are advised that most large retail buyers have had to reestablish their own graders to check on Government graded meat. This refutes the statement often made that Federal grading standardizes a product. It also refutes the argument that a buyer can call a packing plant and get the quality of lambs he wants by specifying the U.S. grade desired. In recent cutout tests conducted by the American Sheep Producers Council, yields of edible meat, waste fat, and bone were determined on 59 lamb carcasses in various retail stores. Twenty of these carcasses had been graded U.S. Choice. These 20 carcasses varied in weight from 40 to 60 pounds. The attached graph No. 2 shows the wide variation in the percentage of waste fat removed from these 20 carcasses. You will note from this graph that these carcasses grading U.S. Choice, and thereby implying uniformity, contained all the way from 8.46 percent up to 19.8 percent waste fat. After studying this graph the question can well be asked, "Is the housewife being helped to secure a uniform dependable meat product through Government grading when the ratio of fat to edible meat is so variable?" Swift & Co. made a check of Government grading in 10 of their plants over a 2-week period. All of the premium lambs were offered each day to Government graders at each of these 10 plants. Their premium brand is their top-quality meat on which they have built their reputation over many years. It is, of course, well accepted by the trade. The premium grade of lambs at these plants during this 2-week period were graded as follows: Plant No. 1: No prime_. Plant No. 2: 1 percent prime.. Plant No. 3: No prime--- Plant No. 4: 2 percent prime. Plant No. 5: No prime_-. Plant No. 6: No prime Plant No. 7:1 percent prime_. Plant No. 8: No prime Plant No. 9: No prime-- Plant No. 10: No prime--- Percent choice 8 52 40 75 12 16 15 10 18 22 Note the wide variation in the Government grading of these Swift premium lambs. The percentage grading U.S. Choice varied all the way from 8 percent in plant No. 1 to 75 percent in plant No. 4. This variation brings out the fact that Government grading is very strict at some markets and more liberal at others. Packers say they never know what the temper of the grader will be. Therefore, in selling graded lambs they have to presume application will be strict. Because of this uncertainly, the packers tend to avoid volume orders for graded meat. For example, the Jewel Food in Chicago 2 years ago used packer brands and would use up to 12,000 pieces (carcasses and cuts) when having a sale. They switched to U.S. Choice and now find packers reluctant to quote sufficient volume of Government graded lamb to have a big sale because of probable inability to fill the order for U.S. Choice lamb. This inability to properly service trade requirements for U.S. Choice lambs narrows the potential consuming outlets available to the packers and quite obviously restricts their ability to merchandise the meat in a manner that will produce the greatest sales realization. And who suffers from this condition? The producer and feeder, naturally, in the price paid for their lambs. Furthermore, the $6 per hour cost for the services of a Federal grader is considered as part of packer production costs and is taken into account in the price the packer pays the producer. This is a cost to which we wouldn't object if we felt it was a valuable and necessary service. Also, we are advised that a hardship is created on the packers through the necessity of sometimes holding lamb carcasses in their coolers for as long as 72 hours to bring out the so-called inherent qualities required for acceptance or rejection by the Federal grader. Inability to move a product promptly forces a buildup of inventory which lessens the packers' ability to fully and economically utilize their slaughter facilities. This restraint to free action can force the packers to reduce their purchases of live lambs, thus limiting the buyer competition which should be accorded the producers and feeders for their lambs. There is always a top and bottom to each grade. Packers state that retail buyers tend to purchase all Government graded lambs at a price representing the intrinsic value of the bottom of the grade. The producer, therefore, actually receives less for his commodity than he otherwise would. After producers and feeders make their lambs fat enough to assure that they will grade U.S. Choice, they frequently find they are penalized pricewise because of the weight of these lambs. In fact, during the past winter, fed lamb carcasses on the New York market grading U.S. Good commanded a higher price than those grading U.S. Choice in the 55- to 65-pound range. Graph No. 3 shows average New York wholesale prices on a weekly basis for the past 6 months for U.S. Good lambs of all weights and U.S. Choice 55- to 65-pound carcasses. In the final analysis, it is the housewife who determines which meat is most desirable. If she determines that leaner lamb from a carcass graded Good is preferable to that from an overfat lamb, even though graded Choice, what is the value of Federal grading? As previously stated, Government grading specifications do not reflect such qualities as tenderness and flavor. These are factors largely determined by breeding and feeding. Research projects are now underway to determine the palatability of lambs of various breeds and crossbreeds, of varying ages, and raised under different feed conditions. We greatly appreciate the work of the Department of Agriculture and the colleges for furthering this research. It is a long step toward the development and marketing of the most desirable lamb carcasses. However, unless the results of this research can be reduced to a very simple formula, the grading process will be made more complex and the present errors and variations in human judgment will be further accentuated. The human element factor is already recognized as one of the big problems in Government grading. Another question that needs answering is this: "Who is asking for Federal grading of lamb?" Records of the Agricultural Marketing Service show that for the year 1958 only 35.6 percent of the total tonnage of commercially slaughtered lamb was federally graded. In other words, there are almost 2 pounds of nonfederally graded lamb for every pound that is graded. That would indicate there is no particular clamor from the housewives for Government grading, except in those chainstores where U.S. Choice is being advertised as a brand name. Apparently slaughterers of the bulk of the lambs marketed are not begging for Federal grading. And yet with only about onethird of the lamb tonnage being graded, the effect of grading is being felt on the entire tonnage marketed. Buyers can effectively use Government grading as an excuse for holding down live prices, stating they don't know whether the lambs will make the grade. We firmly believe that Federal grading is injurious to the efficient merchandising of lamb for these reasons: 1. Grading specifications are unrealistic in that they cause production of overfat, overfed, wasty lambs. 2. Lamb grading has failed in its purpose to create a uniform product for the consumer. 3. Federal grading is used as an excuse to beat down live prices. Buyers claim they cannot pay more for lambs because they are not certain how they will grade on a dressed basis. In fact, we have a feeling that there are times in our thin lamb market that retailers buying by grade specifications on bid or by telephone can depress the market more than if they bought by personal inspection of the coolers and by dealing on the merit of the lambs. 4. Inability of packers to properly service trade requirements for U.S. Choice lambs narrows potential consuming outlets and restricts merchandising to the detriment of producers and feeders. 5. Grading specifications do not reflect consumer preference and the market value of the carcass. During certain periods of the year U.S. Good carcasses sell higher than U.S. Choice 55- to 65-pound carcasses. 6. Many factors in breeding and feeding go into the palatability of a lamb carcass. Even if it is found possible through research to measure these factors, the grading will become more diffcult and the possibilities of error through human judgment will be further increased. 7. Only about one-third of the lamb slaughter is federally graded. However, the adverse effects of grading are being felt on the entire tonnage marketed. 8. Conferences and resulting alterations in grade specifications have failed to bring any permanent relief to the problems inherent in grading. The same complaints with regard to grading of lamb have existed for the past 16 years. For these reasons, we urge the immediate removal of Federal grading of lamb. |