PROCESSORS are being urged to directly engage with a review team commissioned to assess the potential introduction of an objective carcase measurement into the red industry.
An issues paper prepared by consultancy firm EY (formerly Ernst and Young), generated as a result of a review commissioned by the Australian Meat Processor Corporation (AMPC) and the Australian Meat Industry Council (AMIC), has provided a series of low level questions (see below) focused on the objective carcase measurement system.
DEXA - which is short for Dual Energy X-ray Absorptiometry - essentially measures the amount of meat, fat and bone in a carcase, enabling the development of a highly accurate objective measurement system to pay cattle producers for the amount of actual meat produced. It would replace the long criticised and unreliable subjective carcase measure system, which uses fat depth at a single site as a guide to estimate carcase yield.
The EY review follows a scathing assessment of DEXA by both AMIC and AMPC in December, in which Meat and Livestock Australia’s plan to roll-out the technology in AUS-MEAT accredited plants by 2020 was dismissed by the processor bodies.
In a letter widely circulated within the industry and later leaked to Queensland Country Life, AMIC chairman Lachie Hart said P150 project (DEXA) was not supportable by the processing sector. Mr Hart also dismissed long held producer complaints, saying there was no evidence of systemic deficiencies in the current subjective grading and reporting system.
Despite the MLA plan only being officially announced in November, the push to adopt objective carcase measurement has been underway for at least the past three years. Major trial work involving DEXA technology has been carried out by both JBS and Teys Australia, using funding including AMPC levies. Despite representing almost 50 per cent of Australia’s processing capacity neither are members of AMIC.
Other major processors including the Cannon Hill based Australian Country Choice have also indicated their support for the technology. DEXA is also seen as a means of significantly increasing the use of robotics in meat processing. However, smaller processors say there are few benefits given the cost. CLICK HERE to read ‘Small abattoirs say DEXA sums don’t add up for them’.
The EY review comes as industry is being asked to fund the voluntary roll-out of DEXA using producer funds. The federal government appears to understand the R&D and productivity benefits that an industry wide roll-out of DEXA by 2020 could deliver.
AMPC chairman Peter Noble said it was important the review was as thorough as possible, and that the EY reviewers received responses from a wide range of red meat industry stakeholders.
“We commissioned this review because we have a responsibility to our members that investments made on their behalf are thoroughly evaluated and deliver commercial benefits to the entire industry,” Mr Noble said.
However, processors will need to have their skates on. Answers are required by April 3.
Despite the trenchant criticism of DEXA, Mr Noble said AMPC and AMIC supported the introduction of proven carcase measurement technology that delivers tangible benefits for members and the industry.
Mr Noble said the EY review, which is scheduled to be completed in April, will provide analysis and recommendations on whether investment in DEXA technology is a prudent operational and commercial decision for processors.
The review will evaluate all strategic, technical, financial, commercial, operational, governance, and implementation aspects of Project 150, he said.
Questions listed in the commissioned review include:
DEXA outputs
- What effects might the outputs of DEXA have on the industry?
- What effects might there be on the industry as a result of the proposed grading data?
Adoption levels
- Would you adopt this technology and on what basis?
- What level of adoption is likely to occur across the industry and why?
Benefits
- What benefits can be expected from Project 150 and who will receive them?
- What mechanisms should there be to support the realisation of these benefits?
Risks
- What are the risks of adopting this technology/proposal?
- What are the potential risks of low adoption rates to the impact on the industry supply chain?
Other technology
- What other OCM technology should be considered and why?
Funding proposal
- How should this project be funded?
Industry opinion
- Are there any modifications which would enhance the Project 150 proposal?
- Is Project 150 a prudent investment for the industry, and if so how?
CLICK HERE to provide feedback to the EY review.
