DON'T blame the grass-accreditation scheme, blame Aus-Meat.
That is the overwhelming response to Queensland Country Life's report last week on central Queensland grazier Steve Burnett questioning the significant variation of grading between different processors.
For many producers, it is not about whether cattle made the Meat Standards Australia (MSA) grade or gained grassfed accreditation, but the lack of integrity in the system.
AgForce Cattle Council member, grazier and one of the pioneers of pasture-fed accreditation scheme (PCAS), Ian McCamley, levels the blame firmly at Aus-Meat's door.
The organisation, a joint venture between Meat and Livestock Australia and the Australian Meat Processor Corporation (AMPC), is wholly owned by the meat and livestock industries.
"Clearly over the years since Aus-Meat was established, the point of determining the price paid for direct-to-works cattle has moved further into the processing plant - behind their closed doors," Mr McCamley said.
What happened to cattle after they arrived at a processing plant through to the point of final MSA grading could have a significant impact on how well that animal graded, and subsequently the price paid to the producer.
"I know of no other industry that has price determined by the buyer behind his closed doors with his people able to manipulate the product however he sees fit, to then finally have his employees grade the product to determine the price to be paid to the seller," Mr McCamley said.
"Processors have full control."
He suggested processors place cameras at specific points in the plant to allow for better scrutiny and, better still, let producers pay for their own independent assessors.
Mr McCamley said Aus-Meat had failed to move with the times and modernise as the science developed over the past 28 years when Aus-Meat carcase specifications were introduced.
Parts of the language have become scientifically redundant, such as dentition and butt shape, yet processors continue to use these Aus-Meat measures to purchase high-quality cattle at seriously discounted prices.
Processors and Aus-Meat will argue for the use of dentition to meet age-specific market requirements; however, almost all competing beef exporting countries use other age measures such as ossification.
"Transparency and uncorrupted market signals for cattle producers can be achieved if Aus-Meat is completely changed or replaced."
Mr McCamely said the body must have a level of input from informed cattle producers that was at least equal to the input from processors.
"Obviously the chief executive and employees of the body must have complete respect for cattle producers and their interests."
He is not a lone voice in the industry.
AgForce general president-elect and beef producer Grant Maudsley says now is the time for industry representatives through his organisation and the Cattle Council of Australia to finally address multiple issues.
Aus-Meat is in their sights.
"Producers want a system that is based on the current science that maximises the returns for producers and - therefore - processors," he said.
Aus-Meat's chief executive, Ian King, last week defended his organisation, saying there was a robust audit system in place to ensure processors are compliant when it comes to grading meat.
The fact there were currently zero complaints indicated it was working.
He said unless a producer could develop a close relationship with a processor and be there to see how their animal was graded, the system could be relied upon.
"Inevitably when we have gone in and made an assessment, it's very rare the assessor has done something wrong," he said.
Mr King said investigations often found that something had occurred at the producer's end - even a change in grass - that would affect meat colour.
Because the carcases at the heart of a complaint had been boxed and gone, Aus-Meat would organise to check the next time cattle were sent, he added.
"Next time you send cattle, let us know in advance and we will make sure we have auditors to go out there. That offer is on the table."
Mr Maudsley rejected this, saying it was too late and producers were not willing to come forward with complaints because they did not want to jeopardise their relationship with their livestock buyer.
"There's the fear of reprisal and not being able to get a booking again."
The real challenge was one of more representation through Aus-Meat. The Australian Meat Industry Language and Standards Committee (AMILSC) is made up of seven members; however, it is understood that the one AMPC membership sends four processors and the CCA send one producer.
"We need to ensure the people like [MLA managing director] Richard Norton and [director] George Scott get back to representing producers or logically reinstall a structure at Aus-Meat to represent producers."
The AMILSC - to which Aus-Meat is accountable - had the opportunity and AgForce would help with the membership of committees and grassroots input.
"I feel that as industry representatives we can finally address the multiple issues from dressing percentage variations right through to the relevance of labelling that is consumer relevant," Mr Maudsley said.
Mr Maudsley said there was quite a bit of contempt for producers from Mr King in his comments, and any organisation faced problems that had to be addressed.
"The beef industry has come a long way in understanding quality, but Aus-Meat at every juncture has dragged its feet," he said.
"It probably gets worse - they will tell us the Aus-Meat language is demanded around the world. We know in many cases this is not true."
Cattle Council of Australia (CCA) representative and beef producer David Hill agrees that the over-riding issue is the beef language.
"As the CCA in conjunction with AgForce, we are in a space now where we believe we can step up to the plate."
Mr Hill said there was an urgent need for transparency and to address the 'ciphers' processors used beyond MSA to grade meat.
"As producers, all we are looking for is objective carcase measuring, a grid price that reflects the true market value and for the product to be sold on that basis.
"Too often recently, Australian product has been available on the international market at a price that was less than Brazilian cow meat".
The CCA has also had a study commissioned through the MLA to analyse possible options for increasing price transparency in the beef supply chain.
This includes the benefits and costs of introduction mandatory price reporting arrangements in Australia, similar to those in the US.
Tenders were called in August this year, interviews are being conducted and the successful applicant is yet to be announced.
"At present transparency throughout the supply chain would be difficult to achieve without consistency in language and description from producer to processor to customer and ultimately the consumer," Mr Hill said.
"I haven't seen too many glossy brand promotional brochures that include a reference to the Aus-Meat language as a way to promote product."
MLA is also funding other research, including a white paper into the current beef language and carrying out a scientific analysis that includes meat colour, fat and dentition.
A draft is due mid-December and the final report will be completed in February or March.
"A lot of work is also being done on objective carcase grading using scan technology," Mr Hill said.
"I want the industry to be profitable at every point and people need a living that is socially, environmentally and economically sustainable."
