Eh. All that proves is that the meat came from a bovine that pretty much looked like an Angus - if you run the numbers supplied by USDA's National Beef Quality Audit, between 75 and 85% of the cattle that come to market in the US meet the CAB criteria. And the Angus Association doesn't ask the sellers to provide proof that the cattle are actually Angus, unlike the programs run by the Hereford and several other associations.

Plus, the selection criteria for tenderness are kind of meaningless when you're talking about ground beef, since you're adjusting that as you grind the meat by how much fat you do or don't put in the mix.

Isn't Hereford considered superior for flavor (ML?)? What is the availability of Hereford "satellite" primals (i.e., chuck) for grinding into hamburgers?

Even in its purest Angus is an easy breed to raise, and when treated properly can be quite flavorful, but never as flavorful as Hereford, Devon or Galloways (in my humble opinion the most flavorful breeds available in the US). The Angus has been interbred with breeds like Short Horns and the quality has diminished.

The best way to get your hands on the meat is to either know someone that raises them. You can order various cuts of Hereford from Bell Creek Beef. Unfortunately most of what is raised is sold directly to restaurants so all of these breeds (along with Highlands) are hard to find at retail. I have a cousin that raises Herefords and another who has Galloways and both cannot keep up with demand for their cattle, and even family members have a hard time getting any meat from them.

It's not "Short Horn," it's Shorthorn, which is the oldest pedigreed pure breed of cattle in the world. There's been no apparent crossbreeding between Shorthorn and Angus since the early 1800s (assuming there ever was, since there's no definitive proof,) and that's not really relevant in terms of what's affecting the quality of Angus beef in the present day.

As far as breed vs. breed taste comparison, if you look at the UK where they don't have the CAB marketing machine to deal with, Borough Market's full of small producers touting Shorthorn, Galloway and Highland beef in more or less equal numbers, so I think it probably comes down to personal preference or what looks best on any given day at that point.

But back to the main point, it's not interbreeding with any of the traditional British Bos taurus breeds that has diminished the quality of Angus beef. It's interbreeding with Bos indicus breeds like Brahma, which don't carry the kind of intramuscular fat that any of the traditional British breeds do, that's caused the problem. Sure, the cattle you get from a Bos indicus cross grow better where it's hot, and they're not as susceptible to insects or tropical diseases, but they also don't produce that nice juicy prime steak that we'd all like to see on the plate. And because the producers aren't being asked to prove that they're bringing purebred or high-percentage Angus to market, all you know for sure with the CAB label is that the animal your steak came from had black hair. According to the Association, it only has to be 50% Angus to qualify as CAB - that other 50% makes a difference.

That's simply not true. First, the number is 51%, not 50%, and in genetics that's a meaningful distinction. More importantly, the carcass must meet a number of other specifications related to the quality of the meat--the 51% merely qualifies it for taking the test, if you will. The majority of qualified carcases, about 80%, don't meet all of the criteria, and don't qualify (ie fail the test and are not certified), and that can and often does include 100% registered Angus carcases. One of those criteria, by the way, is that there be no more than 2" of neck hump, which pretty well eliminates any meaningful level of Brahma cross. Nobody is saying the program is perfect nor that there isn't better beef to be had out there somewhere, but it's not a bad starting point for someone who is looking for a decent steak in the neighborhood supermarket. Certainly those tests will eliminate the sort of meat to which you refer. And the inspections are done by USDA inspectors, not employees of the packing houses.

According to the Certified Angus Beef producer website at www.cabpartners.com, they say the 51% is hair, not genetics. The animals must be and/or enrolled in the "AngusSource" program, which guarantees that they're sired by an Angus bull, to qualify for CAB. The bull provides 50% of the genetics to the animal; there's no requirement in the program that there be any Angus on the maternal side whatsoever. Maybe there is some. Maybe there isn't.

Back to the National Beef Quality Audit. It's quite a stretch to say the "majority" of carcasses don't meet all the criteria, since some of the criteria are awfully inclusive. Let's go down the list.

1: Modest or higher marbling. Per the latest NBQA (2005), 23 percent of carcasses surveyed met this standard. Okay, that one actually makes a difference.
2: Medium or fine marbling texture. (no data collected)
3: "A" maturity for each, lean and skeletal characteristics (97% met this standard)
4: 10 to 16 square inch ribeye area (95.2 percent met this standard)
5: Less than 1000 lb hot carcass weight (92.1 percent met this standard)
6: Less than 1 in fat thickness (96.7 percent met this standard)
7: "Superior" muscling (no data collected by NBQA, but this is fairly subjective and evaluated by visual exam of live animals)
8: Practically free of capillary rupture (bruises) - 65% of carcasses met this standard
9: No dark cutters (this only eliminated 0.4 percent of carcasses)
10: No neck hump exceeding 2 inches (92% didn't display >4in of hump; NBQA didn't break it down past that. Also evaluated by visual exam of live animals.)

Also debatable; I'd guess it eliminates anything above half Bos indicus, but that's still significant enough to affect meat quality. Plus, when you can have cattle as young as 9 months old coming to market, it's not at all likely a Brahma cross animal like a Brangus would have developed a hump big enough to eliminate them by that time. And finally, this is all being evaluated by visual exam on a live animal, and I'd be very surprised if they're going over each animal with a ruler to see how big its hump is - it's going to be a thumbs-up or thumbs-down as the animal walks by the evaluator.


Except that then we get into the issue of whose standards are really being followed. At last count there are 47 different "Angus" branded beef programs - in addition to the CAB program, each major packer and quite a few supermarket chains have their own version of Angus beef with yet another set of standards, many of which don't go into this level of detail and are more permissive as far as carcass weight, marbling, and acceptable grade. CAB has actually added criteria over the last couple of years, including the AngusSource program and the ribeye area specification, to try to differentiate themselves from these other programs.
The carcass inspections and grading are done by USDA because the law requires it. But the live carcass evaluations, such as do they have enough black hair, do they display "superior" muscling, is there or isn't there a noticeable hump, etc., are being done by the packers, not USDA.

All this being said, the "Angus" designation in whatever form is not a complete waste of time. It does tell you that, in most cases, the beef has received at least a USDA Choice grade, although some of the supermarket and packer programs include Select graded beef in their Angus program. Assuming it's Choice, a lot of the programs do specify top 2/3 of Choice. But you'd get equal assurance from one of the non-breed-specific branded beef programs like Niman Ranch - and it's far more likely with those that you're going to get exactly what you intend to buy. It's a lot easier to identify one or two programs to look for than it is to hit the one of 47 targets you're actually aiming for.

If you're curious as to how the programs break out, which ones guarantee you which standard, or which one your supermarket or vendor is actually selling, USDA lists them all at http://www.ams.usda.gov/lsg/certprog/certbeef.htm.


Sources: "Supply Development Facts," http://www.cabpartners.com/news/CABFactsheetSD.pdf; "The Premium Beef Market and the Certified Angus Beef Brand," http://www.cabpartners.com/events/past_eve...CAB_mccully.pdf

"Review of the 2005 National Beef Quality Audit", Texas A&M Meat Science Department, http://meat.tamu.edu/nonconform/HaleNBQA.pdf (warning: this is big and slow to load; if you want to read it I'll be happy to post the copy I finally managed to download, with Don's permission).

"Report of the June-September 2005 National Beef Quality Audit: A New Benchmark for the US Beef Industry," Proceedings of the 2006 Beef Improvement Federation National Meeting, http://www.bifconference.com/bif2006/pdfs/Morgan.pdf

Hannah,

I'm staying out of this, because I know relatively nothing about it, but I think when johnb said "meet all the criteria," he meant "meet all ten of the criteria." Just looking at the pure math, it seems to me that this criterion alone eliminates 77% of candidates, independently of how many carcasses qualify for the other nine. Carrion...

You sure you don't want to pose another math problem?

I did say that one actually makes a difference. But if you notice, it's the only one of those criteria that's anywhere near as selective as the marketing materials are trying to make it sound like they're being.

I see from your post that you've finally taken the trouble to burn up some google server somewhere to actually get some facts, but unfortunately you still aren't accurately picking up on several points.

First, the fact that there are other Angus programs is not germane to the discussion. We all know we have been talking about the CAB program from the get-go, and that's as it should be since it is the only one that is meaningful in the market--let's face it; the rest really aren't on the radar screen.

You're wrong when you suggest the inspection of the 10 criteria is done as a visual exam on live animals (I was quite amused at your term "live carcass"--this is a very interesting, indeed astonishing, concept.) As I said, those evaluations are in fact done by USDA inspectors on carcasses, ie dead animals, not by packing house employees on live animals as they saunter by as you seem to think.

Rocks' point is right. As I said, only about 20% of the carcasses (dead animals) which qualify for the test actually comply with ALL TEN of the criteria and thus are eligible for certification under the CAB program. It is worthwhile to note that of all those criteria marbling is by far the most important, and it is what determines the grade of beef as it is understood by most consumers. By your comments, this at least you appear to grasp.

As an aside, I don't see what the NBQA has to do with this discussion. It relates to all beef, and we are talking about a comparatively small subset of that set, so statistics coming from it really don't help us much in getting where we want to go.

I stand by all the material points I made in my earlier post. And I must add I really don't understand your vendetta against Angus beef being sold under the CAB program.

[John, let me try and moderate this exchange (emphasis on "moderate" as an adjective, not a verb). I don't think you've crossed the line into personal insult, but the tone of your posts comes across as dismissive - yet, Hannah is obviously knowledgable and passionate about this subject, and she's making some salient points in this discussion, at least to my layman's eyes. Carrion...]

Not true at all - you can go to multiple supermarkets and restaurants in the DC metro area and see evidence of a number of the programs on the USDA list that aren't CAB - Sysco, Stock Yards, Tyson's, Swift, and Cargill for a start. That means there's very real potential for consumer confusion since the standards of all of those programs are different.


If you take a look at the CAB producer site, www.cabpartners.com, you'll see exactly how seriously the CAB folks themselves take the NBQA data - it's all over the site and they refer to it constantly.

Just as I don't understand the "Angus is the be-all and end-all of beef" argument. We'll just have to agree to disagree.

The subject of this discussion has never been consumer confusion. It has been the validity of the CAB program. As to the size of CAB as opposed to other programs........

"The nonprofit Certified Angus Beef LLC in Wooster, OH, is the largest branded beef program in today's market nationally and globally. John Stika, director, Packing and Supply Development Divisions, reports less than 8 percent of beef meets the high standards of Certified Angus Beef. The CAB brand accounts for 44.4 percent of all carcasses certified by the USDA. It has more than a 30-percent point advantage over the next market-share holder: Of the USDA certified Angus brands with modest or higher marbling, 94.9 percent of the carcasses qualify and are marketed as the CAB brand."


Another red herring. I never said any such thing and I don't recall anybody who did in this thread. In fact, what I did say in my origina post was.....

"Nobody is saying the program is perfect nor that there isn't better beef to be had out there somewhere...."

There's nothing to agree or disagree about.

Clearly CAB isn't the only program that's "meaningful in the market," given the market penetration of the others. In fact, the new Wildfire restaurant in Tyson's makes a point of emphasizing that their beef comes from the Stock Yards certification program, not through CAB. Given that it's printed on the menu, the carryout containers, and even the bags they put the carryout containers in, obviously they feel it's meaningful enough to make a big deal of.

I highly recommend looking up the video on youtube called "Colonel Angus".