R E S E A R C H A N N U A L R E P O R T

Transcription

1 creating opportunity with knowledge R E S E A R C H A N N U A L R E P O R T 5

2 S CONTENTS creating opportunity with knowledge Remarks from Industry Leaders 2 Beef Industry Strategies 4 Developing the Research Plan 6 Research Priorities 8 Research Projects Beef Safety 10 Product Enhancement 14 Nutrition 20 Market Research 24 Project Listings 30 Leadership & Research Staff

3 R E M A R K S F R O M I N D U S T R Y L E A D E R S Q DEAR BEEF INDUSTRY PARTNERS, Research is the foundation of nearly every decision that impacts the beef industry. From ensuring that consumers have the safest beef supply possible, to providing new beef products and packaging, to promoting the nutritional benefits of beef, to evaluating what U.S. consumers think of our product, research is key. All of the staff in the Center for Research & Knowledge Management are committed to excellence and proud of the Beef Checkoff-funded research that has been completed over the years. Numerous projects in the areas of Beef Safety, Product Enhancement, Human Nutrition and Market Research have informed strategic decisions and results continue to be utilized by industry partners. Beef Safety research has focused on ensuring that the beef on consumers tables is the safest in the world. E. coli research has been and continues to be a priority and many intervention strategies have been implemented as a result of research findings. Consumer confidence in the safety of the U.S. beef supply is at an all time high and much of the credit can be given to checkoff-funded beef safety research. The Beef Industry Food Safety Council has brought together all sectors of the beef industry to discuss safety issues and develop action plans to enhance the safety of U.S. beef products. In the area of Product Enhancement, the Muscle Profiling research has been a huge success. The Beef Value Cuts, such as Flat Iron, Petite Tender and Ranch Cut, are firmly entrenched in foodservice and are growing at an annual rate of more than 50 percent. Other successes include instrument grading, aging guidelines and the national beef tenderness survey. Human Nutrition research studies have contributed significantly to the understanding of the role of moderate protein diets in weight management and the role of beef helping to maintain muscle mass. New research shows that beef protein builds muscle mass in both the young and elderly. Government nutritional databases have been updated to show the 29 cuts of beef that meet USDA guidelines for lean. Market Research projects focusing on peoples usage of and attitudes toward beef continue to help us meet consumer needs. Beef occupies a special place in the mind and heart of the U.S. consumer. We will continue focus on the passion for beef while helping the consumer realize beef s benefits for an active lifestyle. Many people have been responsible for the successes of beef industry research. America s beef producers, through their Beef Checkoff Program, have made research a priority. The work of hundreds of producer volunteers, staff, researchers and government in identifying the needs, planning the programs, targeting the research, meticulously conducting the studies, analyzing and communicating the results and overseeing the overall effort has been extraordinary. Working together, the needs of the beef industry are being and will continue to be met. This report, Creating Opportunity with Knowledge, provides a historical perspective of key issues that have impacted our industry and summarizes key research accomplishments. It is by no means a comprehensive review of each study conducted. But we believe it shows the time and effort involved in the extensive beef safety, product enhancement, human nutrition, and market research projects that provide a foundation for all checkoff-funded marketing, promotion and communication programs. We hope you will appreciate the significance of the research captured here. Please feel free to call any of the Research & Knowledge Management staff listed in the back of this report to get more information on the research projects completed or underway. Thank you for your continued support of these important research and knowledge gathering efforts. Working together, we can continue to build consumer demand and develop opportunities for beef producers now and in the future. Yours Truly, J.O. Reagan, Ph.D., Vice President, Research & Knowledge Management Keith Hansen, M.S., Group Chair, Research & Knowledge Management 2

4 3

5 B E E F I N D U S T R Y S T R A T E G I E S F I S C A L Y E A R , PRODUCT STRATEGY: Enhance the value proposition of beef in the marketplace. Strategy Objectives: Increase beef s prominent position in the channels and in the mind of the consumer as follows: Improve product attributes - Increase the percentage of carcasses sold into a value added/usda certified program from 17% to 22% by end of FY (Benchmark: 2004 = 17% of total fed cattle harvested entered USDA certified programs.) (Data provided by USDA.) Increase product offerings Introduce new youthoriented and value-added products (number to be determined), including fresh and manufactured, into the marketplace by FY Optimize product promotions - Achieve a level of 60% or more of consumers that have seen the Beef Enjoyment advertising who agree with the statement that beef is expensive, but worth it. (Benchmark: 60% of consumers who have seen the Beef Enjoyment advertising agreed that beef is expensive, but worth it. Based on the Hall & Partners market research study of June 2005.) BEEF SAFETY STRATEGY: Maintain and increase consumer confidence in beef safety. Strategy Objectives: Enhance the effectiveness of pathogen interventions available and in use in the beef chain. All beef products meet FSIS Salmonella Performance Standards. Microbiological Analyses of Raw Ground Beef Products for Escherichia coli O157:H7 by USDA will result in less than 19 positive samples in CY 2007 nationwide compared to 19 positive samples in CY 2005, per the testing program conducted by USDA/FSIS. The Healthy People 2010 goal of less than 1 case of foodborne illness caused by Escherichia coli O157:H7 per 100,000 people will be met. Maintain and enhance consumer confidence in beef safety by Three times annually consumer beef safety attitude tracking survey. Twice a year consumer BSE tracking study. Qualitative research project on consumer attitudes about vcjd/cjd. Periodic emerging issue consumer attitude studies. NUTRITION STRATEGY: Strengthen beef s position as a healthful food and as the premier nutritional protein in the minds of consumers and influencers. Strategy Objectives: Improve consumer as well as regulatory agency perceptions of beef nutrient and health benefits of U.S. beef. 4 By 2010, maintain or improve perceptions of beef s nutrient and health benefits among third party influencers who impact beef consumers. Strengthen beef s position in dietary guidelines in accordance with the Industry Nutrition 2010 Long Range Plan by increasing emphasis on nutrient density and importance of beef s nutrients to public health. INDUSTRY RESOURCE STRATEGY: Provide knowledge resources to help strengthen the marketing and business climate for beef. Strategy Objectives: Increase consumer confidence and acceptance of beef and beef production. Consumers are comfortable with how beef gets to their plate (establish baseline data in FY07). Consumers maintain confidence in beef despite threats to the marketing and business climates. Maintain consumer confidence U.S. beef is safe from BSE at pre-bse case level (88%+/-3%). Maintain percentage of consumers who view beef as food of highest safety concern at 16% (+/-3%). Maintain percentage of consumers who cite safety as a reason for eating less beef at <5%. Promote and improve industry access to an expanded NCBA knowledge base. A comprehensive and effectively managed industry knowledge resource accessible by all segments of the industry is in place. Improve access to NCBA online resources by all audiences. Measures: Analysis of Web site traffic, referring sites, type of visitors, search engine rankings, on-site surveys, state surveys. PRODUCER COMMUNICATIONS STRATEGY: Increase producers knowledge of how their checkoff dollars are invested and their participation in the beef checkoff. Strategy Objectives: By the end of 2007, assist in decreasing by 2% the percentage of producers who are not well informed or not informed about the beef checkoff. (As measured by the Producer Attitude Survey.) By the end of 2007, assist in decreasing by 2% the percent age of producers who never heard about the beef checkoff. By the end of 2007, assist in shifting by 3% the percentage of producers who are somewhat informed of the beef checkoff to those who consider themselves very well informed. By the end of 2007, assist in increasing the visibility of the beef checkoff to grassroots producers and increase by 3% the percentage of producers who have seen, read or heard anything about the checkoff.

6 5

7 D E V E L O P I N G T H E R E S E A R C H P L A N 8 Development of the Beef Checkoff-funded research plan is a year-long commitment. It evolves as a result of a welldefined, nine-step research planning and implementation process, beginning October 1. This plan includes input from scientists, producers, State Beef Councils and staff, and is reviewed by producers at several stages in its development. At each step of the process the plan is evaluated to ensure that it is aligned with the goals and objectives of the beef industry long range plan. The beef industry long range plan provides direction for all program areas through Ultimately, the research plan is considered for approval by the Beef Board Operating Committee, in the form of Authorization Requests (ARs) and is implemented by the NCBA staff, beginning the following October 1. STEP 1: In November and December, research planning teams consisting of joint beef industry committee members, allied organization representatives, State Beef Council representatives, leading industry and university scientists and members of the NCBA staff, begin the process by developing recommended national research priority areas. Research recommendations by scientists and allied organizations, such as the American Meat Institute Foundation, the North American Meat Processors Association and the American Meat Science Association, serve as the starting point for the development of research priorities. STEP 2: The recommendations of the research planning teams next go to research committees and subcommittees to be reviewed at the NCBA Annual Convention in February. Committees discuss and prioritize research areas in support of the development of the initial research budget. Committee members include beef producers representing both the checkoff and dues divisions of NCBA. STEP 3: Representatives from State Beef Councils meet to review the research plan developed by the research committees and provide input. This meeting provides an opportunity for State Beef Councils to discuss their implementation options, as well as formulate state extension plans. STEP 4: In March and April, tactical plans for conducting the research as prioritized by the committees are developed by NCBA staff, working in conjunction with committee chairmen and vice chairmen. Task forces may be appointed to develop tactics for some projects. Staff and committee chairmen and vice chairmen also determine whether a project should be discovery or targeted in nature. Targeted projects address special needs identified by the committees and require that results be published within an abbreviated time frame. These are typically implemented by a pre-determined research team. Discovery projects, on the other hand, offer researchers an opportunity to develop original proposals to conduct studies addressing broader industry needs. Discovery projects typically go through a request for proposal process. STEP 5: The proposed Center for Research & Knowledge Management research budget for the next fiscal year, which starts October 1, is prepared by the committee chairmen, vice chairmen and NCBA staff in April for review by the Industry Budget Committee. STEP 6: NCBA staff prepare draft ARs. STEP 7: The draft ARs are presented to research committees for discussion, revision and final prioritization at the NCBA Summer Conference in July. STEP 8: Utilizing committee input, NCBA staff revise ARs in August. STEP 9: Final ARs are presented to the Beef Board Operating Committee for approval in September, after which NCBA staff initiate the implementation of the research plan as approved by the Operating Committee beginning October 1. Also on October 1, planning for the following fiscal year begins. The research development process is designed to maximize opportunities for open discussion of research options and opportunities, with producer oversight at all stages. Through this process, research priorities and the research conducted on behalf of beef producers will reflect industry needs and producer desires. 6

8 7

9 BEEF SAFETY RESEARCH PRIORITIES-FY 2005 TSE s = BSE Preparation of public Validation of age determination factors Pre-harvest Pre-harvest side Interventions all pathogens E. coli O157:H7 Feedyard practices Water contamination Enumeration of E. coli O157:H7 on cattle at slaughter interface Pathogen Basic Science E. coli O157:H7 Genetic Fingerprinting Salmonella EHEC s Research Dissemination and Education Education development Dissemination of research to industry, consumers, producers Research roll-out Sponsorship Preparation of public, education of media BIFSCo Industry Food Safety Summit Risk assessment for E. coli Standardized sampling/methodology PRODUCT ENHANCEMENT RESEARCH PRIORITIES- FY 2005 Short-Term & Long-Term Muscle Applications Focus on the round and chuck Research color, flavor, tenderness and enhancement across quality grades Evaluate muscle yields and new fabrication methods National Beef Instrument Assessment Plan II Development and implementation of tenderness prediction technology Quantification of value/economics of tenderness verification system throughout the entire chain Genomics Sequencing the bovine genome Further utilization of Carcass Merit DNA for validation of genetic tests 2005 National Beef Tenderness Survey Dissemination of Product Enhancement Research Develop and disseminate Fact Sheets, Executive Summaries and FAQ s Support Technology & Organizational Groups Host Industry Meetings R E S E A R C H P R I O R I T I E S R 8 NUTRITION RESEARCH PRIORITIES-FY 2005 Beef as Part of a Balanced Diet Studies Nutrient composition update of beef Nutrient density of beef Beef contribution to diet quality in overall balanced diets Beef s Role in Diet and Health Obesity beef as part of the solution Beef protein and management of metabolic syndrome Beef nutrients and cognition across the lifespan Nutrient need of aging populations Beef Lipids in Perspective Total fatty acid profile of beef Naturally occurring trans fatty acids Benefits of enhanced beef nutrient profiles Dissemination of Nutrition Research Develop and disseminate Fact Sheets Host Industry Meetings MARKET RESEARCH PRIORITIES-FY 2006 Beef Consumption Trends among U.S. Consumers Track and trend consumers eating patterns for beef both in-home and in commercial restaurants Measure beef volume and sales in the retail sector Track and trend the volume of beef and competing proteins in commercial and non-commercial foodservice Youth New Product Development Assess the attitudes and perceptions of children (ages 8-17) toward beef and competing proteins Identify product attributes that are important to youth Assess attitudes toward proposed new beef products Impact of Beef Industry Advertising Measure consumer awareness and recall of the beef enjoyment and nutrition advertising campaigns Assess these consumers attitudes and perceptions toward beef and competing proteins Perceptions of Beef s Nutritional Benefits Evaluate consumer usage and attitudes toward ground beef from a nutritional standpoint Assess consumer reactions to messages communicating beef s nutritional value Dissemination of Market Research Develop and disseminate Presentations and Executive Summaries Host Industry Meetings

10 9

11 HISTORY B E E F S A F E T Y R E S E A R C H Consumer confidence in the safety of beef products is essential to the sustainability and profitability of the U.S. beef industry. Beef producers have been committed to producing safe and wholesome beef for many years and have invested Beef Checkoff dollars to conduct research. Beef Checkoff-funded research has led the way in establishing and maintaining a comprehensive safety chain that reaches from farm to fork. The U.S. beef industry has faced major safety challenges including E. coli O157:H7 and Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE). These issues have been addressed using the best possible data and solutions have been based on science and great progress has been made. E. coli O157:H7 is a pathogen that is found in animals and the environment. There have been major foodborne illness outbreaks due to E. coli O157:H7 associated with ground beef. However, the beef industry has addressed this problem with major investments in research, interventions and education programs. Following a major E. coli outbreak in 2002 the Beef Industry Food Safety Council (BIFSCo) convened the 2003 E. coli Summit. This meeting brought together representatives from all sectors of the beef production, processing and marketing system to discuss the challenge of E. coli in beef products. This meeting resulted in the development of Best Practices which are available for the entire industry. These documents provide practical guidance for addressing pathogens in all sectors. Industry experts are available to discuss the documents and answer questions about their use. All documents are available on the BIFSCO web site using the following link Attendees also had the opportunity to work with colleagues to develop new ideas and research needs that strengthened the safety systems already in place. Building on the success of the E. coli Summit, BIFSCo now hosts a Beef Industry Safety Summit annually. This gathering of industry food safety experts allows for sharing of information, development of relationships and communication channels as well as application of new knowledge that helps to make the U.S. beef industry a leader in the safety arena. Another safety issue that the U.S. beef industry has dealt with is Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE). It is commonly referred to as mad cow disease. BSE is a degenerative, neurological disease that affects cattle After the first U.S. case of BSE in December 2003, USDA and FDA took extra precautionary steps to prohibit from the food supply parts of the animal that could carry the BSE agent. Even if additional cases of BSE are discovered in the United States, scientists, medical professionals, and government officials agree that BSE is not a public health risk in this country. Beef Checkoff dollars were invested in research to ensure that BSE never threatened the safety of the U.S. beef supply. The cooperative efforts of all sectors of the beef industry have led to great success in reducing foodborne illness related to beef. Overall, the level of illnesses related to E. coli O157:H7 is on a downward trend. Each year, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) tracks foodborne illnesses. In 2005, CDC reported that only 1.06 foodborne illnesses out of every 100,000 cases were associated with E. coli O157:H7. Recent figures indicate that the United States is on track to reach the government s Healthy People 2010 goal for E. coli O157:H7. Overall, the incidence of E. coli O157:H7 cases declined 29 percent since the baseline of In addition to the decline of these foodborne illnesses, ground beef samples testing positive for E. coli O157:H7 have declined more than 80 percent between 2000 and Consumer confidence in the safety of U.S beef products remains high, but this confidence shouldn t lead to complacency. New challenges continue to arise such as multi-drug resistant pathogens, contamination of air and water with pathogens and continued presence of pathogens in the beef chain. Beef producers remain committed to producing the safest beef products in the world and beef safety research is still a high priority. Checkoff-funded research has served as the foundation for the safety systems in place throughout the beef chain. Multiple interventions are being utilized in the harvest, fabrication and processing sectors. These technologies reduce the amount of bacteria present to very low numbers and ensure that a safe and wholesome product is being served to consumers. Research has more recently focused on pre-harvest in an attempt to minimize the amount of pathogens present on the hides of animals as they enter the harvest facilities. Data have shown that the amount of contamination on hides must be minimized to ensure optimal functionality of the interventions being used in harvest facilities.

12 Role of Super-Shedders on Prevalence of E. coli It is essential to understand shedding patterns of cattle to develop interventions that address the high risk cattle. Certain cattle within feedlots are colonized by E. coli O157:H7 more frequently, persistently and in greater numbers than other cattle. These super-shedders appear to influence the degree of E. coli O157:H7 colonization of other cattle in their pens. When super-shedders are moved to pens with low levels of E. coli O157:H7 activity, the prevalence and persistence of E. coli O157:H7 colonization increases among other cattle in that pen. Similarly, levels of environmental contamination appear to increase as well. Presuming these effects can result in greater levels of general E. coli O157: H7 carriage, excretion and hide contamination, this represents a risk for greater introduction of E. coli O157:H7 into the harvest facility. Interventions designed to identify and negate the effects of super-shedders at strategic points in beef production may help mitigate the food safety risk of E. coli O157:H7. VACCINATION AND BACTERIOPHAGES Multiple new technologies have been evaluated for use in live cattle to reduce the colonization and/or shedding of E. coli O157:H7 and Salmonella. Most recently a vaccine and a bacteriophage cocktail were assessed. Bacteriophages are harmless, naturally occurring viruses that specifically kill bacteria. Scientists investigated the ability of a mixture of 37 different bacteriophages to reduce the levels of a harmful strain of Escherichia coli known as E. coli O157:H7 in the bovine gastrointestinal tract. If successful, the reduction of E. coli O157:H7 in the gastrointestinal tract would ultimately decrease the chances of producing meat that was contaminated with these harmful bacteria. When the bacteriophages were fed to cattle that were artificially inoculated with E. coli O157:H7, the bacteriophages reduced the concentration of the E. coli O157:H7 in the gastrointestinal tract by as much as 94.5% within 16 to 24 hours. However, after the initial reduction, the E. coli O157:H7 returned to the levels that were present in animals that did not receive the bacteriophages. More work is needed before bacteriophages can be routinely used to control foodborne diseases in cattle. Another study was conducted to evaluate the effect of vaccination against E. coli on the occurrence of E. coli O157:H7 on hides of cattle. Additionally, the effect of transport and lairage on hide contamination was evaluated by collecting hide samples at the feedlot of origin on the day of shipment to the processing facility and collecting hide samples again at the processing facility during the harvest process. PROBABILITY Vaccination resulted in a 44% reduction in E. coli O157:H7 hide contamination. Vaccination was equally effective at reducing the occurrence of E. coli O157:H7 on hides at the feedlot and at the processing facility. However, cattle hides were more likely to test positive at the processing facility than at the feedlot. These results suggest that pre-harvest intervention strategies can reduce hide contamination at harvest and that the probability for hide contamination may increase during transport and lairage. FIGURE 1 The probability for vaccinated and non-vaccinated cattle to have E. coli O157:H7 hide contamination, adjusted for pre- and post-harvest measures YES VACCINATION DUST CLOUD CROSS-CONTAMINATION Since shipping and transportation of cattle may have effects on bacteria loads on carcasses, research has been conducted to evaluate possible impacts. The objectives of a recently completed study were to determine if a dust cloud created during the loading of cattle resulted in significant crosscontamination of E. coli O157 and/or Salmonella during cattle transport. Observations indicate that the loading areas and the dust cloud generated during loading can be primary factors in increasing pathogen loads on the animals before and after shipping. Control measures should be investigated to prevent increases in pathogen loads and ultimately to reduce pathogen loads on carcasses and in ground beef. CATTLE HIDE WASHES NO Hide washes have been implemented in recent years to remove the physical contamination from hides as well as reduce the pathogen load on cattle hides at the beginning of the harvest process. In an effort to develop additional tools for use in hide wash systems, a Beef Checkoff-funded study led to the development of Trichloromelamine, a non-toxic biodegradable hide wash intervention that reduces foodborne pathogens on beef hides by 50%. 11

13 log10mnn/cm FIGURE 2 Total E. coli O157(MPN/cm 2 on Cattle Hides sampled before and after loading AVG SAMPLING DAY BEEF PACKAGING TECHNOLOGIES BEFORE AFTER In addition to pre-harvest research it is necessary to continually evaluate the safety of processes used in further processing and packaging of meat products. One project conducted in FY 2005 evaluated the effects of multiple packaging methods. In order to determine the safety of the five packaging processes, concentrated cultures of Salmonella and E. coli O157:H7 were added to ground beef during the initial grinding. The growth and survival of the pathogenic bacteria were monitored over time. After 14 and 21 days of storage, both the Salmonella and E. coli O157:H7 populations increased in products subjected to traditional over-wrap packaging. For all modified atmosphere packaging (MAP) treatments high-oxygen and low-oxygen carbon monoxide, both with and without rosemary extract the total population of Salmonella and E. coli O157:H7 present decreased over time. Therefore, the study illustrates that modified atmosphere packaging may inhibit foodborne pathogens, providing added safety to ground beef products. These project summaries represent a small percentage of the beef safety research conducted in FY Please visit for a complete listing of research project results. All project results are disseminated through Web sites, fact sheets, executive summaries and presentations to industry groups. The Beef Industry Food Safety Council remains vigilant in recognizing and addressing current and emerging beef safety issues. The annual Beef Industry Safety Summit serves as a catalyst for information sharing and application of new research data to strengthen beef safety systems in all sectors of the beef industry. FY 2007 PRIORITIES/FUTURE DIRECTION The safety of U.S. beef products are continually enhanced as research data is applied to current systems in place. The commitment of beef producers to market a safe product ensures that beef safety research continues to be a high priority and investments will be made to update the knowledge base on beef safety. Diligence is needed to ensure emerging safety challenges do not compromise consumer confidence in the safety of beef products. Current research priorities focus on pre-harvest pathogen reduction since tools are still needed that can be used in live animals to reduce colonization and shedding of pathogens. A greater understanding is also needed of pathogen virulence, prevalence and pathogenicity. Basic research will be initiated to evaluate virulence factors as well as gain an understanding of how drug resistance develops within pathogens. In addition, the optimization of current interventions will be addressed to ensure they continue to minimize the risk of bacterial contamination in beef products. All research information will be disseminated via Web sites and research reports as well as through educational programs for various audiences. FIGURE 3 Survival of E. coli O157:H7 in Ground Beef Packaged under Various Conditions overwrap co high ox co resin ox resin 0 hours 24 hours 72 hours 5 days 7 days 14 days 21 days 12

14 13

15 HISTORY The product enhancement research program is built on a long tradition of objectives designed to address and provide solutions for key industry issues. For the past 10 years the program has focused in four key areas: Adding value to the chuck and round Muscle profiling Muscle characterization/application National Beef Instrument Assessment Plan Genomics Dissemination The muscle profiling work has resulted in new beef cuts (e.g. flat iron, ranch cut and petite tender) being introduced into retail and foodservice. New instrument-based optical grading systems are being introduced into harvesting facilities based on results of studies within the National Beef Instrument Assessment Plan (NBIAP). In the field of genomics, research dating back to the 1990 s has resulted in validating markers for tenderness, marbling and composition in 14 different beef breeds; and work will continue in this area in order to ensure the highest quality beef will get to the consumer s plate. The following are just a few examples of how we are using Product Enhancement research to provide knowledge that will support the goals of the beef industry and build beef demand. MUSCLE PROFILING/CHARACTERIZATION/ APPLICATION P R O D U C T E N H A N C E M E N T R E S E A R C H Muscle Profiling research was initiated to address the issue of depressed chuck and round values. It was designed to profile the physical and chemical characteristics of beef muscles from the chuck and round. The intention was to find the optimal use for each muscle, thereby generating the optimal value. This research was conducted to evaluate the traits of the 39 primary muscles comprising the beef chuck and round. The traits studied included tenderness and other palatability traits assessed by trained sensory panels and tenderness measured objectively using Warner-Bratzler shear force. Also measured were dimensions and yields at various fat trim levels, muscle ph, expressible moisture, oil binding capacity, connective tissue amount, objective / 14 color, pigment concentration, composition (fat, moisture and ash), and muscle fiber type. The Muscle Profiling project represents the most extensive and comprehensive study of the muscles of the chuck and round ever reported. Collectively, over 5,600 muscles were studied. Muscle Profiling project results have helped drive the next level of new product application and development for the industry. The Bovine Myology & Muscle Profiling Web site ( shows, in great detail, the muscular anatomy of the beef animal. This Web site, hosted by the University of Nebraska, Lincoln serves as a resource for both academia and industry. Exploring the Serratus ventralis muscle The Muscle Profiling project was the first phase of continuing efforts to add value to the chuck and round. This effort was continued through fiscal year 2005 research directed at muscle characteristics. One of the most underutilized muscles in the beef chuck is the serratus ventralis. This muscle, which extends over the chuck, rib and plate subprimals, has been documented as the sixth most tender muscle in the beef carcass. A recent checkoff-funded study at Texas A&M University reported consumer and shear force evaluations of steaks from the serratus ventralis. To counteract variability in tenderness, the meat industry has adopted several postmortem tenderization treatments, including enhancement with a salt and phosphate solution. Five muscles (triceps brachii, infraspinatus, teres major, supraspinatus and serratus ventralis thoracis) were removed from USDA Select beef arm chucks and assigned to one of three treatment groups (control, blade tenderization, and injection containing salt, phosphate and papain). Based on general palatability traits, the serratus ventralis proved to be adequate for use as a retail steak. Steaks that were enhanced with the salt, phosphate and papain solution showed significant improvement in consumer evaluated tenderness and juiciness compared to those that were blade tenderized or left untreated. When compared using Warner-Bratzler shear force values for tenderness, enhanced steaks also proved to be the most tender of the three treatments. In general, cooking method and degree of doneness had little influence on consumer palatability ratings. Retailers and processors could use these findings to merchandise the serratus ventralis as a high quality, moderately priced steak from the beef chuck.

16 Top Sirloin and Shoulder Clod Tenderness A recent study from the USDA-ARS, U.S. Meat Animal Research Center evaluated the effect of quality grade and aging time on top sirloin and shoulder clod tenderness. The top sirloin is a cut that is widely featured on restaurant menus as a low cost alternative to other middle meat steak entrees; however, it is also variable in tenderness. It would be helpful for the restaurant industry to have an alternative or additional menu item that is more consistent in tenderness and lower in cost than the top sirloin. The triceps brachii has this potential. The gluteus medius and triceps brachii muscles were removed from USDA Choice and Select center-cut top sirloin butts and clod hearts. These muscles were assigned to an aging period and cut into steaks for slice shear force tenderness evaluation. The study determined that clod steaks were more tender than top sirloin steaks for both quality grades. Moreover, clod steaks delivered greater juiciness and flavor. Because top sirloin steaks typically cost much less than other middle meat cuts, restaurants routinely use this item as a low price menu alternative. Clod hearts, which are one of the beef value cuts (Ranch Cut Steak), typically are marketed at 70% of the cost of top sirloins. Therefore, foodservice could feature clod steaks as a low cost menu alternative to top sirloins while simultaneously increasing customer satisfaction. BENCHMARK SURVEYS Another critical part of the research program involves benchmark surveys. These include the National Beef Tenderness Survey (NBTS) and the Market Basket Survey (MBS). The first NBTS was done in 1991 and served as a baseline for the beef industry with regards to evaluating the state of beef tenderness in our industry. The most recent study results show that significant improvements have been made over the last 15 years National Beef Tenderness Survey Tenderness is an important aspect of beef palatability that ultimately drives customer satisfaction. Though the industry has made significant strides to improve overall beef tenderness, issues with consistency still exist. A series of National Beef Tenderness Surveys have been funded by The Beef Checkoff to periodically benchmark the state of tenderness through the auditing of beef at retail and foodservice outlets. In 2005, researchers sampled beef from 82 retail stores and six foodservice establishments in eleven U.S. cities. Beef used for retail was aged an average of 23 days, compared to 30 days for foodservice. Moreover, twenty percent of subprimals used for retail were aged less than 14 days, compared to 30% of subprimals bound for foodservice. Nearly half of all retail cuts were branded with a packer program label and approximately 43% of retail cuts were labeled with a store brand. Mean external fat thickness across all cuts sampled at retail was 0.27 cm (0.1 in). Among retail cuts, top loin, bone-in strip, bone-in ribeye, T-bone and Porterhouse steaks had the lowest (most tender) shear-force values. Among foodservice cuts, top loin steaks had the lowest (most tender) shear-force values compared to ribeye and top sirloin steaks. The 2005 Survey indicates that there was approximately an 18% overall increase in tenderness as compared to When compared to past surveys, Warner-Bratzler shear force values improved and the majority of steaks evaluated in this study were considered tender. It is important to note that bone-in ribeye and bone-in top loin steaks were evaluated for the first time in the 2005 Survey. Data from this survey can serve as a benchmark for tenderness of beef available in retail and foodservice channels. TABLE 1: Comparison to previous surveys Warner-Bratzler shear values (lbs) RETAIL CUTS FROM THE RIB AND LOIN Ribeye Bone-In Ribeye N/A N/A 4.8 Porterhouse N/A T-Bone N/A Top Loin Bone-In Top Loin N/A N/A 4.7 Top Sirloin RETAIL CUTS FROM THE CHUCK AND ROUND Clod Chuck Roll N/A Top Round Eye of Round Bottom Round

17 2005 NATIONAL BEEF MARKET BASKET SURVEY The first Market Basket Survey was completed in 1991 and was designed to gauge product traits at retail including fat thickness, grade, brands, etc. These data were also important in developing updated nutritional information for the USDA nutrient data lab. Continual work must be done to accurately represent the composition of beef sold at retail. Because this information impacts nutritional recommendations and national nutrition policies, it must be the most accurate and current data available. In the 2005 National Beef Market Basket Survey, researchers sampled beef from 82 retail stores in eleven U.S. cities. The first phase of the survey occurred at the store level, where retail cuts were noted, counted and measured for external fat thickness. The second phase consisted of detailed composition analysis of retail cuts. An assortment of 94 cuts representing various locations across the carcass were sampled from each store. Overall fat thickness for the cuts in the individual store packages was 0.24 cm, which was slightly lower than reported in the previous Market Basket Survey (0.31 cm). More than 10,000 cuts were part of this analysis. Mean extractable fat percentages for nine of the twelve ground beef classifications in this study were lower than what was declared on the package label for fat percentage. A key study objective was to compare data obtained with that reported in the National Database. Differences in the values for fat, moisture and separable components should be noted as the results of this comprehensive research are reviewed. The values that are reported in this study are all actual means. NATIONAL BEEF INSTRUMENT ASSESSMENT PLAN (I & II) Producing beef products that are consistent in quality is not a simple task, but the beef industry continues its efforts in this area. We ve all heard the term you can t manage what you can t measure. In this case, the measure is the ability to accurately quantify product traits. This is best accomplished through the use of objective instruments and one of the first instruments evaluated as part of this program was ultrasound. While that project was not completely successful, it built the framework for future research. The next effort was to evaluate computer vision systems. These systems were designed to evaluate the same image surface evaluated by USDA graders and then apply certain software to interpret this image. These systems have now evolved into being able to predict yield grade, ribeye area and marbling levels. Ongoing research in the areas of vision grading and tenderness evaluation will continue and in the future will become an every day part of the beef industry. GENOMICS The Beef Checkoff has supported bovine genomics research for more than a decade, setting research goals to identify genes and gene markers influential in the beef industry. Research dating back to the early nineties includes extensive evaluation of the closed herd of Angus and Brahman at Texas A&M University and lay the framework for future endeavors and application. One of the next generation projects was Carcass Merit. This groundbreaking study provided complete and validated markers for tenderness, marbling and composition in 14 different beef breeds. Most recently, a team at the Baylor College of Medicine TABLE 2: Comparison of USDA National Database information with information from current study for separable and external fat components 2005 Survey USDA, National Database 2005 Survey USDA, National Database Separable fat, % Separable fat, % Difference, % Extractable fat, % Extractable fat, % Difference, % PRIMAL MEAN MEAN MEAN MEAN Chuck Rib Loin Round Total Put together, 11 cuts from the chuck, rib, loin and round averaged 34.68% less separable fat on a percentage basis than is reported in the National Database (Table 2). Data for many of the cuts sampled in the study could not be compared because they were not available in the National Database. 16

18 Human Genome Sequencing Center in Houston has sequenced the bovine genome. This was a multi-million dollar project that was funded by numerous entities, including The Beef Checkoff, and involved multiple research associates. Additional work aimed at uncovering more detailed information about individual bovine genes is ongoing. The completed Bovine Genome Sequencing Project will allow detailed tracking of the DNA differences between breeds to assist discovery of traits for better meat and milk production and to model human disease. Some potential benefits of the final sequence include being able to produce beef products with a specific nutrient profile and to select disease-resistant cattle. For information on the Bovine Genome Sequencing Project, visit gov and public databases can be accessed at nih.gov/genbank. Another tool that has been developed by the industry is the National Beef Cattle Evaluation Consortium (NBCEC). One of the primary functions of the NBCEC is to independently verify associations between commercially available genetic tests and traits as claimed by commercial genotyping companies. This DNA marker validation takes place though a partnership between the owners of DNA and phenotypes (i.e., breed associations) and genomics companies, but is facilitated by NBCEC through the use of established reference cattle populations developed from the Beef Checkofffunded Carcass Merit Project. The NBCEC has the ability to influence the genetics of U.S. beef cattle to enhance the competitiveness of beef production both domestically and globally. However, industry surveys indicate that variability remains in postmortem aging times. The new Industry Guide for Beef Aging, funded by The Beef Checkoff, compiles new research on aging times for fresh (never frozen) individual muscles within subprimal cuts, as well as the effect of different USDA quality grades on beef aging. Current industry aging specifications apply only to beef subprimal cuts and do not factor in variations based on grades. The growing popularity of single muscles, such as those utilized in the checkoff-funded Beef Value Cuts Program, created the need to study whether existing aging standards would be appropriate for these new products. The new guidelines now provide aging curves for 17 muscle cuts from the round, chuck and loin at Select and upper two-thirdschoice grades. During the sevenmonth study at Colorado State University, subprimals were fabricated into one-inch thick steaks, vacuum-sealed, stored at 36 F and examined after 2, 4, 6, 10, 14, 21 and 28 days of aging. DISSEMINATION Communicating knowledge gained through funded research projects is one of the key accomplishments of The Beef Checkoff program. Product Enhancement research dissemination occurs largely through two formats: online and print. Online dissemination has recently been elevated with the launch of a new Research & Knowledge Management Web site at This site serves as a one-stop-shop for users searching for checkofffunded research results and dissemination materials. The two executive summaries mentioned below are excellent examples of printed information resources. Industry Guide for Beef Aging Postmortem aging is a critical management practice that can improve the consistency of beef tenderness. 17

19 Tenderness was measured by Warner-Bratzler shear force (WBSF) analysis, which calculates tenderness based on the amount of pressure (in kilograms) needed to cut 1/2-inch core samples from cooked meat samples. Researchers found that the differences in postmortem tenderization were based on the initial tenderness of the muscle at two days postmortem; the aging response, or overall WBSF change from day two through 28; and the rate of tenderization, which shows the daily WBSF change during aging. Both the specific muscle and the quality grade had an effect on the steaks WBSF value. Pre-Harvest Tenderness Management Beef producers have worked diligently over the past several years to identify primary drivers of consumer demand and to become more responsive to consumer needs by improving the quality, safety and convenience of their products. A recent checkoff-funded review document, Pre-Harvest Cattle Management Practices for Enhancing Beef Tenderness, identified several pre-harvest factors that can influence the eating quality of beef and be managed systematically to enhance quality characteristics of the end product. Key elements of effective pre-harvest beef tenderness management systems include: 1) control of breed/genetic inputs; 2) use of feeding systems that enhance product quality; 3) judicious application of growth enhancement technologies; and 4) adherence to best management practices to avoid quality and tenderness problems associated with the effects of morbidity, pre-harvest stress, administration of animal health products and hormonal status of the animal. FY 2007 Priorities/Future Direction Product Enhancement research priorities for fiscal year 2007 (October 1, 2006 through May 31, 2008) have been established by the producer-led Joint Product Enhancement Research Committee. These priorities include a continued focus on muscle characterization and application with a strong emphasis on adding value to the round. Also included is a continuation of National Beef Instrument Assessment Plan (NBIAP III) work to improve automation in grading (yield and quality) and tenderness evaluation. The fiscal year 2007 Genomics priority has been directed more towards application to capitalize on previous investments made in genetic mapping and marker discovery. Priorities also include a focus on beef tenderness to further improve consistency and consumer acceptability. By taking a systems approach to this issue, we hope to gain understanding of how management practices, both pre- and postharvest, can interact to impact ultimate end product tenderness. An additional priority deals with optimizing market cow quality and value to benefit overall beef consistency. In addition, dissemination continues as a critical priority to ensure effective communication of research results and knowledge. Dissemination is an integral part of the day-today activities of program staff who are continually exploring new avenues of knowledge distribution. Added items of focus include opportunities to evaluate solutions for nonconforming cattle that receive discounts at harvest because of heavy weights, excessive fat, deficient marbling, etc. and contribute to quality inconsistencies; improving standardization in the realm of beef nomenclature; exploring by region the potential beef quality impacts of feeding high levels of ethanol co-products to cattle; and updating the beef Computer Assisted Retail Decision Support (CARDS) and Computer Assisted Foodservice Evaluation System (CAFES) software used by retail and foodservice operators when making daily merchandising decisions. 18

20 19

21 HISTORY Beef has been under the critical eye of the nutrition community for nearly 30 years. A 1977 report published by the Senate Select Committee on Diet and Health laid the groundwork for future challenges beef would face on the nutrition front. This committee, led by George McGovern, published a report entitled, Dietary Goals for the United States which recommended for the first time, that Americans decrease consumption of meat and increase consumption of poultry and fish to improve their health. This significant report provided a basis for future diet and health guidance and fueled much of the recommendations to limit beef consumption existing today. So, what s the beef nutrition critics have with beef? Primary concerns relate to perceptions about beef s total fat content and the make-up of its individual fatty acids especially saturated fat. Saturated fats are believed to contribute to development of heart disease when consumed in excess. Unfortunately, many health professionals continue to think of beef as synonymous with saturated fat, when actually over half of beef s fatty acids are monounsaturated, the beneficial fat found in olive oil. Additionally, nearly one-third of beef s saturated fatty acid content is stearic acid, a neutral type of saturated fat that does not raise blood cholesterol levels. BEEF S LIPIDS IN PERSPECTIVE Beef producers have made significant strides in responding to these nutrition concerns by producing leaner cattle. The retail and foodservice segments are also lowering beef s fat content even further by closely trimming beef cuts. Because of this commitment to deliver a product that meets consumers demand for health, beef is 20% leaner than even 14 years ago. Today, there are at least 29 cuts of beef that meet USDA guidelines for lean, according to the USDA Nutrient Database for Standard Reference, Release 17. Nutrition research funded through the Beef Checkoff has also been instrumental in generating science that helps put beef s lipids in perspective. Over the past decade, checkoff investments have resulted in landmark research demonstrating lean red meat (beef, pork and veal) is just as effective as lean white meat (chicken and fish) for lowering cholesterol when consumed as part of a heart-healthy diet. It has also contributed to the understanding of the health benefits of N U T R I T I O N R E S E A R C H S beef s unique fatty acids such as Conjugated Linoleic Acid (CLA). CLA is a naturally occurring trans fat that has been shown to have anti-cancer and anti-heart disease properties. More recently, check-off funded research has contributed to the most up-to-date nutritional data on beef s leanest cuts. This data is available in nutrition databases used by researchers, health professionals and governmental agencies. Despite these research contributions, research gaps still exist and solid scientific evidence is needed to convince health professionals and the research community that beef has an important place on America s plates. Consumers and health professionals have misperceptions about beef s fat content and this continues to be a barrier for increasing beef consumption and demand. Research furthering the understanding of beef and its lipid profile on health outcomes will continue to be a critical contribution of checkoff-funded nutrition research. BEEF S HIGH QUALITY PROTEIN FOR OPTIMAL HEALTH After the McGovern report, through the 1980 s and even into the 90 s, nutritional guidance in America was very fat-focused. Specifically, the Dietary Guidelines for Americans and other recommendations from leading health organizations during this time emphasized the need to limit dietary fat as a primary means of improving health. Despite tremendous efforts made to reduce fat in the American diet, obesity rates continued to rise through the 80 s and 90 s. In the late 90 s and early 2000 s, there was an emerging interest in the role of the other macronutrients, namely carbohydrates and protein on obesity. Specifically, the research community began to debate the ideal combination of protein, fat and carbohydrates people should consume for weight control and optimal health. As a result of this great nutrition debate, there has been a tremendous increase in research studies investigating the role of a diet rich in protein for weight management. A testament to this proliferation is that more than half of the 87 studies conducted in the last 50 years, recently reviewed in a meta-analysis on protein rich diets, were published in just the last five years. Some of the most cited research results in this arena are publications authored by checkofffunded researchers. Dr. Donald Layman, Ph.D., professor of foods and nutrition at the University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana is one of the leading researchers on this topic. 20

22 The most recent checkoff funded results from his laboratory extend previous short-term findings demonstrating the beneficial effects of moderate protein diets on weight loss and blood lipid control. The results are currently being prepared for publication. This long-term (12 month), multi-site study included a four month period of active weight loss with a target of 10% loss of initial body weight followed by eight months of weight loss maintenance. This study recruited 130 overweight adult subjects ranging in age from 36 to 54 years of age. After four months, subjects on the protein-rich diet reduced body weight by 18 pounds, while subjects consuming the high carbohydrate diets reduced weight by 15 pounds. After one year, 44% of the subjects consuming the protein-rich diet had achieved successful weight loss with an average weight loss of 30 pounds, while only 29% of the subjects consuming the high carbohydrate diet achieved a successful weight loss with an average loss of 22 pounds. The protein-rich diet also improved blood lipid profiles with significant decreases in triglycerides and increases in high density lipoproteins (good cholesterol). The high carbohydrate diet reduced total cholesterol values during weight loss at four months, but the effects were transient and not sustained at 12 months. In summary, the protein-rich diet produced longterm beneficial changes on blood lipids while the high carbohydrate diet only produced short-term term changes during active weight loss. This study shows that a protein-rich diet produces greater long-term weight loss and improvements in blood lipids and that a greater number of subjects can successfully maintain the weight loss. Demonstrating long-term success is critical to the acceptance of moderate protein diets by the nutrition and health professional community. The checkoff-funded nutrition research program also extends beef s protein research beyond studies investigating its role in weight control. Beef s unique and specific role in muscle metabolism was also a research focus in 2006 and will continue to be important to establishing beef as a premier protein. It is well accepted that beef is an excellent source of protein and that dietary protein helps build muscle mass. Remarkably, there is little to no research that validates the role of beef protein, or any specific food for that matter, to actually build muscle. In 2006, checkoff-funded research was conducted at the University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston to investigate beef s ability to build muscle. Specifically, the research goal was to measure changes in the concentration of amino acids in the blood and the increase in protein synthesis (muscle growth) in young and elderly individuals following ingestion of a four ounce serving of lean beef (90% lean, 10% fat). These researchers have previously demonstrated that drinking a specialized amino acid supplement can increase muscle protein synthesis. However, studies using supplements do not demonstrate what would happen following a normal protein-containing meal. Researchers studied 10 young and 10 elderly volunteers. By obtaining blood, and muscle biopsy samples from volunteers, they were able to measure changes in muscle protein synthesis and the concentration of amino acid in the blood. Findings from this research indicate that ingestion of a four ounce serving of lean beef has an immediate positive effect on muscle growth. In both young and elderly individuals, ingestion of four ounces of lean beef stimulates muscle protein synthesis by 30 to 50%. The ability of elderly subjects to respond to beef by stimulating muscle protein synthesis is important because the general belief is that the elderly don t have the ability to significantly build muscle. This becomes especially important considering that 30% of individuals over age 60 are estimated to have sarcopenia, a debilitating consequence of aging characterized by loss of muscle mass and functional capacity, increased risk of falls and increased susceptibility to illness. There is no single cause. However, poor diet, specifically inadequate protein, may worsen the condition. Research demonstrating positive health outcomes such as improved blood lipid and blood sugar control, weight management, maintenance of lean body mass, etc., with consumption of beef s high quality protein is critical to strengthening beef s position as a unique and premier protein in the minds of consumers and influencers and will continue to be important for checkoff-funded research. STRENGTHENING BEEF S POSITION AS A HEALTHFUL FOOD Continual monitoring and evaluation of emerging science is critical to the success of the checkoff-funded nutrition research program. The research pipeline can take months, if not years, to yield the science needed to protect beef s place on America s plate. This means the industry must look ahead now to identify the needs and opportunities for the next five to ten years and beyond. 21

23 A critical program for gaining these future research insights is the Nutrition Research Discovery Symposium. During this symposium, distinguished researchers join beef producer leaders to share emerging nutrition science with potential to impact the future of beef nutrition research. The Discovery Symposium provides the industry an opportunity to keep its pulse on emerging science and gain insights from the nation s leading researchers. It was held in February 2006 in conjunction with the NCBA Annual Meeting. Researchers from Boston University School of Medicine, University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston, Kansas State University, Iowa State University, and University of Illinois were present to share their research findings and contribute their thoughts on future research opportunities. Recommendations to focus on beef s protein as unique and superior to competing proteins emerged from the Discovery Symposium. To further assess the current state of the science and to identify future research needs for beef, a series of comprehensive scientific literature reviews in four areas of nutrition research were commissioned. Key research areas identified included: 1) Beef s Role in Weight Management; 2) Beef s Role in Cardiovascular Disease; 3) Beef s Role in Cognition; and 4) Beef s Role in Healthy Aging. These thorough scientific reviews examined existing science, identified research gaps and presented key research and nutrition marketing opportunities for beef. Results from this project indicate that existing science is very strong in the area of lean beef s positive role in heart health and beef s role in weight management. Information from these findings is being prepared for publication in peer-reviewed scientific journals and will be useful in supporting beef s role in a healthy diet as the evidence-based Dietary Guidelines 2010 process begins. FY 2007 PRIORITIES/FUTURE DIRECTION In 2007, the beef nutrition research program will continue to strengthen beef s place within the 2010 Dietary Guidelines, position it as a premier protein and protect it from the potential impact of nutrition issues by focusing on generating, monitoring and communicating beef nutrition research. Programs and activities such as the Discovery Symposium, commissioning literature reviews and hosting scientific think tanks help the industry lead with science. Specific research priorities for nutrition research in FY 07 include: Beef Protein in Weight Management, Optimizing Body Composition and Metabolism - This area of research is important as an overwhelming number of American s try to manage their weight. Solutions to address obesity are a major consideration as govern mental agencies and health organizations issue national dietary guidelines. Naturally Nutrient Rich Beef - Research to develop an index for evaluating the relative nutrient contribution of foods to diet quality. Also included, is research demonstrating beef s positive contribution to diet quality when it is included as part of healthy diet consistent with the 2005 Dietary Guidelines for Americans. Beef s Lipids in Perspective - Much of the concern about beef among health influencers, the scientific community, as well as the American public relate to concerns about beef s lipid profiles. Despite the significant amount of available science demonstrating positive outcomes such as lower blood cholesterol levels with healthy diets that include lean beef, still more research is needed to convince the scientific community. Specific needs include research on beef s trans fatty acids, health benefits of saturated fat and opportunities for improving beef s fatty acid profile. Nutrient Database Improvement Although great strides have been made, beef s most up-to-date nutrition profiles are still lacking in many nutrition analysis databases used by researchers. This priority area supports collaboration, and more research is needed to ensure beef s most accurate nutrition information is available in food composition databases used by researchers and health professionals. Pre-Doctoral Program Support the research of at least one pre-doctoral student to help support future interest in beef nutrition research. Nutrition remains a barrier affecting consumers willingness to purchase, prepare and enjoy beef. Nutrition and health concerns about beef are largely influenced by dietary guidance from health organizations, the government, individual health professionals and the media. High quality science is increasingly becoming essential to influence dietary guidance in America. Since 1922, the beef industry has invested in a nutrition research program and the findings have been critical to protecting beef s role in the diet. The beef nutrition research program has enjoyed much success over the last decade. Although the nutrition environment promises its share of challenges over the next ten years, stakeholders can feel confident that the checkoff-funded beef nutrition research program will continue to close research gaps and build opportunities by supporting high quality, cutting edge science that ensures beef s place on the healthy American plate. 22

24 23

25 HISTORY The consumer is the ultimate decision-maker of the success or failure of a product in the marketplace. The beef industry has spent many dollars and countless hours over the years probing the mind of the consumer and assessing consumer behavior. Three important themes appear time after time regarding consumers eating patterns in general and their attitudes toward beef. Consumers want their food to be convenient and easy to prepare, they want it to be nutritious and most importantly, they want it to taste great. Responding to these three drivers of beef demand, convenience, nutrition and enjoyment, are key to maintaining consumer satisfaction of our product and competing in the marketplace. The 1977 U.S. Senate Select Committee that urged Americans to eat less red meat to reduce their risk of heart disease was the beginning of a 20 year downturn in beef demand. Currently, the government and media focus on health, nutrition and obesity in the U.S. is a significant challenge to the beef industry. This climate makes research into consumer attitudes toward beef s healthfulness and responding to these attitudes a key imperative. Many programs are in place to overcome nutrition and health concerns and checkoff resources are being used to reinforce consumers love of beef and while trying to correct misperceptions about the actual fat content of beef. Since 1998, beef demand has been trending upward, and Beef Checkoff-funded programs have played a role in this. With regard to convenience, one of NCBA s strategies in the 1990 s was to push the development of convenient, heatand-eat products for beef. At the time, this was perceived as a novel approach and was met with a degree of skepticism. There is a segment of the population that places a high importance on convenience, and it is the challenge of the beef industry to continually find ways to meet these and other consumer needs. While convenience and nutrition are key factors that consumers think about when making food choices, it has been shown in a number of studies that enjoyment is the number one reason for choosing to eat one food versus another. The results of a 2001 study entitled Beef Category Architecture showed that consumers were most likely to rate enjoyment benefits as important in their meal choices, followed by convenience and nutrition benefits. With this in mind, we have reinforced consumer s love of our product while trying to respond to the other two drivers. M A R K E T R E S E A R C H, 24 The following are just a few examples of how we are responding to these challenges by using research to provide knowledge that will support the goals of the beef industry and build beef demand. NEW PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT One priority of the Beef Checkoff-funded market research program is in the area of New Product Development. Identifying new product opportunities that meet the needs of consumers (e.g. products aimed at youth, hand-held products, value-added products, etc.) is important to increasing beef demand. Within NCBA, the Beef Innovations Group (BIG) is a cross-functional team of marketers, scientists, culinary professionals, operations experts and product development professionals that serve as a resource for companies and organizations interested in developing new beef and veal products or enhancing current beef products. Its mission is to inspire beef and veal product innovation and facilitate success by bringing information, insight, ideas, science and tools to the industry and its stakeholders. Developing and launching successful and profitable new products is the life blood of America s businesses today. In fact, on average, new products account for 33% of company sales. To ward off the competition, companies have to keep their products differentiated from competitors so that consumers will not price shop but will instead purchase a product because it is relevant to their lifestyle and best meets their needs. NEW PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT PROCESS A high quality new product process is the single most important aspect of successful new product launches because it lays out a road map of business and scientific activities for a team to follow and make decisions from. When companies utilize a new product process there is less product rework, greater product success rates, earlier identification of failures, improved launch, and up to 30% shorter times to get to market. (Source Robert G. Cooper, Winning at New Products 2001) The New Product Development process includes these six steps: 1. Exploration idea generation and consumer testing 2. Scoping conducting a preliminary project investigation

26 using readily available sources to determine technical and market merits 3. Build the Business Case - conducting a detailed investigation leading to a business case to proceed (or not to) 4. Development - completion of the design and development of the product and the production process 5. Testing and Validation testing the product manufacturing in the commercial plant and test marketing 6. Launch marketing and selling the new product to a broader market YOUTH NEW PRODUCT RESEARCH The purpose of the Youth New Beef Product Research, funded by The Beef Checkoff, is to support the beef industry s Youth Initiative by developing a better understanding of taste preferences of the youth market and identifying factors that drive these taste preferences. Equipped with these insights, subsequent research and brainstorming sessions will be conducted to develop new beef products aimed specifically at boys and girls between the ages of 4-7 (children), 8-12 (tweens) and (teens). NEW PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT PROCESS IDEAL NEW BEEF PRODUCT FOR YOUTH month Process 3+ Months 3-6 Months 3-6 Months 1 Month EXPLORATION (Idea Genertion) SCOPING (Preliminary Investigation) BUILD THE BUSINESS CASE (Detailed Investigation and Research) DEVELOPMENT (Prototype Designed and Developed) TESTING AND VALIDATION (Full Scale Product Testing) LAUNCH (Giving a Gift to Consumers) Is Fun to Eat Has Small Bite Sized Pieces Goes From Freezer to Microwave Incorporates Steak and/or Ground Beef Features Nutritional and Health Benefits Tastes Great Has Brightly Colored Packaging Does not Require Untensils/Plate Is Single Serve Includes Sauce: Ketchup, BBQ, Marinara, Cheese, Salsa, Ranch, Sweet/Sour For at-home and Portable, On-the Go Eating Integrates Foods Kids Enjoy (e.g.,pasta) Offers One-Step/Easy to Prepare Has Visually ApplealingShape POST LAUNCH REVIEW The Ideal New Beef Product for Youth NCBA, on behalf of the checkoff, will continue to collaborate with companies that are looking to introduce new beef products. Keep in mind that the new product process is simply a framework and that it does not necessarily mean that all steps will be followed before a new beef product is introduced. The main focus of the New Product Development process is to provide direction for the beef checkoff to help our industry partners introduce new beef products that meet consumer needs and are relevant to their lifestyle. For the initial phase of research, a total of 15 mini focus groups were conducted with both kids and adults across geographically-diverse U.S. markets, including Boston, Atlanta, Chicago, Denver and Los Angeles in April Additionally, five in-depth telephone interviews were conducted with NCBA product development partners and food service managers. 25

27 This research was structured in part to identify which elements are important when creating appealing new beef products for kids. In order to build the ideal new beef product for the youth target, the following elements should be considered: Subsequent research will include product ideation, concept development, new product concept testing (qualitative and quantitative) and taste tests among children, tweens and teens. Product concepts that have potential will be shown to industry partners for possible partnership opportunities and introduction into the market. GROUND BEEF INITIATIVE Ground beef constitutes nearly half of all the beef U.S. consumers purchase and eat, both in retail supermarkets and in the foodservice sector. It is important that we provide a safe, wholesome product to consumers but it is equally important that we understand consumers attitudes, perceptions, likes and dislikes relative to ground beef. The Ground Beef Initiative is an over-arching strategy that focuses on uncovering consumers usage and attitudes toward ground beef. This knowledge will be used to improve perceptions of ground beef s nutritional value and health benefits and help develop, desirable, relevant ground beef products to consumers. Two phases of research were conducted: a qualitative phase which would uncover consumer attitudes toward ground beef and inform the objectives of the second, quantitative phase. Phase 1 A total of 16 focus groups were conducted with dietitians, parents and youth in four geographically diverse U.S. markets Philadelphia, St. Louis, Houston and Los Angeles. Additional in-depth telephone interviews were also conducted among physicians and non-ground beef eaters. Results of Phase 1 showed that while consumers had many positive perceptions of ground beef that there were some negative feelings. On the positive side, respondents said that ground beef is a good tasting, affordable, familyoriented food that can be used in a wide variety of dishes. However, ground beef was perceived as less healthy than alternatives, high in fat and a contributor to health problems such as weight gain and high cholesterol. Phase 2 In May 2006 an online survey of 2,000 (500 teenagers and 1,500 adults) people was completed. This research quantified 26

28 HOW IMPORTANT ARE THE FOLLOWING FACTORS WHEN DECIDING HOW OFTEN YOU PURCHASE AND EAT DIFFERENT PROTEINS, LIKE GROUND BEEF, OTHER MEATS, CHICKEN, FISH AND DAIRY ITEMS?(PERCENT RATING 8,9,10 ON 10 PT. SCALE.) Total (n=2,000) Total Teen (n=500) Total Adult (n=1,500) Tastes great 83% 82% 84%* Can be prepared many different ways for variety 68% 54% 72%* Can customize to my own taste preferences 67% 60% 69%* Is popular with all family members 63% 56% 65%* Is quick and easy to prepare 62% 52% 66%* Is healthy/good for you 62% 59% 63% Is low cost/affordable 60% 53% 62%* Pairs well with other foods 59% 49% 62%* Stores well until cooked 58% 45% 62%* Leftovers are easily stored 54% 42% 57%* * Indicates adults are significantly different than teens at the 95 percent confidence level. consumer attitudes and behaviors regarding ground beef and helped identify strategies to increase ground beef consumption. The most frequently cited reasons for eating ground beef less often among teens and adults are nutritional concerns, including general health, the need to lower cholesterol, trying to lose weight and fat content. Older adults and higher income individuals are especially likely to name health and nutrition concerns as reasons for eating less ground beef. Teens and adults eat ground beef prepared as hamburgers or cheeseburgers twice as often as other preparation methods. Overall, hamburgers or cheeseburgers are the preferred preparation method 36 percent of the time, followed by taco/enchilada/burrito/nacho (15%) and spaghetti sauce (12%). While this same pattern holds true among all age segments, males are more likely than females in several age segments to eat hamburgers or cheeseburgers. Adults and teens overwhelmingly chose taste as an important factor when deciding how often to eat ground beef and other proteins. Convenience and health factors were cited by a large majority of consumers, as were other factors such as variety, popularity with all family members and affordability. These results indicate that consumers are conflicted in their relationship toward ground beef. The beef industry needs to continue its focus on taste/enjoyment, convenience and nutrition. Strategies to increase demand for ground beef will need to meet the taste expectations of consumers, give consumers convenient, easy to prepare products and continue to stress to consumers that ground beef is part of a healthy, balanced diet. ENHANCING THE BEEF BRAND In the late 1990 s NCBA embarked on a strategy to shift the beef industry from a production oriented or commodity focus to a more consumer-focused orientation. The Brand-Like Initiative was the first step in this consumer- focused strategy. Some key objectives of this initiative were as follows: Encourage new, value-added products Support systems that enhance quality and consistency Help develop convenient, user-friendly products Foster information exchange between industry segments Increase beef demand Clearly the beef industry has moved toward a more consumer-oriented philosophy. Some examples include the growth of heat and serve beef products, the emergence of nationally branded and store branded beef, and the renewed focus by packers and processors on value-added beef products. While beef demand has been increasing steadily since 1998, consumption and affinity for chicken continue to grow. Consumers are increasingly being given more food choices due to the introduction of new products. With this in mind, it was apparent that a reevaluation of the brand was in order to strengthen beef s competitive position and maintain relevance in consumers hearts and minds. Two phases of research were conducted: a qualitative phase which would uncover consumer attitudes toward ground beef and inform the objectives of the second, quantitative phase. 27

29 The objectives of this research were as follows: Understand and compare the rational (e.g. convenient, easy to prepare, healthy) and emotional (e.g. special treat, memorable, passion) benefits that beef and chicken provide to consumers Assess consumption patterns Measure attributes of importance and performance Identify key drivers of preference Identify opportunities for gaining one more beef-eating occasion Phase 1 Key findings of focus groups indicated that consumers: Have many options and seek variety in their food choices; have a passion for beef and the taste of beef; have an emotional link to both beef and chicken but select more rational factors related to chicken consumption; and perceive beef to be heavy/unhealthy versus chicken as light/healthy. Phase 2 In July 2006 an online survey of 4,319 people aged was completed. This research gave a much greater understanding of consumer perceptions of and attitudes toward beef and chicken. Beef and chicken are clearly liked by consumers to a greater extent than either pork, fish or shellfish. Nearly all consumers said that they like beef (97%) and chicken (98%) compared to less than 9 in 10 (87%) who like pork, less than 8 in 10 (78%) who like fish and less than 7 in 10 (69%) who like shellfish. More than a third (34%) of consumers said that they are eating less beef compared to last year (9% of consumers said they are eating less chicken). Conversely, 16 percent of consumers said they are eating more beef (38% said they are eating more chicken). Consumers said they are eating less beef primarily due to health/nutrition concerns followed by high prices for beef. Consumers gave similar reasons for eating more chicken. Consumers also express a greater future intent to eat more fish, shellfish and chicken compared to beef. These findings suggest that nutrition concerns are influencing consumers attitudes toward choosing proteins that they perceive to be healthier and lower in fat. Beef has equity at dinner time on the attributes of taste and satisfies my appetite (i.e. consumers rate these attributes as high in importance and rate beef s performance high on meeting these needs). Opportunities exist for beef at dinner time on the attributes of healthy, nutritious meal and meets nutritional needs. Consumers rate these attributes high in importance and rate beef s performance lower on meeting these needs. Because so many of the attributes are similar to one another, factor analysis was used to place attributes into logical groupings. Regression was used to determine how these factors drive preference (i.e. their relative importance to preference). Eating experience (e.g. great taste, satisfies my appetite, a special meal) is the number one driver of protein preference and beef performs well in this area. Eating experience is the PROTEIN LIKEABILITY NET DISLIKE NET LIKE BEEF 1% 1% 12% 38% 47% 97% CHICKEN 1% 1% 12% 42% 44% 98% SHELLFISH 28% 13% 5% 5% 17% 21% 31% 69% FISH 16% 7% 3% 6% 22% 30% 26% 78% PORK 8% 2% 2% 4% 24% 38% 25% 87% 20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% HATE IT DISLIKE VERY MUCH DISLIKE SOMEWHAT LIKE SOMEWHAT LIKE VERY MUCH LOVE IT Base: U.S. Residents (n=4, 319) 28

30 top driver both for in-home and restaurant meal preference. Fuel for the body (e.g. gives me energy, good source of protein, is not processed) is also an important driver for protein preference, both in-home and for restaurant meal preference. Other drivers included: Preparation (in-home), nutrition and budget, eating as an event (restaurant) and menu selection (restaurant). KEY DRIVERS OF PROTEIN PREFERENCE RESTAURANT DINING Eating Experience Fuel for the Body Nutrition & Budget Eating as an Event Menu Selection DINING AT HOME Eating Experience Fuel for the Body Preparation Budget Nutrition Our national advertising campaign centers on two distinct and separate themes: enjoyment and nutrition. Our advertising focus on enjoyment is powerful and relates to a key driver of preference, but may lack a compelling reason for consumers to eat more beef. The separate and complementary nutrition campaign, while seeking to correct the perception of beef as high-fat may not express the strong associations people have with beef as fuel for the body. Our goals are: (1) to make beef more relevant and connected to consumers lifestyles and (2) to reinforce consumer preference for beef while making them feel good about eating it. FY 2007 PRIORITIES/FUTURE DIRECTION For fiscal year 2007, the market research program will continue to focus on understanding consumer behavior, attitudes and perceptions of beef and beef industry issues. Research priorities will be in the areas of consumer channel, nutrition, consumer advertising/brand image, consumer attitudes/perceptions and dissemination of market research results. We will continue to track and trend consumer behavior in the areas of retail, foodservice and focus on new product development. Retail and foodservice are each extremely important to beef demand and the more we know about each will further inform our program decisions. There has been, and there will continue to be, a major focus on the development of new beef products, especially focusing on the youth market with convenient, good tasting, and nutritious products. With mandatory nutrition labeling on the horizon, a key focus will be on nutrition market research. Consumer attitudes toward labeling and point of purchase at the retail case, nutrition advertising message development and nutrition attitude tracking are three research components that are a high priority for the future. We will continue to monitor the impact of our national advertising campaign. Key elements of this research are to measure recall of and attitudes toward the ads themselves and to measure attitudes and perceptions relating to beef as a brand in the consumers minds. Advertising messaging development will also be explored with consumers. Another priority is to continue to evaluate attitudes and perceptions of consumers relating to beef and its competitors. We will explore consumer segments (e.g. Hispanic consumers, parents as gatekeepers, etc.) and measure their attitudes and perceptions toward beef. A consumer satisfaction tool will be developed that benc hmarks satisfaction levels with beef and this will be used to track our progress in support of the industry long range plan. Dissemination of market research findings will continue to be a priority. Market research findings will be summarized and disseminated via the Extranet, and . 29

31 P R O J E C T L I S T I N G S Please go to for Beef Safety Research, Product Enhancement Research, Nutrition Research, Market Research, State-Funded project listings and Published Research Findings L E A D E R S H I P RESEARCH & KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT GROUP Keith Hansen, M.S. Chairman C.R. Dick Sherron, M.D. Vice Chair J.O. Reagan, Ph.D. NCBA Staff PRODUCT ENHANCEMENT COMMITTEE William Rishel, M.S. Chairman Glen Dolezal, Ph.D. Vice Chair Bucky Gwartney, Ph.D. NCBA Staff BEEF SAFETY RESEARCH COMMITTEE Michael Engler, Ph.D. Chairman Duane Theuninck, Ph.D. Vice Chair Michelle Rossman, M.S. NCBA Staff BEEF PRODUCTION RESEARCH COMMITTEE Connee Quinn, Ph.D. Chairman Barry Dunn, Ph.D. Vice Chair Bridget Baird, M.S. NCBA Staff NUTRITION RESEARCH COMMITTEE Greg Hilgeman Chairman Becky Walth Vice-Chair Shalene McNeill, Ph.D. NCBA Staff MARKET RESEARCH WORKING GROUP C.R. Dick Sherron, M.D. Chairman Sid Sumner Vice-Chair Martin Roth NCBA Staff MANAGING NCBA STAFF J.O. Reagan, Ph.D. Vice President, Research and Knowledge Management Bucky Gwartney, Ph.D. Executive Director, Research & Knowledge Management Shalene McNeill, Ph.D. Director, Nutrition Research Michelle Rossman, M.S. Director, Beef Safety Martin Roth Director, Market Research Bridget Baird, M.S. Associate Director, Product Enhancement Michael Melusky Manager, Research & Knowledge Dissemination Michele Melody Grants Administrator Deborah Cole Coordinator Design: Maggie Malm, The Denver Design Firm Photography: Dale Heikes, Agrivision 30

32 Funded by The Beef Checkoff. FOR MORE INFORMATION CONTACT: NATIONAL CATTLEMEN S BEEF ASSOCIATION 9110 EAST NICHOLS AVENUE CENTENNIAL, CO COPYRIGHT 2006 CATTLEMEN S BEEF BOARD ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. PRINTED IN U.S.A ,000