I thank the committee for the opportunity to address this topic. Beef carcass classification was introduced in the early 1980s and was primarily used for beef going into intervention. In the early 1990s the classification system was extended to all animals from export plants. It is the responsibility of the industry, the operators, to comply with the regulations as laid down and to ensure classification takes place where required under the regulations. Beef carcass classification is now used as a basis for pricing and trade.
The beef carcass classification system covers conformation. To designate conformation we use the letters E, U, R, O and P, with E indicating the best conformation and P the worst. For fat we use a scoring system from one to five, with one indicating the least fat and five indicating the most fat in terms of the cover on the carcass. Classification also covers the sex category - whether it is a bull, a young bull, a steer, a heifer or a cow. That is important for classification purposes.
Our inspectors, the people carrying out checks in the meat plants around the country, also check to ensure carcass weights are being recorded correctly. On occasion they test carcasses to ensure this is done. Our inspectors also look at carcass dressing, or the trim of the carcass, to ensure it is done in accordance with the regulations.
Conformation assessment can be carried out by human visual appraisal or by a machine, which we would describe as a more objective system of classification. As I noted, there are five main classes of conformation, going from E down to P. Each of those main classes can be further subdivided into subclasses. For example, for main class U, one can have U plus, which is nearly an E, which is very good; or U middle or U minus. Accordingly, for each of the five main classes we also have three subclasses. Totalling all of those, the classification for conformation can be divided into a 15-point scale. That is much more precise than simply using the five points.
Fat assessment is also included in classification of carcasses. This is the amount of fat on the outside of the carcass and in the thoracic cavity. It is determined subjectively by human and visual appraisal, or can be determined more objectively by a machine. The incremental scale goes from one, which is the leanest or least fat, up to five, the most fat. As with the conformation score, each scale can be subdivided into three subclasses. In the slide provided, these go from three minus to three middle to three plus, giving us a potential total of a 15-point scale for fatness.
I mentioned carcass dressing at the outset. This is included in the requirements under EU regulations. Channel fat is removed, cod mammary fat where appropriate can be removed, kidney fat is removed and the thick and thin skirt is removed. However, no external fat should be removed by the operators prior to weighing the carcass, and the neck muscle must be attached. Accordingly there are strict rules laid down for dressing or trim as it is more commonly known. Our inspectors check this aspect when they visit the plants to carry out overall classification inspections. The slaughter plants must adhere to the standard dressing requirements on all carcasses. Department officials will check this on their unannounced inspections.
Manual classification still exists in certain plants, perhaps where the throughput is low and machine purchase cannot be justified because such machines are quite expensive. Accordingly we still have a certain level of manual classification. All manual classification must be carried out by licensed classifiers. These are people in the plants, paid by the plants, and licensed by the Department to classify animals. Historically, manual classification uses a seven-point scale for conformation and for fat. For conformation, main classes E, U or O are used, with the P, indicating worst conformation, subdivided into P plus, P middle and P minus. This is the historical way in which plants have been classifying carcasses up to this point. The fat scores are one, two and three, with fat score four subdivided into three subclasses, four L, which designates four low, four M for four middle and four H for four high. There is a main class five.
With regard to control of classification by Department staff, we carry out unannounced visits every six weeks by means of a national standards panel. That panel is made up of Department staff, and the visit involves more than one person to ensure there is no substantial bias introduced to the classification of carcasses. In other words, the panel has tried to introduce a countrywide standard, linked to an EU standard, for the classification of carcasses. Where necessary, follow-up inspections and unannounced visits are carried out by the local supervisor or officer. On occasion there are also visits from an EU control committee, which visits all member states in an effort to ensure all classification is carried out in a uniform manner across the European Union.
I will now deal with mechanical classification. A video camera takes a picture of a carcass and the video image is analysed by a computer and it uses the dimension of the carcass, the areas, volumes, angles, colour and so on to determine the classification, which includes confirmation and fatness. It also has the potential to measure saleable meat yield. The mechanical classification system must be as good as the average classifier. In other words, it must be as good as human appraisal, if not better. A Commission regulation lays down stringent requirements on the authorisation of mechanical classification systems. In November 2003, we carried out tests on three different machines for classification purposes which were from Australia, Denmark and Germany. All three machines passed the authorisation requirements, but the industry focused on the German machine, which is now used in the 24 plants that use mechanical classification.
Mechanical classification is a system of objective measurement. What one gets in Donegal is the same as one gets in Cork or Kildare if the same carcass is classified in these areas. It is authorised to be at least as accurate as human classification. It is cost effective for the plant as its owners have to pay for the classification and the machine can do this on an ongoing basis, as opposed to having a classifier constantly classifying animals. The mechanical grading system utilises a 15 point scale for both confirmation and fat score. The manual classification was using a seven point scale for both confirmation and fatness. This mechanical version increases the accuracy of the classification of animals. It also has the potential to measure meat yield.
Overall, the industry welcomed this development, including the producers and the plant operators. In 2005, the Department intensively monitored the operation of those machines. The standards panel is composed of more than one person to ensure uniformity of approach when classifying animals. There were 195 visits in 2005 and 15,500 carcasses were classified and compared with machines. The Department's supervisory officers carried out 564 inspections in 2005, comparing 40,000 carcasses against the machine classification. Overall, the machines are performing in a satisfactory manner.
There are variations in classification, such as breed, sex, weight, age development and diet. These variations can occur from year to year, month to month, quarter to quarter and so on. The 2005 classifications for both confirmation and fat score were substantially carried out by the machines. In 2001, 42.4% of steers were classified as grade R. This changed to 47.7% in 2002, 51% in 2003, 50.9% in 2004 and 45.7% in 2005. It decreased in 2005, but it went up in 2002 and 2003, which means that there is variation, depending on the animals that are available. This might be explained by the high level of calves exported in 2003, which could have impacted on the classification results of animals in 2005. The confirmation score for grade O was 48.3% for 2001, decreasing in 2002 and 2003 to 35.5%, remaining the same in 2004, while in 2005 it increased to 41.2%. From looking at the figures for 2004 and 2005, it would appear that the number of grade R carcasses has decreased by 5%, while the number of grade O carcasses has taken up that slack. As the machine classification uses a 15 point scale for classification purposes, this means that it is more accurate for those particular confirmation scores than human classification. Steer fatness can also vary from year to year. In 2005, we see an increase in the leanness of carcasses. There are fewer fat carcasses out there for steers. If we compare heifer confirmation for 2004 with 2005, we see the scores are nearly identical, with a score of seven in 2004 and six in 2005. The grade R score in 2004 was 58.5%, which changed to 56.5% in 2005. The grade O score went from 32.1% in 2004 to 33.5% in 2005. This demonstrates that variation exists.
The machine classification in 2005 covered about 85% of all carcasses that were classified in the export meat plants. There has been intensive monitoring by the Department in 2005 and the performance overall has been satisfactory. The Department will continue to monitor and review the position in 2006.
