Meat Grading

Dominion, Volume 37, Issue 61, 7 December 1943, Page 4

Meat Grading

■ Sir.—You published today a letter signed by Mr. G. A. Brown, managing secretary. Manawatu Co-op. Society Ltd., titled “Meat Grading.” This letter warrants a reply to prevent the housewife, as consumer, and the farmer who produces the goods, from being deceived into the belief “that eolour grading is for their benefit.” To define the matter into proper perspective, we find “meat” is flesh of animals used for food. “Quality .is that which makes a thing what it is. “Grade” is a degree or step in quality. “Meat,” therefore, to qualify a? first quality means just. that. “First,” or about ideal, in conformation, finish, good eating (flavour and tenderness). If the purchaser, wholesale or retail, finds in practice that this implied guarantee is false, then he, or she, is deceived. This was the feature that wrecked the British colour grading scheme, with the Statement from the then British Minister of Agriculture: “That the skill and craftsmanship of the butcher was the determining factor in giving good service and satisfaction in the supply of meat to the consumer.” To further this trade education. the butchers’ institutes extended the syllabus and the course to qualify for their diploma, from three to five years, suaranteeing the holder as possessing thorough technical knowledge of his. trade and its management. The anomalies of this eolour grading are well expressed by the many contradictions in the Manawatu 1 Co-op.’s letter. Here are two samples: (1) “However, the buying public will be doing second, grade meat an injustice if they regard it as poor,quality; it lies in the hands of the retailer to correct any tendency in that, direction.” Here the Government puts the onus’ on he retail butcher to try and explain away that the Government has branded, it as second or inferior, but that it.- is really quite all right. (2) “Under the grading regulations, consumers now have the guarantee that they are receiving the quality they pay for.” To equalize the onus of guarantee, I suppose the cooperative as wholesalers would also guarantee the qualifications necessarily implied, or, if buying as retailers, would expect one from vendors? We now consider what is “N.Z. first quality beef.” New Zealand froz.en ox beef, rated as the lowest quality imported frozen beef on the British market, for many years up to 1939. Why? Briefly, because of no consideration for age. I have drafted many thousands of cattle that graded as first ox. for export, similar to thousands of similar cattle sold for our winter trade in New Zealand. This class of ox beef, four-year-old-and over, is (pre-war) classed as unfit for retail trade in England, aiid the'very few seen are known as “contractors,” that is the reason why New Zealand beef was never seen in a British retail butcher's shop. That explains why I have devoted much time and a little money encouraging the development of a chilled beef trade, a trade that insists on a steer under three years old. I want to put these queries to the Manawatu Co-op.: (1) What do you define as the qualities that you will guarantee to your consumer client, for (a) first quality beef; (b) second quality beef- (c) first quality hogget mutton; (d) second quality hogget mutton; (e) first quality wether mutton; (f) second quality wether mutton? I, and hundreds of other butchers, would appreciate your definition, as you are apparently a Government spokesman. As I have had a little experience in meat both at Home and in New Zealand, I find the old idea of quality being associated with condition (fatness) seems to die a slow death in New Zealand, and has puzzled me and many other butchers at home. One can easily draft six distinct qualities out of any average parcel of first quality wethers, as graded in New Zealand works.—I am, ete., SAM. S. TIMBS. Wanganui. December 4.