1 AMS - Beefcarcassrevisions

From: Cline, Kyle <KCline@infarmbureau.org>

Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2014 1:26 PM

To: AMS - Beefcarcassrevisions Subject: IFB Comment for AMS-LPS-14-0052 U.S. Standards for Grades of Carcass Beef
Attachments: IFB Comment on Doc. No. AMS-LPS-14-0052 U.S. Standards for Grades of Carcass Beef
FINAL.docx

Importance: High

Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged

Hello,

Please find our official comment for the Do. No. AMS

‐ LPS

‐ 14

‐ 0052 U.S. Standards for Grades of Carcass Beef proposal
attached.

Thank you.

Best,

Kyle

Kyle P. Cline Policy Advisor, National Government Relations
Indiana Farm Bureau Office: (317) 692-7845 Mobile: (317) 502-7415 kcline@infarmbureau.org

This email is intended solely for the named address ee(s) and may be confidenti al or contain privileged information. Review, disclosure, copy ing, distribution, or use of this em ail by anyone other than an intended recipient is strictly prohibited. If you received this email in error, please delete it from your system and notify the sender immediately. While precautions have been taken to help ensure no computer viru ses are present, there is a risk whenever transmitting emails or downloa ding attachments. The sender will not be liable for any loss or damage resulting from any ma lware in this communication or for improper or incomplete transmission
of its contents or for a ny delay in its receipt.Indiana Farm Bureau Inc. 225 S. East Street • P.O. Box 1290 • Indianapolis, IN 46206 Telephone: (317) 692

- 7851 Toll Free: (800) 327

- 6287
Fax : (317) 692

- 7854 Internet: www.infarmbureau.org November 13, 2014

Beef Carcass Revisions, Standardization Branch, LPS Program AMS, USDA 1400 Independence Ave., SW.,
STOP 0258 Washington, D.C. 20250

RE: Docket No. AMS

- LPS

- 14

- 0052

Dear Director Whalen,

On behalf of the Indiana Farm Bureau and our 72,000 farmer members, w e would like to thank you for the opportunity to comment on the United States Standards for Grades of Carcass Beef (Doc.

No. AMS

- LPS

- 14

- 0052) proposal as written by the USDA Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS). This comment is meant to express our suppor t of the proposed changes to this process, specifically regarding the maturity classification system and the revision for calculating yield grade (YG).

As you may be aware, the policy development process within the American Farm Bureau Federation

is held to the highest standards of democratic discourse and grassroots involvement of our farmer members. Each year, our members are involved in shaping the policy direction of our organization and delegates confirm these positions after consensus is reached. The American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF) policy on the issue of livestock grading supports changes to grading standards “if scientific research shows that changes will provide leaner, more acceptable beef, lamb and pork that will benefit consumers, proce ssors and producers.”

After a review of the proposed U.S. Standards for Grades of Carcass Beef, the Indiana Farm Bureau believes that ample scientific evidence exists to support AMS proposed changes to beef grading and that such changes would make appropri ate changes to the grading process that better reflect modern agriculture and benefit cattle producers.

First, under the proposed changes, steers and heifers classed as 30 months of age or younger based on dentition would receive maturity classification A, even if skeletal characteristics (bone ossification) is consistent with maturity classification B. This proposed change is based on recent research indicating that meat from steers and heifers 30 months of age and under exhibits sensory

characteristics consistent with maturity classification A regardless of skeletal characteristics.

Second, the proposal would revise the formula for calculating yield grade (YG) from hot carcass weight and longissimus muscle area (LMA). The current formula for calculat ing YG on beef carcasses was developed in the 1960s. Over the years, cattle genetics and feeding practices have changed dramatically. Of most direct relevance on this issue is the fact that carcasses are, onaverage, much heavier than they were when thes e calculations were developed. Research indicates

that the current formula systematically underestimates retail meat yield from heavier carcasses, leading to more of these carcasses being classed as YG 4s and 5s.

It appears that both of these potential changes would likely benefit producers selling cattle on quality/yield grids by reducing the number of YG 4s and 5s and hard

- boned cattle, which generally

receive substantial discounts. At the same time, the changes are supported by a significant body of research indicating that meat quality and consumer eating experience would not be compromised. Because of these observations and supporting scientific evidence, we express our support for this proposal and the changes.

Sincerely,

Kyle Cline National Policy Advisor
Indiana Farm Bureau