Beef Quality Improvements — 1955-2005
Contributing Factors to Changes in Beef Quality

Cattle performance and efficiency are metrics that can be quantified and evaluated, with a good degree of precision, over time. Beef quality, on the other hand, depends largely on subjective metrics such as flavor, odor, color, juiciness, texture, and tenderness. Consistency of these factors across the entire beef supply and over time is also an important measure of quality. Although there are some objective measurements (ex. — the Warner-Bratzler sheer test for tenderness) for meat quality, it remains to a great extent a very subjective area. Since quality and value are related, a system that measures quality and rewards those who produce a better quality product would seem to be desirable. In the U.S., the USDA beef-grading system has been used as a means of evaluating beef carcasses since 1927⁶⁴. The marketplace then has the job of assigning different values to the USDA grades. While not a perfect system, it is the industry standard. However, until recently, little research and technology has been applied to the USDA grading system.

The USDA grading system used by the packing industry is a fee-based, voluntary system. As such, not all cattle that are federally inspected are assigned USDA quality and yield grades. USDA grades are determined largely by marbling in the rib-eye muscle and the apparent age of the animal. Since marbling was easy to determine in packing plants and was the major factor in the grading system, it became a focus, or target, for beef producers. Choice and Prime beef thus became industry standards for cattle and beef. Most beef that was identified by plant personnel that had marbling scores sufficient to meet Choice or higher was submitted for USDA grading, while carcasses with less marbling were usually marketed through “house” grades or as “no roll,” ungraded beef. Packers generally found it more profitable to market beef with only a slight degree of marbling under a “house” grade or as “no roll.”

From the mid-1950s through the late 1980s, the percentage of federally inspected beef that was USDA graded remained unchanged and ranged from 50 percent to 60 percent. However, during this same period, the percentage of graded beef tonnage that was Prime or Choice, increased from 57 percent in 1956 to a peak of nearly 98 percent, primarily because the percentage of beef that was voluntarily graded rather than a true change in the percentage of Prime and Choice beef as part of total beef production. This began to change in November 1987, when USDA renamed the USDA Good grade to USDA Select. This name change provided nomenclature that became widely accepted in marketing this grade of beef. Prime and Choice graded beef as a percentage of total beef production has actually changed only slightly since the mid-1960s, ranging between 40 percent to 55 percent.

In 1965, to identify beef carcasses with excess waste fat, the USDA also established five ”cutability” or yield grades as part of the beef grading system⁶⁵. Yield grade 1 carcasses have about 75 percent  to 76 percent whereas yield grade 5 carcasses have 60 percent to 61 percent closely trimmed retail product.

From 1984 to 2003, the percentage of federally inspected beef that was presented for USDA grading increased from 65 percent to 96 percent. USDA grading of beef has become more prevalent for several reasons, including more cattle that are sold on a dressed or formula basis and the fact that the Select grade of beef has become a major portion of the beef sold through retail supermarkets. As a result, from the late-1980s through present time, graded beef has broadened to include USDA Select beef, along with the long-standing grades of Prime and Choice. Generally, the price spread between Choice and Select has increased as more Select beef has been presented for grading (Figure 13). The spike in the price premium for Choice in 2003 is likely a result of the unusual conditions surrounding the trade disruptions caused by the discovery of BSE in Canada in May of that year. It is also likely that the recent increase in beef demand has played a role in the increased value of Choice relative to Select grade beef. The view that the extremely wide spread of 2003 was an aberration is bolstered by the fact that the June 25, 2004, Choice-Select price spread was back down to a more typical $5.78.

Figure 13 — Choice-Select Price Spread⁶⁶

USDA Choice Grade-Select Grade Price Spread

Some of the year-to-year changes in grading percentages can be accounted for by cyclical changes in the proportion of cows and bulls in the total beef tonnage. The majority of beef produced from these two classes of cattle is largely from cattle that are not grain fed. From the peak in total cattle and cow numbers that occurred in 1975, the percentage of beef production from cows and bulls has declined from 26 percent during 1975 to only 14 percent of domestic beef supplies during 2000 and about 16 percent in 2003⁶⁷ (Figure 14).

Figure 14

Percent of Beef Production from Cows and Bulls

It became apparent over the years that USDA grades accomplished the objective of differentiating carcasses based on marbling and maturity but the system did not accurately predict which carcasses would produce beef of acceptable palatability and tenderness and those that would not. It became evident that the target needed to change to meet consumer expectations and their perception of quality. While the USDA grades have served to standardize the beef trade in the U.S., their relation to the eating qualities of beef, namely tenderness, taste and juiciness, is marginal at best, especially within the Select and Choice grades.

While increasing USDA grade increases the probability of consumer-acceptable beef (Select, 74 percent; Choice, 89 percent; and Prime, 94 percent), the Choice grade still had 11 percent beef that was unacceptable and 74 percent of Select was acceptable. If marbling is to remain the basis for USDA grades, then grades should be structured to reflect the “window of acceptability” for fat content in the rib-eye muscle, namely 3 percent to 7 percent fat, or slight to moderate marbling, or the lower range of Select to the high range of Choice⁶⁸. Also, there is not good agreement between the subjective estimate of maturity used in grading beef, namely ossification of the chine bones, and dentition, another accepted measure of an animal's age⁶⁹.

The shift in industry focus from cattle meeting USDA grade specifications to addressing the tenderness and palatability of beef stemmed from industry and university research. Recent research that compared beef tenderness in 1999 to that of 1990 indicates that there was a 20 percent increase in beef tenderness⁷⁰. Some branded beef programs and alliances are requiring at least a minimum of English cattle breed genetics and some limit the influence of Bos Indicus breeds. These “branded” beef products with various claims of consumer satisfaction have been developed in an attempt to capture market share by providing a specified product. Several large retail supermarkets have already implemented branded beef programs with guaranteed tender beef. Muscle profiling will further aid in the development of beef products with specified eating qualities.

As tenderness measurement systems become faster and more accurate, and DNA testing allows producers to select for tenderness, beef products will become more consistent and will better meet consumer demand. This new technology can only help increase the value of beef by better enabling producers to match the beef they are producing to what the customer is demanding.

We conclude that, as measured by USDA grades, there has been little change in overall grain-fed beef quality over the past 50 years. However, the overall quality of the total beef supply has increased due to significant increases in the proportion of U.S. beef that is produced in feedlots. Furthermore, we cannot find a strong relationship, either positive or negative, between the use of pharmaceutical technologies and the eating quality of beef. Because implants increase lean meat growth, their use will often result in leaner USDA yield grades and somewhat lower marbling. The industry has tended to compensate for this, however, by feeding cattle to an equal degree of finish. Assuming a 10 percent improvement in feed efficiency but a decrease in the proportion of Choice carcasses from 60 percent to 40 percent due to implants, the break-even spread between Choice and Select would have to be $8, $10, $12, $15 or $18 at diet costs of $100, $125, $150, $175 or $200 per ton, respectively⁷¹. Since the Choice/Select spread has typically ranged between $4 and $8, it is obvious that the feed efficiency improvement from implants more than compensates for any decrease in the percent of Choice carcasses. Many studies have shown, however, that the eating qualities of beef from implanted cattle are not altered by implant use.

Regardless of any impact on USDA quality grades, to the extent that pharmaceutical technologies have enabled us to economically grain-feed an increasing proportion of our total beef supply, they have indirectly increased the overall quality of our beef supply. The ability to harvest most beef animals at a much younger age, and with feedlot finishing, has been significantly aided by availability of these technologies.

⁶⁴USDA. Official United States standards for grades of carcass beef. Service and Regulatory Announcements C&MS 99. June 1926.
⁶⁵USDA. Official United States standards for grades of carcass beef. Service and Regulatory Announcements C&MS 99. June 1965.
⁶⁶USDA, ERS. Livestock and Meat Situation and Livestock, Dairy and Poultry. 1980-2004.
⁶⁷USDA, NASS. Livestock Slaughter. 1975-2004.
⁶⁸Savell, J.W. and H.R. Cross. The role of fat in the palatability of beef, pork, and lamb. In: Designing Foods;
Animal Product Options in the Market Place. Natl. Academy Press, Washington, D.C. 1988.
⁶⁹Lawrence, T.E., J.D. Whatley, T.H. Montgomery and L.J. Perino. A comparison of the USDA ossification- based maturity system to a system based on dentition. J. Anim. Sci. 79:1683. 2001.
⁷⁰NCBA. 1999 National Beef Tenderness Survey. 1999.
⁷¹Preston, R. Implant strategies. Nebraska/Colorado Cattle Feeder’s Day. December 11, 1996.