• The Society
  • History                                      
  • Vision & Mission                       
  • Council & Staff                         
  • Prospective Members               
• The Breed  
  • Introduction to the Breed     
  • Why Afrikaners                   
  • Breed Characteristics         
  • Production Requirements    
  • Selection & Breeding Policy 
  • Herd Bull Selection              
  • Beef Classification              
  • Meat Improvement Scheme 
• Affiliation Breeds  
  • Sanganer
  • Afrisim  
• Applications
• Shows & Sales  
  • Catalogues & Pamphlets  
• Publications
• Journals                    
• ACBS Newsletters    
• Member Newsletters 
• Promotional Items
• Classifieds

        
The Breed  ► BEEF CLASSIFICATION   [ KLIEK HIER VIR DIE AFRIKAANSE WEERGAWE ]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Where does the Afrikaner fit in?

INTRODUCTION

The aim of any meat production system is the profitable production of red meat for the consumer market. The realisation of economical differences in the carcass value of different carcasses has already resulted in major changes in the meat industry. It is clear that the carcasses that measure up to the expected quality standards and the highest possible return of the most sought-after cuts with the least fat are of the uttermost importance.

The carcass stands central to all these requirements. Carcass quality is the primary measurement of production and is a key selection criterion. It is the focal point of the dealer and of new marketing efforts by producers. The carcass provides an easy, definable point by means of which conversion of the animal to meat can be measured.

The question that you as an Afrikaner beef producer have to ask yourself is, “Where does the Afrikaner fit into the classification system of beef?”

Considering that the beef grading system changed to a beef classification system on 1 July 1992, it is necessary to firstly clarify the difference between classification and grading, the reasons why the classification system was changed, and the aims of such a system.

THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CLASSIFICATION AND GRADING

The question arises, “Why should there be a classification system?” Classification systems provide an intelligible language that enables you to distinguish important characteristics of carcass quality. Compensation to the producer and the marketing of meat to consumers need an effective classification system. In order to be effective it is of the utmost importance that such a system is unbiased, intelligible and reliable. It has to be applied consistently, using factors that correlate strongly with the real value of the carcass on the market. Thus, producers who provide carcasses with the desired quality will receive the necessary compensation and those who do not succeed will have the opportunity to adjust their production methods.

The classification of a carcass can be defined as “to impartially describe carcasses in quantifiable terms without giving economical values to the different classes”. Grading, on the other hand, is “the granting of a value class to carcasses in the light of preconceived ideas with reference to quality”. That is why the evaluation of carcasses is important during all stages of the marketing chain, from the farm to the retail trading point.

REASONS FOR CHANGING TO A CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM

• Marketing opinion polls have shown that consumers want simple grading designations for red meat. The current grading system contains too many grade names and hampers the communication process.

• The largest red-meat consumer (and still increasing in numbers) is the black consumer. If their needs are to be met, a simpler system must be used.

• Conversations with several producer groups have shown that the current system of grade names is too complicated.

• The consumer must be able to identify the fat percentage of meat and to make a choice according to his needs. That is why a prescriptive grading system is undesirable.

• Quality, in this case the indication of tenderness, is not an observable trait, and that is the only trait that should be communicated.

• It has been demonstrated that consumers do not use grade names in the purchasing process due to several reasons. One of the most important reasons is the unintelligibility of the grading system.

• South Africa was one of the few countries in the world that tried to sell a grading system to the consumer.

AIMS OF A CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM

The primary aim of a classification system is to divide a heterogeneous product into more homogeneous categories, according to quality, so that –

- at the time of marketing, the price for the class and the weight can be linked; and
- the producer

• has a mechanism according to which the merits (class and weight) of his product can be transferred to him (informational function)

• can be encouraged by the authorities to deliver certain products when and if it is in the interest of the industry (long-term production planning)

• has an indication of the specific product that he has to produce according to consumer preference (short-term production planning)

• can enjoy training with reference to the quality and mass of his product (training function)

- The quality that the consumer desires is provided to him in an orderly manner; therefore a classification system has to indicate the different quality categories clearly.
- Distribution has to be facilitated according to demand.
- A statistical analysis from a national point of view with reference to progress in the production area and consumption has to be made possible.

WHAT DOES THE CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM LOOK LIKE?

The single greatest change regarding the classification system is the difference in grade naming and classification:

The consumer can visually evaluate the amount of fat and thus do his shopping accordingly. Age cannot be observed by the consumer and therefore has to be communicated.

The evaluation of carcasses according to fat (6 classes), conformation (5 classes), damage (3 classes) and sex (bulls) stays the same within each age group and will continue to play a part in determining the price for the meat dealer and the red meat producer.

THE DEMANDS AND NEEDS OF THE RED MEAT CONSUMER WITH REFERENCE TO BEEF

Before it can be determined where the Afrikaner fits into the classification system, it is first necessary to determine what the consumer has to say about a breeder’s product and/or the classification system whereby the breeder’s product is evaluated to meet the consumer’s needs.

The demands and needs of the consumer with reference to meat are that a consistent supply of good quality meat should be available at a reasonable price. Consumers, however, have various expectations of the product, of which their own concept of “value” is the most important criterion, that is, the quantity and quality of the product relative to other types of foods and consumer commodities. The consumer demands a differentiated price in this “value package”, made available by means of an attractive information and marketing service.

According to marketing polls, consumers have indicated that the price per kilogramme (51% of respondents) is the most important factor in their purchasing process. 39% and 30% respectively indicated that the amount of fat and the quality of the meat play a part in their purchasing process. Grading plays a minor role in the purchase price.

FACTORS THAT PLAY A PART DURING THE PURCHASING PROCESS:

It is clear that the increase in health awareness with red meat consumers will have a definite influence on their purchasing pattern. This is clearly seen in the figures in Table 2, with reference to the preferences of consumers and the amount of fat in beef cuts. In 1970, 30% of the white consumers indicated that they preferred at least 6 mm fat in their beef cut; a definite tendency towards leaner beef cuts. The Coloured and Asian population groups also shared this perception. The black consumer however, seems to have a wider variety of opinions towards the amount of fat that they prefer in their beef cuts.

TABEL 2 – PREFERENCES REGARDING FAT THICKNESS IN BEEF CUTS

The perception amongst consumers that beef is too fatty has undergone an increase of 8 and 11% respectively with respect to white and non-white red meat consumers (Table 3). This emphasises the fact that there is a definite tendency towards leaner meat.

TABLE 3 - THE CONSUMER'S PERCEPTION THAT MEAT IS TOO FATTY

Market prices also indicate that there is only a slight difference in price between Fat Code 2 (A1) and Fat Code 3 and 4 (SA), even though there are several other factors that also play a part in the determination of market prices.

Consumers have clearly indicated what their needs are with regard to a carcass classification system, i.e. that it has to be simple and there has to be an indication of tenderness and greasiness (Table 4)

It turns out that consumers put the emphasis on edibility (meat tenderness) and the dissected value of a carcass with regard to saleable meat yield (fattiness) in a classification system.

TABLE 4 – IDEAL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM

Simple 44%
Indication of tenderness 31%
Indication of fattiness 20%

Thus, the Afrikaner has to be evaluated with respect to what it offers the red-meat consumer in terms of the saleable meat yield of the carcass and the tenderness of meat and how these characteristics will receive due merit with the implementation of a classification system.

CARCASS CHARACTERISTICS OF THE AFRIKANER IN A CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM

The most important carcass quality for the producer is carcass mass (because this mainly determines the income per animal), fattiness and age (because these have the biggest influence on the price/kg); together, these factors determine the final income.

De Bruyn (1991) did extensive research on a variety of purebreds and crossbred types, aiming to evaluate carcass and meat quality traits.

The classification system places special emphasis on the comparison of carcasses at the same degree of fatness. Thus, the great variation between different breeds and maturity types with reference to carcass qualities is greatly ruled out.

The influence of breed on slaughter percentage is illustrated in Figure 2. It is clear from this that the slaughter percentage is fairly uniform at a constant fat code.

Exceptions do occur, such as with the Charolais where double muscling has an influence on the slaughter percentage, milk breeds, which normally have a poorer muscle to bone ratio (Naudé, 1974), and the Brahman which is inclined to have a proportionally smaller “fifth quarter” (Naudé, Mentz, Venter, Nel, Botha, Stienie & Argo, 1980). In the case of the Charolais and Brahman it may lead to a higher slaughter percentage and with milk breeds to a lower slaughter percentage.

Considering marketing requirements and profitability, it is necessary to identify the ideal carcass mass margins for the Afrikaner. At this stage it appears that the Fatness Codes 3 and 4 are the optimum fatness codes from a production and marketing point of view. According to the data in Figure 3 it appears that the optimum carcass mass limit is in the region of 170 kg for Afrikaners. It is clear that the ideal carcass mass limit of especially the Simmentaler and Charolais differs from that of the Afrikaner and these later maturing, leaner beef breeds have an ideal carcass mass limit in the region of 230 kg.

The average carcass mass for beef carcasses with a Fatness Code of 3 and 4 in the A age group is 215 kg. The indication is that a heavier carcass is preferred for this fatness code and that the ideal crossbreed is between the Afrikaner mother and the mature European breed bull. This combination will not only produce a larger carcass, but will also be more efficient and will be produced within a shorter period than in the case with the purebred Afrikaner (De Bruyn, 1991).

The variation in % meat between pure breeds at a constant Fat Code is approximately 2% at each successive Fat Code with the late maturing breeds, having a higher % meat in comparison to early maturing breeds (Afrikaner). This can be due to the early accumulation of subcutaneous fat in the early maturity types.

It is remarkable that the Afrikaner and the Brahman displayed a higher meat percentage in the more expensive cuts in comparison to other maturity types (Simmentaler and Charolais) (Figure 5). These two breeds (Afrikaner and Brahman) are well-known for the fact that they tend to produce a carcass with a flatter conformation than that of European breeds and that again indicates that conformation can be misleading in the prediction of the % meat in the carcass.

Tables 5 and 6 summarise the most important carcass characteristics of purebreds and of the different physiological groups with Fat Code 3 and 4. The information in Table 6 is especially enlightening if it is noted that at the same stage of physiological maturity there is no difference with regard to % muscle and prime cuts between the various physiological groups. Early-maturing breeds have a clearly lower percentage total fat than late-maturing breeds. The prerequisite set for Fat Code 3 and 4 is 18–20% total fat and it seems that the Afrikaner meets this requirement. The reason for the higher % total fat of late-maturing types is the greater % intermuscular fat that is found in these types.

TABLE 5 – THE COMPARISON OF PUREBREDS WITH A CONSTANT SUBCUTANEOUS FAT % (6,8% = fat code 3 and 4)

TABLE 6 – COMPARISON OF THE PHYSIOLOGICAL GROUPS AT A CONSTANT SUBCUTANEOUS FAT % (6,8% = fat code 3 and 4) (De Bruyn, 1991)
 

MEAT QUALITY TRAITS OF THE AFRIKANER

The increasing importance of meat quality cannot be underestimated. This will determine whether the consumer finds the meat portion in his plate acceptable or not. In future the meat producer will be forced to reconsider his choices with reference to production systems, breeds, etc., to meet the consumer’s requirements. As already stated, consumers have unequivocally indicated that meat tenderness must be communicated to them in the classification system. It is therefore accepted that meat tenderness is the most important meat quality trait.

Meat tenderness is influenced by a variety of factors, as indicated in Table 7, and all the participants in the meat production chain will have an influence on whether the meat is tender or not. In this discussion, however, emphasis is placed on the influence of breed and cooking temperature on the tenderness of meat, even though it is common knowledge that the age of the animal has the single most important influence on meat tenderness. That is why there are three age groups, i.e. A (0 teeth) (tender); B (1–6 teeth) (less tender) and C (6 teeth) (least tender).

TABLE 7 – FACTORS THAT HAVE AN INFLUENCE ON MEAT TENDERNESS

Biological factors
1.  Breed
2.  Age
3.  Sex
4.  Growth patterns

Technological factors
1.  Refrigeration
    • shrinking (prevention)
    • Aging
2.  Mechanical softeners
3.  Natural softeners
4.  Cooking process

According to De Bruyn (1991) it appears that the Afrikaner’s meat is exceptionally tender in comparison to that of other breeds (Figure 6). The meat of late-maturing types tends to be tougher. The reason for the positive meat tenderness results of the Afrikaner is due to the higher solubility of connecting tissue collagen in the meat of this specific breed. It is thus clear that a production system always has to be managed in such a way that the already identified optimum carcass qualities, as achieved within the ideal carcass mass boundaries, has to be obtained within the unchanged age stage (A age group) in order to produce a carcass with the desired fatness code, according to the future classification system.

The effect of heat on meat tenderness is a complex process seeing that miofibrillated proteins toughens and connective tissue softens during overheating (McCrae R Paul, 1974). Both these changes are dependent on the time and temperature of heating. Time is more important for softening of collagen and temperature for miofibrillar toughening. It is therefore important to cook tough meat (plenty connective tissue) for a longer period at a relatively low temperature while the opposite is true for more tender meat (less connective tissue).

Results in Figure 7 clearly indicate the effect of a higher cooking temperature on meat tenderness. The higher the cooking temperature, the tougher the meat. The Afrikaner, in comparison to other breeds, still delivered the tenderest meat. This clearly indicates the importance of the consumer in ensuring that meat does not become tough during the cooking process.

CONCLUSION

There are a wide variety of beef breeds from which the meat producer can choose for beef production. Without consideration of production systems and market and consumers needs such a choice can be catastrophic. The Afrikaner cow with its special mothering ability, hardiness under extensive conditions and excellent meat qualities will bring about an extremely advantageous cross-breed using late-maturing European breeds that display good production and carcass qualities.

On the other hand, these advantageous traits will be worthless if the middle man does not play his part in respect of optimal handling of the carcass with reference to tenderising, storage, refrigeration etc. The consumer plays an indispensable part at the end of the production chain. If the correct preparation methods aren’t followed, the advantage of tender beef will disappear.

With the implementation of this classification system the Afrikaner breed need not have any fears. It will take its rightful position as it has proven over the years.
            

                
© 2009 - 2011 The Afrikaner Cattle Breeders' Society of South Africa    •    Terms & Conditions and Privacy Policy    •    Website designed, hosted & maintained by 123 Internet