J. Anim. Sci. 2003. 81:1482-1487
© 2003 American Society of Animal Science
Retail yields from beef chuck and round subprimals from two grade groups when merchandised as single muscle cuts
D. R. McKenna,
D. B. Griffin,
H. K. Johnson,
B. R. Covington and
J. W. Savell1
Department of Animal Science, Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, Texas A&M University, College Station 77843-2471
1 Correspondence:
2471 TAMU (phone: 979-845-3935; fax: 979-845-9454; E-mail:
j-savell{at}tamu.edu).
 |
Abstract
|
|---|
Beef subprimals from two different grade groups were obtained from two beef processors to assist in updating the Beef Computer Assisted Retail Decision Support (CARDS) program with new fabrication styles. The grade groups consisted of Top Choice (containing subprimals from carcasses with a Modest or Moderate degree of marbling) and Select (containing subprimals from carcasses with a Slight degree of marbling). Subprimals (shoulder clod; top blade, roast; arm roast; knuckle, peeled; outside round, flat) were separated into individual muscles and fabricated into retail cuts by professional retail meat cutters. Mean retail cutting yields and labor requirements were calculated from observed weights (kilograms) and processing times (seconds). Data were analyzed to determine means and standard errors of percentage yield and processing times for subprimals in each grade group, and comparisons were made between grade groups. Generally, there were few differences in processing times between Top Choice and Select subprimals, and the trimming phase required the most time to complete for each subprimal. Differences (P < 0.05) were observed in saleable yield between Top Choice and Select subprimals for the shoulder clod (Top Choice = 73.89%; Select = 78.49%), top blade, roast (Top Choice = 84.36%; Select = 86.70%), and outside round, flat (Top Choice = 85.99%; Select = 91.34%). Trimmable fat differed (P < 0.05) between Top Choice and Select subprimals: shoulder clod (Top Choice = 25.30%; Select = 20.85%), top blade, roast (Top Choice = 14.88%; Select = 12.59%), arm roast (Top Choice = 8.35%; Select = 7.47%), knuckle (Top Choice = 5.72%; Select = 2.73%), and outside round, flat (Top Choice = 13.82%; Select = 7.26%). Most of the differences in saleable yields were related to less trimmable fat for Select subprimals, which also required less trimming time than Top Choice subprimals. These data will serve to update the Beef CARDS program and will provide retailers and foodservice operators with third-party cutting yield and time allocation information.
Key Words: Beef • Retail Marketing • Time Allocation • Yields
|
Introduction
|
|---|
Merchandising cuts from the beef chuck and round is very challenging and often requires reduced prices to sell product. These challenges are further complicated by the volume of product they represent. Griffin et al. (1992) reported that chuck and round subprimals represented about 38% of the weight of an average beef carcass, whereas rib and loin subprimals represented only about 13%.
The National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA) established a research initiative to explore ways to add value to the round and chuck (NCBA, 2001). One proposed method for increasing the value of the chuck and round was to develop innovative fabrication techniques, called the Beef Value Cuts program, to merchandize individual muscles from those primals and subprimals. This program was designed to increase the total cutout value of beef carcasses by increasing the value of each of the individual components, resulting in a significant cumulative increase in the value of the chuck and round. Although the Beef Value Cuts have been shown to have desirable characteristics in terms of palatability and visual appeal, there is a lack of standardized information regarding cutout yields and labor requirements of subprimals fabricated to this endpoint. This information is particularly important to retail and foodservice operations who use it to understand the relative yields of these cuts and to determine if these cuts present feasible profitability opportunities.
Previous research on retail yield and fabrication times of beef (Garrett et al., 1991), pork (Lorenzen et al., 1996a,b), lamb (Lorenzen et al., 1997), and veal (McNeill et al., 1998) have served as valuable references to assist retailers in meat purchasing and merchandising, primarily through the Computer Assisted Retail Decision Support (CARDS) program. This study was conducted to update the information base in the Beef CARDS program to reflect muscle separation fabrication styles for subprimals from the chuck and round.
|
Materials and Methods
|
|---|
Product Selection
One hundred eighteen beef subprimals representing two quality grade groups were obtained from two beef processors. Grade groups were designated as Top Choice, which contained subprimals from carcasses with Moderate or Modest degrees of marbling, or Select, which contained subprimals from carcasses with a Slight degree of marbling. Selected subprimals represented the normal weight variation and standard packer fat trim levels associated with commodity-boxed beef. Specifications for all subprimals complied (within packer variations) with Institutional Meat Purchase Specifications (IMPS) as described by NAMP (1997) and USDA (1996). The subprimals used were the beef chuck, shoulder clod (IMPS #114), beef chuck, shoulder clod, top blade, roast (IMPS #114D), beef chuck, shoulder clod, arm roast (IMPS #114E), beef round, knuckle, peeled (IMPS #167A), and beef round, outside round (flat) (IMPS #171B).
Subprimals were separated into individual muscles following the procedures outlined by NCBA (2001) and were merchandised as completely trimmed, tray-ready retail cuts. All steaks (1.91 to 2.54 cm thick) were cut perpendicular to the muscle fiber orientation, with the exception of top blade steaks, which were filleted to remove the heavy connective tissue sheath in the center, and then each half was cut into two to three portions. Dimensions for kabobs were approximately 3.18 cm on all sides. Universal product code descriptions (NLSMB, 1995a,b) were used to identify the retail cuts obtained from each subprimal.
Cutting Tests
Subprimals were fabricated into retail cuts and component parts by two trained retail meat cutters to simulate standard retail practices. Trained technicians, who recorded the time to complete each phase of the cutting test to the nearest 0.01 s using handheld stopwatches, monitored cutting tests performed by the meat cutters. Technicians were also responsible for ensuring that each test was completed and all components were accounted for before proceeding to the next cutting test. All subprimals were weighed before each cutting test, and the sum of the weight of all fabricated components was verified as being equal to at least 99% of the initial subprimal weight. After each cutting test, weights of each type of retail cut, lean trim, and fat were recorded.
Activities for the meat-cutting test were divided into three major phases: opening (retrieval of the subprimal from vacuum-packaged bag), trimming (removal of all external and seam fat, connective tissue, and separation of individual muscles), and cutting (producing tray-ready retail cuts). Recording times for each phase of the cutting test enabled the calculation of total time to complete the cutting test and the time required to complete each individual phase.
Retail cutting endpoints are reported in each table. For each cut, information is reported for saleable yield components such as steaks and/or roasts, lean trimmings, beef cubes for kabobs, cubed steaks, and loss components such as fat trimmings, purge, and cutting losses.
Statistical Analysis
The experiment was planned as a completely randomized design. Data were analyzed, by subprimal, using the GLM of SAS (Version 8, SAS Inst., Inc., Cary, NC), with quality grade group tested as the main effect. Least squares means were generated and, when an alpha-level of P < 0.05 was established, least squares means were separated by a pairwise t-test (PDIFF option).
|
Results and Discussion
|
|---|
Beef subprimals and associated components from various cutting tests, including shoulder clods, top blade roasts, arm roasts, knuckles (peeled), and outside rounds (flats) were evaluated for mean retail yields and processing times (Tables 1 to 5
). Each subprimal contained one processing style, and comparisons were made between cuts from different quality grade groups. Generally, Select subprimals had higher saleable retail yields than Top Choice subprimals. Select subprimals had less trimmable fat (subcutaneous and seam) than Top Choice subprimals, and differences in retail yields appeared to be driven by this. Very few differences were noted for processing times; however, the greatest differences were observed for the trimming phase. Top Choice subprimals, which generally had more trimmable fat, usually required greater trim time.
View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Table 1. Least squares means of retail yields (%) and net weight processing times (s) for single muscle fabrication of beef chuck, shoulder clod (IMPS #114) from different USDA quality grade groups
|
|
View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Table 2. Least squares means of retail yields (%) and net weight processing times (s) for single muscle fabrication of beef chuck, shoulder clod, top blade, roast (IMPS #114D) from different USDA quality grade groups
|
|
View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Table 3. Least squares means of retail yields (%) and net weight processing times (s) for single muscle fabrication of beef chuck, shoulder clod, arm roast (IMPS #114E) from different USDA quality grade groups
|
|
View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Table 4. Least squares means of retail yields (%) and net weight processing times (s) for single muscle fabrication of beef round, knuckle, peeled (IMPS #167A) from different USDA quality grade groups
|
|
View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Table 5. Least squares means of retail yields (%) and net weight processing times (s) for single muscle fabrication of beef round, outside round (flat) (IMPS #171B) from different USDA quality grade groups
|
|
Top Choice shoulder clods had a lower (P < 0.05) saleable yield than Select clods, with a majority of the difference accounted for by a greater (P < 0.05) percentage of fat (Table 1
). This differs from the work of Garrett et al. (1991), who found that retail yields were nearly identical between Choice and Select shoulder clods. Retail yields for shoulder clods merchandised as single muscles were relatively low (73 to 78%) compared with the 90 to 95% retail yield realized by Garrett et al. (1991) using a traditional fabrication style. Select shoulder clods had slightly higher yields of shoulder tenders (M. teres major) than Top Choice shoulder clods, but it is unlikely this would be considered a practical difference. Top Choice shoulder clods required slightly more time to open and remove cuts from packages than did Select shoulder clods. However, opening time comprised less than 2% of the total processing time, and these differences are probably negligible. There were no (P > 0.05) differences in total processing time or time required to trim clods, even though Top Choice clods contained a greater percentage of trimmable fat. Total processing times were very high, with mean processing times on the order of 69 s/kg of product. Mean processing times recorded by Garrett et al. (1991) were calculated to be 33 s/kg, or less than half the time requirement observed for the muscle separation fabrication style.
Lean trimmings comprised approximately 36% of the retail yield of shoulder clods (Table 1), whereas lean trimmings generated by Garrett et al. (1991) were 21 to 24% of the retail yield of shoulder clods. Lean trimmings are the primary byproduct produced during subprimal fabrication. It is important that the purchasing specifications and fabrication styles minimize byproduct production because they are becoming increasingly challenging to merchandize in an in-store operation. This is especially true today since many retailers have shifted to case-ready ground beef programs to minimize in-store ground beef production as a means to reduce food safety risks.
Total saleable yields were approximately 2.5 percentage points higher (P < 0.05) for Select top blade roasts compared to Top Choice top blades roasts with most of that difference accounted for in percentage of trimmable fat (Table 2). Top Choice top blade roasts also required greater (P < 0.05) trimming time and consequently greater (P < 0.05) total processing time than Select top blade roasts. No (P > 0.05) differences were found in retail yields or time allocation requirements between Top Choice and Select arm roasts (Table 3).
The combination of low yields, high processing times (e.g., high labor requirements), and excessive generation of byproducts may deter some retailers from merchandising whole clods as single muscles. An alternative approach for retailers may be to purchase top blade roasts (IMPS #114D) and arm roasts (IMPS #114E) since they had higher retail yields, lower processing time requirements, produced fewer byproducts, and essentially resulted in the same retail cuts (Table 2 and 3). Although these subprimal muscles would likely be sold at a higher wholesale price, the substantially higher saleable yields (87.4 vs. 76.19%) and lower processing times (386.62 s vs. 746.58 s) may make the price/value relationship more advantageous for selected endpoints. Information gathered in studies such as this serve as valuable aids as retailers consider meat purchasing and merchandising options.
Retail yield and processing times for beef round, knuckles, peeled (IMPS #167A), are presented in Table 4. Retail yields for beef knuckles were similar to the 91 to 97% yields reported by Garrett et al. (1991). Select knuckles had a five-percentage point greater yield of tip side steaks (M. vastus lateralis) than Top Choice knuckles. We suspect this difference is a combination of less fat and greater muscling since McKenna et al. (2002) reported that USDA Select carcasses had less external fat and greater muscling than USDA Choice carcasses. Top Choice knuckles tended to require more (P = 0.0584) trimming time, and consequently more (P = 0.0959) total time, during processing than Select knuckles. Garrett et al. (1991) found that fabrication of Choice knuckles involved slightly higher processing times than Select knuckles (approximately 21.5 s/kg for Choice vs. 17.5 s/kg for Select). Total processing time required for knuckles separated into individual muscles appeared to be much higher than processing times reported by Garrett et al. (1991) for knuckles processed to traditional retail end-points (approximately 67.4 s/kg vs. 19.3 s/kg of product).
The cutting style used for the beef round, outside round (flat) (IMPS #171B; Table 5) is quite novel in that it involves cutting truly perpendicular to the muscle fibers rather than the traditional style that is more parallel with the muscle fibers. Top Choice outside rounds had a six-percentage point lower (P < 0.05) saleable yield than Select outside rounds, with most of the difference accounted for by more (P < 0.05) trimmable fat. Yield of pot roast (M. biceps femoris, ischiatic head) from Select bottom rounds was two percentage points greater than Top Choice bottom rounds. Select bottom rounds required more (P < 0.05) time to open and remove from their packages than Top Choice bottom rounds; however, the difference is negligible compared to trimming and total processing time. Garrett et al. (1991) reported cutting tests from the gooseneck round (IMPS #170A), which contains both the outside round, flat, and eye of round, so there is no true comparative data published for this cut.
In summary, these data indicate that as fabrication styles shift toward smaller, single-muscle retail cut end-points, percentage retail yields decrease and processing times will increase. Lorenzen et al. (1997) reported that as fabrication styles shifted from bone-in to boneless, retail yields decreased and processing times increased. It appears the same trend holds true as fabrication styles move from multiple-muscle cuts to single-muscle cuts. In addition, the inverse relationship between processing time and yield described by McNeill et al. (1998) and Weatherly et al. (2001) appears to be supported by our findings. Applying new cutting styles (i.e., single-muscle retail cuts) to traditional subprimals decreased yields and increased processing times, while applying the same style to new subprimals from the clod had an inverse relationship.
|
Implications
|
|---|
The original vision of the Beef Computer Assisted Retail Decision Support program was to provide third-party data to address the issue of trimmable fat on subprimals and empower retailers to decide whether it was economically advantageous to pay more for trimmer subprimals. Ten years later, external trim levels have become a nonissue as knowledgeable retailers have driven the demand for closely trimmed subprimals. The information gathered in this study will add to the existing knowledge base in the Beef Computer Assisted Retail Decision Support program. Just as the original Beef Computer Assisted Retail Decision Support data enabled decisions on trimmable fat levels, this information will allow retailers and foodservice operations to determine the feasibility and potential profitability of using single muscle fabrication styles in their operations.
Received for publication November 25, 2002.
Accepted for publication February 17, 2003.
|
Literature Cited
|
|---|
Garrett, R. P., R. W. Theis, J. P. Walter, D. B. Griffin, J. W. Savell, H. K. Johnson, T. R. Dockerty, J. W. Allen, and T. R. Pierson. 1991. Communicating Cutability to the Retailer. Final Report to the National Live Stock and Meat Board. Dept. Animal Science, Texas A&M Univ., College Station.
Griffin, D. B., J. W. Savell, J. B. Morgan, R. P. Garrett, and H. R. Cross. 1992. Estimates of subprimal yields from beef carcasses as affected by USDA grades, subcutaneous fat trim level, and carcass sex class and type. J. Anim. Sci. 70:2411–2430.[Abstract]
Lorenzen, C. L., D. B. Griffin, T. R. Dockerty, J. P. Walter, H. K. Johnson, and J. W. Savell. 1996a. Subprimal purchasing and merchandising decisions for pork: Relationship to retail yield and fabrication time. J. Anim. Sci. 74:5–12.[Abstract]
Lorenzen, C. L., A. M. Martin, D. B. Griffin, T. R. Dockerty, J. P. Walter, H. K. Johnson, and J. W. Savell. 1997. Influence of wholesale lamb marketing options and merchandising styles on retail yield and fabrication time. J. Anim. Sci. 75:1–6.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
Lorenzen, C. L., J. P. Walter, T. R. Dockerty, D. B. Griffin, H. K. Johnson, and J. W. Savell. 1996b. Subprimal purchasing and merchandising decisions for pork: Relationship to retail value. J. Anim. Sci. 74:13–17.[Abstract]
McKenna, D. R., D. L. Roeber, P. K. Bates, T. B. Schmidt, D. S. Hale, D. B. Griffin, J. W. Savell, J. C. Brooks, J. B. Morgan, T. H. Montgomery, K. E. Belk, and G. C. Smith. 2002. National Beef Quality Audit—2000: Survey of targeted cattle and carcass characteristics related to the quality, quantity, and value of fed steers and heifers. J. Anim. Sci. 80:1212–1222.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
McNeill, M. S., D. B. Griffin, T. R. Dockerty, J. P. Walter, H. K. Johnson, and J. W. Savell. 1998. Retail yield and fabrication times for veal as influenced by purchasing options and merchandising styles. J. Anim. Sci. 76:1613–1620.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
NAMP. 1997. Meat Buyers Guide. Natl. Assoc. Meat Purveyors, Reston, VA.
NCBA. 2001. Beef value cuts: New cuts for the new consumer. Natl. Cattlemen’s Beef Assoc., Chicago, IL.
NLSMB. 1995a. U.P.C. Identification Numbers. Natl. Live Stock and Meat Board, Chicago, IL.
NLSMB. 1995b. Uniform Retail Meat Identity Standards. Natl. Live Stock and Meat Board, Chicago, IL.
USDA. 1996. IMPS 100 Fresh Beef—PDF version. USDA Agricultural Marketing Service. Available: http://www.ams.usda.gov/lsg/imps/imps100.pdf. Accessed Sept. 6, 2002.
Weatherly, B. H., D. B. Griffin, H. K. Johnson, J. P. Walter, M. J. De La Zerda, N. C. Tipton, and J. W. Savell. 2001. Foodservice yield and fabrication times for beef as influenced by purchasing options and merchandising styles. J. Anim. Sci. 79:3052–3061.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
Top
Abstract
Introduction
