Red meat yield is used to quantify the amount of product produced from a carcass. Today, the definition varies among the beef industry chain.
To determine carcass yield, the industry uses the USDA Yield Grade system, which was introduced 1965 and is calculated based on external fat thickness, surface area of the ribeye, hot carcass weight and percentage of kidney, pelvic and heart (KPH) fat.
Many industry leaders believe the existing method is highly inaccurate and needs significant improvement.
Let’s compare two steers that are both ready to harvest. Steer 1 was born in 1959, he’s Hereford-sired weighing 1,000 lb. Steer 2 was born in 2023, he’s out of a baldy cow and a Charolais sire and weighs 1,500 lb. In comparison, you note steer 1 is shorter in structure and looks to be earlier maturing while steer 2 is larger framed and more muscular.
These are two vastly different body types that were born more than three decades a part and developed using different feeding and management strategies. The 1958 steer was the model for the current yield grading system, thus creating challenges for grading today’s cattle.
Ty Lawrence, West Texas A&M University Caviness Davis distinguished chair in meat science, says some of the changes include:
- Implant technologies were just emerging in the 1960s.
- Beta-agonists didn’t exist at the time.
- Steam flaking of corn was just being developed.
- Current cattle are fed for longer periods (around 240 days on feed).
- More advanced feeding technologies have been introduced.
- Cattle are consistently getting heavier, with about 5 lb. of carcass weight added annually.
- 1960s cattle were more uniform. “Today’s herds are a ‘Heinz 57’ types and kinds and classes of cattle,” Lawrence explains.
Current calculation
Figure 1 explains the four components used in the linear yield grade equation. A single measure of fat thickness (evaluated at the 12th rib), surface area of the ribeye, hot carcass weight and percentage of kidney, pelvic and heart fat.
Camera-derived yield grade is calculated from the hot carcass weight, subcutaneous fat depth, ribeye area and either actual algorithm-predicted or assumed constant percentage of KPH fat. According to the Beef Checkoff Red Meat Yield executive summary, approximately 78% of fed cattle are graded today using camera technology.
What’s the problem?
“We have a very clear message to make cattle bigger, heavier and fatter, which is completely contradictory to what we’re asking for with USDA yield grade, which is leaner and heavier muscle; that’s a problem,” says Dale Woerner, Texas Tech University Cargill endowed professor.
Woerner shared his concerns regarding the current yield grading system at the recent Kansas State University Cattlemen’s Day.
“We have a system that doesn’t tell us accurately what we should be producing,” Woerner explains, “so we’re just producing weight and fat into oblivion. This is a problem. This is a sustainability problem. It’s a water problem. It’s a corn problem. It’s a tillable acres problem. It’s a processing problem. It’s huge. And honestly, we just should be ashamed we’re doing it as an industry.”
Continual changes in the size, conformation and composition of cattle and their carcasses have reduced the accuracy of yield grade to an all-time low. Recent studies have demonstrated the current yield grade equation explains less than 35% of the variation in true red meat yield in modern cattle. Woerner says the good news is red meat yield can be measured accurately.
“We know that there’s a really strong relationship between true red meat yield and true value,” he says. “When we take carcasses and we cut them up and we put them into a box, we sell them out to wholesalers, consumers, etc. We’ve got an 89% relationship between true red meat yield and true value or salable value. So, these data just say, ‘hey, we need to get to where we can do this accurately, and then it will mean something to us.’ So that’s where we’re headed.”
A Red Meat Yield Working Group was established in 2023. The group is coordinated by the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association as a contractor to the Beef Checkoff. The Product Quality Research Program convened the group of industry leaders across the supply chain to evaluate the scientific gaps and needs to update the evaluation of red meat yield. Lawrence and Woerner are members of the group along with John Stika, Certified Angus Beef president.
“This is not a policy group to decide what needs to happen moving forward,” Stika explains. “This is a research-oriented group that’s focused on providing answers to the industry.”
He says the group’s primary goal is to gather industry perspective, understand current knowledge about red meat yield and identify necessary research. He explains the timing and relevance of focusing on yield now. He points out that while quality improvements have been crucial, yield has become increasingly important. According to the most recent National Beef Quality Audit, yield represents about 31% of lost opportunities in the beef industry, translating to a potential $720 million opportunity across 6.5 million fed cattle.
Opportunities
Stika explains that technological advancements offer promising solutions. Pilot studies indicate CT scanning emerged as the gold standard for measuring carcass composition, with the ability to predict 90% to 95% of variation in muscle, fat and bone. The accuracy of CT measurement will allow researchers to measure true carcass yield. One priority of the group is to validate this as a gold standard measurement versus the carcass cutouts that are used today to quantify carcass yield. While this will not be the industry solution for packing plants today, it will serve as a valuable tool to progress the industry.
These alternative technologies show potential:
- 3D imaging can capture thousands of measurements related to muscle dimension and volume.
- Radar technology (Size-R) can capture 3D images of live cattle and can be used to predict carcass yield.
- Artificial intelligence and sophisticated regression equations could translate these measurements into accurate red meat yield predictions.
Stika stresses the fact that any changes to yield measurement must maintain the quality improvements the industry has achieved. He says the next steps for the working group include:
- Provide foundational research insights to modernize carcass cutouts to allow for continuous improvements in carcass yield.
- Conduct a large-scale collaborative research project to examine biological type, regional differences and seasonal variations to understand the yield of the modern carcass.
- Evaluate innovative technology to develop a gold standard that new technologies can be measured against.
The end goal for members of the working group is to develop a yield measurement system that is more representative of today’s cattle and can provide more accurate signals to producers to improve the efficiency and sustainability of beef production. The increasing presence of beef on dairy cattle in the industry has highlighted the need for a yield measurement system that can better differentiate between beef and dairy-type cattle.
“We need everybody to be at the table,” Stika adds. “If we’re going to continue to improve and find ways to make more dollars, producers have to be rewarded for improving the yield of the cattle.”
The Red Meat Yield Executive Summary and findings of research projects evaluating carcass yield can be found at beefresearch.org/productquality.
