BANFF, Alta. – Beef producers are not paid fairly for individual carcass quality, says long-time beef consultant Charlie Gracey.
He told the Alberta Cattle Feeders Association annual meeting that technology exists to provide accurate carcass data so producers get proper value for every animal sold.
Complete information on individual carcasses can be obtained by combining the expertise of human graders, computer vision systems for measuring salable meat yield, and national individual identification.
“By making wider and better use of this value-added information, we can advance this industry more rapidly and more efficiently than ever before,” said Gracey, former manager of the Canadian Cattlemen’s Association and consultant to the Canadian Cattle Identification Agency.
Read Also
Alberta eases water access for riparian restoration
Alberta government removes requirement for temporary diversion licence to water plants up to 100 cubic metres per day for smaller riparian restoration projects
Feedlots generally know which cattle performed best, but rarely give that information to the calf producer.
Canadian carcass assessments include quality grades and yields, which are the most important pieces of information in determining carcass value.
Human graders assess quality grades of AAA, AA and A and measure yield, into one of three yield classes.
Yield grade one means a meat yield of 59 percent or better. In 2002, 62 percent of carcasses fit that category.
Yield grade two is 54-58 percent. Nearly 27 percent of all carcasses fell into that category. A yield grade three is 53 percent or less. Less than 10 percent of carcasses fell into that category.
On average, about half of Canadian cattle grade AAA, while 45 percent are AA and 2.2 percent are A. Only about one percent achieves the top grade of Canada Prime.
“What good is a grade if it has 60 percent of the carcasses in it?”
Gracey said the Canadian system needs more yield categories to sort the best carcasses and reward producers.
He said yields should be measured by computer vision systems that assess yield in terms of percentage rather than a wide ranging single category.
Companies like Cargill Foods use the computer system to measure carcass traits, but results are not generally reported back to producers.
A computerized assessment could be returned to producers using the national identification numbers. Producers could use the results to make comparisons for future production decisions.
Gracey argued that fair prices occur when both sides have the same information. Now the packers possess the carcass value information, while producers sell for a group average price.
Quality grids pay participants on the basis of where the animals fall in certain quality parameters. There are also heavy discounts for those who do not meet the specifications.
Gracey said the grids are primitive because they offer a base price according to the previous week’s average cash price paid for live cattle.
He suggested a negotiated base price should be set, which is then multiplied by the yield percentage to achieve a pure price.
“We must be prepared to talk about how we can make things better for the industry,” he said.
He wants to see research that tries to determine whether more value can be analyzed and rewarded.
Such information could resolve the problem of overweight cattle. Producers are paid on the basis of weight, with no penalties for overweight cattle, which means there is no incentive to change.
