82 FR 27782 - United States Standards for Grades of Carcass Beef
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Agricultural Marketing Service Federal Register Volume 82, Issue 116 (June 19, 2017)
Agricultural Marketing Service
Federal Register Volume 82, Issue 116 (June 19, 2017)
| Page Range | 27782-27786 | |
| FR Document | 2017-12647 |
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 116 (Monday, June 19, 2017)] [Notices] [Pages 27782-27786] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2017-12647] ======================================================================== Notices Federal Register ________________________________________________________________________ This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains documents other than rules or proposed rules that are applicable to the public. Notices of hearings and investigations, committee meetings, agency decisions and rulings, delegations of authority, filing of petitions and applications and agency statements of organization and functions are examples of documents appearing in this section. ======================================================================== Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 116 / Monday, June 19, 2017 / Notices [[Page 27782]] DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Agricultural Marketing Service [Doc. No. AMS-LPS-16-0060-0001] United States Standards for Grades of Carcass Beef AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice; request for comments. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: The Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) is proposing amendments to the United States Standards for Grades of Carcass Beef (beef standards). Specifically, AMS is proposing amendments to the beef standards that would allow dentition and documentation of actual age as additional methods of classifying maturity of carcasses presented to USDA for official quality grading. Currently, the standards include only skeletal and muscular evidence as a determination of classifying maturity of carcasses for the purposes of official USDA quality grading. Official USDA quality grading is used as an indication of meat palatability and is a major determining factor in live cattle and beef value. DATES: Submit comments on or before August 18, 2017. ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit comments electronically at https://www.regulations.gov. Written comments may be sent to: Beef Carcass Revisions, Standardization Branch, Quality Assessment Division (QAD); Livestock, Poultry, and Seed Program (LPS), AMS, USDA; 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Room 3932-S, STOP 0258, Washington, DC 20250-0258. Comments may also be emailed to [email protected]. Submitted comments will be available for public inspection at https://www.regulations.gov, or during regular business hours at the above address. Please be advised that the identity of the individuals or entities submitting the comments will be made public on the Internet at the address provided above. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bucky Gwartney, International Marketing Specialist, Standardization Branch, QAD, LPS, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Room 3932-S, STOP 0258, Washington, DC 20250- 0258, phone (202) 720-1424, or via email at [email protected]. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 203(c) of the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946, as amended (7 U.S.C. 1621 et seq.), directs and authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture ``to develop and improve standards of quality, condition, quantity, grade, and packaging and recommend and demonstrate such standards in order to encourage uniformity and consistency in commercial practices.'' AMS is committed to carrying out this authority in a manner that facilitates the marketing of agricultural commodities. While the beef standards do not appear in the Code of Federal Regulations, they--along with other official standards--are maintained by USDA at https://www.ams.usda.gov/grades-standards. Copies of official standards are also available upon request. To propose changes to the beef standards, AMS utilizes the procedures it published in the August 13, 1997, Federal Register, and that appear in 7 CFR part 36. Background The beef standards and associated voluntary, fee-for-service beef grading service program are authorized under the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946, as amended. The primary purpose of official USDA grade standards is to divide the population of a commodity into uniform groups (of similar quality, yield, value, etc.) to facilitate marketing. The USDA's voluntary, fee-for-service grading programs are designed to provide an independent, objective determination as to whether a given product is in conformance with the applicable official standard. When beef is voluntarily graded to the beef standards under the grading service, the official grade consists of a quality grade and/or a yield grade. The quality grades are intended to identify differences in the palatability or eating satisfaction of cooked beef principally through the characteristics of marbling and physiological maturity groupings. As noted in the standards referenced above, the principal official USDA quality grades for young (maturity groups ``A'' and ``B'') cattle and carcasses are Prime, Choice, and Select, in descending order in terms of historic market value. USDA recognizes that the beef standards must be relevant in order to be of greatest value to stakeholders and, therefore, recommendations for changes in the standards may be initiated by USDA or by interested parties at any time to achieve that goal. For beef, USDA quality grades provide a simple, effective means of describing product that is easily understood by both buyers and sellers. By identifying separate and distinct segments of beef, grades enable buyers to obtain the particular kind of beef that meets their individual needs. For example, certain restaurants may choose to only sell officially graded USDA Prime beef so as to provide their customers with a product that meets a very consistent level of overall palatability. At the same time, grades are important in transmitting information to cattle producers to help ensure informed production, feeding, and marketing decisions are made. For example, the market preference and price paid for a particular grade of beef is communicated to cattle producers so they can adjust their production accordingly. In such a case, if the price premium being paid for a grade, such as USDA Prime beef, merits producers making the investments required in cattle genetics and feeding to produce more USDA Prime beef, such marketing decisions can be made with justification. Current Process for Determining Maturity Since its inclusion in the beef standards, physiological maturity based on skeletal and muscular evidence has been the means for establishing age of animals in both marketing standards and in research. USDA graders examine signs of physiological maturity (e.g., size, shape, and ossification of the bones and cartilages--especially the split chine bones--and color, texture, and [[Page 27783]] firmness of the lean flesh) in order to assign a maturity grouping. Although never intended to be a definitive method to determine the chronological age of cattle at the time of slaughter and instead utilized to predict beef palatability, the maturity groupings have historically been roughly correlated to different age ranges and categories: Maturity grouping A was correlated with beef from cattle between 9 and 30 months of age (MOA) at time of slaughter, maturity grouping B was correlated with beef from cattle between 30 and 42 MOA at time of slaughter, maturity grouping C was correlated with beef from cattle between 42 and 72 MOA at time of slaughter, maturity grouping D was correlated with beef from cattle between 72 and 96 MOA at time of slaughter, and maturity grouping E was correlated with beef from cattle more than 96 MOA at time of slaughter. However, these are rough approximations that are influenced by other factors including sex, nutrition, growth promotant administration, reproductive status, breed, and a variety of other environmental factors. Therefore, cattle that are younger than 30 MOA may have a physiological maturity grouping of B or greater due to the factors listed above. Generally, A-maturity carcasses are eligible for Prime, Choice, Select, and Standard quality grades; B-maturity carcasses are eligible for Prime, Choice, or Standard; and C-, D-, or E-maturity carcasses are eligible for Commercial, Utility, Cutter, or Canner. In most fed beef plants, carcasses that fit the C-, D-, or E-maturity categories (often referred to as ``hard bones'') are not presented for USDA grading. The beef standards have had past revisions made to the maturity grouping requirements, and these revisions resulted in classifications that were designed to reduce the variability of eating quality within the grades. The most recent such change occurred in 1997 when certain carcasses from the B-maturity grouping were no longer eligible for the USDA Select quality grade. The official standards have never relied upon any other indicator besides physiological maturity to determine maturity grouping or the resulting USDA quality grade. This was primarily because the use of physiological maturity was not intended to be used to predict the age of an animal at time of slaughter but rather the resulting palatability of the meat. Many years of research have demonstrated a correlation between physiological maturity and beef palatability, and the factors affecting the physiological maturity of a beef animal are numerous. It is well- documented that elevated levels of estrogen, found in heifers and heiferettes (females that have calved once), result in advanced skeletal ossification. Estrogen is also higher in those animals being administered growth implants containing estrogen and estrogen-like compounds and possibly those animals fed and exposed to naturally occurring estrogens in their diet. Animals having an elevated exposure to estrogen are much more likely to result in B- or C-maturity carcasses, and this advanced skeletal maturity is more prevalent the closer the animal is to 30 MOA. The scientific literature also indicates that the meat in younger cattle contains immature and soluble collagen that when cooked does not negatively impact the tenderness of the product. As an animal matures, the collagen will become more mature and have more thermally stable cross-links, resulting in a tougher product. However, when grain- finished cattle are evaluated at various ages (12 to 35 months) and skeletal maturities (A to C), the resulting differences in tenderness are minimal. Scientific studies support this phenomenon, explained by the faster turnover of both the muscle fibers and the connective tissue within the animal due to faster growth and higher concentrate diets. An overview of many of these factors is discussed by Tatum, 2011.\1\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ J.D. Tatum, 2011. Animal Age, physiological maturity, and associated effects on beef tenderness. White Paper funded by the Cattlemen's Beef Promotion and Research Board. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dentition Although not used as part of the voluntary grading process, dentition has been used in the U.S. since 2004 by the USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) in all federally inspected plants to determine whether an animal is less than or older than 30 MOA. FSIS Directive 6100.4 explains that ``[i]nspection program personnel are to consider cattle to be 30 months and older when the examination of the dentition of the animal shows that at least one of the second set of permanent incisors (I2) has erupted above the gum line.'' Cattle older than 30 MOA must have certain specified risk materials, such as the vertebral column, removed from their carcasses before the sale of the resulting beef cuts. In addition to the visual inspection of permanent incisors, FSIS personnel will accept documentation showing the actual age of the animal. Age verification involves providing the proper paperwork or other proof of an animal's actual age (e.g., less than 30 MOA) and is also used for a variety of purposes, including meeting foreign market requirements for U.S. beef from cattle under a certain age. Current research has indicated that carcasses from grain-fed steers and heifers that are identified as less than 30 MOA based on dentition are similar in palatability to A-maturity carcasses determined via physiological maturity and thus could be classified A-maturity for grading purposes even though the physiological maturity characteristics of B- or older maturity groupings may be present. When comparisons involve grain-finished steers and heifers that are less than 30 MOA, the age of the animal has been shown to have little effect on beef tenderness. In addition, numerous studies have evaluated the relationship between the skeletal maturity of an animal and its dentition pattern. In two experiments, described by Lawrence et al., 2001, 1,464 cattle were evaluated for physiological maturity and dentition characteristics.\2\ These studies showed that 97.5 percent of cattle with 2 permanent incisors (the cutoff point for less than 30 MOA) were classified as A-maturity carcasses. In that study, the authors suggest that dentition is a more accurate determinant of carcass maturity, although they have no evidence that dentition is better able to predict palatability. This is supported by other research showing that dentition is more closely related to actual chronological age than is physiological maturity. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \2\ Lawrence, T.E., J.D. Whatley, T.H. Montgomery and L.J. Perino. 2001. A comparison of the USDA ossification based maturity system to a system based on dentition. Journal of Animal Science, 79:1683-1690. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Two recent studies funded by the Cattlemen's Beef Promotion and Research Board evaluated the relationship between eating quality and the skeletal maturity of carcasses that were classified by dentition as either less than 30 MOA or greater than 30 MOA. The first study \3\ (Acheson et. al., 2014) sampled 450 grain-finished steer and heifer carcasses classified as less than 30 MOA through dentition, with varying skeletal maturity and marbling scores. Trained sensory panels and slice shear force (SSF) testing were conducted and neither analysis determined a difference between steaks from the A-maturity versus the B- through C-maturity carcasses. Marbling categories were effective in stratifying carcasses according to differences in [[Page 27784]] tenderness and juiciness. Results from that study suggest A-C-maturity carcasses have similar sensory and SSF scores when they originate from grain-finished cattle classified as less than 30 MOA by dentition. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \3\ Acheson, R.J., Woerner, D.R., and Tatum, J.D. 2014. Effects of USDA carcass maturity on sensory attributes of beef produced by grain-finished steers and heifers classified as less than 30 months old using dentition. Journal of Animal Science, 92:1792-1799. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The second study \4\ (Semler et. al., 2016) evaluated the tenderness of steaks from 600 steer and heifer carcasses that varied in marbling, skeletal maturity, and age by dentition. Tenderness was also evaluated by trained sensory panels and SSF testing. The results were consistent with those from the first study and showed that the tenderness between USDA maturity classifications (A versus B-D) was not different within dental age (less than 30 MOA or greater than 30 MOA). Steaks from carcasses greater than 30 MOA did have more intense grassy and bloody/serum flavors and decreased tenderness within the slight degree of marbling group. As in the first study, the degree of marbling was effective in stratifying carcasses according to differences in tenderness and juiciness. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \4\ Semler, M.L, D.R. Woerner, K.E. Belk, K.J. Enns, and J.D. Tatum. 2016. Journal of Animal Science, 94:2207-2217. Effects of United States Department of Agriculture carcass maturity on sensory attributes of steaks produced by cattle representing two dental age classes. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Request for a Change to the Beef Standards On April 13, 2016, representatives from the National Cattlemen's Beef Association, the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture, the U.S. Meat Export Federation, and the American Farm Bureau Federation petitioned USDA to amend the beef standards. The petition to amend the beef standards (the petition) seeks to amend them by allowing age verification or dentition-based assessment to determine carcass maturity in fed steers and heifers. Both the petition and associated research are available at https://www.ams.usda.gov/grades-standards/beef-request-for-comments. In consideration of the body of research, the petition requested that USDA revise the beef standards by adding the following language to section 54.104(k) of the beef standards that describes the skeletal maturity: Carcasses of grain-fed steers and heifers determined to be less than 30 months old either by dentition (assessed at the time of slaughter under the supervision of USDA-FSIS) or by documentation of actual age (verified through a USDA Process Verified Program or USDA Quality System Assessment) are included in the youngest maturity group for carcasses recognized as ``beef'' (A and B maturity) regardless of skeletal evidences of maturity. The petition stated that approximately 7.2 percent of cattle classified as less than 30 months of age exhibit premature skeletal ossification, and so rather than qualifying as A-maturity (the youngest maturity classification in the beef standards), they qualify as B- maturity or older and are subject to discounts that reduce the overall value of the carcass. AMS was also provided a large data set from a recent study of beef packing plant slaughter and performed a statistical and economic analysis on the data to determine the possible impact should the proposed change to the beef standards be adopted. The results of this review were published in a May 19, 2016, document, ``Economic Assessment of the Request to Modernize the U.S. Standards for Grades of Carcass Beef'', and is available at the aforementioned Web site. The study period ranged from the beginning of May 2014 through the end of April 2015. Extrapolating the study data across the total population of cattle graded each year by AMS--approximately 21 million--resulted in the following:Seventy-two percent were slaughtered in facilities participating in the study; Ninety-seven percent were found to be less than 30 MOA using dentition; Less than 3 percent (2.8) were found to be equal to or greater than 30 MOA; Less than 2 percent (1.68) were deemed to be age- discounted when using skeletal ossification as the measure of maturity grouping; and Less than one-half of 1 percent of the total cattle graded were age-verified. According to the study, had there been an allowance to use dentition as a means to override physiological characteristics of advanced maturity grouping, as was proposed, roughly an additional 1 percent of those cattle would have been eligible for grading. Of these cattle, 4.5 percent would have been graded Prime, 63.6 percent Choice, and 31.9 percent Select. Within the Choice category, 24.4 percent of all newly graded carcasses would have been placed in the top two-thirds Choice category (branded Choice programs), and 39.2 percent of all added carcasses would have been placed in the bottom of the Choice category. In addition, lean and skeletal maturity requirements are referenced throughout many of the current USDA Certified Beef Programs and the General Schedules. Upon request, USDA provides certification of meat carcasses for a number of marketing programs that make claims concerning breed and carcass characteristics. If the proposed changes to the beef standards are made, users of these certified programs should evaluate their specifications closely and recommend any needed changes to USDA. The grade composition of the carcasses being added by using dentition as a measure of age was not much different than the grade composition of carcasses graded using physiological maturity, and overall, these data show an increase of 1.05 percent for Prime beef, 0.91 percent for Choice, and 1.29 percent for Select. According to calculations made from wholesale beef elasticity, wholesale beef prices could decline between 1 to 1.5 percent for each of the grade categories as a result of the increased supply of graded beef. Using this data, AMS found a net gain to producers of nearly $55 million, primarily due to reduced hard bone discounts for quality grade maturity grouping done by the current physiological maturity approach alone. Previous Solicitation for Comments This information was published by USDA in a Notice in the Federal Register (81 FR 57877) on August 24, 2016, which sought public comment on whether or not to amend the beef standards. AMS received 236 total comments. Of those comments, 179 commenters favored revising the beef standards to include dentition and documented age as additional methods for maturity classification. There were 53 commenters who did not support making the changes. Two comments were submitted in duplicate and one comment was submitted in triplicate; each of these respective submissions was counted only once. It is noteworthy that 160 of the 179 favorable comments were the same form letter and were from producers. Comments can be viewed at https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=AMS-LPS-16-0060-0001. The vast majority of comments were received from the producer segment of the industry. Commenters who supported the changes cited an anticipated increase in the number of carcasses that would qualify for USDA grades of Prime, Choice, and Select without a significant reduction in palatability for those grades; the anticipated profitability producers would gain by having carcasses grade or grade higher; and support for the science-based Cattlemen's Beef Promotion and Research Board-funded research. Many agricultural associations, which represent a majority of cattle producers, provided favorable comments in support of the changes. In addition, most major packing companies provided positive comments in support [[Page 27785]] of the changes. The potential increase in Prime and Choice carcasses, along with premiums to the producers, were the primary factors cited for their support. Commenters opposed to changing the beef standard identified various issues of concern, and these are further discussed below. Although there were 53 individual comments that did not support a revision to the beef standards, many responses raised multiple issues. Therefore, as we examine each category of concern, the total figures mentioned will exceed a sum of 53. Seventeen commenters believed the populations in the referenced studies were too small. In response, AMS has determined that all studies referenced herein--including those that found that carcasses exhibiting advanced skeletal maturity when determined by dentition to be under 30 MOA produced meat that was as palatable in taste tests as meat produced from carcasses that did not exhibit signs of advanced skeletal maturity--were peer-reviewed and adequately designed to answer the study objectives and hypotheses. Statistical significance and statistical power of the test will in fact increase with an increased sample size, in small increments, but add significant costs. There were 24 commenters who questioned the value of dentition in predicting age, and 1 commenter pointed out that the beef standards are not designed to predict age, but instead palatability. In response, AMS notes that recent research suggests that dentition is a more accurate determinant of carcass maturity and is more closely related to actual chronological age than is USDA physiological maturity. As briefly discussed above, studies by Lawrence showed that 97.5 percent of cattle with 2 permanent incisors (the cutoff point for less than 30 MOA) were classified as A-maturity carcasses. One commenter suggested that a change to the beef standards was not warranted given the relatively small percentage of cattle (and subsequent carcasses) affected by the change. While the economic study performed by USDA shows an approximate potential increase of 1 percent in the Choice and Prime categories, AMS believes this is a significant value proposition for both the beef production and processing sectors. USDA is not proposing this change because of the number of cattle that will be affected or the economic benefit. Instead, USDA is proposing to revise the beef standards because current scientific research has presented another acceptable means for determining the maturity of a beef carcass. Thirteen commenters expressed concern about the dentition process overseen by FSIS and the perceived lack of training for the employees responsible for this procedure. FSIS has clear guidelines and procedures for the evaluation of dentition on cattle, and this procedure has been ongoing for many years with little to no concerns being raised by domestic or international users of U.S. beef products. Several of these commenters also suggested that, while they believe FSIS is properly overseeing the dentition process through trained plant personnel, they believe AMS must have involvement in the process if that dentition determination will ultimately become a factor in the application of a voluntary USDA grade. In response to this concern, AMS would require that plants provide their procedures for marking and identification of cattle greater than 30 MOA. AMS would also verify these procedures are being adhered to through a Quality Systems Assessment audit or other means. AMS is also proposing a procedure and change to the standard that would allow the AMS grader to refrain from grading an under-30-MOA carcass that exhibits advanced skeletal maturity (e.g., D- and E-skeletal maturity). While this may occur infrequently, providing a procedure for AMS graders to evaluate advanced skeletal carcasses that are identified as under 30 MOA protects the grading system and ensures that carcasses exhibiting advanced skeletal maturity never qualify for Prime, Choice, Select, or Standard. Twenty commenters suggested that these changes would cheapen U.S. beef. It is important to note that the majority of grain-finished cattle are harvested at 12 to 24 MOA and usually produce A-maturity beef. In other words, the vast majority of cattle offered for grading will not be affected at all by this proposed change. That said, a percentage of carcasses that today are evaluated as B- or C-maturity but are produced from cattle under 30 MOA would be eligible for grading under the proposed system. Based on AMS's estimates outlined in ``Economic Assessment of the Request to Modernize the U.S. Standards for Grades of Carcass Beef,'' roughly an additional 1 percent of cattle would be eligible for grading. The research outlined here does not show any trends towards an inferior product being produced if dentition is implemented. Lastly, 15 commenters raised concerns over how the proposed changes would be implemented and differ from current practices. Implementing the use of dentition in plants for the determination of beef quality grades would require minimal changes to an AMS grader's day-to-day activities. There may be plant-specific requirements and changes needed regarding the identification procedures for carcasses less than 30 MOA and greater than 30 MOA, but these procedures are currently being carried out in-plant. Carcasses deemed less than 30 MOA would be sorted and the grader would then perform his or her normal marbling assessment to apply the final quality grade. Consistent with the current practices, any carcasses deemed greater than 30 MOA would be marked by the plant and graded by an AMS grader using skeletal and lean characteristics to determine maturity and then marbling. Summary of Proposed Changes to the Beef Standards In consideration of the approximately three-fourths of commenters who supported revising the beef standards, as well as the research supporting their modernization, USDA is issuing this Notice outlining proposed changes. These changes would allow dentition and documentation of actual age to be used to classify beef carcasses as A-maturity and determine eligibility for all quality grade classifications, with the exception of those carcasses exhibiting advanced skeletal maturity traits (as described for D- and E-maturity). USDA proposes to provide additional oversight of the dentition process used to classify carcasses as either less than 30 MOA or greater than 30 MOA. FSIS approves plant personnel to examine the dentition and FSIS inspectors to monitor the process to ensure carcasses greater than 30 MOA have been correctly identified. However, because this process would now be instrumental to the subsequent application of a USDA quality grade, AMS personnel must have knowledge of the process including marking and identification techniques for cattle greater than 30 MOA. AMS would review this process on a regular basis through an existing Quality System Assessment audit or other means. In many beef packing plants, AMS already reviews the dentition process as part of an export verification audit and the applicant makes these procedures available to the USDA grader. USDA proposes to allow carcasses identified as less than 30 MOA through dentition or actual documented age (through an approved USDA Process Verified Program or Quality System Assessment Program) to qualify for the USDA Prime, Choice, Select and Standard grades, regardless of skeletal and lean characteristics. This proposal [[Page 27786]] means that for carcasses deemed less than 30 MOA, the amount and distribution of marbling will become the primary characteristics for determining the final USDA quality grade. Carcasses identified as greater than 30 MOA through dentition are eligible for all USDA grades, with application of skeletal and lean characteristics factored in the determination, as currently described in the beef standards. USDA is not proposing any changes to the requirements for carcasses exhibiting dark cutting lean, regardless of age verification method. Carcasses exhibiting dark cutting lean will be graded as currently described in the beef standards. Proposed amendments to the beef standards are described below: United States Standards for Grades of Carcass Beef 54.104--Application of Standards for Grades of Carcass Beef 1. Amend 54.104 by revising paragraph (k) to read as follows: (k) For steer, heifer, and cow beef, quality of the lean is evaluated by considering its marbling, color, and firmness as observed in a cut surface, in relation to carcass evidences of maturity. The maturity of the carcass is determined through one of three methods: (1) Dentition as monitored by the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS). Carcasses determined to be less than 30 months of age (MOA) will be classified as A-maturity, and with the exception of dark cutting lean characteristics, the final quality grade will be determined by the degree of marbling. Any carcasses under 30 MOA exhibiting advanced skeletal maturity traits (as described for D- and E-maturity) will not be eligible for the Prime, Choice, Select, or Standard grades and will be graded according to their skeletal, lean, and marbling traits accordingly; (2) Documentation of age as verified through USDA-approved programs and by FSIS at the slaughter facility. Carcasses determined to be less than 30 MOA by age verification will be classified as A-maturity and, with the exception of dark cutting lean characteristics, the final quality grade will be determined by the degree of marbling. Any carcasses under 30 MOA exhibiting advanced skeletal maturity traits (as described for D- and E-maturity) will not be eligible for the Prime, Choice, Select, or Standard grades and will be graded according to their skeletal, lean, and marbling traits accordingly; or (3) Through evaluation of the size, shape, and ossification of the bones and cartilages, especially the split chine bones, and the color and texture of the lean flesh. Carcasses determined to be greater than 30 MOA will be eligible for all quality grade classifications with the final quality grade being determined by the evaluation of the degree of marbling and any adjustment factors based on advanced skeletal maturity characteristics. In the split chine bones, ossification changes occur at an earlier stage of maturity in the posterior portion of the vertebral column (sacral vertebrae) and at progressively later stages of maturity in the lumbar and thoracic vertebrae. The ossification changes that occur in the cartilages on the ends of the split thoracic vertebrae are especially useful in evaluating maturity and these vertebrae are referred to frequently in the standards. Unless otherwise specified in the standards, whenever reference is made to the ossification of cartilages on the thoracic vertebrae, this shall be construed to refer to the cartilages attached to the thoracic vertebrae at the posterior end of the forequarter. The size and shape of the rib bones are also important considerations in evaluating differences in maturity. In the very youngest carcasses considered as ``beef,'' the cartilages on the ends of the chine bones show no ossification, cartilage is evident on all of the vertebrae of the spinal column, and the sacral vertebrae show distinct separation. In addition, the split vertebrae usually are soft and porous and very red in color. In such carcasses, the rib bones have only a slight tendency toward flatness. In progressively more mature carcasses, ossification changes become evident first in the bones and cartilages of the sacral vertebrae, then in the lumbar vertebrae, and still later in the thoracic vertebrae. In beef that is very advanced in maturity, all the split vertebrae will be devoid of red color and very hard and flinty, and the cartilages on the ends of all the vertebrae will be entirely ossified. Likewise, with advancing maturity, the rib bones will become progressively wider and flatter, which is shown in very mature beef whose ribs will be very wide and flat. * * * * * Authority: 7 U.S.C. 1621-1627. Dated: June 14, 2017. Bruce Summers, Acting Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service. [FR Doc. 2017-12647 Filed 6-16-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-02-P
![27782
Notices Federal Register
Vol. 82, No. 116
Monday, June 19, 2017
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER business hours at the above address. The quality grades are intended to
contains documents other than rules or Please be advised that the identity of the identify differences in the palatability or
proposed rules that are applicable to the individuals or entities submitting the eating satisfaction of cooked beef
public. Notices of hearings and investigations, comments will be made public on the principally through the characteristics
committee meetings, agency decisions and Internet at the address provided above. of marbling and physiological maturity
rulings, delegations of authority, filing of
petitions and applications and agency FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
groupings. As noted in the standards
statements of organization and functions are Bucky Gwartney, International referenced above, the principal official
examples of documents appearing in this Marketing Specialist, Standardization USDA quality grades for young
section. Branch, QAD, LPS, AMS, USDA, 1400 (maturity groups ‘‘A’’ and ‘‘B’’) cattle
Independence Avenue SW., Room and carcasses are Prime, Choice, and
3932–S, STOP 0258, Washington, DC Select, in descending order in terms of
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 20250–0258, phone (202) 720–1424, or historic market value. USDA recognizes
via email at Bucky.Gwartney@ that the beef standards must be relevant
Agricultural Marketing Service in order to be of greatest value to
ams.usda.gov.
[Doc. No. AMS–LPS–16–0060–0001] stakeholders and, therefore,
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section recommendations for changes in the
United States Standards for Grades of 203(c) of the Agricultural Marketing Act standards may be initiated by USDA or
Carcass Beef of 1946, as amended (7 U.S.C. 1621 et by interested parties at any time to
seq.), directs and authorizes the achieve that goal.
AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, Secretary of Agriculture ‘‘to develop and For beef, USDA quality grades
USDA. improve standards of quality, condition, provide a simple, effective means of
ACTION: Notice; request for comments. quantity, grade, and packaging and describing product that is easily
recommend and demonstrate such understood by both buyers and sellers.
SUMMARY: The Agricultural Marketing standards in order to encourage By identifying separate and distinct
Service (AMS) of the U.S. Department of uniformity and consistency in segments of beef, grades enable buyers
Agriculture (USDA) is proposing commercial practices.’’ AMS is to obtain the particular kind of beef that
amendments to the United States committed to carrying out this authority meets their individual needs. For
Standards for Grades of Carcass Beef in a manner that facilitates the example, certain restaurants may choose
(beef standards). Specifically, AMS is marketing of agricultural commodities. to only sell officially graded USDA
proposing amendments to the beef While the beef standards do not appear Prime beef so as to provide their
standards that would allow dentition in the Code of Federal Regulations, customers with a product that meets a
and documentation of actual age as they—along with other official very consistent level of overall
additional methods of classifying standards—are maintained by USDA at palatability. At the same time, grades
maturity of carcasses presented to https://www.ams.usda.gov/grades- are important in transmitting
USDA for official quality grading. standards. Copies of official standards information to cattle producers to help
Currently, the standards include only are also available upon request. To ensure informed production, feeding,
skeletal and muscular evidence as a propose changes to the beef standards, and marketing decisions are made. For
determination of classifying maturity of AMS utilizes the procedures it example, the market preference and
carcasses for the purposes of official published in the August 13, 1997, price paid for a particular grade of beef
USDA quality grading. Official USDA Federal Register, and that appear in 7 is communicated to cattle producers so
quality grading is used as an indication CFR part 36. they can adjust their production
of meat palatability and is a major accordingly. In such a case, if the price
determining factor in live cattle and beef Background
premium being paid for a grade, such as
value. The beef standards and associated USDA Prime beef, merits producers
DATES: Submit comments on or before voluntary, fee-for-service beef grading making the investments required in
August 18, 2017. service program are authorized under cattle genetics and feeding to produce
ADDRESSES: Interested persons are the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946, more USDA Prime beef, such marketing
invited to submit comments as amended. The primary purpose of decisions can be made with
electronically at https:// official USDA grade standards is to justification.
www.regulations.gov. Written comments divide the population of a commodity
Current Process for Determining
may be sent to: Beef Carcass Revisions, into uniform groups (of similar quality,
Maturity
Standardization Branch, Quality yield, value, etc.) to facilitate marketing.
Assessment Division (QAD); Livestock, The USDA’s voluntary, fee-for-service Since its inclusion in the beef
asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
Poultry, and Seed Program (LPS), AMS, grading programs are designed to standards, physiological maturity based
USDA; 1400 Independence Avenue provide an independent, objective on skeletal and muscular evidence has
SW., Room 3932–S, STOP 0258, determination as to whether a given been the means for establishing age of
Washington, DC 20250–0258. product is in conformance with the animals in both marketing standards
Comments may also be emailed to applicable official standard. When beef and in research. USDA graders examine
beefcarcassrevisions@ams.usda.gov. is voluntarily graded to the beef signs of physiological maturity (e.g.,
Submitted comments will be available standards under the grading service, the size, shape, and ossification of the bones
for public inspection at https:// official grade consists of a quality grade and cartilages—especially the split
www.regulations.gov, or during regular and/or a yield grade. chine bones—and color, texture, and
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:09 Jun 16, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\19JNN1.SGM 19JNN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/82_FR_27898/page/1.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 116 / Monday, June 19, 2017 / Notices 27783
firmness of the lean flesh) in order to are numerous. It is well-documented than 30 MOA) and is also used for a
assign a maturity grouping. Although that elevated levels of estrogen, found in variety of purposes, including meeting
never intended to be a definitive heifers and heiferettes (females that foreign market requirements for U.S.
method to determine the chronological have calved once), result in advanced beef from cattle under a certain age.
age of cattle at the time of slaughter and skeletal ossification. Estrogen is also Current research has indicated that
instead utilized to predict beef higher in those animals being carcasses from grain-fed steers and
palatability, the maturity groupings administered growth implants heifers that are identified as less than 30
have historically been roughly containing estrogen and estrogen-like MOA based on dentition are similar in
correlated to different age ranges and compounds and possibly those animals palatability to A-maturity carcasses
categories: Maturity grouping A was fed and exposed to naturally occurring determined via physiological maturity
correlated with beef from cattle between estrogens in their diet. Animals having and thus could be classified A-maturity
9 and 30 months of age (MOA) at time an elevated exposure to estrogen are for grading purposes even though the
of slaughter, maturity grouping B was much more likely to result in B- or C- physiological maturity characteristics of
correlated with beef from cattle between maturity carcasses, and this advanced B- or older maturity groupings may be
30 and 42 MOA at time of slaughter, skeletal maturity is more prevalent the present. When comparisons involve
maturity grouping C was correlated with closer the animal is to 30 MOA. grain-finished steers and heifers that are
beef from cattle between 42 and 72 The scientific literature also indicates less than 30 MOA, the age of the animal
MOA at time of slaughter, maturity that the meat in younger cattle contains has been shown to have little effect on
grouping D was correlated with beef immature and soluble collagen that beef tenderness. In addition, numerous
from cattle between 72 and 96 MOA at when cooked does not negatively studies have evaluated the relationship
time of slaughter, and maturity grouping impact the tenderness of the product. As between the skeletal maturity of an
E was correlated with beef from cattle an animal matures, the collagen will animal and its dentition pattern. In two
more than 96 MOA at time of slaughter. become more mature and have more experiments, described by Lawrence et
However, these are rough thermally stable cross-links, resulting in al., 2001, 1,464 cattle were evaluated for
approximations that are influenced by a tougher product. However, when physiological maturity and dentition
other factors including sex, nutrition, grain-finished cattle are evaluated at characteristics.2 These studies showed
growth promotant administration, various ages (12 to 35 months) and that 97.5 percent of cattle with 2
reproductive status, breed, and a variety skeletal maturities (A to C), the resulting permanent incisors (the cutoff point for
of other environmental factors. differences in tenderness are minimal. less than 30 MOA) were classified as A-
Therefore, cattle that are younger than Scientific studies support this maturity carcasses. In that study, the
30 MOA may have a physiological phenomenon, explained by the faster authors suggest that dentition is a more
maturity grouping of B or greater due to turnover of both the muscle fibers and accurate determinant of carcass
the factors listed above. the connective tissue within the animal maturity, although they have no
Generally, A-maturity carcasses are due to faster growth and higher evidence that dentition is better able to
eligible for Prime, Choice, Select, and concentrate diets. An overview of many predict palatability. This is supported
Standard quality grades; B-maturity of these factors is discussed by Tatum, by other research showing that dentition
carcasses are eligible for Prime, Choice, 2011.1 is more closely related to actual
or Standard; and C-, D-, or E-maturity chronological age than is physiological
carcasses are eligible for Commercial, Dentition maturity.
Utility, Cutter, or Canner. In most fed Although not used as part of the Two recent studies funded by the
beef plants, carcasses that fit the C-, voluntary grading process, dentition has Cattlemen’s Beef Promotion and
D-, or E-maturity categories (often Research Board evaluated the
been used in the U.S. since 2004 by the
referred to as ‘‘hard bones’’) are not relationship between eating quality and
USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection
presented for USDA grading. the skeletal maturity of carcasses that
Service (FSIS) in all federally inspected
The beef standards have had past were classified by dentition as either
plants to determine whether an animal
revisions made to the maturity grouping less than 30 MOA or greater than 30
is less than or older than 30 MOA. FSIS
requirements, and these revisions MOA. The first study 3 (Acheson et. al.,
Directive 6100.4 explains that
resulted in classifications that were 2014) sampled 450 grain-finished steer
‘‘[i]nspection program personnel are to
designed to reduce the variability of and heifer carcasses classified as less
consider cattle to be 30 months and
eating quality within the grades. The than 30 MOA through dentition, with
older when the examination of the
most recent such change occurred in varying skeletal maturity and marbling
dentition of the animal shows that at
1997 when certain carcasses from the B- scores. Trained sensory panels and slice
maturity grouping were no longer least one of the second set of permanent shear force (SSF) testing were
eligible for the USDA Select quality incisors (I2) has erupted above the gum conducted and neither analysis
grade. The official standards have never line.’’ Cattle older than 30 MOA must determined a difference between steaks
relied upon any other indicator besides have certain specified risk materials, from the A-maturity versus the B-
physiological maturity to determine such as the vertebral column, removed through C-maturity carcasses. Marbling
maturity grouping or the resulting from their carcasses before the sale of categories were effective in stratifying
USDA quality grade. This was primarily the resulting beef cuts. In addition to the carcasses according to differences in
because the use of physiological visual inspection of permanent incisors,
FSIS personnel will accept
asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
maturity was not intended to be used to 2 Lawrence, T.E., J.D. Whatley, T.H. Montgomery
predict the age of an animal at time of documentation showing the actual age and L.J. Perino. 2001. A comparison of the USDA
slaughter but rather the resulting of the animal. Age verification involves ossification based maturity system to a system
providing the proper paperwork or other based on dentition. Journal of Animal Science,
palatability of the meat. 79:1683–1690.
Many years of research have proof of an animal’s actual age (e.g., less 3 Acheson, R.J., Woerner, D.R., and Tatum, J.D.
demonstrated a correlation between 2014. Effects of USDA carcass maturity on sensory
1 J.D. Tatum, 2011. Animal Age, physiological attributes of beef produced by grain-finished steers
physiological maturity and beef maturity, and associated effects on beef tenderness. and heifers classified as less than 30 months old
palatability, and the factors affecting the White Paper funded by the Cattlemen’s Beef using dentition. Journal of Animal Science,
physiological maturity of a beef animal Promotion and Research Board. 92:1792–1799.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:09 Jun 16, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\19JNN1.SGM 19JNN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/82_FR_27898/page/2.svg)
![27786 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 116 / Monday, June 19, 2017 / Notices
means that for carcasses deemed less (3) Through evaluation of the size, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
than 30 MOA, the amount and shape, and ossification of the bones and
distribution of marbling will become the cartilages, especially the split chine Animal and Plant Health Inspection
primary characteristics for determining bones, and the color and texture of the Service
the final USDA quality grade. Carcasses lean flesh. Carcasses determined to be [Docket No. APHIS–2012–0076]
identified as greater than 30 MOA greater than 30 MOA will be eligible for
through dentition are eligible for all all quality grade classifications with the Plants for Planting Whose Importation
USDA grades, with application of final quality grade being determined by Is Not Authorized Pending Pest Risk
skeletal and lean characteristics factored the evaluation of the degree of marbling Analysis; Notice of Addition of Taxa of
in the determination, as currently and any adjustment factors based on Plants for Planting to List of Taxa
described in the beef standards. advanced skeletal maturity Whose Importation Is Not Authorized
USDA is not proposing any changes to characteristics. In the split chine bones, Pending Pest Risk Analysis
the requirements for carcasses ossification changes occur at an earlier
exhibiting dark cutting lean, regardless stage of maturity in the posterior portion AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health
of age verification method. Carcasses of the vertebral column (sacral Inspection Service, USDA.
exhibiting dark cutting lean will be vertebrae) and at progressively later ACTION: Notice.
graded as currently described in the beef stages of maturity in the lumbar and
standards. SUMMARY: We are advising the public
thoracic vertebrae. The ossification
Proposed amendments to the beef that we are adding 22 taxa of plants for
changes that occur in the cartilages on
standards are described below: planting that are quarantine pests and
the ends of the split thoracic vertebrae
34 taxa of plants for planting that are
United States Standards for Grades of are especially useful in evaluating
hosts of 8 quarantine pests to our lists
Carcass Beef maturity and these vertebrae are referred
of taxa of plants for planting whose
to frequently in the standards. Unless importation is not authorized pending
54.104—Application of Standards for otherwise specified in the standards,
Grades of Carcass Beef pest risk analysis. A previous notice
whenever reference is made to the made datasheets that detailed the
1. Amend 54.104 by revising ossification of cartilages on the thoracic scientific evidence we evaluated in
paragraph (k) to read as follows: vertebrae, this shall be construed to making the determination that the taxa
(k) For steer, heifer, and cow beef, refer to the cartilages attached to the are quarantine pests or hosts of
quality of the lean is evaluated by thoracic vertebrae at the posterior end of quarantine pests available to the public
considering its marbling, color, and the forequarter. The size and shape of for review and comment. This notice
firmness as observed in a cut surface, in the rib bones are also important responds to the comments we received
relation to carcass evidences of considerations in evaluating differences and makes available final versions of the
maturity. The maturity of the carcass is in maturity. In the very youngest datasheets, with changes in response to
determined through one of three carcasses considered as ‘‘beef,’’ the comments.
methods: cartilages on the ends of the chine bones
(1) Dentition as monitored by the DATES: Effective June 19, 2017.
show no ossification, cartilage is evident
Food Safety and Inspection Service on all of the vertebrae of the spinal FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr.
(FSIS). Carcasses determined to be less column, and the sacral vertebrae show Indira Singh, Botanist, Plants for
than 30 months of age (MOA) will be distinct separation. In addition, the split Planting Policy, IRM, PPQ, APHIS, 4700
classified as A-maturity, and with the vertebrae usually are soft and porous River Road Unit 133, Riverdale, MD
exception of dark cutting lean and very red in color. In such carcasses, 20737–1236; (301) 851–2020 or Ms.
characteristics, the final quality grade the rib bones have only a slight Lydia Colon, Senior Regulatory
will be determined by the degree of tendency toward flatness. In Specialist, Plants for Planting Policy,
marbling. Any carcasses under 30 MOA progressively more mature carcasses, IRM, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit
exhibiting advanced skeletal maturity ossification changes become evident 133, Riverdale, MD 20737–1236; (301)
traits (as described for D- and E- first in the bones and cartilages of the 851–2302.
maturity) will not be eligible for the sacral vertebrae, then in the lumbar SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Prime, Choice, Select, or Standard vertebrae, and still later in the thoracic
grades and will be graded according to Background
vertebrae. In beef that is very advanced
their skeletal, lean, and marbling traits in maturity, all the split vertebrae will Under the regulations in ‘‘Subpart—
accordingly; be devoid of red color and very hard Plants for Planting’’ (7 CFR 319.37
(2) Documentation of age as verified and flinty, and the cartilages on the through 319.37–14, referred to below as
through USDA-approved programs and ends of all the vertebrae will be entirely the regulations), the Animal and Plant
by FSIS at the slaughter facility. ossified. Likewise, with advancing Health Inspection Service (APHIS) of
Carcasses determined to be less than 30 maturity, the rib bones will become the U.S. Department of Agriculture
MOA by age verification will be progressively wider and flatter, which is (USDA) prohibits or restricts the
classified as A-maturity and, with the shown in very mature beef whose ribs importation of plants for planting
exception of dark cutting lean will be very wide and flat. (including living plants, plant parts,
characteristics, the final quality grade seeds, and plant cuttings) to prevent the
* * * * *
asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
will be determined by the degree of introduction of quarantine pests into the
marbling. Any carcasses under 30 MOA Authority: 7 U.S.C. 1621–1627. United States. Quarantine pest is
exhibiting advanced skeletal maturity defined in § 319.37–1 as a plant pest or
Dated: June 14, 2017.
traits (as described for D- and E- noxious weed that is of potential
maturity) will not be eligible for the Bruce Summers, economic importance to the United
Prime, Choice, Select, or Standard Acting Administrator, Agricultural Marketing States and not yet present in the United
grades and will be graded according to Service. States, or present but not widely
their skeletal, lean, and marbling traits [FR Doc. 2017–12647 Filed 6–16–17; 8:45 am] distributed and being officially
accordingly; or BILLING CODE 3410–02–P controlled.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:09 Jun 16, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\19JNN1.SGM 19JNN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/82_FR_27898/page/5.svg)
Document Created: 2017-06-17 01:48:32
Document Modified: 2017-06-17 01:48:32
| Category | Regulatory Information | |
| Collection | Federal Register | |
| sudoc Class | AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106: | |
| Publisher | Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration | |
| Section | Notices | |
| Action | Notice; request for comments. | |
| Dates | Submit comments on or before August 18, 2017. | |
| Contact | Bucky Gwartney, International Marketing Specialist, Standardization Branch, QAD, LPS, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Room 3932-S, STOP 0258, Washington, DC 20250- 0258, phone (202) 720-1424, or via email at [email protected] | |
| FR Citation | 82 FR 27782 |
2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR