United States 

Department 

of Agriculture 

www.ers.usda.gov 

 A Report from the Economic Research Service

Abstract

Animal byproducts contribute to the bottom line of the U.S. meat industry. Byproducts 

(edible offal (including variety meats), inedible offal, hides and skins, blood, fats, and 

tallow) include all parts of a live animal that are not part of the dressed carcass and 

constitute about 30 percent of the liveweight of hogs and about 44 percent of the liveweight of cattle. Byproducts from animal slaughter provide raw materials used in pharmaceutical, cosmetic, household, and industrial products. Exports of edible offal also 

contribute to the value and profitability of the U.S. meat processing industry in a way that 

leads to higher prices for livestock producers, as byproducts account for more than 23 and 

35 percent of the volume of beef/veal and pork exports, respectively. Regression analysis 

indicates that a 10-percent increase in the steer byproduct drop value adds a 1-percent 

increase in the five-area weighted average price for all grades of steers. U.S. exports of 

beef/veal and pork edible offal have increased in recent years, mostly due to population growth, income growth, and consumer preferences for variety meats, especially in 

Asia. Income growth in the global marketplace, however, may have varied effects on the 

consumption and trade of variety meats.

Keywords: animal byproducts, offal, edible, inedible, variety meats, hogs, cattle, trade

Acknowledgments

The authors gratefully acknowledge the reviews of Erin Daley Borror, Thad Lively, 

Paul Clayton, Kevin Smith, and Courtney Heller of the U.S. Meat Export Federation; 

Claire Mezoughem and Lesley Ahmed of USDA’s Foreign Agricultural Service; Sherry 

Wise, Warren Preston, Martin O’Connor, and Bucky Gwaltney of USDA’s Agricultural 

Marketing Service; Herbert Ockerman of Ohio State University; Richard Stillman, 

William Hahn, Mildred Haley, and Molly Garber of USDA’s Economic Research 

Service (ERS); and Shayle Shagam of USDA’s World Agricultural Outlook Board. The 

authors would also like to acknowledge Fred Gale of ERS for gathering and translating 

Chinese pork prices and Ron Plain of the University of Missouri for providing historical carcass weight data. The authors appreciate and acknowledge the editorial and 

design assistance of John Weber and Victor B. Phillips, Jr. of ERS.

Daniel L. Marti, dmarti@ers.usda.gov

Rachel J. Johnson, rjohnson@ers.usda.gov

Kenneth H. Mathews, Jr., kmathews@ers.usda.gov

Where’s the (Not) Meat?

LDP-M-209-01 Byproducts From Beef and Pork Production

November 2011

Contents

Approved by USDA’s 

World Agricultural 

Outlook Board

Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

What Are Animal 

Byproducts?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Byproduct Production. . . . . . . . 6

Byproduct Values. . . . . . . . . . . 10

Foreign Byproduct Price

Comparison. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

U.S. Edible Offal and the 

Global Marketplace. . . . . . . . . 17

Conclusions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Appendix A—Types of 

Offal by Category. . . . . . . . . . . 28

Appendix B—Steer 

Byproducts Model. . . . . . . . . . 29
2

Where’s the (Not) Meat? Byproducts From Beef and Pork Production / LDP-M-209-01 Economic Research Service/USDA

Animal byproducts, or offal, may not make up the real “heart” of the U.S. 

meat industry, given that the multiple uses for inedible animal byproducts 

are not often considered. And, variety meat dishes, such as beef tongue or 

pig heart, do not typically grace Americans’ dinner tables. Nonetheless, offal 

derived from beef and pork slaughter contributes to the bottom line of the 

U.S. meat industry. During 2001-10, edible animal byproducts (byproducts 

that do not include hides and other inedibles) averaged 23-35 percent of the 

volume of U.S. pork and beef/veal exports and 14-19 percent of the value. 

Animal byproducts include all parts of a live animal that are not part of the 

dressed carcass. Produced jointly in the process of harvesting meat from the 

animal, byproducts constitute an estimated 30 percent of the liveweight of 

hogs and about 44 percent of the liveweight of cattle. In the United States, 

animal byproducts fall into three categories: hides, inedible offal, and edible 

offal, with variety meats being a subcategory of edible offal. Based on live 

value, byproducts account for more than 10 percent of the value for cattle 

and more than 6 percent of the value for hogs. Tallow accounts for about 20 

percent of the value of live cattle, and lard accounts for about 9-17 percent 

of the value of a live hog. Although hides/skins and rendered products 

contribute to the value of cattle and hogs, this report focuses primarily on 

offal products. Hides account for 30-75 percent of the byproduct drop value 

for cattle but very little of the drop value for hogs.1

The use of animal byproducts dates back to early civilization, with hides used 

for clothing and intestines used for food containers. The first recorded use of 

a cleaning compound, a soap made from animal fat and lye, was in the first 

century A.D. Early U.S. history also records production and uses for hides 

and tallow in the Western United States (Ockerman and Hansen, 2000). 

Animal byproducts provide many of the raw materials used to make pharmaceutical, cosmetic, household, and industrial products. These products, along 

with hides and well-known variety meats, such as liver, tongue, hearts, and 

feet, all add value to the U.S. meat industry. But just how important are they 

and what role do they play in export trade? 

1The drop value reflects the 

wholesale price that packers receive 

from the animal’s byproducts that 

“drop” off an animal’s carcass 

when it is dressed, on a dollar per 

hundredweight basis.

Introduction
3

Where’s the (Not) Meat? Byproducts From Beef and Pork Production / LDP-M-209-01 

Economic Research Service/USDA

U.S. consumers have come to depend on the wide array of products made 

from animal byproducts (see app. A). Among countries, the product mixes 

comprising the edible and inedible offal categories can vary slightly but are 

mostly consistent. Inedible animal byproducts—those typically considered or 

mandated as not edible—are the primary raw materials used in the manufacture of a broad assortment of industrial, household, cosmetic, pharmaceutical, 

and medical supplies, in addition to such products as lubricants, plastics, 

soaps, glycerin, and gelatins (Aberle et al., 2001). In addition to having 

domestic value, edible offal contributes as much as one-fourth of the volume 

of U.S. beef exports and one-fifth of the volume of U.S. pork exports (Marti 

and Johnson, 2010).

Inedible Byproducts

Inedible animal byproducts include hide or skin, hair, horns, teeth, fats, bone, 

ligaments and cartilage, feet, glands, blood, and lungs. Although the share 

varies among individual animals, cattle hides account for about 75 percent of 

the byproduct value of a beef animal, much more than pork skins contribute 

to the value of a hog. U.S.-produced hides are often exported to China, Hong 

Kong, South Korea, Taiwan, Mexico, and the European Union, where they 

are tanned and processed into leather for shoes, purses, clothing, car seats, 

and other items. 

Some inedible offal, along with normally edible offal that has been deemed 

unsuitable for human consumption, bones from meat processing, and cattle 

that are unsuitable for human consumption (nonambulatory and other 

condemned cattle), is rendered for use in the industrial, cosmetic, and feed 

manufacturing industries. Processors render products by heating animal 

tissues and skimming off the fats and oils. Both the skimmed fats and oils 

and the residual materials are converted to materials that have economic 

value, generally as inputs into further manufacturing processes. Rendering 

also helps minimize the release of animal tissues into the environment as 

potential biological hazards (Aberle et al., 2001; Danilevici et al., 2009). 

According to Prokop (1996), about 40 percent of the weight of a live beef 

animal goes through the rendering process. Rendered meat and bone meal 

is a valuable source of protein in pig and poultry feed, pet foods, and even 

fertilizer. The use of meat and bone meal made from cattle and sheep (and 

other ruminants), however, is restricted by regulations designed to reduce the 

risk of bovine spongiform encephalitis (BSE) (see Mathews, 2008; Mathews 

et al., 2006). 

Animal byproducts also are important to the development and ultimate 

availability of modern human medicines. Glands removed from livestock 

at slaughter, such as the adrenal, parathyroid, pituitary, thyroid, and thymus 

glands; ovaries; pancreas; and testes provide many of the hormones and 

enzymes used in the medical field (Aberle et al., 2001). Among the medicines that can be obtained from animal glands are epinephrine, estrogens, 

progesterone, insulin, trypsin, parathyroid hormone, adrenocorticotropic 

hormone (ACTH), somatotropin, thyroid stimulating hormone, testosterone, 

thyroxin, and thymosin. Serums, vaccines, antigens, and antitoxins are also 

What Are Animal Byproducts?
4

Where’s the (Not) Meat? Byproducts From Beef and Pork Production / LDP-M-209-01 Economic Research Service/USDA

derived from many food-animal tissues acquired both during slaughter and 

processing of the animal (Pearl, 2005). Purified animal blood is fractionated into numerous products, including thrombin, used for blood coagulation 

agents and skin-graft procedures; fibrin, used in surgical repair of internal 

organs; and fibrinolysin, used to help heal minor burns or as a woundcleaning agent. 

Certain parts from pigs and cattle are used for xenotransplantation, the 

insertion of tissue from one species into another. Skin, brain cells, insulin, 

heart valves, and lungs from pigs are all used for human transplants as well 

(Goodlight, 2010). Pig skins are used for initial treatment for burn patients, 

while bone cartilage and bone fragments are used as substitutes for diseased 

or damaged human tissue parts (Pearl, 2005). Intestines provide surgical 

ligatures; blood provides albumen, amino acids, fetal serum, and thrombin; 

bones provide calcium and phosphorus; and other inedible offal provides liver

extracts, bile extract, cortisone, heparin, cholesterol, rennet, and pepsin. In 

many of these treatment uses, no other synthetic products function or perform 

equally well. In other cases, the extracts of animal byproducts have provided 

the scientific basis for the development of synthetic substitutes, such as 

insulin and other pharmaceutical products (Pearl, 2005). 

Animal byproducts are also a major contributor to the growth and expansion 

of the pet food industry (Corbin, 1992). Animal byproducts in pet food diets 

are good sources of digestible protein, fat, vitamins, and minerals and, historically, have supplied the majority of these nutrients for pets. For example, 

animal byproducts account for 25-40 percent of the dry matter in premium 

dog diets (Murray et al., 1997). 

Edible Byproducts

The edible byproducts from slaughtered animals are segregated, chilled, and 

processed. These products include livers, hearts, tongues, tails, kidneys, brains, 

sweetbreads (the thymus and/or pancreas gland, depending on an animal’s age), 

tripe (stomach), melt (spleen), chitterlings and natural casings (intestines), fries 

(testicles), rinds, head meat, lips, fats and other trimmings, blood, and certain 

bones. Typically, edible byproduct yield is around 12 percent of liveweight 

from cattle and about 14 percent of liveweight from hogs when pork rinds are 

included (Ockerman and Hansen, 2000, pg. 23). 

Edible byproducts can be categorized into variety meats or edible fats and 

oils. Edible organs and glands—brains, hearts, kidneys, livers, melts, sweetbreads, tongues, and chitterlings—along with oxtails are categorized as 

variety meats and are usually sold with minimal processing. Intestines and 

cheek meats are usually processed further, often into sausages and other 

processed meat products. Extra trimmings and tails are used in soups and 

bouillons; extra trimmings, blood, stomachs, and intestines can be sausage 

ingredients or casings. Certain stomach parts also provide rennet for cheese 

making. Gelatin is used in such products as ice cream and jellied foods and is 

produced in part from bones and skins (Aberle, 2001). 
5

Where’s the (Not) Meat? Byproducts From Beef and Pork Production / LDP-M-209-01 

Economic Research Service/USDA

While many of the variety meats are typically fatty and higher in cholesterol, 

they are also good sources of essential vitamins and nutrients: 

•	Livers are high in vitamin A, iron, zinc, B vitamins, vitamins C and D,

copper, and fatty acids. 

•	Hearts contain large amounts of iron and are a good source of selenium, zinc, phosphorous, niacin, and riboflavin, but they are very low 

in sodium. 

•	Brains are rich in niacin, phosphorus, B12, and vitamin C. 

•	Tripe contains abundant protein and B12. 

•	Sweetbreads are very high in vitamin C.

•	Kidneys are high in protein and contain riboflavin and niacin.

•	Tongues are a good source of B12 but are low in sodium. 

•	Hog feet are low in sodium but are a good source for selenium.

In some countries, variety meats are considered delicacies and are the basis 

for many traditional dishes; in other countries, their consumption is associated with low-income populations (Halstead, 1999). Demand for variety 

meats is especially strong in many Asian nations. In China, many recipes call 

for sharp-tasting variety meats rather than muscle cuts, which are considered 

bland (Hayes, 1997); cow tongues are considered expensive delicacies in 

Japan; and sliced beef feet are used for soup in South Korea. Tongue and liver 

are used in many Mexican dishes, such as putzaze (tripe and liver with tomatoes), lengua (tongue with green chilies), and menudo norteña (tripe soup). In 

Russia and Egypt, two of the world’s leading importers of edible offal (head 

meat, liver, heart, kidney, and tongue), variety meats are more commonly 

consumed by lower income households and are used as an inexpensive way to 

obtain high-quality protein and nutrition (Kamenski, 2006). 
6

Where’s the (Not) Meat? Byproducts From Beef and Pork Production / LDP-M-209-01 Economic Research Service/USDA

Estimates of total U.S. byproduct production by species are not publicly 

available, although limited data are available from the U.S. Department 

of Commerce and Render Magazine (National Renderers Association) for 

some fats and oils and other rendered products from all species. USDA’s 

Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) also reports data in its Pork and 

Beef Variety Meats Report on the number of 40,000-pound loads of various 

byproducts that are sold each month as well as the average value and weight 

of many of these specific items. The items detailed in the AMS report include 

only those sold directly for human consumption or those sold to multiple 

companies. Thus, recorded byproduct levels may not be consistent with 

potential quantities because the data do not cover byproducts sold exclusively 

to one company for the production of a specialty product. 

The data gathered from AMS can be used to estimate the total volume of 

beef and pork variety meats produced in the United States (see fig. 1). AMS 

data are the only production numbers that reflect actual counts and not estimates. This information, however, is provided voluntarily and may therefore 

represent only a portion of the byproducts harvested from hogs and cattle. 

Another way to determine the volume of animal byproduct production is to 

create an “upper-bound” estimate using available data sources. A comparison 

of byproduct quantities reported voluntarily and byproduct quantities estimated by ERS provides evidence of the discrepancy between potential and 

reported amounts in the manufacturing sector. Ockerman and Hansen (2000) 

suggest that animal byproduct volumes can be estimated from slaughter 

numbers and dressing percentages. In addition to shrinkage losses, more 

than 2 percent of the carcass weight is often unaccounted for (Ockerman 

and Hansen, 2000). Confidential sources in academia and the packing and 

processing sectors reveal that byproducts collected from livestock can vary 

Byproduct Production

Figure 1

Reported U.S. monthly beef and pork byproduct production 

from AMS data 

.

Million pounds of pork Million pounds of beef

Pork byproducts

Beef byproducts

Jan 2000

Jan 01

Jan 02

Jan 03Jan 04Jan 05

Jan 06Jan 07Jan 08Jan 09Jan 10

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

45.0

37.5

30.0

22.5

15.0

7.5

0

Note: Data are calculated by multiplying the total number of loads of delivered offal and 

byproducts of beef or pork recorded by AMS by 40,000 pounds, the weight of a standard load.

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service using data from USDA, Agricultural Marketing 

Service (AMS).
7

Where’s the (Not) Meat? Byproducts From Beef and Pork Production / LDP-M-209-01 

Economic Research Service/USDA

from animal to animal, packer to packer, and over time, making it difficult to 

determine the exact byproduct amount produced at any time. 

ERS estimates are based on data on the number of head slaughtered for each 

respective species from USDA, National Agricultural Statistics Service’s 

Livestock Slaughter and assessments gathered from scholarly literature 

on animal byproducts. By subtracting both the weight of muscle cuts and 

trimmings sold at the retail level and the estimated shrink and other waste 

loss (stomach contents, water, etc.) from the live weight of the animal, it is 

possible to estimate an upper bound for potential byproduct production. It is 

also worth noting that some fat and bone that typically remain on the carcass 

at slaughter and are later removed also contribute to byproduct production. 

These estimates may be conservative because the numbers do not include 

condemnations that are rendered and added to the inedible byproducts 

market. Data from the literature reveal that about 11 percent of a typical 

slaughter hog’s liveweight is lost through shrinkage or waste or is somehow 

unaccounted for (Aberle et al., 2001). After fat and bone have been trimmed 

off, about 77-79 percent of a dressed hog carcass weight produces muscle 

meat cuts and trimmings sold at the retail level (Aberle et al., 2001; USDA, 

ERS, 1992). The remaining share serves as an estimate of the total byproducts (volume) produced per hog. For cattle, about 14.1 percent of a typical 

steer’s liveweight is lost through shrinkage or waste or is otherwise unaccounted for (Aberle et al., 2001; Duewer, 1998). After fat and bone have been 

trimmed off, about 69-70 percent of a dressed steer carcass weight produces 

muscle meat cuts and trimmings sold at the retail level. The remaining share 

serves as an estimate of the total volume of byproducts produced per steer.

Time series data reveal that total annual production of beef byproducts has 

remained fairly constant over the last decade or so, starting at about 18.5 

billion pounds in 1997 and growing to almost 19 billion pounds in 2010 (fig. 

2). Although estimates in other studies may include veal byproducts with 

beef byproducts, this analysis does not because, at most, veal byproducts add 

only one-half of 1 percent to total volume of beef offal production. The same 

Figure 2

Estimated monthly red meat byproduct production 

Billion pounds of beef Billion pounds of pork

Jan 1997

Jan 98

Jan 99

Jan 2000

Jan 01Jan 02Jan 03Jan 04

Jan 05

Jan 06Jan 07Jan 08

Jan 09

Jan 10Jan 11

2.0

1.6

1.2

0.8

0.4

0

1.0

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service compiled from USDA, National Agricultural

Statistics Service; Ockerman and Hansen, 2000; and Aberle et al., 2001.

Pork byproduct trend

Pork byproducts

Beef byproduct trend

Beef byproducts
8

Where’s the (Not) Meat? Byproducts From Beef and Pork Production / LDP-M-209-01 Economic Research Service/USDA

time series data show that U.S. production of pork byproducts has grown over 

the last decade, much like the pork industry itself. Annual production of pork 

byproducts rose from about 7.1 billion pounds in 1997 to about 8.9 billion 

pounds in 2010.

Beef byproduct production is highly correlated with beef production (see 

figure 3). In 1921, only 38 percent of the liveweight of federally inspected 

cattle was sold at retail as muscle meat cuts and ground meat, and 48 percent 

of the animals’ weight was available for production as beef byproducts. By 

2010, these percentages were nearly equal: 42 percent of the animals’ liveweight was used to produce retail muscle and ground meats, and 44 percent 

was available for byproduct production. This change is attributed to a shift in 

cattle genetics motivated by consumer preferences for more meat and less fat. 

Pork meat production and pork byproduct production are also highly correlated. In 1921, 44 percent of the liveweight of federally inspected hogs was 

used as muscle cuts and trimmings meat and about 45 percent was available for production as pork byproducts. Historical data on dressed weights 

from USDA’s National Agricultural Statistics Service included back fat in 

the carcass weight until the late 1950s. Therefore, this analysis adjusts the 

data to extract fat from dressed weights prior to their separation in the USDA 

data to reflect a more homogenous dataset (Plain, 2010) (see fig. 4). As hog 

fat and lard became less valuable beginning in the 1960s, the hog industry 

began breeding animals to meet the evolving demand for leaner animals with 

more muscle content. By 2010, 59 percent of the hog’s weight produced retail 

muscle and trimming meat and only 30 percent was available for 

byproduct production. 

Figure 3

Estimated beef byproduct production 

Billion pounds 

1921 26 31 36 41 46 51 56 61 66 71 76 81 86 91 96 2001 06

2.5

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

0

Note: Due to gaps in live weight data from 1974-76, we were unable to provide a continuous 

set of byproduct production data.

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service using data from USDA, National Agricultural 

Statistics Service; Ockerman and Hansen, 2000; and Aberle et al., 2001.

Byproduct trend

Byproducts

Retail cut trend

Retail cuts
9

Where’s the (Not) Meat? Byproducts From Beef and Pork Production / LDP-M-209-01 

Economic Research Service/USDA

Figure 4

Estimated pork byproduct production 

Billion pounds 

20

16

12

8

4

0

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service using data from USDA, National Agricultural 

Statistics Service; Ockerman and Hansen, 2000; and Aberle et al., 2001; and Ron Plain, 

University of Missouri.

1921 26 31 36 41 46 51 56 61 66 71 76 81 86 91 96 2001 06

Byproduct trend

Byproducts

Retail cut trend

Retail cuts
10

Where’s the (Not) Meat? Byproducts From Beef and Pork Production / LDP-M-209-01 Economic Research Service/USDA

Converting animal byproducts to useful goods with value has two effects. 

First, the meat industry captures additional revenue that otherwise would 

have been unrealized. Second, the costs of disposing of these secondary 

items are avoided. Intrinsically, animal byproducts serve as an extra means 

for packers to earn revenue or as a cushion to cover losses should the cost of 

purchasing the live animal exceed the selling price of the carcass.

In the last decade, live-equivalent hog prices have risen faster than carcass 

cutout values, which are the prices received by the packer. The hog carcass 

cutout value is an estimate of the value of a 51-52-percent lean, 185-pound 

hog carcass, based on wholesale prices being paid for subprimal pork cuts 

obtained from primal cuts, the basic major cuts into which carcasses and 

sides are separated. Pork primals include the loin, butt, picnic, sparerib, ham, 

belly, and jowl.

From 2000 to 2010, annual hog carcass cutout values rose by 27.7 percent 

(fig. 5). During the same period, however, the annual hog byproduct drop 

value increased by 80.3 percent. Currently, 2011 has had record-high yearto-date hog byproduct drop values. This allows packers to bid higher prices 

for live hogs than they might have in the absence of the value added 

from byproducts. 

Byproduct Values

Figure 5

Prices and trends of U.S. live hog, carcass cutout, and 

byproduct values 

.

Dollars per hundredweight

Dollars per hundredweight

(Byproduct)

Jan 2000

Jan 01Jan 02Jan 03Jan 04Jan 05Jan 06Jan 07Jan 08Jan 09Jan 10Jan 11

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

10

8

6

4

2

0

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service using data from USDA, Agricultural Marketing 

Service.

Byproduct drop 

value

Byproduct drop 

value trend

51-52% lean live

equivalent price Cutout value 

trend

Cutout value

51-52% lean live

equivalent trend
11

Where’s the (Not) Meat? Byproducts From Beef and Pork Production / LDP-M-209-01 

Economic Research Service/USDA

The importance of byproducts to livestock production can also be assessed by 

examining the proportion of value derived from wholesale byproduct sales in 

relation to the value generated from sales of total wholesale items produced 

from the animal. On a dressed-value basis, the total wholesale value of an 

animal can be defined as:

where TWv is the total wholesale value of an animal, COv is the weighted 

average cutout value of an animal’s dressed carcass, COdw is the cutout 

dressed weight of the animal’s carcass, BPv is the byproduct drop value 

per live weight of an animal, and BPlw is the live weight of the animal. 

Therefore, the portion of the animal’s value derived from the byproduct value 

is at least:

BPv* BPlw. Twv

This calculation may not reflect the full value of the animal derived from 

byproduct value because kidney fat (diaphragm fat) and certain bones 

trimmed off of the carcass and sold as byproducts are still attached when the 

dressed carcass is weighed. Therefore, one can say that at least this much 

value is added from byproducts. As a greater percentage of the total value 

gained from the animal is derived from the byproduct value, byproducts 

are becoming increasingly more valuable to livestock feeders, as packers 

are willing to bid higher prices for these animals. For 2000, an estimated 

5.1 percent of annual packer earnings per hog came from byproduct sales. 

Although down from its high of 8.7 percent in 2009, the annual proportion 

of packer revenue earned per animal from byproducts was 7.0 percent in 

2010, 36.7 percent above what was earned in 2000, which indicates that hog 

byproducts have grown in importance in packers’ margins over time (fig. 6). 

This growth has important implications in the context of marginal profitability. Likewise, as the value of byproducts increases, all else remaining 

equal, the total value of live animals also increases. 

Figure 6

Percent of value added to hogs from byproducts 

Percent

Trend

Jan 2000

Jan 01Jan 02Jan 03

Jan 04

Jan 05Jan 06

Jan 07

Jan 08

Jan 09

Jan 10

Jan 11

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service using data from USDA, Agricultural Marketing 

Service.

(TWv) = (COv) x (COdw) + (BPv) x (BPlw),
12

Where’s the (Not) Meat? Byproducts From Beef and Pork Production / LDP-M-209-01 Economic Research Service/USDA

Numerous factors help account for the increase in byproduct values in recent 

years. Historically, byproducts were once more commonly consumed during 

meals, in addition to being used for a number of household products. Over 

time, cheaper synthetic materials were substituted in household products and 

labor and other costs associated with production and harvesting of byproducts 

rose, resulting in a decline in byproduct values. Further, U.S. immigrants 

and their descendants increasingly developed preferences for muscle cuts 

and other meat products, which also reduced demand for byproducts. More 

recently, however, a wider variety of uses and outlets for offal products has 

raised the value of these products relative to that of muscle cuts. The pet food 

industry, for example, has significantly boosted demand and, hence, value 

for animal byproducts. Common items found in retail store pet stores now 

include rawhide “bones,” pizzles, joints and tendons, dry pet food made from 

processed offal, and pig ears, which are one of the most expensive parts of a 

hog carcass on a per weight basis.

Steer byproduct values, like those for pork, have increased since 2000, 

although not as significantly as pork byproducts. A sharp rise in foreign 

demand for swine offal in recent years, countered by a decline in demand for 

beef/veal offal, may account for the difference in growth rates. This may be 

because foreign demand for swine offal has risen quickly while bovine offal 

exports have fallen over the last few years, as discussed later in the trade 

section of this paper. The annual drop value of steer byproducts rose by 34.8 

percent from 2000 to 2010, and similar to that for pork, beef carcass cutout 

prices also trended upward over the period. This study uses a weightedaverage cutout value of Choice and Select cattle prices as an indicator for 

the prices received by the packer. This value simply accounts for the proportion of cattle slaughtered in each grade (Choice or better and Select) by the 

respective cutout value for each: a price calculated from the value of beef 

Figure 7

Prices and trends of U.S. live steer, beef carcass cutout, and

byproduct values 

Dollars per hundredweight

Dollars per hundredweight

(Drop value)

Jan 2000

Jan 01Jan 02

Jan 03

Jan 04

Jan 05Jan 06

Jan 07

Jan 08Jan 09

Jan 10Jan 11

190

140

90

40

19

14

9

4

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service using data from USDA, Agricultural Marketing 

Service.

Steer byproduct drop

value trend

5-area live 

product

Steer byproduct drop 

value

Wt ave cutout 

value

Wt ave cutout 

trend

5-area live 

price trend
13

Where’s the (Not) Meat? Byproducts From Beef and Pork Production / LDP-M-209-01 

Economic Research Service/USDA

primal cuts, including ribs, chuck, round, loin, brisket, short plank, and flank. 

The weighted-average cutout value increased 36.4 percent from 2000 to 2010, 

an indication that packers are receiving, on average, over 36 percent more 

per carcass than they received a decade ago (fig. 7). 

However, the five-area live steer price2 trended upward by 38.1 percent during 

the same time period. Although it may seem counterintuitive that the live 

price rose faster than the cutout price given the drop value’s slower growth, a 

36.4-percent increase in the greater valued cutout price amounts to more on a 

per head basis than a 38.1-percent increase in the lesser valued live price. In 

this instance, a 41-cents-per-pound increase for weighted average cutout price 

is compared with a 26-cents-per-pound increase for the five-area live price. 

As with hog byproduct drop values, steer byproduct drop values for 2011 have 

also seen record high levels year-to-date.

As shown in figure 8, the annual average proportion of value added to a steer 

from byproducts remained virtually the same from 2000 to 2010, at 10.3 

percent. However, from January to September 2011, the proportion averaged 

over 11 percent. Since a large share of byproduct value for cattle comes from 

hides, these values tend to follow hide values closely. For example, at the end 

of 2008, hide values plunged as effects of the worldwide recession dampened 

auto industry demand for leather and leather products. 

Several factors help account for the sluggish growth in the value of beef 

byproducts relative to the value of the whole animal. Efficiency gains from 

technological advances have lowered the costs of recovering byproducts, 

enabling packers and renderers to sell more byproducts at a lower price 

and still maintain profitability. Also, technologies now exist for producing 

synthetic materials that replace byproducts, including synthetic materials to 

make items that were once made of leather, vegetable fats and oils to replace 

animal fats in cooking, synthetic detergents to replace soaps formerly made 

from animal fat, and cellulose sausage casings to replace casings made from 

intestines (Aberle et al., 2001). 

2This price is listed as part of USDA, 

Agricultural Marketing Service’s 

5 Area Monthly Weighted Average 

Direct Slaughter Cattle – Negotiated 

report (LM_CT180). It includes 

data from the Texas/Oklahoma/New 

Mexico; Kansas; Nebraska; Colorado; 

and Iowa/Minnesota feedlots. See 

www.ams.usda.gov/mnreports/lm_

ct180.txt for the most recent report.

Figure 8

Percent of value added to the steer from byproducts

Percent

Trend

Jan 2000

Jan 01Jan 02Jan 03Jan 04Jan 05

Jan 06Jan 07Jan 08Jan 09

Jan 10

Jan 11

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service using data from USDA, Agricultural Marketing 

Service.
14

Where’s the (Not) Meat? Byproducts From Beef and Pork Production / LDP-M-209-01 Economic Research Service/USDA

In addition, BSE affected byproduct markets in a number of ways and 

continues to restrict beef and beef/veal byproduct exports and export growth. 

For example, many countries imposed restrictions on imports of U.S. beef 

and variety meats: Mexico and South Korea banned imports of small intestines, China banned imports of beef and variety meats, Hong Kong banned 

imports of beef from cattle over 30 months of age, and Japan banned imports 

of beef and products from cattle over 21 months of age. Also, some products 

historically categorized as “edible” in certain countries are now classified as 

“inedible” (brains, spinal tissue, spinal cords, etc.) and, in some cases, are 

considered a biohazard. 

Empirical Example of Determining the Contribution 

of Byproducts to Steer Prices

To gain a greater understanding of how byproducts add to the value of a 

steer, ERS developed ad hoc regression model estimates of the monthly 

weighted average, five-area steer prices for all grades of steers for the period 

January 2000 through July 2010. Model variables are outlined in appendix B. 

The estimate for the cattle byproduct drop value is positive and statistically 

significant, indicating that byproducts contribute positively to the value of live 

cattle. These findings suggest that a 10-percent increase in the byproduct drop 

value will result in a 1.1-percent increase in the five-area weighted average 

price for all grades of steers. For a full description of the methodology and 

findings of this model, see appendix B.

The carcass cutout value is statistically significant and positively contributes 

to live cattle value, whereas the number of head slaughtered is also statistically significant but negatively correlates with cattle prices. This indicates 

that shortages support cattle prices while surpluses depress them. The model 

shows that the effect of the BSE outbreak in Japan on cattle prices is negative 

but not significant. In fact, when BSE was discovered in Japan in September 

2001, Japanese demand for beef fell, regardless of beef origin, which reduced 

foreign demand for U.S. beef and depressed steer prices. The effect on steer 

prices of the discovery of BSE in Canada is also significant and positive. 

This implies that when a case of BSE was found in Canada in May 2003, 

bans against imports of Canadian cattle affected U.S. domestic beef supplies, 

putting upward pressure on U.S. beef prices. Conversely, the effect of the U.S. 

BSE outbreak is negative, reflecting the decline in demand for U.S. beef when 

a case of BSE was found in a U.S. cow previously imported from Canada in 

December 2003. 
15

Where’s the (Not) Meat? Byproducts From Beef and Pork Production / LDP-M-209-01 

Economic Research Service/USDA

To gain insight into the value of byproducts for U.S. packers and renderers, 

it is also useful to observe prices for the separate items that comprise the 

edible byproduct in both domestic and foreign markets. Tables 1 and 2 illustrate the difference in value for select products available in U.S., Chinese, 

and Mexican markets. All U.S. prices are weighted averages taken from the 

USDA, AMS Pork and Beef Variety Meats Report, and all foreign prices are 

converted to U.S. dollars. 

Recent annual average prices for most of the variety meats are much higher 

than their 10-year averages, indicating that prices for these products are on 

the rise overall. Prices in the United States for some items, like stomachs, 

have trended upward in value closer to values in foreign markets. Greater 

international demand and higher prices for byproduct items add value to the 

live U.S. animal. As shown in the tables, certain U.S. items are particularly 

competitive in the Chinese and Mexican markets. While transportation costs, 

exchange rates, and tariffs all affect the costs of byproduct items imported 

from the United States, certain goods, such as kidneys, livers, hearts, tails, 

and tripe, cost more than twice as much in China than in the United States. 

Prices for these goods in Mexico, the closer of the two foreign markets, fall in 

between those in the United States and China. 

Foreign Byproduct Price Comparison

Table 1

U.S.-Chinese-Mexican pork byproduct price comparison

Product

U.S. average 

price, 

2000-2010

U.S. average 

price,

2010

U.S. price, 

week ending 

May 22, 2010

China price,

May 20, 20101

Central Mexico 

price, 

May 21, 20102

Dollars per hundredweight

Kidneys 19.44 21.71 NA 146.11 NA

Livers 17.23 16.73 NA 51.80 NA

Ears 97.09 134.57 139.00 162.71 NA

Stomachs 65.23 106.85 112.00 112.90 NA

Chitterlings 42.41 NA NA 83.01 NA

Hocks 29.06 42.73 37.00 69.73 NA

Hearts 33.84 32.47 33.00 89.66 NA

Tails 43.43 66.69 63.80 212.52 NA

Feet 34.97 46.85 51.00 83.01 57.69

Skins 25.00 40.00 NA 53.13 69.92

Tongues 75.97 135.30 122.00 136.14 NA

Head NA NA NA 68.00 54.19

Cheek meat 66.17 93.48 94.70 NA 97.89

Visceras3 NA NA NA NA 20.98

NA: Not applicable because these markets have not reported prices for these particular items during this time period.

1Chinese prices in terms of U.S. dollars use the exchange rate of 6.83 yuan to 1 dollar, as recorded by the Board of Governors of the Federal 

Reserve.

2Mexican prices in terms of U.S. dollars use the exchange rate of 12.974 pesos to 1 dollar, as recorded by the University of British Columbia 

Pacific Exchange Rate Service.

3An aggregated price for liver, heart, stomach, intestines, lungs, kidneys, and spleen sold in Aguascalientes, Mexico.

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service using data from USDA, Agricultural Marketing Service, LGMN Portal Database; Beijing Xinfadi 

Wholesale Market “price quotations” (translated by Fred Gale, ERS); and Sistema Nacional de Información e Intergración de Mercados.
16

Where’s the (Not) Meat? Byproducts From Beef and Pork Production / LDP-M-209-01 Economic Research Service/USDA

Table 2

U.S.-Chinese-Mexican beef byproduct price comparison

Product

U.S. average 

price, 

2000-2010

U.S. average 

price,

2010

U.S. price, 

week ending 

May 22, 2010

China price,

May 20, 20101

Central Mexico 

price, 

May 21, 20102

Dollars per hundredweight

Kidneys 19.30 30.81 NA 53.24 NA

Tripe 43.59 49.06 NA 99.83 NA

Liver 25.89 54.16 NA 53.24 NA

Heart 28.91 47.08 NA 66.55 NA

Tongue 154.45 203.40 NA 133.10 NA

Visceras3 NA NA NA NA 43.72

NA: Not applicable because these markets have not reported prices for these particular items during this time period.

1Chinese prices in terms of U.S. dollars use the exchange rate of 6.83 yuan to 1 dollar, as recorded by the Board of Governors of the Federal 

Reserve.

2Mexican prices in terms of U.S. dollars use the exchange rate of 12.974 pesos to 1 dollar, as recorded by the University of British Columbia 

Pacific Exchange Rate Service.

3An aggregated price for liver, heart, stomach, intestines, lungs, kidneys, and spleen sold in Aguascalientes, Mexico.

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service (ERS) using data from USDA, Agricultural Marketing Service, LGMN Portal Database; Beijing Xinfadi 

Wholesale Market “price quotations” (translated by Fred Gale, ERS); and Sistema Nacional de Información e Intergración de Mercados.
17

Where’s the (Not) Meat? Byproducts From Beef and Pork Production / LDP-M-209-01 

Economic Research Service/USDA

The supply of offal produced in the United States is much larger than its 

domestic demand. U.S. demand for edible offal stems mostly from use as 

ingredients in products such as sausages, hot dogs, and pet foods. Variety 

meats are more highly valued in foreign markets than in the United States. 

Exporting U.S. edible offal to markets with greater preferences for the products increases the overall value and profitability of the carcasses (Reed and 

Saghaian, 2004). Although carcasses and high-value cuts account for the 

majority of both volume and value of total U.S. red meat exports, edible offal 

exports constitute about 26 percent of the volume and about 15 percent of the 

value of total beef/veal- and pork-product exports over the last 5 years. The 

United States was historically the world’s largest exporter of edible offal up 

until 2003. Although the United States is still the single largest exporter of 

edible offal, in 2004, the EU-27 as a region overtook the United States as the 

world’s largest export trader of these products. Data from 2010 suggest that 

the United States supplies about 28 percent of the world’s exports of edible 

offal for all species; the EU supplies about 36 percent (fig. 9). Still, the U.S. 

share is much less than what it was in the 1950s, when the United States 

accounted for 32 percent of world exports of edible offal (USDA-FAS, 1958).

Pork Edible Offal Exports and Markets

Exports of U.S. pork edible offal have steadily increased over the last two 

decades (fig. 10). The percentage of pork products exported from edible 

offal has averaged 22.5 percent annually over the last 5 years, as exports of 

U.S. pork edible offal have more than tripled from levels a decade earlier to 

almost 481,000 metric tons (MT)3 in 2010. The 2010 exports were the largest 3One metric ton is approximately 

2,204.6 pounds.

U.S. Edible Offal and the Global Marketplace

Figure 9

Major world edible offal exporting countries by volume, 2010 1

 Data include offal from bovine, swine, goats, and horses (HTS code sets 0206) and guts, 

bladders, and stomachs of animals other than fish (HTS code set 0504). At least 90 percent 

of these offal are of bovine and swine origin.

1

Rest of

world

(11.4%)

EU27

external trade

only

(35.8%)

United States

(27.6%)

Brazil

(9.2%)

Canada

(6.6%)

Australia

(5.7%)

Argentina

(3.8%)
18

Where’s the (Not) Meat? Byproducts From Beef and Pork Production / LDP-M-209-01 Economic Research Service/USDA

quantity of pork offal exports to date, accounting for 25 percent of the total 

volume of U.S. pork exports, the largest percentage in 6 years. In recent 

years, the value of U.S. exports of pork edible offal has also risen to historical 

highs. Prior to 2004, this amount was less than $200 million annually; it 

grew to $349 million in 2004 and has since more than doubled, reaching 

$708 million in 2008. In 2010, U.S. exports of pork edible offal were valued 

at $700 million, the third highest year on record.

Mexico is the largest importer of U.S. pork edible offal, accounting for over 

42 percent of the U.S. exports over the last decade (fig. 11). Other major 

importers of U.S. pork edible offal include Hong Kong/China, Russia, Japan, 

and South Korea; however, many of these markets have developed only in the 

last 2-3 years. In this study, Hong Kong and China are grouped as one export 

destination. Hong Kong is more of an open market with fewer trade barriers, 

and as suggested by findings in another study, Hong Kong re-exports most 

of the pork edible offal imports to China (see Bean, 1996). In 2008, Hong 

Kong/China began to rival Mexico as the leading export market for U.S. pork 

edible offal in terms of volume. Until 2004, exports of all U.S. pork edible 

offal to Hong Kong/China were marginal; in 2008, they jumped to over 

130,000 MT, close to a third of the U.S. total shipped worldwide. In 2010, 

Hong Kong/China became the number one export destination for U.S. exports 

of pork edible offal. With imports of 182,000 MT, or nearly 38 percent of 

total U.S. shipments, Hong Kong/China set a record among all countries. 

Prior to 2008, U.S. exports of pork edible offal to Russia were also minimal; 

however, in 2008, exports to Russia spiked at almost 61,000 MT, contributing 

to the near doubling of total U.S. exports of pork edible offal over the last few 

years of the decade. Offal can more easily be exported to Russia than muscle 

meat cuts because it does not fall under the tariff rate quotas that Russia 

imposes on other U.S. meats.

Major U.S. exports of pork edible offal in 2010 included fresh or chilled offal 

(13 percent of U.S. pork offal exports), hog feet (11 percent), rinds (8 percent), 

guts, bladders, and stomachs (8 percent), frozen intestines (7 percent) and all 

other frozen pork offal (45 percent) (fig. 12). Mexico imported 93 percent of 

Figure 10

U.S. exports of swine meat and edible offal 

Million metric tons

1989 91 93 97 99 2001 03 07 

2.25

2.00

1.75

1.50

1.25

1.00

0.75

0.50

0.25

0

 Data include swine edible offal (HTS code sets 020630, 02064, 020649, 0504000020, 

0504000080, and 16024910) and fresh, chilled, frozen, or prepared pork (HTS code sets 0203, 

0210, 160241, 160242, 16024920, 16024940, and 16024970).

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service using data from USDA, Foreign Agricultural 

Service, Global Agricultural Trade System.

1

1

Swine muscle meat cuts

Swine edible offal

95 05 09
19

Where’s the (Not) Meat? Byproducts From Beef and Pork Production / LDP-M-209-01 

Economic Research Service/USDA

all U.S.-exported pork rinds, 93 percent of the prepared or preserved offal 

exports, and 65 percent of the fresh or chilled pork offal exports in 2010. 

Russia was the leading importer of U.S. swine head meat, and Hong Kong/

China was the leading importer of U.S. hog feet, guts, stomachs and bladders, 

intestines, tongues, and pig hearts. 

Figure 11

Top five export markets for U.S. pork edible offal 1

1,000 metric tons

1997 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10

200

150

100

50

0

 These data include swine edible offal (HTS code sets 020630, 020641, 0504000020, 

0504000080, and 16024910).

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service using data from USDA, Foreign Agricultural 

Service, Global Agricultural Trade Systems.

1 

Mexico

Japan

Hong Kong/China

South Korea

Russia 

All other countries

Figure 12

Top five export markets for U.S. pork edible offal by meat types,

2010 

1

1,000 metric tons

Hong Kong/

China Mexico Japan Russia South Korea

200

180

160

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

 These data include swine edible offal (HTS code sets 020630, 020649, 0504000020, 

0504000080, and 16024910).

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service using data from USDA, Foreign Agricultural 

Service, Global Agricultural Trade System.

1 

Prepared or 

preserved offal

Intestine

Guts, stomach, 

or bladders

Livers

Heart

Head meat

Tongue

Feet

Offal, fresh 

or chilled

Skins

Other frozen 

offal
20

Where’s the (Not) Meat? Byproducts From Beef and Pork Production / LDP-M-209-01 Economic Research Service/USDA

Beef Edible Offal Exports and Markets

U.S. exports of beef and veal edible offal have been steadily increasing since 

being disrupted by the BSE outbreak in 2003. In 2010, bovine meat exports 

from the United States were 89 percent of their 2003 levels, and bovine edible 

offal exports were 74 percent of their 2003 levels. Although edible offal’s 

share of bovine product exports in the last 3 years has been less than the 

historical average, it reached almost 29 percent in 2009 (fig. 13). From 1990 

to 2003, the average annual growth in the value of bovine edible offal exports 

was 10.7 percent, meaning that the value of bovine offal exported from the 

United States rose by over $413 million to $711 million during that period. 

After the initial decline of exports in 2004, the annual value of exports of 

U.S. bovine edible offal again climbed, reaching $541 million in 2010.

Historically, Japan was the largest importer of U.S. bovine edible offal, 

buying 32 percent of U.S. exports from 1997 to 2003. In Japan, items such as 

tongue, liver, stomach, and intestines are commonly used in barbecue, hot pot 

dishes, stews, and soups for both at-home and away-from-home consumption 

(Obara et al., 2010). Other traditionally large importers of U.S. bovine edible 

offal include Mexico, Egypt, Russia, and Canada (fig. 14). In these markets, 

“end cuts” and variety meats—the traditionally lower priced beef products in 

the United States—are bid away from competing uses in the United States. 

This contributes to an increase in the U.S. cutout value, and, ultimately, value 

is added to U.S. cattle at slaughter. 

U.S. exports of bovine edible offal to major markets have increased gradually 

since 2003. During the same period and prior to the recent political turmoil 

in Egypt, U.S. exports of the product to Egypt also rose dramatically. In 

2008, about 33 percent of U.S. exports of bovine edible offal went to Egypt, 

making it the largest destination for U.S. bovine variety meats that year (fig. 

14). Having risen since 2006, U.S. exports to Egypt slowed in 2008-09 due in 

part to increased competition from Russia. Once Russia reopened its market 

to the United States, it started buying more U.S. beef livers, which drove 

up prices for Egyptian importers. However, a larger factor in the 2008-09 

Figure 13

U.S. exports of bovine meat and edible offal 

Million metric tons

1989 91 93 95 97 99 2001 03 05 07 09

1.4

1.2

1.0

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0

 Data include bovine edible offal (HTS code sets 020610, 020622, 0504000050, 0504000070), 

and fresh, chilled, frozen, or prepared bovine meat (HTS code sets 0201, 0202, 16024920, 

1602509020, and 1602509500).

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service using data from USDA, Foreign Agricultural 

Service, Global Agricultural Trade System.

1

1

Bovine muscle meat cuts

Bovine edible offal
21

Where’s the (Not) Meat? Byproducts From Beef and Pork Production / LDP-M-209-01 

Economic Research Service/USDA

slowdown may have been the global economic crisis, which resulted in tightened credit and a weakened Egyptian pound. In 2010, U.S. exports of bovine 

edible offal to Egypt almost recovered to their peak levels of 2007. The 

increase was driven by the efforts of Egyptian entrepreneurs who put beef 

liver and other price-competitive items in Egypt’s retail outlets and supermarkets as well as on the menus of hotels and restaurants. Mexico currently 

remains the top export destination for U.S. bovine edible offal, if only by a 

small margin. In 2010, Mexico imported 87,700 MT of bovine edible offal 

from the United States, just 2,600 MT more than Egypt.

Traditionally, beef liver has been the top U.S. export of bovine edible offal. 

In 2010, bovine livers accounted for 31 percent of all U.S. exports of bovine 

edible offal (fig. 15). Other top U.S. exports of bovine edible offal include 

tripe (14 percent of U.S. edible offal exports) hearts (8 percent), tongue (5 

percent), lips (4 percent), and all other frozen offal (29 percent). In 2010, 

53 percent of all U.S. bovine liver exports went to Egypt, with another 21 

percent going to Russia. Egypt also accounted for 35 percent of U.S. bovine 

kidney exports. In 2010, the majority of all U.S. exports of beef lips, sweetbreads, tripe, and tongue went to Mexico; more than half of U.S. exports 

of fresh or chilled bovine offal went to Japan; and about 28 percent of U.S. 

exports of all other frozen bovine offal went to Egypt, with Mexico taking 

the second highest volume.

Together, edible bovine and porcine byproducts accounted for more than 16 

percent of the total value of U.S. bovine/porcine exports—which include 

edible offal and meat—over the last 10 years. In 2010, exports of pork and 

beef/veal edible offal accounted for only 14 percent of the total value of U.S. 

bovine/porcine exports, a lower-than-average share due to record-high export 

values of beef/veal and pork muscle meat. However, exports of beef/veal and 

pork edible offal in 2010 did reach a record $1.2 billion, $135 million more 

Figure 14

Top five export markets for U.S. bovine edible offal 1

1,000 metric tons

1997 98 99 2000 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10

200

160

120

80

40

0

 These data include bovine edible offal (HTS code sets 020610, 020622, 020629, 0504000050, 

0504000070).

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service using data from USDA, Foreign Agricultural 

Service, Global Agricultural Trade System.

1

Mexico

Japan

Egypt

Canada

Russia 

All other countries
22

Where’s the (Not) Meat? Byproducts From Beef and Pork Production / LDP-M-209-01 Economic Research Service/USDA

than the previous high set in 2009. The U.S. export value of edible beef/veal 

and pork offal has increased every year since 2004 (fig. 16).

Total world imports of edible offal have increased significantly in recent 

years, and emerging markets for U.S. byproducts are evident. Currently, 

Hong Kong/China, Mexico, and Russia import the greatest shares of total 

Figure 15

Top five export markets for U.S. bovine edible offal by meat types,

2010 

1

1,000 metric tons

Mexico Egypt Russia Japan Canada

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

 These data include bovine edible offal (HTS code sets 020610, 020621, 020629, 0504000050, 

0504000070).

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service using data from USDA, Foreign Agricultural 

Service, Global Agricultural Trade System.

1 

Intestine

Tripe

Brain

Sweatbreads

Kidneys

Tongue

Lips

Heart

Liver

Other frozen 

offal

Offal, fresh

or chilled

Figure 16

Export value of U.S. bovine and porcine muscle meat and edible offal 

Billion dollars

1989 91 93 95 97 99 01 03 05 07 09

10

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

0

 Data include bovine and porcine edible offal (HTS code sets 020610, 020621, 020622, 020629, 

020630, 020641, 020649, 0504000020, 0504000050, 0504000070, 0504000080, and 

1602491000), and fresh, chilled, frozen, bovine and pork meat (HTS code sets 0201, 0202, 

0203, 021011, 021012, 021019, 201020, 160241, 160242, 1602492000, 1602494000, 

1602497000, and 160250).

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service using data from USDA, Foreign Agricultural 

Service, Global Agricultural Trade System.

1

1

Bovine and porcine muscle meat cuts

Bovine and porcine edible offal
23

Where’s the (Not) Meat? Byproducts From Beef and Pork Production / LDP-M-209-01 

Economic Research Service/USDA

world exports of edible beef/veal and pork offal in terms of volume (fig. 17). 

Combined, these countries accounted for two-thirds of the world’s edible 

offal imports over the last 10 years. Imports of beef/veal and pork edible offal 

by Hong Kong and China increased significantly during the period, mostly 

because of rising populations and swiftly growing incomes. Historically, the 

Philippines has not been a major importer of edible offal, but in 2010, the 

country almost doubled its annual total and overtook Japan as the world’s 

fifth largest importer of edible offal.

Worldwide, the types of proteins consumed are often dependent upon 

peoples’ income levels as well as cultural and religious practices. Increasing 

per capita incomes and rising GDP may have varied effects on consumption and trade of variety meats, depending on how the products are viewed 

in each country. In countries such as Egypt, where certain variety meats are 

popular, increasing wealth and GDP growth may result in increased U.S. 

variety meat exports. Egyptian demand for bovine products should remain 

strong in the coming years, especially since Egypt has a younger population, 

a relatively high rate of economic growth, and a limited capacity to expand 

domestic production (Kamenski, 2006). Variety meats are also highly valued 

in many Asian markets, where, in the long term, increases in U.S. meat and 

variety meat exports are anticipated. However, in portions of the Mexican and 

Russian markets, for example, where variety meats are less highly valued, 

variety meat consumption may give way to increasing consumption of muscle 

cuts as tastes and preferences change. While U.S. exports of variety meats 

could decline as incomes rise in some countries, preferences in other countries, such as China, for certain culinary traditions that are strongly tied to 

variety meat use will continue to play an integral role in demand for U.S. 

variety meat exports. 

Figure 17

Historical top five world importers of edible offal by volume 1

Million tons

2000 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10

3.5

3.0

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

0

 Data include edible offal from bovine, swine, sheep, goats, and horses (HTS code sets 0206) 

and guts, bladders, and stomachs or animals other than fish (HTS code set 0504). At least 

80 percent of these offal are of bovine and swine origin.

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service using data from Global Trade Information Services,

Global Trade Atlas (complete data available only through 2009).

1 

China/Hong Kong

EU27 (external trade)

Mexico

Japan

Russia

All other countries
24

Where’s the (Not) Meat? Byproducts From Beef and Pork Production / LDP-M-209-01 Economic Research Service/USDA

The many uses of animal byproducts are often overlooked; however, these 

items contribute a significant value to the U.S. livestock and meat industries. 

Uses for animal byproducts include, but are not limited to, certain industrial, household, and cosmetic products; livestock feed additives; pet foods; 

pharmaceutical and medical supplies; human consumption; and 

foreign exportation.

Although the development of synthetic substitutes in the middle of the 20th 

century decreased the value of many animal byproducts, recent use in the pet 

food industry and the medical field and rising export demand are contributing 

to an increase in byproduct values in recent years. Evidence of byproduct 

value appreciation can be seen in both the beef and pork industries, but only 

for pork has the proportion of value added to the hog from the byproduct 

value increased significantly over the last decade. Empirical analysis reveals 

that wholesale byproduct values marginally influence the live animal’s value. 

This finding is supported by the willingness of packers to pay marginally 

more (or less) for live animals based on current byproduct market values. 

Because the U.S. supply of edible offal typically exceeds domestic demand, 

the United States has historically been the world leader in exports of bovine 

and swine byproducts. Therefore, emerging markets that value offal products 

and are expanding their consumption will continue to play an important role 

in U.S. offal exports and thus, the U.S. livestock industry.

Conclusions
25

Where’s the (Not) Meat? Byproducts From Beef and Pork Production / LDP-M-209-01 

Economic Research Service/USDA

Aberle, E.D., J.C. Forrest, D.E. Gerrard, and E.W. Mills. Principles of Meat 

Science, Fourth edition, Kendall/Hunt Publishing Co.: Dubuque, IA, 2001.

Bean, R. “Beef Tongues to Pork Maws, Foreign Markets Hunger for Variety 

Meats,” AgExporter, June-July 1996, http://findarticles.com/p/articles/

mi_m3723/is_n5_v8/ai_18752623/?tag=content;col1

Beijing Xinfadi Wholesale Market. “Price Quotations,” Translated by Fred 

Gale, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, 

Accessed October 2010, www.xinfadi.com.cn/channel/13195963 

Corbin, J.E. “Inedible Meat, Poultry and Fish By-Products in Pet Foods,” 

in A.M. Pearson and T.R. Dutson (eds.), Inedible Meat By-Products, 

Advances in Meat Research, Vol. 8. pp, 329-347, Elsevier Applied 

Science: London, 1992.

Danilevici, C., M. Iordan, and M. Niã. “Valorisation of By-Products From 

Food Industry, Means of Effective Protecting the Environment,” Annals, 

Food Science and Technology, 2009, www.afst.valahia.ro/anale2009/vol1/

sectiunea4/10_CONSTANTIN_DANILEVICI_2.pdf 

Duewer, Larry. “Updated Beef Carcass-to-Retail Consumption Conversion 

Factor Increases to 0.7,” Livestock Dairy and Poultry Outlook, Outlook 

Report No. LDP-51, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic 

Research Service, May 1998, http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/ers/

LDP-M/1990s/1998/LDP-M-05-21-1998.txt

Dyck, J.H., and K.E. Nelson. Structure of the Global Markets for Meat, 

Agriculture Information Bulletin 785, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Economic Research Service, September 2003, www.ers.usda.gov/

publications/aib785/

Franco, D.A., and W. Swanson. The Original Recyclers, Animal Proteins 

Producers Industry, Fats and Proteins Research Foundation, and National 

Renderers Association, 1996. 

Goodlight, A. “Medical Breakthroughs: Pig Parts for the Human Body,” 

Associated Content from Yahoo, August 18, 2010, www.associatedcontent.

com/article/5684798/medical_breakthroughs_pig_parts_for.html?cat=58

Halstead, T. “U.S. Variety Meat Exports on the Upswing,” FAS online, 1999, 

www.fas.usda.gov/dlp2/circular/1999/99-03LP/variety.htm 

Hayes, Dermot. “Chinese Market for U.S. Pork Exports,” Trade 

Research Center, August 1997, pg. 11, http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/

bitstream/29173/1/pip02.pdf 

Kamenski, C. “Variety Meats Vital to Boosting U.S. Beef Exports,” Issues 

Update, March-April 2006, pp. 29-30, www.beefusa.org/uDocs/varietymeatsvitaltoexports.pdf

References
26

Where’s the (Not) Meat? Byproducts From Beef and Pork Production / LDP-M-209-01 Economic Research Service/USDA

Marti, Daniel L., and Rachel J. Johnson. “Special Article: U.S. Variety 

Meat Exports and the Global Marketplace,” in Livestock, Dairy, and 

Poultry Outlook, Outlook Report No. LDP-M-195, U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Economic Research Service, September 2010, www.ers.usda.

gov/publications/ldp/2010/09sep/ldpm195.pdf

Mathews, K.H. Jr. “Economic Impacts of Feed-Related Regulatory 

Responses to Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy,” in Livestock, 

Dairy, and Poultry Outlook, Outlook Report No. LDP-M-170-01, U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, September 2008, 

http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/ers/LDP-M//2000s/2008/LDP-M09-04-2008_Special_Report.pdf

Mathews, K.H. Jr., M. Vandeveer, and R.A. Gustafson. “An Economic 

Chronology of Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy in North America,” in 

Livestock, Dairy, and Poultry Outlook, Outlook Report No. LDP-M-143-

01, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, June 

2006. http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/ers/LDP-M//2000s/2006/

LDP-M-06-09-2006_Special_Report.pdf

Mexico, Republic of, Secretaria de Economia. Sistema Nacional de 

Informacion e Integracion de Mercados website, Accessed October 2010, 

www.economia-sniim.gob.mx/Nuevo/ 

Murray, S.M., A.R. Patil, G.C. Fahey, Jr, N.R. Merchen, and D.M. Hughes. 

“Raw and Rendered Animal By-Products as Ingredients in Dog Diets,” 

Journal of Animal Science, 1997, 75:2497-2505.

National Renderers Association. Render, Alexandria, VA, Various April 

issues.

Obara, K., M. McConnell, and J. Dyck. Japan’s Beef Market, U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Outlook Report 

No. LDP-M-194-01, August 2010, www.ers.usda.gov/publications/

ldp/2010/08aug/ldpm19401/ldpm19401.pdf

Ockerman, H.W., and C.L. Hansen. Animal Byproduct Processing and 

Utilization, First edition, Lancaster, PA: Technomic, 2000.

Ockerman, H.W., and L. Basu. “Edible Rendering—Rendered Products for 

Human Use,” April 29, 2010, https://dspace.lib.ohio-state.edu/dspace/

bitstream/1811/45284/1/Rendering_Chapter.pdf

Pearl, G.G. “Animal By-Products: Biological and Industrial Products,” in 

W.G. Pond and A.W. Bell (eds.), Encyclopedia of Animal Science 19-21, 

Marcel Dekker: New York, 2005. 
27

Where’s the (Not) Meat? Byproducts From Beef and Pork Production / LDP-M-209-01 

Economic Research Service/USDA

Plain, R.L. Professor of Agricultural Economics, University of Missouri, 

Personal communication, October 27, 2010.

Prokop, W. H. “The Rendering Industry—A Commitment to Public Service,” 

in The Original Recyclers, D.A. Franco and W. Swanson (eds.), pp. 

17-21, Animal Protein Producers Industry, Fats and Proteins Research 

Foundation, National Renderers Association, 1996.

Reed, M. R., and S.H. Saghaian. “Measuring the Intensity of Competition 

in the Japanese Beef Market,” Journal of Agricultural and Applied 

Economics 36(1): 113-121, April 2004. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Marketing Service. “LGMN 

Portals Database,” http://marketnews.usda.gov/portal/lg

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Marketing Service. Market 

News Reports, http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/ams.fetchTemplateData.do?template=TemplateB&navID=MarketNewsAndTransportationD

ata&leftNav=MarketNewsAndTransportationData&page=LSMarketNew

sPage 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. Weights, 

Measures, and Conversion Factors for Agricultural Commodities and 

Their Products, Agricultural Handbook No. 697, 1992.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Foreign Agricultural Service (a). “Foreign 

Agricultural Trade of the United States,” www.fas.usda.gov/ustrade/

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Foreign Agricultural Service (b). United 

States Variety Meats in World Markets, FAS M-43, October 1958. 

U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Bureau of the Census. Current 

Industrial Report, M311K—Fats and Oils, Production Consumption, and 

Stocks, Various issues.
28

Where’s the (Not) Meat? Byproducts From Beef and Pork Production / LDP-M-209-01 Economic Research Service/USDA

Appendix A — Types of Offal by Category

Appendix table A-1

Types of offal by category

Category Raw byproduct Principal use

Edible offal Brain Variety meats

Head meat Sausage ingredients, variety meats

Heart Variety meats

Kidneys Variety meats

Liver Variety meats

Spleen (melt) Variety meats

Stomach (tripe) Cheese making components, sausage 

components, variety meats

Tail Variety meats

Testicles (fries) Variety meats

Thymus or pancreas 

(sweetbreads)

Variety meats

Tongue Variety meats

Inedible/edible 

 offal

Blood Adhesives, ceramics, cosmetics, feed 

use, fertilizer, foam in fire extinguishers, insecticides, laboratory use, medical use, plastics, sausage components

Bones Animal feed, buttons and handles, 

capsules for medications, cosmetics, 

emulsions, fertilizer, gelatins, glues, 

hardening steel, candies and dairy 

products, ointments, paper, photographic films, refining sugar, textiles

Connective tissue Gelatins

Ears Pet food, variety meats

Fats Candies, chewing gum, germicides, 

industrial oils, insecticides, lubricants, 

soap, glycerin, medicinal products, 

shortenings, tires

Feet Fine lubricants, leather preparations, 

variety meats

Intestines (chitterlings 

or natural casings)

Sausage components, variety meats, 

medical use

Skin Candies, capsules for medications, 

cosmetics, dairy products, emulsions, 

gelatins, leather goods, ointments, paper, photographic films, rinds, textiles

Inedible offal Glands Industrial products, medicines

Hair Athletic equipment, brushes, felt, insulation, rugs, upholstery

Hide Boxes and plywood, gelatins, glues, 

leather goods

Lungs Pet foods

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service using data from Aberle et al., 2001; Ockerman and 

Hansen, 2000; Pearl, 2005; Goodlight, 2010; Corbin, 1992; and Murray et al., 1997.
29

Where’s the (Not) Meat? Byproducts From Beef and Pork Production / LDP-M-209-01 

Economic Research Service/USDA

To gain a greater understanding of how byproducts contribute to the value 

of a steer, we estimated an ad hoc regression model of the monthly weighted 

average, five-area steer prices for all grades of steers for January 2000 

through December 2011. The log-log model specification facilitates the interpretation of the parameters as response parameters or a form of elasticity. 

Variables used in the regression model are outlined in appendix table 1. A 

weighted average of Choice and Select cutout values is calculated to represent all grades. Cutout values, byproduct values, prices for 50-percent trim, 

and hog prices were originally from USDA, Agricultural Marketing Service 

reports. Data on total federally inspected cattle slaughter come from USDA, 

National Agricultural Statistics Service Livestock Slaughter. Data on live 

cattle imports are obtained from ERS web sources. Indicator variables for 

bovine spongiform encephalitis (BSE) confirmations in export markets 

important to the United States are constructed based on BSE confirmation 

dates. Trigonometric variables were added to account for seasonality and any 

effects from the cyclical nature of cattle inventories.

Any extra products from an animal would generally be expected to add value 

to the animal, meaning that they would have a positive effect on steer prices. 

This is the case in the model for cutout, byproduct, and trim values, although 

only the effects from cutout and byproduct values are statistically significant. 

The price of a substitute, hogs in this case, is also expected to be positive as it 

is in this model, but, again, not statistically significant. 

Interpretation of the byproduct parameter—the main parameter of interest in 

this model—is that a 1-percent increase in byproduct values results in a 0.11-

percent increase in steer prices. An increase in byproduct values from $13.20 

to $13.33 (a 1-percent increase) implies an increase in the five-area steer 

price from $115.00 to $115.13 (a change in the steer price of 0.11 percent). 

Other parameters have similar interpretations but differ in magnitude and 

direction because of the signs attached to the parameter estimates.

Total federally inspected cattle slaughter, a quantity variable, was expected 

to have a negative effect on steer prices since, from a demand perspective, a 

larger quantity of the commodity would sell at a lower price. In this model, 

the sign for slaughter is negative and significant. The effect of a trade-related 

variable is not so easily explained. Imports of live cattle were expected to 

have a negative effect on U.S. steer prices because more cattle would sell 

at lower prices. However, the study is one in which cattle inventories were 

generally declining. Also, most of the imported cattle are feeder cattle, and a 

positive parameter may indicate demand for inputs into future production in 

the face of inadequate current supplies. The parameter for cattle imports is 

both positive and significant. 

The indicator variable for BSE in Japan is negative but not significant, likely 

reflecting the adverse reaction of Japanese consumers to their own BSE 

events. The reluctance of Japanese consumers to consume any beef reduced 

exports of U.S. beef, and Japan was the top U.S. beef export market prior to 

their BSE confirmation. The U.S. BSE confirmation had an expected negative 

Appendix B — Steer Byproducts Model
30

Where’s the (Not) Meat? Byproducts From Beef and Pork Production / LDP-M-209-01 Economic Research Service/USDA

Appendix table B-1

Regression of weighted average five-area steer prices onto byproduct values and selected other variables, 

January 2000-July 2010

Variable Description Coefficient Significance t-Statistic

LOG(PR5AREASTEER) Dependent variable: natural logarithm of 5-area 

weighted average price for all grades of steers 

sold on a negotiated basis, $/cwt 

C Intercept 1.214785 1.763885

LOG(PRCHSELCUTOUT) natural logarithm of weighted average Choice 

and Select cutout values, $/cwt

0.774930 *** 12.32470

LOG(PRBYPROD) natural logarithm of byproduct (drop) value, $/cwt 0.113227 *** 5.094476

LOG(PR50TRIM) natural logarithm of 50-percent lean trim, $/cwt 0.003789 0.297329

LOG(PRHOGS) natural logarithm of prices for slaughter barrows 

and gilts, $/cwt

0.030727 1.044437

LOG(QFISLAU) natural logarithm of Federally inspected cattle 

slaughter, million head

-0.096641 ** -2.365011

LOG(CATIMP) natural logarithm of live cattle imports, million 

head

0.035176 *** 4.859475

BSEJAPAN dummy variable: 0 = before September 2001, 1= 

September 2001 and beyond

-0.014440 -1.417485

BSEUS dummy variable: 0 = before January 2004, 1= 

January 2004 and beyond

-0.003648 -0.202876

BSECAN dummy variable: 0 = before May 2003, 1=May 

2003 and beyond

0.046636 *** 2.680094

r-square = 0.962392 

F-statistic = 232.2765

Significance levels are *** = 1% and ** = 5%

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service.

effect on steer prices but, interestingly, is not significant. U.S. prices for beef 

and cattle had been at record levels until October 2003 when they began 

declining. While initial responses were negative during the first couple weeks 

after the December 2003 U.S. BSE event, the effect was short lived, and 

U.S. consumers did not respond to the domestic BSE cases as adversely as 

consumers in other countries responded to their earlier BSE discoveries. The 

Canadian BSE variable was significant and had an expected positive effect on 

U.S. steer prices because reduced imports from Canada decreased domestic 

U.S. beef supplies, especially at a time when U.S. supplies were already low.

F-tests for seasonal and cyclical variables were not found to be significant. 

This was somewhat surprising because of the appearance of seasonality in 

the price series and results from other studies. However, seasonality exists in 

other variables, and it may be that the other variables captured the seasonal 

components, making seasonal variables redundant. The same is likely true for 

cyclical variables as well.