1

AMS - Beefcarcassrevisions

From: Garmyn, Andrea <andrea.garmyn@ttu.edu>

Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2014 1:03 PM

To: AMS - Beefcarcassrevisions

Subject: Revisions to Beef Grading Standards

Attachments: USDA comment for grade change.docx

Follow Up Flag: Follow up

Flag Status: Flagged

To whom it may concern:

In response to the press release seeking revisions to beef grading standards, please find the attached

comments.  Other faculty within the Meat Science and Muscle Biology program at Texas Tech have read and

reviewed these comments, but this is not necessarily an official comment from Texas Tech nor does

it necessarily reflect their opinions.  Thank you for your consideration.

  

Regards,

Andrea

  

Andrea Garmyn, Ph.D. 

Research Assistant Professor 

Texas Tech University 

Department of Animal and Food Sciences 

MS 42141 

Meat Lab 102 

Lubbock, TX 79409 

NZ Cell: +64 21 806 950

Right-click here to download 

pictures. To help protect your 

privacy, Outlook prevented 

auto matic downlo ad o f this 

picture from the Internet.

Cell: +1 785-410-4618

Right-click here to download 

pictures. To help protect your 

privacy, Outlook prevented 

auto matic downlo ad o f this 

picture from the Internet.

Office: +1 806-834-6559

Right-click here to download 

pictures. To help protect your 

privacy, Outlook prevented 

auto matic downlo ad o f this 

picture from the Internet.

Fax: +1 806-742-4003

Right-click here to download 

pictures. To help protect your 

privacy, Outlook prevented 

auto matic downlo ad o f this 

picture from the Internet.
1. Historic changes to the Standards for Grades of Carcass Beef were made to improve 

consistency and uniformity within particular quality grades and typically reflect 

results from (then) current research. According to the two most recent National 

Beef Quality Audits (NBQA; Garcia et al., 2008; McKeith et al., 2012), approximately 

97% of cattle presented for slaughter over the past 10 years would have been 

classified as less than 30 mo of age according to dentition. Although several 

indigenous and exogenous factors can affect the rate of physiological maturity, the 

latest NBQA (Moore et al., 2012) indicated about 7% of cattle graded showed 

advanced overall maturity (B – E maturity), leaving some disparity between 

chronological and physiological age of beef. Previous research by Lawrence et al. 

(2001) has shown dental classification is not a good indicator of tenderness. 

Recently, Acheson et al. (2014) demonstrated LM tenderness, assessed both by 

shear force and trained panellists, was not impacted by overall carcass maturity, 

provided cattle were grain-finished and less than 30 mo of age. These results 

suggest and we recommend reconsideration of the 1997 change disallowing Select 

grade in B maturity. In addition we recommend lowering the marbling required for 

Choice within B maturity, but maintain that marbling should increase progressively 

with evidences of advancing maturity. 

2. Due to general lack of differences among quality grades, particularly Prime and Top 

Choice, in recent National Beef Tenderness Surveys (Brooks et al., 2000; Voges et al., 

2007; Guelker et al., 2013) and independent research (O’Quinn et al., 2012), we also 

recommend lowering the minimum marbling requirement for Prime. 

3. Lastly, due to the growing market share of specialized beef production systems, 

special consideration should be given to beef generated from grass-fed systems. 

Although carcasses may meet the same requirements as grain-fed beef, eating 

experiences can often differ within similar quality grades, which may leave 

consumers impressed, confused, or disappointed depending on their expectations. 

Many grass-fed cattle do not achieve USDA Choice or better status, and generally 

have a lower range of marbling scores. Therefore, as a means of distinguishing 

grass-fed beef from grain-finished beef and subsequently ranking or categorizing 

grass-fed beef, an alternative grading model should be considered. This may need to 

focus more on meat color, pH, and ossification, with less emphasis on marbling, but 

could also incorporate some type of tenderness certification.