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 x 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