BBQHQThe world of cooking over fire

Sources

Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board

Rump Cap — cutting specification (Rump V003)

What this source is

Authority
Industry technical body
Territories
GB
Primacy
primary
Commercial interest
none
Retrieved
2026-08-13
State
Read and citable

Original document

Specification Rump V003: the cap muscle separated 'by cutting along the seam between it and the main rump muscle', with a maximum fat thickness of 15 mm. The fat figure is the one that matters for barbecue and it is the reason the UK/Brazil mapping is overlapping rather than identical anatomy — a picanha depends on a thick fat cap, and a specification with a 15 mm ceiling is describing a related but not identical product.

What it may be cited for

Terminology, Technical

  • Explicitly not safety: A cutting specification is not a food-safety source.

What we recorded from it

  • Maximum fat thickness 15 mm.

    AHDB specification Rump V003 separates the cap muscle by cutting along the seam between it and the main rump muscle, with a maximum fat thickness of 15 mm.

    The fat cap is what a picanha is cooked on and by. A specification with a 15 mm ceiling describes a related product, not an identical one.
    Where it applies:
    United Kingdom.

Claims resting on it

  • The UK rump cap and the Brazilian picanha are the same muscle, and AHDB's own cutting specification uses the word picanha for it. They are not identical products: AHDB's rump cap specification caps fat thickness at 15 mm, and a picanha depends on a thicker fat cap being left on. A UK butcher can supply it, and the thing to ask for is the cap off the rump with the fat left untrimmed.
  • IMPS item 184D, Beef Loin Top Sirloin Butt Cap, consists of the M. biceps femoris removed from item 184 by cutting through the natural seams, and the specification states it is sometimes referred to as the Coulotte — the same muscle, separated the same way, that AHDB specifies as the UK rump cap.

If this source changes, these are the claims that need rechecking. That is the point of recording provenance per claim rather than per page.

We’d like to measure which pages help, using anonymous analytics with no personal data and no search terms. Declining changes nothing about the site.