Pivotal moments happen when innovation meets progress. 

In the early 1800s, there were untapped markets out east, so railroads were built — connecting cattle producers to opportunity. Ebbs and flows in cattle numbers and feedstuffs have been met with new technologies to improve efficiency and performance at the feedyard. When consumer demand for beef tanked in the 1980s, the first National Beef Quality Audit was launched.  

Research and revolutions led to solutions. But what’s currently risen to the top in priority? Accuracy in yield grade assessment and the ever-present need for increased red meat yield. It’s a topic all segments of cattle production and merchandising are leaning into. The goal is to produce as many pounds of high-quality beef per carcass as possible — and do it efficiently and sustainably. 

A history lesson in grading

Based on metrics for conformation and finish, quality grading began in 1927. Then, in the 1950s and 60s, interest began to build for yield measurement.  

Led by Charlie Murphy, a team of researchers settled on four variables to estimate the amount of boneless, closely trimmed cuts from the rib, loin, chuck and round — the makings of the beef carcass yield grade. The yield grade (YG) equation includes hot carcass weight (HCW); ribeye area (REA); backfat thickness (BF); and kidney, pelvic and heart fat (KPH). 

The yield grade equation was indexed into a scale from 1 to 5. Since June 1965, carcasses have been scored for yield grade, first by humans and today by camera technology. 

Opportunities realized

It’s been 60 years since the first yield grades were assessed on the packing plant floor, and even longer since the yield grade equation was developed. During the span of those six decades, market animal composition — alongside cattle feeding technologies and methods — has changed. 

Animal frame sizes were short and boxy, then frame scores skyrocketed. Cattle have now become more moderate in build. Current with today’s cattle cycle, average days-on-feed have extended, and carcass weights are reaching all-time highs. 

It might be assumed that heavier carcass weights equate to increased pounds of beef. Dressing percent? Yes. But saleable beef? Not necessarily. 

Every issue has its moment. And this is it for yield grade and red meat yield. Intertwined, yet not necessarily the same thing. 

The first National Beef Quality Audit occurred in 1991, with the beef industry ranking its top five priorities for improvement. Since the first audit, yield and composition have consistently been identified as priorities, alongside palatability and eating experience, laddering up to increased producer profitability. 

Where YG 1s and 2s get a premium; YG 4s and 5s often receive a discount. On a 1,000-pound (lb.) carcass, that could mean a $12-$200 hit to profit. As explained by Ty Lawrence, professor of animal science at West Texas A&M University, during the 2025 Cattle Industry Convention’s Cattlemen’s College, more than half the nation’s fed cattle population falls into the YG3 category, while approximately 22% are YG4s and 5s. 

“Producers are making decisions on individual animals — which bull to breed to which cow to maximize or optimize a certain trait,” says Blake Foraker, assistant professor at Texas Tech University’s Department of Animal and Food Sciences. “I think our industry has proven time and again, pending what trait, we’ve moved more towards granular data (individual animal type), and that’s where we’re at with yield grade today.”

With quality directly tied to consumer demand for beef, it remains a high priority. But as the industry evolves, there is a growing relevance of yield alongside quality. 

“With all the improvement that we’ve made in quality, it’s still the biggest lost opportunity for us,” says John Stika, Certified Angus Beef (CAB) president. “But at the same time, because of the improvements we’ve made in quality, the relative scope of the opportunity between quality and yield grade is beginning to narrow.”

It’s not just about profitability. The sustainability of current feeding practices and packing plant work comes into play, too. 

“It’s the energy to put the fat on, cool the fat down, take the fat off of the carcass, and the energy to render it back to where we need it. If we were going to draw out on a whiteboard the ideal way to do this, that’s probably not where we’d end up.” — Mark McCully, CEO of the American Angus Association

In just a few years, the industry average for days on feed has risen from 170 days at the feedyard to 195, and in some cases could reach more than 200 days. That’s additional days of resources spent — from feedstuffs and water to labor — with return on investment in question.  

Through changes in genetics and management, the opportunity exists to increase carcass weight, without putting on excess fat. Those “pounds of gold,” as Stika coined them, would be high-quality, saleable beef  through increased red meat yield. 

It’s no secret that the yield grade equation is due for an update, and the accuracy of it has been the subject of questions for several years. 

“Sometimes our work in science has a lifespan, and we’ve got to be aware of how the market and industry evolve around us,” Stika says. “We’ve always got to be willing to circle back and reconfirm whether or not the sound results we found at that time are still relevant.”

A large percentage of cattle are traded on a formula and carcass-merit basis, applying pressure to the need for a consistent and precise measurement. Lawrence noted researchers can explain approximately 40% of the variation in red meat yield by yield grade, but it could be better. 

Another opportunity extends to REA. For decades ranchers have used REA as a key indication of muscularity in cattle. Via ultrasound and camera-grading systems, it’s easy to get data back that can be used to improve genetic selection. With REA as the only tool, and its relation to yield grade calculations, cattlemen have homed in on that trait for red meat yield. But like yield grade, its measurement has come into question. 

“The problem is, we’ve only given beef producers ribeye area as an indicator of muscling, but it does not indicate true carcass muscling,” says Dale Woerner, Cargill Endowed Professor at Texas Tech University. “So when producers single-trait select for ribeye area independent from muscling in other parts of the animal, we can actually grow those relationships apart.”

Woerner notes REA and red meat yield are only 4% related. While it is still an important trait, it shouldn’t be the sole predictor of red meat yield. 

“Ribeye area is the tool that we’ve largely put in the toolbox of breeders to improve red meat yield,” McCully says. “It’s not directionally taking us the wrong way, but we have the opportunity to collect new phenotypes for genetic evaluation that would put new tools in breeders’ hands to truly make more advanced improvement.”

 Ranchers need better tools to select for red meat yield, tools that can more accurately measure for composition and reward producers, without a bigger REA, per hundredweight — pounds of gold.

The beef industry recognizes the need to research red meat yield, and it’s poised to do so alongside maintaining a continued drive for palatable beef.

To answer the call for research, National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA) created the Red Meat Yield (RMY) Working Group. The NCBA RMY Working Group includes broad representation across industry stakeholders, with every segment of the beef supply chain weighing in, from cow-calf producers to the packing plant and beyond, with academia, government, technology expertise and merchandising/branded beef represented. 

Current research priorities

With a road map to guide next steps, the RMY Working Group is moving to determine best practices through new technologies. Some technologies exist, though not yet practical for usage.

Via the RMY Working Group, key research has included how to define red meat yield by today’s standards, calculate red meat yield and the processes to measure carcass composition. Through computed tomography (CT scanning), researchers can determine carcass composition, and it’s been deemed the “gold standard.” With the use of that X-ray technology, meat scientists can measure muscle, fat and bone at a high degree of accuracy.

One big challenge is incorporating it at the packing plant. The feasibility is low with chain speeds, alongside other logistical problems and safety issues.