Getting what you asked for and not liking what you get

Oklahoma State University Extension  |  Updated: 04/02/2012

 Resize text        

Americans have an enormous appetite for hamburger.  By most estimates, ground beef consumption accounts for more than 50 percent of total beef consumption.  Over the past few years, both the total demand for ground beef and specifically, the demand for lean ground beef have increased.  The industry has responded by providing ever higher proportions of lean ground beef, in part, by using processing technology that includes lean finely textured beef (LFTB).   LFTB uses a process to remove additional fat from beef trimmings to provide a very lean beef product.  The product is produced in a lowered pH environment to inhibit potential bacteria growth.  LFTB is a 100 percent beef product that is extremely safe and has been used for many years. Fueled by recent sensationalized and inaccurate media depictions of this product, some consumers have indicated that they do not want ground beef products containing LFTB.  Certainly it is every consumers right to decide if they wish to purchase a product or not but it is entirely possible that consumers may not like the consequences of rejecting this particular beef product.

In order to understand the implications of not using LFTB, it is essential to understand the realities of beef production and the mathematics of ground beef supply.  Most of our beef supply comes from fed steer and heifer slaughter, nearly 27 million head in 2011.  When fabricated into beef cuts, each of these carcasses produces several pounds of trimmings, some which are fatty trimmings that are, for example, 50 percent lean and 50 percent fat.  These trimmings must have additional lean added in order to produce ground beef.  Lean trimmings typically come from cull cow and bull slaughter that produces trimmings that average 90 percent lean and 10 percent fat.  About 7.4 million head of cows and bulls were slaughtered in 2011, which means that the domestic supply of 90 percent trim is much smaller than the supply of 50 percent trimmings.  This imbalance will be particularly acute given the anticipated decrease in cow slaughter in the next couple of years. These domestic lean trimmings are supplemented by imported lean beef products.  Much of U.S. imports of beef from Australia and New Zealand is lean beef to supplement to supply of lean trimmings. 

Typically, 50 percent (known as 50s) and 90 percent trimmings (known as 90s) are mixed in various proportions to produce ground beef.  For example, a mixture of 35 percent 50s and 65 percent 90s results in ground beef that is 76 percent lean.  However, the growing demand for lean ground beef means that more 90s are required in the market today.  A mixture of 10 percent 50s and 90 percent 90s results in 86 percent lean ground beef, which is more common now.  Thus the growing demand for leaner ground beef has simultaneously resulted in excess supply of 50s and increased demand for 90s.

Production of LFTB addresses both of those issues by using 50 percent trimmings and removing much of the fat to produce a very lean beef product.  LFTB, which is roughly 95 percent lean, uses about two pounds of 50s to produce one pound of 95 percent lean beef.  This makes it much easier to produce lean ground beef and use more 50s and less 90s as a result.  For example, using 10 percent LFTB, combined with 11.25 percent 50s and 78.75 percent 90s produces 86 percent lean ground beef identical to the mixture of 10 percent 50s and 90 percent 90s described above.  The difference is that the inclusion of LFTB uses over 200 percent more 50s and almost 13 percent less 90s to accomplish the same thing.  LFTB puts the same lean beef that would likely end up in ground beef anyway into ground beef in a manner that uses beef more efficiently and results in a more economical product.

Rejecting LFTB will have consequences than many consumers will not like.  First and foremost ground beef and especially lean ground beef will increase significantly in price as it will require more pounds of the more expensive 90s to produce ground beef.  This may well contribute to the demise of the dollar menu at your favorite fast food hamburger chain…whether they use LFTB or not.  This will also result in increased imports of lean beef, which may be a concern or a consequence that consumers do not like.  Given concerns about rising food prices, growing global food demand and food security, we must use beef products in the most efficient manner possible.  LFTB is sort of the modern equivalent of your grandmother boiling the soup bones to make beef stock.  She could not afford to waste beef then and neither can we today.  We have the lowest relative food prices in the world and the reason we do is because we utilize processes like LFTB to capture the maximum value of food production.

Source: Derrell S. Peel, Oklahoma State University Extension Livestock Marketing Specialist
Prev 1 2 Next All


Related Articles

"Pink Slime" and "Other Stuff"

Commentary: Another pink slime setback

Truth about pink slime

Beef processor files for bankruptcy over 'pink slime' uproar

Sponsored Links

Comments (13) Leave a comment 

Name
e-Mail (required)
Location

Comment:

characters left

Jennifer    
St. Johns, MI  |  April, 03, 2012 at 01:30 PM

Excellent description of the situation and the consequences of shunning this process, which seems to be mainly based on the tag line it got as "pink slime." Once again, perception based on ignorance is threatening to create biased consumers fed with unfounded fear and anxiety.

Joel Karlin    
Goshen, CA  |  April, 03, 2012 at 01:42 PM

Excellent comments Professor,

In this day of shooting first and asking questions later public wil soon find out what
loss of LFTB will mean at restaurants and grocery stores. Only salvation at least on my
end is higher cull prices for my dairy clients who can use any help they get.

Joel Karlin, Goshen CA

Tammy    
Washington  |  April, 03, 2012 at 01:47 PM

" LFTB is sort of the modern equivalent of your grandmother boiling the soup bones to make beef stock."...seriously? Grandma was never wasteful, but certainly never used Ammonia in ANY form to extend the value of the product. The "waste" would have gone to feed the dogs.

What would happen if cattlemen and women were rewarded for producing Lean Ground Beef...some breeds are prone to being extra lean. Again, instead of being on the defense, the beef industry should recognize what consumers are demanding... the right to know what is in their food... and get ahead of the game. Be responsible advocates for the agricultural industry as a whole. We may have the lowest relative food prices in the world, but our health care costs are out of sight! What is the true cost in the long run? Let's look at all sides of the issue people!

Not so stupid    
Nebraska  |  April, 03, 2012 at 02:02 PM

Tammy - it is obvious you don't have a clue what you are talking about. The current cattle procurement systems are based on carcass composition and have been for many years. It is called yield grade. Also, the technologies used across the food industry are highly scientific and advanced with the objective of making our food supply safe, efficient, and as affordable as possible. This entire media debate / uproar is pathetic and in the end has caused undo fear and will ultimately drive food prices up so even more can't afford to put beef on their dinner plates.

Gary    
Indianapolis  |  April, 03, 2012 at 02:14 PM

Good explanation, but not nearly complete and about 20 years too late to help the companies that produce LFTB or provide comfort to consumers. People want to know what is in their food and don't want to be surprised. An explanation about the trace amounts of ammonia used to kill e-coli and the impact (if any) to our digestive system compared to untreated meat would be helpful.

Kevin Hill    
Utah  |  April, 03, 2012 at 03:02 PM

The public has a unquestioned, and undeniable right to know where their food comes from, how it is produced, and what is in it when it hits the table. The LFTB problem is now the same as for other marketing labels that create a false sense of health and well being. "Ammonia free", "Pink free" and "Slime free" can now be added to "Hormone free" and "Antibiotic free" as labels which infer that there is a health or food safety advantage for these foods that traditional beef and LFTB fail to provide. That is the truly damaging deception, that food consumers have been led to believe that any trace amount of any unnatural product is unsafe, unhealthy, and profit driven. When I see some fact-based evidence that ammonia in my hamburger is harmful to my health, I too will boycott LFTB. The fact is, the benefits of food safety far outweigh the risk (if there is any at all?) The truth is THERE IS NO HEALTH RISK to the USDA acceptable levels of ammonia, hormones, or antibiotics. In fact, THEY ARE NO DIFFERENT THAN THE ACCEPTABLE LEVELS IN ORGANIC, NATURAL, OR NON-LFTB PRODUCTS. Maybe we should all go back to salt as a more natural, organic, food preservative. Oh wait, my cardiologist is calling.

Yrrek    
Denver  |  April, 03, 2012 at 03:11 PM

Beef math; I love it!

It's despicable that so many people are, by their actions, willing that so much good food be wasted and so many more animals be slaughtered simply because they think something is gross.

Brian    
Nebraska  |  April, 03, 2012 at 04:09 PM

Tammy - you say you are a livestock producer, but don't understand the yield grade equation. I question how involved you truly are in livestock / cattle production. I also think you might be a bit surprised on my insight into the meat industry and what consumers want and what they are willing to pay for! This kind of goes down the road of buy American. Everybody thinks its great until they get to the cash register! But regardless of this, I do in fact side with you, Dawn and many others that labeling of ingredients and components of food items would be beneficial to many people around the world.

I also note your reference to health, but I have a pretty firm belief that the younger generation has a major fault and that is the lack of exercise. Kids need to get out and burn calories and they need to consume calories in balance. If kids were as active as we were when we were their age, they could eat anything they wanted and probably twice as much of it and still be fit (or even skinny!).

Also, yes I would buy GB with LFTB. I have had the opportunity On many occasions to evaluate this product in "blinded" comparisons and most consumers would select the LFTB added GB as preferred. Yes this is true. So if I can save some money on my meat bill and have a preferred product, you bet I will. It is a shame that so many people are going to loose their jobs over this whole debockle.

Tammy    
Washington  |  April, 03, 2012 at 08:51 PM

Brian, nice to call you by name, instead of "Not so Stupid". No one ever wanted any job loss as a result of a call for labeling products as to the ingredients of what is in them. Especially in this economy.

I am glad you are well versed in the meat industry, and while I do not know your relationship is with what consumers want, and what they are willing to pay for, I would question your ability to see what is coming down the pike. If Burger King is undergoing a multi-million dollar makeover to get a healthier menu, then maybe it is a bit of a clue.

And, while I agree that this generation is definitely less active than previous generations, I would also like to point out that there are more processed and genetically modified foods in our food supply than ever before. Oh yeah...again, we weren't allowed a choice.

My point...there has been an unprecedented increase in not only obesity, but cancer, heart disease, allergies, etc... People are waking up to the fact that much of it has to do with diet...and yes, exercise. But all of the exercise in the world will not remove the toxins from your body. Do your own research.

Consumers deserve a right to know what is in their food! Further than that, they are demanding a choice.

As an industry, if this is just swept under the carpet, then we are surely knee deep in quick sand, or something smellier. Again, my view is that we need to band together as an industry, and get "ahead" of what consumers want, and what they are going to demand. This is called "Trend-fronting". There is a real opportunity here for the beef industry, as the other meat industries are in the hot seat as well.

Brian, you are allowed your opinion, certainly, as is everyone. This is food for thought, and a dialogue well worth having. No one ever broke the mold by being a quiet mouse in the corner.

Terry S. Singeltary Sr.    
Texas  |  April, 03, 2012 at 08:55 PM

ammoniated beef, WILL NOT KILL THE PRION AKA MAD COW DISEASE !


pink slime and a ship of fools, with Governor Rick Perry at the helm.


john gummer of England, force fed his daughter mad cow beef. a few years later, a young friend of theirs (23) died from mad cow disease. NOW, Governor Rick Perry, shows he is as big a fool as John Gummer.



http://media.kansascity.com/smedia/2012/03/29/21/01/MiPpi.SlMa.81.jpg



http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/12/30/article-0-01F258B0000004B0-450_468x286.jpg



see more on this sad sad saga here ;



Wednesday, March 14, 2012


PINK SLIME, MRM’s, BSE AKA MAD COW DISEASE, AND THE USDA NSLP


http://madcowusda.blogspot.com/2012/03/pink-slime-mrms-bse-aka-mad-cow-disease.html




Sunday, August 28, 2011

Rick Perry, Texas, BSE aka mad cow disease, CJD, and 12 years of lies there from


http://sciencebushwhacked.blogspot.com/2011/08/rick-perry-texas-bse-aka-mad-cow.html


kind regards,
terry

John    
Alexandria, VA  |  April, 04, 2012 at 06:38 AM

I don't imagine this "You'll eat what we sell you, or else" attitude will be helpful to improving consumers appetite for the filler. The only thing that would help would be to somehow convince folks that they don't throw up a little bit in their mouth every time they think of the filler in their burger. Which obviously ain't gonna happen. And the facts on the ground, including the professors argument and the closure and bankruptcy of beef plants, seems to indicate that this gag-inducing filler is not only a component of lean beef, but is, in fact, the major component. That doesn't help, and doesn't quite jibe with the early stories from BPI and others.


Feedback Form
Leads to Insight