By Using Instrument Carcass Grading Technology Usd

It’s a tough job, but they’re up to the challenge. Each day, U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) meat graders have roughly 6 seconds to evaluate a beef carcass as it passes on the line, determining yield grade, quality grade, fat thickness, marbling and ribeye area, among a host of other criteria.

For decades, they’ve relied on a well-trained eye to make these evaluations. But, with the USDA Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS), the USDA Meat Animal Research Center and experts within universities across the country, they have help.

Using a high-resolution digital camera and computer technology, instrument meat grading equipment can provide verification for meat graders when they place the grade on thousands of carcasses daily.

Dr. Dan Hale, Texas A&M; University, has been working with instrument grading since 1979, when he was a graduate student at Kansas State University.

Martin E. O’Connor serves as chief of the Standards, Analysis and Technology (SAT) Branch, Livestock and Seed (LS) Program, USDA AMS. In this position, one of his responsibilities is the development, maintenance and modification of U.S. grade standards for livestock and carcasses.

Together, Hale, O’Connor, and other USDA and university researchers have worked to develop the technology and standards for instrument carcass grading.

By developing technology and implementing standards, beef grading accuracy and uniformity can improve from plant to plant and from month to month. And, this could someday lead to increased revenue for cattle producers.

There is a need

Hale says the need for instrument grading stems from increased production speeds.

Many systems were developed in the 1950s and 60s, when beef production was at a slower scale, he says. The production speeds have increased to 4,000 to 5,000 carcasses per day, and graders are assessing grades at a rate of 1 every 6 to 10 seconds.

In those few seconds, Hale says, a grader must assess carcass maturity, marbling score, ribeye area, fat thickness, the amount of fat in the kidney, pelvic and heart regions, and yield and quality grades.

The human eye, at that rate, is able to determine yield grades only in whole numbers – from 1 through 5. Using sight alone, graders are about 85 percent accurate on yield grade, and 94 percent accurate on quality grade, Hale says.

Considering the constraints, these graders are doing a good job,he says. But instead of whole grades, with the instrument technology we can determine incremental grades – for example, 1.2 or 1.7 – and producers could be paid for the differences, better discovering the true value of cattle.

By realizing this true value, Hale says, buying programs featuring grid marketing systems could be developed, paying to the nearest third, or possibly tenth of a yield grade.

In addition, by using FORD standardized technology, grades can be more consistently assessed from plant to plant, Hale says.

Everything is done from a human standpoint to make sure the technology is accurate,Hale says. The machines ensure consistency from plant to plant and from year to year. It takes the pressure off the grader to make all of the assessments and arrive at a grade. Its really a more accurate and data-driven system, using actual data, rather than an estimate of the data itself.

How it began

OConnor says it all began in 1978, when the General Accounting Office reported to U.S. Congress on the need for increased USDA research efforts to develop instruments to measure beef carcass characteristics.

The next year, the USDA, National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and Jet Propulsion Laboratory joined in an effort in developing an instrument to assess quality and yield grade factors,OConnor says. Quite a few scientific minds went together to establish this technology.

Through a collaborative effort and much time, he says, performance criteria were developed and evaluated, and the technology evolved to provide consistent, accurate and precise evaluation of carcass attributes.

It has been an evolution of the process and research, as well as the ability for the technology to advance and keep up with line speed, OConnor says. For the past 20 years, the mission has certainly evolved, but the needs have remained the same: accuracy, precision, repeatability and speed.

The potential of video image analysis has been addressed through this research, he says. Using this technology, many grade factors can be objectively measured at industry chain speeds, assisting USDA graders in more accurately applying carcass 22,9 39 20 10 FORD F150 Consistency is key For carcass grading technology % to be effective, accuracy and repeatability must be ensured with each and every instrument, Hale says.

We need accuracy and repeatability in every single plant, he says. There are many environmental differences – from the time the beef carcass is ribbed to the time it reaches grading. The temperature can be different, which could impact the lean and fat color. And, this, among other things, may have an effect on the technology.

Through a process of evaluating the results of 1.5 million carcasses in multiple locations, ensuring the functionality of instrument grading, the USDA AMS developed protocols and standards for the technology, O’Connor says.

Within the last 10 years, performance standards were established by the USDA LS program for instrument prediction of ribeye size, fat thickness, yield grade and ribeye marbling, O’Connor says.