[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 20 (Tuesday, January 30, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 2891-2898]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-1816]
========================================================================
Rules and Regulations
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents
having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed
to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published
under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.
The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents.
Prices of new books are listed in the first FEDERAL REGISTER issue of each
week.
========================================================================
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 20 / Tuesday, January 30, 1996 /
Rules and Regulations
[[Page 2891]]
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Agricultural Marketing Service
7 CFR Parts 53 and 54
[No. LS-94-009]
Standards for Grades of Slaughter Cattle and Standards for Grades
of Carcass Beef
AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS), USDA.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This final rule revises the official U.S. standards for grades
of carcass beef and the related standards for grades of slaughter
cattle. The changes eliminate ``B'' maturity (approximately 30-42
months of age) carcasses with small or slight marbling degrees from the
Choice and Select grades and include them in the Standard grade. This
action is being taken because carcasses with these characteristics have
been shown to be both quite variable and often unacceptable in
palatability, which contributes significantly to inconsistent
palatability of Choice and Select grade beef. The standards for grades
of slaughter cattle, which are based on the beef carcass grades, are
revised to parallel the changes in the beef carcass grade standards.
This change should serve to strengthen the competitive position of beef
products through increased quality and consistency, and thus be in the
best interests of the beef industry. Also, it should provide the
consumer with an improved product through greater consistency and
predictability in the eating quality of Choice and Select grade beef.
The changes should provide the industry with long-term benefits because
pricing systems will be improved, quality inconsistencies will be
reduced, demand for beef will be improved, and the market share beef
commands should increase. These revisions are the same as those
proposed in the January 19, 1995, Federal Register (60 FR 3982).
EFFECTIVE DATE: July 1, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Herbert C. Abraham, Chief, Livestock
and Meat Standardization Branch, Livestock and Seed Division,
Agricultural Marketing Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, P.O.
Box 96456, Washington, D.C. 20090-6456, 202/720-4486.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Executive Order 12866
The Department of Agriculture is issuing this rule in conformance
with Executive Order 12866.
Executive Order 12778
This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12778, Civil
Justice Reform. This action is not intended to have retroactive effect.
This rule would not preempt any State or local laws, regulations, or
policies, unless they present an irreconcilable conflict with this
rule. There are no administrative procedures which must be exhausted
prior to any judicial challenge to the provisions of this rule.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS), has
certified that this action will not have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities, as defined in the Regulatory
Flexibility Act, P.L. 96-345 (5 U.S.C. 601). The use of the beef
carcass and slaughter cattle grade standards is voluntary, and they are
applied equally to all size entities covered by these regulations.
Further, this action does not impose any new requirements or costs, it
only modifies the grade requirements to reflect modern production
practices. All entities can make needed management changes in response
to market signals. The action is expected to benefit the industry by
improving consumer satisfaction with beef products, and there should be
a positive impact on overall industry returns.
Background
Federal beef grading is a voluntary fee for service program,
provided under the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946, as amended (7
U.S.C. 1621 et seq.). A primary purpose of the grades is to divide the
population of cattle and beef into uniform groups (of similar quality,
yield, value, etc.), in order to facilitate marketing. Grades provide a
simple, effective means of describing a product that is easily
understood by both buyers and sellers. By identifying separate and
distinct segments of a commodity, grades enable buyers to obtain that
particular portion of the entire range of a commodity which meets their
individual needs. At the same time, grades are important in
transmitting information to cattle producers so that more informed
production decisions can be made. For example, the market preference
for a particular grade of beef can be communicated to cattle producers
so they can adjust their production accordingly.
When beef is voluntarily graded, the official grade consists of a
quality grade and/or a yield grade. The quality grades are intended to
identify differences in the palatability (eating satisfaction) of
cooked beef primarily through the combined characteristics of marbling
and maturity. The principal official USDA quality grades for young
(maturity groups A and B) cattle and carcasses are Prime, Choice,
Select, and Standard.
In developing the grades, the Department has followed the
philosophy that, to be effective, beef grades should sort the supply of
beef carcasses into homogeneous groups having a sufficiently narrow
range of grade-determining factors so that carcasses within a given
grade are essentially interchangeable. Another major objective is to
provide as uniform and consistent product as possible within a given
grade.
National Cattlemen's Association Petition
In June 1994, the National Cattlemen's Association (NCA) petitioned
USDA to modify the beef quality grade standards by removing B-maturity
carcasses with small and slight marbling scores from the Choice and
Select grades and include such carcasses in the Standard grade. This
action was recommended by a NCA Carcass Quality Task Force which worked
for approximately 1\1/2\ years to develop specific recommendations for
the beef industry to win the ``war on fat,'' while enhancing beef
quality and consistency. The task force had broad representation
[[Page 2892]]
from the cattle production and feeding sectors, as well as packers,
purveyors, and retailers. Several actions were recommended, but only
this particular recommendation related directly to the beef grade
standards.
The NCA petition stated the modern beef animal today is typically
marketed at 12 to 15 months of age when fed as calves and 18 to 24
months of age when fed as yearlings. These modern animals are the
result of progressive breeders and feeders who produce faster growing,
more efficient cattle. If these animals receive proper care and
nutrition, they should have no difficulty producing carcasses in the A-
maturity group. Carcasses of B-maturity are typically from cattle which
are 30 to 42 months of age when marketed.
Research conducted for the Department by Texas A&M University
(Smith et al., 1984, Journal of Food Quality), using trained taste
panels, indicates that nearly 50 percent of the loin steaks from B-
maturity carcasses with slight marbling, and over 30 percent of the
loin steaks from B-maturity carcasses with small marbling, are less
than satisfactory. These B-maturity carcasses significantly contribute
to the variability of palatability within the Select and Choice grades
and they do not epitomize the ``modern beef carcass.'' Permitting B-
maturity carcasses with a small and slight degree of marbling to be
graded Choice and Select when they have been proven to be considerably
more variable in palatability than A-maturity carcasses with slight and
small marbling provides no incentives for the beef industry to decrease
production and marketing of cattle which do not conform to consumer
demand for quality and consistency.
Although these cattle make up only a small percentage of the U.S.
fed beef supply, their variability in palatability can significantly
affect overall consumer satisfaction with beef. According to a national
beef quality audit conducted in 1991, B-maturity carcasses with slight
and small marbling made up about 4.8 percent of the fed-beef supply.
The beef industry processes approximately 26 million fed beef carcasses
annually. The estimated 4.8 percent of fed-beef affected by the
proposed grade change would represent approximately 1.3 million
carcasses. It is estimated that 42 percent of these carcasses would
have less than desirable palatability. This means over 500,000
carcasses with less than desirable palatability could be removed from
the Choice and Select grades, which should have a very positive effect
on consumer satisfaction with beef. The NCA believes producers can and
will respond quickly to the market signals that these ``older'' cattle
should be marketed at an age at which they can produce A-maturity
carcasses and thus produce beef that is more acceptable to consumers.
Such a shift in management could effectively eliminate most B-maturity
carcasses from the beef supply without negatively affecting overall
economic returns to the industry.
The proposed change was seen as having a positive effect on the
marketing of Select grade beef. It would not only make the palatability
more consistent, but it would also make the nutritional profile more
consistent by removing from the Select grade, B-maturity carcasses
which have higher amounts of fat due to the higher marbling level
(small in B-maturity compared to slight in A-maturity) required for
these carcasses to qualify for Select. This makes the Select grade more
uniform in both fat content and consistency of palatability and enhance
its acceptance by consumers who desire leaner beef. Since the U.S. Good
name was changed to U.S. Select in 1987 (52 FR 35679), the percentage
of Select graded beef has steadily increased, and in FY 93, 33.6
percent of graded steer and heifer beef was Select.
The NCA recommendation stated it was submitted to aid the beef
industry in producing a higher quality, more consistent beef product
under the Choice and Select grades. Eliminating B-maturity carcasses
will allow market forces to further discourage the production of cattle
which do not conform to consumers desire for tender, tasty beef
products. The modern beef animal raised using modern breeding and
feeding technology should have no trouble producing a carcass of A-
maturity. The small proposed modification to the standards will
strengthen consumer confidence in using grades to identify quality and
consistency when purchasing beef.
Proposed Standards
The Department carefully evaluated the recommendation and concurred
that the suggested changes should improve consumer satisfaction with
the Choice and Select grades and thus strengthen the competitive
position of beef in the marketplace while aiding the beef industry in
its objective of providing more palatable, consistent beef to
consumers.
Therefore, it was proposed that the beef carcass standards be
revised to eliminate B-maturity (approximately 30-42 months of age)
carcasses with small or slight marbling degrees from the Choice and
Select grades and reduce their grade to Standard.
It was also proposed that the standards for grades of slaughter
cattle, which are based on the beef carcass grade standards, be revised
to reflect the changes proposed for the beef carcass grade standards.
Grades of slaughter cattle are intended to be directly related to the
grades of the carcasses they produce.
Comments
A 90-day comment period, which closed on April 19, 1995, was
provided for submission of comments. The official number of comments
submitted prior to the close of the comment period was 403. In
addition, approximately 65 comments were received which were submitted
after the close of the comment period. These 65 comments expressed
essentially the same views as the 403 comments submitted in a timely
manner. All submitted comments are part of the public record on the
proposed change and are available for public review. The comments were
divided into several groups (sectors) representing segments of the
production and consumption chain with similar interests. The comments
were also classified as being submitted by an individual or an
organization. The distribution of comments by these categories is shown
in Table 1.
The percentage support/opposition for the proposed change by source
and classification (i.e., individual or organization) is shown in Table
2. Over 70 percent of the comments from both individuals and
organizations supported the proposed change. The proposed change was
strongly supported by the purveyor and processor, retail and
restaurant, consumer, government, and academia sectors. Of the comments
from these sectors, only two individual comments were opposed to the
proposed changes. The strongest opposition to the proposed changes was
from the cattle feeding, cattle marketing, and the packer sectors. All
comments from packers, all but one comment from the cattle marketing
sector, and a majority of cattle feeders were opposed to the proposed
changes. While the majority of cattle feeding and marketing sector
comments were opposed, if they are combined with the comments from the
cattle production sector, a large majority of comments from both
organizations (71.4%) and individuals (63.0%) representing cattle
interests (production, feeding, and marketing) supported the proposed
change.
[[Page 2893]]
Table 1--Distribution of Comments
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source Organizations\1\ Individuals\2\ Total
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cattle production............. 27 171 198
Cattle Feeding................ 4 96 100
Cattle Marketing.............. 3 8 11
Packer........................ 2 4 6
Purveyor and processor........ 2 17 19
Retail and Restaurant......... 1 6 7
Consumer...................... 0 34 34
Government.................... 0 5 5
Academia...................... 0 15 15
Other......................... 0 8 8
-----------------------------------------
Total................... 39 364 403
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Includes comments of state, regional, and national organizations.
\2\Includes comments of individuals, comments with multiple signers, and
businesses.
Table 2.--Comments in Favor of or Opposed To Adoption of USDA Proposed Changes.\1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Favor Oppose
Source ---------------------------------------------- Total
Number Percent Number Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cattle Production:
Individuals\2\....................................... 131 77.1 39 22.9 170
Organizations........................................ 25 92.6 2 7.4 27
Cattle Feeding:
Individuals\2\....................................... 40 42.1 55 57.9 95
Organizations........................................ 0 0 4 100.0 4
Cattle Marketing:
Individuals.......................................... 1 12.5 7 87.5 8
Organizations........................................ 0 0 3 100.0 3
Packer:
Individuals.......................................... 0 0 4 100.0 4
Organizations........................................ 0 0 2 100.0 2
Purveyor and Processor:
Individuals.......................................... 16 94.1 1 5.9 17
Organizations........................................ 2 100.0 0 0 2
Retail and Restaurant:
Individuals.......................................... 6 100.0 0 0 6
Organizations........................................ 1 100.0 0 0 1
Consumer:
Individuals\2\....................................... 32 97.0 1 3.0 33
Organizations........................................ 0 -- 0 -- 0
Government:
Individuals.......................................... 5 100.0 0 0 5
Organizations........................................ 0 -- 0 -- 0
Academia:
Individuals\2\....................................... 14 100.0 0 0 14
Organizations........................................ 0 -- 0 -- 0
Other:
Individuals.......................................... 7 100.0 0 0 7
Organizations........................................ 0 -- 0 -- 0
--------------------------------------------------------
Total............................................ 280 70.2 119 29.8 399
Individuals.................................... 252 70.0 108 30.0 360
Organizations.................................. 28 71.2 11 28.2 39
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Includes all written comments except 4 which were nonresponsive or noncommittal regarding the proposed
changes.
\2\One comment from this source was nonresponsive or noncommittal regarding the proposed changes.
Comments in favor of the change strongly supported the removal of
B-maturity carcasses with small and slight marbling from the Choice and
Select grades. The proposed change was seen by many commenters as an
opportunity to improve the overall quality of beef from these grades by
removing a group of carcasses which only comprise a small percentage of
the fed-beef supply, but contribute significantly to beef with less
than desirable eating satisfaction for consumers. These commenters
indicated that removal of a group of carcasses of which up to
approximately 50 percent may produce an inconsistent, variable product
which provides consumers with a less than desirable eating experience
was a first step toward restoring consumer confidence and market share
which has been eroding over the last several years. These comments
expressed the view that any group of carcasses with this degree of
variability should not be allowed in the Choice and Select grades if
the industry is serious in its desire to be consumer driven.
Many supporters of the proposed change, including several from the
academic sector, stated the scientific evidence strongly supports the
proposed changes. These comments supported the conclusions of the NCA
task force which concluded the scientific evidence supported the
proposed changes. These studies indicated variability and inconsistency
of palatability of beef with small and slight marbling in B-maturity
was much greater than comparable levels of marbling in A-maturity, even
though some data did not indicate significant differences in overall
palatability. The high degree of inconsistency was cited by many
[[Page 2894]]
comments from the cattle production and feeding sectors as a situation
which must be corrected. Consumption sectors (consumer, purveyor and
processor, retail and restaurant) were also very concerned over product
which failed to meet consumer desires. Supporters of the proposed
changes postulated that few successful businesses would choose to do
nothing if they found a product line with up to 50 percent customer
dissatisfaction.
Many comments from cattle sectors and academia expressed the belief
that a large majority of B-maturity carcasses are the result of
management decisions that can be modified by the industry. Further,
these comments stated that by sending a strong market signal that these
cattle will not be included in the Choice and Select grades, management
decisions can be made that will eliminate a large number of them from
the fed-beef supply. Many supporters as well as opponents of the
proposed changes indicated many B-maturity carcasses are from older
``Mexican feeders'' or first or second-calf heifers. Supporters
strongly believed these management practices could be modified and were
against allowing these types of cattle to be included in the same
grades as properly managed, A-maturity cattle. Several cattle producers
and/or feeders indicated they had taken advantage of the system that
allowed these types of cattle to be included in the Choice and Select
grades, but feel it is now time to take a positive step with long-term
benefits in mind to improve the quality and consistency of beef.
Comments from cattle feeders, producers, and marketers which
opposed the changes often stated the belief that there would be a
significant negative economic impact. Estimates of over $100 million
annually in lost revenue were predicted by some of these commenters.
Similarly, comments from the packer sector indicated a projected
reductions of $20 million to $78 million in revenue annually. These
estimates were generally based solely on projected losses in value due
to decreasing the grade of the affected B-maturity carcasses from
Choice and Select to Standard. Some feeders and producers were
concerned that the changes would simply be used by packers as an
opportunity to further discount cattle, who would then pass the beef
through the system as ``no-roll'' product that would not be discounted
appropriately, thus providing an economic windfall for packers. These
commenters also believed the beef targeted by the change would not be
eliminated from the beef supply, but would simply be marketed in a
different manner.
Several of the comments opposed to the changes expressed the
concern that the changes ``unfairly penalized'' the approximately 50
percent of the affected B-maturity carcasses which are considered to
produce ``desirable'' product. As discussed previously, supporters of
the proposal believed any dissatisfaction level of this magnitude was
extremely detrimental to consumer acceptance of beef. Several of the
comments from cattle producers and feeders also expressed concern that
the proposed changes would unfairly penalize operations that grazed
older yearling cattle or fed ``older Mexican'' cattle or 1st or 2nd-
calf heifers. These comments suggested that these cattle would be
severely discounted in the market and would severely affect their
production and marketing.
Some comments from the packing and cattle feeding sectors
questioned the interpretation of the research considered in developing
the proposal which indicated higher variability in palatability of B-
maturity carcasses. A few of these comments indicated some studies
showed beef of B-maturity to be similar to A-maturity beef in overall
palatability. Two studies (National Consumer Retail Beef Study-1986 and
Beef Customer Satisfaction-1994) were cited by a few commenters as
showing consumers do not regard fed-beef as having palatability
problems.
Evaluation of Comments
Supporters of the changes indicated the approximately 50 percent of
B-maturity carcasses with less than desirable palatability have a
significant negative impact on consumer satisfaction with beef. Many
opponents of the changes did not disagree with the evidence of
palatability problems in up to 50 percent of B-maturity carcasses.
However, these commenters believed the remaining 50 percent of B-
maturity carcasses would be ``unfairly discounted'' under the proposal.
Even though it would be preferable to not exclude the approximately 50
percent of carcasses in B-maturity which have desirable eating
satisfaction from the Choice and Select grades, no method for
distinguishing these carcasses from those with undesirable eating
satisfaction is currently available. Although these B-maturity
carcasses with less than desirable palatability represent a relatively
small portion of the fed-beef supply, AMS recognizes that the negative
impact they can have on consumer satisfaction with Choice and Select
beef supports their exclusion from these grades. AMS also has carefully
reevaluated the supporting scientific evidence which compares the
palatability of A and B-maturity beef and concludes there is strong
evidence of greater variability of eating quality in B-maturity beef
than in A-maturity beef. While some opponents of the proposed changes
questioned some of the evidence, most of the comments (including
several from opponents of the changes) supported the evidence. The two
studies (National Consumer Retail Beef Study-1986 and Beef Customer
Satisfaction-1994) cited by some opponents as evidence that the changes
should not be made evaluated only A-maturity carcasses, B-maturity
carcasses were not included in these studies. In addition to the
scientific evidence, the very strong support for the proposed changes
from the consumption sectors (purveyor, processor, retail, restaurant,
and consumer) indicates that consumers desire a more consistent, less
variable eating experience from beef products. The need for improved
consumer satisfaction is evident, and this action should provide the
industry with an opportunity to eliminate a source of beef from the
Choice and Select grades that has been shown to be much more variable
in palatability than A-maturity beef.
Commenters who both supported and opposed the proposed changes
indicated several management practices which contribute to the
production of B-maturity carcasses. These include feeding of ``older
Mexican'' cattle and 1st and 2nd-calf heifers. While these types of
cattle are not the only source of B-maturity carcasses, they
potentially are a significant source. AMS believes these comments
support the ability of the industry to identify many sources of B-
maturity carcasses and either alter management practices to prevent
their production as fed-beef or to merchandize them according to their
value in the marketing system. Beef produced from such management
systems cannot be properly marketed with beef produced from young, fed-
cattle under 30 months of age because of the variability they introduce
into the Choice and Select grades.
A few comments from ``stocker'' operators were concerned the
changes would cause their cattle which are grazed up until about 20
months of age and leave the feedlot at about 23-24 months to be
discounted because they would produce B-maturity carcasses. There is no
evidence to indicate these cattle when properly managed and marketed
would not produce A-maturity carcasses (approximately 30 months of
age).
[[Page 2895]]
Supporters of the grade change generally indicated a belief that
the proposed changes would have a beneficial long-term impact on the
industry, but provided no monetary figures. Much of the opposition to
the proposed changes was due to potential negative economic impact.
Some opponents of the changes provided estimates of negative economic
impact on the industry from $20 million to over $100 million annually.
Because of the wide variation in the type and magnitude of the
predicted impacts expressed by commenters, AMS concluded an independent
economic study would better enable AMS to most effectively evaluate the
proposed changes. AMS contracted with Dr. Wayne Purcell, Director,
Research Institute on Livestock Pricing, Virginia Tech University, to
conduct an independent economic analysis. Dr. Purcell is widely
accepted by the industry as an authority on livestock marketing. His
analysis has been made part of the public record on the proposed
changes.
The economic impact study found if management strategies are not
changed and the same number of B-maturity carcasses continue to be
produced, a short-run negative impact on the industry of -$21 million
could be projected. These immediate costs come from the reduced prices
of B-maturity carcasses that are in the pipeline and from the price
depressing influence of an increase in ungraded and processing beef as
these carcasses are marketed. However, if management strategies are
improved to eliminate even 25 percent of these B-maturity carcasses, a
positive impact of $86 million would occur, and if 50 percent are
eliminated due to management, a positive impact of $194 million would
occur over an adjustment period of about 18 months. If credit is given
to longer term benefits coming from improved demand as some of the
quality inconsistency is eliminated, the benefits to the industry could
easily exceed $1.0 billion across the next 10 years. This study
concluded the benefits to the whole industry far outweigh short-run
adjustments. Longer term, it concluded the entire industry would
benefit because of improved pricing systems, reduction of quality
inconsistencies, improved demand for beef, and a larger market share
for beef.
AMS concludes that the industry can utilize improved management
strategies to eliminate a portion of B-maturity carcasses from the fed-
beef supply. AMS also concludes the economic impact study provides the
most reliable indication of potential economic impacts from the
changes. The projected negative impacts provided by some commentors
generally only accounted for the decrease in value of the B-maturity
carcasses which would not grade Choice or Select after the grade
change. The commentors did not account for price-related benefits,
improved consumer demand, or changes in the supply/demand price
relationship for Choice and Select beef after removal of B-maturity
carcasses. Many comments indicated producers and feeders have the
ability to identify and manage differently cattle types which
contribute significantly to production of B-maturity carcasses. What
percentage of B-maturity carcasses will be eliminated and over what
time period is difficult to predict. However, based on the comments and
other information, it is reasonable to assume that improved management
strategies will enable the industry to achieve a 25 percent reduction
in the number of B-maturity carcasses in the first or second year of
the change, if an adjustment period is provided prior to implementation
of the change. A 25 percent reduction would enable the industry to
realize the net benefits projected by the economic study of $86 million
over the eighteen months following implementation of the change by
removing an identifiable source of inconsistent quality from the Choice
and Select grades and the fed-beef supply.
In consideration of the public comments submitted in response to
the proposed rule of January 19, 1995 (60 FR 3982-3986), and all other
available information, USDA adopts the proposed rule to revise the
official U.S. standards for grades of carcass beef and the related
standards for grades of slaughter cattle by eliminating ``B'' maturity
(approximately 30-42 months of age) carcasses with small or slight
marbling degrees from the Choice and Select grades and including them
in the Standard grade. However, in order to allow the industry time to
adjust its production and marketing practices and to market beef
currently in the pipeline, implementation will be delayed until July 1,
1996.
List of Subjects
7 CFR Part 53
Cattle, Hogs, Livestock, Sheep.
7 CFR Part 54
Food grades and standards, Food labeling, Meat and meat products.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 7 CFR Part 53 and 7 CFR
Part 54 are amended as follows:
PART 53--LIVESTOCK (GRADING, CERTIFICATION, AND STANDARDS)
1. The authority citation for Parts 53 and 54 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 1621-1627.
2. In Sec. 53.203, paragraph (b) (3) is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 53.203 Application of standards for grades of slaughter cattle.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(3) The approximate maximum age limitation for the Prime, Choice,
and Standard grades of steers, heifers, and cows is 42 months. The
maximum age limitation for the Select grade for steers, heifers, and
cows is approximately 30 months. The Commercial grade for steers,
heifers, and cows includes only cattle over approximately 42 months.
There are no age limitations for the Utility, Cutter, and Canner grades
of steers, heifers, and cows. The maximum age limitation for all grades
of bullocks is approximately 24 months.\1\
\1\Maximum maturity limits for bullock carcasses are the same as
those described in the beef carcass grade standards for steers,
heifers, and cows at about 30 months of age. However, bullocks
develop carcass indicators of maturity at younger chronological ages
than steers. Therefore, the approximate age at which bullocks
develop carcass indicators of maximum maturity is shown herein as 24
months rather than 30 months.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
3. In Sec. 53.204, paragraph (c) (1) is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 53.204 Specifications for official U.S. standards for grades of
slaughter steers, heifers, and cows (quality).
* * * * *
(c) Select. (1) The Select grade is limited to steers, heifers, and
cows with a maximum age limitation of approximately 30 months.
Slaughter cattle possessing the minimum qualifications for Select have
a thin fat covering which is largely restricted to the back and loin.
The brisket, flanks, twist, and cod or udder are slightly full and the
muscling is slightly firm.
* * * * *
PART 54--MEATS, PREPARED MEATS, AND MEAT PRODUCTS (GRADING,
CERTIFICATION, AND STANDARDS)
4. Section 54.104 is revised by removing the word ``Select'' in
paragraph (n), revising the third and fifth sentences in paragraph (o)
and revising Figure 1 in paragraph (o) to read as follows:
Sec. 54.104 Application of standards for grades of carcass beef.
* * * * *
[[Page 2896]]
(o) * * * The Prime, Choice, Select, and Standard grades are
restricted to beef from young cattle; the Commercial grade is
restricted to beef from cattle too mature for Prime, Choice, and
Standard; and the Utility, Cutter, and Canner grades may include beef
from animals of all ages. * * * Except for the youngest maturity group
and the Choice grade in the second maturity group, within any specified
grade, the requirements for marbling increase progressively with
evidences of advancing maturity. * * *
BILLING CODE 3410-02-P
[[Page 2897]]
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TR30JA96.006
BILLING CODE 3410-02-C
[[Page 2898]]
* * * * *
5. Section 54.106 is amended by revising the third sentence in
paragraph (b) (3), revising paragraphs (c) (1) and (c) (2) and removing
paragraph (c) (3) as follows:
Sec. 54.106 Specifications for official United States standards for
grades of carcass beef (quality-steer, heifer, cow).
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(3) * * * In carcasses throughout the range of maturity included in
this group, a minimum modest amount of marbling is required (see Figure
1) and the ribeye muscle is slightly firm.
(c) Select (1) For carcasses throughout the range of maturity
permitted in the Select grade, the minimum degree of marbling required
is a minimum slight amount (see Figure 1) and the ribeye may be
moderately soft.
(2) Carcasses in the maturity group permitted range from the
youngest that are eligible for the beef class to those at the juncture
of the two youngest maturity groups, which have slightly red and
slightly soft chine bones and cartilages on the ends of the thoracic
vertebrae that have some evidence of ossification. In addition, the
sacral vertebrae are completely fused and the cartilages on the ends of
the lumbar vertebrae are nearly completely ossified. The rib bones are
slightly wide and slightly flat and the ribeye muscle is slightly light
red in color and is fine in texture.
* * * * *
Dated: January 25, 1996.
Kenneth C. Clayton,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. 96-1816 Filed 1-26-96; 11:27 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-02-P