News

Simmering breed content description issue may be closer to resolution

Jon Condon 19/09/2024

 

FIFTEEN months after it first surfaced, a beef breed content trade description issue may be close to reaching a resolution.

While the specific AusMeat trade description changes being discussed are not breed specific – and indeed would cover both beef and sheepmeat breed raising claims – the current broader focus on the issue is squarely on Angus beef brand claims – specifically, the ability to use the single word ‘Angus’ to describe beef from 50pc content Angus cattle in the marketplace.

Back in mid-2023, the AusMeat Industry Language and Standards Committee (AMILSC) was approached by a southern Australian processor proposing to use the word ‘Angus’ to describe beef produced from a dairy-beef program – ie Angus x Holstein.

For decades, Australia’s major export beef brands carrying the word, ‘Angus’ have had a requirement for second-cross (F2) Angus genetics or higher. Virtually all of Australia’s largest grainfed exporters, including Teys, JBS, NH Foods, Thomas Foods International and Kilcoy Global Foods run large Angus grainfed brand programs.

At the same time, however, US beef exports described as ‘Angus’ have operated under a 50pc minimum breed content requirement (some would even question that claim) raising issues around competition, equivalence and confusion with Australian grainfed product in international markets.

To make the AusMeat Language and Standards Committee’s purpose clear, its focus is entirely on making sure that any raising claims on a branded beef carton lid are accurate and unambiguous – it is not about establishing a set of raising claims, per se.

The trade description issue has proven to be extremely divisive since last year, with industry politics clearly showing its head and diverse and polarised stakeholder views evident.

Working group established

Having made little progress, the AMILSC recently established a separate working group made up of peak body representatives and others to try to progress the issue away from the committee room.

In essence the group has been told to “go away, sort out your differences and come back to the committee with an outcome.” The group is due to report back during an upcoming out-of-session AMILSC meeting scheduled for 25 September in Brisbane, on how the industry might put in place a 50pc content animal raising claim.

It’s understood a 50pc sheep breed content claim is likely to be pursued by another meat supply chain soon after any decision is reached.

Assuming a recommendation in favour of a 50pc standard program is made next week, the broader  AMILSC group would then seek to answer questions like how a 50pc claim is determined, making it bullet-proof and across-industry. Current industry systems like NLIS and Livestock Production Assurance – widely sold to export trading partners – may play a role. Meat Standards Australia grading (perhaps using Eating Quality Index results) may also play a part.

Some stakeholders spoken to for this report suspect the working group may come back with a one or more additional terms to be used, beyond the simple word ‘Angus’ to describe an F1 product. Examples might include terms like ‘Angus 50’, ‘Angus F1’ or ‘Angus Cross’.

Elsewhere in the beef industry, the Wagyu sector already has a well-established 50pc breed content descriptor in use. At brand level, such product  is mostly referred to as ‘F1 Wagyu’ or ‘Wagyu Cross,’ but the issue many see is that once the product reaches the food service or retail level, it is often simply described on a menu as ‘Wagyu beef.’ Whether the customer is being exposed to the full ‘Wagyu experience’ under those circumstances is open to debate.

Complicating matters further with any F1 Angus claim would be the type of maternal genetics involved. The science suggests an F1 Angus out of a Hereford or Shorthorn cow would statistically be likely to deliver a higher eating quality outcome than out of a high-content Brahman or Droughtmaster cow in northern Australia. Yet under a simple F1 ‘Angus’ claim as currently indicated, no distinction would be made.

One suggestion made to Beef Central was that the working group may come back with an answer to that – possibly linked to MSA eating quality index results, setting a minimum Index number as a safeguard.

The counter argument to that, based on commercial forces, is that any brand manager making an Angus claim on a 50pc Angus animal of lesser quality is unlikely to last long, in what is an increasingly competitive global market for quality Angus table beef.

Given the recent growth in interest in mating large numbers of tropically adapted northern breeding cows to Wagyu bulls – principally for fertility reasons – it is possible that a similar ‘50pc’ description challenge may emerge in the F1 Wagyu industry.

Polarised views

“In the case of 50pc Angus, this is essentially a marketing issue,” an experienced stakeholder close to the breed claim issue told Beef Central yesterday.

“But it has become very, very complicated over the past 15 months, as some very large supply chains that have built their well-recognised Angus brand integrity and brand equity around a 75pc Angus breed content claim get involved.”

Those resisting the development of a 50pc Australian Angus program were clearly concerned about reputational damage inflicted on their own brands, and dilution in a product that carried only half Angus content, he said.

“There is no doubt they have spent a lot of time and money developing an excellent product, and don’t want to see that damaged by somebody else offering what they see as sub-standard Angus ‘lite’.”

Having made that point, there’s evidence that Australia’s current ‘Angus’ grainfed beef programs (75pc minimum content, and often including purebred Angus cattle) attract price premiums over and above US Certified Angus (50pc minimum) beef, grading USDA Choice.

If marketed properly, those supply chains choosing to continue with an F2 minimum standard for entry still had the ability to project their product as a superior offering, based on breed content, the contact said, and should not be impacted by emergence of any F1 ‘Angus’ carton lids, a stakeholder in favour of the change said.

Those in favour of the change say a claim on 50pc Angus would open up considerable opportunity for commercial cattle breeders who for management or other reasons do not want to extend beyond F1 Angus terminal breeding programs. This, in turn, could provide additional opportunities for Australian Angus bull breeders, they said.

Vote could be split

Changes to industry language and standards have historically been resolved with unanimous support among the various peak industry bodies and other groups represented on the AMILSC committee – however it is looking increasingly likely that next week’s vote on breed content could be divided, and decided by simple majority.

The committee itself is comprised of beef sector membership from the Australian Lot Feeders Association, The Australian Meat Industry Council (representing some, but certainly not all beef processors) and Cattle Australia, representing grassfed beef producers. Other representation is drawn from the supermarket and independent retail sector, the pork and sheepmeat industries, and the Federal Government.

The grainfed industry, represented by the Australian Lot Feeders Association, is known to have opposed the move to F1 Angus from the outset, however ALFA chose not to comment when approached by Beef Central yesterday, saying the matter was “being handled internally.”

“We are working through it,” was the only comment offered.

The AMILSC recently undertook a review of the Animal Raising Claim Frameworks for Beef and Sheep Production in Australia. The review focussed on ensuring that the raising claim framework provides an up-to-date platform that supports industry, ensuring trade descriptions applied to meat products are accurate and unamibiguous.

 

Click here to view an earlier Beef Central story on the issue published in July last year.

 

 

 

HAVE YOUR SAY

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Your comment will not appear until it has been moderated.
Contributions that contravene our Comments Policy will not be published.

Comments

  1. Anton Hutchinson, 23/09/2024

    This has been an issue for me. I have all black baldy cows and Angus bulls that throw some white face calves. Simply because they can the supermarkets and processors discount the white face by up to 39 cents a kilogram but sell it along with the full Angus stock. This is an absolute rip-off against farmers and should not be allowed and companies fined if caught.

  2. James Starling, 22/09/2024

    MLA has done such a great job at designing and implementing the MSA grading system I’m disappointed that I don’t see it reflected in offerings in the retail cabinet or anywhere at the retail or restaurant level. Obviously Angus has a lot of brand power but I think the industry is missing a trick by not doing a better job of pushing MSA grades through to the consumer. Sell it as Angus MSA 60+ or F1 Angus MSA 60+ or just MSA 60+ for example. Gundagai do it with lamb, they market with their own grade (eg GLQ 5+) and if it meets the grade it goes in the box regardless of breed.

  3. Marc Greening, 20/09/2024

    Let’s bring to the table Value Based Marketing (VBM) and sustainability. An issue not discussed in this article is what the market signals to industry a 75%+ breed content brand gives. We have brand owners and industry in general working very hard to demonstrate and highlight the sustainability aspects of producing beef in Australia. A lot of this is done through highlighting the outstanding work being done on farm by producers, backed by science. Yet we have market signals from processors/brand owners here in the south in the form of purebred Angus specifications totally and utterly contradicting the science around producing sustainable quality beef and the message to consumers we need to sell. It is undisputable fact that the production values of crossbreeding in terms of reducing days to slaughter, maternal herd fertility and feed conversion are the main drivers we in production land can positively contribute to the carbon targets expected of industry. So, let’s use the science to its full and not encourage the outdated market signals of a purebred animal to determine on farm price. Let’s set market signals that contribute on farm and in the feedlot to sustainability through the number one sustainability driver, namely reduced days to slaughter. Whilst still maintaining meat quality standards, by getting paid for the product we deliver in a VBM supply chain, not a 1980s style breed specific supply chain.

  4. Wallace Gunthorpe, 19/09/2024

    If they want to be breed specific and claim the eating quality advantage of Angus which is debatable they should also have to declare the extra amount of chemical for parasite control,pink eye treatment and foot rot treatment required by Angus cattle compared to Brahman cattle! The higher supplement requirement of Angus cattle in the north! Tell the whole story! One to sell is better than one to smell!
    Shame we don’t just sell Australian beef with all the diversity we have,grain fed,grass fed,organic etc!

    • Peter Vincent, 20/09/2024

      Mr. Gunthorpe’s comment is an unfortunate example of the division within and between breeds and breeders and is unhelpful in attempting to find a solution to the awkward problem of using a breed name to maximise value.
      Little wonder that processors are ropable when the value of their (breed and product) brands may be diluted by inferior eating-quality product.
      If there are loopholes in any proposed scheme they’ll be discovered and utilised to the fullest extent.

      • Wallace Gunthorpe, 24/09/2024

        Just the truth,chickens are a good example,they are not breed specific yet they are one of our biggest competitors!

      • David Hill, 20/09/2024

        Maybe we would all be better served if the eating quality provenance was underpinned by science?
        Brand provenance is an evolving space, it has to be more than just eating quality and breed these days, I would assume that’s the point Mr Gunthorpe is making.
        As far as looking for loopholes goes, I would suggest that going in that direction is likely to erode a brands prominence in the market place in a hurry!

Get Beef Central's news headlines emailed to you -
FREE!