United States 

Department of 

Agriculture 

Agricultural 

Marketing 

Service 

STOP 0254 – Room 2607-S 

1400 Independence Avenue, SW. 

Washington, D.C. 20250-0254 

Date Issued: 1/22/09 Date Revised: Original version Page 1 of 6 

TECHNICAL NOTICE 

January 2009 

THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE (USDA) PROCEDURES FOR YIELD GRADING OF 

BEEF CARCASSES AFTER REMOVAL OF THE KIDNEY, PELVIC AND HEART FAT 

DURING THE HARVEST PROCESS 

1. Overview: 

USDA’s Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) has established a method to enhance the accuracy 

of USDA Yield Grade assessment of beef carcasses through an actual measurement of the Kidney, 

Pelvic, and Heart (KPH) fat that is removed during harvest. 

The Livestock and Seed (LS) Program will approve procedures on a plant-by-plant basis that meet 

the specific performance requirements to measure and display the KPH yield grade adjustment 

factor. Once an establishment is approved under this procedure, a measured KPH yield grade 

adjustment factor shall be used to assess USDA yield grade of carcasses that have their KPH 

removed. 

2. Purpose and Scope: 

This Technical Notice sets forth the procedures for evaluation of the KPH component in the 

determination of the official yield grade at facilities that remove the KPH fat from the carcass 

during the harvest process. These procedures require hot carcasses to be weighed prior to and 

immediately following KPH fat removal. The official USDA Yield Grade for that beef carcass 

may only then be determined when the AMS agent is presented a displayed KPH yield grade 

adjustment factor. 

3. Reference Documents: 

a. Beef, Bullock, and Bull Grading Methods and Procedures, Meat Grading and Certification 

Branch Instruction 500 (August 23, 2006). 

b. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 7, Subtitle B, Chapter I, Subchapter C, Part 54. Meats, 

Prepared Meats, and Meat Products (Grading, Certification and Standards). 

c. Official United States Standards for Grades of Carcass Beef (January 1997). 

d. MIL-STD-1916 Department of Defense Test Method Standard - DOD Preferred Methods for 

Acceptance of Product (April 1996). 

4. Applicability to Current Standard: 

The method outlined in this document pertains to the Official United States Standards for Grades of 

Carcass Beef (January 1997). The following as quoted specifically applies to this methodology. 

“The amount of kidney, pelvic, and heart fat considered in determining the yield grade includes the 

kidney knob (kidney and surrounding fat), the lumbar and pelvic fat in the loin and round, and the 

heart fat in the chuck and brisket area which are removed in making closely trimmed retail cuts. 

The amount of these fats is evaluated subjectively and expressed as a percent of the carcass weight. 

As the amount of kidney, pelvic, and heart fat increases, the percent of retail cuts decreases -- a 

change of 1 percent of the carcass weight in these fats changes the yield grade by 20 percent of a 

yield grade.” 
Removal of the Kidney, Pelvic And Heart Fat

Date Issued: 1/22/09 Date Revised: Original version Page 2 of 6 

5. Performance Requirements 

5.1 Methodology: 

The amount of KPH fat will be determined during the harvest process using the following 

procedures. 

5.1.1. Carcass weights shall be made using properly calibrated weight scales. 

5.1.2. The carcass must be weighed Hot Carcass Weight (HCW) prior to the removal of the 

KPH fat. 

5.1.3. The carcass shall be re-weighed immediately after the removal of the KPH fat 

(HCWwo KPH). 

5.1.4. No additional trimming will be allowed between the measurement of the original 

HCW and the HCWwo KPH with KPH fat removed unless the trimming was requested 

by the USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service. 

5.1.5. Each individual side will have the following information presented to the AMS agent 

at time of grading: 

(a) HCW; 

(b) HCWwo KPH; 

(c) The KPH Yield Grade Adjustment Factor in tenths; 

The adjustment factor is determined from the weight removed due to actual 

KPH using the following formula: 

  



 



    0.035

HCW

HCW - HCW KPH YG Adjustment Factor 20 wo KPH

The calculated adjustment factor is rounded to the nearest tenth of a yield 

grade. 

5.1.6 The carcass may be yield graded when presented to the AMS agent if the KPH yield 

grade adjustment in tenths is presented to the AMS agent at the time of grading. 

When only one side of a carcass is presented for yield grade assessment, the full KPH 

yield grade adjustment factor shall be used. 

Should carcasses presented for yield grade assessment indicate a pattern in procedural 

noncompliance with the establishment’s documented program of in-plant procedures 

(average remaining fat depth in the internal kidney, pelvic, and heart fat area exceeds 

one-half of an inch), the AMS agent shall utilize the KPH yield grade adjustment with 

caution and visually account for any remaining KPH fat on the carcass. For each 

0.5% KPH fat that remains on the carcass, the AMS agent will add 0.1 to the 

displayed adjustment factor to ensure uniform and accurate yield grade evaluations. 

5.1.7. These requirements do not supersede any regulatory requirements of the USDA 

through other authorities. 
Removal of the Kidney, Pelvic And Heart Fat

Date Issued: 1/22/09 Date Revised: Original version Page 3 of 6 

5.2. Examples: 

Example 1: 

An 800 lb carcass having 32 lbs of KPH fat removed (4.0 % KPH) would have a KPH YG 

adjustment factor of +0.1. The formula for calculating the KPH YG adjustment factor then 

becomes: 

  0.035 0.1

800

800 - 768 KPH YG Adjustment Factor 20   



 



   

Example 2: 

An 800 lb carcass having 20 lbs of KPH fat removed (2.5 % KPH) would have a KPH YG 

adjustment factor of -0.2. The formula for calculating the KPH YG adjustment factor then 

becomes: 

  0.035 0.2

800

800 - 780 KPH YG Adjustment Factor 20   



 



   

Example 3: 

The AMS agent determined that not all of the KPH fat was cleanly removed and that a visual 

estimate indicated that 4 lbs of additional KPH fat remained. The carcass had a HCW of 800 

lb carcass and the displayed KPH YG adjustment factor was -0.2. Since 4 lbs of remaining 

KPH fat equates to 0.5% (4 lb divided by 800 lbs times 100%), the adjustment factor is 

corrected by 0.1 (for each 0.5% KPH fat that remains, 0.1 will be added to the displayed 

adjustment factor). The equivalent KPH YG adjustment factor would be: 

KPH YG Adjustment Factor  0.2  0.1  0.1

5.3. Establishment Approval Process: 

Procedures for the implementation and verification of these methods that meet the specific 

performance requirements to measure and display the KPH yield grade adjustment factor 

will be approved on a plant-by-plant basis. An establishment must submit a documented 

program of in-plant procedures to the MGC Branch that ensures accurate and precise 

determinations are made by properly calibrated weight scales. Once assessed and deemed 

appropriate under this Technical Notice, the KPH yield grade adjustment factors shall be 

used to assess yield grade in the official USDA grading process of carcasses that have the 

KPH removed during harvest. A copy of the current approved establishment documentation 

for measuring and displaying the KPH yield grade adjustment factor will become a reference 

to the MGC Quality Plan for that establishment. 

6. Procedural Assessment: 

The MGC Branch will conduct onsite monthly reviews of the KPH removal and weighing 

processes. The review also includes a validation of the information presented to the AMS agent at 

time of grading. At the discretion of the MGC management, more frequent reviews may be 

conducted when deficiencies are detected or as other observations may dictate (see sections entitled 

Procedural Assessment for Cause and Procedural Assessment Due to Serious Noncompliance

below). A plant representative should be offered the opportunity to observe the review process. 

Evidence regarding compliance shall be determined by evaluating KPH removal from a sample of 

carcasses selected randomly from a one-hour production interval of the carcasses to be graded that 
Removal of the Kidney, Pelvic And Heart Fat

Date Issued: 1/22/09 Date Revised: Original version Page 4 of 6 

day. The process shall be considered acceptable only if no nonconforming carcasses are found 

upon review of the sample carcasses. Should one or more nonconforming carcasses be found 

during the review of the sampled carcasses, then the following actions shall occur. 

(a) Plant management shall be notified; 

(b) AMS agents shall utilize the KPH yield grade adjustment with caution and visually account 

for any remaining KPH fat on the carcass. 

The following shall be used in the review process. 

6.1. Evidence of compliance 

Fat depth evaluation shall be determined using the fat remaining from the: 

(a) Kidney knob fat; 

(b) Lumbar and pelvic fat in the loin and round; and, 

(c) Heart fat in the chuck and brisket area. 

Compliance is indicated when all three of the valuations are less than or equal to 1⁄2 inch. 

6.2. Carcass Sampling 

Carcass sampling shall be performed at one of three verification levels: normal, tightened, or 

reduced. The normal stage of assessment shall be used as the initial verification level. 

Thereafter, the sampling verification level in effect shall continue unchanged except where 

the switching procedures given in Section 6.3 require change. The sample size is based on 

the average number of carcasses graded per hour and the current verification level (Table 1). 

Table 1. 

Sample Size Plan for Assessment of Compliance in the Removal of KPH Fat 

Average 

Carcasses 

per Hour 

Verification levels 

Tightened Normal Reduced 

Sample Size 

2–170 32 12 5 

171–288 32 12 6 

289–544 32 16 8 

545–960 40 20 10 

Note: When the production interval size is less than or equal to the sample 

size, 100 percent of the interval size shall be reviewed. 

All carcass samples shall be taken randomly during a 1-hour production interval using a 

random sampling plan. The time at which sampling occurs shall also be randomized 

throughout the normal hours of production. Plants operating two or more shifts will be 

sampled as a single production shift. 

6.3. Switching Procedures 

(See figure 1) 

6.3.1 Normal to tightened. When normal reviews are in effect, a tightened review shall be 

instituted when two (2) within the last five (5) or fewer reviews indicate unacceptable 

performance. 

6.3.1. Tightened to normal. When tightened reviews are in effect, normal reviews shall be 

instituted when the following conditions are both satisfied: the cause of a 
Removal of the Kidney, Pelvic And Heart Fat

Date Issued: 1/22/09 Date Revised: Original version Page 5 of 6 

noncompliance is 

addressed by the plant 

and approved by MGC, 

and, five (5) consecutive 

reviews indicate 

acceptable procedural 

compliance. 

6.3.3. Normal to reduced. 

When normal reviews 

are in effect, reduced 

reviews shall be 

instituted when ten (10) 

consecutive reviews 

indicate acceptable 

procedural compliance. 

6.3.4. Reduced to normal. 

When reduced reviews 

are in effect, normal 

reviews shall be 

instituted when one (1) 

review indicates an 

unacceptable 

performance. 

When two (2) within the last 

ten (10) or fewer consecutive 

reviews indicate an 

unacceptable performance 

under a tightened verification 

level, MGC Management shall 

schedule an additional AMS 

agent to ensure that the cause 

of noncompliance is corrected 

and that the carcasses impacted 

by the noncompliant action be 

graded as accurately as possible. 

The LS Program reserves the right to discontinue the establishment’s approval if reviews 

remain tightened for a period of time. When the KPH removal procedures are restarted after 

discontinuation, it shall be instituted at the same verification level when the procedures were 

ceased. 

In those circumstances when instrument use is interrupted because of mechanical or 

electrical reasons, resumption of use shall resume using the verification level at the time of 

the interruption. 

6.4. Procedural Assessment for Cause 

MGC management shall have the responsibility to substantiate the cause for concern for a 

procedural assessment for cause. There should be sufficient prior evidence of 

Reduced

Normal

Tightened

1 Unacceptable 

Review

2 Unacceptable 

Reviews wi

Last ≤5 Reviews

10 Consecutive 

Acceptable Reviews

Cause

Corrected and 5 

Acceptable 

Consecutive

Reviews

Cause

Uncorrected

and 2 wi Last ≤ 10 

Unacceptable

Yes

No

Schedule 

Additional AMS 

Agent to Monitor 

Corrective Process

Yes

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

Figure 1. Process Flow Chart for Switching Rules in 

Reviewing Beef Carcasses for Removal of KPH 

Fat. 
Removal of the Kidney, Pelvic And Heart Fat

Date Issued: 1/22/09 Date Revised: Original version Page 6 of 6 

noncompliance to make a determination whether or not an assessment for cause is 

appropriate. 

6.5. Procedural Assessment Due to Serious Noncompliance 

In those instances where non-trivial procedural noncompliance is discovered during a regular 

assessment review, the MGC Management shall determine if the establishment should 

temporarily suspend KPH fat removal procedures pending a determination of reestablishment of compliance to the requirements of this Technical Notice. 

This Technical Notice is subject to revision at any time by the LS Program. 

Requests for approval shall be submitted to: 

Chief, Standards, Analysis and Technology Branch 

USDA, AMS, LS Phone: (202) 720-4486 

1400 Independence Avenue, S.W. FAX: (202) 720-1112 

Room 2607 South Building Email: Martin.OConnor@usda.gov 

Washington, DC 20250-0254 

Approved: /S/ Martin E. O’Connor January 22, 2009 . 

Martin E. O’Connor, Chief 

Standards, Analysis and Technology Branch