Duration: 10/01/2007 to 09/30/2012

Administrative Advisor(s):

NIFA Reps:

Non-Technical Summary

Statement of Issues and Justification

The U.S. beef industry is facing a number of complex challenges that can be addressed through a multi-disciplinary, integrated approach involving participants from animal science, meat science, and economics. Innovative animal and meat science research can identify the types and qualities of beef that a diverse consuming public desire. Economic research can determine the relative strength of consumer preferences across types and qualities of beef products and estimate the market value consumers place on identified product attributes. Integrating research efforts will allow the research team to identify product quality attributes consumers demand and estimate what the market is willing to pay for these attributes.

It has long been established in the economics literature that both product price and product quality matter to the consumer. Production and process innovations lower production costs and/or improve product quality, which in turn will enhance beefs competitive position relative to pork and poultry. To better understand the relationship in the beef industry between price and product quality, animal/meat scientists and economists need to work together to explore issues affecting beef demand. Analysis of the interaction between consumer preferences for beef based on product attributes, such as: a) consumption quality of beef products, b) quality-enhancing innovations, and c) food safety, with d) market price is key to improving beefs competitive position in the battle to capture the consumer dollar spent on meat products. This type of research is needed if the beef industry is to recapture lost domestic market share from pork and poultry, and extend U.S. Beef's international market share.

While the past decline in beef demand is a complex issue, economists have identified two contributing economic forces: a) the lifestyle hypothesis, and b) the relative price hypothesis (Fausti et al., 1998). Both of these hypotheses identify consumer behavior toward beef products as the reason for declining demand in the 1980s and 1990s. Beef customers expect producers to provide a high quality and safe product. Past efforts at improving beef quality generally were built around the concept that there was a single measure of quality. However, quality is multi-dimensional and is viewed differently across consumers, as research done by this research project and other scientists has shown. Consumer preferences change over time due to increasing incomes, changes in taste, and product innovations in beef and competing foods. Additional research is needed on this issue to improve the competitive position of U.S. beef.

Product quality and safety are a function of the U.S. beef production and marketing systems. Therefore, consumer demand is also a function of these systems. Failure of these systems in the past to satisfy consumer preference has resulted in the beef industry losing market share to poultry and pork. Product quality is an issue because much of U.S. beef has been marketed and processed as a generic product, but existing research has shown that variation in generic quality reduces the competitiveness of beef. Beef cattle are genetically diverse, produced under a variety of environmental conditions, which leads to differences in meat quality. The industry might improve customer satisfaction and industry competitiveness by targeting the natural variation of beef to niche markets that are willing to pay a premium for specific naturally occurring product attributes.

With respect to product safety, consumer concern over product safety is the direct result of the beef industrys failure to convince beef patrons that proper safety protocols are in place when product safety issues arise. An excellent example of industry failure was the shock to the U.S. beef market when BSE was discovered in both Canada and the United States in 2003. The Canadian discovery disrupted an important source of imported live animals and beef while the U.S. discovery shut down U.S. beef exports. The beef industry is still adjusting to these challenges and ramping up efforts to identify and trace food born pathogens. Traceability, originally conceived to enhance animal and human health, may provide an effective trace-back system to improve the industrys ability to target specific animals to their highest-valued uses and alleviate consumer food security/safety concerns.

The multi-disciplinary research team has decided to focus on five issues that appear to be the most important issues facing the U.S. beef today:
1. palatability, processing, and marketing of beef;
2. food-borne illness;
3. consumer preferences for beef
4. supply chain management strategies;
5. traceability;

Related, Current and Previous Work

Palatability and Processing

One of the advantages of U.S. beef products in the export market is superior quality, flavor, and tenderness. USDA quality grades are used to classify beef carcasses into expected palatability groups. Approximately 75% of beef is Select and Low Choice. This beef is variable in eating quality, and new technologies are needed to more accurately segment tough and tender beef. The ability to more accurately assess beef tenderness and integrate this information with the current USDA grading system would allow the beef industry to categorize beef based on expected palatability. The USDA-Ag. Marketing Service has identified instrument grading as a priority for the industry. Economic research has shown that consumers are willing to pay for increased palatability.

A variety of technologies exist that might be applied to beef carcass grading. Elastography is effective in predicting tenderness, but has not been commercialized. The BeefCam system has been commercialized but improvements in the technology could improve the efficacy of the system. A hyperspectral imaging system gives good spectral and spatial resolution, simultaneously. The hyperspectral imaging system collects a spectrum at each and every pixel (location) of an image. Preliminary results suggest hyperspectral imaging can used to successfully predict tenderness (Grimes et al., 2006). Efforts are needed to evaluate these technologies, singularly or in combination.

Recently, purveyors, retailers, and consumers have reported a liver-like off flavor in beef cuts, which has coincided with the release of the Beef Value Cuts. Some of the typical off-flavors are described as liver-like, fatty, sour, and metallic. Miller (2001) reviewed hypotheses about the potential cause of livery flavor in beef such as higher levels of myoglobin, higher pH, improper exsanguination, lipid oxidation, and higher degree of doneness. More specifically, Yancey et al. (2006) identified thirteen compounds that were higher in samples with liver-like off flavor when compared to samples without liver-like flavors. Of these byproducts, six were aldehydes formed from the oxidation of oleic and linoleic acid. To find the origin of the off-flavor volatile compounds that are perceived in cooked beef, it is important to know the precursor compounds. Distillers grains supplementation increases unsaturated fat content of the diet which can subsequently escape rumen biohydrogenation and become incorporated into the phospholipid fraction of muscle tissue (Koger et al., 2004), thus increasing the possibilities of lipid oxidation and subsequent off flavors in beef. Additionally, individual muscles inherently differ in flavor (Yancey et al., 2005). Muscle differences in myoglobin levels, fat content and use of the muscle contribute to differences in flavor. Cooking method, degree of doneness and muscle type contribute to flavor in beef. While differences in flavor due to these factors have been shown to impact beef flavor, the interaction of these factors need to be further understood.

Traditional enhancement has been accomplished with the injection of water, salt, and phosphates. The use of such ingredients results in the improvement of water-holding capacity (Offer and Trinick, 1983). Studies (Trout and Schmidt, 1984; Vote et al., 2000; Lawrence et al., 2004; Baublits et al., 2006a,b; Knock et al., 2006) have shown that enhancement with salt and phosphates do in fact increase tenderness and juiciness.

A new development to the enhancement systems has been developed by Freezing Machines Inc. (Dakota Dunes, SD). The patented process employs an enhancement solution comprised of water, salt, and ammonium hydroxide. The ingredients in this solution act in a way to increase the water-holding capacity, tenderness and palatability of meat (Everts et al., 2006a,b; Hand et al., 2006; Nath et al., 2006). Nath et al. (2006) showed that pH of meat increased, purge loss increased, calculated moisture after cooking increased, and shear force decreased for all muscles (beef longissimus lumborum, gluteus medius, triceps brachii, biceps femoris, and psoas major) as pump percentage increased. Research is needed to further explore this new technology and to compare it to existing enhancement methods. The ultimate goal is to provide a safe, desirable beef product for consumers.

To remain competitive globally, the U.S. meat industry must continue to improve processing efficiency. Internationally, carcass fabrication procedures are diverse (Pfeiffer et al., 2005), reflecting the uses for meat cuts in a particular country as well as for export. Many countries are unencumbered by the traditions of U.S. fabrication and thus have been free to explore alternative cutting strategies. Multiple cutting strategies can be found in Latin American countries. An industry task force was convened at the University of Nebraska spring of 2006. The consensus of the group was that the cutting strategies in Central and South America merited study. Although there are some similarities, each country has unique aspects of potential merit to the U.S. industry. The project would evaluate cutting strategies in various countries and explore their application to the U.S. meat industry. Economic evaluation of consumer preferences for new cuts will provide insight on potential new domestic and international market niches.

Food Safety

Previous work by this project has shown that beef consumers are willing to pay for enhanced food safety. National differences in food safety regulations have an important effect on beef trade, and some people are concerned that the U.S. meat inspection system is a partial impediment to beef exports.

The National Center for Infectious Diseases of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimates that 76 million Americans get sick, more than 300,000 are hospitalized, and 5,000 people die from food borne illnesses each year (CDC, 2005). Minimizing risk of pathogens on meat using microbiological interventions, particularly for beef, has been a subject of intense research interest (Anderson et al., 1997; Barkate et al, 1993; Gill et al., 2000; Gorman et al., 1995a,b, 1997; Hardin et al., 1995; Kochevar et al., 1997; Phebus et al., 1997; Powell and Cain, 1987; Nutsch et al., 1997; Reagan et al., 1996; Smith et al., 2000; Smith et al., 2001; Sofos and Smith, 1998; Upmann et al., 2000; Bacon et al., 1999). As a result of efforts to reduce the risk of food borne illness, preliminary FoodNet data for 2005 reported by CDC showed that incidence of infections caused by Campylobacter, Listeria, Salmonella, Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli O157 (STEC O157), Shigella, and Yersinia has declined, and Campylobacter and Listeria incidence are approaching levels targeted by national health objectives (CDC, 2006).

More recently, U.S. meat production industries realized that plant efforts to reduce prevalence of food borne pathogens on food frequently are overwhelmed by prevalence, quantity, and persistence of pathogens arriving at plants on or in livestock, and are thus often inadequate when pre-harvest controls are not implemented (Belk, 2005).

In the modern era of global trade and travel, multi-national corporations, intensive livestock raising practices and terrorism, persistent threats to animal and public health from zoonotic diseases and emerging food-borne pathogens have elevated the importance of implementing sound biosecurity and biosafety measures during livestock production. Following recent detection of Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE), West Nile Virus, and Low Pathogenic Avian Influenza in the U.S., emphasis on, and interest in, development of diagnostic, containment, and preventative capabilities for control of zoonotic diseases has increased (AMSA, 2006). Alone, the economic consequences to the livestock and meat industry of an animal health crisis merit serious effort towards prevention; but ramifications to the industry are vastly escalated when the biosecurity threat affects food safety and public health. Destabilization of agricultural trade due to a biosecurity crisis has serious financial consequences because every $1 billion in U.S. agricultural exports creates 15,000 U.S. jobs (currently 885,000 jobs in the U.S.), and exports fully support one-third of all jobs in rural communities (USDA-FAS, 2005).

The implications of food borne illnesses and food safety measures present not only issues important for domestic marketing competitiveness, but for international competitiveness as well. Recently, concerns arose among U.S. exporters that terms of trade for beef export restoration were vague, and that compliance with terms of various agreements are difficult to meet and financially challenging. While some exporters find the compliance costs high, others actively pursuing foreign niche markets (e.g., non-hormone treated beef, organic and natural meat) are challenged to meet foreign requirements using current and permissible, domestic inspection methods. These niche exporting handicaps exist due to lack of synchronization in international food safety policies and certification processes. The increasing interdependence of global food markets leads to a need for food safety as a component of global public health policies.

According to the Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS Agreement), World Trade Organization (WTO) member countries each determine their appropriate level of health protection (ALOP); that is, the level of food safety, animal disease, or plant disease protection sought is a matter to be determined by an importing country. This, however, is twinned with requirements, one of which is that sanitary or phytosanitary measures used to achieve ALOPs be consistently applied (WTO, 2000). Recent U.S.-Asia trade tensions over BSE have presented trade-policy scenarios in which importing countries (e.g., Japan) have elected to set their ALOPs quite high, requiring 100% testing of beef carcasses entering their markets from countries that have had cases of BSE. Although partially resolved in late summer 2006 through bilateral export-certification agreements, the situation has raised issues relevant to the long-term, international competitiveness of U.S. meats in foreign markets. These issues include how USDA niche-market export certification programs can assist in the regaining, retention, and/or expansion of international market access for U.S. beef, as well as the resolution of trade disputes over food safety and animal disease.

Consumer Preference

Beef consumer needs and demands are more complex than ever. In the domestic market, the United States population recently reached 300 million people. The ethnic make-up of this population is much different from the population 20 years ago. There are increasingly large groups of Americans from Latin America and Asia (Pew Hispanic Center 2006). With this change in population composition come changes in the needs and wants of domestic consumers. At the same time, global forces are bringing world markets together. As they do, meat processors are not only working to meet the needs of domestic consumers, but they must also maintain their competitiveness on the international market and meet global demands.

Past work by members of this regional committee provides valuable input into the consumer literature on country-of-origin labeling; meat traceability; organic, grass-fed, and natural beef; intrinsic attributes (e.g., meat color and presentation); tenderness; and food safety (e.g., Dickinson and Bailey 2002, Loureiro and Umberger 2003, Lourieiro and Umberger 2004, Umberger et al. 2002, and Umberger et al. 2003). While this work advances our knowledge of consumer preferences for beef in the United States and abroad, it also points to new areas for research and issues challenging our understanding of consumer behavior. Areas of further investigation include local, regional, natural, and organic foods; psychographic consumer profiles, and humane and ethical production.

The organic beef market continues to be of interest. U.S. organic food sales have grown between 17 to 21 percent per year since 1997. In 2003, sales of organic meat and poultry increased by 78 percent. Limited information is available on the actual premiums received in the market and testing of stated versus revealed preference for natural meats.

The linkage between consumer beef preferences and management of ranch operations must be examined within a production framework. For example, relationships between animal temperament, stress, eating behavior, health status, energy efficiency, and growth in combination with environment, genetics, and nutrition and their subsequent impacts o beef quality needs to be further elucidated, especially in nontraditional production systems. Initial research in this area (Brown et al., 2004; Carstens et al., 2005; Falkenberg et al., 2005; Gomez et al., 2007) has been conducted by this regional committee. However, as the beef industry utilizes new production, genetic and nutritional tools to develop targeted beef merchandizing systems, the impact on beef quality and consumer preferences must be a consideration.

Supply Chain Management

The production and marketing of cattle and calves has been affected by increased industrial concentration in the packing and feedlot industries over the last 40 years. The structural changes are a response to increased competition from other protein sources (eg. poultry and pork) for a greater share of the consumer dollar. The shift in the industrial structure has both benefited and damaged participants along the beef supply chain. Increased concentration has resulted in impressive gains in production efficiency, but it has also resulted in dramatic decline of the number of firms involved in both the feeding and processing segments of the beef industry.

This transition to a more competitive industry has put small producers at a competitive disadvantage in the market place. Large meat packing firms dominate the slaughter and processing segment of the beef industry and account for 82% of steer and heifer slaughter. The number of meat packing plants processing more than 2000 head annually declined from 808 in 1978 to 173 in 2004 (GISPA 2006). The feedlot sector is becoming more concentrated as well. The largest 260 feedlots in the U.S. market over 60% of the fed cattle (USDA/NASS 2006). The cow/calf industry is the only segment of the beef industry that has not succumbed to the forces of increased market concentration and vertical integration. In 2005, there were approximately 770,000 beef cow operations in the United States and 85% of the beef cow inventory in the United States was located on operations of less than 500 head (USDA/NASS 2006).

The poultry industry and increasingly the pork industry are integrated or at least more vertically aligned than the beef industry. The ability of the supply chain to transmit consumer preferences for a particular type and quality of beef product back to through the supply chain to the producer is paramount to the success of the beef industry to compete successfully against other protein sources. Recent innovations in the marketing of live cattle and the implementation of mandatory price reporting for slaughter cattle and wholesale beef has impacted the ability to transmit market signals through the beef supply chain. The 2007 GIPSA report on alternative marketing agreements provides new insight on vertical linkages between producers, packers and downstream participants. Furthermore, the Competition Title of the 2007 Farm Bill is expected to impact market transparency and marketing practices. As more information becomes available and measurement and traceability technologies improve analysis is needed to identify implications on price discovery and price transmission throughout the beef supply chain.

Research on pre- and post-harvest activities that improve beef quality, specifically tenderness and flavor is an important component of this proposed project. Animal science research can help us determine how genetics, environment, and processing affect the ending characteristics of the meat, while economic research can help identify the market segments best served by a set of characteristics.

Instability in the livestock industry is evident in long-term price trends over the last ten years. Livestock prices have fluctuated wildly over the last ten years, with prices below break-even levels in four of those years. Western livestock producers may increase their share of product revenues through cooperatives focused on processing and marketing meat products under a branded beef. This reflects a larger regional and national trend in which producers are vertically integrating down the livestock supply chain and creating brand associations based on production regions or state origin.

Traceability

The U.S. Government is developing an animal identification system called the National Animal Identification System (NAIS); several of the current researchers on the Project are working on this issue. There are also numerous market-driven efforts that are attempting to integrate animal ID into programs designed to increase the value of cattle and beef. While the primary impetus for the animal identification is to enhance animal and human health, an effective trace-back system would improve our ability to target specific animals to their highest-valued uses. While an animal ID system could produce a number of benefits to enhance beefs market position, it will impose costs on producers. The Project plans to research how these costs are going to be distributed across producers; comparison of the costs and benefits will allow the Project to advise the Government on improving the implementation of the animal ID program.

The challenge facing the industry now is to cost effectively coordinate and link many disparate animal and meat traceability systems and priorities and develop a standardized system for communicating consumer-valued characteristics to the farm-level and relaying credence attributes to consumers. This challenge is important in the domestic market as US consumers move to more highly differentiated products.

Many livestock organizations and producers have demanded that costs of animal ID systems be documented and reported by USDA to assist producers with decision making on technology. Blasi et al. (2003) estimates that to implement an animal ID system at the producer level ranges from $4.00 to $24.00 and varies by size of operation. These estimates are $2.00 to $5.40 per head. The previous estimates were based on a spreadsheet analysis of costs for the Midwestern U.S. feedlot sector that purchased all of the equipment and software to implement an on-farm animal ID system. These figures can therefore be misleading and, indeed have been misused by groups opposed to implementing animal and meat ID systems in the US. This project will analyze cost and benefits of implementing animal and meat ID programs based on size of operation, location in the supply chain, technology used, and meat characteristics certified. This information will fill a significant void in the literature as well as provide critical information for decision making to market participants.

Review of ongoing CRIS projects

A search of the CRIS database by Field of Science and by Subject of Investigation categories did not find any ongoing project proposing to integrate research on beef quality issues with research on consumer preference for particular quality attributes associated with beef products. The integration of research on improving beef product quality along the beef market supply chain with research on consumer preferences for particular beef product attributes will allow our research group to advance the knowledge on the linkages between product quality, market price, and consumer demand along the beef supply chain.

Objectives

1. Enhance palatability, processing, and marketing of beef by studying instrument grading, beef flavor and tenderness technologies, and carcass cutting strategies
   
2. Develop science-rooted strategies and technologies to reduce foodborne illness and improve the effectiveness of policies related to food safety and trade.
   
3. Determine factors influencing domestic and international consumer preferences for beef.
   
4. Assess supply chain management strategies to identify and overcome barriers that interfere with the transmission of consumer preferences to producers
   
5. Evaluate the cost/benefit of traceability and assess its value in market-based programs
   

Methods

OBJECTIVE 1: Stations involved: CT, IA, ND, WA, NE, CO, and TX. For the instrument grading technology research, projects will be conducted to demonstrate proof of concept. This will entail evaluating beef steaks varying widely in tenderness. Appropriate software will be developed based on these results. Industry prototypes will be constructed and tested for the most promising approaches. In-plant validation will complete this initiative. For the beef flavor studies, our strategy will be to examine the physical and chemical attributes in combination with the chemical components to define non-meat ingredient strategies to mask or reduce off-flavor development. Currently, Texas is working on characterizing various hydrocolloids and buffering agents for use as non-meat ingredients to reduce the physical and chemical effects of low pH in pork muscle and will be investigated in beef. We will also identify compounds responsible for off-flavor development in beef (Nebraska). This will be accomplished from comprehensive studies comparing normal-flavored beef samples to off-flavored beef. Particular attention will be directed toward beef possessing the liver-like off-flavor. Key compounds will be studied using gas chromatography and mass spectrometry. Published databases will be used to relate MS output to specific compounds. Once specific off-flavor compounds are identified, it will be possible to hypothesize about the sources of (or precursors to) the offending compounds. Studies will seek to confirm these hypotheses, with the goal of learning the source of off-flavors. In particular, various feedstuffs will be investigated (Nebraska, Texas). The innovative fabrication research will evaluate cutting strategies from various countries and explore their application to the U.S. meat industry. Particular attention will be paid to Central and South America. Innovative practices will be applied to U.S. beef carcasses to evaluate their applicability (Nebraska). Resulting muscles and cuts will be evaluated for sensory and tenderness traits (Connecticut, Nebraska, Texas). Consumer demand for new cuts will be explored (Michigan, Iowa, Wyoming, and South Dakota). OBJECTIVE 2: Stations involved: IA, ND, WY, KS, CO, and TX. Microbiological food safety research leading to implementation of food safety interventions including irradiation will be emphasized, particularly with regard to emerging microbiological issues (e.g., Multi-Drug Resistant Salmonella, Listeria monocytogenes, Johnes disease, zoonotic animal diseases, etc.). It is expected that safety efforts will continue to reduce prevalence of beef-borne human pathogens as documented by USDA-FSIS and CDC. Research improving the effectiveness of policies related to food safety and trade will involve case study and survey analysis, domestic and international political economy analysis, and a review of SPS-related trade restrictions and possible niche-market export-certification opportunities. The researchers will take advantage of SPS data sources available through the USDA Economic Research Service and the WTO to identify challenges and opportunities for new niche-market export certification programs. The domestic and international political economy analysis will be done in two separate steps. Our theory will be based on seminal work by Stigler and Peltzman showing government regulation is often inefficient, especially in markets where they are small number of firms (Peltzman 1976). The small number of firms wielding political influence on political officials, the greater the policy benefits they experience. Small industry numbers mean it is easy to organize special interests and communicate with and lobby politicians. Over the last thirty years, the beef industry has become very concentrated with the top four firms controlling over 80% of all slaughter. With regard to food safety, it is unclear what the role of the largest firms is in the regulation policy development process. We believe the first step to understanding inefficiency in our current food policy regulation is to focus on the dynamic political economic relationships between beef producers, food processor (both small and large), and policy outcomes. Initial work on this issue will begin with a review of current policy. Using an International Political Economy (IPE) framework and other research tools (e.g., industry surveys and focus groups), we will identify strategies for the U.S. meat industry to access foreign markets. IPE offers valuable perspectives on such complex issue as trade (Balaam and Veseth, 1996; Caswell and Hooker, 1996). Food safety and international trade are both affected by a network of domestic interests and perceptions, international legal frameworks and adjudication mechanisms, and economic food-supply realities. Import-restricting food safety, animal health, and plant health regulations have caused and continue to cause international trade problems and disputes. Historically, many of the disputes have involved the U.S. meat industry, meat inspection, and related issues (Kerr and Hobbs, 2000; Kastner and Pawsey, 2002). Therefore, researchers will consider how niche-market export certification programs have addressed past trade disputes (e.g., the Non-Hormone Treated Cattle program that was begun during the hormone-treated beef dispute with Europe; microscopic inspection of pork for export to Europe during 19th-century, transatlantic disputes over trichinosis; and more recent bilateral export-certification agreements related to BSE). We will consider the effectiveness of U.S. food safety regulations and niche-market export certification programs in the domestic beef market, as well as the international market. Investigators will also identify ambiguity in meaning regarding terms of trade, and characterize deficiencies with trading-partner definitions. Studies to improve market access for beef products in export destinations will be conducted primarily to address bilateral technical barriers to trade, with initial emphasis on restoring Asian beef trade and improving market access to U.S. meat products in Europe. This analysis will assess risk-reduction potential of each term with respect to animal and public health, and will result in a glossary of terminology. The effort will compare from the risk assessment perspective terminology that should have been used in bilateral trade restoration agreements with terminology that was used in final agreements . OBJECTIVE 3: Stations involved: IA, ND, MI, SD, NE, UT, USDA-ERS, and CO. The consumer valuation work will focus on three general aims: (1) measuring consumer preferences for organic and natural beef, (2) analyzing consumer preferences for regional and local meats for vertically integrated production, and (3) translating consumer beef attribute demand to producer production decisions. These aims will be accomplished through research focused on production and consumption systems in participating states. While these aims are investigated on a regional basis, the investigation will produce output applicable to many other regions of the United States. Aim 1 - Measuring consumer preferences for organic and natural beef: Building on previous survey and focus group studies, we will use scanner data from retail locations offering both natural/organic and traditional meat products. Sales data, including price and quantity of product, will be evaluated to determine natural/organic demand and premium over traditional meat. Data from on-going local focus groups will be evaluated in relation to the current sales information. The feasibility of starting new natural/organic beef operations will be evaluated based on premiums currently found in the local market. Aim 2 - Analyzing consumer preferences for regional and local meats for vertically integrated production: This aim will evaluate the overall beef, pork, and lamb markets as to demand (quantity) and pricing data. Surveys will be developed to elicit information as to market characteristics, and consumer preferences for locally grown, grass fed, and other packaging preferences. Also consumer willingness to pay for different cuts of meat will be derived. Aim 3 - Translating consumer beef attribute demand to producer production decisions: As individual beef traits cannot be purchased separately, producers select, through their purchase decisions, bundles of traits exhibited by the bull or cow (Kerr, 1984; Walburger, 2000). Using a hedonic price model, the marginal value of traits exhibited by a particular bull can be estimated. The hedonic pricing methodology was first introduced by Griliches as a means of estimating non-market attributes. Data will be obtained from the Tucumcari Bull Test (TBT). Since its first sale in 1961, the TBT has evaluated the performance of over 5,000 yearling bulls of more than 20 breeds (Garcia et al., 2004). OBJECTIVE 4: Stations involved: CA, IA, OR, SD, CO,USDA-ERS, and WA. Econometric analysis will be conducted on existing databases of individual animal health, performance, and carcass characteristics to determine factors that contribute to cost and revenues in the current system (Iowa State University). This analysis will quantify levels and variability of animal and economic measures that impact beef supply chain competitiveness. Analysis of USDA data on price discovery and grid pricing will be conducted using econometric modeling to evaluate its effectiveness of improving beef quality and cost competitiveness (South Dakota State University). Faculty at University of California, Davis; Iowa State University; South Dakota State University will conduct animal performance and economic research on the impact of beef genetics and production systems on beef quality and cost of production. Economic research and statistical analysis on alternative sources of retail price data will determine the effectiveness of current reporting procedures and evaluate potential strategies (expected cooperation from the Economic Research Service). OBJECTIVE 5: Stations involved: CA, IA, ND, CO, OR, USDA-ERS, and UT. We will compare producer costs and benefits associated with participating in animal identification programs such as the voluntary NAIS or market-driven programs. This analysis will be extended to incorporate an examination of the costs and benefits associated with developing identification protocols to market cattle with specific certifications. The analysis will be accomplished using conventional or electronic ID technologies for livestock operations of different sizes (scale), types, and types of certifications. This analysis will consider different ID strategies for different segments of the industry (i.e., cow calf, seedstock, stocker, feedlot). ID strategies include determining ways to ensure that the value of data transfer up and down the supply chain exceeds the costs of collecting and passing data through the chain. The method is to compare costs of collecting and passing information compared to the value of increased efficiencies or improved prices. For example, this information could be used to improve genetics or to determine the appropriate certification programs in which to market or the foreign markets to target. Using these procedures, investigators will assess the cost of compliance with NAIS, conduct risk assessments along different segments of the supply chain, compare the costs and benefits associated with incremental changes in technology and selection of market segment, and identify alternative solutions to reduce cost of animal ID technology. This work will be conducted by California, Iowa, and Utah. Covering different parts of the country replicates and verifies the results under different production systems. Partial enterprise budgets will be used to conduct the analysis with information being gathered from producer surveys and interviews with sale barns, packers, and other market participants. An initial analysis based on Objective 4 will provide some indication of the size and demand elasticity associated with these markets.

Measurement of Progress and Results

Outputs

• Palatability Output 1: Provide beef production suggestions for aligning beef quality and attributes to consumer preferences for meat attributes.
• Palatability Output 2: New technologies will be used for assessment of beef carcass tenderness
• Palatability Output 3: The source and identification of off-flavor compounds will be determined. Strategies to manage off-flavors in beef will be examined.
• Palatability Output 4: Beef enhancement technologies will be developed and evaluated.
• Palatability Output 5: New cutting strategies will be developed and shared with the meat industry.
• FOOD SAFETY Output 6: New or modified interventions to enhance the safety of beef. Output 7: A comprehensive understanding of the ecology and transmission dynamics of foodborne pathogens throughout the human food chain. Output 8: Identification of the underlying genetic mechanisms responsible for observed differences in virulence phenotypes. Output 9: Development of trade-related crisis-containment capabilities. Output 10: Definitions for Specified Risk Materials and other prohibited materials outlined in bilateral agreements, including visual images and anatomical descriptions. Output 11: Historical lessons learned regarding food safety and trade policy. Output 12: Identification of food safety challenges and opportunities that small- to medium-sized beef processors face in international niche markets. Output 13: Economic policy analysis focused on domestic and international food safety policy as it pertains to beef. CONSUMER PREFERENCES AND TRADE: Output 14: A glossary for use as terms-of-trade during negotiation. Output 15: Evaluation of retail price reporting procedures and effectiveness of conveying consumer preferences for beef product attributes. Output 16: Identification of possible niche-market export-certification opportunities, based on a review of SPS-related trade restrictions. Output 17: Measurement of actual organic premiums received in the market by producers. Output 18: Evaluation of stated versus revealed preferences for natural meats. Output 19: Evaluation of consumer preferences for locally grown, organic, and grass-fed beef products. Output 20: Assessment of consumer willingness-to-pay for different meat cuts. SUPPLY CHAIN MANAGEMENT: Output 21: Analytical results of production and economic relationships between genetics, management, and beef quality and recommendations to producers and packers. Output 22: Evaluation of the impact of mandatory price reporting on price discovery, product quality, and consumer demand. TRACEABILITY: Output 23: A regional analysis of costs and benefits associated with animal ID programs. Output 24: Estimation of value of traceability in market-based programs.

Outcomes or Projected Impacts

• Palatability, processing, and marketing of beef: Outcome 1: More desirable eating experiences will ensure greater customer satisfaction and demand for U.S. beef. Outcome 2: Improve the marketing of beef through development of automated grading systems. Outcome 3: Innovative cutting methods will improve processing efficiency in the meat industry. Outcome 4: Provide accurate information on the types of technology and its application to size of operation and types of value-added certifications.
• Food-borne illness: Outcome 5: Reduce the risk of foodborne illness achieved through better understanding of the transmission and pathogenesis of pathogens as well as a reduction of pathogen exposure from beef.
• Consumer preferences for beef: Outcome 6: Beef producers will be better informed about consumer decision making and will be better able to incorporate this information in to their production decisions
• Supply chain management strategies: Outcome 7: Producers will gain greater control over beef quality and improve profitability. Outcome 8: Researchers and extension specialists will have better analytical tools to evaluate beef production and marketing systems. Outcome 9: Policy makers will gain an improved understanding of the effects of price reporting systems on the market participants. Outcome 10: Increase the competitiveness of U.S. beef by identifying possible niche-market export certification opportunities for the industry and through new approaches to brokering bilateral agreements related to food safety and trade. Outcome 11: Research on alternative retail price sources will influence USDA decisions on whether or not to continue purchase of scanner data on retail meat prices. Outcome 12: Beef producers will be able to take advantage of price premiums in specialty beef markets to enhance their long term profitability. Outcome 13: Beef producers will be able to introduce more efficient herd management and breeding to meet consumer needs. Outcome 14: Beef producers will be able to evaluate vertical integration strategies (contracts, cooperatives, etc.) and realize financial gains from implementing these strategies.
• Traceability: Outcome 15: Beef producers should improve their understanding of animal ID issues and be encouraged to implement appropriate participation in animal identification programs. Evaluate economic benefits and costs of ID programs.

Milestones

(2008): Develop and/or modify pre- and post-harvest methods intended to improve meat safety and reduce animal and public health threats " Establish a glossary of scientific terminology for use in bilateral terms-of trade " Identify historical lessons learned regarding food safety and trade policy " Identify possible niche-market export-certification opportunities, based on a review of SPS-related trade restrictions. " Review global cutting practices for beef carcasses " Identify primary off-flavor compounds " Identify instrument grading technologies and assess efficacy. " Identify potential sources and precursors of off-flavor compounds " Publish academic papers on potential consumer willingness to pay for locally grown, grass-fed, natural and organic beef products. " Publish academic paper on how consumer demands for meat attributes are translated into valuation for breeding stock " Release ERS report comparing retail prices from scanner sources and the Bureau of Labor Statistics. " Publish academic papers on the affect of cattle health, management practices, and carcass characteristics on producer profitability " Publish cost/benefit analyses of traceability based on size

(2009): Identify risk factors that contribute to loading of the human food chain with foodborne pathogens, and the subsequent spread of these pathogens along the food continuum using mathematical modeling " Develop political economic framework(s) that help explain domestic and international food safety policy as it pertains to beef " Evaluate non-meat ingredients to enhance beef palatability " Identify and evaluate innovations to U.S. cutting procedures " Publish academic paper on the hypothetical bias of stated preferences in beef purchases. " Publish two cooperative extension fact sheets on regional hedonic pricing models based on simple performance measures (SPMs) and expected progeny differences (EPD) for bulls." Publish reports on effectiveness of mandatory price reporting. " Presentations at professional and industry-based meetings

(2010): Initiate verification processes for on-farm quality assurance programs that consider biosecurity and biosafety as a means of protecting animal and public health " Gain a more comprehensive understanding of the molecular ecology and transmission dynamics of foodborne pathogens throughout the human food chain " Identify food safety challenges and opportunities that small- to medium-sized beef processors face in international niche markets. " Share promising innovations in beef fabrication with industry partners. " Develop automated systems for use in meat plant environments " Publish academic paper on the value of different beef attributes using a hedonic modeling approach. " Publish extension fact sheets on pricing techniques for locally grown and grass-fed beef products, on niche marketing techniques for organic and natural beef products, and the impact of bull breeding techniques on meat quality attributes.

(2011): Probe the molecular evolution and population structure of human foodborne and animal pathogens " Identify opportunities for new niche-market export certification programs. " Modify standard commercial beef cutting practices. " Work with the meat industry in testing the efficacy of these systems for use and verification of beef palatability attributes " Explore management strategies to maintain flavor and minimize off-flavor " Publish evaluation report on the effectiveness of Western producer cooperatives in beef processing and marketing. " Publish extension fact sheet on marketing specialty meat products.

(2012): Reduce risk of human morbidity/mortality due to exposure to animal-borne pathogens " Define underlying genetic mechanisms responsible for observed differences in virulence phenotypes

Projected Participation

View Appendix E: Participation

Outreach Plan

Project participants have a history of information sharing activities, cooperation, and productivity. Many of the project scientists have been involved in this effort previously, some for decades. Their expertise and productivity are well documented in previous accomplishment reports. New scientists have been added to enhance the scope and multidisciplinary nature of the project. Several of the scientists involved in this project have Extension appointments. This will enhance the dissemination of research results to the general public through presentations and popular publications. There are no artificial boundaries where the research component waits for the outreach function to interact with the information generated from project efforts. The technical committee will promote the flow of new information between the laboratory and industry to benefit the ultimate consumer. Most project scientists interact with outreach personnel at their respective institutions and at regional and national levels. A number of the "Outcomes or Projected Impacts" lend themselves to outreach education activities. Various media can be used to educate producers, processor, policy makers, and consumers.
It is intended that preparation of peer reviewed publications, presentations at professional meetings, and other means of disseminating project results to professional audiences be part of the ongoing project effort. This group also will work collaboratively with industry and government leaders to provide additional insight into solutions for many of the emerging challenges facing the livestock and meat industries. This will be accomplished by inviting these individuals to annual meetings and requesting their input into research directions for the future and their critique of ongoing research. When appropriate, published proceedings, or other published work will be released to the public.

Organization/Governance

All members of the technical committee are eligible for office, regardless of sponsoring agency affiliation. The chairperson, in consultation with the administrative advisor, notifies the technical committee members of the time and place of meetings and presides at meetings of the technical committee. The chairperson is responsible for preparing or supervising the preparation of the annual report of the regional project. The vice-chairperson is responsible for the organization of the annual meeting and preparation of the agenda. The secretary records the minutes and performs other duties assigned by the technical committee or the administrative advisor. Leadership of the technical committee consists of chairperson, vice chairperson, and secretary. Nominations are taken from the floor at the annual meeting for secretary. Secretary moves up to vice chairperson the next year and the vice-chairperson moves up to chairperson. The design of this project is to facilitate interaction between economists and meat scientists to improve marketing of U.S. meats. The committee is organized to have a balance of committee members from the scientific disciplines of agricultural economics and meat science. Attempts will be made to rotate leadership alternate years between meat scientists and agricultural economists.

Literature Cited

AMSA. 2006. Draft Research Priorities for the Meat Industry. American Meat Science Association/American Meat Institute Meat Industry Research Conference, Hollywood, FL. pp. 1-7.

Anderson, M.E., R.T. Marshall, W.C. Stringer and H.D. Naumann. 1977. Combined and individual effects of washing and sanitizing on bacterial counts of a meat model system. J. Food Protection 40:688-670.

Bacon, R.T., J.N. Sofos, K.E. Belk, J.O. Reagan and G.C. Smith. 1999. Commercial evaluation of multiple-sequential interventions for decontamination of beef carcasses. Annual Meeting, International Association of Milk, Food and Environmental Sanitarians. 86:T3.

Balaam, D., and M. Veseth. Introduction to International Political Economy. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1996, p. 104.

Barkate, M.L., G.R. Acuff, L. Lucia and D.S. Hale. 1993. Hot water decontamination of beef carcasses for reduction of initial bacteria numbers. Meat Science 35:397-401.

Baublits, R. T., F. W. Pohlman, J. A. H. Brown, and Z. B. Johnson. 2006a. Effects of enhancement with differing phosphate types, concentrations, and pump rates, without sodium chloride, on beef biceps femoris instrumental color characteristics. Meat Sci. 72:503-512.

Baublits, R. T., F. W. Pohlman, J. A.H. Brown, E. J. Yancey, and Z. B. Johnson. 2006b. Impact of muscle type and sodium chloride concentration on the quality, sensory and instrumental color characteristics of solution enhanced whole-muscle beef Meat Sci. 72:704-712.

Belk, K.E. 2005. Managing pathogen contamination on the farm. In: Improving The Safety Fresh Meat. Editor: J.N. Sofos. CRC Press, LLC. Boca Raton, FL. pp. 214-223.

Blasi, Dale A., Kevin C. Dhuyvetter, Mark F. Spire, Marc P. Epp, and Brian B. Barnhardt. 2003. A Guide for Electronic Identification of Cattle. Kansas State Univ. Agricultural Experiment Station and Cooperative Extension Service.

Caswell, Julie A., and Neal H. Hooker. "HACCP as an International Trade Standard." American Journal of Agricultural Economics 78, no. 3 (1996): 775-79.
CDC. 2005. Food-Related Diseases. http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/diseases/food/ index.htm.

CDC. 2006. Preliminary FoodNet Data on the Incidence of Infection with Pathogens Transmitted Commonly Through Food --- 10 States, United States, 2005. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. 55:392-395.

Dickinson, David L., and DeeVon Bailey. 2002. Meat Traceability: Are U.S. Consumers Willing to Pay for It? Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 27 (2): 348-364.

Everts, A. J., D. M. Wulf, T. M. Nath, A. K. R. Everts, T. J. Manchado, and R. J. Maddock. 2006a. Effects of ph-enhancement on consumer ratings of various meat products. Proc. Recip. Meat Conf. 59:25.

Everts, A. J., D. M. Wulf, T. M. Nath, A. K. R. Everts, T. J. Manchado, and R. J. Maddock. 2006b. Effects of ph-enhancement on chunked and formed hams processed from pale, average, and dark colored muscles. Proc. Recip. Meat Conf. 59:25.

Fausti, S.W, Feuz, D.M., and Wagner, J.J., "Value Based Marketing for Fed Cattle: A Discussion of the Issues." International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, Vol. 1, No.1., 1998, pp. 73-90.

Garcia, M.D., Thomas, M.D., Parker, W.R., Bauchemin, V.R., and Enns, R.M. 2004. Evaluation of performance trends in the Tucumcari Bull Test 1961 to 2000. Agricultural Experiment Station Research Report 754, New Mexico State University.

Gill, C., J. Bryant and C. McGinnis. 2000. Microbial effects of the carcass washing operations at three beef packing plants. Fleischwirtschaft International (3/2000) pp. 46-48.

Gorman, B.M., J.B. Morgan, J.N. Sofos and G.C. Smith. 1995a. Microbiological and visual effects of trimming and/or spray-washing for removal of fecal material from beef. J. Food Protection 58:984-992.

Gorman, B.M., J.N. Sofos, J.B. Morgan, G.R. Schmidt and G.C. Smith. 1995b. Evaluation of hand-trimming, various sanitizing agents and hot water spray-washing as decontamination interventions for beef brisket adipose tissue. J. Food Protection 58:899-907.

Griliches, Z., ed. 1971. Price indexes and quality change. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univ. Press.

Grimes, L.M., Konda Naganathan, G.,Subbiah, J. and Calkins, C.R. 2006. Hyperspectral imaging: A non-invasive technique to predict beef tenderness. Proc. Reciprocal Meat Conf., Amer. Meat Sci. Assoc., 59:14.

Hand, C. D., T. M. Nath, D. M. Wulf, and R. J. Maddock. 2006. Effects of ph-enhancement on survivability and growth of E. coli on beef subprimals and steaks. Proc. Recip. Meat Conf. 59:43.

Hardin, M.D., G.R. Acuff, L.M. Lucia, J.S. Oman and J.W. Savell. 1995. Comparison of methods for decontamination from beef carcass surfaces. J. Food Protection 58:368-374.

Kastner, Justin J., and Rosa K. Pawsey. 2002. "Harmonising Sanitary Measures and Resolving Trade Disputes through the WTO-SPS Framework. Part I: A Case Study of the US-EU Hormone-Treated Beef Dispute." Food Control 13: 49-55.
Kerr, W.A. 1984. Selective breeding, heritable characteristics and genetic based technological change in the Canadian beef cattle industry. W. J. Agr. Econ. 9: 14-28.

Knock, R. C., M. Seyfert, M.C. Hunt, M.E. Dikeman, R.A. Mancinia, J.A. Unruh, J.J. Higgins, and R.A. Monderen. 2006. Effects of potassium lactate, sodium chloride, sodium tripolyphosphate, and sodium acetate on colour, colour stability, and oxidative properties of injection-enhanced beef rib steaks. Meat Sci. 74:312-318.

Kochevar, S.L., J.N. Sofos, R.R. Bolin, J.O. Reagan and G.C. Smith. 1997. Steam vacuuming as a pre-evisceration intervention to decontaminate beef carcasses. J. Food Protection 60:107-113.

Koger, T.J., Wulf, D.M., Tjardes, K.E., Mateo, K.S., Engle, T.E., Wright, C.L. and Maddock, R.J. 2004. The influence of feeding various levels of wet and dry distillers grains on carcass quality, carcass composition, and fatty acid profile of finishing steers. Proc. 57th Recip. Meats Conf. Available: http://www.meatscience.org. Accessed April 7, 2005.

Lawrence, T. E., M. E. Dikeman, M. C. Hunt, C. L. Kastner, and D. E. Johnson. 2004. Effects of enhancing beef longissimus with phosphate plus salt, or calcium lactate plus non-phosphate water binders plus rosemary extract. Meat Sci. 67:129-137.

Loureiro, Maria L. and Wendy L. Umberger. 2003. Estimating Consumer Willingness to Pay for Country-of-Origin Labeling. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 28(2): 2878-301.

Loureiro, Maria L. and Wendy L. Umberger. 2004. A Choice Experiment Model For Beef Attributes: What Consumer Preferences Tell Us. Selected paper at the American Agricultural Economics Association Annual Meetings, 1-4 August, Denver, Colorado.

Miller, R.K. 2001. Beef Flavor: A White Paper. A paper prepared for the National Cattlemens Beef Association, Centennial, CO.

Mintert, J., Quarterly Beef Demand Index, 1980-2006, Kansas State University, 2006, www.agmanager.info.

Mintert, J., Schroeder, T., and Marsh, T., Focus on Beef Demand, Managing for Todays Cattle Market and Beyond, Kansas State University, March 2002.

Nath, T. M., C.D. Hand, A.J. Everts, A.K.R. Everts, D.M. Wulf and R.J. Maddock. 2006. Trained and consumer evaluations of five different beef muscles with or without ph enhancement using ammonium hydroxide. Proc. Recip. Meat Conf. 59:24.

Nutsch, A.L., R.K. Phebus, M.J. Riemann, D.E. Schafer, J.E. Boyer, R.C. Wilson, J.D. Leising and C.L. Kastner. 1997. Evaluation of a steam pasteurization process in a commercial beef processing facility. J. Food Protection 60: 485-492.

Offer, G., and J. Trinick. 1983. On the mechanism of water holding in meat: The swelling and shrinking of myofibrils. Meat Sci. 8:245-281.

Peltzman, S. 1976. Toward a More General Theory of Regulation. Journal of Law and Economics 19 (2): 211-240.

Pew Hispanic Center. 2006. Fact Sheet: From 200 Million to 300 Million: The Numbers behind Population Growth. Retreved October 24, 2006, from .

Pfeiffer, K. D., K. L. Voges, D. A. King, D. B. Griffin, and J. W. Savell. 2005. Innovative wholesale carcass fabrication and retail cutting to optimize beef value. Meat Sci. 71: 743-752.

Phebus, R.K., A.L. Nutsch, D.E. Schaefer, R.C. Wilson, M.J. Riemann, J.D. Leising, C.L. Kastner, J.R. Wolf and R.K. Prasai. 1997. Comparison of steam pasteurization and other methods for reduction of pathogens on surfaces of freshly slaughtered beef. J. Food Protection 60:476-484.

Powell, V.H. and B.P. Cain. 1987. A hot water decontamination system for beef sides. CSIRO Division Of Food Research, Cannon Hill, Queensland. CSIRO Food Research Quarterly 47:79-84.

Reagan, J.O. G.R. Acuff, D.R. Buege, M.J. Buyck, J.S. Dickson, C.L. Kastner, J.L. Marsden, J.B. Morgan, R. Nickelson II, G.C. Smith and J.N. Sofos. 1996. Trimming and washing of beef carcasses as a method of improving the microbiological quality of meat. J. Food Protection 59:751-756.

Robbins, Laura, New Demand for Beef Creates a Niche for New Products, Ag News&Views, The Noble Foundation, September 2000.

Smith, C.D., K.E. Belk, J.N. Sofos, J.A. Scanga, M.L. Kain and G.C. Smith. 2001. Effects of Deligen II, as a decontamination intervention, when applied to hides, carcasses, and to ground beef during blending and the impact of using the system on rates of oxidation when applied to lean and fat. Final Report to the National Cattlemens Beef Association. pp. 1-15. Center for Red Meat Safety, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO.

Smith, G.C., J.N. Sofos, K.E. Belk, J.A. Scanga and J.D. Tatum. 2000. Pathogen contamination of cattle and beef; Challenges and opportunities in process control. Proceedings of the XXI World Buiatrics Congress (Punta del Este, Uruguay). pp. 2921-2939.

Sofos, J.N. and G.C. Smith. 1998. Nonacid meat decontamination technologies: Model studies and commercial applications. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 44(3): 171-188.

Trout, G. R., and G. R. Schmidt. 1984. Effect of phosphate type and concentration, salt level and method of preparation on binding in restructured beef rolls. J. Food Sci. 49:687-694.

Umberger, Wendy J., Dillon M. Feuz, Chris R. Calkins, and Bethany M. Sitz. 2003. Country-of-Origin Labeling of Beef Products: U.S. Consumers Perceptions. Journal of Food Distribution Research 34 (3): 103-116.

Umberger, Wendy J., Dillon M. Feuz, Chris R. Calkins, and Karen Killinger-Mann. 2002. U.S. Consumer Preference and Willingness-to-Pay for Domestic Corn-Fed Beef Versus International Grass-Fed Beef Measured Through an Experimental Auction. Agribusiness 18 (4): 491-504.

Upmann, M., P. Paulsen, S. James and F.J.M. Smulders. 2000. The microbiology of refrigerated meat. Fleischwirtschaft International (3/2000) pp. 38-45.
USDA/NASS Farms, Land in Farms, and Livestock Operations: 2005 Summary, Report No. Sp Sy 4, January 2006.

USDA-FAS. November 2005. Livestock and poultry: World markets and trade. Foreign Agricultural Service. http://www.fas.usda.gov/currwmt.asp.
USDA-GIPSA Spot and Alternative Marketing Arrangements in the Livestock and Meat Industries, forthcoming, February 2007.

USDA-GIPSA, Packers and Stockyards Statistical Report: 2004 Reporting Year, GIPSA SR-06-1, United States Government Printing Office, Washington DC, 2006.
Vote, D. J., W. J. Platter, J. D. Tatum, G. R. Schmidt, K. E. Belk, G. C. Smith, and N. C. Speer. 2000. Injection of beef strip loins with solutions containing sodium tripolyphosphate, sodium lactate, and sodium chloride to enhance palatability. J. Anim. Sci. 78:952-957.

Walburger, A.M. 2000. Estimating the implicit prices of beef cattle attributes: a case from Alberta. Can. J. Ag. Econ. 50: 135-149.

William A. Kerr, and Jill E. Hobbs. 2000. "The WTO and the Dispute over Beef Produced Using Growth Hormones." CATRN Paper 2000-07, Canadian Agrifood Trade Research Network.

WTO. 2000. Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures, The WTO Agreement Series. World Trade Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.

Yancey, E. J., Dikeman, M. E., Hachmeister, K. A., Chambers IV, E., and Milliken, G. A. 2005. Flavor characterization of top-blade, top-sirloin, and tenderloin steaks as affected by pH, maturity, and marbling. J. Anim. Sci. 83:2618-2623.

Yancey, E. J., Grobbel, J. P., Dikeman, M. E., Smith, J. S., Hachmeister, K. A., Chambers IV, E., Gadgil, P., Milliken, G. A., and Dressler, E. A. 2006. Effects of total iron, myoglobin, hemoglobin, and lipid oxidation of uncooked muscles on livery flavor development and volatiles of cooked beef steaks. Meat Sci. 73:680-686.

Attachments

Land Grant Participating States/Institutions

CA, CO, CT, KS, MT, ND, NE, TX, UT, WA

Non Land Grant Participating States/Institutions

USDA/ERS