoirs, have less access to such information and
as a result still have to turn to the widely published liveweight prices to keep
more abreast of changes in the market.
10.6.2 Are the price differentials accurate?
A concern for the reporting of accurate deadweight prices is that as livestock
numbers fall, the larger abattoirs in particular desperate for stock to maintain
throughput in their larger plants, are more likely to fall into line and pay more
equal prices across broader grids i.e. what amounts to an extension of flat
rate buying. In such situations when there is less pressure to penalise those
carcases that fall outside of the ‘target’ grid, the price differentials become
less meaningful.
The situation for sheep is exacerbated when abattoirs adjust their dressing
specifications to further compensate. This is less easy to do now in cattle but
many producers still believe that the system is still open to some
manipulation.
10.6.3 Do ‘other deductions’ make it difficult to compare prices?
Liveweight prices have many limitations (e.g. the accuracy of weighing in
markets, particularly for sheep is for many still an issue), but not least that
matching up liveweight quotes to deadweight is not easy, even with the openly
quoted bid/offer prices, but it is much more difficult when the ‘other
deductions’ (and bonuses) are taken into account.
82
AHDB Industry Consulting 2008©
Review Of The EU Carcase Classification System For Beef And Sheep
With deadweight prices, as well as the problems of lack of standardisation for
sheep and even with the better-understood bid prices for cattle, transparency
can be compromised by such additional ‘discretionary’ ‘other deductions’
made by abattoirs.
These can be for such as:
• Payments to cope with SRM removal (often referred to in remittance
advice sheets as SBM/SBO
• Weighing and classification charge
• Meat inspection charge
• In Scotland it is common for an additional ‘marketing charge’ to be
deducted, which according to correspondents is almost a cultural
practice, accepted as a buying commission (or it can be thought of as a
deadweight version similar to the liveweight luck money).
• Other charges can also be made for contributions towards transport
and insurance
As far as most abattoirs are concerned the issues involved with such
deductions are ones concerning the ‘terms of trade’ (similar to the view of
some about dressing specifications in sheep) and one of which sellers should
be aware (beware).
The producer groups we spoke to maintained that most plants if asked are ‘up
front’ about what these deductions are, but of the view that it is up to the buyer
to find out (which is one of the services that group marketing provides).
10.6.4 Does the lack of standardisation impact on sheep prices?
The additional issues with sheep prices because of the lack of standardisation
(i.e. in dressing and weighing), means that there are mixed opinions about
their usefulness, even from among large abattoirs in the same group (e.g. the
abattoirs operated by the Grampian Group – St Merryn [who reports cattle
and sheep prices] v Welsh Country Foods [who do not report prices] have
different attitudes).
At the same time EC Regulation 1481/1986 lays down the requirements for
member states to report sheep prices to the EU. This is being done by AHDB
from a small sample of the larger abattoirs that are reporting deadweight
prices but based on a variety of different dressing specifications. With no
involvement of the RPA in the sheep sector to check these prices, there is in
the view of some a question about their credibility!
10.6.5 Is there a problem in accessing price information?
The weekly deadweight cattle and sheep price information is provided to the
industry by AHDB Meat Services Economics, using various media including
recorded telephone message service, email/fax services, industry body
websites and the agricultural press. It is also used in numerous industry
publications and in response to specific industry requests and consultations.
83
AHDB Industry Consulting 2008©
Review Of The EU Carcase Classification System For Beef And Sheep
This information can be provided to the industry at a subsidised rate as a
result of the contracts held with RPA and Defra.
Contract income for deadweight cattle and sheep service is shown in Table 10
below:
Table 10.
Cost of Price Reporting in GB
RPA/Defra contract
value 2007/08
Deadweight
£35,800
cattle
Deadweight
£33,400
sheep
Number
centres
29
7
of Proportion
weekly kill
62%
of
16% (over 30%
of those animals
sold
deadweight)
Source: AHDB MS Economics
However, there was some concern amongst those we interviewed that the
break up of MLC into regional bodies (e.g. EBLEX, QMS, HCC) has led to
greater difficulty in producers (and others) getting access to national price
information (i.e. it was reported that the EBLEX web site only gives regional
English information and not GB averages).
As many producers and their related agents trade livestock on a national
basis this is a problem, and the publication of the prices is not delivering the
market transparency it was set up to do!
84
AHDB Industry Consulting 2008©
Review Of The EU Carcase Classification System For Beef And Sheep
11. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
11.1 Cattle Classification – ‘If It Isn’t Broke Don’t Fix It’
The general view of those interviewed, both abattoirs, producers and the
regulatory bodies was that on the whole the cattle classification system
worked well, and was by and large delivering, particularly for producers, a
trusted basis for the deadweight sale of finished cattle.
However, there was also a view that while the system may be fit for purpose
today, there may be a need for additional measures of quality in the future.
This may also help develop the nature of commercial relationships between
producers and slaughterers.
Two additional carcase attributes were raised most frequently in discussion
during the course of the study:
1. Meat quality, particularly eating characteristics.
2. Meat yield and its objective measurement.
Meat quality
None of the additional quality attributes raised during the course of the study
was very new - they were also considered during the development stages of
the current classification schemes and discarded then due to inadequate
measurement techniques. But technology has moved on, and the ability to
better understand and control various quality attributes in a cost effective
manner is today in some instances greater than when the current schemes
were developed.
However, it is our view that the introduction of techniques to assess quality
attributes is probably best left for adoption by individual businesses (or supply
chains) in response to commercial need, and should not be part of an official
scheme.
Within the context of how the UK and EU beef industry operates it may well be
the case that such ‘eatability’ factors that are currently a part of schemes like
the Australian MSA programme (weight for age, guidelines for enhancing beef
flavour, techniques to optimise tenderness), should remain as part of the
‘quality assurance’ aspects of beef marketing, rather than part of a
classification scheme. The MLC Blueprint for Quality Beef programme could,
for example, be revised to take account of these latest developments.
The science indicates that currently there is unlikely to be any single
technique that will meet the needs of all sections of the industry. In addition
great care will be needed in incorporating such measures in payment systems
for producers, given that qualities being assessed can be markedly influenced
by the processor.
85
AHDB Industry Consulting 2008©
Review Of The EU Carcase Classification System For Beef And Sheep
It was also noted that past attempts to adopt a more quality-oriented approach
through the supply chain have been held back by the separate ownership of
production, slaughtering and processing facilities. Operations are now
becoming increasingly integrated, in some cases reaching back to farm
production level, bringing with them a different management perspective on
quality enhancement.
The EU Commission believes that additional quality-based measurements
could be introduced if/when there is a EU wide need for them and when the
measurements of quality - whatever they may be - are shown to work.
Meat yield
The potential advantages (and some of the disadvantages) of objective or
machine measurement of conformation and fatness have been reviewed
earlier. Methods such as VIA were frequently raised during interviews as a
step forward, bur tellingly, support was stronger among producers than
abattoir operators. Slaughterers perhaps were more conversant with the
practicalities of VIA implementation than producers. The evidence is that the
new methods are at present relatively expensive to install and subject to
technical limitations, principally the measurement of fatness and the potential
for bias.
The expense of installation and operation may not be a problem for the ‘very
large’ cattle abattoirs that supply some of the large multiple supermarkets, but
it would be for the many ‘large/medium’ sized plants in the beef sector that still
account for over 50% of UK cattle slaughter. For them the current system is
both convenient and cost effective and many told us that they would not
contemplate changing to a new system without financial help.
At the same time however, some producers still see a potential benefit,
however small, in replacing what they perceive as the current subjective
means of beef carcase classification in the UK with an objective one, which
they believe rightly or wrongly, could deliver greater consistency within and
between plants, therefore improving confidence in the system. As a result the
pressure to consider and develop alternative systems will continue and the
means of using them to pay on a different basis e.g. on meat yield. The point
has been made earlier, and no apology is given for making it again, that the
present fat and conformation grid system is a perfectly suitable base on which
to superimpose a meat yield payment system, if that is what the whole
industry desires.
The EU Commission does not see any reason to review the legislation to take
account of any new systems of classification until these are more effective
and are being used more widely.
86
AHDB Industry Consulting 2008©
Review Of The EU Carcase Classification System For Beef And Sheep
11.2 Sheep Classification
11.2.1 The method works but its application on an industry basis leaves
a lot to be desired
While some of the aspects of sheep classification, particularly the assessment
of fatness and conformation, were seen to work if carried out by trained
personnel, the overall classification system for finished sheep, particularly
from the point of view of many producers leaves a lot to be desired.
Nationally the sheep carcase classification system was not seen to be
delivering what it should i.e. a trusted/transparent basis for the deadweight
sale of finished sheep between producers and abattoirs. The main reason for
this was seen to be the lack of standardisation of dressing specifications and
weighing and the problems in application and comparison that this caused.
11.2.2 A way forward for sheep classification
To date there have been a number of attempts to tackle the problem of the
lack of standardisation of dressing specification and weighing, through
meetings between representatives of producers and abattoirs, but no real
progress has been achieved.
All the representatives of producers interviewed saw it as a major problem,
which is severely hampering the development (health) of the sheep industry.
Only one producer marketing group we spoke to (a small group) did not see it
as a major issue as they only traded with one abattoir, which they trusted.
Some abattoirs see it as a problem that inhibits competitiveness; others see it
merely as a ‘terms of trade issue’ in the buying/selling of livestock between
the abattoir and the producers, which should be dealt with on a one to one
basis (i.e. ‘let the seller beware’). Other abattoirs maintained that producers
were also not averse to indulging in ‘sharp practice’ (e.g. in the manipulation
of the quality of sheep/lambs in batches), and that abattoirs needed to be able
to manipulate the ‘terms of trade’ to protect themselves.
Given the attitudes in the industry it is difficult to see that the problems with
sheep classification will be resolved by multilateral agreement, so what are
the options for change?
1) To some farmers the only solution was further support for the radical option
that they needed to control the entire supply chain (e.g. learn from the Danish
and New Zealand experience).
2) As with cattle, the government could intervene and establish a more
standard system, carried out by an independent classification body policed by
the RPA. Or it could first try a Northern Irish approach and broker a voluntary
standardisation and supervisory scheme
87
AHDB Industry Consulting 2008©
Review Of The EU Carcase Classification System For Beef And Sheep
3) Introduce standard new technology in the larger plants (e.g. VIA
equipment), which to work properly (given the experience of the trial at Welsh
Country Foods in 2006/07) would need independent calibration and
monitoring and an agreement on the use of standard dressing specification.
However, it has been pointed out that a move to a VIA system that gave
greater standardisation and transparency, still may not benefit all producers.
In a market with decreasing supplies for example, there will still be some who
will be very happy to sell sheep of heterogeneous quality on a flat rate basis.
Similarly, as with cattle such a move may also not be seen as a cost effective
solution for some of the main sheep abattoirs, particularly the large
export/Halal plants that accounted for almost 30% of sheep slaughtering in
2007 (but who by and large do not supply the supermarkets).
Given the nature and structure of the sheep industry it is difficult to envisage a
move towards greater standardisation without some form of legislative
compulsion or incentives to introduce new methods of working.
AHDB IC
CMP/KM/JC
Nov 2008
88
AHDB Industry Consulting 2008©
Review Of The EU Carcase Classification System For Beef And Sheep
REFERENCES
Allen, P. and Finnerty, N. 2000. Objective Beef Carcass Classification – A
report of a trial of three classification systems. The National Food Centre,
Teagasc.
Chadwick, J.P. and Kempster, A.J. 1983. The estimation of beef carcase
composition from subcutaneous fat measurements taken on the intact side
using different probing instruments. J. Agric. Sci.. 101 (1): 241-248.
Charles, D. D. 1964. Classifying Trade Beef by specifications. Aust. Vet. J.
40: 27-31.
EBLEX, HCC, LMCNI and QMS, 2007. An evaluation of the use of video
image analysis to predict the classification and meat yield of sheep
carcases. A report for the Devolved Bodies, E+V and the Welsh Country
Food Group.
EU Commission. 2002.
Report from the Commission to the Council on the implementation of Council
Regulation No. 2137/92 concerning the Community scale for the
classification of carcasses of ovine animals. COM/2002/0295 final.
Fisher, A. V., Tayler, J. C., de Boer, H. and van Adrichem Boogaert, D.H.
(eds.) 1976. Criteria and methods of assessment for Carcass and Meat
characteristics in beef production experiments CEC, Luxembourg (EUR
5489)
Harrington, G., 1973. Some technical problems in developing a beef carcase
classification system. Institute of Meat Bulletin No 80, 21-26.
HMSO, 1930. Report of the First Inter-Departmental Committee [the
Bentinck committee] on the Grading and Marking of Beef. Cmnd. 3548
HMSO, 1932. Report of the Second Inter-Departmental Committee [the
Kirkley Committee] on the Grading and Marking of Beef. Cmnd. 4047
HMSO, 1964. Ministerial statement to Parliament. ‘Marketing of Meat and
Livestock’ Cmnd. 2737
HMSO, 1964. The [Verdon-Smith] Committee of Inquiry into Fatstock and
Carcase Meat Marketing and Distribution. Cmnd. 2282
HMSO, 1967. Agriculture Act of 1967 (Chapter 22)
Kempster, A. J., Cuthbertson, A. and Harrington, G. 1982. Carcase
evaluation in Livestock Breeding, Production and Marketing. Granada
Publishing Ltd
Kempster, A. J.; Chadwick, J. P.; Charles, D. D. 1986. Estimation of the
89
AHDB Industry Consulting 2008©
Review Of The EU Carcase Classification System For Beef And Sheep
carcass composition of different cattle breeds and crosses from fatness
measurements and visual assessments. J. Agric. Sci. 106 (2): 223-237.
MLC, 1972. Press Release 17/72. “Beef Classification Plans announced ”.
MLC, 1980a. Beef Conformation – appealing to eye or pocket? Leaflet. Meat
and Livestock Commission, Bletchley, Bucks.
MLC, 1980b. Commercial Sheep Production Yearbook, 1979 – 1980.
MLC, 1990. A Blueprint for improved consistent quality beef. Milton Keynes,
The Meat and Livestock Commission.
MLC, 1992. A Blueprint for improved consistent quality pork. Milton Keynes,
The Meat and Livestock Commission
MLC, 1994. A Blueprint for lean and tender British lamb. Milton Keynes, The
Meat and Livestock
Morgan, J.B., Savell, J.W., Hale, D.S., Miller, R.K., Griffin, D.B., Cross, H.R
and Shackelford, S.D. 1991. National Beef Tenderness Survey. J. Anim. Sci.
69:3274 – 3283.
Richardson, R. I. 2005. Improving the quality of beef: optimising inputs in
production and processing. The Science of Beef Quality. BSAS Conference,
18/19 May, 2005.
Rius-Vilarrasa, E., Bunger, L., Matthews, K., Maltin, C., Hinz, A. and Roehe,
R. 2007. Evaluation of video image analysis (VIA) technology to predict meat
yield of sheep carcases online under abattoir conditions. Proceedings of the
British Society of Animal Science. Southport, BSAS.
Smith, G. C.1980. Grades for the future: what, why and how? Proc. 33rd
Annual Recip. Meat Congress, June 1980, pp 89-99.
Thompson, N. 2002. Managing Meat Tenderness. Meat Science 62: 295308.
Wheeler, T.L., Cundiff, L.V. and Koch, R.M. 1994. Effect of marbling degree
on beef palatability in Bos Taurus and Bos Indicus cattle. J. Anim. Sci.
72:3145 – 3151.
Wulf, D.M., Morgan, J.B., Tatum, J.D. and Smith, G.C. 1996. Effects of
animal age, marbling score, calpastatin activity, subprimal cut, calcium
injection and degree of doneness on the palatability of steaks from Limousin
steers. J. Anim. Sci. 74:569 – 576.
Yeomans, J., 2008. Lamb Grading
September/October pp 26 – 29.
90
Technologies.
Sheep
Farmer
AHDB Industry Consulting 2008©
Review Of The EU Carcase Classification System For Beef And Sheep
APPENDIX 1
Companies and Organisations Contacted
Producer Organisations and Marketing Groups
Company
Location
Contact
Record
activity
of Responsible
England and Wales
NFU
Stoneleigh
Dylan Morgan
024 7685 8638
Letter sent 25/6
Interview 9/9
MP,CC
EBLEX
Huntingdon/
Winterhill
Nick Allen
Interview 18/6
KM, CC,MP
HCC
Aberystwyth
Dewi Hughes
07779 325367
Interview 23/7
MP, JC
RPA
Carlisle
Ian McTurk + Interview 29/9
six others
MP, JC
Bob McEwan
Interviewed
MP
Peter Morris
1st contact May
Letter sent 26/6
Interview 8/9
MP
NBA
Kim
Marie Letter sent 25/6
Haywood
Interviewed
MP
FUW
Fenwick
Interview 23/7
MP
StratfordMeadow
Quality (formerly upon-Avon,
Meadow
Valley Warwickshire
Interview 2/10
MP
North Country
farmers group
Information
received 9/10
MP
Interview 11/9
MP
RPA Scottish Inverurie
Executive,
Rural
Directorate
Malvern
NSA
Livestock)
May Hill Lamb Gloucester
Producers
Group
Mike Credland
South
Farmers
Richard
Interview 22/7
Haddock & SW
NFU
West
91
MP,JC
AHDB Industry Consulting 2008©
Review Of The EU Carcase Classification System For Beef And Sheep
BPA
Stuart Roberts
Interview 12/9
KM,MP
AIMS
Norman Bagley
Interview 20/8
JC
Andy McGowan
Contacted, Intro MP
meeting 12/6
Scotland
QMS
Edinburgh
Contacted,
info MP
received 17/10
NFUS
Northern Ireland – See programme details
David Wright + Interview 6/8
four others
DARD
LMC
KM,CC
KM,CC
Contacted
meeting arranged
wk com. 4/8
Belfast
Ulster Farmers
Union
David
Thompson
Interview + letter KM,CC
1/9
NI
producer
group
/
cooperative
Fane
See Linden Foods
Brussels
EU
Commission
Animal
Products Unit
Frank
Bollen Interview
Administrator
31/7
30- MP,KM
Carl Green –
Seconded
National Expert
92
AHDB Industry Consulting 2008©
Review Of The EU Carcase Classification System For Beef And Sheep
Abattoirs Consulted
Abattoirs
Company
Location
Beef
and
Sheep
Beef
Only
Sheep
Only
Large
Medium
Medium
/Small
<75
Record
of
activity
England and Wales
ABP
Birmingham
✔
Shrewsbury
✔
Ellesmere
✔
Great
Harwood
Perth
✔
York
✔
✔
✔
Colne
Woodhead/
Morrisons
Pinchbeck
WCF
Grampian
++Jaspers
✔
✔
Langport
++Southern
Counties
/
RHM
Woodhead
Bros
Interview
23/7
✔
/ Gaerwen
Launceston
✔
Treburley
✔
No
response,
replaced by
St Merryn
✔
Interview
Aug
✔
✔
Interview
Aug
✔
✔
Letter sent
✔
✔
Interview
24/7
✔
Cig Cybn
Caernavon
✔
Hewitt
Chester
✔
✔
Interview
Aug
✔
✔
Interview
22/7
++Snells
Tatworth
/ Dorset
✔
Interview
Aug
la ✔
✔
Interview
1/10
Oldham
✔
✔
Interview
Aug
Gloucester
✔
✔
Interview
Aug
Pickstocks
Ashby
Zouch
J & B Fitton
Ensors
de
93
AHDB Industry Consulting 2008©
Review Of The EU Carcase Classification System For Beef And Sheep
Sargeants
Uttoxeter
Jagger Green
Hall
✔
✔
Interview
2/10
✔
✔
Interview
Aug
Jewitt
Spennymore
✔
St Merryn*
Launceston
✔
✔
✔
✔
Bodmin
Merthyr Tydfil
Letter sent
–
no
response replaced
Interview +
telephone
discussion
23- 25/7
✔
Scotland
*McIntosh
Donald/Gram
pian
Aberdeen
✔
✔
Munro
*Scotch
Premier
✔
Inverurie
✔
Dornoch
A
Vivers
Annan
Mathers
Inverurie
✔
Orkney Meat
Orkney
✔
Interview
18/9
✔
✔
Letter sent
Replied
✔
Interview
17/9
✔
ditto
Letter
sent,
taken over by
Scotbeef
during
fieldwork
period,
replaced with
Mathers
✔
✔
Interview
17/9
✔
Letter sent
Replied
Northern Ireland
Dungannon
**Linden
Foods
(now
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
Interview
4/8
own Whitley Bay
Meats in Tyne &
Wear, also part
of Fane a NI
producer co-op)
**Dunbia
Dungannon
(Also own 3
plants
in
England
and
Wales)
94
Interview
5/8
AHDB Industry Consulting 2008©
Review Of The EU Carcase Classification System For Beef And Sheep
APPENDIX 2
Extent of Classification in the EU 2007
Member State No.
of No.
of No.
of No.
of No.
of Average Carcases
abattoirs carcases licensed
inspectors control
no. of
checked
classifying classified classifiers for
visits
control as % of
BCC
to abattoirs visits per total
abattoir classified
Belgium
33
496,555
120
6
458
13.9
2.7
Bulgaria
4
8,913
5
4
14
3.5
3
Czech Rep
70
170,163
184
11
745
10.6
8.8
Denmark
8hc
193,546ac 41
0.5
230hc
28.8hc
4.2hc
3ac
267,372ac 0
0.5
94ac
31.3ac
1.4ac
Estonia
3
30,442
7
1
27
9
3.2
Germany
160
2,539,097 282
42
1134
7.1
2.8
Greece
64
147,556
83
83
316
4.9
5.8
Spain
274
1,526,188 689
74
1420
5.2
1.6
2,150,486h
France
242hc
580
62hc
1631hc
6.7hc
1.3hc
c
1,329,438a
28ac
0
40ac
321ac
11.5ac
0.9ac
c
ROI
7hc
108,398hc 95
8hc
49hc
7.0hc
2.4hc
1,579,988a
25ac
0
8ac
183ac
7.3ac
1.1ac
c
Italy
225
1,641,360 921
172
824
3.7
1.9
Cyprus
1
17,348
3
3
4
4
0.9
Latvia
9
44,661
20
8
69
7.7
5.1
Lithuania
14
200,353
41
5
204
14.6
3.6
Luxembourg 3
23,186
6
3
9
3
0.8
Hungary
42
120,889
52
5
209
5
2.5
Malta
1
4,247
1
1
n.a.
n.a
0
Netherlands 9
481,592
39
4
87
9.7
0.9
Austria
148
521,968
95
4
624
4.2
0.6
Poland
61
826,877
129
13
564
9.2
2.7
Portugal
40
281,167
59
7
157
3.9
2.1
Romania
64
122,787
45
10
153
2.4
3.9
Slovenia
14
99,227
16
3
89
6.4
2.8
Slovakia
65
76,429
150
3
86
1.3
1.5
Finland
12
256,777
46
3
137
11.4
2.8
Sweden
46
419,000
145
3
267
5.8
2.3
UK
86
2,261,668 174
12
803
12
1.2
EU-27
1,761
17,947,678 4,028
599
10,908
1.9
Source: EU Commission
Notes:
hc: human classification
ac: Automated Classification
Sources:
Member states 2007
End of report
95
AHDB Industry Consulting 2008©
Review Of The EU Carcase Classification System For Beef And Sheep
96
AHDB Industry Consulting 2008©