Beef Stick Average Weight to Length

You've reached the Virginia Cooperative Extension Newsletter Archive. These files cover more than than ten years of newsletters posted on our old website (through April/May 2009), and are provided for historical purposes only. Equally such, they may contain out-of-appointment references and broken links.

To see our latest newsletters and current data, visit our website at http://www.ext.vt.edu/news/.

Newsletter Archive index: http://sites.ext.vt.edu/newsletter-archive/

Consumer Preference for Size of Beef Cuts

Livestock Update, February 2006

Dr. Mark Wahlberg Extension Fauna Scientist, VA Tech

A contempo paper (Sweeter et al, 2005) provided results of research regarding preferred size of ribeye steaks past consumers. In the study, l carcasses were selected from a commercial packing plant, ten in each of 5 different ribeye size categories. These carcasses had with similar backfat (0.45 to 0.55 inch) and marbling scores (Pocket-sized + and Modest -). Plainly, carcass weight was greater with cattle possessing larger ribeyes. The statistics for the cattle were:

Tabular array 1. Ribeye area and carcass weight for carcasses used in consumer preference piece of work

Ribeye Category	Ribeye Expanse Range, sq inch	Ribeye Surface area Average, sq inch	Average Carcass Weight
A	nine.4 - 10.5	10.3	659
B	10.8 - 12.ane	xi.8	778
C	12.4 - fourteen.0	13.5	829
D	14.3 - 16.0	15.3	860
Due east	16.iii - 18.4	17.0	853

From these carcasses the ribeye roll was removed, vacuum packed, and anile at least 10 days. From these, ribeye steaks 1 inch-thick were cut (due north = xiv steaks per ribeye roll), and trimmed of backlog peripheral fatty. Kernel fatty (intermuscular fat located between the ribeye muscle and cap muscle) was trimmed if information technology exceeded ane/2 inch in width, and each steak was weighed, placed on a white styrofoam tray, and retail-wrapped.

The steaks were displayed in a retail food store in Brookings, SD, with a price tag of $vi.99 per pound. Criteria evaluated were which steaks were selected by the retail customers, and how quickly they were purchased.

Ribeye size did not significantly affect how quickly a steak was called from the selection in the meat instance. As the researchers stated, "Either ribeye size was non a factor for consumers when purchasing a ribeye steak or in that location was a consumer for every ribeye size."

In that location was a preference past the retail customer for steaks from the posterior portion (respective to ribs viii through 12) of the ribeye, as opposed to the anterior portion (respective to ribs half dozen and 7).

Willingness to pay was besides evaluated. Steaks with larger ribeye areas (16.iii to eighteen.4 square inches) were compared to those of boilerplate size (12.4 to xiv.0 square inches), every bit were the larger ones cut in one-half. Consumers were willing to pay $3.30 per pound more than for the larger ribeye size steaks, and would buy the large steaks cut in one-half only if price were reduced by $2.23 per pound.

In contrast to this work, Dunn et al (2000) identified a preferred ribeye size for steaks which are prepared in the food service industry. These steaks are cut to the same weight, regardless of resulting thickness. For example, in this written report strip steaks were cut to either 0.5, 0.63, or 0.75 pounds each. They were cooked to the aforementioned caste of doneness.

Steaks from smaller ribeyes were thinner. They cooked more quickly. They were also less juicy and flavorful. The best result regarding tenderness and palatability was from steaks from carcasses with between 12.0 and fifteen.0 square inches of ribeye area.

In conclusion, consistency of size is very important to the food service industry. Ribeye size of from 12 to 15 foursquare inches allows steak cutters and chefs to prepare product the same way, with a predictable outcome. In contrast, retail customers preferred steaks with larger ribeyes, upward to eighteen square inches. In either setting, carcasses resulting in ribeye area of less than 12 square inches were not preferred.

References

Dunn, J.Fifty., S.E. Williams, J.D. Tatum, J.K. Bertrand, and T.D. Pringle. 2000. Identification of optimal ranges in ribeye area for portion cutting of beef steaks. J. Anim. Sci. 78:966�975.

Sweeter, Yard.1000., D.Thou. Wulf and R.J. Maddock. 2005. Determining the optimum beef longissimus musculus size for retail consumers. J. Anim. Sci. 83:2598-2604.

Visit Virginia Cooperative Extension

taylorsmill1968.blogspot.com

Source: https://www.sites.ext.vt.edu/newsletter-archive/livestock/aps-06_02/aps-299.html

Share this post