Yield measurement is valuable for pricing beef carcasses
W. S. Pitchford
A B , C. M. Trotta A , M. L. Hebart A , S. M. Miller A and D. L. Rutley A
A Davies Livestock Research Centre, School of Animal and Veterinary Sciences, University of Adelaide, Roseworthy Campus, SA 5371, Australia.
B Corresponding author. Email: wayne.pitchford@adelaide.edu.au
Animal Production Science 61(3) 287-293 https://doi.org/10.1071/AN20151
Submitted: 6 April 2020 Accepted: 7 September 2020 Published: 25 November 2020
Abstract
Context: The most common way of pricing beef carcasses is through a price grid. Most processors make greater profit from higher-quality carcasses, which are those with higher meat yield and eating quality.
Aims: The aim of this study was to calculate the value of diverse carcasses and compare pricing mechanisms on their ability to discriminate variation in meat yield and predicted eating quality.
Methods: Hereford cross steer carcasses (153) were boned out to record saleable meat and yield. Six methods were used to calculate carcass price (AU$/kg). All were adjusted to the same average carcass value to allow comparisons, assuming that the overall payment does not change, but comparing the effect of having greater premiums and discounts. The six prices were based on a commercial grid, grid plus eating quality premium, yield of saleable meat only (constant price for all saleable meat), yield with eating quality premium, then the yield prices with optimum (quadratic) weight and fatness penalties based on grid optimums.
Key results: Measurements of meat quality (eye muscle area and marble score) or saleable meat yield accounted for no variation in the grid price. However, measurement of yield accounted for substantial variation in prices calculated from yield and eating quality.
Conclusions: The current grids do not encourage high-quality meat production and, assuming that yield and eating quality are important to processors, an actual measurement of yield is crucial to guide processing decisions (e.g. cutting plans) to maximise carcass value and feed market signals back to beef producers.
Implications: Improved measurement of meat yield is required if carcass prices are to reflect carcass quality or the potential value captured.
Keywords: beef, carcass, price, yield.
References
Bonny SPF, Hocquette JF, Pethick DW, Farmer LJ, Legrand I, Wierzbicki J, Allen P, Polkinghorne RJ, Gardner GE (2016) The variation in the eating quality of beef from different sexes and breed classes cannot be completely explained by carcass measurements. Animal 10, 987–995.| The variation in the eating quality of beef from different sexes and breed classes cannot be completely explained by carcass measurements.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Bonny SPF, Pethick DW, Legrand I, Wierzbicki J, Allen P, Farmer LJ, Polkinghorne RJ, Hocquette J-F, Gardner GE (2016b) European confirmation and fat scores have no relationship with eating quality. Animal 10, 996–1006.
| European confirmation and fat scores have no relationship with eating quality.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Conroy SB, Drennan MJ, McGee M, Keane MG, Kenny DA, Berry DP (2010) Predicting beef carcass meat, fat and bone proportions from carcass confirmation and fat scores or hindquarter dissection. Animal 4, 234–241.
| Predicting beef carcass meat, fat and bone proportions from carcass confirmation and fat scores or hindquarter dissection.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 22443877PubMed |
Cross H, Savell J (1994) What do we need for a value-based beef marketing system? Meat Science 36, 19–27.
| What do we need for a value-based beef marketing system?Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 22061449PubMed |
Indurain G, Carr TR, Goni MV, Insausti K, Beriain MJ (2009) The relationship of carcass measurements to carcass composition and intramuscular fat in Spanish beef. Meat Science 82, 155–161.
| The relationship of carcass measurements to carcass composition and intramuscular fat in Spanish beef.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 20416772PubMed |
Johnson HC, Ward CE (2005) Market signals transmitted by grid pricing. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 30, 561–579.
Kien S (2004) The classification of carcases of adult bovine animals in the EUROP. Meat and Fat Research Institute, Warsaw, Division in Poznan, Poland.
Lawrence TE (2017) Beef yield grading: history, issues and opportunities. Journal of Animal Science 95, 67
| Beef yield grading: history, issues and opportunities.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
López-Campos Ó, Roberts JC, Larsen IL, Prieto N, Juarez M, Dugan MER, Aalhus JL (2018) Rapid and non-destructive determination of lean fat and bone content in beef using dual energy X-ray absorptiometry. Meat Science 146, 140–146.
| Rapid and non-destructive determination of lean fat and bone content in beef using dual energy X-ray absorptiometry.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 30145410PubMed |
Lyford C, Thompson J, Polkinghorne R, Miller M, Nishimura T, Neath K, Allen P, Belasco E (2010) Is willingness to pay (WTP) for beef quality grades affected by consumer demographics and meat consumption preferences. Australasian Agribusiness Review 18, 1–17.
Martin AH, Fredeen HT, Weiss GM, Newman JA (1970) Prediction of lean yield of beef carcasses. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 50, 31–41.
| Prediction of lean yield of beef carcasses.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Monteils V, Sibra C, Ellies-Oury M-P, Botreau R, De la Torre A, Laurent C (2017) A set of indicators to better characterize beef carcasses at the slaughterhouse level in addition to the EUROP system. Livestock Science 202, 44–51.
| A set of indicators to better characterize beef carcasses at the slaughterhouse level in addition to the EUROP system.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Pitchford, WS, Deland, MPB, Siebert, BD, Malau-Aduli, AEO, Bottema, CDK (2002) Genetic variation in fatness and fatty acid composition of crossbred cattle. Journal of Animal Science 80, 2825–2832.
| Genetic variation in fatness and fatty acid composition of crossbred cattle.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Polkinghorne RJ, Thompson JM (2010) Meat standards and grading. A world view. Meat Science 86, 227–235.
| Meat standards and grading. A world view.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 20541325PubMed |
Polkinghorne R, Watson R, Thompson JM, Pethick DW (2008) Current usage and future development of the Meat Standards Australia (MSA) grading system. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 48, 1459–1464.
| Current usage and future development of the Meat Standards Australia (MSA) grading system.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Savell J, Mueller S, Baird B (2005) The chilling of carcasses. Meat Science 70, 449–459.
| The chilling of carcasses.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 22063744PubMed |
Topel DG, Kauffman RG (1988) Live animal and carcass composition measurement. In ‘Designing foods: animal product options in the market place’. pp. 258–272. (National Academy Press: Washington, DC, USA)
Watson R, Polkinghorne R, Thompson JM (2008) Development of the Meat Standards Australia (MSA) prediction model for beef palatability. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 48, 1368–1379.
| Development of the Meat Standards Australia (MSA) prediction model for beef palatability.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
