Torbay bill
AgForce has very serious concerns that if the regulations underpinning the NSW Torbay bill are not heavily modified, Queensland producers and processors will face serious disadvantages and additional costs.
Why not support the proposals to use AUSMEAT as a grading scheme?
While AgForce supports truth in labelling, consumers must understand that MSA is the only eating quality assurance system which utilises all the relevant scientific measurements in a genuine eating quality and grading system. Carcase attributes measured in the AUS-MEAT system do not indicate, nor provide any guarantee, of the eating quality of a specific cut of meat from that carcase.
MSA is a model that uses multiple factors to generate a guaranteed 'cuts by cooking' eating quality assurance. Any attempt to use bits of the AUSMEAT or bits of the MSA system to try and create a 'grading' system is flawed. The indisputable eating quality science shows such a system will not create any certainty for consumers because it will ignore critical factors in eating quality. The science is very clear, and it is unfortunate that some parliamentarians in NSW do not appear to understand this.
Why not label 8 teeth beef as "low quality"?
AgForce is vehemently opposed to the idea that any industry or product should be forced to label (at retail) any category as "low quality or low grade". This is a very sad debate for the Australian beef industry indeed. Such an imposition will, unlike the existing budget grading used in the voluntary codes for retailers, mean that consumers see a derogatory term on beef. In such a case where beef is labelled negatively and competing products are not then simply put, households will surely take their meal dollars elsewhere - i.e. to competitor proteins like chicken or pork.
No industry group, or group claiming to represent the best interest of beef producers, would ever accept a derogatory and misleading system that forces retailers to label certain type of beef in a negative way. AgForce will not support the forced labelling of cuts from 8 tooth carcases as low grade or low quality. There are ways in which such cuts can be used, and priced in way that maximises consumer satisfaction.
The proposals in the Torbay bill will not do this, instead will simply degenerate Australian beef and reduce market share and total levels of consumption compared to competing proteins.
These politicians simply don't understand that as more and more beef is being MSA graded in Australia for eating quality, producers are eagerly analysing and learning from their grading data. They are finding that the old belief that milk and 2 tooth cattle have the best eating beef and 6 and 8 teeth beef is the worst is simply a myth.
The myth has been smashed and the earth is not flat at all! Sadly these NSW politicians haven't caught on. It is this ignorance that is driving them to legislate this industry back to the dark ages and drive consumers away from beef. AgForce Cattle calls on all beef producers and beef consumers to stand shoulder to shoulder and fight this dangerous legislation.
We have discussed with Minister Tim Mulherin who is fully up to speed on the realities of meat eating quality science, how improvements can be made which create better market signals from consumers to producers, and the costs impacts of the NSW draft bill. We hope that a solution can be found at Primary Industries Ministerial Council level if the NSW government regulations fails to make suitable change. CCA is calling on all Agricultural Ministers to recognize this at PIMC.
Why is AgForce concerned about price implications and the lack of scrutiny on this legislation?
There is another impact of the Torbay bill which needs consideration, and that is the lack of credible analysis. Because this was a private members bill in NSW there was no requirement to carry out a Rural Communities Impact Statement (as there is for any Government Bill) so there have been no credible assessments of the costs and benefits - only speculation based on some dubious assumptions about market changes.
There is no real evidence that the reduction in price in one market category (budget beef) will create increased price in another - the reality is when one section of the cattle trade reduces there is normally a decline all round. Yet proponents of the bill claim that by cow and 8 tooth animal prices decreasing there would somehow be an automatic increase in younger cattle. However there is no evidence that consumers will change their propensity to buy so called "premium" products or cuts if lesser value ones are reduced in supply or price, and there has been no price point research put forward to back this claim.
Queensland producers should be very sceptical on claims made by those arguing for change. This debate all comes back to those proponents making claims which have not been substantiated, and expecting rest of industry to "trust" that their new costly legislation in NSW would somehow create premiums. The onus should be on those wanting change to prove to producers that there is a benefit. The fact remains that only a system like MSA, in which producers through to end consumers have clear market signals based on quality attributes, can create a greater level of consumer trust and improvements to production through the supply chain. Torbay's bill, quarantined to NSW or spread nationally, will not.
Why does AgForce support MSA as the only effective grading system?
Leading meat researcher Rod Polkinghorne, OAM expressed these words in an address to the ALFA conference: "To overcome the lack of consistency within common AUSMEAT description we hypothesised that we needed to apply a series of standards prior to grading as it was assumed that there were things affecting eating quality that we couldn't see at the point of grading. This concurred with thinking elsewhere with researchers in the USA and UK".
Analysis led to the creation of the MQ4 score, a weighted combination of the four scales, and to defined MQ4 grade boundaries. It also led to us serving a standard mid quality sample in first position and to utilising a latin square design to allocate the following 6 samples to ensure that they were presented an equal number of times in each order (from 2nd to 7th) and before and after each other equally.
A standard of using 10 consumers to test any sample and of clipping the highest and lowest two scores was also adopted. A series of "Chinese walls" were put in place to ensure that sample details were unknown to those testing and that data analysis was controlled externally. Many previously arduous procedures in sample allocation and trial design were automated by software.
With this degree of discipline the consumer scores suddenly became sensible and repeatable. A difference in score represented either a difference in beef quality or in consumers, not cooking, order or other extraneous factor. From being too noisy to use consumer results became a wonderful scientific instrument.
This became the central pillar of MSA. Everything could be indexed against the end consumer; the grading standard could be solely defined as a consumer score without any other reference; if it scored above 77 MQ4 points it could be graded 5 star, under 46.5 would fail and so on.
With close to 80,000 consumers and 550,000 tested samples there are a lot of data. This enables "a lot of model" and is a key reason for MSA being by far the worlds' leading and only truly consumer referenced grading system. What is the practical value of this and how might it be utilised to best advantage?
In my opinion the one critical issue in regard to beef grading is that the grade accurately reflects a consumer sensory experience. A grading system becomes relevant and valuable when it conveys a clear simple cooked result to a consumer. This result should not require additional consumer knowledge or information. If this is delivered beef can compete in the food sector as a contemporary consumer product with the many layers of traditional mystique and confusion removed.
A single grade applied to an entire carcase cannot do this. Existing retail description based solely on cut names cannot deliver this outcome. MSA does."
For more information, contact AgForce cattle policy director Oscar Pearse on (07) 3236 3100 or email.
Why not support the proposals to use AUSMEAT as a grading scheme?
While AgForce supports truth in labelling, consumers must understand that MSA is the only eating quality assurance system which utilises all the relevant scientific measurements in a genuine eating quality and grading system. Carcase attributes measured in the AUS-MEAT system do not indicate, nor provide any guarantee, of the eating quality of a specific cut of meat from that carcase.
MSA is a model that uses multiple factors to generate a guaranteed 'cuts by cooking' eating quality assurance. Any attempt to use bits of the AUSMEAT or bits of the MSA system to try and create a 'grading' system is flawed. The indisputable eating quality science shows such a system will not create any certainty for consumers because it will ignore critical factors in eating quality. The science is very clear, and it is unfortunate that some parliamentarians in NSW do not appear to understand this.
Why not label 8 teeth beef as "low quality"?
AgForce is vehemently opposed to the idea that any industry or product should be forced to label (at retail) any category as "low quality or low grade". This is a very sad debate for the Australian beef industry indeed. Such an imposition will, unlike the existing budget grading used in the voluntary codes for retailers, mean that consumers see a derogatory term on beef. In such a case where beef is labelled negatively and competing products are not then simply put, households will surely take their meal dollars elsewhere - i.e. to competitor proteins like chicken or pork.
No industry group, or group claiming to represent the best interest of beef producers, would ever accept a derogatory and misleading system that forces retailers to label certain type of beef in a negative way. AgForce will not support the forced labelling of cuts from 8 tooth carcases as low grade or low quality. There are ways in which such cuts can be used, and priced in way that maximises consumer satisfaction.
The proposals in the Torbay bill will not do this, instead will simply degenerate Australian beef and reduce market share and total levels of consumption compared to competing proteins.
These politicians simply don't understand that as more and more beef is being MSA graded in Australia for eating quality, producers are eagerly analysing and learning from their grading data. They are finding that the old belief that milk and 2 tooth cattle have the best eating beef and 6 and 8 teeth beef is the worst is simply a myth.
The myth has been smashed and the earth is not flat at all! Sadly these NSW politicians haven't caught on. It is this ignorance that is driving them to legislate this industry back to the dark ages and drive consumers away from beef. AgForce Cattle calls on all beef producers and beef consumers to stand shoulder to shoulder and fight this dangerous legislation.
We have discussed with Minister Tim Mulherin who is fully up to speed on the realities of meat eating quality science, how improvements can be made which create better market signals from consumers to producers, and the costs impacts of the NSW draft bill. We hope that a solution can be found at Primary Industries Ministerial Council level if the NSW government regulations fails to make suitable change. CCA is calling on all Agricultural Ministers to recognize this at PIMC.
Why is AgForce concerned about price implications and the lack of scrutiny on this legislation?
There is another impact of the Torbay bill which needs consideration, and that is the lack of credible analysis. Because this was a private members bill in NSW there was no requirement to carry out a Rural Communities Impact Statement (as there is for any Government Bill) so there have been no credible assessments of the costs and benefits - only speculation based on some dubious assumptions about market changes.
There is no real evidence that the reduction in price in one market category (budget beef) will create increased price in another - the reality is when one section of the cattle trade reduces there is normally a decline all round. Yet proponents of the bill claim that by cow and 8 tooth animal prices decreasing there would somehow be an automatic increase in younger cattle. However there is no evidence that consumers will change their propensity to buy so called "premium" products or cuts if lesser value ones are reduced in supply or price, and there has been no price point research put forward to back this claim.
Queensland producers should be very sceptical on claims made by those arguing for change. This debate all comes back to those proponents making claims which have not been substantiated, and expecting rest of industry to "trust" that their new costly legislation in NSW would somehow create premiums. The onus should be on those wanting change to prove to producers that there is a benefit. The fact remains that only a system like MSA, in which producers through to end consumers have clear market signals based on quality attributes, can create a greater level of consumer trust and improvements to production through the supply chain. Torbay's bill, quarantined to NSW or spread nationally, will not.
Why does AgForce support MSA as the only effective grading system?
Leading meat researcher Rod Polkinghorne, OAM expressed these words in an address to the ALFA conference: "To overcome the lack of consistency within common AUSMEAT description we hypothesised that we needed to apply a series of standards prior to grading as it was assumed that there were things affecting eating quality that we couldn't see at the point of grading. This concurred with thinking elsewhere with researchers in the USA and UK".
Analysis led to the creation of the MQ4 score, a weighted combination of the four scales, and to defined MQ4 grade boundaries. It also led to us serving a standard mid quality sample in first position and to utilising a latin square design to allocate the following 6 samples to ensure that they were presented an equal number of times in each order (from 2nd to 7th) and before and after each other equally.
A standard of using 10 consumers to test any sample and of clipping the highest and lowest two scores was also adopted. A series of "Chinese walls" were put in place to ensure that sample details were unknown to those testing and that data analysis was controlled externally. Many previously arduous procedures in sample allocation and trial design were automated by software.
With this degree of discipline the consumer scores suddenly became sensible and repeatable. A difference in score represented either a difference in beef quality or in consumers, not cooking, order or other extraneous factor. From being too noisy to use consumer results became a wonderful scientific instrument.
This became the central pillar of MSA. Everything could be indexed against the end consumer; the grading standard could be solely defined as a consumer score without any other reference; if it scored above 77 MQ4 points it could be graded 5 star, under 46.5 would fail and so on.
With close to 80,000 consumers and 550,000 tested samples there are a lot of data. This enables "a lot of model" and is a key reason for MSA being by far the worlds' leading and only truly consumer referenced grading system. What is the practical value of this and how might it be utilised to best advantage?
In my opinion the one critical issue in regard to beef grading is that the grade accurately reflects a consumer sensory experience. A grading system becomes relevant and valuable when it conveys a clear simple cooked result to a consumer. This result should not require additional consumer knowledge or information. If this is delivered beef can compete in the food sector as a contemporary consumer product with the many layers of traditional mystique and confusion removed.
A single grade applied to an entire carcase cannot do this. Existing retail description based solely on cut names cannot deliver this outcome. MSA does."
For more information, contact AgForce cattle policy director Oscar Pearse on (07) 3236 3100 or email.