National Lamb Quality Audit and

SSQA Update

Prepared for The American Lamb

Board

January 29, 2016

Preferences & Complaints Associated with American Lamb Quality in Retail &

Foodservice MarketsTravis W. Hoffman, Karissa A. Maneotis, Dale R. Woerner,

J. Daryl Tatum, Robert J. Delmore, R. Kraig Peel, Stephen B. LeValley, Henry N. Zerby, Steven J. Moeller, Francis L. Fluharty and Keith E. Belk,

Conducted by:

Colorado State University &The Ohio State University

Funded by:

American Lamb Board & The National Sheep Industry Improvement Center

The Take Away Message

• Eating Satisfaction

– Flavor, Taste, Aroma

The reason consumers purchase lamb

• Origin

– Local

• Sheep Raising Practices

• Branded Programs

Moving Forward

• Consistency of product

• Volatility of price is not a concern when compared to

quality.

• A continuous improvement mentality is essential to

maintain and increase market share and demand of

American Lamb.

National Lamb Quality Audit Strategy

Workshop

Mission

Improve the consistency of quality, cutability, and

marketability of American Lamb with a consumer driven

focus.

Strategic Goals

1) Understand factors contributing to lamb flavor, their impact

on consumer satisfaction, and align flavor characteristics

with target markets.

2) Improve lamb management to hit market-ready targets for

product size, composition, and eating satisfaction while

reducing production costs.

3) Identify and capitalize on market opportunities for American

Lamb.

Lamb Flavor Study

Karissa A. Maneotis, Dale R. Woerner, J. Daryl Tatum, J. N. Martin, Terry E.

Engle, Robert J. Delmore, S. B. LeValley and Keith E. Belk

Conducted by:

Colorado State University

Funded by:

The American Lamb Board

Objectives

• Establish a proof of concept for differentiating flavor on an individual

lamb basis using volatile flavor compound analysis and olfactometry.

• Identify and characterize compounds associated with specific lamb

flavors for both negative and positive eating experiences by

consumers.

• Evaluate the opportunity for developing an online technology and/or

instrumentation to segregate lambs into expected eating quality

groups.

Research Timeline• 1/3 of samples have been collected. All legs are stored in a -40°C freezer

until the remainder of the samples are collected.

• The tissue samples from the outer layer of the legs have been homogenized

and are being stored at -80° C.

• The remainder of the samples will be collected in the next two months.

• Legs will be portioned into lean and fat portions and 80/20 ground lamb will

be formed into patties for trained sensory panels.

• Trained Sensory Panels, Fatty Acid Analysis, Volatile Flavor Compound

Analysis and Olfactometry will be conducted.

Sample Collection• 75 legs will be collected from various breed types, production

systems and sex classifications. Selection is primarily based on

age verified through dentition.

• 25 sheep from 3 groups will be collected:

– 0 permanent incisors

– 2 permanent incisors

– >2 permanent incisors.

• Samples will be collected from three commercial lamb

processing facilities.

Sheep Safety & Quality Assurance

Manual Revision

Karissa Maneotis, Dale R. Woerner, J. Daryl Tatum, J. N. Martin, Robert J.

Delmore and Keith E. Belk

Conducted by:

Colorado State University

Major Revisions

The importance of Lamb Quality.

Addition of Global Food Safety Initiative.

Antimicrobial interventions in lamb

processing facilities.

USDA Lamb Nutrient Database for

Standard Reference UpdateCody L. Gifford, Dale R. Woerner, J. Daryl Tatum, Robert J. Delmore and

Keith E. Belk

Conducted by:

Colorado State University

Funded by:American Lamb Board &

The National Sheep Industry Improvement Center

Projected Labeling Claims for Conventionally-Fed Lamb

Cuts (separable lean only) trimmed to a maximum of 1/8”

External Fat.Conventionally-

Fed Cuts

Total Fat

(g)SFA (g)

Trans Fat

(g)

Cholesterol

(mg)

Sodium

(mg)

Foreshank 3.14 1.35 0.14 75.4 81.3

Shoulder Arm

Chop3.84 1.63 0.18 67.5 61.6

Shoulder Blade

Chop7.22 3.15 0.33 78.9 72.2

Shoulder, Whole 7.21 3.1 0.33 75.7 61.4

Rib Chop 6.99 3.04 0.32 844 65.5

Frenched Rib

Chop6.32 2.82 0.28 93.2 61.1

Loin, Whole 5.45 2.36 0.25 71.9 66.9

Sirloin Chop 4.41 1.88 0.2 79.7 57.9

Leg, Whole 4.36 1.87 0.2 74.9 53.6

Stew Meat 4.81 2.14 0.23 71.8 49.5

Ground Lamb 14.77 6.59 0.68 65.6 52.6

Projected Labeling Claims for Conventionally-Fed Lamb

Cuts Cont.

Conventionally-Fed

Cuts

Projected USDA

Lean Qualification

Projected USDA

Extra Lean

Qualification

Projected AHA

Certification

Foreshank

Shoulder Arm Chop

Shoulder Blade Chop X X

Shoulder, Whole X X

Rib Chop X X

Frenched Rib Chop X X

Loin, Whole X X

Sirloin Chop

Leg, Whole

Stew Meat X X

Ground Lamb X X X

Projected Labeling Claims for Grass-Finished

Lamb Cuts (separable lean only) trimmed to a

maximum of 1/8” External Fat.

Grass-Finished

Cuts

Total Fat

(g)SFA (g)

Trans Fat

(g)

Cholestero

l (mg)

Sodium

(mg)

Foreshank 2.41 1.13 0.12 78.1 88.4

Shoulder Arm

Chop4.51 2.09 0.05 75 63.8

Shoulder Blade

Chop6.52 3 0.33 71.3 67.7

Shoulder, Whole 7.56 3.54 0.41 69.6 65.2

Rib Chop 7.73 3.7 0.42 70.2 62.5

Frenched Rib

Chop5.64 2.74 0.3 72.1 57.8

Loin, Whole 4.7 2.36 0.26 68.7 68.9

Sirloin Chop 4.52 2.22 0.26 70.5 57.3

Leg, Whole 4.19 2.02 0.21 72.8 53

Stew Meat 3.99 1.92 0.22 63.8 45.3

Ground Lamb 14.67 6.96 0.81 69.6 57.5

Projected Labeling Claims for Grass-Finished Lamb Cuts

Cont.

Grass-Finished Cuts

Projected

USDA Lean

Qualification

Projected

USDA Extra

Lean

Qualification

Projected AHA

Certification

Foreshank

Shoulder Arm Chop X X

Shoulder Blade Chop X X

Shoulder, Whole X X

Rib Chop X X

Frenched Rib Chop X X

Loin, Whole X X

Sirloin Chop X X

Leg, Whole X X

Stew Meat

Ground Lamb X X X

2.71

2.56

2.98

3.21

3.54

3.36

4.50

4.68

4.85

5.04

5.88

5.74

5.78

6.09

6.44

7.62

7.57

7.76

9.22

10.57

10.21

11.89

12.86

13.47

g of Saturated Fat

g of Total Fat

Shoulder Blade Chop, Conventionally-fed

Shoulder Blade Chop, Grass-finished

Rib, Whole, Conventionally-fed

Rib, Whole, Grass-finished

Loin Chop, Conventionally-fed

Loin Chop, Grass-finished

Frenched Rib, Whole, Conventionally-fed

Frenched Rib, Whole, Grass-finished

Leg, Whole, Conventionally-fed

Leg, Whole, Grass-finished

Ground lamb, Conventionally-fed

Ground Lamb, Grass-finished

Saturated and total fat content (g/100 g of separable lean) from conventionally-finished and grass-

finished cooked separable lean from six lamb cuts trimmed to a maximum of 1/8” external fat.

Status of implementing New Lamb

Data into Standard Reference 29

• All data has been under review by USDA-NDL

since November 1, 2015.

• Data from this study is on schedule to be

included in the National Nutrient Database for

Standard Reference 29 which is expected to be

released in September 2016.

Questions?