BEEF CARCASS YIELD AND QUALITY GRADING

1
BEEF CARCASSYIELD AND QUALITY GRADING

• South Carolina Meat Judging Workshop

2
USDA Beef Carcass Grades

• Purpose Classify Carcasses
• Expected Cutability or Retail Yield
• Expected Eating Quality

3
Conformation Dictates Composition
4
(No Transcript)
5
(No Transcript)
6
(No Transcript)
7
USDA Yield Grade

• Estimates - Closely-Trimmed, Boneless Retail
  Cuts From Chuck, Rib, Loin and Round
• Yield Grade 1 gt 52.4
• Yield Grade 2 50.0 - 52.3
• Yield Grade 3 47.7 - 50.0
• Yield Grade 4 45.4 - 47.7
• Yield Grade 5 lt 45.4

8
(No Transcript)
9
USDA Yield Grade

• 12th Rib Backfat
• Ribeye Area
• Kidney, Pelvic, Heart Fat
• Hot Carcass Weight

10
(No Transcript)
11
12th Rib Backfat
3/4 of the longitudinal length of the ribeye
muscle
Avg - .5 in Range - .15 - .80
12
(No Transcript)
13
Ribeye Area
Average - 12.8 in2 Range - 10.0 - 18.0 in2
14
Estimating Ribeye Area

• Can estimate length x width
• Other references

2.5 x 3.5 8.75 in2
About 5.0 in2
15
KPH Fat
Avg - 2.0
16
Hot Carcass Weight
Usually Given
17
USDA Yield Grade

• Equation
• 2.5 (2.5 x 12th Rib Backfat, in.)
• - (0.32 x Ribeye Area, sq in.)
• (0.20 x KPH Fat, )
• (0.0038 x Hot Carcass Wt, lbs.)

18
USDA Yield GradeShort-Cut Method

• Step 1
• Determine Preliminary Yield Grade

19
USDA Yield GradeShort-Cut Method

• Step 2
• Adjust PYG for REA

20
USDA Yield GradeShort-Cut Method

• Step 3
• Adjust PYG for HCW

21
USDA Yield GradeShort-Cut Method

• Step 4
• Adjust PYG for KPH fat

22
USDA Yield GradeShort-Cut Method - Alternate

• Step 2 - Combine steps 2 3
• Determine Expected REA

23
USDA Yield GradeShort-Cut Method - Alternate

• Step 2 - Combine steps 2 3
• Adjust PYG for Expected REA

24
Practice Calculations
Carcass Trait AFOE 0.5 REA 13.6 HCW
825 KPH 3.0 YG Formula
25
Practice Calculations
Carcass Trait AFOE 0.5 3.25 REA 13.6
HCW 825 KPH 3.0 YG Formula
26
Practice Calculations
Carcass Trait AFOE 0.5 3.25 REA 13.6
-0.8 HCW 825 KPH 3.0 YG Formula

27
Practice Calculations
Carcass Trait AFOE 0.5 3.25 REA 13.6
-0.8 HCW 825 0.9 KPH 3.0 YG
Formula
28
Practice Calculations
Carcass Trait AFOE 0.5 3.25 REA 13.6
-0.8 HCW 825 0.9 KPH 3.0 -0.1 YG
Formula
29
Practice Calculations
Carcass Trait AFOE 0.5 3.25 REA 13.6
-0.8 HCW 825 0.9 KPH 3.0 -0.1 YG
3.25 Formula 3.13
30
Practice Calculations
Carcass Trait AFOE 0.75 REA 12.5 HCW
870 KPH 4.5 YG Formula
31
Practice Calculations
Carcass Trait AFOE 0.75 3.88 REA 12.5 HCW
870 KPH 4.5 YG Formula
32
Practice Calculations
Carcass Trait AFOE 0.75 3.88 REA 12.5
-0.5 HCW 870 KPH 4.5 YG Formula

33
Practice Calculations
Carcass Trait AFOE 0.75 3.88 REA 12.5
-0.5 HCW 870 1.1 KPH 4.5 YG Form
ula
34
Practice Calculations
Carcass Trait AFOE 0.75 3.88 REA 12.5
-0.5 HCW 870 1.1 KPH 4.5 0.2 YG
Formula
35
Practice Calculations
Carcass Trait AFOE 0.75 3.88 REA 12.5
-0.5 HCW 870 1.1 KPH 4.5 0.2 YG
4.68 Formula 4.58
36
(No Transcript)
37
USDA Quality Grade

• Estimates Eating Characteristics
• Tenderness, Juiciness, Flavor
• USDA Prime ? USDA Commercial
• USDA Choice ? USDA Utility
• USDA Select ? USDA Cutter
• USDA Standard ? USDA Canner

38
Relationship of Quality Gradeand Palatability
Smith et al., 1992
39
USDA Quality Grade

• Carcass Maturity/Age
• Marbling Score
• Lean Color
• Lean Texture
• Lean Firmness

40
Carcass Maturity

• A 9 to 30 months
• B 30 to 42 months
• C 42 to 72 months
• D 72 to 96 months
• E more than 96 months

41
Carcass Maturity

• Based on bone ossification
• Order
• Sacral
• Lumbar
• Thoracic

42

• A maturity
• Note cartilage in buttons on tip of chine bone
• No evidence of bone

43

• D maturity
• Note ossification of buttons on tip of chine bone

44
USDA Marbling Score

• Abundant
• Moderately Abundant
• Slightly Abundant
• Moderate
• Modest

• Small
• Slight
• Traces
• Practically Devoid
• Devoid

45
(No Transcript)
46
Relationship of Marbling to Quality Grade
47
(No Transcript)