National Consumer Beef Study

Transcription

1 National Consumer Beef Study Phase I - Household Panels Robert E. Branson, Gary C. Smith, H. Russell Cross, Jeff W. Savell, and Richard Edwards This research was conducted under a cooperative agreement with the Agricultural Marketing Service U.S. Department of Agriculture and contributions from the beef industry through the National Cattlemen's Research Foundation Department of Animal Science and the Department of Agricultural Economics Texas A&M University and the Texas Agricultural Experiment station College Station, Texas August 1984

2 THE TEXAS AGRICULTURAL MARKET RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CENTER An Education and Research Service of The Texas Agricultural Experiment Station and The Texas Agricultural Extension Service The purpose of the Center is to be of service to agricultural producers, groups and organizations, as well as processing and marketing firms in the solution of present and emerging market problems. Emphasis is given to research and educational activities designed to improve and expand the markets for food and fiber products related to Texas agriculture. The Center is staffed by a basic group of professional agricultural and marketing economists from both the Experiment Station and Extension Service. In addition, support is provided by food technologists, statisticians and specialized consultants as determined by the requirements of individual projects. Robert E. Branson Coordinator ii

3 Acknowledgements The fielding and analysis of this consumer panel beef research would not have been possible without the excellent contribution of Julie Martin, research associate in the Market Research Center and Mary Lou Price, who preceded her. Their responsibilities included day-to-day supervision of the field staff operations, data editing and coding of the survey questionnaires, and management of the computer entry and analysis of the data. Other members of the outstanding technical support staff included Cindy Laird, Linda Hearne Locke, Beth Braznell, all research assistants; and Susie Ragland who performed almost endless secretarial tasks to the research. In the Meats and Muscle Biology section excellent research support was provided by David Griffin, Ray Riley, Jeni Harris, and Pansy Gilmore. Appreciation is also expressed to those in the beef industry and marketing firms that provided valuable comments and suggestions. Thanks go to Kroger, Safeway, and Acme food chains for providing or arranging for product storage facilities in the test cities. This research was made possible by a grant from the Agricultural Marketing Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture and beef industry funds made available through the National Cattleman's Association, The Beef Industry CounCil, and the Beef Councils from Nebraska, Oklahoma, Colorado, and Kansas. Special thanks go to Don Nelson, NCA, for his tireless efforts in support of this research. iii

4 TABLE OF CONTENTS PART I THE MARKETING PROBLEM AND RESEARCH DESIGN.. 1 Present Uncertainty In Beef Marketing Key Beef Marketing Questions... 2 Review of Previous Research... 3 The Research Design Implementation of the Additional Three-City Research. 9 Characteristics of the Four-City Household Panels Household Beef Cooking Methods PART II THE RESEARCH RESULTS ". 21 Test of Comparative Ratings by Expert Consumer Laboratory and Household Panels Individual City Analysis Scope The Houston Panel Results Philadelphia Panel Results Kansas City Panel Results,...30 San Francisco Panel Results The Four-City Overview.. '.' Relationship Between Overall Desirability and the Component Sensory Factors l Ratings by Low, Medium and Heavy Steak Consumers.... 4l Expert Laboratory Panel and Shear Test Results iv

5 List of Tables Table 1. Table 2. Table 3. Mean sensory expert panel ratings of beef by steak and USDA quality grade, L.S.U. research. Hedonic scale for household panel test Beef loin steak leanness levels and co-hort USDA grade Table 4. Table 5. Age of food buyer in panel household sample in four-city nationwide beef research, by city Education of food buyer in consumer household panels, by city Table 6. Income of panel households versus the population households 16 Table 7. Table 8. Table 9. Comparison of statistical averages of panel versus population household demographics.. 17 Percent of household panelists according to cooking method for their test steaks Degree of doneness to which panelists cooked the test steaks Table 10. Average ratings of beef loin steak marbling levels by expert, consumer laboratory and household panels, Houston Table 11. Table 12. Table 13. Table 14. '",. Table 15..'-" Table 16. Mean overall desirability rating of loin steaks by marbling level--houston, Purchase intentions of consumers as related to beef loin steak ratings--houston, Mean overall desirability rating of loin steaks by marbling level--philadelphia, Purchase intentions of consumers as related to beef loin steak ratings--philadelphia, Mean overall desirability rating of loin steaks by marbling levels--kansas City Purchase intentions of consumer as related to beef loin steak ratings--kansas City v

6 Table 17. Table 18. Table 19. Table 20. Table 21. Table 22. Table 23. Table 24. Table 25. Table 26. Table 27. Table 28. Table 29. Table 30. Table 31. Mean overall desirability rating of loin steaks by marbling 1eve1--San Francisco Bay Area Purchase intentions of consumers as related to beef loin steak ratings--san Francisco Bay Area Mean overall desirability rating of loin steaks by marbling level, normalized data--four cities combined Purchase intentions of consumers as related to beef loin steak ratings--four cities combined Mean overall desirability ratings of loin steaks by level of income, normalized data--four cities combined 39 Mean overall desirability ratings of loin steaks by level of education attended, normalized data--four cities comb ined Mean overall desirability ratings of loin steaks by age level, normalized data--four-cities combined 42 Comparison among sensory factor ratings associated with overall steak ratings--houston Comparison among sensory factor ratings associated with overall steak ratings--phi1ade1phia Comparison among sensory factor ratings associated with overall steak ratings--kansas City Comparison among sensory factor ratings associated with overall steak ratings--san Francisco Comparison among sensory factor ratings associated with overall steak ratings--four cities combined Correlation among sensory test factors in beef leanness ratings by Houston panel Correlation among sensory test factors ratings by Philadelphia panel... Correlation among sensory test factors ratings by Kansas City panel... in beef leanness in beef leanness Table 32. Correlation among sensory test ratings by San Francisco panel factors in beef leanness Table 33. Mean ratings of beef loin steaks by level of consumer usage--three cities combined vi

7 Table 34. Table 35. Table 36. Table 37. Table 38. Table 39. Overall flavor values for strip loin steaks evaluated by a trained sensory panel Juiciness values for strip loin steaks evaluated by a trained sensory panel Mean connective tissue for strip loin steaks evaluated by a trained sensory panel Mean muscle fiber tenderness for strip loin steaks evaluated by a trained sensory panel.. 57 Mean overall tenderness for strip loin steaks evaluated by a trained sensory panel Mean shear force values (KG) for strip loin steaks evaluated by a trained sensory panel vii

8 NATIONAL CONSUMER BEEF STUDY Phase I - Household Panels Robert E. Branson, Gary C. Smith, H. Russell Cross, Jeff W. Savell and Richard Edwards* Part I The Marketing Problem and Research Design Present Uncertainty In Beef Marketing Controversy has prevailed within the U.S. beef industry, in recent months and years, as to the degree of leanness consumers desire in retail beef cuts. Evidence of the controversy is the present division of food chains into three divergent beef marketing strategies. One group markets a lean beef ordered from packers on a "no-roll" carcass basis. The beef mayor may not be preselected "on the rail" at packing plants. As to labeling, most of the food retailing industry has amply demonstrated its unwillingness to market lean beef under a USDA Good grade label, for which much of it would qualify. Instead private label name brands are used such as Quality Lean, Tender Lean, "X"-Chain Lean or Quality Beef. *Respectively, Professor and Director of Market Research Center, Department of Agricultural Economics; Professor and Head, Department of Animal Science; Professor and Head, Meats and Muscle Biology Section, Animal Science; Associate Professor, Meats and Muscle Biology Section, Department of Animal Science; Assistant Professor, Extension Economist-Marketing, Food Distribution, Department of Agricultural Economics.

9 2 A second segment of the food chain industry meanwhile has continued, and, in some cases, re-emphasized marketing and retail labeling of USDA Choice grade beef. Reemphasis often stresses the term "grain-fed" beef. An innovative third, but presently less numerous, food chain segment has embarked upon marketing two grades of beef, usually USDA Choice labeled beef plus a private labeled leaner beef. If all consumers had equal access in their food shopping to two grades of beef, from the above three beef marketing strategies, the market itself would probably answer, within about twelve months, the questions regarding consumer leanness preferences in beef. The large majority of consumers simply do not have that equal access. And, even if they did, the "no-roll" beef leaves undefined to the industry the leanness degree consumers prefer. The industry would thus still lack clear guidance as to consumer demand specification preferences. Because of the foregoing market demand uncertainty, and its adverse effect on the beef industry more specific knowledge of consumer beef preferences is essential so that industry production-marketing goals can be established. Key Beef Marketing Questions Since a rather broad spectrum of beef quality can be produced in the United States, within the typical "A" maturity cattle, research needs to answer the following questions. 1. At what degrees of leanness differences (marbling within muscle finish) can consumers recognize quality differences in retail beef steak cuts?

10 3 2. What degree of finish in terms of marbling is the most acceptable to consumers and what is the relative preference order for the remaining distinguishable leanness levels? 3. Do regional geographic differences exist in beef leanness (marbling) preferences within the U.S. consumer market? 4. Based on the findings in objective one, two, and three, what is the optimum combination of beef leanness levels that should be included in retail market test research? The first step in the research process, as usual, was to review recent research literature to determine what information is available and what information gaps needed to be resolved. Review of Previous Research A wide-spread view within the beef industry, based on consumer national attitudinal research, sponsored by the beef industry, is that consumers prefer leaner beef. It is presumed to be part of the overall trend toward lpwer calorie foods. Because of that belief, several research projects in recent years have been directed toward that question. Two examples are cited here. Research at the Louisiana Agricultural Experiment Station reported in 1981 (Bidner, Schupp, Montgomery, and Carpenter), found non-significant differences in overall desirability of beef from four different feeding regimes ranging from all forage fed to feedlot fed production systems. These feeding systems affect the leanness of the beef produced. The feeding systems and beef grade outturns were as

11 4 follows: forage feeding, Low Good; forage plus grain, High Good; forage plus grain, followed by feedlot, Low Choice; feedlot only, Low Choice. Average overall desirability ratings from a consumer household panel ranged from a high of 2.3 to a low of 2.5 based on a seven point rating scale where 1.0 was very desirable and 7.0 very undesirable. Because the statistical standard error of these ratings was determined to be 0.20, it was concluded that there was no statistically significant difference among them, Table 1. A component phase used a nine-point scale and reached the same conclusion. Tenderness and flavor, in both cases, as in other similar research, were rated highest for the feedlot beef I but without statistical significance. The LSU research tested loin, round and chuck steaks. Another palatability test of beef leanness was conducted jointly by scientists at the ARS, USDA, laboratories, the Texas A&M, Kansas State and Colorado State agricultural experiment stations (Gary C. Smith, Russell Cross). by expert taste panels. Approximately 1,000 carcasses were evaluated For loin steaks, significant differences were found in average palatability ratings for each USDA grade class from Prime through the High Standard grade. For round steaks, only the USDA grades. Prime grade tested significantly higher than the other Ratings were on an eight-point scale, with an 8 being extremely desirable and I extremely undesirable. The ratings appear in an appendix. Two questions arose from the foregoing, and other related, research. One concern is whether or not consumers can detect as finite a product difference as can expert laboratory panels. Trained panels, theoreticallyi should be better detectors. That question

12 5 Table 1. Mean sensory expert panel ratings of beef by steak and USDA quality grade, L.S.U. research. Feeding Regime Forage Forage plus grain Forage plus grain and feedlot Feedlot USDA Grade of beef Low Good High Good Low Choice Low Choice Overall Palatability rating 2.4 a a 2.3 a 2.5 Means in the same column followed by a common letter superscript are not statistically significantly different. Source: T.D. Bidner, A.R. Schupp, R.E. Montgomery, and J.C. Carpenter, "Acceptability of Beef Finished on All-Forage, Forage Plus Grain or High Energy Diets," Journal of Animal Science, Vol. 53, No.5, 1981.

13 6 however was not a part of and therefore not addressed in the thousand carcass test. The second question relates to sample size requirements for experimental research of the type represented by L.S.U. and comparable research. If sample size is below that required for statistically separating rating differences, useful conclusions cannot be drawn. It appears that because of such difficulty the beef industry has been left without clear cut research-based findings upon which to plan its production and marketing. The logical conclusion was that further research was needed that would deal with these unanswered questions. The Research Design To help assure meeting the research objectives, a pilot test was designed for application in Houston, Texas -- one of the nation's ten largest metropolitan markets. Statistical analysis of prior research indicated the potential statistical variance to be expected in consumer 's product ratings. Based on that variance, sampling formulas indicated that 180 households (about 300 persons) would be required for decisive panel testing. The design was set to detect a Significant rating difference at 0.25 points in a 9.0 point, 5.0 centered, hedonic rating scale. The rating scale and associated semantic and numeric terms used appear in Table 2. A survey among market research departments of major national food marketing firms indicated that a nine point scale is the most useful and dependable for product evaluations by consumers. The next research step was to develop the Houston household sample. Residential listings from a current criss-cross directory, pro

14 7 Table 2. Hedonic scale for household panel test Numeric Rating Semantic Rating 9 Extremely desirable 8 Very desirable 7 Moderately desirable 6 Slightly desirable 5 Neither desirable nor undesirable 4 Slightly undesirable 3 Moderately undesirable 2 Very undesirable 1 Extremely undesirable

15 8 viding street address and telephone numbers of households in the total metropolitan area that was the universe population base. Sampling was restricted to Harris County since the contiguous sub-cities lie within the county. Thirty sampling points were established by systematic probability sampling and six households were recruited per sampling point sub-area. Recruitment was by telephone by the Market Research Center personnel. Households were screened to eliminate non-beef eaters. Each sample household was provided a total of ten loin steaks, one steak per week over a period of ten successive weeks. Steaks provided were prepared at Texas A&M University from carcasses selected at several packing plants in and out of Texas. Leanness levels were judged from marbling of the thirteenth rib-eye, as used in USDA carcass grading. Carcasses selected graded Low Prime, High Choice, Middle Choice, Low Choice, High Good, Low Good, and High Standard. To these were added two additional carcass classes, short fed and bullocks. Steaks from all carcasses were numbered as to their rib position, carcass side, and the thickness of external carcass fat. Each steak was individually wrapped, coded and frozen to preserve its quality until delivery to a panel household. One steak per week was delivered to each panel household in a pre-selected computer generated random number order. The sequence was balanced for inclusion of all ten samples for each household. An example of the randomized order is provided in the following sub-set illustration. The tenth, or last, week each household received a repeat sample

16 9 Example Week Number Cluster No Household No Steak Number of one of the steaks previously received. The repeat steak was one of the nine different steaks included in the research, in order to determine whether the panel could replicate its ratings of the same steak on a second trial. Performance of the Houston test met with design expectations. Therefore the decision was made to expand the research to include three additional major cities nationally. Implementation of the Additional Three-City Research Whereas the Houston pilot research was conducted in the sunmer of 1982, funding of the three-city expansion did not occur until the fall of The San Francisco Bay Area, Kansas City, and Philadelphia were the cities selected to add to the Houston study. These cities were selected after extensive screening of demographic and socio-economic data for all metropolitan markets of near to or above one million in

17 10 population. A panel of 180 households centered around thirty clusters of six each was developed in each city by the same systematic probability sampling procedures from were used in the Houston research. criss-cross directories that All households recruited were screened to eliminate non-beef eating consumers. Following three months of designing and planning the research, implementation field work was begun in early February 1984 and completed in mid-april. All phases were supervised by the Agricultural Market Research Center in cooperation with the Department of Animal Science at the Texas Agricultural Experiment Station. Field operations in each city were implemented by commercial field research services employed by other market research professionals nationally. Any panel substitutions, of which there were only a few, were under the Center's direction. Despite the length of the test, panel attrition was less than five percent in all cities. Beef for the test was again selected by and prepared for shipment to the test cities by members of the Meats and Muscle Biology Section, Department of Animal Science at the Texas Agricultural Experiment Station. Selection was in cooperation with USDA grading personnel. Beef was selected at large commercial packing plants in Texas, Kansas, and Colorado that are nationwide market suppliers. Seven levels of beef marbling were selected for the three-city research. The marbling levels again were from the equivalent of USDA Low Prime to High Standard grade as in the Houston test, Table 3. Short-fed beef and bullock beef were omitted at the suggestion of industry advisory representatives. Thus the three-city (San Francisco Bay Area, Kansas City, and Philadelphia) consumer test was

18 11 Table 3. Beef loin steak leanness levels and co-hort USDA grade Marbling score Slightly abundant Moderate Modest Small Upper slight Lower slight Traces USDA grade equivalent Low Prime High Choice Medium Choice Low Choice High Good Low Good High Standard

19 12 planned on an eight-week design. The beef steaks provided to the panel were prepared at the Meat Science Technology Center at Texas A&M University. All steaks were appropriately coded as to their source carcass and rib position. Steaks were boxed to match the week and household number for deliveries in each of the three cities, and were then shipped to on-site cold storage facilities. Weekly withdrawals were made and delivered to the panel households in accordance with the designated steak sequence for the respective households. As in Houston, each household received one steak a week in a randomized order. The eighth week, all households received, unknown to them, a repeat of the Low Choice steak. This steak was from the same rib position and opposite side of the identical carcass as the first Low Choice steak received by the household. Characteristics of the Four-City Household Panels The validity of the research results rests in part upon the representativeness of the characteristics of the panel households compared to the areas they represent. Three demographic measures--age, education, and income--were used as monitors. Although the households were not asked to give ethnic origin information, the census tracts in which sampling occurred were tested against the metro area's socio-economic composition. The age of the food buyers, within the four city panels, compared favorably with available market data information, Table 4. Age classifications of the panel household food shoppers were reduced to.

20 < ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Table 4. Age of food buyer in panel household sample in four-city nationwide beef research, by city San Francisco Kansas City Houston Philadelphia Four City Age Sample City Sample City Sample City Sample City Sample Cities percent - 29 and younger and older I-' W TOTAL Source: Sample information from field research data, Houston 1982, other cities, City figures from Survey of Buying Power Data Service, Sales Management, New York, N.Y., relate to age of head of household in 1982.

21 14 three groups. As compared with ages of the head of the household data, some sampling short-fall occurred in the under 29 year old category, especially in Houston. Two factors contributed. In large cities, more of the single-member households are young people beginning employment before marriage. These households are less inclined to participate in research that extends over several weeks, especially during summer months. Secondly, young professionals, are inclinded to eat more meals away from home, making them less inclined to do at-home cooking tests. The X 2 value of the four-city age distribution was compared to 9.21 at the 99 percent confidence level. Education level of the food buyers was about evenly divided between those without a college education and those with, Table 5. College education was higher in the San Francisco Bay Area, as would be expected since the survey included the Silicon Valley cities. Educational distribution of food buyers versus that of persons 25 years or older in the four cities produced a x2 value of , indicating a significant difference, but not an undue one considering the sample sizes of the panels involved. Incomes of the panelists covered the range of under $15,000 per year to over $50,000. Households buying steaks, on the average, would be expected to be skewed toward the middle and upper income ranges, Table 6. A x 2 test value of compared with 9.21 at the 99% confidence level confirms that the income of the panelists differs from that of the general population in the four combined cities. In conclusion, it can be said that the four-city panelists represented slightly older, more educated and somewhat better income households than the population of the respective cities. Comparison

22 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Table 5. Education of food buyer in consumer household panels, by city San Francisco Kansas City Houston Philadelphia Four City Education Sample City Sample City Sample City Sample City Sample Cities percent percent Grammar School Jr. - Sr. High School Technical School College I-' tn Not reported TOTAL sample size ,810, , ,342, ,430, ,344,054 Sources: 1 2 Sample information from field survey data. City data is for persons over 25 years of age, U.S. Census of Population--Social and Economic Characteristics, Sampling error for 95% probability level as follows: at 30% = ±5.6; at 5% = ±2.7. Sampling error for 95% probability level as follows: at 30% = ±2.8; at 5% = ± Sample size for cities is for persons over 25 at 50% = ±6.2 percentage points; at 50% = ±3.l percentage points;

23 Table 6. Income of panel households versus the population households San Francisco Kansas City Houston Philadelphia Four City Income Sample City Sample City Sample City Sample City Sample Cities - percent Less than $15, '1 $15,000 - $24, $25,000 - $49, $50,000 and over TOTAL Source: Sample information from field research data, Houston 1982, other cities, City figures from Survey of Buying Power Data Service, Sales Management, New York, N.Y., relate to income of household in 1982.

24 17 Table 7. Comparison of statistical averages of panel versus population household demographics. Panel 4-City Averages Unit Average1 Average 1 Difference Age Years Education Grades Income--annua1 Thous. $ Source: previous tables 1 Unweighted averages

25 18 of the averages for the three demographics are made in Table 7, and provide an additional perspective as to the panel household and population statistics. If household sample differences were not similar to those indicated, concern properly would arise as to the adequacy of the sampling and screening procedures. Beef steak and roast using households, are inclined to be among those somewhat older and with higher incomes, according to national survey statistics in the USDA Food Consumption surveys. Household Beef Cooking Methods A major advantage of household panel tests of food products is that the product is subjected to the rigors of variations in preparation methods among the panelists. Individuals in the households were asked to prepare the test steaks by their own usual cooking method for beef steaks. The research generated over 8,000 reports. Almost half of the steaks were oven broiled. Pan frying and grilling each accounted for about 25 percent. Microwaving was primarily the "other" category, Table 8. Consequently all basic cooking methods were well represented. Greater use of outside grills in Houston reflected the summer months in which the research was conducted in that city. Each panelist was also permitted to cook the steaks to their preferred degree of doneness. In Houston, panelists were provided a five-point scale on a questionnaire as to the degree of doneness they estimated for their steaks (bottom line Table 9). For the expanded 3-city research, a color photograph depicting six degrees of steak doneness was provided as a reference by courtesy of the National

26 ) ) ) ) ) Table 8. Percent of household panelists according to cooking method for their test steaks COO KIN G METHOD TOT A L City Outside Grill Inside Grill Oven Broiler Pan Fry Other Percent Panel Steak Ratings percent of San Francisco Bay ,990 Kansas City Philadelphia ,041 1,S04 I-' 1.0 Houston 33 S ,183 Four-City average ,01S 1 For individual cities, approximate sampling error at 95 percent probability level is for 50% = ±l.s percentage points; at 25% = ±1.5; at 5% = ±O.S For four-city data, sampling error at 95 percent probability level is for 50% = ±0.9 percentage points; at 25% = ±0.8; at 5% = ±0.2

27 Table 9. Degree of doneness to which panelists cooked the test steaks DON ENE S S TOT A L Very Panel Very Medium Well Well Steak City Rare Rare Rare Medium Done Done Percent Ratings Three-City Test percent of panelists 1 San Francisco Bay ,266 Kansas City ,338 Philadelphia Three-City average ,067 6,671 N 0 Houston Test DON ENE S S TOT A L Rare Medium Rare Medium Medium Well Well Done Percent Panel Steak Ratings Houston ,340 1 For individual cities, sampling error at 95 percent probability level is for 25% = ±1.5 percentage points; for 10% = ±l.l; at 5% = ±0.8 For three-city average, sampling error at 95 percent probability level is for 25% = ±0.9; for 10% = ±0.6

28 21 Live-stock and Meat Board. Nearly equal numbers of steaks were cooked medium-rare, medium, and well-done, Table 9. San Franciscians tended somewhat more toward rare and medium-rare steak than panelists in the other test cities. It was concluded that a sufficiently wide range of doneness levels was represented in the four-city research. Part II The Research Results Test of Comparative Ratings by Expert, Consumer Laboratory and Household Panels It has been traditional among food scientists to train and utilize expert taste panels as a guide to food product evaluations. Their use has largely been to guide product Rand D programs. As a guide to answering consumer market demand preferences, consumer panels are employed. household panels. These may be consumer laboratory panels and or For the present research a decision was made to test the performance of all three panels. Tlierefore, in the pilot research phase, all three product testing procedures were applied. An expert laboratory panel was trained by the meat technology scientists at the Texas Agricultural Experiment Station. A sub-set of the steaks procured for the Houston household consumer test was set aside to be evaluated by the expert panel. A panel of ten persons was conducted through one hundred sessions to evaluate the seven levels of leanness to be tested in loin steaks. All steaks were prepared by broiling to an internal temperature of 70 degrees in the Experiment Station Sensory Testing Laboratory. That was equivalent to a medium done steak. Average ratings of the steaks ranged from a

29 22 high of 6.96 to a low of 5.28 on a nine-point hedonic scale, with a 1.0 being the lowest rating, Table 10. In general, as the degree of intramuscular marbling (fat within the lean or muscle portion) decreased so did the palatability ratings. Another sub-set of steaks was prepared in the same manner and was evaluated at the Experiment Station Sensory Testing Laboratory by a general consumer panel drawn on a probability sampling basis from the non-student Bryan-College Station metropolitan area population. Average ratings by the consumer laboratory panel ranged from a high of 6.72 to a low of 5.44, using again the same nine-point hedonic rating scale, Table 10. Ratings declinded as steak marbling decreased. The scale, in all cases, was both numeric and semantic, Table 11. The ratings by the household panel in Houston ranged from a 7.17 high to a 6.51 low, generally declining as the degree of intramuscular marbling was reduced, Table 10. Correlation was used as a test of the degree of relationship in the ratings from the three panels. That between the expert and household panels was highest, having a coefficient of determination <r2) of 0.79, compared to one of 0.52 between the expert and consumer laboratory panels. Although this test supports the use of expert panels, as indicators of product ratings by consumers, it was nonetheless decided that the consumer household test was the preferable one for further beef testing nationally. An additional question was whether differences existed in product ratings by different demographic segments of the population, and if not, future sampling could ignore providing separate market seg

30 23 Table 10. Average ratings of beef loin steak marh1ing levels by expert, consumer laboratory and household panels, Houston USDA Consumer Marbling Quality Expert Laboratory Household Level Grade Panel Panel Panel. 1 - ratlng Slightly abundant Low Prime Moderate High Choice }3a Modest Medium Choice b Small Low Choice b Upper slight High Good b Lower slight Low Good b Traces Slight High Standard 2 Bullock b Slight 2 Short-fed Total number of observations 2,700 4,000 2,800 Source: Expert and laboratory panels at Texas A&M University; household panel in Houston, Texas 1 Based on nine-point, five centered, hedonic scale with 9 extremely desirable and 1 extremely undesirable 2 Cattle type

31 24 Table 11. Mean overall desirability rating of loin steaks by marbling level--houston, 1982 Mean Standard Error Marbling USDA Quality Raw Normalized Raw Normalized Level Grade Score Score Score Score Slightly abundant Low Prime a 7.l7 a ratings l Moderate High Choice a a Modest Medium Choice b 6.98 b Small Low Choice b 6.86 b Upper slight High Good 6.82 c b 6.8l Lower slight Low Good 6.78 c b Traces Hieh Standard 6.75 c b Slight Slight 2 Bullock 2 Short-fed 6.52 d d l c 6.5l c Total number of observations 2,183 1 Based on nine-point, five centered, hedonic scale with 9.0 as highest rating 2 Means followed by same letter superscript are not significantly different at the 95 percent confidence level

32 25 ment data. Houston results suggested that the younger and also higher income panelists perceived sharper differences among the beef leanness levels, Figures land 2, or else they reacted more strongly in their product ratings than those at other age and income levels. Consequently, it was concluded that research in the additional cities should endeavor to measure such differences. Individual City Analysis Scope In the immediately following sections, results of the household panel ratings are viewed on a city by city basis. Such a comparison is made possible because of the uniformity of the research design applied among the four cities, reaching from coast to coast. Altogether approximately 25,000 questionnaire reports were generated by the research. A sample set of the questionnaires is included in the Appendix. The research endeavors to relate consumer acceptance of degrees of beef leanness to demographic segments of the market, and psychographic segments. These latter aspects are treated more specifically in the section relating to the combined four-city research findings. Consumer panel ratings of the beef steaks in each city represent the composite of 2,000 to 2,200 individual steak evaluations by the panelists. The four-city research results are based on a total of over 8,000 individual panelists' steak ratings. These figures, attest to the extensive physical size of the research, which is reported in part in this publication. Product ratings are given in a number of the data tables as an original, or raw score, as well as a normalized score basis.

33 26 Table 12. Purchase intentions of consumers as related to beef loin steak ratings--houston Steak Rating Buy Only Would Not Would Probably At Reduced Buy at Numeric Semantic Buy Buy Price Any Price - percent of food 9 Extremely desirable Very desirable Moderately desirable Slightly desirable Neither desirable nor undesirable 4 Slightly undesirable Moderately undesirable Very undesirable Extremely undesirable Raw percentages which do not add to 100 are due to those food shoppers who were "undecided" being omitted

34 The Houston Panel Results Average ratings of loin steaks by Houston panelists were higher as the level of marbling increased, Table 11. On the basis of the raw rating scores, four groupings of marbling levels were significantly different. Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Group 4 Low Prime High Choice Medium Choice Low Choice High Good Low Good High Standard Bullocks Short-fed Another view of the Houston panelists ratings is provided by examining their reported intentions to buy with respect to each individual steak, Table 12. Buying intentions dropped perceptab1y when the steak ratings fell to a 6 or less. This corresponds with the reported experience of several major national food marketing companies. Their market research departments indicated that ratings of 7 or higher indicated a successful test product, whereas ratings of 5 to 7 meant only a moderate success potential. Ratings below 5 were considered as labeling a product as extremely marginal, or an outright failure. Philadelphia Pane] Results Ratings by Philadelphia panelists also descended generally as the steak marbling declined, Table 13. The high-low range in raw score rating averages was 0.64 points compared to 0.74 in Houston.

35 28 Table 13. Mean overall desirability rating of loin steaks by marbling level--philadelphia, 19S4 Mean Standard Error Marbling USDA Quality Raw Normalized Raw Normalized Level Grade Score Score Score Score ratings 1 Slightly abundant Low Prime 7.29 a a.os.07 Moderate High Choice 7.25 a 7.26 a.os.07 Modest Medium Choice 6.90 b 6.SS b Small Low Choice 7.15 a 7.16 a Upper slight High Good 6.79 b 6.77 b.10.os Lower slight Low Good 6.5S c 6.5S c Traces High Standard 6.65 c 6.6S c.10.os Total number of observations 1,S04 1 Based on nine-point, five centered, hedonic scale with 9.0 as highest rating 2 Means followed by same letter superscript are not significantly different at the 95 percent confidence level

36 29 Table 14. Purchase intentions of consumers as related to beef loin steak ratings--philadelphia, 1984 Steak Rating Buy Only Would Not Would Probably At Reduced Buy at Numeric Semantic Buy Buy Price Any Price percent of food shoppers 1-9 Extremely desirable Very desirable Moderately desirable Slightly desirable Neither desirable nor undesirable 4 Slightly undesirable Moderately undesirable Very undesirable Extremely undesirable Raw percentages which do not add to 100 percent are due to ommission of shoppers who were "undecided"

37 30 For normalized scores the range was 0.70 versus 0.66 in Houston. In the normalized ratings, Low Prime and High Choice, based on significant differences between means, formed one group, and except for Low Choice the Medium Choice to High Good formed a second. The lowest rating group was Low Good and High Standard. Intentions to buy the respective steaks also made its largest drop when the steak received a rating of 6 rather than 7. This judgment is based upon the combined percentage that "would buy" and "probably buy" at each of the steak rating levels. Kansas City Panel Results Kansas City panelists, as in the other four cities, rated Low Prime loin steaks highest and the High Standard lowest. Significant differences in the ratings occurred between the Low Choice and High Good grades in the raw rating scores. For normalized ratings the only break was between Low Choice and High Good. As before, significant differences are measured at the 95 percent confidence level, Table 15. The buying intentions response to the test steaks again made its largest decrease when ratings declined from 7 to 6. Intentions to buy at the 6 rating remained somewhat higher, at just below 30 percent, than in Houston and Philadelphia. San Francisco Panel Results Consumers within the panel households in San Francisco discriminated less among the beef marbling levels than in either of the other three cities. Differences between Low Prime and the other steaks were clearly recognized, as well as the quality of Low Good and High

38 31 Table 15. Mean overall desirability rating of loin steaks bymarbling levels--kansas City, 1984 Mean Standard Error Marbling USDA Quality Raw Normalized Raw Normalized Level Grade Score Score Score Score Slightly abundant Low Prime ratings a 7.24 a Moderate High Choice 7.20 a 7.2l a Modest Medium Choice 7.23 a 7.23 a Small Low Choice 7.17 a 7.l7 a Upper slight High Good 6.97 b 6.96 b Lower slight Low Good 6.9l bc 6.9l b Traces High Standard 6.84 c 6.85 b Total number of observations 2,338 1 Based on nine-point, five centered, hedonic scale with 9.0 as highest rating 2 Means followed by same letter superscript are not significantly different at the 95 percent confidence level

39 32 Table 16. Purchase intentions of consumers as related to beef loin steak ratings--kansas City, 1984 Steak Rating Buy Only Would Not Would Probably At Reduced Buy at Numeric Semantic Buy Buy Price Any Price percent of food shoppers 9 Extremely desirable Very desirable Moderately desirable Slightly desirable Neither desirable nor undesirable 4 Slightly undesirable Moderately undesirable Very undesirable Extremely undesirable Total number of observations 2,041 1 Raw percentages which do not add to 100 percent are due to ommission of shoppers who were "undecided"

40 33 Table 17. Mean overall desirability rating of loin steaks by marbling 1eve1--San Francisco Bay Area Mean Standard Error Leanness USDA Raw Normalized Raw Normalized Level Grade Score Score Score Score 2 Slightly abundant Low Prime 7.26 a 7.27 a Moderate High Choice 7.00 b 7.00 b Modest Medium Choice 6.98 b 7.00 b Small Low Choice 7.10 b 7.07 b b Upper slight High Good 7.03 b Lower slight Low Good 6.94 c 6.92 c Traces Standard 6.75 d 6.76 c Total number of observations 2,266 1 Based on nine-point, five centered, hedonic scale with 9.0 as highest rating 2 Means followed by same letter superscript are not significantly different at the 95 percent confidence level

41 34 Table 18. Purchase intentions of consumers as related to beef loin steak ratings---san Francisco Bay Area, 1984 Steak Rating Buy Only Would Not Would Probably At Reduced Buy at Numeric Semantic Buy Buy Price Any Price - percent of food shoppers 1-9 Extremely desirable Very desirable Moderately desirable Slightly desirable Neither desirable nor undesirable 4 Slightly undesirable Moderately undesirable Very undesirable Extremely undesirable Raw percentages which do not add to 100 percent are due to ommission of shoppers who were "undecided"

42 35 Standard steaks compared with the others, Table 17. Ratings from the High Choice level down to the High Good grade were relatively similar and therefore not significantly different. Industry sources report that considerable effort has been made in california during the last few years to promote lean beef. To what extent that program has affected California consumers perceptions of beef is not known. Differences among the cities will be considered further in the section on four-city panel results. Purchase intentions among the panelists again had the sharpest decline between the 7 and 6 average rating scores. A decline from 7 to 6 in a rating was associated with an additional 43 percent of the San Francisco panelists dropping out of the category of willingness to buy the steak. Underscored again is the experience reported by the national food company market research departments regarding the importance of a 7 or higher product rating when using a 9-point hedonic scale. The Four-City Overview At the outset of the report (review of previous research), it was suggested that a problem encountered in previous consumer household panel tests was lack of sufficient sample size to adequately separate the mean (average) ratings of the different leanness levels among the test steaks. Analyses of the city data sets also exhibited a moderate manifestation of the same problem. Consequently it is of special interest to examine the research from the combined four-city basis. The combined cities ratings analysis is based on over 8, 000

43 36 observations from a panel of nearly 720 households. Ratings, using the normalized scores, ranged from an average of 7.24 for Low Prime loin steaks to 6.76 for High Standard grade steaks - a range of 0.48 rating points, Table 19. The shortness of the range to a layman likely appears to be insignificant. However, a test of the significant differences among the means of the seven marbling levels reveals that each adjacent mean, except the Middle and Low Choice, is statistically Significantly different from the others. Differences are noted by the letter subscripts appearing beside the respective means. Of further significance is the finding that the mean ratings of all marbling levels from the High Good grade and lower are below the critical rating level of 7.0, where consumer purchase resistance becomes substantial, Table 19. Examination of the purchase intentions report of the panelists shows a drop-out of 40 percent of the panelists in buying intentions as the steak rating moves below 7.0 down to 6.0, Table 23. The initial research in Houston indicated differences in ratings by household income level. Corresponding results are noted in the four-city analysis. Consumers in the under $15,000 annual income households reported less differences among the steaks than those at the successively higher income level. Most discriminating in their ratings were panelists in the above $50,000 income category, Table 21. The high-low range in ratings of the top income group was nearly twice that of the lowest income segments. Effect of education does not appear to have a significant effect, except as it may be reflected in the income effect above, Table 22.

44 37 Table 19. Mean overall desirability rating of loin steaks by marbling level, normalized data--four cities combined USDA Marbling Quality Standard Level Grade Mean Error Slightly abundant Moderate Modest Small Upper slight Lower slight Traces Low Prime High Choice Medium Choice Low Choice High Good Low Good High Standard 1 -ratings a S b 7.00 c 7.05 c d e 6.76 e Total number of observations 8, Based on nine-point, five centered, hedonic scale with 9.0 as highest rating 2 Means followed by same letter superscript are not Significantly different at the 95 percent confidence level -

45 38 Table 20. Purchase intentions of consumers as related to beef loin steak ratings--four cities combined Steak Rating Would Probably Buy Only At Would Not Buy Numeric Semantic Buy Buy Reduced Price At Any Price - - percent of food 1 shoppers Extremely Desirable 8 Very Desirable 7 Moderately Desirable 6 Slightly Desirable 5 Neither 4 Slightly Undesirable 3 Moderately Undesirable 2 Very Undesirable 1 Extremely Undesirable Row percentages which do not add to 100 are due to those food shoppers who were "undecided" being omitted

46 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Table 21. Mean overall desirability ratings of loin steaks by level of income, normalized data--four cities combined USDA Income Income Income Income Marbling Quality Under $ $15,000-$24,999 $25,000-$49,999 $50,000 and over Level Grade Mean Standard Error Mean Standard Error Mean Standard Error Mean Standard Error -rat 2 Slightly Abundant Low Prime 7.26 a a a a.09 b Moderate High Choice 7.l7 a a OS 7.l b.11 b b b Modest Medium Choice b.09 7.l Small Low Choice 7.2l a l a.os 7.00 c S b.09 w \.0 Upper slight High Good ' 6.93 b b c.06 6.S2 c.09 Lower slight Low Good 7.07 b S d S c.06 6.S5 c.10 d Traces High Standard 6.92 b.12 6.S6 c c.10 Ratings range S 1 Based on nine-point, five centered, hedonic scale with 9.0 as highest rating 2 Means followed by same letter superscript are not significantly different at the 95 percent confidence level

47 Table 22. Mean overall desirability ratings of loin steaks by level of education attended, normalized data--four cities combined Marbling Level USDA Grammar and Technical Quality High School School Grade Mean Standard Error Mean Standard Error College/University Mean Standard Err.QI 1 -ratings - 2 Slightly abundant Low Prime 7.29 a a.11 7.l9 a.06 Moderate High Choice 7.l6 b a b.06 Modest Medium Choice 7.0S b b l bc.05 Small Low Choice 7.11b l b bc.05 ~ o Upper slight High Good 6.94 c b c.06 Lower slight Low Good 6.9l c a.15 6.Sl d.06 Traces High Standard 6.S7 c n C d.06 Ratings range Based on nine-point, five centered, hedonic scale with 9.0 as highest rating 2 Means followed by same letter superscript are not significantly different at the 95 percent confidence level