FEEDING CONCEPT, MILITARY VS CIVILIAN SYSTEM

Transcription

1 AO-A r ^»10 Tilt *$)&* TECHNICA REPORT NATICK/TR-91/011 FEEDING CONCEPT, IITARY VS CIVIIAN SYSTE By aj Charls A. Saltr Doris Shrman Simon O. Adams Kathryn. Rock <T/'."i' * J.1 * r.. ' ' : * -. >* '\ K y* ; I Dcmbr 1990 Final Rport Novmbr Sptmbr 1989 APPROVED FOR PUBIC REEASE; DISTRIBUTION UNIITED UNITED STATES ARY NATICK RESEARCH, DEVEOPENT AND ENGINEERING CENTER NATICK, ASSACHUSETTS SODIER SCIENCE DIRECTORATE 91 '

2 DISCAIERS Th findings containd in this rport ar not to b construd as an official Dpartmnt of th Army position unlss so dsignatd by othr authorizd documnts. Citation of trad nams in this rport dos not constitut an official ndorsmnt or approval of th us of such itms. DESTRUCTION NOTICE For Classifid Documnts: Follow th procdurs in DoD , Industrial Scurity anual, Sction or DoD R, Information Scurity Program Rgulation, Chaptr IX For Unclassifid/imitd Distribution Documnts: Dstroy by any mthod that prvnts disclosur of contnts or rconstruction of th documnt.

3 REPORT DOCUENTATION PAGE Form Approvd OB No c,: '»S:*T -- w'3*" **" tn-t co»nior» of mtorrratio» <t «tim«i to «*'tg i nour o* r ripor-«. including th tim lor rviwing instructions.»arc»<ng mlmg data»urcv }<:-«" ':jr>: ma".n/ -.5?* oata HI and como'tmgano rviwing th {OHctior» of information Vnd commnu rording thit burdn ttimct or any othr «%oa o< ttv*,-.»-. :- -t n'irn-st.oo, nciuomg vugjjt.onv for rducing thu owron to W«hmgton Haaauanri Srvic*. Dirctorat for mfrmjtion Opration* tna Aponv 1^IS JHrvon Ci. 1» :'/», S^i ^C«Afi.pgton. ^A «302. and to th Offic of anagmnt»no Buogt. Paprwork Rduction Projct S8). Wa»ningtor>. DC AGENCY USE ONY (*v bunk) 2. REPORT DATE DECEBER TITE AND SUBTITE Fding Concpt, ilitary VS Civilian Systm 6 AUTHOR(S) Charls A. Saltr, Doris Shrman, Simon 0. Adams, Kathryn. Rock 3. REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED Final 15 Novmbr Sptmbr FUNDING NUBERS P.E.: P62786 PR: AH99 jta: SR1489 VU: AH99BF PERFORING ORGANIZATION NAE(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) U.S. Army Natick Rsarch, Dvlopmnt & Enginring Cntr Natick, A B. PERFORING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUBER NATICK/TR-91/011 9 SPONSORING/ONITORING AGENCY NAE(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSORING ONITORING AGENCY REPORT NUBER 11. SUPPEENTARY NOTES 12a DISTRIBUTION AVAIABIITY STATEENT 12b. DISTRIBUTION CODE Approvd for Public Rlas, Distribution Unlimitd 13 ABSTRACT [aximum 200 words) Four Navy sits wr compard to four quivalnt civilian sits with rgard to fding concpts as assssd by avrag foodsrvic cost, mnu adquacy, and customr ractions on qustionnairs. Customrs ratd food itms in thir own dining hall, th sam itms as srvd in commrcial rstaurants, th nvironmnt in thir dining hall, and th nvironmnt in commrcial rstaurants. Th Navy's avrag daily food cost was $3.46, whil th quivalnt civilian institutions avragd $3.73. nu analysis indicatd th varity of food offrd at Navy sits was mor than adquat and that ilitary Rcommndd Ditary Allowancs for all nutrints xcpt folacin wr xcdd. Sailors ratd thir dining hall food and nvironmnt significantly highr than th civilians ratd thirs, though som of ths diffrncs could b tracd to diffrncs in sampl composition. Sailors ratd thir food and foodsrvic nvironmnts lowr, howvr, than that offrd by commrcial rstaurants, indicating room for furthr improvmnt. 14. SUBJECT TERS FEEDING FOODSERVICE DINING HAS 17 SECURITY CASSIFICATION OF REPORT Unclassifid ENUS RESTAURANTS CIVIIAN IITARY QUESTIONNAIRES RATINGS 18. SECURITY CASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE Unclassifid NAVY NUTRIENTS 19. SECURITY CASSIFICATION OF ABSTRACT Unclassifid 15. NUBER OF PAGES PRICE CODE 20. IITATION OF ABSTRACT * Unlimitd NSN Standard Form 298 (Rv 2-89; Prunod by ANSI Sio JJ

4 TABE OF CONTENTS Pag IST OF FIGURES v IST OF TABES vii PREFACE ix ACKNOWEDGEENTS i x INTRODUCTION 1 ETHOD 3 Sit Slction 3 Th Qustionnair 4 Procdur 6 RESUTS 7 Subjct Profil 7 Avrag Food Cost 15 Avrag Ratings of Food in On's Own Dining Facility 15 Avrag Ratings of Food in Commrcial Dining Facilitis 18 Avrag Ratings of th Foodsrvic Environmnt in On's Own Dining Facility 20 Avrag Ratings of th Foodsrvic Environmnt in Commrcial Caftrias/Rstaurants 24 Background Factors Rlating to Dining Hall Food Ratings 25 A Comparison of Ratings of Own Dining Hall Food and Environmnt Vrsus Commrcial Food and Environmnt 31 nu Analysis 37 Nutrint Analysis 4 3 CONCUSIONS AND RECOENDATIONS 50 REFERENCES 52 APPENDICES 54 A. Navy Qustionnair " / ^ 54 B. nu Classification flf 58.. n! n iii fo-\

5 IST OF FIGURES Figur Pag 1. Total Numbr of nu Itms (Including Rptition) Total Numbr of nu Itms (Excluding Rptition) 42

6 IST OF TABES Tabl Pag 1. Dmographic Charactristics of Navy Sits 8 2. Dmographic Charactristics of Civilian Sits Comparison of Avrag ilitary and Civilian Sits Foodsrvic Costs by Typ of Opration Avrag Ratings of Food Itms in th Dining Hall Avrag Ratings of Food Itms in Commrcial Rstaurants Avrag Ratings of th Dining Hall Environmnt Avrag Ratings of Commrcial Rstaurant Environmnts ilitary Background Factors Rlatd to Foodsrvic Ratings Civilian Background Factors Rlatd to Foodsrvic Ratings ilitary Ratings of Dining Hall Vrsus Commrcial Food Itms ilitary Ratings of th Dining Hall VS Commrcial Environmnts Civilian Ratings of Dining Hall VS Civilian Food Itms civilian Ratings of th Dining Hall VS Commrcial Environmnts Comparison of an Numbr of Total Food Itms Availabl (Including Rptitiv Itms) Ovr 7-Day Priod Comparison of an Numbr of Total Food Itms Availabl (Excluding Rptitiv Itms) Ovr 7-Day Priod 40 vii

7 17. Sampl al Plan Sampl al Plan: Navy an Daily Analysis of Slctd Nutrints Ovr 7 Days Comparing Navy and Civilian nu Itms 47 IX

8 PREFACE Not sinc 1974 has Navy fding bn compard with civilian fding in a systmatic way. Th purpos of this study was to updat this oldr work to dtrmin currnt comparability btwn th military and civilian worlds and to dtrmin whr th Navy most ndd to mak improvmnts in its foodsrvic systm. ACKNOWEDGEENTS Th authors wish to acknowldg th sacrific of tim and ffort mad by both th Navy and civilian foodsrvic managrs to support our data collction fforts. Th authors also wish to acknowldg th sailors and civilians who coopratd in filling out qustionnairs. XI

9 INTRODUCTION A major concrn in military rcruitmnt and rtntion is th comparability of th total packag of pay and allowancs within th military to that in th civilian world. If troops and sailors fl rlativly dprivd compard to thir civilian countrparts, thy ar mor likly to lav th srvic prior to rtirmnt. It is xpnsiv to rcruit and train novics to rplac xprincd srvicmn. ony savd by limiting pay and bnfits, thrfor, may b mor than offst by incrasd rcruiting and training costs associatd with th incrasd turnovr among prsonnl. Thrfor, it is important for th military srvics and th U. S. Congrss to kp abrast in mattrs of pay and bnfit comparability btwn military and civilians. On componnt of this comparability concrns military food and foodsrvic. Not sinc 1974 has a study bn don to compar military fding with civilian fding to dtrmin what th Navy might larn from its civilian countrparts to improv Naval foodsrvic systms. Th 1974 study 1 xamind civilian trnds at a univrsity, a football tam, polic acadmy, mrchant marin ship, and an oil drilling rig, institutions all considrd analogous in som ways to various military units and training cntrs. Th rsults indicatd that th lvl of fding quality was somwhat highr among ths civilian sits than in th Navy, in trms of quantity and quality as wll as cost. Such a finding had clar implications for th nd to rais th Basic Daily Food

10 Allowanc (BDFA). Howvr, although ths othr organizations usd for comparison ar mor comparabl to th military than som othr civilian groups, thy crtainly can't b considrd idntical. Th currnt study updatd ths 16-yar old findings to dtrmin whr th Navy now stood in comparison to its civilian countrparts. This is important as part of th continuing nd to know whthr military pay and allowancs ar quitabl with th civilian world. Furthrmor, it may point to th kind of adjustmnts th Navy may nd to mak to furthr improv its ovrall foodsrvic systm. For xampl, th Navy Food Cost Indx (FCI) is basd on th daily pr prson cost for 55 commonly utilizd food itms. During th 5-yar priod from , th FCI fluctuatd slightly up and down in th rang btwn $3.40 and $3.70, but basically rmaind unchangd. Yt, during th sam 5-yar priod th consumr pric indx (CPI) for food rgistrd a cumulativ incras of 15.4%. Food cost, of cours, is only on important critrion to b considrd in an xamination of foodsrvic comparability. Th purpos of this study was to slct civilian sits roughly analogous to Navy sits and to compar thir rspctiv foodsrvics in trms not only of th amount of mony spnt on food, but also in trms of consumr satisfaction with th food and foodsrvic nvironmnt, mnu varity, and basic nutritional adquacy.

11 ETHOD Sit Slction Navy prsonnl both ashor and afloat wr survyd. Two nlistd dining facilitis (EDF) at Norfolk, Virginia wr studid: th Naval Air Station (NAS) and th Naval Oprations Bas (NOB). Th Navy Training Station EDF at San Digo, California was also studid. Sailors ating in th ships 1 mss whil at sa wr also survyd onboard th USS Buchanan (a dstroyr, DDG-14) and th USS Fox (a guidd missil cruisr, CG- 33). Rsarchrs from US Army Natick Rsarch, Dvlopmnt & Enginring Cntr survyd th sailors ashor, whil th foodsrvic officr onboard ach ship was rsponsibl for survying th sailors at sa. In both cass, th sam typ of qustionnair was usd. Th civilian sits wr chosn for comparability with th Navy sits in trms of th ag and gndr of clintl srvd, as wll as th gographic distribution of sits. Only sits which mt th following critria wr considrd: it must fd at last 100 customrs pr mal, srv 3 mals pr wkday, srv mals 7 days a wk, and hav housing availabl at th sit. Thos institutions which agrd to b studid wr told thy would rmain anonymous. Thrfor, thir nams and locations cannot b disclosd. Howvr, thy can b charactrizd in a gnral way. Two civilian sits wr sponsord by th fdral govrnmnt. On was a training institution sponsord by th US Dpartmnt of abor, and its dining facility srvd th studnts bing traind

12 thr. Th othr was a national park sponsord by th US Dpartmnt of th Intrior, and its dining facility srvd park mploys. Two othr civilian sits survyd wr nongovrnmnt: a small mn's collg and a military prp school, both of which srvd mals to thir studnts. Rsarchrs from Natick administrd th qustionnairs at all of ths civilian sits. (or information about ths sits is providd in Tabls 1-4, to b discussd latr). Th Qustionnair All subjcts at all sits wr givn th sam qustionnair to assss thir attituds toward institutionalizd fding. (A sampl qustionnair can b found in Appndix A.) This qustionnair was dividd into fiv major sctions. Th first sction askd about ach subjct's background, such as ag, gndr, rac, and th highst lvl of ducation achivd. Th purpos of this sction was to insur th civilian sampl was rasonably comparabl to th military on and to allow analysis of such factors as ag and ducation which might influnc attituds toward food and foodsrvic nvironmnts. Th scond sction listd 19 foods found to b common in th mnus obtaind in advanc of th study from all sits. Ths foods ran th gamut from soups, ntrs, vgtabls and starchs to dssrt. Itms such as chickn noodl soup, pizza, frid chickn, hamburgrs, ric, grn pas, and chocolat cak wr includd. Th subjcts wr askd to indicat how much thy likd ach food

13 itm as prpard in th dining hall bing survyd. Subjcts rspondd by filling in on of tn circls corrsponding to th following scal, whr zro mans "nvr trid," 1 mans "dislik xtrmly," 5 rfrs to "nithr lik nor dislik," and 9 indicats "lik xtrmly." Sction thr of th qustionnair askd about th sam foods as in qustion on th diffrnc was in asking how much subjcts likd thm as prpard in commrcial caftrias and rstaurants rathr than in thir own dining hall. Th purpos of Sction thr was to dtrmin whthr both th military and civilian sampls had roughly quivalnt opinions of th quality of food outsid thir own institutions. If thy wr roughly quivalnt in valuating outsid food, thn diffrncs in valuations of thir own institutions would mor likly b ral rathr than just a product of som inhrnt bias du to a diffrnc in th composition of th sampls. Th final two sctions of th qustionnair also focusd on th distinction btwn rating on's own dining hall vrsus commrcial caftrias and rstaurants. Sction 4 askd how satisfid subjcts wr with 16 diffrnt faturs of th foodsrvic nvironmnt in thir own dining hall. Ths includd physical conditions such as nois lvl, clanlinss, lighting, tmpratur, and air quality; srvic conditions such as th waiting lin, dining hall staff, hours of opration, and th numbr of availabl sats; and th condition of food, including such faturs as th numbr of itms pr mal, nutritional

14 quality, portion siz, tast of th food, and th apparanc of th food. Th final sction of th qustionnair askd about th sam 16 foodsrvic nvironmnt faturs, but with rgard to commrcial caftrias and rstaurants rathr than to thir own dining halls. All th qustions in sctions four and fiv wr to b answrd on a 7-point scal whr 1 mans "xtrmly dissatisfid," 4 indicats "nithr satisfid nor dissatisfid," and 7 indicats "xtrmly satisfid." As bfor, th purpos of Sction fiv was to dtrmin whthr both th military and civilian sampls had roughly quivalnt opinions of th quality of th foodsrvic nvironmnt outsid thir own institutions. If thy wr roughly quivalnt in valuating outsid foodsrvics, thn diffrncs in valuations of thir own institutions wr mor likly to b ral rathr than just a product of som fundamntal diffrnc in th composition of th sampls. Procdur Th qustionnairs wr not administrd on wknds, ondays, or Fridays, sinc ths wr considrd atypical days in trms of ating out. Thy wr administrd during th mid-wk days xcpt for thos falling on a holiday, payday, or day aftr a payday. Qustionnairs wr distributd to th rspondnts; ach filld out th form individually and rturnd it to th survyor.

15 RESUTS Subjct Profil Th total numbr of military subjcts with compltd qustionnairs was 571. Th dmographic charactristics on ths subjcts ar providd sparatly for ach sit (s Tabl 1; not that th prcnts in ach block do not always add to 100% du to rounding rrors): Sit 1, an EDF ashor, providd 128 Navy subjcts who filld out th qustionnairs. About two-thirds of ths wr of th most junior rank, i.., E-l through E-4. ost of th rst wr E-5 and E-6. Thir avrag ag was 24.8 yars, and 86% wr mal. Half wr high school graduats, and th othr half had som collg or wr collg graduats. About thr-quartrs wr whit, with 18% black, and th rmaindr wr a mix of Hispanic, Asian/Pacific Islandr, Amrican Indian/Alaskan, or othr minority backgrounds. Sit 2, anothr EDF ashor, providd 115 Navy subjcts. About two-thirds wr of th E-l through E-4 ranks, with most of th rst bing E-5 to E-6. Thir avrag ag was 24.1 yars, and 93% wr mal. Fiv prcnt had compltd lss than a high school ducation, whil 44% wr high school graduats, and about half had som collg or wr collg graduats. Narly thrquartrs wr whit, with 16% black, and th rst a mixtur of othr minoritis. Th final ashor EDF, Sit 3, providd 137 subjcts. Th vast majority (96%) wr rankd E-l through E-4. Thir avrag

16 Tabl 1 Dmographic Charactristics of Navy Sits Sit 1 Sit 2 Sit 3 Sit 4 (128 Ss) (115) (137) (191) Rank: E-l to E-4 64% 68% 96% 63% E-5 to E-6 35% 31% 2% 2% E-7 to E-9 1% 2% 2% 33% W-l to 0-4 1% 0-5 to % Acrf in vars) : ,2 Gndr: al 86% 93% 97% 99% Fmal 14% 7% 3% 1% Education: Grad sn grd 2% 2% Som high sch 3% 2% 1% High sch grd 50% 44% 68% 61% Som collg 40% 42% 25% 34% Collg grd 10% 9% 4% 4% Rac: Whit 73% 72% 64% 70% Black 18% 16% 23% 13% Hispanic 5% 3% 5% 6% Othr 4% 9% 8% 11%

17 ag was somwhat youngr than for th prvious two sits 20.6 yars. Th vast majority was mal. Four prcnt wr lss than high school graduats, whil 68% had attaind high school graduation, and only about a quartr had som collg or wr collg graduats. About two-thirds wr whit, with 23% black, and th rmaindr a mix of othr minoritis. Sit 4 is actually a composit of th sailors aboard two ships at sa. Ths figurs wr combind bcaus thr wr so fw rspondnts (N=22) on th smallr ship that it mad littl sns to rtain thm as a sparat group. About two-thirds of th combind shipboard sampl wr rankd E-l through E-4, only 2% wr E-5 to E-6, and 33% wr E-7 to E-9 and 2% wr 0-5 through O-10. Thir avrag ag was 25.2 yars, and all but 1% wr mal. Only 1% had lss than a high school diploma, whil 61% wr high school graduats and 38% had som collg xprinc or a collg dgr. Svnty prcnt wr whit, whil 13% wr black, and 17% cam from othr minority backgrounds. Although th xact distribution of dmographic charactristics naturally varid somwhat from sit to sit, th majority of subjcts had th following traits in common, as can b sn in th composit military profil in Tabl 3 thy wr young, whit mals, junior in rank, with at last a high school diploma. Th total numbr of civilian subjcts with compltd qustionnairs was 404. Th dmographic charactristics on ths

18 subjcts ar providd sparatly for ach sit (s Tabl 2; not that th prcnts in ach block do not always add to 100% du to rounding rrors): In Tabl 2, yarly incom is usd as a masur of socioconomic status rathr than military rank. Civilian sit A, a fdral training sit in th northast, providd 107 subjcts. Ninty prcnt of ths wr at th lowst lvl of annual incom, i.., blow $7,500. Thir avrag ag was 18.4 yars, and 69% wr mal. Two thirds had som high school ducation, 24% had compltd high school, and only 3% had som collg ducation. Only 22% wr whit, whil 56% wr black, 11% wr Hispanic, and 11% cam from othr minority backgrounds. Civilian sit B, a national park dining facility, providd 121 subjcts. Thr-quartrs of ths wr from th lowst incom lvl, whil 10% mad $7,501 to $10,000 pr yar, and th rst wr scattrd among th highr incom lvls. Thir avrag ag was 24.0 yars, and 58% wr mal. Almost a quartr wr high school graduats, whil almost thr-quartrs had som collg ducation or wr collg graduats. Th vast majority (91%) was whit, whil only 4% wr black, 1% Hispanic, and th rmaining 4% from othr minority backgrounds. Sit B was th only sit whr subjcts wr salarid. (At othr sits th studnts had to us thir own initiativ to gt part-tim jobs). Civilian sit C, an all-mn's collg, providd 106 subjcts. Ninty-two prcnt of ths cam from th lowst incom lvl, whil th rst wr about qually scattrd among 10

19 highr incom lvls. Thir avrag ag was 19 yars, and 100% of thm wr mal. Almost all of thm (93%) rportd having som collg ducation. Th majority (85%) wr whit, whil 7% wr black, 2% Hispanic, and 6% from othr minoritis. Civilian sit D, a military prp school, providd 70 of thir sniors as subjcts. About thr-quartrs rportd bing from th lowst incom lvl, whil 21% rportd bing from th highst. Th rmaining 5% wr scattrd at th low and middl nds of th scal. Thir avrag ag was 18.6 yars, and 97% wr mal. Eighty-four pr cnt of thm indicatd having som high school ducation, whil 7% indicatd som collg training or collg graduation. Th majority (91%) wr whit, whil 3% wr black, 3% Hispanic, and 2% from othr minoritis. On th avrag, thn, as can b sn in Tabl 3, th avrag civilian rspondnt was a young, whit mal, from th lowr socio-conomic lvl, with a high school or collg background. As Tabl 3 rvals, th civilian group as a whol was rmarkably lik th military group in ths ky aspcts. It can b concludd that th two sampls of rspondnts wr similar nough to mak maningful comparisons of thir data. Thr wr som slight variations, howvr. On th avrag, th military group was somwhat oldr (23.8 vs yars) and somwhat mor likly to b mal (95% vs. 79%) than th civilian group. On th othr hand, th military group was somwhat lss likly to hav som collg xprinc (41% vs 49%) than was th civilian group. Ths minor diffrncs should b kpt in mind whn intrprting 11

20 Yarly Incom: Tabl 2 Dmographic Charactristics of Civilian Sits Sit A Sit B Sit C Sit 4 (107 Ss) (121) (106) (70) <$7,500 90% 75% 92% 74% 7,501-10, % 10% 1% 2% 10,001-15,000 1% 7% 2% 15,001-23,000 4% 6% 3% 3% 23,001-26,000 1% 2% >26,000 1% 1% 2% 21% Acifin yars) : Gndr: Education: Rac: al 69% 58% 100% 97% Fmal % Grad sch grd 6% 1% Som high sch 67% 3% 1% 84% High sch <?rd 24% 23% 6% 7% Som collg 3% 50% 93% 1% Collg grd 23% 6% Whit 22% 91% 85% 91% Black 56% 4% 7% 3% Hispanic 11% 1% 2% 3% Othr 11% 4% 6% 2% 12

21 Tabl 3 Comparison of Avrag ilitary and Civilian Sits Rank (Salary vl 1 ) * ilitary (571 subjcts) E-l to E-4 (1) 72% 84% E-5 to E-6 (2) 15% 4% E-7 to E-9 (3) 12% 3% W-l to 0-4 (4) 4% 0-5 to O-10 (5,6) 1% 5% Civilian (404 subjcts) Aq fin vars): 23.8 yrs 20.3 yrs Gndr: al 95% 79% Fmal 5% 21% Education /highst '. vl compltd): Rac: Grad sch grd 1% 2% Som high sch 1% 33% High sch grd 57% 16% Som collg 35% 41% Collg grd 6% 8% Whit 69% 72% Black 17% 18% Hispanic 5% 4% Othr 8% 7% Salary cods ar basd on th scal whr 1 rfrs to <$7,500, 2 mans ,000, 3 mans 10,000-15,000, 4 indicats 15,001-23,000, 5 mans 23,001-26,000, and 6 indicats >26,

22 Tabl 4 Foodsrvic Costs By Typ of Opration Sit A Sit B Sit C Sit D Charactristic: Ara of country Northast Wst Cntral South Contract FS ys ys ys nu cycl 5 wks 25 days 4 wks no ax mals srvd Daily food cost $1.78 $5.50 $4.35 $3.30 Civilian avrag: $3.73 Navy standard: $

23 th rmaindr of th data. Avrag Food Cost Anothr way to dtrmin whthr th Navy and civilian sits wr rasonably comparabl is to contrast thir basic food costs. As Tabl 4 shows, th standard daily food cost pr prson for th Navy at this tim was $3.46. Th civilian sits calculatd thir own food costs by computing an annual total and dividing by th product of th numbr of days srvd and th numbr of dinrs fd. Th four sits varid among thmslvs a good dal, but thir avrag daily food cost pr prson was $3.73. Sinc this avrag diffrs only slightly from th Navy on, it can b concludd that th two typs of institutions wr rasonably comparabl. Avrag Ratings of Food in On's Own Dining Facility Th rspondnts at all institutions wr askd to rat 19 common foods as srvd in thir dining halls. Ths foods wr chosn bcaus thy wr srvd at all sits and ran th gamut of all typical courss of a mal, from soups, ntrs, starchs, and vgtabls, to dssrt. Sinc no two dining facilitis offrd xactly th sam complt list of itms, ths 19 wr slctd from thos common to all sits. This allows th opportunity to compar diffrnt dining halls on a sampl of common itms, although it prohibits comparing thm on all possibl itms. Th rspondnts gav thir opinion of ach itm by slcting on numbr on a nin-point scal in which 1 mans "dislik xtrmly," 5 indicats "nithr lik nor dislik," and 9 rfrs 15

24 to "lik xtrmly,' In othr words, th highr th numbr chosn, th mor th rspondnt likd that itm as srvd in th dining hall. All th scors for th military sampl wr avragd sparatly from thos of th civilian sampl. Th rsults can b sn in Tabl 5. In Tabl 5 (and th succding svral tabls), scors which ar statistically significant from ach othr ar indicatd by astrisks. Having no astrisks bsid an itm mans th groups ar so similar in rating that itm that w cannot conclud that thr is a maningful group divrgnc at all. In Tabl 5, most food itms hav a numbr of astrisks bsid thm, indicating that th military sampls tndd to rat th itms in thir dining halls in a significantly diffrnt way from how th civilian sampl ratd thirs. To b xact, on 16 of th 19 itms, th diffrncs wr statistically significant. And in vry cas, including vn th thr nonsignificantly diffrnt itms, th military rating was highr. In othr words, thr was an ovrwhlming trnd towards th Navy subjcts liking th food as prpard in Naval Enlistd Dining Facilitis (EDF's) significantly mor than did th civilian sampls lik th food as prpard in thir rsidnt dining halls. In fact, th ovrall avrag civilian rating across all 19 itms was 4.9, almost at th nutral point of 5 on th scal, which rfrs to "nithr lik nor dislik." Th ovrall avrag military rating across th sam 19 itms was 5.7, which is closr to 6 on th scal, which indicats "lik slightly." Although th military sampl 16

25 Tabl 5 Avrag Ratings 1 of Food Itms in th Dining Hall Itm: ilitary Rating Civilian Rating chickn noodl soup 6.1 Frnch onion soup 4.0 mat loaf 5.2 macaroni and chs 5.1 pizza 6.0 spaghtti w/mat sauc 6.0 frid chickn 5.8 chsburgr 6.1 hamburgrs 5.9 grilld ham & chs 6.1 sandwich ric 5.2 mashd potatos 5.6 Frnch fris 6.3 swt potatos 5.1 carrots 5.3 grn bans 5.6 spinach 4.9 grn pas 5.3 chocolat cak *** *** 4.6** 5.3*** 4.8*** *** 5.2*** 4.9*** 4.6*** 5.0*** 5.9** 4.0*** 4.5*** 4.5*** 3.9*** 4.3*** 6.0 Ovrall avrag: *** 1 Ratings ar basd on a nin-point scal in which 1 mans "dislik xtrmly," 5 rfrs to "nithr lik nor dislik," and 9 indicats "lik xtrmly." **p<.0l ***p<

26 ratd its food significantly highr than did th civilian sampl, it should b clar that thr is considrabl room for improvmnt in both groups (mor on this blow). Simply th fact of a diffrnc in ratings by th two groups would man littl by itslf, howvr. Such a diffrnc could mrly rsult from som fundamntal bias in sampl slction, for instanc, or from som diffrnc in prsonality styl. Th fact that th two groups had comparabl dmographic charactristics, howvr, and th fact that th avrag food cost for th two groups was comparabl, suggst that sampling bias did not account for th diffrnc in ratings. But that would no. rul out th possibility of diffrncs du to varying consumr xpctations and frams of rfrnc. For instanc, th Navy rspondnts may b saying in ffct, "This isn't bad for military food," whil th civilians may b saying, "This isn't as good as hom food." It is impossibl from th currnt data to tst this hypothsis, howvr. Anothr possibl xplanation for ths group diffrncs can b xamind using ths data. Prhaps th military rspondnts, for xampl, might tnd to rat any survy qustions highr. To chck on that possibility, it is important to lt both groups rat somthing about which thy should both hav gnrally th sam ractions. Avrag Ratings of Food in Commrcial Dining Facilitis In th prvious sction, it bcam clar that Navy rspondnts ratd th food ovrall in thir dining halls almost 18

27 on full point highr on a nin-point scal compard to civilians rating th food in thir rsidnt dining facilitis. Nxt, howvr, both groups wr askd to rat th sam 19 foods as srvd in commrcial caftrias and rstaurants. Thortically, both groups should hav approximatly th sam rsponss to commrcial food srvd outsid of thir rspctiv institutions. Th rsults ar in Tabl 6. Only 9 of th 19 food itms hav astrisks indicating that th diffrnc in rating btwn th Navy and civilian panls was statistically significant. In othr words, for 10 out of 19 itms, th two groups did not diffr in thir ratings to a significant xtnt. On th othr hand, for ths nin, in vry cas th military rating was somwhat highr. Th ovrall military rating (6.9) was about on-third of a point highr than th ovrall civilian on (6.6), and this summary diffrnc was statistically significant. In othr words, thr did appar to b a tndncy for th Navy rspondnts to rat food highr in gnral than did th civilian ons. Howvr, both groups wr far closr to ach othr in rating outsid commrcial food than in rating food within thir own institutions. If on usd th.3 ovrall avrag diffrnc in Tabl 6 as a corrction factor and subtractd it from th.8 ovrall avrag diffrnc in Tabl 5, thr would still b half a point diffrnc, on th avrag, btwn Navy ratings of Navy food and civilian ratings of thir institutional food. Thrfor, on could conclud that, in trms of this gustionnair, th Navy's rport card on EDF food was suprior to 19

28 that for an avrag of four civilian countrparts. Avrag Ratings of th Foodsrvic Environmnt in On's Own Dining Facility Th survy rspondnts wr askd to rat thir satisfaction with 16 diffrnt aspcts of th nvironmnt within thir dining halls. Thy wr to rspond to ach by slcting on numbr from a svn-point scal in which 1 mans "xtrmly dissatisfid," 4 rfrs to "nithr satisfid nor dissatisfid," and 7 indicats "xtrmly satisfid." It should b notd that this scal diffrs from th on usd in th past two sctions both in th numbr of scal points and in th choic of anchor words. Whn rating food thy wr askd how much thy "likd" it; whn rating th foodsrvic nvironmnt thy wr askd how "satisfid" thy wr with it. Thrfor, avrag scors on ths gustions cannot b compard dirctly to avrag scors on thos prvious qustions using a diffrnt scal. Th rsults on both groups rating thir own institutions ar in Tabl 7. Th highr th numbr, th mor positiv th rating. On 4 out of th 16 itms (portion siz, dining hall staff, tmpratur of th dining aras, and air quality), th military and civilian groups did not diffr significantly. Howvr, on th rmaining 12 thr was a statistically significant diffrnc. Of ths 12, on only 3 (th nois lvl, waiting lin, and numbr of availabl sats) did th civilian sampl rat thir dining halls suprior. On th rmaining nin, th military rating was significantly highr than th civilian on. Ths 20

29 Tabl 6 Avrag Ratings 1 of Food Itms in Commrcial Rstaurants Itm: ilitary Rating Civilian Rating * chickn noodl soup * Frnch onion soup mat loaf * macaroni and chs pizza spaghtti w/mat sauc 7,5 7.1** frid chickn chsburgr hamburgrs 7,4 7.1* grilld ham & chs * sandwich ric mashd potatos Frnch fris swt potatos carrots * grn bans *** spinach * grn pas * chocolat cak Ovrall avrag: ** 1 Ratings ar basd on a nin-point scal in which 1 mans "dislik xtrmly," 5 rfrs to "nithr lik nor dislik," and 9 indicats "lik xtrmly." *p<.05 **p<.01 ***p<

30 Tabl 7 Avrag Ratings 1 of th Dining Hall Environmnt Itm: ilitary Rating Civilian Rating nois lvl ** clanlinss *** numbr of itms pr mal *** waiting lin *** prparation of food *** nutritional quality *** portion siz tast of food *** apparanc of food *** dining hall staff hours of opration *** apparanc of dining aras *** lighting *** tmpratur of dining aras air quality (smok) numbr of availabl sats *** Ovrall avrag: ** 1 Ratings ar basd on a svn-point scal whr 1 mans "xtrmly dissatisfid," 4 indicats "nithr satisfid nor dissatisfid," and 7 indicats "xtrmly satisfid." **p<.01 ***p<

31 nin covrd such physical faturs as clanlinss, apparanc of th dining aras, and lighting; th srvic condition of hours of opration; and th food-rlatd conditions of th numbr of itms pr mal, prparation of food, nutritional quality, tast of th food, and apparanc of th food. Ths findings wr not as clar cut as thos concrning food valuations, whr th military rating was always highr than th civilian on. Nvrthlss, whn rating th foodsrvic nvironmnt, th trnd towards th military systm arning bttr ratings than th civilian on still hld. On about half of th 16 itms, th military systm was ratd significantly suprior, whil on only thr did th civilian systm rat significantly highr. Th ovrall avrag military scor of 4.4 was significantly highr than th ovrall civilian scor of 4.1. Th odds of this avrag diffrnc occurring purly by chanc or random fluctuation wr lss than on in a hundrd. Thrfor, w can conclud that th obsrvd diffrnc most likly rflcts gnuin diffrncs in satisfaction. Howvr, it must b notd that both avrags hovrd around th nutral point of 4, which indicats "nithr satisfid nor dissatisfid." In othr words, both institutional sttings clarly could us considrabl improvmnt according to thir customrs. Compard to th civilian ratings, th military dining hall ratings suffrd particularly in thr aras which may prov difficult to chang, spcially afloat. Ths wr th nois lvl, waiting lin, and th numbr of availabl sats. 23

32 Improvmnts should b targtd towards thos aras. On final not on this sction on qustion askd how satisfid rspondnts wr with th tast of thir dining hall food, and anothr askd how satisfid thy wr with th food's apparanc. In both cass, th military rating was a full point highr than th civilian on, which supports a similar diffrnc found in th prvious sction whr thy ratd 19 diffrnt namd foods. Avrag Ratings of th Foodsrvic Environmnt in Commrcial Caftrias/Rstaurants As a furthr chck on th importanc of th diffrnc in ratings rportd in th prvious sction, rspondnts wr also askd to rat thir satisfaction with 16 facts of th foodsrvic nvironmnt in commrcial rstaurants and caftrias. On th avrag, th military and civilian rspondnts should both hav approximatly th sam xprincs with, and ractions toward, th foodsrvic nvironmnts outsid thir own institutions. Th findings ar in Tabl 8. Of th 16 faturs ratd, on only 3 of thm was thr a significant diffrnc btwn th military and civilian ratings. On all thr (prparation of food, caftria/rstaurant staff, and air quality), th military rating was highr. Of th 13 faturs without significant diffrncs, on tn of thm th military rating was slightly, but not significantly, highr. On th rmaining thr faturs, th two groups producd ti ratings. In othr words, for no fatur 24

33 did th civilian rating turn out to b highr than th military on. In fact, th avrag military scor of 5.5 was significantly highr than th civilian on of 5.3. An ovrall diffrnc of two-tnths of a point on a svnpoint scal, though significant in a statistical sns, is not spcially maningful. It suggsts a small trnd for military rspondnts in this sampl to rat foodsrvic nvironmnts a bit highr than did civilian rspondnts. If w us it as a corrction factor in intrprting th prvious sction, w subtract two-tnths from th prvious thr-tnths, and ar lft with only a on-tnth of on point diffrnc btwn th two groups as th prsumably ral diffrnc in satisfaction with thir own dining hall nvironmnts. This is clarly an unimportant diffrnc. Background Factors Rlating to Dining Hall Food Ratinas Th military and civilian sampls diffrd both in background factors and in dining hall ratings. Could background factors b partly rsponsibl for th diffrncs in dining hall ratings? As an illustration, if th military sampl wr consistntly oldr, and it bcam known that oldr popl tndd to rat food highr in gnral, thn that might tnd to xplain why th military sampl ratd its food highr. Th ffct of som background factors was assssd by computing corrlations btwn ach factor and ach typ of foodsrvic rating. Ths corrlations can tak th valu of any dcimal fraction btwn to Th largr th positiv corrlation, th mor th 25

34 Tabl 8 Avrag Ratings 1 of Commrcial Rstaurant Environmnts Itm: ilitary Rating Civilian Rating nois lvl clanlinss numbr of itms pr mal waiting lin prparation of food *** nutritional quality portion siz tast of food apparanc of food caftria/rstaurant staff * hours of opration apparanc of dining aras lighting tmpratur of dining aras air quality (smok) ** numbr of availabl sats Ovrall avrag: * Ratings ar basd on a svn-point scal whr 1 mans "xtrmly dissatisfid," 4 indicats "nithr satisfid nor dissatisfid," and 7 indicats "xtrmly satisfid." *p<.05 **p<.01 ***p<

35 Tabl 9 ilitary Background Factors Rlatd to Foodsrvic Ratings Factor Dining Hall Food Commrcial Food Dining Hall Environ. Commrcial Foodsrvic Environmnt Corrlations 1 Rank Ag.15*** Education T-Tsts Sx: al Fmal * 5.4 Rac: Whit Nonwhit Corrlations ar basd on a scal running from -1.0 to argr ngativ fractions man an incrasing invrs rlationship, whil largr positiv fractions indicat an incrasing positiv rlationship. 2 Numbrs ar basd on th nin-point scal in which highr numbrs indicat incrasd liking of a givn food itm. Numbrs ar basd on th svn-point scal in which highr numbrs indicat incrasd satisfaction with th givn fatur of th foodsrvic nvironmnt. *p<.05 **p<.01 ***p<

36 two variabls ar dirctly rlatd,.g., th oldr a prson th mor positiv his attitud. Th largr th ngativ corrlation, th mor th two variabls ar invrsly rlatd,.g., th oldr a prson th mor ngativ his attitud. Th ffct of othr background variabls was assssd through t-tsts. Th avrag scors on th qustionnair wr rportd sparatly for ach subgroup,.g., mals vrsus fmals and whits vrsus nonwhits, so that th diffrnc btwn th two subgroups can b valuatd statistically. Th rsults for th military sampl ar in Tabl 9. Th first column of data rvals th corrlations and t-tsts rlating th various background factors to th rspondnts' ovrall avrag rating of th food in thir rspctiv dining halls. Th factor of ag producd a statistically significant, though rathr small, corrlation of.15. This mans that thr was a slight tndncy among military rspondnts for incrasing ag to b associatd with mor favorabl attituds toward dining hall food. (This may rflct not just ag, pr s, but yars of srvic ating Navy food). Similarly, in valuating th dining hall nvironmnt, thr was a slight tndncy for fmals to rat it highr than mals. Th avrag scor for fmals was 4.9, whil that of mals was 4.4. Sinc thr wr so fw fmals in ithr sampl, howvr, thn this small gndr diffrnc probably had vry littl ffct ovrall. In th military sampl, rank, ducation, and rac all had no significant impact on any of th ratings. 28

37 Th civilian background factors rlatd to foodsrvic ratings can b sn in Tabl 10. Within this sampl, rank (xprssd in trms of salary lvls) and ag did corrlat positivly with ratings of food both in th dining hall and in th outsid commrcial world. Education corrlatd positivly with ratings of commrcial food but ngativly with ratings of th dining hall nvironmnt. In othr words, th mor ducatd th civilian rspondnt, th highr h was likly to rat outsid commrcial food and th lowr h was likly to rat his dining hall nvironmnt. In th civilian sampl, thr was no diffrnc by gndr, but a small diffrnc by rac nonwhits gav slightly lowr ratings to th dining hall nvironmnt than did whits. Putting th impact of all ths background factors togthr, th only on likly to mak any diffrnc is ag. As Tabl 3 indicatd, th military sampl tndd to b slightly oldr on avrag than did th civilian on. Yt in ach sampl, thr was a trnd for oldr individuals to lik th dining hall food mor. And it was prcisly on th sction of dining hall food ratings that th military sampl scord th gratst amount mor than th civilian sampl. In othr words, th rlativly larg diffrnc in ratings of dining hall food can b at last partly xplaind by th gratr ag of rspondnts in th military sampl. Anothr background factor important to considr is diffrncs among th various typs of sits. Thr is a common prcption, for xampl, that Navy foodsrvic conditions afloat 29

38 Tabl 10 Civilian Background Factors Rlatd to Foodsrvic Ratings Factor Dining Commrcial Dining Commrcial Hall Food Hall Foodsrvic Food Environ. Environmnt Corrlations Salary.20***.20*** Ag.22***.28*** Education.11.29*** -.17** -.02 T-Tsts Sx: al Fmal Rac: Whit Nonwhit * 5.3 Corrlations ar basd on a scal running from -1.0 to argr ngativ fractions man an incrasing invrs rlationship, whil largr positiv fractions indicat an incrasing positiv rlationship. 2 Numbrs ar basd on th nin-point scal in which highr numbrs indicat incrasd liking of a givn food itm. Numbrs ar basd on th svn-point scal in which highr numbrs indicat incrasd satisfaction with th givn fatur of th foodsrvic nvironmnt. *p<.05 **p<.01 ***p<

39 ar oftn wors than thos ashor. To chck on this, th avrag ratings of all th ashor rspondnts was compard to that of all th sailors afloat. Ovr all itms, th afloat subjcts did rat thir food (5.5) significantly (p<.03) but only slightly wors than did th ashor subjcts (5.8). Th diffrnc in ratings of commrcial food was not significant. Howvr, th avrag rating of th foodsrvic nvironmnt afloat (3.8) was significantly lowr (p<.001) than that ashor (4.7). And th avrag rating by afloat subjcts of th commrcial foodsrvic nvironmnt (5.7) was significantly highr (p<.002) than that of th ashor subjcts (5.4), prhaps indicating a slight glamorization of th nvironmnt lswhr du to a prcivd rlativ dprivation in th Navy. Among th civilian sits thr was also on, Civilian Sit A, ratd significantly lowr than th rst. This was th sit with th lowst food cost, as sn in Tabl 4, yt th significant diffrnc rlatd not to th food but to th nvironmnt. Group A ratd its nvironmnt 3.8, compard to th othr civilian sits' ovrall rating of 4.3 (p<.001). Thr wr no significant diffrncs in rating commrcial food or foodsrvic nvironmnts. In othr words, both th Navy sampl and th civilian sampl had a subgroup with significantly lowr ratings than th rst of th rspctiv sampls. A Comparison of Ratinas of Own Dining Hall Food and Environmnt Vrsus Commrcial Food and Environmnt Th prvious data analysis and discussion indicatd that th 31

40 military subjcts tndd to rat food and foodsrvic nvironmnts (ithr thir own or thos in outsid stablishmnts) somwhat highr than did th civilian subjcts. This suggsts th Navy's foodsrvic systm is suprior to that of othr similar institutional nvironmnts. But thr is anothr sid to this coin which has not yt bn xplord. That is, how dos th Navy systm compar to commrcial civilian foodsrvic stablishmnts outsid of institutionalizd nvironmnts? In Tabl 11, it is clar that th military subjcts ratd th food in commrcial rstaurants and caftrias significantly highr than th food in thir own dining halls. Spcifically, on all 19 itms thy ratd th commrcial food significantly highr, with an avrag rating of 6.9 for commrcial food, compard to 5.7 for military food. Similarly, Tabl 12 indicats that on 15 out of 16 nvironmntal charactristics, th military subjcts ratd th commrcial world significantly suprior, with an avrag rating of 5.5 for commrcial foodsrvic nvironmnts, compard to only 4.4 for Navy dining hall nvironmnts. Th sol xcption was air quality, th trait on which both typs of nvironmnts wr ratd th sam. Th comparisons wr similar for th civilian subjcts. Tabl 13 indicats that thy ratd all 19 food itms significantly suprior on th outsid, with an ovrall avrag of 6.6 for commrcial food and only 4.9 for civilian institutional food. Tabl 14 indicats that on 15 of 16 nvironmntal traits, 32

41 Tabl 11 ilitary Ratings 1 of Dining Hall Vrsus Commrcial Food Itms Itm: Dining Hall Commrcial chickn noodl soup Frnch onion soup mat loaf macaroni and chs pizza spaghtti w/mat sauc frid chickn chsburgr hamburgrs grilld ham & chs sandwich ric mashd potatos Frnch fris swt potatos carrots grn bans spinach grn pas chocolat cak Ovrall avrag: *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 7.4*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Ratings ar basd on a nin-point scal in which 1 mans "dislik xtrmly," 5 rfrs to "nithr lik nor dislik," and 9 indicats "lik xtrmly." **p<.01 ***p<

42 Tabl 12 ilitary Ratings 1 of th Dining Hall VS Commrcial Environmnts Itm: Dining Hall Commrcial nois lvl *** clanlinss *** numbr of itms pr mal *** waiting lin *** prparation of food *** nutritional quality *** portion siz *** tast of food *** apparanc of food *** dining hall staff *** hours of opration *** apparanc of dining aras *** lighting *** tmpratur of dining aras *** air quality (smok) numbr of availabl sats *** Ovrall avrag: *** 1 Ratings ar basd on a svn-point scal whr 1 mans "xtrmly dissatisfid," 4 indicats "nithr satisfid nor dissatisfid," and 7 indicats "xtrmly satisfid." **p<.01 ***p<

43 Tabl 13 Civilian Ratings 1 of Dining Hall VS Civilian Food Itms Itm: Dining Hall Commrcial chickn noodl soup *** Frnch onion soup 3.9 5,7*** mat loaf *** macaroni and chs *** pizza *** spaghtti w/mat sauc *** frid chickn *** chsburgr *** hamburgrs *** grilld ham & chs *** sandwich ric *** mashd potatos *** Frnch fris 5.9 swt potatos *** 5.7*** 5.7*** 5.9*** spinach *** carrots grn bans grn pas *** chocolat cak *** Ovrall avrag: *** 1 Ratings ar basd on a nin-point scal in which 1 mans "dislik xtrmly," 5 rfrs to "nithr lik nor dislik," and 9 indicats "lik xtrmly." **p<.01 ***p<

44 Tabl 14 Civilian Ratings 1 of th Dining Hall VS Commrcial Environmnts Itm: Dining Hall Commrcial nois lvl clanlinss numbr of itms pr mal waiting lin prparation of food nutritional quality portion siz tast of food apparanc of food dining hall staff hours of opration apparanc of dining aras lighting *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** s *** *** tmpratur of dining aras as *** air quality (smok) ** numbr of availabl sats Ovrall avrag: *** 1 Ratings ar basd on a svn-point scal whr 1 mans "xtrmly dissatisfid, 4 indicats "nithr satisfid nor dissatisfid," and 7 indicats "xtrmly satisfid." **p<.01 ***p<

45 th civilians ratd commrcial rstaurants and caftrias as bing suprior, with an ovrall avrag of 5.3 vrsus 4.1 for thir own institutional foodsrvic nvironmnts. Th sol xcption was th numbr of availabl sats, th trait on which th civilian subjcts ratd both typs of nvironmnts about th sam. In short, both military and civilian subjcts ratd th outsid commrcial rstaurants and caftrias as bing significantly suprior in almost vry way to thir own dining hall food and nvironmnts. Thus, Navy dining halls clarly hav much room for improvmnts as compard to thir outsid commrcial foodsrvic comptition. nu Analysis Th Surgon Gnral's Rport on Nutrition and Halth 5 (1988) supports th currnt nutrition policy as statd in th Ditary Guidlins for Amricans issud jointly by th Dpartmnt of Agricultur and th Dpartmnt of Halth and Human Srvics. Th first of th svn rcommndations is to "Eat a varity of foods." Th Rport raffirms th rcommndation "to consum a ditary pattrn that contains a varity of foods...". Th xtnt of varity in th dit must continually b valuatd 2. Consquntly, a comparison of mnu varity was usd as on of two masurs of dit quality. Bcaus th cycl mnu (7 days pr cycl) varid from 5-33 wks for th civilian sttings and 5-6 wks in Navy sttings, a random sampl of on wk (7 days) was slctd for ach sit. 37

46 To dtrmin varity for ach of svn sits, all food itms wr first classifid as ithr fruit, dssrt, starch, ntr, apptizr, vgtabl, or salad. A complt list of mnu itms may b found in Appndix B. Similar food it;as wr sortd into a food catgory and thn combind to yild a total. Th man numbr of foods availabl and thir standard rrors wr thn dtrmind sparatly for Navy sits and civilian sits. Ths valus ar found in Tabl 15. No statistically significant diffrncs wr found btwn th two populations, although as sn in Figur 1 thr is a trnd that indicats th Navy clarly offrd mor than two tims th total numbr of food itms and xcdd th civilian fding sits in all catgoris with th xcption of fruit. In som of th mnus, th sam foods (hamburgrs, frankfurtrs, tc) appard almost daily. To diffrntiat btwn th total numbr of diffrnt food itms offrd, rptitiv itms wr xcludd from farthr analysis. Tabl 16 indicats that significant diffrncs wr found for apptizr (P<.05) and vgtabl catgoris (p<.01). Th main rason that mor diffrncs btwn th two fding sits wr not significant is du to th larg variability among th thr Navy sits and th larg variability among th four civilian sits (s standard rrors or SE f s in Tabl 16). Variability may b du to th sits slctd for this study. Th civilian sits, for xampl, includd a fdral training institution, two civilian institutions sponsord by th govrnmnt and a national 38

47 Tabl 15 Comparison of an Numbr of Total Food Itms Availabl (Including Rptitiv Itms) ovr 7-Day Priod Navy Civilian (N=1347) (N=748) COPONENTS an (+SE) an (+SE) Fruit 24.3 (10.5) 31.5 (6.3) Dssrt 61,3 (21.7) 20.5 (12.2) Starch (33.2) 47.3 (8.6) Entr (69.6) 50.0 (9.8) Apptizr 15.3 (0.9) 8.8 (3.4) Vgtabl 33.3 (4.6) 16.5 (1.6) Salad 22.0 (8.0) 12.5 (2.2) Total Food (144.0) (39.1) 39

48 Tabl 16 Comparison of an Numbr of Total Food Itms Availabl (Excluding Rptitiv Itms) ovr 7-Day Priod Navy Civilian (N=430) (N=415) COPONENTS an (+SE) an (+SE) Fruit 4.7 (0.7) 12.0 (3.7) Dssrt 18.0 (2.6) 15.3 (8.0) Starch 29.3 (3.9) 20.0 (3.4) Entr 52.7 (7.0) 37.0 (7.8) Apptizr 13.0 (0.6) 5.3 (1.8)* Vgtabl 21.0 (0.6) 11.8 (1.3)** Salad 4.7 (3.7) 2.5 (0.6) Total Food (13.1) (24.4) * p<.05 **p<.01 40

49 coo CIVIIAN (4 SITES) II NAVY (3 SITES) tu v. > g * <3 o iu g > 3 S-Ö FRUTT DESSERT STARCH BJ1PK APPETTZEK VEGCTAaE SAAD TOTA FOOD ENU ITES Figur 1. Comparison of nu Itms Including Rptitiv Ons 41

50 CIVIIAN {4 SITES) WAVY (3 SJTES) (0 120 CO Sis & & g E h; 100 cs rt fl S JrJ K pi f,i ^> 2 S-o GO- FRUTT D6SSSTT STARCH BVTTE APPETIZER VEGETABE SAAD TOTA FOOD ENU ITES Figur 2. Comparison of nu Itms Excluding Rptitiv Ons 42

51 park. nu varity would dpnd upon th population srvd. Consquntly, a transint population such as that found in a national park would rquir a mnu offring lss varity than on which fd th sam population daily ovr a priod of tim. Variability among th Navy sits may b du to th comparison of thr ashor sits to afloat sits whr varity is mor limitd. Rgardlss of th variability among sits, Figur 2 indicats that th Navy onc again offrd a gratr varity of food xcpt for th fruit catgory. nu planning is considrd to b an xtrmly important rsponsibility by th Navy. Th guidlins indicat that mnus must, 1) provid th ssntial nutrints to mt th ilitary Rcommndd Ditary Allowancs 3, 2) provid njoyabl mals which offr a numbr of food choics that mt th nds of sailors from diffrnt gographical aras and thnic groups, and 3) stay within crtain spcifid cost limits 4. Clarly, Th Surgon Gnral's Rport mphasizs th nd for varity and xpands th rcommndation to includ th phras, "providd that ths foods ar gnrally low in caloris, fat, saturatd fat, cholstrol, and sodium 5. Ths additional rcommndations must b takn sriously and nw guidlins for mnu planning (last updatd in 1979) dvlopd to mt th currnt nds of th Navy. Nutrint Analysis Two problms had to b addrssd bfor nutrint analysis could b prformd: (1) mnus from ach of th 7 sits containing svral choics of fruits, ntrs, tc., pr day had to b mad 43

52 into a sampl mal plan (Tabls 17 & 18) for an individual and (2) th cycl mnu varying from 5-33 wks had to b mad mor managabl and consistnt btwn sits. To solv ths problms, th following procdur was dvlopd: for ach of svn sits on hypothtical "wk" of svn days was cratd by randomly slcting ach day of th wk sparatly (.g. Sit A: onday of wk 1, Tusday of wk 3, tc.). This yildd a nw databas with only on "avrag" wk pr sit. Using this nw databas,.'.do food rcords wr gnratd for ach day of th wk for ach sit (yild = 700 rcords/sit). Ths food rcords wr gnratd using th Sampl al Plan, thn assignd portion sizs from SB , and th man for on day was dtrmind for th Navy and civilian population. Food Procssor II 10 was th databas usd to cod and analyz th nutrint contnt of slctd mnus. ans for slctd nutrints wr compard to th ilitary Rcommndd Ditary Rquirmnts (RDA). Analysis of th nutrint contnt of th mnus rvald that th Navy ithr mt or xcdd th RDA 3 for all nutrints with th xcption of folacin (Tabl 19). A rcnt publication 11 indicatd that th U.S. population gnrally is unabl to mt th RDA for folacin. In our study, th man was 381 mg, which mt 94% of th RDA, whras avrag intak for mal adults in th U.S. is 281 mg 11. Th civilian population, howvr, was dficint in svral nutrints such as nrgy, folacin, Vitamin B 6, and zinc. Although thr is no RDA for cholstrol, th National Rsarch 44

53 Tabl 17 Sampl al Plan* Brakfast Pattrn 1 Brakfast Apptizr (Fruit or Juic) 1 Brakfast Entr 2 Starch Srvings (Cral, Brad, Brakfast Pastry) 1 Fat Srving 1 Cup 2% ilk Coff or Ta unch Pattrn 1 unch Apptizr (Fruit, Fruit Juic, Fruit Cup, Soup) 1 unch Entr 2 Starch Srvings (Brad, Potato, Ric or Substitut) 1 Vgtabl 1 Salad 1 Fat Srving 1 Dssrt 1 Cup 2% ilk Coff or Ta Dinnr Pattrn 1 Dinnr Apptizr (Fruit, Fruit Juic, Fruit Cup, Soup) 1 Dinnr Entr 1 Starch Srving 1 Vgtabl 1 Salad 1 Fat Srving 1 Dssrt Srving Coff or Ta Adaptd from Calori al Plan, Srvics, Chang 2, Armd Forcs Rcip 45

54 Tabl 18 Sampl al Plan* Navy an 22 Yars 5'9" 160 lbs odratly Activ Brakfast 5 oz Orang Juic 2 Scrambld Eggs 2 slics Bacon 2 srvings Coff Cak 1 tsp Buttr 1 cup 2% ilk Coff or Ta unch 4. 5 oz Pot Roast 2 tbsp Bf Gravy 1/2 cup Scallopd Potato 1 slic Whit Brad 1/2 cup Asparagus 1.75 oz ttuc Wdg 2 tbsp Salad Drssing 1 tsp Buttr 1 Appl 1 cup 2% ilk Coff or Ta Dinnr 4 oz Frid Chickn 1/2 cup ashd Potato 1/2 cup Pas 1 slic Whit Brad 1 oz ttuc & Tomato Salad 2 tbsp Salad Drssing 1 tsp Buttr 1 pic Chrry Pi Coff or Ta Adaptd from Calori al Plan, Armd Forcs Rcip Srvics, Chang 2,

55 Tabl 19 an Daily Analysis of Slctd Nutrints Ovr 7 Days Comparing Navy and Civilian nu Itms NUTRIENTS RDA Navy (SD) %RDA Civilian (SD) %R Enrgy (KCal) (132) (65) 89 Protin (g) (14) (4) 119 Carbohydrat (g) Non 407 (15) (6) - Ditary Fibr (g) Non 27 (2) - 22 (0.7) - Fat-Total (g) Non 222 (10) (5) - Fat-Saturatd (g) Non 71 (3) - 52 (2) - Fat-onounsat (g) Non 78 (4) - 48 (2) - Fat-Polyunsat (g) Non 57 (3) - 28 (2) - Cholstrol (mg) Non 786 (75) (59) - Vitamin A (mg RE) (413) (426) 187 Ascorbic Acid (mg) (25) (9) 201 Thiamin (mg) (0.1) (0.1) 141 Riboflavin (mg) (0.2) (0.2) 156 Niacin (mg) (2) (1) 133 Folacin (mg) (31) (12) 75 Vitamin B (0.1) (0.1) 94 Vitamin E (mg) (5) (1) 201 Vitamin B 12 (mcg) (3) (4) 362 Calcium (mg) (75) (39) 172 Iron (mg) (1) (0.5) 196 agnsium (mg) (11) (6) 101 Phosphorous (mg) 800 z 2493 (83) (50) 239 Potassium (mg) Non 4925 (154) (103) - Sodium (mg) 3300* 7184 (345) (169) 143 Zinc (mg) (1.2) (0.5) 98 % ACRONUTRIENTS FRO ENERGY Cal from Carbohydrats: KCal from Protin: KCal from Fat: Navy 38% 16% 46% Civilian 43% 16% 41% Nots: 1 RDA for modratly activ mal, ags 17 to 50 yars, is basd on th RDA, ninth rvisd dition, owst valu of rang usd. Rfr to RDA found in Appndix. aximum saf and adquat lvl for daily sodium intak publishd in th RDA, ninth dition,

56 Council 2 rcommnds lss than 300 mgms. daily. Th Navy and civilian populations clarly xcdd that valu by doubl th amount. In addition, th sodium contnt of th Navy mnu (7184 mgms.) and th sodium contnt of th civilian mnu (4966 mgms.) clarly xcdd th maximum saf and adquat lvl for daily sodium intak of mg 3. To dtrmin whthr th analysis of th Navy mnus is comparabl to actual food intak, data collctd from SEA (SEa, Air, and forcs) l 2 trains in 1986 wr compard with a nutrint analysis of Navy mnus. SEA nrgy intak was 3,886 kcal and xcdd th RDA of 3200 kcal. SEAs wr in training at th tim of this study and rquird additional caloris to mt th nrgy nds of incrasd physical activity. Consquntly, th nutrint intak of th SEAs could not b usd for analysis and thr Army garrison fding studis 13 ' 14 ' 15 wr slctd for comparison with th Navy mnus. an nrgy intak rangd from kcal and was slightly blow th RDA. an carbohydrat intak rangd from g, man protin fll btwn g, and man fat rangd btwn g. Whn xprssd as a prcnt of total kcal, carbohydrat contributd %, protin contributd 15-16%, and % cam from fat. Th Navy mnus contributd 38% of total kcal from carbohydrat, 16% from protin, and 46% from fat. This information indicats nutrint analysis of th Navy mnus was similar to th Army studis in protin contnt, but xcdd th Army in th contnt of fat and was much lowr in carbohydrat. 48

57 Th AR provids th following guidlins: 50-55% of total kcal from carbohydrat, lss than 35% from fat, and th rmaindr from protin. It is clar that both th Navy and th Army xcd th prcnt of kcal from fat and do not mt th rcommndations for carbohydrat. Th Dpartmnt of Dfns Food Srvic mandats that food srvd in garrison and on shipboard must mt th nutrition initiativs to provid a halthir dit by rducing salt, fat and cholstrol. It is clar th mnus offrd by th Navy xcdd ths valus. 49

58 Conclusions and Rcommndations 1. This study found th Navy's avrag daily food cost was $3.46 as compard to an avrag food cost of $3.73 among th quivalnt civilian institutions. Although ths figurs wr rlativly clos, th disparity in food costs still suggsts th Basic Daily Food Allowanc b incrasd to insur full comparability. 2. Th Navy sampl ratd its dining hall food significantly highr than did th civilian sampl rat its institutional food. Howvr, at last part of this diffrnc can b tracd to diffrncs in sampl composition, sinc th Navy sampl had oldr rspondnts, and oldr rspondnts tndd to rat institutional food highr. 3. Th Navy sampl ratd th dining hall nvironmnt significantly highr than did th civilian sampl rat thirs. Howvr, whn th control factor basd on ratings of commrcial stablishmnts was subtractd, this diffrnc btwn sampls was substantially rducd. In particular, th Navy scord significantly wors on nois lvl, waiting lin, and th numbr of availabl sats thr factors which should b targtd for improvmnts. 4. Although th Navy rspondnts gnrally ratd thir food and foodsrvic nvironmnts highr than did th civilian rspondnts, th Navy ratd commrcial food and foodsrvic nvironmnts vn highr. In othr words, Navy dining halls wr sn as bing distinctly infrior to commrcial rstaurants and 50

59 caftrias. Thus thy hav considrabl room for improvmnt both in th aras of food and foodsrvic nvironmnts. 5. Th analysis of Navy mnus indicats th varity of food offrd is mor than adquat. Th guidlins for mnu planning, howvr, hav not bn updatd sinc 1979 and should b rvisd to mt th Surgon Gnral's rcnt rcommndation to provid a varity of foods low in caloris, fat, cholstrol, and sodium. 6. Th Navy clarly xcdd th ilitary Rcommndd Ditary Allowancs for all nutrints with th xcption of folacin. Nw mnu guidlins as rcommndd abov, changs in th Armd Forcs Rcips to mt nutrition initiativs, and th ducation of cooks to incorporat ths changs ar th stps rquird to rduc fat, cholstrol, and sodium, and to incras carbohydrat in Navy mnus. 7. A survy of Navy prsonnl to dtrmin th numbr of nutritional studis conductd on th Navy ovr th past 5-10 yars producd only on study publishd in th opn litratur (SEAS). Consquntly, cu jnt nutritional studis ar ndd to dtrmin what th Navy is actually ating. This documnt rports rsarch undrtakn at th US Army Natick Rsarch, Dvlopmnt and Enginring Cntr and ha«bn assignd No. NATICK/TR-}//d// in th sris of rports approvd for publication. 51

60 Rfrncs 1. Brandlr, P, Chang, C, Dacon, R, Fry, AE, and ivingston, GE. Th basic lvl of fding: A comparison of military and comparabl civilian food utilization. USANRDEC Tchnical Rport, Natick/TR OR/SA, National Rsarch Council. Dit and Halth: Implications for Rducing Chronic Disas Risk, Committ on Dit and Halth, Food and Nutrition Board, Commission on if Scincs, National Acadmy Prss, Washington, D. C, 1989, pp AR Nutritional Allowancs: Standards and Education, 15 ay, Food Srvic Oprations. nu Planning. Naval Supply Systms Command, NAVSUP P-421, Octobr, Th Surgon Gnral»s Rport on Nutrition and Halth, U.S. Dpt. of Halth and Human Srvics, Public Halth Srvic, DHHS (PHS), Publication No , 1988, pp Armd Forcs Rcip Srvic. Guidlins for Caloris. A. Gnral information Nos. 26(1-10), Chang Schnaknbrg, D.D., Hill, T.., Krtsch,.J., and orris, B.S. Diary-intrviw tchniqu to assss food consumption pattrns of individual military prsonnl. In Assssing changing food consumption pattrns, by National Rsarch Council, Committ on Food Consumption Pattrns, Washington, D. C.: National Acadmy Prss, 1981, pp Armd Forcs Rcip Srvic. Guidlins for Caloris. A. Gnral information Nos. 26(1-10), Chang SB Nutrint Valus of astr nu Rcips and Food Itms. Fbruary, Food Procssor II. ESHA Rsarch, Salm, Orgon, Subar, A.F., Block, G. and Jams,.D. Folat intak and food sourcs in th US population. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 1989, pp DBolt, J.E., Singh, A., Day, B.A. and Dustr, P.A. Nutritional Survy of th U.S. Navy SEA Trains. Dpartmnt of ilitary dicin, Uniformd Srvics Univrsity of th Halth Scincs, Bthsda, d. Prpublication. 52

61 Rfrncs 13. Carlson, D.E., Dugan, T.B., Buchbindr, J.C., Allgrtto, J.D., and Schnaknbrg, D.D.: Nutritional Assssmnt of th Ft. Rily Non-Commissiond Officr Acadmy Dining Facility. U.S. Army Rsarch Institut of Environmntal dicin Rport No. T14-87, Szto, E.G., Carlson, D.E., Dugan, T.B., and Buchbindr, J.C.: A comparison of nutrint intaks btwn Ft. Rily contractor-opratd and a Ft. wis military-opratd garrison dining facility. U.S. Army Rsarch Institut of Environmntal dicin Rport No. T2-88, Szto, E.G., Dugan, T.B., and Gallo, J.A.: Passiv nutrition intrvntion in a military-opratd garrison dining facility Ft. Dvns. Part I. U.S. Army Rsarch Institut of Environmntal dicin Rport No. T3-88,

62 Appndix A: Navy Qustionnair 54

63 ptfff«d»x A NAVY QUESTIONNAIRE O - This dining hall has bn chosn by th Natick Rsarch, Dvlopmnt and Enginring Cntr for a survy of its foodarvic oprations. By complting this qustionnair, you will hlp us dcid what foodarvic you prfr. Plas us a No. 2 pncil. Answr honstly and do not put your nam on th form. Whn you hav compltd th qustionnair, plas hand it to on of th survy collctors or drop it in th box providd. Your tim and ffort ar apprciatd in complting this qustionnair THANK YOU. 1. In what country or stat hav you livd most of your lif? DO NOT WRITE IN BOX f*) f") (^ (""**) "[ 2. What is your rank? Fill in on circl. 8E-1 to E-4 8E-5tc to E-6 7 to E-9 o- W-l to t< to O What is your ag? _yrs. DO HOT WRITE I BOX 4. What is your gndr? ("~) AE ) FEAE OOOOOO 5. Do you liv in th housing providd? (^) YES (~*} NO 6. If ys, what is th total lngth of tim you hav livd in th housing? yars months 7. What is th highst lvl of ducation you hav compltd? I Finishd grad school I Som high school \High school graduat or graduat quivalncy (GED) 8 Som collg Collg graduat 8. What is your rac/thnic background? Whit (not Hispanic) Black Hispanic Asian/Pacific Islandr Amrican Indian/Alaskan nativ Othr (Plas spcify) 9. Plas fill in th circls for th mals you usually at in this dining hall. Tu W Th F Sa Su Brakfast (*"") ^ ^^ ^"^ ^"^ Brakfast unch ^J ^J ^"j ^~J ^J Brunch/unch Dinnr {~j ^J Q~j C_) C } Dinnr 10. If you do not at th food in this dining hall during th wk, do you usually: BREAKFAST UNCH DINNER Skip th mal Eat at a club/rstaurant/snack shop Bring food to th dining hall Eat at th dormitory Eat at hom Buy food at vnding machin Othr (Plas spcify) O 8333

64 IX, Plas us th scal providd blow to rat how you lik th following foods. ^^ DISIKE NEVER DISIKE VERY DISIKE TRIED EXTREEY UCH ODERATE! Chickn Noodl Soup Trnch Onion Soap at oaf acaroni and Chs Pizza Spaghtti w/at Sauc Frid Chickn Chsburgt Hamburgrs Grilld Ham and Chs Sandwich Ric ashd' Potatos 'f"' Trnch Tris Swt frdtatbs Carrots Grn *aa*... Spinach Grn *»s Chocolat Cak NEITHER IKE DISIKE IKE NOR IKE IKE VERY IKE,Y SIGHTY DISIKE SIGHTY ODERATEY UCH EXTREEY IN THIS DINING HA: Chickn Noodl Soup Trnch.Onion Soup : ' at oaf acaroni' and Ütäimam?: : Pizza Spaghtti w/hat Sauc Trid Chickn Chsburgr. ' : f'\.t-j. Hamburgrs Grilld Ham and Chs Sandwich Ric Hashd Potatos Trnch Tris Swt Potatos Carrots Grn 9*ns Spinach Grn Pas " Chocolat Cak IN A COERCIA CATITX RIA/RESTAURANT ; o m m Pa 9 2 «137 I m

65 12. Plas us«th scal providd blow to rat your satisfaction with th foodsrvic and nvironmnt. O - EXTREEY ODERATEY SIGHTY DISSATISFIED DISSATISFIED DISSATISFIED 12 3 NEITHER SATISFIED NOR SIGHTY ODERATEY EXTREEY DISSATISFIED SATISFIED SATISFIED SATISFIED IN THIS DINING HA: Nois lvl Clanlinss Numbr of Itms pr mal Waiting lin 'Prparation of 'food - '? ;" ' Nutritional quality Portion sit Tast of food Apparanc of food Dining hall staff. Hours of potation -.". Apparanc of dining aras ighting,;....' >. ; / Tmpratur of dining aras.air. qiiality * to*!»!'.- - : - Numbr of availabl sats IN A COERCIA CAFETERIA/RESTAURANT: Nois lvl Clanlinss Waiting lin ;»rparation: of.f^ Nutritional quality Portion sit Tast of food Apparanc of food ± : {ß:SS-'x^ Numbr of itms pr mal Caftria/rstaurant staff Hours of opration Apparanc of dining aras ighting Tmpratur of dining aras Air quality (smojc) Numbr of availabl sats Ö Pag

66 Appndix B: nu Classification 58

67 JPI^FNPIY > VARIETY - NAVY ENU STUDY BY WEEK (7 DAYS) SITE RINAE FOOD_GRP COUNT A Bf Barly Soup a A Chickn Noodl a A Chickn Ric Soup a A Clam Chowdr a A Cram of Broccoli Soup a A Tomato Juic a A Trail ix a A Boston Cram Pi d A Brad Pudding d A Chscak w/chrry Topping d A Chocoholics Dlight d A Chocolat Cram Pi d A Chocolat Pudding w/whippd Topping d A Glatin d A Panut Buttr Pi d A Ric Pudding w/whippd Topping d A Sundas d A Vanilla Wafrs d A Amrican Chs Sandwich A BBQ Kidny Bans A BBQ Ribs ** A Bacon, ttuc & Tomato Sandwich A Bakd Ham w/raisin Sauc A Bakd at oaf A Bf Tortllini w/sauc A Bologna Sandwich A Buttrd Grits A Chs Sandwich A Chsburgrs A Chickn Nuggts w/saucs A Chickn Sandwich A Cornd Bf Hash A Cramd Bf A Eggs to Ordr A Frnch Toast A Frid Chickn A Frid Ham Slic A Fruit Yogurt A Grilld Chs & Tomato Sandwich A Grilld Ham & Chs Sandwich A Ham & Swiss Chs Sandwich A Hamburgrs A Hot Dogs A acaroni & Chs w/topping A Panut Buttr 6 Jlly Sandwich A Pickl & Piminto oaf Sandwich A Poachd Eggs A Pottd Bf A Ravioli A Sausag Pattis A Scrambld Eggs A Safood Salad Sandwich A Shrimp in a Baskt A Slicd Bacon 59

68 VARIETY - NAVY ENU STUDY BY WEEK (7 DAYS) SITE RINAE F00D_GRP COUNT A Soft Boild Eggs 1 A Spaghtti w/italian Sauc 1 A Turky Brast Sandwich 1 A Turky a la King on Toast Points 1 A Val Parmigiana 1 A Wstrn Sandwich 1 A Appl Juic f 7 * A Bakd Appl f 1 A Cidr f 1 A Cranbrry Juic Cocktail f 1 A Frsh Appl (Cook's Choic) f 1 A Frsh Appls f 3 A Frsh Cantaloup f 1 A Frsh Fruit Cup f 1 A Frsh Orangs f 2 A Frsh Par f 1 A Frsh Plum f 1 A Grap Juic f 7 A Orang Juic f 7 A Col Slaw s 2 A ttuc, Tomato & Onions s 2 A Salad Bar s 7 A Tossd Salad s 5 A Assortd Brads St 7 A Assortd Toast St 2 A Brad St 4 A Buttrd Noodls St 1 A Cornbrad St 1 A Cram of What St 3 A Farina St 1 A Frnch Fris St 4 A Garlic Brad St 1 A Hashd Brown Potatos St 6 A Italian Brad St 1 A uffins St 7 A Noodls St 1 A Oatmal St 1 A Parkr Hous Rolls St 1 A Pasta St 2 A Toast St 4 A Whippd Potatos St 4 i A Brussls Sprouts V 1 A Carrots V 1 A Collard Grns V 2. A Grn Bans V 1 A Grn Pas V 1 A ima Bans V 2 A ixd Vgtabls V 1 A Onion Rings V 1 A Pas 'n Onions V 1 A Spinach V 1 A Wax Bans V 3 60

69 VARIETY - NAVY ENU STUDY BY WEEK <7 DAYS) Numbr of cass rad = 106 Numbr of cass listd

70 VARIETY - NAVY ENU STUDY BY WEEK (7 DAYS) SITE RINAE FOOD_GRP COUNT B Chickn Noodl a 4 B Clam Chowdr a 2 B Cram of Broccoli Soup a B Cram of ushroom a B Frnch Onion Soup a B Tomato Soup a B Appl or Chrry Cobblr d B Chocolat Pudding d B Grman Chocolat Cak d B Ic Cram d B Jll-o Chscak d B Pumpkin Pi d B Shrbt d B Bacon B Bacon Burgr B Bf Stw B Bf Stroganoff B Bradd Pork Chop B Broccoli Ric Cassrol B Broild Ham Stak w/fruit Sauc B Chs Tort Italiano B Chsburgrs B Chickn Sandwich B Chili B Cottag Chs B Eggplant Parmsan B Eggs to Ordr B Fish Sandwich B Fish in mon Sauc B Frnch Toast 3 B Grilld Chs Sandwich 2 B Grilld Chs with Ham 2 B Hamburgrs 6 B ayrd Hamburgr Bak B ivr and Onions B at oaf w/brown Gravy B Omltt B Ovn Frid Chickn B Pork Chow in B Roastd Turky w/gravy B Sausag B Swt & Sour Pork B Tacos B Trout Almondin B Tuna lt B Vgtarian asagna B Bananas f B Cannd Fruit f B Frsh Fruit f B Grapfruit Juic f B Orang Juic f B Salad Bar s 14 B Bakd Potato Bar St B Biscuits St 62

71 VARIETY - NAVY ENU STUDY BY WEEK (7 DAYS) SITE RINAE B Brad Stuffing B Buttrd Noodls B Corn Brad Stuffing B Dry Cral B Hashbrown Cassrol B Hashbrowns B Hot Cral B ashd Potatos B ashd Potatos w/gravy B Pancaks B Ric Pilaf B Swt Potato Souffl B Tijuana Tort B Broccoli B Corn B Corn on th Cob B xi-corn B ixd Vgtabls B Pas B Pas & ushrooms B Rfrid Bans B Roosvlt Bans B Sautd Yllow Squash B Sautd Zucchini B Yllow Squash Parmsan FOOD_GRP COUNT St st st st st st st st st st st st st V V V V V V V V V V V V Numbr of cass rad 79 Numbr of cass listd 79 63

72 VARIETY - NAVY ENU STUDY BY WEEK (7 DAYS) SITE RINAE FOOD GRP COUNT C Ban Soup a 3 C Bf Barly Soup a 3 C Chickn Gumbo a : C Cram of Tomato Soup a 5 C Hot Chs & Chips a ] C Tomato Juic a f C Turky Noodl Soup a 1 k C Turky Ric Soup a 2 C Appl Pi d 3 C Appl Turnovrs d 3 C Blond Brownis d 3 C Carrot Cak d ] C Chrry Cobblr d 3 C Chrry Glatin Cubs w /Whippd Topping d 3 C Chrry Pi d 3 C Chocolat Brownis d 3 C Chocolat Cak w/choc icing d 3 c Chocolat Cram Pi d 3 c Chocolat Cram Puff d 3 c Chocolat Pudding d 3 c Chocolat Pudding w/whippd Topping d 3 c Cowboy Cookis d 3 c Cram Puffs d 3 c Donuts d : c Fruit Won Tons d 3 c Glatin Cubs d 3 c Hrmits d 3 c Ic Box Cookis d : c Ic Cram d I c Jlly Bar Spritz d 3 c Jlly Roll d : c mon ringu Pi d : c im Glatin Cubs d : c Oatmal Cookis d : c Pach Turnovrs d : c Pcan Pi d : c Pinappl Upsid down cak d : c Pound Cak d : c Pumpkin Chiffon Pi d : c Pumpkin Pi d : c Shrbt d I: 2 < c Strawbrry Chiffon d : c Sugar Cookis d : c Tapioca Cram Pudding d : 1- c Tapioca Pudding d : c Vanilla Pudding d : c Whit Cak w/carml Frosting d c BBQ Chips c Bacon c Bakd Bradd Cod c Bakd Turky 6 Noodls 5 c Bf & Vgtabls Stir Fry c Bf Patty on Bun Boild Eggs c 64

73 VARIETY - NAVY ENU STUDY BY WEEK (7 DAYS) SITE RINAE C C C c Chs & ushroom Omlt Chs Pizza Chs Puffs Chickn Sandwich Clams Corn Dogs Country Frid Stak Dli Bar Dlux Pizza Dnvr Omlt Dnvr Sandwich Fishwich on Bun Frnch Toast Frid Eggs Grilld Pork Chops Ham Ham & Chs Sandwich Ham Salad on Whol What Ham Stak Hawaiian Hamburgrs Hot Dogs Hunan Chickn Italian Hoagi asagna ivr and Onions acaroni & Chs ont Cristo Sandwich ushroom Omlt Pork Chop Orintal Qusadilla Ratatouill Rib Ey 10 oz Salisbury Stak Sausag Chs Biscuit Sausag inks Sausag, Gravy & Biscuits Scrambld Eggs Shrimp Shrimp Frid Ric Sirloin 7 oz Stak Swt & Sour Pork Tacos Txas Grilld Chs Tuna Noodl Cassrol Tuna Salad (Sandwich) Turky Salad (Sandwich) Val Parmsan Appl Half Appl Juic Applsauc Banana Half Frsh Fruit Frsh Fruit Bar(Ban.Grp,W FOOD_GRP COUNT f f 5 f 2 f 3 f f 1 65

74 VARIETY - NAVY ENU STUDY BY WEEK (7 DAYS) SITE RINAE C C C C c c Fruit Cocktail Grap Juic Grapfruit Half Grapfruit, Fruit Cocktail Grapfruit, Plums Graps Orang Juic Orang Quartrs Orang, Applsauc Orang, Pach Slics Orang, Par Slics Pach Slics Pachs Par Slics Pars Pinappl Slics Gardn Pasta Salad Tossd Grn Salad Bakd Potato Biscuits Blubrry Pancaks Buttrmilk Pancaks Cinnamon Coff Cak Cinnamon Raisin Brad Coff Cak Cornbrad uffins Crackrs Cram of What Dry Cral English uffins Frnch Frid Potatos Hashd Brown Potatos Harty Frid Potatos Hom Frid Potatos Hommad Brad as! d Potatos Oatmal Orintal Ric and Vgtabls Pancaks Potato Chips Ric Rolls Stamd Ric Swt Potatos Txas Toast Waffls What toast Whit toast Broccoli Brussls Sprouts Carrots Cauliflowr Cauliflowr w/paprika Chins Vgtabls FOOD GRP COUNT f 1 f 5 f 1 f 2 f 1 f 1 f 5 f 2 f 1 f 1 f 1 f 1 f 1 f 1 f 1 f 1 s 1 s 13 St 1 St 2 St 1 St 1 St 1 St 1 St 1 St 1 St 9 St 1 St 6 St 1 St 2 St 5 St 2 St 1 St 1 St 1 St 1 St 1 St 3 St 4 St 2 St 3 St 1 St 1 St 1 St 2 St 1 St 6 V 2 V 1 V 2 V 2 V 1 V 1 66

75 VARIETY - NAVY ENU STUDY BY WEEK (7 DAYS) SITE RINAE r< FOOD GRP COUNT C Corn V C Frnch cut Grn Bans V c Grn Bans V c xican dly V c ixd Vgtabls V c Pas V c Savory Grn Bans V c Vgtabl Combo (Caul,broc,carrots) V c Zucchini vr/toxnatos V Numbr of cass rad 171 Numbr of cass listd

76 VARIETY - NAVY ENU STUDY BY WEEK (7 DAYS) SITE RINAE FOOD_GRP COUNT D Appl Pi 2 D Banana Pudding 1 D Chs Cak 1 D Ic Cram 2 D Bf Stw 2 D Bologna 1 D Chs Omlts 1 D Chickn Pattis 1 D Chili 1 D Corn Bf Hash 1 D Cornd Bf 1 D Frnch Toast 3 D Ham 1 D Hamburgrs 1 D Hot Dogs 1 D acaroni Pi 1 D Pizza 1 D Ravioli 1 D Sausag inks 2 D Spaghtti w/ at Sauc 2 D Stak and Onions 2 D Stw Bf 1 D Applsauc 1 D Cantalop 1 D Cinnamon Appl 1 D Cinnamon Appls 1 D Fruit 1 D Juic 6 D Orang 1 D Pachs 2 D ttuc 1 D Salad Plat 1 D Tossd Salad 4 D Biscuits St 2 D Brad St 5 D Buns St 2 D Cral St 3 D Cinnamon Toast St 1 D Cornbrad St 1 D Crackrs St 1 D Frnch Fris St 1 D Garlic Brad St 2 D Grits St 4 D Hony Buns St 1 D Pinto Bans St 1 D Potato Chips St 1 D Ric St 2 D Rolls St 1 D Tatr Tots St 1 D Toat St 3 D Broccoli V 2 D Broccoli, Cauliflowr 6 Carrots V 1 D Corn V 5 D Cramd Corn V 1 68

77 VARIETY - NAVY ENU STUDY BY WEEK (7 DAYS) SITE RINAE D Cucumbrs D ima Bans D ixd Vgtabls D Spinach D Stwd Tomatos FOOD GRP COUNT v v V V V Numbr of cass rad * 59 Numbr of cass listd 59 69

78 VARIETY - NAVY ENU STUDY BY WEEK (7 DAYS) SITE RINAE FOOD_GRP COUNT Ban & Bacon Soup Ban Soup Bf Barly Soup Bf Noodl Soup Bf Ric Soup Chickn Vgtabl Soup Cram of Potato Soup Egg Drop Soup anhattan Clam Chowdr ulligatawny Soup Turky Noodl Soup Vgtabl Soup Appl Pi Appl Turnovr Blubrry Pi Brad Pudding Chrry Crunch Pi Chocolat Cak Chocolat Chip Cak Chocolat Chip Cookis Chocolat Cram Pi Congo Bars Doughnuts Gingr Cookis Ic Cram Jllo ixd Fruit Pi olasss Cookis Panut Buttr Cookis Pinappl Upsid Down Cak Pudding Ric Pudding Spic Cak Whit Cak Whit Cupcak BBQ Pork BBQ Sparribs Bakd Fillt of Floundr Bakd asagna Bakd acaroni 6 Chs Bakd Stuffd Pork Chops Bakd Tuna Cassrol Barbcud Bf Barbcud Bf on a Bun Bf Pattis Bf Roulads w/gravy Boild Eggs Braisd Sparribs Chsburgr Dlux Chickn Cacciatcr Chickn Frid Bf Chickn in a Baskt Chili Chili Dog d 4 d 2 d 2 d 4 d 2 d 2 d 2 d 2 d 2 d 2 d 14 d 2 d 14 d 14 d 2 d 2 d 2 d 2 d 14 d 2 d 2 d 2 d

79 VARIETY - NAVY ENU STUDY BY WEEK (7 DAYS) SITE RINAE FOODjGP J? COUNT Corn Dogs 2 Crol acaroni 7 Crol Spaghtti 7 Doubl Chsburgr 14 Doubl Hamburgr 14 Egg cuffin 7 Egg Salad Sandwich 2 Eggs to Ordr 7 Fish & Chips 6 Fishwich Sandwich 1 Frankfurtrs 14 Frnch Toast 7 Frid Chickn 12 Frid Fish Portions 2 Frid Shrimp 1 Glazd Cornish Hns 1 Ham & Chs Sandwich 6 Ham Slics 7 Hamburgr Dlux 14 Hot Roast Bf Sandwich 1 Hot Roast Pork Sandwich 1 Italian Hoagi 2 Knockwurst w/saurkraut 1 Kraut Dog 14 ivr & Onions 3 atball Hoagi 2 Omlts 7 Pppr Stak 1 Pizza 12 Pork Chops 2 Pot Roast 1 Roast Bf w/gravy 1 Roast Pork oin 1 Salisbury Stak 1 Sausag Biscuit 6 Sausag Pattis 7 Simmrd Cornd Bf 1 Slicd Bacon 7 Stak Sandwich 12 Tacos 1 Tomato atloaf 1 Tuna Salad Sandwich 2 Turky a la King 1 Val Cutlts 1 Vgtabl at oaf 1 Applsauc f 1 Assortd Frsh Fruits f 21 Assortd Juics f 21 ixd Fruit f 2 Appl and Raisin Salad s 2 Bt and Onion Salad s 2 Carrot and Pinappl Salad s 2 Col Slaw a 2 Cottag Chs and Pinappl Salad s 2 71

80 VARIETY - NAVY ENU STUDY BY WEEK (7 DAYS) SITE RINAE FOOD_GR P COUNT Cottag Chs and Tomato Salad s 2 acaroni Salad s 4 xican Col Slaw 8 2 Pickld Bt and Onion Salad S 2 Pinappl Col Slaw S 2 Potato Salad S 2 Tossd Salad S 14 Assortd Brads St 21 Biscuit St Brad Drssing St Coff Cak St 14 Crackrs St 21 Dinnr Rolls St 21 Dry Crals St Duchss Potatos St Egg Noodls St Frnch Fris St 14 Frid Ric St Grn Ric St Hom Frid Potatos St Hot Cral St ashd Potatos St Navy Bans St O'Brin Potatos St Ovn Brownd Potatos St Pancaks St Parsly Buttrd Potatos St Pinto Bans St Pinto Bans w/hocks St Ric St Swt Dough St 14 Tossd Grn Ric St Waffls St Whippd Potatos St Asparagus V Bts in Orang/mon Sauc V Broccoli V Brussls Sprouts V Cabbag V Carrots V Collard Grns w/onions V Corn V Corn on th Cob V Frid Okra V Frid Onion Rings V h Grn Bans V Grn Pas V Grn Pas and ushrooms V Hot Spicd Bts V ixd Vgtabls V Raw Bar V 14 Sasond Spinach V Stwd Tomatos V Succotash V 72

81 VARIETY - NAVY ENU STUDY BY WEEK (7 DAYS) SITE RINAE F00DJ3RP COUNT Thr Ban Salad v 2 Wax Bans v l Numbr of cass rad = 164 Numbr of cass listd

82 VARIETY - NAVY ENU STUDY BY WEEK (7 DAYS) SITE RINAE Ban Soup Bf Barly Soup Bf Noodl Soup Bf Vgtabl Soup Cram of Asparagus Soup Cram of Chickn Soup Cram of ushroom Soup Cram of Potato Soup Egg Drop Soup instron Soup Nw England Clam Chowdr Tomato Juic Tomato Ric Soup Turky Noodl Soup Banana Cram Pi Banana Pudding Chocolat Brownis w/frosting Chocolat Chip Cookis Ic Cram Sundas mon Chiffon Pi arbl Cak w/chocolat Frosting arbl Cak w/froating Orang Cak w/froating Pastris Pcan Pi Strawbrry Chiffon Pi Vanilla Pudding Whit Cak w/frosting BBQ Bf Sandwich Bacon and Egg Sandwich Bakd Fish Fillt Buttrd Farina Buttrd Grits Cantons Styl Sparribs Chickn Chow in Chickn Frid Stak Chili Chili Dog Chili con Carn w/bans Chins Frid Ric Cramd Bf on Biscuits Cramd Drid Bf on Toast Eggs to Ordr Fishwich Frid Chickn Grilld Bacon Slics Grilld Bologna Whls Grilld Brakfast Stak Grilld Ham & Chs Sandwich Grilld Ham Slics Grilld Ham Staks Grilld unchon at Grilld Roast Bf Sandwich Grilld Sausag Pattis FOOD GRP COUNT a a a a a a a a a a a a a a d d d d d d d d d d d d d d 74

83 VARIETY - NAVY ENU STUDY BY WEEK (7 DAYS) SITE RINAE FOOD_GRP COUNT Ham and Egg Sandwich incd Bf on Toast Omlts Opn Fac Turky Sandwich Orintal Pppr Stak Ovn Roast Bf Rubn Sandwich Roast Pork oin Roast Turky Sandwich Sausag and Egg Sandwich Simmrd Franks Spanish Stak Spicy Pork Adobo Stuffd Cabbag Rolls Appl Juic Applsauc Frsh Fruit Grap Juic Grapfruit Juic Orang Juic Salad Bar Assortd Brads»kd Potatos B* scuits Biscuits with Sausag Gravy Blubrry Pancaks Candid Swt Potatos Cinnamon Frnch Toast Dry Crals Frnch Frid Potatos Frid Ric Goldn Frnch Fris Hashd Brown Potatos ashd Potatos Ovn Brownd Potatos Ovn Glow Potatos Parsly Potatos Potato Chips Scallopd Potatos Spanish Ric Stamd Ric Strawbrry Pancaks Waffls Waldorf Potatos Whol What al Asparagus Spars BBQ Bans Chins Frid Cabbag Corn Corn on th Cob Frid Cabbag Glazd Carrots Goldn Onion Rings xican Corn f f f f 2 f 2 f 3 B 1< st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st V V V V V V v 3 v 2 v 1 75

84 VARIETY - NAVY ENU STUDY BY WEEK (7 DAYS) SITE RINAE FOOD GRP COUNT ixd Vgtabls Sasond Broccoli Sasond Brussls Sprouts Sasond xican Corn Sasond Pas and Carrots Sasond Summr Squash Sasond Wax Bans Southrn Styl Collard Grns Succotash Vgtabl Combo Vgtabl Stir Fry v v v v v v v V V V V Numbr of cass rad 119 Numbr of cass listd

85 VARIETY - NAVY ENU STUDY BY WEEK (7 DAYS) SITE RINAE F00DJ5F P COUNT N Ban & Bacon Soup a 1 N Ban Soup a 1 N Bf Barly Soup a 1 N Bf Noodl Soup a 1 N Chickn Ric Soup a 1 N Corn Chowdr a 2 N Cram of ushroom Soup a 1 N Egg Drop Soup a 2 N Nw England Clam Chowdr a 1 N Split Pa Soup a 1 N Tomato Juic a 3 N Tomato Vgtabl Soup a 1 N Vgtabl Suprm Soup a 1 N Applsauc Cak d 4 N Boston Cram Pi d 2 N Brown Sugar Cookis d 2 N Chocolat Cak d 4 N Chocolat Chip Cookis d 2 N Dvil's Food Cak d 2 N Donuts d 7 N Frnch Appl Pi d 4 N Fudg Surpris Cak d 2 N Glatin d 14 N Hawaiian Spic Cak d 2 N mon ringu Pi d 4 N Oatmal Cookis d 4 N Panut Buttr Cookis d 4 N Pumpkin Pi d 2 N Strawbrry Shortcak d 2 N Sugar Cookis d 2 N Amrican Chop Suy N BBQ Bf Tips N BBQ Bf on a Bun N Bacon N Bacon Chsburgr N Bakd at oaf N Bans & Wnis N Bf Pattis N Bf Roulads N Bf Stroganoff N Bradd Pork Chops N Cannonball Sandwich N Chsburgrs 10 N Chili Dog 10 N Chili acaroni 6 N Cornd Bf Hash N Cramd Bf on Toast N Crol Spaghtti N Ditr's Plat (Chf's Salad) N Ditr's Plat (Chickn) N Ditr's Plat (Roast Bf) N Ditr's Plat (Tuna) N Ditr's Plat (Turky/Chs) N Egg and Chs cuffins 77

86 VARIETY - NAVY ENU STUDY BY WEEK (7 DAYS) SITE RINAE FOOD_GRP COUNT N Eggs to Ordr 4 N Fish Portion 1 N Frnch Toast 4 N Frid Chickn 11 N Frid Eggs 5 N Frid Fish Fillt 1 N Frid Prch Fillt 1 N Grilld Chs Sandwich 7 N Grilld Ham & Chs Sandwich 5 N Ham 6 N Ham and Chs cuffins 7 N Hamburgrs 10 N Hot Dogs w/saurkraut 10 N acaroni & Chs 1 N incd Bf on Toast 1 N Omlts 8 N Orintal Stak 1 N Pizza 10 N Rubn Sandwich 1 N Roast Bf 1 N Sausag 5 N Sausag Pattis 1 N Sausag and Chs cuffins 7 N Spaghtti w/at Sauc 1 N Stuffd at oaf 1 N Submarin Sandwich 1 N Suprm Pizza 1 N Taco Bar 5 N Triyaki Stak 1 N Yank Pot Roast 2 N Appl Juic f 1 N Frsh Fruit f 7 N Grap-Orang Drink f 2 N Pinappl Juic f 1 N Salad Bar s 14 N Appl Coff Cak St 3 N Apricot Coff Cak St 1 N Bakd Potato Bar St 10 N Blubrry Coff Cak St 2 N Blubrry Pancaks St 3 N Brads St 7 N Buttrfly Rolls St 2 N Buttrmilk Pancaks St 1 N Cinnamon Frnch Toast St 1 N Dinnr Rolls St 10 N Dry Crals St 7 N Egg Noodls St 1 N Farina St 1 N Frnch Coff Cak St 1 N Frnch Frid Potatos St 7 N Frnch Toast Puffs St 1 N Frid Ric St 1 N Goldn Frid Potatos St 1 N Grn Ric St 1 78

87 VARIETY - NAVY ENU STUDY BY WEEK (7 DAYS) SITE RINAE N Hashd Brown Potatos N Hom Frid Potatos N Hominy Grits N Hot Cross Buns N yonnais Potatos N ashd Potatos N O'Brin Potatos N Oatmal N Parsly Buttrd Potatos N Pinappl Pancaks N Potato Chips N Ric N Rolls N Snowflak Potatos N Strawbrry Frittrs N Swt Rolls N Waffls N Whippd Potatos N Bakd Bans N Broccoli N Cabbag Wdgs N Carrot Sticks N Corn N Corn on th Cob N Frnch Frid Tomatos N Frid Cabbag N Frid Cauliflowr N Frid Okra i* Grn Bans N Grn Bans Nicois N ixd Vgtabls N ustard Grns N Onion Rings N Pas N Sautd ushrooms & Onion N Spinach N Succotash N Turnips & Bacon N Wax Bans F00DJ3RP COUNT st 6 st 1 st 5 st 2 st 1 st 2 st 1 st 1 st 1 st 1 st 1 st 9 st 3 st 1 st 1 st 2 st 8 st 2 v 2 v 1 v 1 v 3 v 1 v 1 v 1 v 1 V 1 v 2 v 2 v 1 v 2 v 1 v 6 v 1 V 1 V 1 v 3 v 1 v 1 Numbr of cass rad «147 Numbr of cass listd

88 DISTRIBUTION IST NO. OF COPIES Administrator 2 Dfns Tchnical Information Cntr Alxandria, VA Tchnical ibrary 3 U.S. Army Natick Rsarch Dvlopmnt and Enginring Cntr Natick, A Commandr 50 U.S. Army Natick Rsarch Dvlopmnt and Enginring Cntr, ATIN: STRNC-YBH (.S. str) Natick, A DOD Joint Tchnical Staff U.S. Army Natick Rsarch, Dvlopmnt and Enginring Cntr ATIN: STRNC-TAA (O0 cnulty) ATTN: STRNC^TAF (AJ Pag) ATIN: STKNC-TAD (TC Clark) ATIN: STKNC-TAN (TJG Rogrs) ATIN: STENC-TA (AJ Navarr) Natick, A Food Enginring Dirctor U.S. Army Natick Rsarch, Dvlopmnt and Enginring Cntr ATTN: STOTC-W (r. Grald Schulz) 1 ATTN: STRNC-WE (Dr. Grald Hrtwck) 1 ATIN: STKNC-WT (r, Grald A. Darsch) 1 ATIN: STKNC-WTP (r. Gary W. Shults) 1 ATTN: STRNC-WIS (r. Frdrick A. Constanza) 1 ATIN: STRNC-WA (Dr. Irwin A. Taub) 1 Natick, A OASD(HA)/PA&QA 1 ATTN: ITC Toni Hagy, AN, USA, Pntagon, Room 3D368 Washington, DC Commandr 1 U.S. Army Troop Support Command ATIN: ASTF-E 4300 Goodfllow Boulvard St. ouis, D Commandr 1 U.S. Army Tst and Evaluation Command ATTN: A3TE-EV-S Abrdn Proving Ground, D