J. Anim Sci.
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Weatherly, B. H.
Right arrow Articles by Savell, J. W.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Weatherly, B. H.
Right arrow Articles by Savell, J. W.

Journal of Animal Science, Vol 79, Issue 12 3052-3061, Copyright © 2001 by American Society of Animal Science

JOURNAL ARTICLE

Foodservice yield and fabrication times for beef as influenced by purchasing options and merchandising styles

B. H. Weatherly, D. B. Griffin, H. K. Johnson, J. P. Walter, M. J. De La Zerda, N. C. Tipton and J. W. Savell
Department of Animal Science, Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, Texas A&M University, College Station 77843-2471, USA.

Selected beef subprimals were obtained from fabrication lines of three foodservice purveyors to assist in the development of a software support program for the beef foodservice industry. Subprimals were fabricated into bone-in or boneless foodservice ready-to-cook portion-sized cuts and associated components by professional meat cutters. Each subprimal was cut to generate mean foodservice cutting yields and labor requirements, which were calculated from observed weights (kilograms) and processing times (seconds). Once fabrication was completed, data were analyzed to determine means and standard errors of percentage yields and processing times for each subprimal. Subprimals cut to only one end point were evaluated for mean foodservice yields and processing times, but no comparisons were made within subprimal. However, those traditionally cut into various end points were additionally compared by cutting style. Subprimals cut by a single cutting style included rib, roast-ready; ribeye roll, lip-on, bone-in; brisket, deckle-off, boneless; top (inside) round; and bottom sirloin butt, flap, boneless. Subprimals cut into multiple end points or styles included ribeye, lip-on; top sirloin, cap; tenderloin butt, defatted; shortloin, short-cut; strip loin, boneless; top sirloin butt, boneless; and tenderloin, full, side muscle on, defatted. Mean yields of portion cuts, and mean fabrication times required to manufacture these cuts differed (P < 0.05) by cutting specification of the final product. In general, as the target portion size of fabricated steaks decreased, the mean number of steaks derived from any given subprimal cut increased, causing total foodservice yield to decrease and total processing time to increase. Therefore, an inverse relationship tended to exist between processing times and foodservice yields. With a method of accurately evaluating various beef purchase options, such as traditional commodity subprimals, closely trimmed subprimals, and pre-cut portion steaks in terms of yield and labor cost, foodservice operators will be better equipped to decide what option is more viable for their operation.


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 J ANIM SCIHome page
D. R. McKenna, D. B. Griffin, H. K. Johnson, B. R. Covington, and J. W. Savell
Retail yields from beef chuck and round subprimals from two grade groups when merchandised as single muscle cuts
J Anim Sci, June 1, 2003; 81(6): 1482 - 1487.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2001 by the American Society of Animal Science.