Processors say policy muddies issues of cattle cleanliness and production
by James E. Guyette
As stepped-up enforcement of strict USDA zero-tolerance policy for cattle carcass cleanliness standards continues through its first full winter, the issue is being muddied by concerns over both the economic impact and the fairness with which the rules are applied.
Under zero tolerance, carcass surface defects such as manure, mud, milk and stomach contents must immediately be trimmed away to guard against bacterial contamination of the beef. Complying with these standards is particularly difficult during the messy winter months when cattle in feedlots and holding pens are literally caked with assorted debris.
"It's not unusual to see animals coming in with 100 pounds of mud and manure on their hides," stresses Jens Knutson, AMI's director of economic and industry relations.
AMI estimates that zero tolerance can bring about a $5 to $8 loss per head in reduced yields and packing line downtime. "We're looking at it as a factor in the market," Knutson points out.
Prior to the latest zero-tolerance zeal, processors were able to wash carcasses or continue processing without having to stop production for additional trimming. But last spring saw the arrival of stepped-up zero tolerance enforcement following the fatal outbreak of food poisoning from contaminated beef sold in the western United States early last year.
Industry estimates last year reported that chain speeds were slowing down at a rate of up to 30 percent as packers struggled to comply. The exact impact of this winter's weather conditions remains uncertain, but processors are preparing for negative results.
"It's going to be more work and more expensive for them," says Tom Brink, director of market research for Cattle-Fax, a market information research company.
Already "we're seeing smaller weekday kills and bigger Saturday kills," Brink points out. Saturday is typically a "flex day" or "shock absorber" within the industry. And because of chain speeds made slower by zero-tolerance requirements and the extra trimming now needed, that sixth work day is necessary to take up the slack, says Brink.
Dollars and cents
Brink estimates that a 750-pound carcass requires an additional 5.25 pounds of trimming to meet zero tolerance, amounting to $1.10 a pound of waste, which means a loss of $5 to $5.80 per head before factoring in labor, downtime and other facets of the situation.
"That's where you potentially face bigger trim losses," Brink says. "It's going to be a challenge."
Wayne Purcell, professor of agricultural economics at Virginia Polytechnic Institute, puts it bluntly: "That's a lot of money."
"I don't think society understands the cost/benefit of zero tolerance," he notes, adding that the consumer will ultimately pay one way or another, and the price for such strict spot-checking is not worth it.
"We incur a significant cost with zero tolerance," Purcell adds. "We cannot afford perfection."
He adds that "there's got to be a way to give the public the assurance they deserve without breaking the industry."
The quest for true zero tolerance means economic trouble no matter who pays the immediate cost, Purcell points out. "The short-term solution would be to buy the cattle cheaper. But if you pass this added cost down the line to the producer, you run somebody out of business. Over time, you have a smaller supply of beef."
Producers say while zero tolerance can bring negative economic results, it is a policy they can live with -if enforcement is conducted more fairly.
"We've always taken the opinion that zero tolerance is a good thing, but it has to be applied uniformly to all packers," says Mark Klein of Minneapolis-based Excel Corp. "If it is not uniformly approached, the cost will jump all over the place." If we have to add extra trimmers to the line and other companies don't, we are at a disadvantage."
It's a similar situation at Greeley, Colo.-based Monfort Inc., says K.T. Miller, director of public relations.
"We've always believed in zero tolerance," she says. "But one plant will be enforced one way and another plant another way."
Gary Wilson, director of animal health and inspection at the National Cattlemen's Association, says, "We're very supportive of zero tolerance. But our members report that cattle are going through excessive trimming because of inspection differences."
Wilson readily concedes, however, that "there is room for improvement on either side," citing the apparent rift between processors and USDA.
"If one slaughtering crew does not have the experience of another, that would be a procedure improvement that the packer would have to make," he points out.
"You just need some more standardization put into the system," says Jim Hodges, AMI's senior vice president of regulatory affairs. "You need more uniformity."
The procedures are under administrative review, according to Jacque Knight, chief information officer for FSIS.
"We're trying to make everything as uniform as possible," Knight stresses. "There will always be complaints." She adds that the 7,498 inspectors continue to stress fairness in enforcement.
Media madness
The zero tolerance issue came to a head last spring when inspectors conducted surprise checks of 90 slaughtering facilities.
Just 26 plants got a clean bill of health. Thirty plants were shut down for periods ranging from four hours to two weeks, and 12 were placed under a special enforcement program in which continuing noncompliance could result in withdrawal of federal inspection.
"Gradually, as they came into compliance, they were allowed to start up again," Knight says.
The inspections had packers fuming because they were conducted with massive publicity in the mainstream media. Plants that were reportedly shut down were denying that such events actually took place.
The media cited "negative findings" at a Monfort plant in Colorado, an IBP plant in Idaho and Booker Custom Packing plant in Booker, Texas. That topic appears to remain an uncomfortable point of discussion.
"Our plant was not closed down, and our line was not shut down," stresses Monfort's Miller. "If there's any problem it's probably because of the inconsistency with the rules."
Gary Mickelson, IBP's manager of communications, points out, "USDA may have slowed, or temporarily stopped operations at our Boise [Idaho] plant for a few minutes, but [the agency] did not shut it down for any extended period."
Brent Dabell, Booker's plant manager, indicates that he is unhappy with the entire event. "It's just another deal," he says. "It's just something that happened. I really don't want to comment on it."
But Dabell did hint that he was pleased that others are apparently undergoing similar government scrutiny. "Everybody's in the same boat," he says.
Leather loot lessening under zero tolerance
Trying to meet zero tolerance standards is wreaking havoc with the hides. After the pulling process, they are mostly sold overseas to be used for shoes, gloves, wallets, coats, purses, briefcases and other leather goods.
The hide can be the most valuable part of "the drop," and thus, quality is important because nobody wants to carry a purse or briefcase sporting a big knife gouge, hair-pull or other imperfection.
According to USDA, branding alone causes an annual loss of $159 million to $236 million in hide damage. A branded hide will bring $9 to $13 less, and the impact of zero tolerance trimming is not yet known.
Processors so far are making neither hide nor hare of the issue as they are left with the choice of either saving some skin and losing some meat yield, or taking the extra steps required by the mandates and losing some leather, according to Jens Knutson, AMI's director of economic and industry relations.
Under zero tolerance, the hides have been hit with excessive gouges and hair-pulls on the grain. "Most of the problems on the line are concerned with hide removal," Knutson explains.
The BHR-1 Beef Hock Restrainer from Jarvis Products Corp. of Middletown, Conn., is engineered to relieve carcass weight from the line hooks in order to prevent ripping, tearing and carcass pull-down.
"It assists in keeping the animals from falling to the floor," says Peter Gwyther, Jarvis' vice president.
There's less chances of failing to comply with contamination standards. "People have put it in because they have a problem," Gwyther says.
But the concept of opening up a "cow wash," modeled after a favorite neighborhood car wash, simply won't get the job done.
"If you wash them, and the hide is wet before it's pulled, you just compound the problem," explains Excel's Mark Klein.
This leaves producers and packers with the task of developing alternative methods. They are trying to perfect a way of cleaning the hides after slaughter but before opening the carcass.
A belly claw scraper can be effective in taking manure and mud from the belly and leg areas, but it lacks for cleaning the sides and butts. There is also a problem with pulling out belly hair and, consequently, damaging the hide.
A soda blaster still needs work because it also can damage the hide, but there is hope that such a high-pressure, blow-off method will eventually become an economical answer.
For a less technical technique, "some people are approaching it with a Weed Eater," Knutson notes. Utilizing a motorized nylon string trimmer-traditionally favored by landscapers-packers whip away the mud and manure. This apparently is an effective solution given certain circumstances of scale and line speed.