Michael Creed (Cork North West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 3: To ask the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food the level of discrepancy and wrongful clarification of carcases identified during the 415 control visits to meat plans in 2009 to monitor the accuracy and performance of cattle grading machines, involving 41,000 carcases; if this information is available for each of the past three years; the steps being taken to improve the clarification process and to remedy errors identified; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [17246/10]

Brendan Smith (Cavan-Monaghan, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Beef carcase classification is traditionally based on a visual assessment of the carcase by a human classifier and, prior to the introduction of mechanical classification, critics would have regarded such human assessment as subjective, prone to error and lacking consistency.

Mechanical classification was introduced in Ireland more than five years ago and is now well established and accepted as an independent, objective and consistent system for classifying beef carcases. The mechanical classification system is objective because it makes use of certain measurements of the carcase, by the machine, to determine carcase classification as opposed to the subjective visual assessment of the human grader.

Since the introduction of mechanical classification, officials of my Department have carried out regular unannounced inspections of meat plants to monitor the accuracy and performance of the classification machines. This assessment of the classification, for both conformation and fat, is carried out using sub-classes within each main class in order to further refine the classification assessment of the beef carcase. For example, conformation main class O can be divided into sub-classes O+ and O-, with O+ being the best in this main class and O- the worst.

My officials check the machine classification results of at least 80 carcases during control visits. On each occasion, the performance of the machine is compared to the performance criteria laid down in the relevant EU regulations. Overall, the classification machines continue to operate well within the performance thresholds provided for in the relevant EU regulations.

Since the introduction of machine classification, all data concerning machine checks by my officials are stored electronically, which facilitates accurate and comprehensive monitoring of the machine performance.

Michael Creed (Cork North West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

For the purposes of clarification, I am not advocating we revert to the human classification system. I am in favour of the mechanical classification system. The Minister will be aware of two issues, namely, recent media reports regarding the level of discrepancy in the mechanical classification system and the extraordinary angst among farmers in regard to the introduction of the new quality payment system and new grade of classifications. Under the previous system, there were five grades of classification. We now have multiples of that number. What can be done to improve the efficiency and accuracy of the current classification system?

Brendan Smith (Cavan-Monaghan, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am glad Deputy Creed referred to the report in one of our daily national newspapers which totally misinterpreted the data given to them, causing as he correctly stated, anxiety among farmers who are sending cattle for slaughter and payment. I assure Deputy Creed - it is important to put this on record - that there is large-scale checking by human classifiers of the mechanical results. There are certain performance criteria laid down in respect of EU tolerance limits. In 2009, 41,034 carcases were checked. On average, within the tolerance level the bias is -0.06. The tolerance level in Europe is plus or minus 0.3. We are actually five times below the top of the tolerance level and as such are very accurate in regard to the analysis carried out. Those are the figures in regard to conformation. In regard to fat, we are only at a level that is one-sixth of what is tolerated. I hope I am making myself clear. We are accurate.

Deputy Creed rightly pointed out that there were criticisms in the past of the human classifier system. That was a subjective exercise. Any of us can go out and look at animals and give our views in regard to what they might be worth and so on. That is a human, subjective assessment and, naturally, people's views will vary. The mechanical classification brings this to a new level and we should be satisfied with it. I trust this accurate report will be carried into the future. I understand the anxiety among farmers, to which the Deputy referred, who read a report that misinterpreted the data supplied.

Michael Creed (Cork North West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I monitor the Minister's statements and I did not see any reference to it. It would have been useful if a clarification had been issued on the matter. As I recall, the report suggested up to 10% or 20% were wrongly classified.

Brendan Smith (Cavan-Monaghan, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Yes. It was ridiculous.

Michael Creed (Cork North West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That amounts to hundreds of thousands of carcases and it could have raised the spectre of pluses or minuses for the individuals and payments on individual carcases. However, I welcome the Minister's clarification on the matter in the context of the new quality payment system, which is having a difficult bedding-in time, but which I support in principle. It should have operated side-by-side with the old system for a period. It would have been wiser to proceed with its introduction in that way.

Brendan Smith (Cavan-Monaghan, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is very important to put on record for everyone that the machines have continued to perform very well when assessed using the performance criteria laid down in the EU regulations. As I remarked earlier, classification was based on a visual assessment of the beef carcass by the classifier. Since the introduction of the mechanical classification of beef carcases, the performance of the classification machine in each beef processing plant has been monitored by regular unannounced inspections by officials from the Department. The classification results of beef carcases are downloaded from a mechanical classification system onto a hand-held computer and the official assesses the result of at least 80 carcases previously classified by the machine. This assessment of classification is carried out using subclasses for each main class. The performance of the machine is determined using the same scoring criteria laid down in the EU regulation for authorisation purposes. As I indicated earlier, by and large, the checks are essentially in balance when both checks are carried out.