Preferences for Beef

Consumer Preferences for Beef

Item Type text; Book

Authors Seltzer, R. E.

Publisher College of Agriculture, University of Arizona (Tucson, AZ)

Download date 01/10/2021 18:28:15

Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10150/213114 Consumer Preferences for BEEF

Bulletin 267 October 1955 AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA. TUCSON ORGANIZATION Board of Regents of the University and State Colleges of Arizona

ERNEST W. MCFARLAND (ex officio), A.B:, M.A., J.D., LL.D. Governor of Arizona CLIFTON L. HARKINS (ex officio), B.S., M.A. State Supt. of Public Instruction JOHN G. BABBITT, B.S Term expires January, 1957 MICHAEL B. HODGES, Treasurer* Term expires January, 1957 JOHN M. JACOBS Term expires January, 1959 EVELYN JONES KIRMSE, A.B., A.M Term expires January, 1959 ALEXANDER G. JACOME, B.S., Secretary Term expires January, 1961 WILLIAM R. MATHEWS, A.B., President Term expires January, 1961 LYNN M. LANEY, B.S., J.D Term expires January, 1963 SAMUEL H. MORRIS, A.B., J.D., LL.D. Term expires January, 1963

RICHARD A. HARVILL, Ph.D President of the University ROBERT L. NUGENT, Ph.D Vice -President of the University

Experiment Station Administration HAROLD E. MYERS, PH.D. Director RALPH S. HAWKINS, Ph.D Associate Director ARLAND R. MEADE, B.S., M.S Editor

WESTERN REGIONAL RESEARCH PROJECT This project has been conducted under Title II of the Research and Marketing Act of 1946, and is a part of a general regional project dealing with consumer preference for beef.This research is being carried out cooperatively by the Agricultural Experiment Stations of Arizona, Colorado, Oregon, Texas, Washington, and Wyoming. Studies similar to the one reported in this bulletin have been made in Denver, Colorado, by the Experiment Stations of Colorado and Wyoming, and in Houston, Texas, by the Texas Agricultural Experiment Station.

*As of reprint date. October 1955 First printing 4M (Reprinted June, 1956) Second printing 3M TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page Page Introduction 3 Consumers' Ideas as to What Indicates Quality in Beef____ 10 Procedure 3 Consumers' Reactions to Pic- Preference Regarding Type tures Showing Variation in of Meat, Poultry or Fish 5 Marbling 10 Favorite Cuts of Beef 5 Consumers' Preferences for Purchasing Habits and Color of Fat in Beef 11 Preferences 6 Consumers' Preferences for Sources of Beef Purchased Grades of Beef 12 for Day -to -Day Use 6 Dependence on Butcher's Ad- Souces of Beef Purchased vice for Getting Desirable for Home Freezer or Beef 14 Cold Storage Locker 7 Acquaintance with USDA Preference for Butcher -service Beef Grades 15 or Self- service Meat Beef Preparation and Beef Retailing 7 Cookery 15 Persons Usually Buying Meat Equipment Used for Cooking for the Family 7 Beef 15 Place Where Meat Shopping Preference as to "Doneness" List Is Determined 8 in Roasts and Steaks 16 Length of Time Between Oven Temperatures Used in Meat Purchases 8 Cooking Beef Roasts 16 Refrigerated Storage Use of Left -over Beef Roast16 Capacity Available 8 Use of Juice or Fat Left Quantities of Meat Purchased From Roasting Beef 16 for Frozen Storage 8 Use of Meat Tenderizers 17 Weights of Roasts Preferred9 Frequency of Consumer Use Weights of Packaged Ham- of Beef and Beef Products 17 burger Preferred 9 Consumer Recognition of Consumers' Preferences and Beef Promotion Slogans 20 Ideas Concerning Beef Quality 10 Summary and Conclusions 22 Consumer Preference for Beef Phoenix, Arizona 1955 R. E. Seltzer'

American agricultureisbe- This report summarizes the coming increasingly "promotion results of part one of a two -part conscious." On every hand we research project. What consum- seeadvertisementsand hear ers say they prefer when asked radio and television commercials questions in an interview, and urging us to "drink three glasses what theyselect when con- of milk every day," "eat beef - fronted by an actual choice in keep slim," and so on. Agricul- the retail store, may not always turalcommoditygroupsare be the same. Certain feelings of spending large sums of money pride, or attempts to answer in in an attempt to increase con- the way that the consumer feels sumer demand for their products. the question should be answered, We, in the United States, are may introduce an element of er- living in a period of abundant ror into the results of a personal - supplies of agricultural products. interview type study. Part one If these commodities are to move of this study of consumer prefer- into consumption in competition ences involved a house -to -house with each other, they must be survey using personal interviews tailored to meet the preferences with the consumers contacted. of the ultimate purchaser - in Part two will offer beef of vary- most cases the housewife. ing quality characteristics for This study attempts to de- sale so that consumer reactions scribe these consumer prefer- to actual selections of meat may ences for a particular product - be obtained. The preferences as beef,ina particular area - obtained can then be checked Phoenix, Arizona. The results against consumers'repliesto obtained should be of use to live- similar aspects of the interview - stock and meat organizations type study. interested in beef promotion, to organizationsconcernedwith consumer education,to meat Procedure processors, wholesalers, and re- tailers, to ranchers and cattle Although this bulletin deals feeders, and finally, to consum- only with the study of consumer ers, themselves.2 preferences made in Phoenix, Arizona,similar studies were I Agricultural Economist, University of being conducted concurrently in Arizona. Denver, Colorado, and Houston, 2 The detailed summary tables,on Texas. Related workisalso which this study is based, are avail- being carried out at Washington able on request.Requests should be sent to:Department of Agricultural State College, at Oregon State Economics,UniversityofArizona, College, and at the University of Tucson, Arizona. California.

3 In conducting this project an obtain a sampling coverage pro- effort was made to secure agree- portionaltothenumberof ment as to details of procedure households throughout the city. which were to be followed by all In October, 1954, the Phoenix of the participating states. This Republic and Gazette newspapers plan was adopted so that the had completed an actual count results obtained in the various of occupied dwellingsinthis states might be compared in area. Utilizing the facilities of order to bring out possible geo- the Arizona Service Bureau, a graphicaldifferencesincon- commercial mailing and listing sumer preferences for beef. Ari- service, a 0.5 per cent systematic zona, Colorado, Oregon, Texas, sample was drawn. The news- Washington, and Wyoming co- papers had established 18 sub- operated in the development of areas, each of which was rela- the procedures used. Assistance tively homogeneous in -so -far as was also obtained from various populationdensitywascon- agencies of the United States De- cerned. By drawing the sample partment of Agriculture. from each of these sub -areas, the goal of coverage proportional Sample Design to the number of households Considering funds available, it was obtained (Table 1).To re- was decided to attempt to inter- duce travel time between sample view five hundred households in households, the sample elements the Phoenix Metropolitan Area. were drawn in clusters of three. The size of sample represented 0.5 per cent of the total of ap- Interviewing Procedure proximately 100,000 households Employing the supervision of in the area. The objective of the theArizonaServiceBureau, sampling system used was to three professional interviewers TABLE 1. SAMPLE DESIGN, HOUSEHOLD SURVEY OF CONSUMER PREFER- ENCES FOR BEEP', PHOENIX, ARIZONA, 1955 Phoenix City Zone Number of occupied Number of sample Number dwellings in Zone households in Zone

1 5,610 27 2 6,151 30 3 4,065 21 4 7,086 35 5 7,593 39 6 6,188 30 7 5,748 30 8 5,205 27 9 6,660 33 10 7,908 39 11 7,073 35 12 6,120 30 13 7,316 36 14 3,086 15 15 3,368 18 16 5,292 27 17 2,330 12 18 3,554 18

Total 100,353 502

4 were hired. The house -to -house were specified before an alterna- interviews were conducted dur- tive sample element could be ing April and May, 1955. The taken. interviewers were each given a The individual questionnaires detailed set of instructions, and were designed to permit direct a short training period was held transfer of results to Interna- prior to the start of actual field tional Business Machine cards, work. In the event that the in- and the summary tables were terviewers were unable to con- made by the International Busi- tact the sample household on ness Machines Service Bureau in the firstvisit, two call -backs Phoenix.

Preference Regarding Type of Meat, Poultry or Fish Beef is, by far, the favorite Favorite Cuts of Beef type of meat desired by Phoenix Consumerswereaskedto consumers. When asked to indi- name their three favorite cuts cate their preference, regardless of beef when price was not a of price, from a list of common consideration. Table 2 shows the meats, poultry and fish, 426 out distribution of their first, sec- of 491 consumers interviewed, ond, and third choices among or 86.8 per cent, chose beef. the major cuts and products Chicken was second in popular- mentioned. The items shown in ity, 31 consumers, or 6.3 per Table 2 as miscellaneous steaks, cent, indicated it is their first roasts and beef cuts and prod- preference; and pork (both fresh ucts included 31 different cuts and cured) ran third with 12 or products, ranging from fillet consumers, or 2.5 per cent, list- mignon steak to soup bones. ing this meat as their favorite.

TABLE 2.FAVORiTJ BEM,' CUTS AND BEEF DISHES -First Choice--Second Choice--Third Choice- % of Total % of Total % of Total First Second Third Beef Cut or Beef Dish NumberChoicesNumberChoicesNumberChoices T -bone steak 90 18.3 45 9.2 16 3.3 Sirloin steak 52 10.6 37 7.5 15 3.0 Rib steak 27 5.5 22 4.5 4 0.8 Round steak 58 11.8 41 8.4 28 5.7 Miscellaneous steaks 27 5.5 22 4.5 18 3.7 Steak unspecified 39 7.8 29 5.9 15 3.0 Chuck roast 21 4.3 44 9.0 35 7.1 Rump roast 16 3.3 21 4.3 14 2.9 Rib roast 18 3.7 25 5.1 16 3.3 Miscellaneous roasts 17 3.5 27 5.5 12 2.4 Roast unspecified 52 10.6 63 12.7 26 5.3 Ground beef 19 3.9 27 5.5 86 17.5 Ground round 17 3.5 13 2.7 34 6.9 Hamburger 14 2.9 29 5.9 79 16.2 Miscellaneous beef cuts and products 24 4.8 46 9.3 93 18.9 Total 491 100.0 491 100.0 491 100.0

5 T -bone steak was the mostRoasts made up 25.3 per cent popular steak and the most popu- of the first choices, 36.7 per cent lar beef item mentioned, 90 per- of the second choices, and 21 per sons, or 18.3 per cent, mention- cent of the third choices. Ground ing this cut as their favorite. beef and hamburger were the Round steak was second in popu- first choice of 10.2 per cent of larity, 58 people, or 11.8 per those people interviewed -made cent, selecting this cut; and sir- up 14.1 per cent of the second loin steak was third with 52, or choices, but accounted for 40.5 10.6 per cent. A total of 293 per- per cent of the third choices. sons, or 59.7 per cent of those Other beef cuts and products interviewed, listed steak as their amounted to 4.8 per cent of the favorite beef cut. first choices, 9.3 per cent of the Among thevariousroasts second choices and 18.9 per cent mentioned, chuck roast was the of the third choices. most popular, by a narrow mar- Although the question asked gin over rib roast. Twenty -one was, "What is your favorite cut persons (4.3 per cent of the first of beef or beef product when choices) chose it while 18 chose price is no consideration ?" con- rib roast. Rump roast followed sumers' preferences seem to be with 16 choices. conditioned by what they can Slightly more than 10 per cent afford.For example, only 27 of the consumers interviewed per cent of those families hav- (50 out of 491) selected ground ing income of less than $3,000 beef or hamburger as their first listed the more expensive steaks preference. as their first preference, while Second and third choices 49 per cent of those families showed greater preference for earning $6,000 per year or more roasts, ground beef, and mis- indicated that these steaks were cellaneous beef items. their favorite cuts of beef. The most common type of Much the same situation was answer to this question regard- found for roasts. Regardless of ing favorite beef cuts and prod- price, only seven per cent of ucts would list some type of thosefamilieswithincomes steak as first choice, a roast as under $3,000 listed the more ex- second choice, and either ground pensive roasts as their first pref- beef, hamburger, or some other erence while 16 per cent of those beef item as third choice. Steaks families in the $6,000- and -over accounted for 59.7 per cent of income bracket indicated that the first choices, 39.9 per cent these roasts were their favorite of the second choices and only cuts of beef. 19.6 per cent of the third choices.

Purchasing Habits and Preferences Sources of Beef Purchased various supermarkets. Twenty - for Day -to -Day Use four per cent patronized small Sixty -five per cent of the con- grocers, five per cent specialized sumers interviewed said thatmeat markets, and the remain- they purchased their meat at ing six per cent bought their

6 meat from locker plants, meatof service. The most important wholesalers, farmers, or other reasongivenforpreferring sources. butcher -service was that such service permits a better variety Sources of Beef Purchased ofcuts and sizesof meats. for Home Freezer or Thirty -four per cent of those Cold Storage Locker preferring butcher -service gave Ofthoseconsumerswho bought meat for frozen storage, this as their reason. Next in im- 49 per cent indicated that they portance (24 per cent) was that bought their meat for this pur- butcher -service meat is fresher. pose from supermarkets, taking Ability to see the whole piece of advantage of week -end specials, meat was the next most im- etc.Ten per cent purchasedportant reason (14 per cent), meat for frozen storage from followed by personal confidence small groceries, 10 per cent from in the butcher (13 per cent). farmers or ranchers, nine perNine percentthoughtthat cent from locker plants, nine butcher -type meat dealers had per cent from meat packers, five better meat. per cent from wholesale meat Convenience was the most im- dealers, and one per cent bought portant reason for preferring from other sources. self -service (48 per cent). Next Income seemed to be related was freedom to take time to pick to the source of meat purchased out meat without being subject for frozen storage.People in tosalespressurefromthe the$6,000and over incomebutcher (42 per cent). The only bracket bought only 33 per cent other major reason for prefer- of their meat for frozen storage ring self -service was that such from supermarkets while that service was thought to be more bought by consumers in the sanitary (5 per cent). $3,000 and under income class There was no significant dif- totaled 64 per cent. The higher ference in preference as to type income group relied more on spe- of service when such preferences cialized meat markets, locker were classified by income groups, plants, and farmers and ranch- age, or education of the respond- ers, buying 43 per cent of their ent. supplies from these sources as Persons Usually Buying Meat compared to 12 per cent for the For the Family lower income group. Seventy -one per cent of those Preference for Self- service or householdsinterviewedstated Butcher -service Meat Retailing that the wife was the person Sixty -four per cent of the con- usually shopping for meat for sumers interviewed in Phoenix the family.Husbands bought said that they preferred butcher - 10 per cent of the total; wives service to self- service in buying and husbands shopping together, meats at retail. Thirty -four per16 per cent; and other persons, cent preferred self- service and three per cent. two per cent had no preference. Income seemed to have little Each person expressing a pref- effect on who buys the meat, erence was asked the reason for except that in the medium in- preferring that particular type come group there were nearly

7 twice as many wives and hus- TABLE 3.REASONS FOR CON- SUMER CHANGING MEAT bands shopping together. LIST AFTER REACHING Age affected this shopping RETAIL STORE pattern only in the group 60 Per cent years old and older, where fewer Reason of total wives did the shopping and more 1. Price or special sales 40 was done by persons other than 2. Availability of meat desired 16 3. Appearance of meat 16 husband or wife. 4. Quality or freshness of meat available 4 Place Where Meat Shopping 5. No specific reason 8 List Is Determined 6. Other reasons 8 7. Rarely changes mind 8 Consumers were about equally divided in regard to whether Usual Length of Time they usually planned their meat Between Meat Purchases purchases before going to the Most people buy fresh beef store (52 per cent) or decided once or twice a week. Over half after they had reached the store of the people interviewed in this (47 per cent). survey bought meat once a week There was a slight tendency and another one- fourth, twice a for those in the highest income week. Ownership of home freez- group ($6,000 and over) to plan ers or rental of cold storage more in advance, than those in lockers resulted in a group of the lower income groups. This consumers who bi. y meat in- tendency was more pronounced frequently, but in larger quan- when the educational level of the tities for frozen storage.Just consumer was considered. Fifty - over five per cent of Phoenix seven per cent of those people consumers interviewed said that with a college education planned one month or more elapses be- in advance while 47 per cent of tween their purchases of fresh those with grade school educa- beef. tions planned in advance.The same was true of older people : Refrigerated Storage 59 per cent of the 60 plus age Capacity Available group planned in advance con- Seventy -two per cent of the trasted to only 49 per cent of the households contacted had a re- under -40 group. frigerator but no othercold Nearly everyone changed his storage space.Seven per cent mind occasionally: only 60 out had a home freezer or cold stor- of the 491 interviewed indicated age locker but no refrigerator, thattheyseldom,ifever, and 14 per cent had both a re- changed their meat list after frigerator and home freezer or reaching the store. cold storage locker.Seven per Table 3 shows the reasons cent reported no refrigeration. given by consumers for chang- Quantities of Meat Purchased ing their meat list after they for Frozen Storage had reached the store.While Two- thirds of the consumers price was the major factor men- having home freezers or cold tioned, the availability, appear- storagelockersusuallypur- ance, and quality of the meat for chased retail cuts. Seventeen per sale were also important factors. cent purchased a side of beef

8 at a time, 10 per cent bought erence for this weight roast. beef by quarter carcass, four Putting size of family and in- per cent bought wholesale cuts come together, the effects be- - and only two per cent bought come more pronounced. For low an entire carcass at one time. income families of five or more Size of family influenced the persons, only eight per cent in- quantity bought at one time for dicated a preference for chuck freezer or locker storage. For roast weighing five pounds or example, 27 per cent of families more; but for the same size fam- of five or more people buyingily in the high income group, beef for locker or freezer stor- 41 per cent preferred roasts of age bought beef by the side, five pounds or more. while only eight per cent of those Preferred Weights of families having one or two peo- Packaged Hamburger ple purchased in this quantity. Packages of hamburger weigh- Income too had an effect oning one, two, or three pounds quantity purchased. Twenty -five were generally preferred. Thirty - per cent of high income families two per cent preferred one -pound bought a side of beef at a time; packages, a like number two only six per cent of low income pounds, and 22 per cent three families did so. pounds. One and one -half pounds Preferred Weights of Roasts was the only other popular size Three -pound and four -pound - preferred by seven per cent. roasts were most commonly pre- Whereas the low income fam- ferred. These two weights ac- ilies indicated a preference for counted for about 40 per cent smaller roasts than high income of the preferences. A range ofgroups, with regard to ham- weights from two to five pounds burger the situation was re- included all but about eight perversed. For example, where the cent of the preferences found. family consisted of more than There was a tendency to preferfive people, 62 per cent of low heavier standing rib roasts than income consumers preferred chuck roasts or rolled boneless hamburger in three -pound pack- roasts. ages, but only 38 per cent of Number of people in the fam- the high income group wanted ily influenced the weight of the this large package. The same roast preferred. Considering only situation prevailed between the chuck roasts, it was found that two income groups for other for families of one or two peo- sizes of families. ple, only eight per cent of such Hamburger was generally families preferred roasts of five availableinpackages ofthe pounds or more where 22 per weights desired. However, most cent of the families with five or difficulty was experiencedin more peoplepreferredroasts finding one and one -half and weighing five pounds or more. two -poundpackages.Twenty - Income too had itseffect. one per cent of the consumers Only six per cent of the low in- interviewed said that one and come grouppreferredchuck one -half -pound packages were roasts of five pounds or over, not available and 24 per cent whereas 24 per cent of the high said that they could not obtain income group indicated a pref- two -pound packages.

9 Consumers Preferences and Ideas Concerning Beef Quality Consumers' Ideas as to What bright red or cherry red color Indicates Quality in Beef of lean. Closely associated with Consumers were asked to de- color of lean was the matter of scribe those factors which they freshness, and this was desired considered most important in de- by 13 per cent. Other factors termining the desirability of the mentioned were grade or qual- beef that they purchased. Lean- ity, general appearance, price, ness was the factor most fre- marbling, amount of bone, color quently desired in beef, 25 per of fat, flavor, and aged beef. cent of the people interviewed The importance of these factors mentioning this factor (Table 4). can be seen from Table 4. Twenty per cent looked for a

TABLE 4. FACTORS CONSIDERED MOST IMPORTANT BY CONSUMERS IN DETERMINING THE DESIRABILITY OF THE BEEF WHICH THEY BUY Per cent of Factor Considered Number Total 1. Lean appearance, or minimum amount of fat 294 25 2. Color of lean, bright red or cherry red preferred 232 20 3. Freshness or juiciness 151 13 4. Tenderness 136 12 5. Grade or quality 70 6 6. General appearance 62 6 7. Price 45 4 8. Well marbled 31 3 9. Small amount of bone 28 2 10. Color of fat 28 2 11. Flavor 27 2 12. Well aged 25 2 13. Other reasons 29 3

Consumers' Reaction to Colored been made, the consumer was Photographs Showing Variation asked the reasons for her selec- In Beef Quality Factors tion. Three sets of colored photo- Consumer Reaction to Pictures graphs showing variationsin Showing Variations in Marbling beef quality factors were made. The photographs appearing on Each set included three pictures page 13 show the cuts used to illustratingthreedegreesof illustrate differences in degree variation in the quality factor of marbling. The picture on the considered. These factors were: top shows a high degree of (1) marbling, (2) color of fat, marbling, that in the center a and (3) grade. Each set of pic- moderate amount of marbling, tures was shown, and the person and the one on the bottom, a being interviewed was asked, small amount of marbling. Fifty - "Given these three pieces of beef nine per cent of the people inter- at the same price per pound,viewed picked the cut on the which would you buy for your bottom - that is, the one with family ?" After a selection hadthe least marbling - as the one

10 which they would prefer for their yond grade school picked the family.Eighteen per cent se- highly marbled cut, whereas 33 lected the cut showing a mod- per cent of those who had gone erate amount of marbling (cen- tocollegepicked thehighly ter),and 23 per cent picked the marbled beef. There was a great- highly marbled cut (Table 5). er tendency (30 per cent) for the The most common reason 40 -60 age group to pick the high- given for selecting a particular ly marbled meat, than was found cut was that the consumer pre- for the under 40 -age group (18 ferredalimitedamountof per cent) or the 60 and over marbling.Forty -five per cent group (20 per cent). of the reasons given were of this nature. In contrast, 16 per cent Consumer Preference preferred a high degree of marbling for the reason that such for Color of Fat marbling made the meat more Phoenix consumers definitely tender or gave it better flavor. prefer beef with white fat. When The remaining 39 per cent of shown the color -of -fat pictures the reasons given for selecting illustrated on page 12, 310 out a particular cut did not pertain of 491, or 63 per cent indicated to the factor being considered that this was their preference. (marbling) but were : bright red Twenty -five per cent favored color - seven percent,looks creamy fat and 11 per cent liked moretender - sixpercent, yellow fat (Table 6). juicier or fresher -11 per cent, The major reason given for and other reasons, 15 per cent. preferring white fat was that There appeared to be a def- meat with such fat looks fresher, initerelationship between in- Twenty per cent of all color -of- come and preference for marb- fat preference reasons were of ling in beef. The highly marbled this nature. Other reasons for cut was the first choice of only preferring white fat were: more 16 per cent of the consumers in appetizing, better flavor, firmer, the low income group, but was better grade of meat, meat with the first choice of 38 per cent white fat is more tender, more in the high income group. A wholesome, comes from healthy similar relationship was found animal, comes from younger ani- with respect to educational level. mal, more vitamins in white fat, Only 10 per cent of those con- and white fat is juicier. How- sumers who had not gone be- ever, some 21 people stated that

TABLE 5. CONSUMER PREFERENCE FOR MARBLING IN BEEF (ALL CUTS SAME PRICE PER POUND) Amount of -First Choice- -Second Choice- -Third Choice- Marbling Number % of Total Number % of Total Number % of Total Large amount of marbling 114 23 121 25 257 52 Moderate amount of marbling 89 18 299 61 102 21 Small amount of marbling 288 59 71 14 132 27

11 they didn't think beef with white fat had been properly aged. Creamy- colored fat was preferred for the reasons that it looks "healthy," has better flavor, means better quality meat, and adds to the flavor of the meat. Those who preferred yellow fat thought that the meat with such fat was richer, had better flavor, was more tender, better grade, and came from grain -fed beef. The principal objection to yellow fat was that it appeared old or dirty. Other objections were that yellow fat was associated with grass -fed beef, commercial grade beef, strong flavor, and looked half cooked. There was no pronounced as- sociationbetweenpreferences with respect to fat color and income, age, or education except that low income groups And groups with only a grade school education were less critical of yellow fat. For example, yellow fat was the first choice of 15 per cent of those people with a grade school education, but was preferred by only nine per cent of those who had attended college. Consumer Preference for Grades of Beef Consumerswereaskedto choose between three pictures (nextpage)showingchoice, good, and commercial beef, as- suming that all three cuts were priced the same per pound. There was no indication on the pictures of the grade of beef represented. Confronted with thesepic- tures, 41 per cent of the consumers selected U S Good as their first preference, 31 per VARIATIONS IN COLOR OF FAT IN BEEF Yellow - Creamy - White

12 VARIATIONS IN VARIATIONS IN GRADES OF BEEF MARBLING OF BEEF

Highly Marbled

US Choice

Moderately Marbled

US Good

Slightly Marbled

US Commercial

TABLE 6. CONSUMER PREFERENCE FOR COLOR OF FAT IN BEEF (ALL CUTS SAME PRICE PER POUND) -First Choice- -Second Choice- -Third Choice- Color of Fat Number % ofTotal Number % of Total Number % of Total

White 310 63 66 13 110 22 Creamy 125 25 333 68 29 6 Yellow 52 11 88 18 348 71 No preference 4 1 4 1 4 1

13 TABLE 7. CONSUMER PREFERENCE FOR GRADES OF BEEF (ALL GRADES SAME PRICE PER POUND) -First Choice--Second Choice--Third Choice - Beef grade Number % Number % Number US Choice 156 32 161 33 172 35 US Good 204 41 181 37 105 21 US Commercial 131 27 149 30 214 44 cent U S Choice and27per cent tion were compared with those

U S Commercial beef (Table7). of consumers having attended Consumers were then asked college. Only26per cent of those for their reasons for selecting people with a grade school edu- the particular cut which they cation picked U S Choice as their chose. The most common reason first preference while42per cent given by those choosing the Good of the college level preferred this and Commercial grades was that grade. - they preferred a limited amount Age seemed to make little dif- of fat. Color was the next most ference with respect to grade important grade factor in the preferences except that the40- minds of these consumers,79or 60 year group favored U S 11 per cent preferring a bright Choice to a greater extent than red color. Tenderness was next the younger or the older group. in importance, seven per cent, This difference is probably as- and was followed by freshness sociated with income, as this age and a preference for marbling, group would tend to have the six per cent each. A preference highest average income. for fine texture accounted for five per cent of the reasons. Gen- Dependence on Butchers' Advice eral appearance, and such fac- for Getting Desirable Beef tors as amount of bone, color of About half of the consumers fat, size of cut, age of beef, etc., contacted relied to some degree made up the rest of the reasons on the butcher's advice for get- given. ting good beef. Two hundred Grade preferences were def- thirty -eight said that they did initely related to the income and rely on the advice of their butch- educational status of the person ers for getting desirable meat, interviewed. Although the ques- and249did not. tion as to which cut of meat was There was a tendency for peo- preferred specifically stated that ple with a college education to all three cuts were the same price rely on the advice of the butcher per pound, it was found that to a greater extent(53per cent) only23per cent of the low in- than those people with a grade come group selected U S Choice school or high school education as their first preference, while (47per cent). The high income 40 per cent of the high income group also placed more reliance group favoredthiscut.The on the butcher's advice(56per same relationship occurred when cent) than the medium income choices of consumers with no group(47per cent) or the low more than a grade school educa- income group (44per cent).

14 Older people definitely depended were named and in addition a on the butcher's advice to avariety of other grades were greater extent(75 per cent) thought to be USDA grades. than middle -aged (42 per cent) These were : Grade AAA, Grade or young people (50 per cent). AA, Grade A, Grade B, Grade C, Number 1, Number 2, Premium, Acquaintance With and Select, Standard, Special, Econ- Use of USDA Beef Grades omy, Excellent, U S Consumer, The official United States De- and Government Inspected. Of partment of Agriculture beef these, Grade A was named by grades are : Prime, Choice, Good, 70 respondents, and Government Commercial, Utility, and Canner and Cutter. People interviewed Inspected by 14. in this survey were asked to Of those persons interviewed, name as many of these grades 34 per cent said that they bought as possible. Only 16.5 per cent meat by grade, 20 per cent were of those people interviewed were acquainted with grades but did able to name as many as three not use them, and the remaining of these grades, 16.5 per cent 46 per cent knew nothing about could name two, and 16 per cent beef grades. Use of grades was could name one. The remaining related to education, age, and 51 per cent of the consumers income. Forty -nine per cent of were unacquainted with these thecollegeeducatedgroup grades. bought beef by grade, 37 per There was a direct relation- cent of the high school group, ship between the education of and only 12 per cent of the grade the consumers interviewed and school group. their knowledge of these grades. Younger people tend to buy Of those people who had notmore on grade than do older gone beyond grade school, only people. Thirty -seven per cent of three per cent knew as many as the under -40 age group bought three grades, while of those who by grade, as compared to 32 per had gone to college, 30 per cent cent of the 40 -60 year group, knew at least three grades. and 28 per cent of the over -60 U S Choice was the grade group. The influence of income most commonly mentioned, ac- on use of grades was illustrated counting for 30 per cent of the by the fact that 53 per cent of grades named. U S Good was the high income group used next with 21 per cent, and was grades, while but 15 per cent of followed by U S Prime, 15 per the low income group bought cent.All of the USDA grades beef by grade. Beef Preparationand Beef Cookery The satisfaction obtained from were asked concerning cooking the use of a particular cut of equipment and methods of beef beef often depends on the use cookery. of proper methods of cooking that particular cut. In order to Equipment Used get some idea of beef cooking for Cooking Beef methods used by Phoenix con- All but one of the 491 house- sumers, a series of questions holds contacted owned an oven,

15 and of the 490 having an oven, - by 39 per cent of those re- 425 or 87 per cent used the oven porting.Fifteen per cent did for cooking beef. Ninety -six per not know what oven temperature cent had a broiler and of these, was used. There was a slight 81 per cent used the boiler for tendency for people with more beef.Sixteen per cent had a years of schooling to cook at deep well cooker as a part of lower temperatures. For exam- their stove, and two -thirds used ple, 26 per cent of the college - their cooker for beef. Twenty - educated group used tempera- eight per cent owned electric tures of 300 degrees or less, roasters and of these 72 per cent while 22 per cent of those with used them for beef. Fifty -seven a grade school or high school per cent used pressure cookers education roasted beef at 300 for preparing beef. Only 14 per degrees or less. cent had a meat thermometer Another practice sometimes and only two -thirds of them used recommended in roasting beef it for beef. is to start the roast at a rela- Preference as to tivelyhightemperature,and Degree of "Doneness" then, after a short time, reduce in Roasts and Steaks the temperature to around 300 People's tastes vary with re- degrees and finish the roasting gard to how thoroughly they process. Twenty -five per cent of prefer to have their meat cooked. the persons interviewed followed In Phoenix, of those people con- this procedure. Only six per cent tacted, 52 per cent preferred raised the oven temperature as their steak well -done, 38 per cent cookingprogressed.Fifty -five medium, and 10 per cent rare. per cent did not change the oven With respect to roasts, 66 per temperature during the roasting cent preferred well done, 30 per process. cent medium, and only four per Use of Left -Over Roast cent rare. Both income and edu- Most families in this survey cation influenced the degree of get about three meals out of a "doneness"preferred.Higher beef roast; the meal at which income groups and college -edu- the roast was first served, plus cated consumers had a greater two additional meals. The most preference for rare and medium common uses of left -over roast degrees of "doneness." were cold roast and sandwiches. Oven Temperatures Used Hash and reheated roast were in Cooking Beef Roasts next in importance, followed by Low temperatures (near 300 stew and beef pie. A total of 30 degrees Fahrenheit) are gener- different ways of serving left- ally recommended for roasting over beef 'roast were mentioned. beef.Twenty -two per cent of the consumers interviewed saidUse of Juice and Fat that they roasted beef at oven Left from Roasting Beef temperatures ranging from 250 The principal use of juice from to 300 degrees, while 63 per cent a beef roast was for gravy. used temperatures above 300 de- Ninety per cent of the consumers grees. The most common tem- interviewed used this juice for perature used was 350 degrees gravy. Other uses for juice from

16 the roast were in soup, in hash, of thecollege- educated group beef and noodles, in dressing, had used them. and to serve just as juice. Consumers who had tried the About half of the people con- tenderizerswereaskedtheir tacted said that they make no opinion of them. Of these people use of the fat drippings from a 22 per cent said that they liked beef roast, but throw the fat the tenderizers and thought they away.About eight per cent were satisfactory. However, 18 saved the fat for frying, sevenper cent felt that tenderizers per cent mixed the juice forwere generally unsatisfactory, gravy, and five per cent fed the and an additional three per cent fat to their dog or cat.Eight said that they were unsatisfac- people said that they made soap. tory in that they affected the Use of Meat Tenderizer taste of the meat. Fifty -seven Consumers were asked whether per cent of those who had tried or not they had ever used a pow- tenderizers had no opinion of der or a liquid made especially them. for tenderizing meat.Seventy Round steak was the cut of per cent of those contacted had beef on which tenderizer was used such a tenderizer.More most frequently used. Stew meat people with a grade school and and chuck roast were also com- high school education had tried monly treated with tenderizer. tenderizers than had the college - Many people mentioned that they educated group. Eighty per cent used the tenderizer on the cheap- of the group having only a grade er cuts. Most of the answers school education had tried ten- were that they used tenderizer derizers, while only 58 per cent on roasts and steaks in general.

Frequency of Consumer Use of Cuts of Beef and Beef Products A great variety of cuts of beef at least once a week, and 42 per and beef products are available cent said they used hamburger to Phoenix consumers. Table 8 at least once a week. shows the frequency with which The most popular steaks were the people contacted in this sur- round steak, T -bone and sirloin. vey used various cuts of beefThe most popular roasts were and beef products. chuck, rump roast, and round Round steak had been used at bone roast. Ninety per cent said some time by more people than they had used wieners or frank- any other cut of beef or beef furters, and 70 per cent had used product (by 92 per cent).Ground bologna. Seventy -four per cent beef ran a close second with 91 had used beef liver, 66 per cent per cent. However, ground beef stew meat, and 65 per cent short and hamburger were used moreribs. Among the processed beef frequently than any other beef products the most popular were product. Sixty -five per cent of chili con carne (49 per cent), the households interviewed stat- corned beef (46 per cent) and ed that they used ground beef dried beef (42 per cent).

17 TABLE 8. FREQUENCY OF CONSUMER USE OF CUTS OF BEEF AND BEEF PRODUCTS Have used Use every Use every Use less Cut of Beef at some 7 days or 8 to 30 often than or Beef Product time oftener days every 30 days per cent per cent per cent per cent STEAKS Round steak 92 40 39 13 T -bone steak 84 20 40 24 Sirloin steak 75 17 39 19 Rib steak 58 11 27 20 Cube steak 58 12 22 24 Sirloin tip steak 36 2 14 20 Chip steak or steakettes 31 7 9 15 Club steak 29 4 8 17 Chuck steak 24 2 9 13 Flank steak 23 1 4 18 Fillet Mignon steak 23 1 7 15 Porterhouse steak 21 1 4 16 ROASTS Chuck roast 85 29 45 11 Rump roast 66 6 36 24 Round bone roast 59 7 33 19 Boned and rolled rib roast 43 3 14 26 Boned&rolled rump roast 33 2 13 18 Brisket pot roast 29 2 12 15 Sirloin tip roast 26 1 10 15 Heel of round roast 20 1 5 15 SAUSAGE MEATS Wieners and frankfurters 90 31 41 18 Bologna 70 28 27 15 Liverwurst 51 9 24 18 Salami 50 14 20 16 Meat loaf 40 9 21 10 Pressed beef loaf 27 4 11 12 Thuringer sausage 16 3 5 8 Fresh beef sausage 4 .... 2 2 MISCELLANEOUS FRESH BEEF CUTS AND PRODUCTS Ground beef 91 65 21 5 Beef liver 74 13 39 22 Stew meat 66 19 28 19 Short ribs 65 5 29 31 Hamburger 65 42 17 6 Tongue 22 7 15 Heart 21 9 12 Ox tails 14 6 8 Kidney 12 1 5 6 Brains 12 1 3 8 Sweetbreads 9 3 6 Rolled plate 8 4 4 Tripe 4 .___ 1 3 CURED OR CANNED BEEF PRODUCTS Chili con carne 49 4 23 22 Corned beef 46 4 14 28 Dried beef 42 3 13 26 Canned beef stew 31 3 9 19 Frozen beef pie 29 3 11 15 Canned beef 22 2 6 14 Beef bacon or breakfast beef 12 3 3 6 Canned beef for babies 10 7 1 2

18 The cuts most frequently used There did not appear to be as were, in order of frequency: (1) extreme variation in the use of ground beef, (2) hamburger, (3) roasts as was found for steaks. round steak,(4) wieners, and The greatest variation was found (5) chuck roast. in the use of the sirloin tip roast, There was a definite relation- 34 per cent of the high income ship between consumer income group using this roast and but and the frequency of use of the 16 per cent of the low income various beef cuts and beef prod- group. ucts. Income had little relationship A much larger percentage of to the use of sausage meats. the high income group usedHigh income groups tended to steak than was true for the use more liverwurst and salami lower income levels. The extreme and low income groups used variation was fillet mignon. Fif- more meat loaf. ty -one per cent of the high in- The distinction between ground come group had used this steak beef and hamburger appeared at some time, but only 11 per cent where use was considered in re- of the low income consumers had lation to income. The high in- ever eaten it. come group used more ground For T-bone steak, it was found beef than the others and the low that 92 per cent of the high in- income group used more ham- come group bought this item, burger.Among thespecialty but only 75 per cent of the low beefitems,onlysweetbreads income group had ever used it. were used with greatest fre- Further, 26 per cent of the high quency by the high income group. income group had T -bone steak On the other hand, the low in- at least once a week, whereas the come group used more tongue, comparable figure for the low - heart, kidneys, tripe, brains and income consumers was 16 per ox tails than did the others. They cent. also used more stew meat, short Round steak was used in about ribs, and rolled beef plate. the same frequency by all income classes, about 90 per cent In the cured or processed beef having used this steak and 40 line, high income groups used per cent serving it at least once more dried beef, beef bacon, and a week. Chuck steak and flank canned beef for babies and low steak were used to a greater ex- income groups used the most tent by the low income group canned beef and canned beef than by those people in the me- stew.Corned beef,chilicon dium and high income brackets. carne, and frozen beef pie were A similar use pattern was used with about the same fre- found in the use of roasts. The quency by all income groups. more expensive roasts, rib roasts When consumers' use of vari- and sirloin tip, were used more ous cuts of beef and beef prod- frequently by those people in the ucts were classified by the edu- higher income levels, while the cational level of the people con- cheaper roasts, chuck and bris- tacted, the pattern of use was ket pot roast, were used more found to be very similar to that often by the lower income groups. obtained from income classifica-

19 tion.The apparent relationship was a tendency for the young between education levels and in- group to use more processed, or come earned would seem to ac- semi -prepared beef items.For count for this similarity. example, they used more wieners, When use of beef was exam- more chip steaks, more bologna, ined in relation to age of the con- more chili con carne, more frozen sumer, it was found that, in gen- beef pie, and more canned beef eral, the young (under 40) and items than did any other age the middle aged (40 -60) groups group. The young group also consumed more steak but rela- used more hamburger and tively fewer roasts than did the ground beef than did the others. 60 years and over group. There Consumer Recognition of Beef Promotion Slogans The American beef cattle in- per cent recognizing this slogan. dustry is making a concerted ef- "Enjoy Beef for Health" was fort to induce people to eat more known by 36 per cent of those beef. As a part of this program, interviewed, "Eat Beef, Eat Bet- various cattlemen's associations ter, Feel Better" by 26 per cent have used slogans displayed on and "Watch Your Curves -Eat automobilestickers,roadside Beef" by 23 per cent. Since some signs, and in other places.In people tend to recognize any- an effort to get some idea of thing that sounds reasonable, a how well these slogans are get- fictitious slogan, "Beef Builds ting across to Phoenix consum- Health," was included in the list. ers, each person interviewed was Twenty -seven per cent were sure asked whether he or she had they had previously seenor seen or heard of certain of these heard this slogan. slogans. As was to be expected, Consumers are interested in theslogan"Eat Beef - Keep beef and are eager to learn more Slim," originated and used by the about selecting meat for use by Arizona Cattle Growers' Associa- their family. This study points tion, was most widely known in out the current status of con- Phoenix, 78 per cent of the consumer knowledge about and use sumers interviewed stating that of cuts of beef and beef products they had seen or heard of this and may serve as a guide for ed- slogan. The next most widely ucational programs in the meats known was "Eat More Beef,' 65 field.

20 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

From interviews with 491 Phoenix consumers in May, 1955, the following conclusions were obtained:

1. Beef is the favorite meat of Phoenix consumers, 87 per cent favoring beef over any other meat, poultry or fish. 2. T -bone steak, round steak, and sirloin steak, in the order named, were the three favorite beef cuts.Fifth in over -all popularity and first among the roasts was chuck roast.Slightly over 10 per cent of the persons interviewed selected ground beef or hamburger as their first preference. 3. Consumers' preferences are conditioned by what they can afford. 4. About two -thirds of the beef purchased for day -to -day use and about half of that bought for frozen storage, was obtained from supermarkets.

5.Sixty -four per cent of the 491 consumers interviewed stated that they preferred butcher -service to self -service.Better availability of various cuts and sizes and fresher meat were the major reasons given for preferring butcher service.Convenience and freedom to pick out meat without working with the butcher were of primary importance to those preferring self -service. 6. Wives usually bought the meat in 71 per cent of the families contacted. 7. About half of the people usually plan their meat purchase before going to the market, while the other half generally decide at the store.Price or special sales, availability of cuts desired, or appearance of meat were important factors where meat lists were changed after reaching the store. 8. Seventy -five per cent of the families contacted bought fresh meat either once or twice a week. 9. Eighty -six per cent owned refrigerators, and 21 per cent had home freezers or rented a cold storage locker. 10. Three and four pound roasts were most commonly preferred. A range of weights from two to five pounds accounted for all but eight per cent of the preferences stated. Weight of roast per person in the family tends to be pro- portioned to family income.

21 11. Packages of hamburger weighing one, two and three pounds were generally preferred.Low income families bought more hamburger per person than did high income families. 12. Leanness is the characteristic most looked for in beef by Phoenix consumers. Bright red color, and freshness were next in importance among those factors looked for by these consumers. 13. When shown colored photographs illustrating high, moderate, and low degrees of marbling in beef, 59 per cent preferred the cut with the least marbling, 18 per cent the moderately marbled cut, and 23 per cent that with the highest degree of marbling. 14. Phoenix consumers definitely prefer beef with white fat. When shown color photographs illustrating differences in color of fat, 63 per cent picked the cut with the whitest fat. 15. Consumers were asked to choose from three pictures showing cuts of Choice, Good and Commercial beef.Forty -one per cent selected US Good as their preference, 32 per cent US Choice, and 27 per cent US Commercial. 16. Phoenix consumers are generally poorly acquainted with the United States grades of beef. Of the six grades only 16.5 per cent of the Phoenix consumers contacted could name as many as three grades, 16.5 per cent could name two, 16 per cent could name one, and the remaining 51 per cent were unacquainted with these grades. 17. Twenty -two per cent of the Phoenix housewives contacted roasted beef at 300 degrees or lower.The most common temperature used was 350 degrees. 18. Most families got about three meals out of a beef roast. 19. Seventy per cent of those people contacted had used meat tenderizer.Twenty -two per cent thought such tenderizers were satisfactory, 21 per cent thought them unsatisfactory, and 57 per cent had no opinion. 20. Round steak had been used at some time by more people than any other cut of beef or beef product. Ground beef ran a close second.However, ground beef and hamburger were more frequently used than any other beef item. 21. Consumer income, educational status of the consumer and age of the consumer all definitely affected the pattern of use of the various cuts of beef and beef products. 22. The slogan "Eat Beef - Keep Slim" was recognized by 78 per cent of the consumers interviewed.