Grading System

The Agriculture Act of 1947 introduced a fatstock guarantee scheme which required information on market prices so a deficiency payment (i.e. a direct support) could be paid to producers of products that met a certain standard.

The visual assessment of whether an animal met the required standards
became known as “grading”.

In 1964, a UK Government inquiry recommended the establishment of an agency responsible for the design, introduction and operation of carcase classification schemes for cattle, sheep and pigs, along with the dissemination of live and deadweight prices to producers. The aim was to address what the inquiry described as 'poor market intelligence and almost non-existent price information'.

Accordingly, the Meat and Livestock Commission (MLC) was established, and a pig carcase classification scheme was introduced in 1972. This was followed by a beef scheme in 1974, with a sheep scheme following in 1975.

Across Europe similar developments took place, and the various national schemes set up finally came together when the European Commission established the Beef Classification Scheme, which introduced the EUROP grid, in 1981. This was done to deliver a core part of a market management process and became mandatory in 1992.

This meant that the European Commission had a common system of price reporting and allowed the introduction of Guide Prices and Intervention Prices, which were the triggers for the opening of private storage aid and intervention buying.

A similar regulation was introduced for sheep by the Commission in 1992. however, it remains voluntary.

This glance at the history books highlights a fundamental issue relating to the purpose of price reporting and carcase grading. Is it a mechanism to underpin agricultural support or to communicate information on market and consumer requirements? If it is the latter, does the system deliver in its current form?

In an unsupported industry, it could be argued there is no need for price reporting, so what information do we require? And is there a distinction to be made between “price reporting” and “quality of carcase” reporting?

In theory, a better-quality carcase which delivers what the consumer wants should have more value than a poorer-quality carcase, but for a producer the maximum revenue may not come from the best “quality”.

This is because the processor buys a whole carcase, and payment to the producer will be based on the meat yield of that carcase and how the balance of that carcase delivers revenue to the abattoir.

This means that an animal may yield a very high value steak, but the remainder
of the carcase may not be so valuable in the markets.

If the main component of “quality” for a first buyer of prime stock is meat yield, then it could be argued the current system delivers the correct messages and information.

Carcase dissection work done by AHDB in 2011 does show that the EUROP grid reflects meat yield.

In some parts of the world, beef yield is estimated by applying a standard equation to measurements taken from the eye muscle. Depending on the result, the carcase is then placed into a category. For example, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) has five meat yield grades based on fat cover and rib eye area.

This meat yield factor may, or may not, be combined with what the USDA call a “quality grade” based on age (maturity), gender and the marbling, colour and firmness of the meat.

Two key questions are what is “quality” and what elements of quality can be influenced by the producer, processor or even the person cooking the meat? Joint size may not be seen as an indication of quality by some, but if a consumer will not buy a joint because it is too big, a processor or retailer may have to heavily discount that product to gain a sale, irrespective of how good an eating experience the consumer could have. This suggests that perhaps price reporting and classifying against weight ranges is important.

For others, “quality” may mean tenderness, texture and eating quality. In this regard, marbling is often thought to be a quality measure, and some parts of the world make assessments of
marbling when categorising carcases.

Some abattoirs now have Visual Image Analysis (VIA) technology available, which may be a means of better assessing meat yield. The challenge in this context would be how to group individual animals into usable reporting categories.

There are many complex factors involved in the ongoing debate on price reporting and carcase assessment, and many unanswered questions – not least who would audit and pay for a different assessment process?