BACKGROUND

Currently, the beef industry is interested in further investigating and pursuing the option to separate the Rib and Chuck between the 4th and 5th Rib with the acceptance of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) for labeling and marketing purposes, which would ultimately result in adding additional weight and value to the “Rib” primal without sacrificing the desirable eating characteristics associated with the current Rib primal. Results from a recently conducted trial confirmed that this is a viable opportunity for the beef industry. Industry packer partners and USDA‐AMS have expressed the need to conduct a cutting trial in a commercial plant setting, in order to further demonstrate product yield and value differences. Therefore, this proposal was aimed at conducting a cutting trial in two large‐scale packing plants to determine yield differences between the traditional, 5th/6th Chuck/Rib separation and the 4th/5th Chuck/Rib separation. The objectives of this research were to 1) Capture yield differences between two forequarter cutting styles in a commercial setting and 2) Summarize yield and value differences between the two cuing styles.

METHODOLOGY

Forequarters were fabricated in two separate beef packing facilities owned by two different companies (Cargill and Tyson) in accordance with standard company cutout strategies. The cutout strategy remained constant for all forequarters cut in each individual facility, but slightly differed from one facility to the next. In each facility, the forequarters were fabricated in a paired fashion, so that alternating sides from the same carcass were fabricated following a traditional, 5th/6th Rib Chuck/Rib separation and a 4th/5th Rib Chuck/Rib separation. Individual product weights from each forequarter were collected in a comprehensive fashion. All saleable product weights, including saleable cuts, bone, fat, and trimmings, were collected. For each forequarter, the initial weight of each primal or primal part were collected so that a weigh‐back of 100 % (± 2%) was achieved.

Following fabrication and yield data capture, individual product prices reflecting current industry values for each cut was obtained from the USDA Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS), and weight comparisons were made between the 2 Chuck/Rib separation strategies using a t test with the MIXED procedures in SAS 9.3 (Cary, NC). LSMeans were separated at an alpha level of 0.05.

FINDINGS

Results from the percentage, weight and value differences of select cuts from carcasses fabricated with the alternative Rib break and the regular Rib break at Plant A and B are shown in Table 1. At both plants, the largest (P < 0.05) value difference in a cut was the finished Rib Eye Roll (Rib lip on finished from Plant A and Rib lip on 2x2 from Plant B). From Plant A, the greatest (P = 0.0073) value reduction of the alternative break opposed to the regular break was the Chuck Roll. From Plant B, the greatest (P < 0.0001) value reduction of the alternative break opposed to the regular break was the Commodity Clod.

IMPLICATIONS

Switching to the alternative Rib break brings substantial more weight and value to the Rib, mainly the finished Ribeye Roll. However, the alternative Rib break also reduces the weight and value from the Chuck. Overall, the added weight and value to the Rib is greater than the reduced weight and value from the Chuck.