Inside the Multipacker Supply Study

Large datasets are only useful if you know what is in them. Certified Angus Beef (CAB) runs what it calls a multipacker, seasonally weighted supply study each year, and the American Angus Association's journal describes it as covering nearly 2 million Angus-influenced carcasses. That is a lot of cattle, drawn from more than one packing company, and weighted so that busy and slow times of year are represented fairly. This guide explains what such a study measures, what the published summaries say, and where a careful reader should stay cautious.

Why more than one packer matters

Packing plants differ. They buy cattle from different regions, run different grids and cut for different customers. A study based on a single plant would describe that plant's cattle supply more than the nation's. Pulling carcass records from several packers gives a better picture of Angus-influenced cattle in general. The seasonal weighting matters too, because cattle graded in a hot late summer tend to differ from those graded in the cool months, and marbling tends to move with the seasons. Weighting prevents one busy season from dominating the averages.

What the study reports

The summary published by the Association gives several benchmarks for the most recent year it covered. The average carcass that met the brand's specifications had Moderate marbling, a ribeye of about 14.6 square inches, around 0.65 inch of backfat and a hot carcass weight of 923 pounds. The average carcass that did not qualify had Small marbling, about 15.2 square inches of ribeye, 0.63 inch of backfat and a weight of 949 pounds.

Several lessons jump out:

• Marbling is the gap. The reported difference in backfat between the two groups is small. The difference in marbling, Moderate versus Small, is the big one.
• Misses ran heavier and bigger. Non-qualifiers were larger in both weight and ribeye area, which fits with the brand limiting size.
• Most failure is about marbling. The same report says about four out of five carcasses that fell short did so on marbling, and that a notable share were near the cutoff.

The report also states that, among the year's Angus-influenced cattle processed at licensed plants, roughly 37.6 percent met the brand's ten specifications, an all-time high, compared with about 14 percent in 2006. Those are the Association's reported figures, and the underlying data come from the brand's own program.

What the study does not tell you

It is tempting to read a big dataset as an answer to every question. This one is built to describe carcass traits and brand acceptance. The published summaries I could retrieve do not report fabrication yields, meaning the pounds of trimmed, boxed product that come out of each carcass. Yield is a separate subject, and it depends on fat trim, muscling and how a plant cuts. If you have seen claims about specific yield results from this study, look for the original source before repeating them. The Angus Association has also published general education on how carcass yields and losses work during processing, which is a better place to start if yield is your question.

Also remember a few cautions about any averaged data:

• An average describes a group, not your pen. Your cattle may sit well above or below it.
• Angus-influenced is a broad category. It includes cattle of varied genetics, and not all of them were raised or fed to hit the brand's targets.
• Specifications change. The ribeye ceiling, for example, was reported to have moved in 2025, so averages measured against old limits are not a perfect guide to new ones.

A short guide to reading carcass averages

Averages in a report like this one hide spread. Two pens can share the same average marbling score and look nothing alike, since one may hold uniform cattle and the other a mix of excellent and poor ones. When you compare your cattle to a published benchmark, look beyond the mean. Ask what share of your cattle reached the cutoff, how far the misses fell below it, and whether the misses cluster in a certain sire group, a certain feeding pen or a certain time of year. A pattern in the misses points to a cause you can fix. Random scatter points to a different set of questions about the whole system.

It also helps to remember the unit of measure. Marbling score is a numeric scale with named degrees, such as Small, Modest and Moderate, and each degree spans a range of scores. A carcass reported as just under the cutoff may be only a few points away, which is a different management problem than one that sits several degrees away. Ask your buyer for the actual scores, not only the grade category, so you can see how close the near misses were.

Using study findings on your operation

The best use of a study like this is as a yardstick. Compare your own carcass data against the benchmarks. If your cattle average Small marbling with plenty of weight, you have a genetic or feeding opportunity. If your cattle miss on ribeye or weight, you may need to look at frame size or days on feed. If most of your misses are only slightly below the marbling cutoff, small management changes may be enough to move them over. farm.fm's page on pasture management for healthier Angus herds and its page on feeding programs cover the growing and finishing side, while the University of Nebraska beef extension site offers research-based guidance on carcass quality.

Where to read the original

For the numbers above, see the Association's journal feature on the brand and the program information at certifiedangusbeef.com. Related farm and food resources can be browsed through the agriculture directory.

This site is independent and has no affiliation with the American Angus Association or Certified Angus Beef LLC. Figures are as reported at the time of writing and may be updated, so verify them with current official sources.