A GOOD READ HERE !!  INTERESTING

Innovations in Beef

What Might Have Been – The Basis of Carcass Fabrication
Chris R. Calkins, Ph.D.

We cut beef carcasses into quarters and primals using anatomical landmarks established through years of tradition.  But are these the best places to make our cuts?  The advent of subprimal and single-muscle merchandising raises the possibility of making the cuts on the basis of quality – rather than convenience or tradition. 

Did you know that the forequarter and hindquarter were not always separated between the 12th and 13th ribs?  Or that the chuck was often cut with 4 ribs instead of 5?  And that the location for removing the round from the loin varied by more than 5 inches?  There are an incredible number of variations in how beef carcasses can be cut.  Yet here, in the U.S., we have settled into a fairly standard method of cutting.  One wonders, why were the carcass break points established where they were and are those the best anatomical locations to separate carcass into subprimals? 

In 1925, William Tomhave, Head of the Animal Husbandry Department at Pennsylvania State College, described the commercial method of cutting as being “very desirable, both from an economical and a practical point of view.”  Practical – and therefore easy – was the apparent criterion for a number of the break points. 

Splitting into Quarters

For example, Tomhave said that separating the forequarter from the hindquarter between the 12th and 13th ribs – leaving one rib on the hindquarter - was “for the purpose of holding the loin shape while being cut into steaks.”  I suspect the convenience of having a rib on which to catch the hook from a meat tree when hanging a primal loin was another good reason to leave the last rib in the hindquarter.  Others have claimed the rib provided the butcher with confidence of where the cut was made on the carcass, supposing a rib-less loin would be more difficult to define.  Possible, but since the loin has always been the most valuable subprimal it’s unlikely anyone would fail to maximize the weight by cutting the loin short.  Of course, leaving extra ribs on the hindquarter increases the weight of the more valuable hindquarter.  In the 1920’s it was popular for carcasses quartered in Boston to have up to 3 ribs left in the hindquarter.  Conversely, Philadelphia was known to leave all of the ribs in the forequarter. 

I once thought we settled on the 12th/13th rib break because that’s where we grade the carcass.  Surprisingly, the USDA grades for carcass beef did not specify this anatomical location until 1965.  So it’s hard to attribute this particular break point to federal meat grades. 

The Rib-Chuck Break

E. L. Rhodes (Assistant Director, Institute of Meat Packing and Assistant Professor of Marketing at the University of Chicago) in 1929 reported that primal ribs ranged from 5-8 ribs and chucks had 4 or 5, compared to the 7-rib ribs and 5-rib chucks marketed today.  I suspect the 5th/6th rib break for the chuck was because that was the most cranial one could cut with a knife after sawing through the vertebra.  Any deeper and the shoulder blade got in the way. 

Round Separation

The anatomical location for removing the round was similarly variable, sometimes ending above the caudal vertebra and sometimes well into the sacral vertebra – resulting in the round being 18 – 24% percent of carcass weight.   The configuration of the pelvis had a lot to do with the choice of locations.  One either removed the aitch bone from the round or the loin. 

Presidential Order

Despite all of these conventions, somehow we have evolved into a standard cutting method.  How did that happen? 

An important step for standardized cutting of beef carcasses occurred in 1942, when President Franklin Roosevelt’s Office of Price Administration, citing the Emergency Price Control Act of 1942, fixed maximum prices for beef and veal cuts.  To fix the prices, consistent cuts were required.  Consequently, any beef cut in the U.S. had to be fabricated by a defined method, which included a 12/13th rib break between the forequarter and the hindquarter, a chuck-rib break between the 5th and 6th ribs and a round break between the last sacral/first caudal vertebra and the proximal end of the femur.  For 4 years all beef was cut in a standardized manner.  Although regional variations persisted once the order was rescinded in October, 1946, I believe this enforced period of uniformity went a long way in establishing the custom fabrication locations used today. 

Science-Based Breaks – What Might Have Been

Tradition and convenience – not muscle quality – drove the cutting methodology.  There was precious little science used to define any of the breaks.  Intuition, ease of application, convenience – these are the reasons one finds for the location of existing break points.

With all of the recent attention on muscle profiling and muscle mapping, the opportunity exists to reexamine the appropriate places to portion muscles.  The Beef Innovations Group (BIG) has been doing just that.  Starting with the fact that there are tenderness gradients within muscles and that modern technology now makes some cutting strategies possible, the BIG has sought to study carcass break points from the perspective of meat quality, rather than convenience.  What we are finding is exciting.  There is compelling scientific evidence that quality-based cutting points would group muscles into more uniform palatability groups and increase overall value to the producer, the processor, and consumers. 

For example, the beef round was historically separated from the sirloin near the ball of the femur.  (Not surprisingly, there was historical variation in this break point as well.  Cutting diagrams from the 1920’s suggest five or more inches of difference from where the round was removed from the loin.)  Recent muscle mapping studies reveal that the proximal end of muscles in the round - nearest the sirloin – are superior in tenderness to the more distal portion of the muscles.  A quality-based break would incorporate more of those muscles in the sirloin region.  After all, the best criterion to group muscles for consumers is eating quality.  Thus, it may be possible to move the sirloin break – grouping muscles with “sirloin-like” eating quality while separating the less tender, round muscles. 

There may also be opportunities at the chuck end.  Retailers have long known that the first few inches of chuck eye roll make excellent chuck eye (Delmonico) steaks.  These steaks are adjacent to the anterior end of the ribeye.  Imagine a subprimal where all of the steakable material from the ribeye muscle is contained together.   Were our predecessors driven by a more complete knowledge of muscle quality rather than cutting convenience, we might be cutting meat differently today!  Fortunately, the new break points support current cutting strategies where intricate knife strokes can be made on a table rather than on the rail. 

The Beef Innovations Group is working to explore and define new ways to cut beef on the basis of quality.  The potential benefits are substantial.  When muscles are used and marketed on the basis of their properties, the consumer gets a more consistent product, the processor gets rewarded for adding value and the producer gains from improved product demand and customer satisfaction.