Grading is defined as classifying and sorting of poultry and poultry products, shell eggs, and rabbits according to various groups of conditions and quality characteristics. The development of grading standards and regulations to implement the grading services is authorized by the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946. Federal grade standards evolved slowly from the establishment of the Office of Markets in 1913 until World War II, when the military started requiring consistency in inspection and quality in purchasing foods deli- vered to the U.S. troops.35Today, Poultry and Egg Market News, and standardization and grading activities are provided by the Poultry Division of the USDAs Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS). Poultry and Egg Market News is a supply, demand, and price report that AMS distributes nationally, tracking the sales of about 50 commodities. In addi- tion to implementing grading services based on official USDA standards, the Poultry Division of AMS is also involved in certification of poultry and shell eggs purchased through food procurement contracts to verify specifications for quantity, quality, condition, formulation, net weight, packaging, storage, and transportation.35
The use of grading and certification services is voluntary. In addition to a grading fee, establishments using AMS must also provide space, equipment, lighting, or other facilities as required by the grader or regulations.36 Grading is performed by a USDA grader assigned to an establishment on a full- or part-time basis, depending upon the volume and nature of products produced. Usually, resident graders are assisted by plant employees to handle large volumes of poultry. However, the resident grader performs final check gra- ding and certification through an appropriate sampling plan. Companies can develop and
use their own grade specifications (i.e., plant grade). However, the letters “U.S.” or “USDA” may only be used with a poultry grademark if the poultry has been graded by an authorized USDA grader (Figure 5.9).
All poultry that is graded by the USDA must first be inspected by FSIS for whole- someness. After the poultry pass inspection, the product is eligible for grading according to official standards of quality. All products, whether in the form of RTC whole carcasses, parts, or further processed products may be graded. The RTC poultry that contain pro- cessing defects (excessive protruding feathers, bruises that require trimming, remnants of lungs, trachea, and other organs, extraneous material of any type) or with off-condition (slimy, slippery, putrid, or sour odors) are not graded and must be reworked to remove the defective portions.
For RTC carcasses and parts, the standards of quality include:
1. Conformation: the skeletal deformities that may affect the normal distribution of flesh. Dented, crooked, knobby or V-shaped breasts, deformed wings and legs, and wedge-shaped frame are example defects that detract from normal appearance. 2. Fleshing: amount of flesh is consistent with the carcass and its parts. Most of the
flesh is located on the breast, thighs, and drumsticks. There are certainly sex differ- ences in the amount of flesh over the back, with females carrying more flesh than males.
3. Fat covering: a well-developed layer and distribution of fat in the skin. Fat typically accumulates around the feather tracts, but some fat is also deposited between the feather tracts over the back and the hips.
4. Feathers: carcass or its parts must be free of protruding feathers and hairs (down on ducks and geese) to meet the RTC requirement and to be eligible for grading. 5. Exposed flesh: exposed flesh can result from cuts, tears, and trims on the carcasses.
It detracts from the appearance of the product and may lower the eating quality by allowing the flesh to dry out during storage and cooking.
6. Discolorations: lightly shaded areas on the skin due to incomplete bleeding or hem- orrhaging that are free of clots. Dark red, blue, or green discolored bruises must be removed before grading.
7. Disjointed or broken bones and missing parts: carcass and parts free of broken and disjointed bones.
8. Freezing defects: darkening and dehydration of poultry skin or the surface of skin- less products due to freezing and storage (i.e., freezer burns).
9. Accuracy of cut: when parts are separated at a joint, the joint should be evenly split. Also, a part should only contain the appropriate anatomical tissues. For example, a “whole leg” should contain only a drum and thigh with no spine, while a “leg quar- ter” should contain a drum, thigh, and half of the spine.
Poultry meat pr
ocessing
Table 5.3 Summary of Specifications for “A” Quality Poultry
Conformation: Normal
Breastbone Slight curve or dent
Back Slight curve
Legs and Wings Normal
Fleshing: Well fleshed, considering kind and class
Fat covering: Well developed layer, especially between heavy feather tracts
Defeathering: Turkeys Ducks and Geese1 All Other Poultry
Protruding feathers (less than or equal to 3/4 in.) (less than or equal to 1/2 in.) (less than or equal to 1/2 in.)
(Feather length) Carcass Parts Carcass Parts Carcass Parts
4 2 8 4 4 2
Exposed Flesh:2
Carcass Large Carcass Parts3
Weight Range (halves, front and rear halves) Other Parts3
Minimum Maximum Breast and Legs Elsewhere Breast and Legs Elsewhere
None 2 lb 1/4 in. 1 in. 1/4 in. 1/2 in. 1/4 in.
Over 2 lb 6 lb 1/4 in. 1 1/2 in. 1/4 in. 3/4 in. 1/4 in.
Over 6 lb 16 lb 1/2 in. 2 in. 1/2 in. 1 in. 1/2 in.
Over 16 lb None 1/2 in. 3 in. 1/2 in. 1 1/2 in. 1/2 in.
Discolorations: Lightly Shaded Moderately Shaded4
Carcass
Breast and Legs Elsewhere Hock of Leg Elsewhere
None 2 lb 3/4 in. 1 1/4 in. 1/4 in 5/8 in.
Over 2 lb 6 lb 1 in. 2 in. 1/2 in 1 in.
Over 6 lb 16 lb 1 1/2 in. 2 1/2 in. 3/4 in. 1 1/4 in.
Poultry meat inspection and grading
69
(halves, front and rear halves) Breast and Legs Elsewhere Hock of Leg Elsewhere
None 2 lb 1/2 in. 1 in. 1/4 in. 1/2 in.
Over 2 lb 6 lb 3/4 in. 1 1/2 in. 3/8 in. 3/4 in.
Over 6 lb 16 lb 1 in. 2 in. 1/2 in. 1 in.
Over 16 lb None 1 1/4 in. 2 1/2 in. 5/8 in. 1 1/4 in.
Discolorations: Other Parts Lightly Shaded Moderately Shaded4
None 2 lb 1/2 in. 1/4 in
Over 2 lb 6 lb 3/4 in. 3/8 in.
Over 6 lb 16 lb 1 in. 1/2 in.
Over 16 lb None 1 1/4 in. 5/8 in.
Carcass—1 disjointed and no broken bones
Disjointed and Broken Bones: Parts—Thighs with back portion, legs or leg quarters may have femur disjointed from the hip joint. Other parts—none.
Missing Parts: Wing tip and tail
Freezing Defects: Slight darkening on back drumstick. Overall bright appearance. Occasional pock marks due to drying. Occasional small areas of clear pinkish, or reddish colored ice
1
For ducks and geese, hair or down is permitted on the carcass or part. 2
Maximum aggregate area of all exposed flesh. 3
For all parts, trimming of skin along the edge is allowed, provided at least 75% of the normal skin cover associated with the part remains attached. 4
Moderately shaded discolorations and discolorations due to flesh bruising are free of clots and limited to areas other than the breast and leg except for the area adjacent to the hock.
In assessing these quality standards, location, severity, and total aggregate area of defects must be taken into account, in addition to the class (species), market age, and sex of poul- try. There are no grade standards for giblets (heart, liver and gizzard), detached necks and tails, wing tips, and skin. Grade standards for boneless-skinless breasts include presence of bones, tendons, and cartilage, discolorations and blood clots, and other product-specific factors.
The consumer grades for whole carcass and parts are U.S. Grades A, B, and C. Summary of specifications for A grades are presented in Table 5.3.37Lower grade whole car- casses (B and C) are often cut up, since parts from these carcasses may qualify as Grade A and therefore be of higher value. Proportion of downgrading by class of poultry (Figure 5.10) and the extent of non-RTC defects are also summarized for 1999 (Table 5.4).
In modern processing operations, poultry is initially graded by plant employees trained and authorized by the USDA and monitored by an official resident grader. Most carcasses and parts are graded on the production line or after a cooler. When moni- toring the graded product, the resident grader utilizes the Acceptable Quality Level (AQL) procedure on a subsample of product to determine the cumulative scores of defective, under-grade birds or parts present. When AQL tests indicate excessive defects, the product is classified as “USDA retained” until the product has been reworked to meet the grade criteria.
Since products vary in complexity and detail, procurement programs for further processed products may contain additional specifications on preparation and processing, metal detection, freezing, packaging and labeling, test weights, portion control, tempera- tures, storage, and transportation.
Standards and grades are used extensively throughout the marketing system in the U.S. and provide common language for buyers and sellers of poultry and poultry products. Commercial operations also use the standards and grades as a basis for their own product specifications, for advertising, and for establishing brand names.
Figure 5.10 Frequency of downgrading by class of poultry for 1999. RTC ready-to-cook criteria,
References
1. Forrest, J. C., Aberle, E. D., Hedrick, H. B., Judge, M. D., and Merkel, R. A., Meat inspection, in Principles of Meat Science, Freeman, W. H., Ed., San Francisco, 316, 1975.
2. Libby, J. A., History, in Meat Hygiene, Fourth edition, Lea & Febiger, Philadelphia, 1, 1975. 3. Olsson, P. C. and Johnson, D. R., Meat and poultry inspection: Wholesomeness, integrity, and
productivity, in Seventy-Fifth Anniversary Commemorative Volume of Food and Drug Law, Food and Drug Law Institute, ed., Food and Drug Law Institute, Washington, D.C., 1984, 220.
4. Sinclair, Jr., U. B., The Jungle, Doubleday, New York, 1906.
5. NRC, Poultry Inspection: The Basis for a Risk-Assessment Approach, Committee on Public Health Risk Assessment of Poultry Inspection Programs, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 1987.
6. CAST, Foods from Animals: Quantity, Quality and Safety, Report No. 82, Council for Agricultural Science and Technology, Ames, IA, 1980.
7. NRC, Meat and Poultry Inspection: The Scientific Basis of the Nation’s Program, Report of the Committee on the Scientific Basis of the Nation’s Meat and Poultry Inspection Program, Food and Nutrition Board, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 1985.
8. NRC, Poultry Inspection: The Basis for a Risk-Assessment Approach, Report of the Committee on Public Health Risk Assessment of Poultry Inspection Programs, Food and Nutrition Board, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 1987.
9. USDA, Meat and Poultry Inspection, Report of the Secretary of Agriculture to the U.S. Congress, Food Safety and Inspection Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C., 1988. 10. USDA, Meat and Poultry Inspection, Report of the Secretary of Agriculture to the U.S. Congress,
Food Safety and Inspection Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C., 1991. 11. USDA, Pathogen Reduction; Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) Systems;
Final Rule, Fed. Regis., 9 CFR Part 304, 1996.
Table 5.4 Proportion of Post-Chill Non-RTC Defects by Class Product
Young turkey
Frying chicken Roaster Hen Tom Duckling
% Conformation 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0 Bruised breast 1.3 1.4 1.2 1.4 0.3 Drum 1.8 1.1 0.7 0.8 0.9 Thigh 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.3 Wing 2.6 1.9 1.5 1.7 0.8 Shoulder 0.8 0.6 0.5 0.3 0.1 Total bruises 6.7 5.0 4.0 4.6 2.3 Discolorations 1.1 0.8 0.5 0.8 6.7 Disjointed bones 0.2 0.6 0.2 0 0 Broken leg 2.1 2.3 0.2 0.2 0.4 Wing 1.4 2.8 0.3 0.8 0 Total trim 2.2 1.0 4.2 8.5 1.8
Total exposed flesh 3.5 2.0 3.6 2.7 1.3
Missing wings 6.7 8.9 5.4 8.0 3.9
Drum 0.6 0.3 1.2 1.4 0.6
Leg 0.8 0.4 1.1 1.1 1.5
Source: Modified from USDA, Grade Yield Survey, Agricultural Marketing Service, Poultry Grading Branch Marketing and Regulatory Programs, U. S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D. C., 2000.
12. USDA, Meat and Poultry Inspection, Report of the Secretary of Agriculture to the U.S. Congress, Food Safety and Inspection Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C., 1996. 13. USDA, Food Safety and Inspection Service, 9. Food Safety, Agriculture Fact Book, U.S. Department
of Agriculture, Washington, D.C., 1998, 1.
14. USDA, Guidelines for Offline Salvage of Poultry Parts, Meat and Poultry Inspection Technical Services, Food Safety and Inspection Service, U. S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Government Printing Office:0-617-013, Washington, D.C., 1988.
15. Ewing, M., Exley, S., Page, K., and Brown, T., Understanding the disposition of broiler carcasses. Broiler Ind., March 28, 1977.
16. USDA, Meat and Poultry Inspection Regulations, 381.81-381.92, Title 9, Chapter III, Subchapter C, Code of Federal Regulations, Food Safety and Inspection Service, U. S. Department of
Agriculture, Washington, D. C., 1970.
17. USDA, Meat and Poultry Inspection Manual, Food Safety and Inspection Service, U. S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C., 1987.
18. USDA, Pathogen Reduction; Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point (HACCP) Systems, Final Rule, 9 CFR Part 304, et al., Food Safety and Inspection Service, U. S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C., 1996.
19. USDA, FSIS Facts: The National Residue Program, FSIS-18, Food Safety and Inspection Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C., 1984.
20. USDA, Enhanced Poultry Inspection; Revision of Finished Product Standards with Respect to Fecal Contamination, Docket No.94-016F, Food Safety and Inspection Service, U. S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C., 1996
21. USDA, Poultry Post-Mortem Inspection and Reinspection-Enforcing the Zero Tolerance for Visible Fecal Material, Food Safety and Inspection Service, Directive 6150.1, U. S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C., 1998.
22. USDA, Sanitation, 9 CFR part 416, Food Safety and Inspection Service, U. S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D. C., 1996.
23. DHHS, Current Good Manufacturing Practice in Manufacturing, Packing, or Holding Human Food, 21 CFR Part 110, Food and Drug Administration, Washington, D.C., 1996.
24. Bauman, H., HACCP: Concept, development, and application, Food Technol., 44(5),156, 1990. 25. Adams, C., Use of HACCP in meat and poultry inspection, Food Technol., 44(5), 169, 1990. 26. Stevenson, K. E., Implementing HACCP in the food industry. Food Technol., 44(5), 179, 1990. 27. ICMSF, Microorganisms in Foods 4. Application of Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point (HACCP)
System to Ensure Microbiological Safety and Quality, Blackwell Scientific, Boston, MA, 1988. 28. CAC, Report of the 24th session of the Codex Committee on Food Hygiene — Alinorm 88/13A.
Codex Alimentarius Commission, Rome, 1988.
29. NACMCF, Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point System, Int. J. Food Microbiol., 16, 1, 1992. 30. USDA, Nationwide Broiler Chicken Microbiological Baseline Data Collection Program, Food Safety
and Inspection Service, U. S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C., 1996.
31. AOAC, Official Methods of Analysis, 16th edition, Official Analytical Chemists International, Gaithersburg, MD, 1995.
32. USDA, One-Year Progress Report on Salmonella Testing for Raw Meat and Poultry Products, Food Safety and Inspection Service, Backgrounders, U. S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C., 1999, 1.
33. USDA, HACCP-Based Inspection Models, Backgrounders, Food Safety and Inspection Service, U. S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C., 1998, 1.
34. USDA, HACCP-Based Inspection Models Project: Models Phase, pages 1–5, Backgrounders, Food Safety and Inspection Service, U. S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C., 1999, 1. 35. USDA, United States Classes, Standards, and Grades for Poultry, AMS 70.200 et. seq. Agricultural
Marketing Service, Poultry Programs, U. S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C., 1998. 36. Brant, A. W., Goble, J. W., Hamann, J. A., Wabeck, C. J., and Walters, R. E., Guidelines for
establishing and operating broiler processing plants, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agriculture Handbook No. 581, 1982.
37. USDA, Poultry Grading Manual, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agriculture Handbook No. 31, 1998.