Predicting percentage of retail yield from carcass measurements, the yield grading equation, and closely trimmed, boxed beef weights

Abstract

Over the past 3 yr, 100 carcasses (64 steers, 24 bulls, and 12 heifers) were fabricated into closely trimmed (6 mm maximum fat cover), boxed beef and further evaluated for percentage of retail yield at the Iowa State University Meat Laboratory. Hot carcass weight ranged from 235 to 399 kg with a least squares mean (LSM) and standard error across all sex classes of 318 +/- 3 kg. Additionally, fat cover ranged from .30 to 1.78 cm with an average of .91 +/- .05 cm. The LSM for longissimus muscle area (LMA) across all sex classes was 81.6 +/- 1.0 cm2. Bulls had significantly less subcutaneous fat (P less than .01) and greater LMA (P less than .01) than did either steers or heifers. Retail yield from the boxed chuck, expressed as a percentage of cold carcass weight, was 19.2 for bulls and 14.8 for steers. This difference was due primarily to a reduction of intermuscular fat. Similarly, bulls had a greater yield (P less than .01) of the boxed round than did steers. When cattle of differing frame sizes were compared, only percentage of retail yield of the boxed round was significant (P less than .01): large-framed cattle yielded 14.3 +/- .2%, compared with 12.8 +/- .2% for the small-framed cattle. When all possible regression analyses were run, sex class differences accounted for 25.7% of the variation in retail yield. The current USDA retail yield equation accounted for only 37.2% of the variation. Percentage of closely trimmed, boneless round had an R2-value of .57.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Identifications of Carcass Characteristic for Estimating the Composition of Beef Carcass

“…The result of this research was in agreement to the report of Crouse and Dikeman (1976), Johnson and Davis (1983), and Priyanto et al (1997) in which the carcass weight was indicator for predicting weight of total meat and fat. The same statement also reported by Abraham et al (1968); Epley et al(1970); Abraham et al (1980);Miller et al (1988) and Reiling et al (1992). The second alternative should be concerned as indicator was the fat thickness on the 12 th rib resulting from highly significant correlation (P<0.01) with content of meat and fat (accuracy level of R=46.4% and SE=5.02 for meat, R=42.6% and SE=4.27 for fat).…”

Genetic correlation between live body measurements and beef cutability traits in Hanwoo steers

“…LMR or RCR could be a good alternative for effective selection improvement. However, the differences between models estimates could be caused by some genetic variations of carcass compositions remained hidden by the variations of body fat reserves in different forms and localities [24, 13, 25–27]. …”

Características de carcaça de bovinos de corte inteiros ou castrados de diferentes composições aciais Charolês x Nelore

“…Observa-se na Tabela 2 que o rendimento de carcaça quente e a quebra ao resfriamento das carcaças não diferiram entre os dois estados sexuais (C = 55,9; I = 56,0%), mesmo que a espessura de gordura sobre a carcaça tenha sido maior nos animais C (4,6 vs. 2,5 mm; P<0,0001). Menor cobertura de gordura sobre a carcaça de animais I foi citada por MULLER e RESTLE (1983), REILING et al (1992), RESTLE et al (1994) e RESTLE et al (1996, utilizando animais terminados em pastagem.…”