|
A decade ago, when beef demand was
still limping through 20 years of decline, the Chuck and
Round—about two-thirds of a carcass by weight—were dragging
carcass values through the economic rut, losing significant
value, even as the easier-to-sell middle meats garnered higher
prices.
In other words, consumers were
only willing to buy less beef for less money, and significantly
less money for most of the beef carcass—the Chuck and Round.
Beef quality and consistency was part of it. More than anything,
though, with beef checkoff dollars and the right experts, cattle
producers figured out new, more consistently tender cuts existed
within the parts of the carcass traditionally regarded as being
the toughest. Changing fabrication methods meant new products
that have since taken the retail world by storm. Think of the
Flat Iron Steak.
“Cattle-Fax estimates that the
first group of value cuts, led by the Flat Iron and the Petite
Tender, added $50 to $60 a head to the value of the chuck, so we
know from experience how popular products can affect our bottom
line,” says Mark Pendleton from Lawsonville, North Carolina.
He’s a backgrounder and stocker operator who is a Cattlemen’s
Beef Board (CBB) member and vice chair of the CBB Joint New
Product and Culinary Initiatives Committee. He was reviewing the
added value the industry captured through its Beef Value Cuts
Program by re-inventing how parts of the carcass are fabricated
and marketed.
In April this year, CBB announced
five new cuts from the Chuck which promise to capture consumer’s
hearts as much as the Flat Iron and Petitie Tender. They
include:
- The Delmonico Steak (Chuck Eye
Steak)—Extremely tender and juicy; exceptional beef flavor and
taste similar to a Ribeye
- The Denver Cut—Tender,
flavorful, versatile; the fourth most tender muscle; perfectly
marbled for a restaurant-quality steak experience
- America’s Beef Roast—Great
beef flavor; dry roast application; an impressive roast that
is affordable and simple to prepare
- Boneless Country-Style Beef
Chuck Ribs—Flavorful, juicy, meaty and tender; these meaty
boneless ribs are extremely convenient and perfect for
backyard cookouts
- Country-Style Beef
Roast—Fully-cooked; a premium, flavorful roast that is perfect
for time-challenged families; great with barbecue sauce
“Expanding the chuck cuts line is
among the checkoff-funded tools aimed at reaching the industry’s
Long Range Plan goal to increase beef demand another 10 percent
by 2010,” says Pendleton. “Not only are the new cuts ideal for
consumers, but good news for producers.”
New Cuts and Quality, Too
Understand, the Beef Value Cuts effort only scratches the
surface of what the nation’s cattle producers have accomplished
with their own money via the nation’s beef checkoff that began
in 1987.
Carcass value has been preserved
and consumer beef eating satisfaction has increased through the
National Beef Quality Audits (NBQA) funded by the beef checkoff.
For instance, compared to the first NBQA in 1991, losses from
quality grading have been reduced, as well as those due to
branding. On the non-fed front, value lost to bruising has been
reduced significantly. As always, the latest fed cattle audit
provides a benchmark for continued improvement, too. The latest
one underscores the opportunity to reduce losses stemming from
carcasses that are too heavy and weight and yield grades that
are too inferior.
“The audit results prove
producers are doing things right to improve beef quality — and
the findings support the idea that improved quality has a
positive impact on beef demand and our bottom line,” said Ran
Smith, a Kansas veterinarian and chair of the checkoff-funded
Quality Assurance Advisory Board when the audit was published.
Based on the audit, the checkoff-funded
Beef Quality Assurance (BSA) program targeted five specific
education efforts to improve quality: the effects of animal
health product use; quality assurance in care, handling and
transportation; marketing opportunities; herd management actions
that affect quality and record-keeping practices.
Similarly, the checkoff-funded
2005 National Beef Tenderness Survey—the third since
1990—concluded that increased aging times, slower chill rates
and a jump in branded beef programs are among the reasons beef
tenderness has increased 18% percent since 1999.
“The science, much of which has been provided by the beef
checkoff, has allowed branded beef programs to deliver
consistently tender and palatable beef—despite variation in
marbling and quality grade,” explained Glen Dolezal, vice chair
of the CBB Joint Product Enhancement Research Committee at the
time.
Assurance from Pasture to Plate
The fact that there are Beef Quality Assurance programs in most
states—there are 43 certified state Beef Quality Assurance
advisors nationwide—is one reason much of the industry was
dismayed by the egregious animal welfare violations at
Hallmark-Westland Meat Packing earlier this year. Beef cattle
producers who take BQA seriously—which includes animal welfare
and transportation guidelines—were shocked that anyone would
load and haul cattle that shouldn’t have been, let alone what
happened at the packing plant.
“BQA is a process of figuring out what could go wrong, planning
to avoid it – then validating and documenting what you have
done. BQA is just part of good business,” explains Dee Griffin,
DVM, associate professor at the University of Nebraska’s Great
Plains Veterinary Education Center, on the BQA webpage,
www.bqa.org,
“The BQA Manual is the overarching guideline that provides
consistency across the state programs. It provides good
production practices to guarantee the quality of beef products.”
Over time, the focus of BQA has
moved from identifying problems to preventing them, from
correcting problems to enhancing beef quality. Nationally, BQA
is funded by the checkoff.
Most recently, the national BQA program and the Livestock
Marketing Association (LMA) released a BQA training guide for
auction markets.
“The goal was to create a tool
that would help market owners and managers have a conversation
about BQA and correct animal handling with their market staff
and to take a look at their own practices,” says Kristen
Hendricks, vice president of membership services for LMA. “We
feel that livestock auction markets have a good story to tell
about their BQA and animal handling practices but there is
always room for more education and a renewed focus on this very
important issue.”
All that Other Stuff
Never mind the advertising and promotion funded by the checkoff.
Forget key research in food safety areas such as E. Coli funded
by the checkoff. Ignore checkoff-funded PR, like the BSE
emergency response that prevented what could have been a
consumer disaster. The list goes on.
“No checkoff-funded program more
clearly impacts outcomes than the vital areas of research –
safety, product enhancement, human nutrition and market
research,” says Keith Hansen, M.S., chair of the Joint Research
& Knowledge Management group of committees and nutritionist with
Nutrition Service Associates, Texas. “By relying on checkoff
research to guide program decisions, the industry tries to avoid
wasting resources. By relying on research to support
communications, the industry helps raise consumer confidence.
Most important, by making research the basis of all decisions,
the industry can be assured that the safest, most healthful,
high quality beef product reaches the global marketplace.
“Checkoff-funded research continues to be the cornerstone
supporting all other industry programs and initiatives,”
concludes Hansen. “And we plan to keep working together to build
a prosperous industry well into the future.”
You can find a complete listing
of checkoff-funded programs at
www.beefboard.org.
In sum, based on an in-depth
analysis by Ron Ward (University of Florida) in 2004, every $1
paid into the checkoff is returning $5-$6 in value.
That’s surely a key reason the
majority of beef producers continue to support the program.
Based upon the most recent semi-annual survey conducted by an
independent research firm, 7 in 10 producers approve of the
program. According to CBB, approval rates for the past five
years have ranged between 68% and 73%.
When results of the survey were
released in February, Richard Nielson, a producer from Ephraim,
Utah, and chair of the Joint Producer Communications Committee
explained that while economic conditions influence producers’
outlook toward their industry, over time those conditions have
had little effect upon their approval levels regarding the
checkoff. “These surveys establish benchmarks and identify areas
of focus for future communications planning,” says Nielson. “In
addition, the results of this survey help guide program
recommendations of the producer communications committee. Our
ultimate goal is to develop a plan of work for communicating
information about Beef Checkoff Program investments to the beef
and dairy producers, and importers who pay the checkoff, with
particular emphasis on providing clear, consistent and
no-nonsense answers to producer questions.”
Keep in mind, the returns that
continue to garner producer support are still occurring, despite
the fact that program costs continue to increase, while the
checkoff assessment of $1 per head has remained the same. Plus,
few cattle means fewer transactions which means fewer checkoff
dollars. Fiscal year assessments in 2007 totaled $43.7 million;
assessment revenue was $45.6 million in 1997.
That’s why producers are
pondering an increase in the check-off assessment. Some states
have already increased it—the portion that remains in the
state—in order to have more research and promotion dollars.
In keeping with the grass-roots
nature of the producer-funded self-help program that is the beef
check-off, the CBB is gathering producer input about the current
assessment and other potential changes to the checkoff program.
“As the program administrator,
the Beef Board is authorized by USDA to provide information to
the Secretary that could be used to improve the program after 20
years of operation. So, the Board is asking industry
organizations for their suggestions before it completes its
report,” says Dave Bateman, a fourth-generation farmer-feeder
from Oregon, Illinois, who is CBB chairman.
According to Bateman, the CBB
will request suggested improvements from more than 100 national
industry organizations, state beef councils, certified
nominating organizations and national breed associations. The
information gathered will come back to the Beef Board for
analysis by the officers before turning it over to CBB’s
Administrative Subcommittee. The Administrative Subcommittee
will take the information, make recommendations to bring to the
Beef Board Executive Committee, which will report to the
Secretary. The recommendation process is to be completed by Nov.
30, 2008.
Bateman notes that should
producers make any significant changes to the Act and the
Order—the legislation behind the checkoff—such as agreeing to
increase the per-head assessment after more than two decades,
producers would have to vote on this change. If an increase were
to be approved, producers at the CBB and state beef councils
would carefully analyze where additional funds would have the
biggest impact and produce the most benefit to the industry.
“The ultimate goal is to meet the
needs of the marketplace through the Beef Checkoff Program and
meet our obligations to producers in terms of giving them the
most bang for their dollar invested,” says Bateman. |
