Year: 2005
Type: dissertation
Abstract: Beef subprimals (n = 356), representing USDA Low Choice and Select grades, \nwere obtained from a major beef processor. Selected subprimals represented the normal \nweight variation and standard packer fat trim levels associated with commodity boxed \nbeef. The subprimals selected included beef rib, blade meat; beef rib, ribeye roll, lip-on, \nbone-in; beef rib, ribeye roll (0x0); beef rib, ribeye, lip-on (2x2) (5.08 cm x 5.08 cm); \nbeef rib, ribeye, lip-on modified (1x1) (2.54 cm x 2.54 cm); beef rib, ribeye (IM, \nindividual muscle); beef rib, ribeye cap (IM); beef chuck, outside shoulder clod, \ntrimmed; beef chuck, outside shoulder clod, top blade roast; beef chuck, square cut, \npectoral meat (IM); beef chuck, chuck roll; beef plate, inside skirt (IM); beef round, top \n(inside) untrimmed; beef round, outside round (flat); beef round, eye of round (IM); beef \nloin, strip loin, bone in; beef loin, strip loin, boneless; beef loin, top sirloin butt, \nboneless, 2-piece; beef loin, bottom sirloin butt, flap boneless (IM); beef loin, bottom \nsirloin butt, ball tip, boneless; beef loin, bottom sirloin butt, tri-tip, boneless (IM); and \nbeef chuck, outside shoulder, clod M. teres major. Subprimals were fabricated into \nbone-in or boneless retail or foodservice cuts and associated components by trained \nretail meat cutters. After each retail cutting test, trained technicians recorded weights of \nall cuts, lean trim, fat trim, and bone. All retail cuts were trimmed to an eighth of an \ninch (0.32 cm), unless otherwise specified. Time (s) was recorded for each-cutting test \nand in two major phases: opening (retrieval of the subprimal from vacuum-packaged \nbag) and cutting (removal of all external and seam fat, connective tissue, and separation \nof individual muscles, as well as producing tray ready retail cuts). In general, Select \nsubprimals had higher saleable yields than Choice subprimals. Select subprimals had \nless trimmable fat than Choice subprimals, and differences in retail yields appeared to \nfollow these factors. Few significant differences were observed for processing times \nbetween USDA quality grade groups. These data will serve as an update to the CARDS \n(Computer Assisted Retail Decision Support) software program.
Author: K.L. Voges
Language: English
Subfield: Animal Science and Zoology
Domain: Life Sciences
SDG: Zero hunger
Open Access status: green
OpenAlex ID: W1443599896