Rib eye size

Help Support CattleToday:

lazy ace

Well-known member
Joined
May 31, 2006
Messages
90
Reaction score
0
Location
grand river
In the 2005 National Beef Quality Audit reports that restaurants and consumers are concerned that our beef cuts are too big, especially rib eye. What are some of your thoughts about what size is industry acceptable?

have a cold one

lazy ace
 
Discussed this not too long ago with a restaurant/packer rep. He said that the ideal is a steak 1 inch thick that ways 1 lb. In order to get the desired weight and a full ribeye if the ribeye is too large the steak has to be cut thinner. I have no idea how universal those standards are though.

dun
 
am i wrong thinking the ribeye varies from front to back?

it seems like there would be enough variation in the ribeye w/ length to make everyone happy.
 
Most folks (in the know) I have talked to says 15 sq. in. is optimum.

My ultrasound tech confirms this.

But to get a slaughter heifer to have a 15 in "Eye" if she is born to a 10 in. heifer, the bull must be substancially larger.
 
MikeC":1j54qjcf said:
Most folks (in the know) I have talked to says 15 sq. in. is optimum.

My ultrasound tech confirms this.

But to get a slaughter heifer to have a 15 in "Eye" if she is born to a 10 in. heifer, the bull must be substancially larger.

What would an optimum 15 inch eye weigh that is cut one inch thick, and are they consumer friendly at restaurants where they serve 10 and 12 ounce rib eyes?

have a cold one

lazy ace
 
Optimum Ribeye Size

A Colorado State study helps clarify the question, "What is the ideal size for a ribeye?" Colorado researchers took Low Choice beef carcasses with ribeyes ranging from less than11 square inches to more than 16 square inches. They were cooked to medium rare doneness and evaluated for cooking characteristics and sensory attributes. The portion size was constant as in a restaurant ¾ the thickness of the steak decreased as the ribeye size increased. The thickness of the steaks ranged from 1.11 inches for the smallest ribeye to 0.87 inch for the largest.

The average cooking time decreased significantly from 19.5 to 11.3 minutes as the ribeye area increased because the larger ribeyes had been cut thinner to have a constant weight. The tenderness scores were significantly lower for ribeyes larger than 16 square inches.

The conclusion was a 12 to 15 square inch ribeye is desirable for cooking time and tenderness in the foodservice business. This puts the desired thickness in the 0.9 to 1.0 inch range with a 13 to 16 minute cooking time.

The take-home message is to be aware of the ribeye size you are producing. Don't select extremes for several generations if you're using EPD's for ribeye or ultrasound data since muscling is highly heritable. If you have data on carcasses that are 650 to 850 pounds and ribeye sizes are 12 to 15 square inches, you should be on target.

(Source: Eldon Cole, Livestock Specialist, SW Region)
 
Determining the optimum beef longissimus muscle size for retail consumers1
K. K. Sweeter, D. M. Wulf2 and R. J. Maddock
Department of Animal and Range Sciences, South Dakota State University, Brookings 57007

2 Correspondence: Box 2170 (phone: 605-688-5451; fax: 605-688-6170; email: [email protected]).


Research was conducted in two phases to determine the optimum beef LM size for retail consumers. In Phase I, 50 USDA Choice beef carcass sides were selected at a commercial packing plant and assigned to five different categories (10 sides per category) based on LM size: 61 to 68 cm2 (A), 70 to 78 cm2 (B), 80 to 90 cm2 (C), 92 to 103 cm2 (D), and 105 to 119 cm2 (E). Ribeye rolls were retrieved from all carcass sides. Steaks (2.5-cm thick; 14 per ribeye roll) were cut as needed and transported in groups of 35 steaks (seven per LM size category) to a retail grocery store in Brookings, SD, where they were placed into a designated section of the retail meat case. Steaks were tallied every 4 h on weekdays and every 2 h on weekends and holidays to determine the number of monitoring periods that each steak remained in the retail case. Steaks that did not sell within an allotted time were removed from the case and termed "pulled." Time in case and percentage of steaks pulled from the case did not differ among LM size categories (P > 0.16). Quadratic regression indicated that larger LM steaks sold faster (P < 0.05) than average and small LM steaks. Steaks from rib locations 6 and 7 spent more (P < 0.05) time in the case than steaks from rib locations 8 through 12. Steaks from the 7th rib location were more (P < 0.05) likely to be pulled than steaks from the 8th through 12th rib locations. In Phase II, 15 USDA Choice ribeye rolls were selected from a commercial packing plant to represent two LM size categories: 80 to 90 cm2 (AVG; n = 5); and 105 to 119 cm2 (LARGE; n = 10) and cut into 2.5-cm-thick steaks. A portion of the LARGE steaks was subsequently cut in half (HALF). Four display steaks represented each treatment group in each of five random nth price auctions. Seventy-five people were recruited from the Brookings, SD area to participate in the auctions to determine their willingness to pay for the three different types of ribeye steak. Consumers were willing to pay a premium of $1.50/kg for LARGE ribeye steaks over AVG ribeye steaks (P < 0.05). Consumers discounted HALF ribeye steaks by $1.01/kg compared with AVG ribeye steaks (P < 0.05). In conclusion, no optimum LM size existed for beef retail consumers; however, a trend existed toward greater demand for larger LM sizes over smaller LM sizes.
 
When we go to buy a ribeye for grilling (which is our prefered method and cut), we like a 1" thick steak weighs around a pound. My wife, 13 year old, 10 year old and myself eat 1 steak.
 
MikeC":vef2w57d said:
Determining the optimum beef longissimus muscle size for retail consumers1
K. K. Sweeter, D. M. Wulf2 and R. J. Maddock
Department of Animal and Range Sciences, South Dakota State University, Brookings 57007

2 Correspondence: Box 2170 (phone: 605-688-5451; fax: 605-688-6170; email: [email protected]).
blah, blah, blah

So what is this in inches and pounds? You would think that research done for the common man in the states would use the standard unit of measure.

dun
 
lazy ace":1wqk4mae said:
In the 2005 National Beef Quality Audit reports that restaurants and consumers are concerned that our beef cuts are too big, especially rib eye. What are some of your thoughts about what size is industry acceptable?

have a cold one

lazy ace
lazy ace - Obviously, you have read the report that was presented during the opening general session of the NBQA, noting that the results are preliminary, as Phase II is still under way.

In my opionion, this is the type of study that is pragmatic and practical insofar as what a breeder and producer REALLY needs to know before he can be comfortable in planning a LONG term production plan - either breeding or terminal production. The more one reads and/or listens to verbal opinions about what should be done to improve the 'product' we are providing the public, the more confused one may get. For years after the 'pony' type animal fad went belly-up, we knew that we had to increase the size of our seedstock and in the process of accomplishing that deed the Beef Industry, in total, went (if you'll excuse the expression) "HOG WILD" in Growth trait Expected Progeny Differences - and, at the time, that was necessary. NOW - I think that the Growth Trait numbers have just about reached the optimal level for efficiency and expediency. In my opinion, we don't need to continue seeking miniscule Birth Weights, and, at the same time, MASSIVE Weaning weights and eye-BUGGING Yearling weights - in the same animal! The principle is desirable up to a point, however moderation in all things is also desirable along with a common sense approach being made to the Maternal and Carcass traits, and including the cut weights and yield grades that the restaurateur/supermarket sectors are seeking. As usual, the first-level producer is caught in the middle, and it takes YEARS to make a noticable transition in satisfying the demand.

Many experienced breeders and Consultants have been touting the advisability of establishing the national cow herd weight at about 1300 pounds - any amount over that figure is not cost effective insofar as feed efficiency is concerned. Naturally, a lot depends on the breed of the cow(s) in question, but overall on average, 1300 lbs. seems to be the balance point between optimal cost efficiency and excessive overhead expenses over a period of a fiscal 'cow/year', raising a calf in the meantime.

If the above thesis is appropriate in order to achieve the desired results of acquiring lean/mean profitable seedstock, what factors MUST be stressed in order for a Producer to be successful in reaching those goals? At this point, we can repeat the same old rhetoric as has been voiced by most students of Beef Production topics: concentrating on testing results, Genetic progress, EPD and Accuracy studies, production records, Value Indexes and on and on with percentages of ancestry etc, etc. But to cut right to the chase, in my opinion, the breeder/producer must concentrate on selection of breeding stock on Reproduction (Fertility) and Feed Efficiency.

If our Agricultural Colleges and Experiment Stations REALLY wish to be Prime Movers in improving the Profit margin and increasing the Breeder's bottom line, I suggest that they establish solid and dependable EPD's, verified by DNA testing, for Reproduction and Feed Efficiency Traits! Then we would have something that we could "sink our teeth into!"

As the NBQA mentioned, the top 10 quality challenges are:

1- Lack of traceability
2- Low overall uniformity of cattle, carcasses and cuts
3- Need for implementation of instrument grading
4- Inappropriate market signals :?:
5- Segmentation of groups within the beef industry
6- Carcass and cut weights that are too heavy :shock:
7- Yield grades that are too high (low cutability) :roll:
8- Inappropriate ribeye size (too small AND too large)
9- Reduced quality grade and tenderness due to the use of implants
10-Insufficient marbling :nod: :clap:

The answer to the original question posed on this thread, that is - the acceptable rib-eye size, is something that has puzzled all phases of the production chain - and I feel that the answer lies in this post. The beef producer has frantically chased 'rainbows and butterflies' since the end of the Civil War, hoping to get his hands on the "Golden Fleece" of what Mrs. Housewife really wants to put on her dinner table, and it seems to me that Mrs. Working-Very-Hard-in-the-Home-and-Outside-the-Home Meal-Preparer doesn't REALLY KNOW what size rib-eye steak she wants to put on the table. If a so-called 'standard' can be set throughout the industry that is moderate in all aspects of size, tenderness, and taste, and consistency can be achieved in meeting that standard - let the beef-consuming public accept that standard - - and if they don't like it - - - "Let 'Em Eat Cake!" :lol:

DOC HARRIS
 
DOC HARRIS":2lm8guiu said:
- - and if they don't like it - - - Let "Em Eat Cake! :lol:

DOC HARRIS

I was with you till here. I kinda want to keep my head.
 
it seems to me that Mrs. Working-Very-Hard-in-the-Home-and-Outside-the-Home Meal-Preparer doesn't REALLY KNOW what size rib-eye steak she wants to put on the table.

I can't help but think that there is NOT a "one size fits all" solution. Different size familys, people, and age ranges have their own preferance for ideal rib-eye size. Just because 10 different meal preparers select 10 different size steaks doesn't mean that none of them know what size they want.

As we should all know, size does matter (sorry couldn't resist).
 
dcara":1ov9lkcc said:
it seems to me that Mrs. Working-Very-Hard-in-the-Home-and-Outside-the-Home Meal-Preparer doesn't REALLY KNOW what size rib-eye steak she wants to put on the table.

I can't help but think that there is NOT a "one size fits all" solution. Different size familys, people, and age ranges have their own preferance for ideal rib-eye size. Just because 10 different meal preparers select 10 different size steaks doesn't mean that none of them know what size they want.

As we should all know, size does matter (sorry couldn't resist).

I'd have to agree with dcara here. While the restaurant trade wants a consistant size for cooking and serving, the size selection will vary a good bit in the grocery. Thickness of cut can be easily controlled at retail, but a desired 1" cut on a 16 inch rib eye may be a larger piece of meat than the retail customer wants. A 1" cut on a 12 inch ribeye may be just right for that customer, but too small for the next customer.

Doc, it's not that the average retail customer doesn't know what she wants, it that what she wants is influenced by the cost, and how much she needs for that particular meal. These two variables can change quickly, or over a longer period of time.
 
Doc, it's not that the average retail customer doesn't know what she wants, it that what she wants is influenced by the cost, and how much she needs for that particular meal. These two variables can change quickly, or over a longer period of time.
Chris-

I don't disagree with either you nor dcara - BUT - does this mean that the producer MUST be held hostage in order to satisfy the "changing" whims of the retail market and provide EVERY size, shape and texture (tenderness and taste) of not only rib-eye steaks, but ALL cuts of meat to a fickle public who is linfluenced by marketing Guru's, advertising gimmick's, and changing price structures rather than pragmatism and reality??

There should be a reasonable and common sense compromise here somewhere or the producer (breeder) is going to be left out in the cold - - holding the udder! But - - hasn't it always been thus?

I am apprehensive that we are coming full cycle again - - this is exactly what precipitated the "PONY" type cattle of the mid "40's"- - attempting to appease the retail market for "Mrs. Housewife"! They had small family's then and - all of a sudden - the "boys" came marching home and straight to the bedrooms of America and the family size exploded - and the rib-eye size was too little. So - the producers rushed to increase cow size. Now it has exceeded financial reasonableness, and we are in an impulsive, headlong rush to "cost containment" - while more and more "families" in growing cities are eating "out" almost every night! So, where does that leave the ever-struggling Beef producer insofar as providing what the purchasing public wants?? Right back where he started -kissing the ring of Mrs 'Whatever' who says, "Let's eat 'OUT' tonight because , after all, "It's What's For Dinner!"

DOC HARRIS
 
lazy ace":dw6vzht1 said:
In the 2005 National Beef Quality Audit reports that restaurants and consumers are concerned that our beef cuts are too big, especially rib eye. What are some of your thoughts about what size is industry acceptable?

have a cold one

lazy ace

Probably fifteen years ago, Marcine Moldenhauer, then an Excel fat cattle buyer, told us they wanted: Choice grade or better, YG 3 or better, 550-850 range carcass. Rib eyes from 9-12 inches were acceptable. They didn't care about color or breed. I don't think those recommendations have changed over the years.
 
DOC HARRIS":25u7nu2r said:
I am apprehensive that we are coming full cycle again - - this is exactly what precipitated the "PONY" type cattle of the mid "40's"- - attempting to appease the retail market for "Mrs. Housewife"! They had small family's then and - all of a sudden - the "boys" came marching home and straight to the bedrooms of America and the family size exploded - and the rib-eye size was too little. So - the producers rushed to increase cow size. Now it has exceeded financial reasonableness, and we are in an impulsive, headlong rush to "cost containment" - while more and more "families" in growing cities are eating "out" almost every night! So, where does that leave the ever-struggling Beef producer insofar as providing what the purchasing public wants?? Right back where he started -kissing the ring of Mrs 'Whatever' who says, "Let's eat 'OUT' tonight because , after all, "It's What's For Dinner!"
DOC HARRIS

I agree completely. It is a "holiday" so nobody is working. I WAS going to grill out; but Mother insisted that we eat lunch out so we went to 'Ruby Tuesday's'. We all ordered steaks and potatoes with cokes (naturally, I have ALL of that back in the house in the fridge!). The dinner arrived with a giant helping of tastless steamed broccoli. The last time I was at the Ruby......a long long time ago we got tasty fried onions so was really disapointed with that change. The steaks were 9 ounce sirloins and were all completely square. It had no fat, no connective tissue, no seams, and a lot of tenderizer taste so I drowned it in Heinz 57(I think the big NY strips in my fridge would have been preferable). I am no meats expert; and am not sure whether we were eating some kind of chipped and formed product or just a uniquely butchered product. Does it really MATTER whether that steak was cut off of a carcass with a 12" eye or a carcass with a 15" eye? This is one of those "inside baseball" debates that I don't really think matters to people other than cattle breeders, feedlots, packers, and institutional meat buyers.
 
[/quote]

So what is this in inches and pounds? You would think that research done for the common man in the states would use the standard unit of measure.

dun[/quote]

Dun,

It is because almost all scientific research worldwide is done metrically. Even the US Weather data is collected metrically and then later converted for local distribution, TV, etc.

Considering that much (most?) published scientific and medical research worlwide is published in English it doesn't seem unreasonable for us to make this small accommodation.
 
Considering that much (most?) published scientific and medical research worlwide is published in English it doesn't seem unreasonable for us to make this small accommodation.
By following that same line of thinking - that is if practically everything is published in English - why not be consistant! Why should we "...accomodate" others - just to be "FAIR"? This is "Swallowing the Bull and choking on the tail!" That is a real Hot spot with me!!

DON'T GET ME STARTED!

DOC HARRIS
 

Latest posts

Top