by Lilly Platts
The processing and utilization of beef carcasses has changed significantly in the last 50 years. Technology, transportation, and consumer demand are just a few of the things that have shaped how finished carcasses are cut and processed.
Finished weights—and the continual push for larger cattle—are a current challenge for the industry, with efficient utilization being a concern. Larger carcasses will make it more difficult to cut and utilize some standard cuts, but it also presents an opportunity to better utilize other cuts and even find new ones.
Dr. Trent Schwartz, assistant professor of animal science at West Texas A&M University, shared about the history of beef processing in the United States and considerations for how to best utilize the larger carcasses that are becoming standard during the Beef Improvement Federation’s (BIF) 2025 Symposium.
Into the 1950s, a large portion of the population processed meat in the home. In the 1960s, a more centralized system started taking shape, with a focus on processing beef on a larger scale. During this time, a 600-pound carcass was common. Both size and processing methods have changed significantly today. “You wouldn’t see the big weights that we’re seeing now. A 600-pound carcass was more likely to be found. If we walked into the cooler today, we probably would not find the 600-pound carcass,” Schwartz said. “And then again, home processing today is less than 1%. It’s not very common.”
In-store cutting was the next evolution. Whole carcasses were loaded on refrigerated trucks and shipped to grocery stores. Skilled meat cutters in grocery stores would process beef on-site. This created the issue of selling all of the cuts that come from an individual carcass. This was a daily issue that became increasingly challenging during holidays when cuts like prime rib are in high demand. “If they brought in ten sides to cut for that week, and on day one they sold out of prime rib, guess what? Everybody else is out of luck,” Schwartz explained. “So we had to move away from that system because we weren’t getting the products we needed.”
In the 1970s and 1980s, boxed beef became standard, with subprimals cut to fit in shippable boxes. For retailers, being able to purchase different portions of each cut of beef was revolutionary. Skilled meat cutters were no longer in demand for most grocers. Some stores still cut specialty steaks and other high-end cuts in-store, but whole beef carcasses were no longer processed on-site. “You would be hard-pressed today to have a local grocery store that has a skilled butcher who knows how to cut in the back of the house,” Schwartz shared.
A whole beef can be broken down differently, and how this is done dictates if the carcass is utilized to its fullest potential. What Schwartz considers “old school” cutting, or using a bandsaw to break the carcass up into large roasts and steak sections, doesn’t fully optimize the carcass. “There’s no extra cuts that you’re pulling — think ribeye, New York strip, sirloin, and tenderloin. You’re going to get roast from the quarters. And in a lot of cases, thin meats are cut up and thrown into ground beef,” Schwartz explained. “The consumer we have today does not want this. They want the specialty cuts, and if they’re going to the mom-and-pop shop, they don’t want these massive bone-in roasts to take home and have to try to figure out how to cook. The generation we have now, if you gave them that, they wouldn't know what to do with it.”
Boneless cutting is now the most popular method. Grocers, restaurants, and consumers prefer a boneless ribeye over bone-in, for example. There is still debate, however, over the most reasonable and desirable method. Among small processors, the more traditional method is standard. In large plants, the more intricate “fabrication” method allows for the best utilization of a carcass, and best meets mainstream consumer demand.
Large hanging weights are a major consideration for how a carcass is processed today. Schwartz shared that a 900-pound carcass is now common, and that this will continue to trend upward. The bigger these carcasses get, the larger the specialty cuts are, too. Figuring out how to process cuts like ribeye will be important since a larger surface area will lead to a thinner steak, which isn’t desirable. “We’re having to get a lot more creative on how we cut these steaks, and we’re having to sort ribeye rolls and strip loins in a more progressive manner to get them to the ounce requirements that [grocers and food service] need on their menu,” Schwartz said.
While bigger carcasses mean more product, the nation’s historically low cow herd inventory still means there could be a strain on production. “We have to get better at breaking these cattle down. We have a reduced cattle population. We have to utilize them in the best possible manner,” Schwartz explained.
New technology will be essential in better utilizing each carcass. 3D imaging is an emerging technology in the industry, and while Schwartz shared that it will be some time before it can be utilized at scale, it could be promising. For example, cattle could be scanned and sorted based on the cuts they are best suited for. Currently, large processors are using new technology to better portion cut beef, which has greatly reduced waste. “I can take a slab out of a sirloin, put it on the belt, and the machine will scan it,” Schwartz explained. “And if I need to produce six-, eight-, ten-, and twelve-ounce sirloin steaks, it will scan it, run it through the portioner, and cut the steaks best fit to optimize those settings. Then it will sort those ounce requirement steaks at the end of the chain into sixes, eights, tens, and twelves.”
The strip and ribeye roll present challenges in this system as carcasses get larger. Schwartz shared that breaking down other cuts will not be an issue with larger carcasses. Restaurants offer ribeye and New York Strip steaks at standard weights, but these subprimals cannot be cut to a desirable thickness if the surface area is too large.
While some subprimals can be cut differently to still fit in the standard portions, the ribeye roll cannot simply be cut down the middle. The spinalis dorsi, or ribeye cap, is the most desirable part of the cut. If a meat case was filled with ribeyes and half didn’t have the cap, consumers would be unhappy. Some specialty sellers have started selling the cap separately, at a very high price. The remainder of the ribeye can be marketed differently as well.
Another potential solution is to consider other high-quality cuts that don’t currently have the same clout as the ribeye or strip. “I preach that we have to do more creative things with the chuck. There are so many good cuts of beef, especially steaks that come from the chuck. And most of the time, they end up as a roast or ground beef,” Schwartz said.
The chuck roll, which can yield the chuckeye for example, is rarely sold in grocery stores but is called the “poor man’s ribeye” because of the marbling and tenderness of the cut. This cut doesn’t present the same size challenges with increasing carcass size, and could become a new menu item if the system shifted.
Consumers often learn about cuts of beef, and place value on them, based on food service experiences. What restaurants put on a menu influences consumer choice, and Schwartz shared that education in this space could help expand demand for other cuts. For example, the flatiron, which is a tender, affordable cut, for example, could find its way to more menus and grocery store shelves.
Larger carcasses present challenges, as well as potential. A bigger tenderloin, for example, is seen as a positive throughout the industry. Other cuts are also being utilized more efficiently since size has increased. “The tri-tip, the bottom flap, bottom sirloin flap, and the ball tip are sections of the loin that would not have been even utilized 20 years ago,” Schwartz explained.
With Beef Checkoff funding, Schwartz and his team are studying minor cuts of beef in relation to carcass size, with the goal of finding more options for consumers and the export market. “For the longest time we have looked at carcass size as a bad thing, and we’ve evaluated all the things that get worse as carcass size increases,” Schwartz said. “This is the first instance that I can think of where a project has been funded to look at what a big carcass does better.”
