• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Acknowledgement
 Front cover
 Abstract
 Title Page
 Front Matter
 Table of Contents
 List of Tables
 Acknowledgement
 Foreword
 Introduction
 Objectives
 Procedures
 Store audit procedures
 Tade evaluation of muscadine...
 Questionnaire development
 Interviewing procedure
 Table 1: Retail prices of table...
 Table 2: Display space allocated...
 Table 2: Display space allocated...
 Table 4: Average daily sales of...
 Trade evaluation of muscadine...
 Table 5: Produce managers' evaluations...
 Customer survey
 Purchaser's evaluations of muscadine...
 Table 6: Reasons given by muscadine...
 Table 8: Consumption of muscadine...
 Table 9: Occassions when muscadine...
 Table 10: Muscadine grape qualities...
 Table 11: Muscadine grape qualities...
 Table 12: Muscadine grape purchasers'...
 Comparison of the purple muscadine...
 Comparison of the bronze with the...
 Repeat purchase intentions
 Table 13: Repeat purchase intentions...
 Table 14: Types of grapes observed...
 Other grape purchasers' aversions...
 Consumers' perceptions of the words...
 Table 16: Muscadine grape purchasers'...
 Table 17: Muscadine grape purchasers'...
 Conclusion
 Appendix A: Survey forms and...
 Appendix B: Tables
 Reference






Group Title: Fresh market potential for muscadine grapes: a report
Title: Fresh market potential for muscadine grapes
CITATION PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE PAGE TEXT
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00026917/00001
 Material Information
Title: Fresh market potential for muscadine grapes a report
Series Title: Industry report Florida Agricultural Market Research Center 80-1
Physical Description: 82 p. : ill. ; 28 cm.
Language: English
Creator: Degner, Robert L
Mathis, Kary, 1936-
Cubenas, Gervasio J
Publisher: Florida Agricultural Market Research Center, a part of the Food and Resource Economics Dept., Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville Fla.
Publication Date: 1980
 Subjects
Subject: Muscadine grape -- Marketing -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Genre: government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
bibliography   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )
 Notes
Bibliography: Bibliography: p. 82.
Statement of Responsibility: by Robert L. Degner, Kary Mathis and Gervasio Cubenas.
Funding: Florida Historical Agriculture and Rural Life
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00026917
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: Marston Science Library, George A. Smathers Libraries, University of Florida
Holding Location: Florida Agricultural Experiment Station, Florida Cooperative Extension Service, Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, and the Engineering and Industrial Experiment Station; Institute for Food and Agricultural Services (IFAS), University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: aleph - 000409953
oclc - 06842125
notis - ACF6702

Table of Contents
    Acknowledgement
        Acknowledgement
    Front cover
        Front Cover
    Abstract
        Abstract
    Title Page
        Title Page
    Front Matter
        ii
    Table of Contents
        iii
        iv
    List of Tables
        v
        vi
        List of Tables 3
    Acknowledgement
        viii
    Foreword
        ix
        Foreword 2
    Introduction
        Page 1
    Objectives
        Page 2
    Procedures
        Page 3
        Page 4
    Store audit procedures
        Page 5
        Page 6
        Page 7
        Page 8
    Tade evaluation of muscadine grapes
        Page 9
    Questionnaire development
        Page 10
    Interviewing procedure
        Page 11
        Page 12
    Table 1: Retail prices of table grapes, test stores, Tampa, Florida, August 29 through September 1, 1979
        Page 13
    Table 2: Display space allocated to various types of fresh table grapes
        Page 14
    Table 2: Display space allocated to various types of fresh table grapes
        Page 15
    Table 4: Average daily sales of various types of fresh table grapes per 1,000 customers, selected supermarkets, Tampa, Florida, 1979
        Page 16
    Trade evaluation of muscadine grapes
        Page 17
        Page 18
    Table 5: Produce managers' evaluations of selected characteristics of selected grapes
        Page 19
        Page 20
        Page 21
    Customer survey
        Page 22
        Page 23
    Purchaser's evaluations of muscadine grapes
        Page 24
    Table 6: Reasons given by muscadine grape purchasers for discarding muscadine grapes
        Page 25
    Table 8: Consumption of muscadine grapes, adults vs. children
        Page 26
    Table 9: Occassions when muscadine grapes were eaten
        Page 27
    Table 10: Muscadine grape qualities liked by muscadine purchasers
        Page 28
    Table 11: Muscadine grape qualities disliked by muscadine purchasers
        Page 29
    Table 12: Muscadine grape purchasers' perceived differences in shelf life of muscadine grapes versus other types of grapes
        Page 30
    Comparison of the purple muscadine variety with other table grapes
        Page 31
    Comparison of the bronze with the purple muscadine variety
        Page 32
    Repeat purchase intentions
        Page 33
    Table 13: Repeat purchase intentions for muscadines by consumer familiarity
        Page 34
    Table 14: Types of grapes observed by purchasers of other grapes, unaided recall
        Page 35
    Other grape purchasers' aversions to muscadine grapes
        Page 36
    Consumers' perceptions of the words 'muscadine' and 'scuppernong'
        Page 37
        Page 38
        Page 39
    Table 16: Muscadine grape purchasers' ability to recall another name for the "Florida grapes"
        Page 40
    Table 17: Muscadine grape purchasers' ratings of selected names for 'the grapes they bought'
        Page 41
    Conclusion
        Page 42
    Appendix A: Survey forms and letterhead
        Page 43
        Page 44
        Page 45
        Page 46
        Page 47
        Page 48
        Page 49
        Page 50
        Page 51
        Page 52
        Page 53
        Page 54
        Page 55
        Page 56
        Page 57
        Page 58
        Page 59
        Page 60
        Page 61
    Appendix B: Tables
        Page 62
        Page 63
        Page 64
        Page 65
        Page 66
        Page 67
        Page 68
        Page 69
        Page 70
        Page 71
        Page 72
        Page 73
        Page 74
        Page 75
        Page 76
        Page 77
        Page 78
        Page 79
        Page 80
        Page 81
    Reference
        Page 82
Full Text





HISTORIC NOTE


The publications in this collection do
not reflect current scientific knowledge
or recommendations. These texts
represent the historic publishing
record of the Institute for Food and
Agricultural Sciences and should be
used only to trace the historic work of
the Institute and its staff. Current IFAS
research may be found on the
Electronic Data Information Source
(EDIS)

site maintained by the Florida
Cooperative Extension Service.






Copyright 2005, Board of Trustees, University
of Florida







JANUARY 1980


Fresh tq
for Muse


INDUSTRY REPORT 80-1


HUMPR S -- -80
APR 23 1980
l C :..


A I


II


1z3-F-7tZ













Abstract


The fresh market potential for muscadine grapes was evaluated with an
in-store sales test, and by determining acceptance by supermarket consumers
and produce managers. The in-store test was conducted in six supermarkets
in Tampa, Florida in late August and early September, 1979. Muscadine grape
sales averaged about 25 pounds per store per day of both varieties offered.
Sales per 1,000 customers were nine to 10 pounds, comparing favorably
with sales of 11 pounds per 1,000 customers for black seeded grapes.
Produce managers were not generally familiar with muscadines, and felt
they did not compare favorably with other grapes in general appearance,
color, surface blemishes, taste and overall quality. However, managers
were willing to handle muscadines, as they recognized that some of their
customers would purchase them. Of consumers buying muscadines, 87
percent said they would buy them again. Consumers liked the taste of
muscadines but criticized the tough skin and presence of seeds. The
sample of muscadine purchasers had a significantly higher proportion of
black consumers than did the sample of other grape purchasers.


Key words: muscadine grapes, consumer preference, retail produce



















FRESH MARKET POTENTIAL FOR MUSCADINE GRAPES


A report by
Robert L. Degner, Kary Mathis and Gervasio Cubenas
















January 1980

The Florida Agricultural Market Research Center
a part of
The Food and Resource Economics Department
Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences
University of Florida, Gainesville 32611














The Florida Agricultural Market Research Center

A Service of
The Food and Resource Economics Department
of the
Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences


The purpose of this Center is to provide timely, applied research

on current and emerging marketing problems affecting Florida's agri-

cultural and marine industries. The Center seeks to provide research

and information to production, marketing, and processing firms, groups

and organizations concerned with improving and expanding markets for

Florida agricultural and marine products.

The Center is staffed by a basic group of economists trained in

agriculture and marketing. in addition, cooperating personnel from

other IFAS units provide a wide range of expertise which can be applied

as determined by the requirements of individual projects.


ii













TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

LIST OF TABLES .................................................. v

LIST OF APPENDIX TABLES .......................................... vi

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................... viii

SUMMARY ......................................................... ix

INTRODUCTION .................................................... 1

OBJECTIVES ..................................................... 2

PROCEDURES ..................................................... 3

In-store Sales Test ........................................ 3

Firm and Store Selection ............................... 3
Store Adit Procedures .................................. 5
Produce Supplies and Logistics ......................... 5

Trade Evaluation of Muscadine Grapes ........................ 9

Consumer Interviews ........................................ 9

Grape Purchaser Samples ................................ 9
Questionnaire Development .............................. 10
Interviewing Procedure ................................. 11

FINDINGS ........................................................ 11

In-store Sales Results ...................................... 11

Trade Evaluation of Muscadine Grapes ........................ 17

Consumer Survey ............................................. 22

Purchasers' Evaluations of Muscadine Grapes ............ 24

Consumption patterns .............................. 25
Evaluation of muscadine grape characteristics ..... 26




iii









TABLE OF CONTENTS Continued
Page

Qualities liked ............................... 27
Qualities disliked ............................ 27
Perceived shelf life .......................... 28
Comparisons of the bronze muscadine variety
with other table grapes ..................... 30
Comparisons of the purple muscadine variety
with other table grapes ................... .... 31
Comparison of the bronze with the purple
muscadine variety ........................... 32
Muscadine grape purchasers' evaluations of
sweetness and hull "texture" or "consistency". 32

Repeat purchase intentions ....................... 33

Other Grape Purchasers' Awareness of and Aversions to
Muscadine Grapes ...................................... 34

Other grape purchasers' awareness of muscadine
grapes .................... .................. 34
Other grape purchasers' aversions to muscadine
grapes ......................................... 36

Consumers' Perceptions of the Words "Muscadine" and
"Scuppernong".......................................... 37

CONCLUSIONS ...................................................... 42

APPENDIX A ....................................................... 43

APPENDIX B ....................................................... 62

REFERENCES ....................................................... 82


iv












LIST OF TABLES


Table Page

1 Retail prices of table grapes, test stores, Tampa, Florida,
August 29 through September 1, 1979 ............................. 13

2 Display space allocated to various types of fresh table
grapes ...................................... .................. 14

3 Average daily sales of various types of fresh table grapes, test
supermarkets ............................... ................... 14

4 Average daily sales of various types of fresh table grapes per
1,000 customers, selected supermarkets, Tampa, Florida, 1979... 16

5 Produce managers' evaluations of selected characteristics of
selected grapes ............................................. 19

6 Reasons given by muscadine grape purchasers for discarding
muscadine grapes............................................. 25

7 Refrigeration of muscadine grapes by purchasers................. 25

8 Consumption of muscadine grapes, adults versus children.......... 26

9 Occasions when muscadine grapes were eaten...................... 27

10 Muscadine grape qualities liked by muscadine purchasers.......... 28

11 Muscadine grape qualities disliked by muscadine purchasers....... 29

12 Muscadine grape purchasers' perceived differences in shelf life
of muscadine grapes versus other types of grapes................ 30

13 Repeat purchase intentions for muscadines by consumer familiar-
ity.................................. ....................... 34

14 Types of grapes observed by purchasers of other grapes, unaided
recall................................................ ...... 35

15 Other grape purchasers primary reasons for not buying muscadine
grapes ....................................................... 36

16 Muscadine grape purchasers' ability to recall another name for
the "Florida grapes"........................................ 40

17 Muscadine grape purchasers' ratings of selected names for "the
grapes they bought"........................................... 41

v













LIST OF APPENDIX TABLES


Table Page

1 Average daily sales per store, by income area, selected
types of grapes.............................................. 63

2 Average sales per thousand customers, by income area, selected
types of grapes.............................................. 63

3 Produce managers' estimates of time required for packaging and
pricing selected types of grapes ................................ 64

4 Quantities and proportions of selected types of grapes discarded
at time of packaging......................................... 64

5 Produce managers' perception of shelf life for selected grapes.. 65

6 Produce managers' ratings of selected grapes' general appearance. 65

7 Produce managers' rating of selected grapes' color.............. 66

8 Produce managers rating of selected grapes' surface blemishes... 66

9 Produce managers rating of selected grapes with respect to the
proportion of mashed, crushed, or split berries contained in
1 ugs ....... ..................................................... 67

10 Produce managers' rating of selected grapes with respect to the
proportion of soft or rotten berries contained in lug........... 67

11 Produce managers' ratings of taste of selected grapes........... 68

12 Produce managers' rating of selected grapes for overall eating
quality ................................... .................... 68

13 Produce managers' opinions of the effects of using the words
"muscadine" and scuppernongg" in advertising on sales of muscadine
grapes ........................................................ 69

14 Average weekly grocery and produce expenditures for muscadine grape
purchasers and other grape purchasers .......................... 69

15 Purchase rates for selected types of grapes, by muscadine purchasers
and other grape purchasers .................................... 70


vi








LIST OF APPENDIX TABLES Continued


Table Page

16 Demographic composition of the muscadine purchaser and other
grape purchaser samples ................ ...................... 71

17 Number of days muscadine grapes were stored by consumers
before trying................................................ 73

18 Proportion of muscadine grape purchases on hand when inter-
viewed ....................................................... 73

19 Rating comparisons for selected characteristics, bronze
muscadine versus green seedless grapes......................... 74

20 Rating comparisons for selected characteristics, bronze
muscadine versus red seeded grapes............................. 74

21 Rating comparisons for selected characteristics, bronze
muscadine versus black seeded grapes........................... 75

22 Rating comparisons for selected characteristics, purple
muscadine versus green seedless grapes......................... 75

23 Rating comparisons for selected characteristics, purple
muscadine versus red seeded grapes............................ 76

24 Rating comparisons for selected characteristics, purple
muscadine versus black seeded grapes........................... 76

25 Rating comparisons for selected characteristics, bronze
muscadine versus purple muscadine grapes....................... 77

26 Muscadine grape purchasers' evaluations of sweetness and hull
texture or consistency by muscadine variety.................... 77

27 Grape pruchasers initial thought associations related to the
word "muscadine". ........................................... 78

28 Grape purchasers' initial thought associations related to the
word "scuppernong"..... ........................ .............. 79

29 Grape purchasers' attitudes toward initial thought associations
related to the words "muscadine" and "scuppernong".............. 80

30 Image profiles of "persons named muscadine and scuppernong"
based on respondents' descriptions of selected physical and
socioeconomic attributes..................................... 81


vii













ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS


We appreciate very much the patience and cooperation of the retail

supermarket firm. Without the help of the produce merchandiser and the

produce managers of the six test stores, this study would not have been

possible.

Ms. Felicity Trueblood was the grower representative in charge of

supply coordination. In addition to this responsibility, she also negotiat-

ed prices with the cooperating chain, provided financial support for the

point-of-sale material, and delivered grapes to the warehouse in her own

car. Her untiring efforts in performing these tasks is genuinely appreciat-

ed.

Appreciation is also expressed to Gervasio Cubenas for assistance in

editing and analyzing the data, and to Ms. Patricia Beville for typing and

editing the manuscript.


viii













SUMMARY


* The objective of this research was to determine the feasibility of
marketing muscadine grapes through supermarkets.

* An in-store sales test was conducted in six stores in Tampa in late
August and early September 1979. The test was conducted for only
four days because of inadequate muscadine grape supplies.

* Trade acceptance was determined by interviewing produce managers in
the cooperating stores.

* Consumer acceptance was ascertained by interviewing 78 muscadine grape
purchasers and 290 purchasers of other grapes.

* Although the sales test was far too brief to provide indisputable
evidence, muscadine grape sales appeared to compare favorably with
those of other seeded varieties.

* Average daily sales per store of the "Higgins", a bronze variety, and
of the "Southland", a purple variety, were approximately 13 and 12
pounds, respectively. They constituted 3.8 and 3.4 percent of total
grape sales.

* Sales per 1,000 customers were about 10 and 9 pounds, respectively,
for the bronze and purple varieties, compared with 11 pounds for a
black seeded variety and 188 pounds for Thompson seedless.

* Produce managers felt that muscadine grapes took slightly longer to
package than bunch grapes, but that discards at time of packaging
were less. They also perceived shelf life to be greater for muscadine
grapes.
* Produce managers down-rated muscadine grapes with respect to general
appearance, color, surface blemishes, taste, and overall quality.

* All produce managers indicated a willingness to sell muscadine grapes
again, provided sufficient quantities could be obtained.

* Purchasers of muscadine grapes were found to be similar to purchasers of
other grapes with respect to age, education, employment status, occupa-
tional classification, family composition, income, and sex.


ix









* The sample of muscadine purchasers had a significantly higher proportion
of black consumers than did the sample of other grape buyers.

* Virtually all muscadine grapes purchased were eaten out-of-hand as
snacks, primarily by adults.


* Consumers
tended to
seeds.


liked muscadine grapes primarily because of taste; some
dislike them because of tough skin and the presence of


* Muscadine grape purchasers that usually bought "Thompson" seedless
grapes tended to rate those grapes higher with respect to physical
characteristics than the muscadines that were purchased. However,
those that usually bought red or black seeded varieties rated the
muscadine grapes higher.

* Eighty-seven percent of the muscadine grape purchasers said they would
buy them again. Eight percent said they would not, and five percent
were undecided.

* This project demonstrates that muscadine grapes can be successfully
marketed through supermarkets. Although produce managers were not
overly enthusiastic, the muscadine grapes do appeal to a segment of
consumers, as evidenced by relatively high repeat pruchase intentions.

* Development of commercial markets will require that growers recognize
and meet the performance standards which other supermarket produce
suppliers adhere to, namely, dependable supplies of consistently
high quality products.


x









FRESH MARKET POTENTIAL FOR MUSCADINE GRAPES


Robert L. Degner, Kary Mathis and Gervasio Cubenas


INTRODUCTION

There have been several attempts at commercial grape production in

Florida, but until recently most efforts were not successful. Early

settlers, primarily along the east coast, attempted to grow European

varieties. These varieties were subject to various diseases, insects

and weather conditions to which they were not adapted, resulting in

failure. In the early 1900's another major attempt was made at com-

mercial grape production, this time in the Orlando area. By the 1920's,

approximately 500 acres of grapes had been planted within a 50 mile

radius of Orlando. The predominant varieties, "Concord", "Niagara" and

"Ives", were obtained from northern states. These varieties were not

adapted to Florida growing conditions, with the most serious shortcoming

their susceptibility to Pierce's disease. By the early 1930's, commercial

grape production was practically non-existent in the state (Hart and

Polopolus).

Continuing research by the Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations

has resulted in development of a number of grape varieties adapted to

Florida growing conditions. In 1978, there were 5 bunch and 12 muscadine

varieties recommended (Mortensen). The development of suitable varieties


Robert L. Degner is Assistant Professor, Kary Mathis is Professor
and Gervasio Cubenas is Research Assistant in the Food and Resource
Economics Department, University of Florida.





2



has stimulated interest in commercial grape production. Total acreage

is currently estimated at 300 to 400 acres, equally divided between

bunch and muscadine1 varieties (Mathis and Degner).

Until recent seasons, most production has been marketed directly to

consumers through U-pick outlets. Early in 1979, representatives of the

Florida Grape Growers Association requested assistance from the Institute

of Food and Agricultural Sciences at the University of Florida in conduct-

ing research to evaluate the fresh market potential of muscadine grapes,

specifically through commercial marketing channels. Muscadine grapes

were chosen rather than bunch grapes because they are native to the

southeastern United States and probably offer greater immediate pro-

duction potential due to the greater availability of adapted varieties.

Further, they are harvested as single berries rather than bunches;

growers were interested in trade and consumer acceptance of the product

which represents a departure from the more familiar bunch grape.

OBJECTIVES


The basic objective of this research was to determine the feas-

ibility of marketing fresh Florida-grown muscadine grapes through retail

supermarkets. Specific objectives were to 1) determine retail sales of

muscadine grapes relative to bunch grapes commonly sold by food stores,

2) determine trade acceptance of muscadine grapes, and 3) determine

consumer acceptance of muscadine grapes, with emphasis on repeat purchase

intentions.


"Muscadine" is the common name for a native grape of the southeast,
Vitis rotundifolia Michx. "Scuppernong" is the oldest named muscadine
variety and is frequently used as a common name for all muscadines. "Bullace"
is the common name for one of the seven species of wild grapes in the south-
east, and is sometimes applied to muscadines, also.





3


These objectives were met by conducting an in-store sales test, by

interviewing the produce managers of the cooperating supermarkets, and

by interviewing muscadine grape purchasers and other grape purchasers.

Details follow of procedures used during the research period of August

and September, 1979.


PROCEDURES


In-store Sales Test


Firm and Store Selection


A major supermarket chain in Tampa was selected to cooperate in the

in-store sales experiment for several reasons. First of all, the chain

selected appeals to a broad spectrum of customers as evidenced by stores

in practically all socioeconomic areas. Average sales per store are

approximately four million dollars per year. Thus, it was anticipated

that sales data from such stores would provide an accurate reflection of

all grape sales in a relatively short period for various socioeconomic

segments. It was also expected that a favorable in-store test might

result in laying the groundwork for market development potential with

the cooperating firm.

Florida Agricultural Market Research Center (FAMRC) personnel and

the produce merchandiser of the firm jointly selected six stores for the

in-store test. The six stores were selected on the basis of clientele

income in order to assess the effects of income and other socioeconomic

characteristics on grape purchase behavior. Two stores were selected in

"low" income areas, two in "medium", and two in "high" income areas.

The income area classifications were made on the basis of the produce




4


merchandiser's knowledge of the stores' clientele and confirmed by

examining census tract data.

No direct control was exercised by researchers with respect to

retail pricing or display space. However, most requests and suggestions

were honored. The produce merchandiser of the cooperating firm was

asked to price the muscadines about the same as seeded table grape

varieties obtained from other areas.

The produce merchandiser was also asked to allocate equal display

space to the two types of bronze and purple muscadine grapes used, and that

total display space for each color be similar to the space allocated to

other seeded varieties in the respective test stores.

It was also requested that each store display only point-of-sale

material provided by the FAMRC for the muscadine grapes. The Florida

Grape Growers Association did not provide the necessary point-of-sale

material as initially promised, so the FAMRC developed a four-color

price card, 5 1/2 X 7 inches in size, which depicted a stylized ren-

dition of bronze and purple grapes. The price cards used the slogan

"Try Florida Grapes" (Appendix A). The use of the words "muscadine" or

scuppernongg" was avoided so that consumers' images of and familiarity

with the words could be explored without introducing bias (Figure 1).

Produce managers in each test store were asked to display one price card

with their bronze grape display and one with their purple muscadine

grape display.

FAMRC personnel visited each store prior to the test to discuss the

research schedule and procedures with store managers and produce depart-

ment managers. Produce managers were also provided with written in-

structions for the in-store sales test, merchandising suggestions, and

adequate supplies of the price cards (see Retailer Instructions, Appendix

A).





5



Store Audit Procedures


Permission was also received from the firm to conduct daily store

audits. Trained market research personnel visited each of the test

stores daily to obtain grape sales data for all varieties, spoilage, use

of point-of-sale material, prices, and the amount of display space

allocated to each variety.

Daily transaction totals were also obtained for each store. These

transaction totals were used as an estimate of the number of customers

that each store attracted. This allowed grape sales to be expressed

relative to the number of customers shopping a given store.


Produce Supplies and Logistics


FAMRC personnel reviewed grape sales records from the cooperating

firm for the month preceding the in-store sales test to determine the

probable supplies of muscadine grapes needed to conduct the test satis-

factorily. The produce merchandiser agreed to order fifty 22 pound lugs

each week of each color. He felt this quantity was required to supply

all stores in the chain. A 22 pound (net) lug was specified to conform

to the California-type lug which is the industry standard. Grower

representatives approved the California-sized lug. A larger lug puts

Florida growers at a distinct disadvantage because of produce buyers'

tendency to think in terms of price per lug rather than price per

pound.

Arrangements were made to begin the sales test in mid August, 1979.

Initial plans were for cooperating growers to make two shipments per

week to the chain's warehouse. Cooperating growers were asked to pick

on Monday, deliver to the warehouse early on Tuesday for delivery to the





6


stores on Wednesday. A second delivery was tentatively scheduled for

Friday with delivery to the stores on Saturday, contingent upon sales of

the first shipment. This delivery schedule permitted minimal time in

transit and storage to maximize shelf life. The muscadine grapes were

to be handled as any other produce item to conform with normal store

operations insofar as possible. Participating growers initially agreed

to provide sufficient quantities of both bronze and purple muscadine

grapes to the supermarket distribution center in Tampa to meet retail

demand in a minimum of six test supermarkets for a minimum of two full

weeks. The test was to be conducted using both colors of muscadines to

determine consumer preference. Growers were interested in supplying

quantities in excess of the requirements of the six test stores as a

supply "cushion" to be sold through other stores of the chain unless

needed by the test stores.

A grower representative was chosen as supply coordinator by fellow

growers. The coordinator's responsibility was to arrange with participat-

ing growers for necessary grape supplies, and to coordinate transportation

for delivery to the retailer's distribution center. Growers also agreed

to allow the supply coordinator to negotiate prices received by the

growers prior to the test.

Growers agreed that the varieties of the bronze and purple muscadine

grapes would conform to recommendations of the Florida Agricultural

Experiment Stations for fresh market use (Mortensen). They further

agreed to insure a high-quality pack acceptable to the cooperating

retailer. This included careful field grading, with picking and storage

to maximize shelf life. Growers were also asked to provide refrigerated

transportation at a temperature less than 50'F. (100C.) to the cooperating





7


retailer's warehouse. Growers were also asked to use conventional grape

lugs, such as those used by the California grape industry or North

Carolina grape growers, and to identify each lug as to shipper, color,

variety, and date packed to facilitate store audits and to pinpoint

shipping problems should any occur. Growers also consented to provide

point-of-sale material such as bin strips and price cards of sufficient

quantity for the six test stores (Grower Agreement, Appendix A).

Unfortunately, many, if not most of the grower agreements were not

met, requiring modification of the research plan. Lack of grower com-

mittment resulted in less than satisfactory data from the project.

Growers failed to provide sufficient supplies, refrigerated transpor-

tation, adequate quality control, and required point-of-sale material.

The most serious shortcoming was the small quantity of grapes

provided. Several growers had limited quantities of acceptable varieties

because of production problems. However, in many cases, the lack of

supply was due to a lack of grower commitment to the research project.

Growers reportedly received higher prices through U-pick operations or

retail outlets which they had developed on their own. Thus, they were

reluctant to supply grapes for the study.

Growers were dissatisfied with the price of 50 cents per pound that

had been negotiated by the supply coordinator with the retailer, even

though this price was greater than anticipated in the planning stages of

the study. The price was also above what the retailer was paying for

seeded varieties of grapes from California and above that usually obtained

by a prominent North Carolina grower (Norris, 1979).





8


As a result of grower dissatisfaction with price and difficulties

associated with making deliveries to the retailer, growers were able or

willing to supply only 24 lugs of "Dixie", a bronze variety, and no

purple muscadines for the first scheduled week of the test, which was

the week of August 20, 1979. Refrigerated storage was provided for the

24 lugs for the night prior to shipment, but refrigerated transportation

to the warehouse was not. Upon delivery, however, the produce merchan-

diser for the cooperating chain rejected the shipment because of their

blemished appearance2 and lack of size uniformity. He was disturbed by

the fact that the grapes were loose rather than bunch grapes, even

though this characteristic had been discussed. He expressed concern

that the substandard appearance of the "Dixie" muscadines would be a

detriment to his stores' produce departments.

The produce merchandiser was shown samples of "Higgins" and "South-

land" (bronze and purple varieties, respectively) by FAMRC personnel a

few days after the first shipment. He agreed to initiate the in-store

test the following week. He agreed to accept delivery of 50 lugs each

of "Higgins" and "Southland", provided the quality was similar to the

samples.

On Monday, August 24, several Gainesville area growers delivered a

total of 12 lugs of each variety to the University of Florida Food

Science Department's cold storage facilities. Because the growers were

unable to furnish transportation, FAMRC personnel transported the 24


2
Muscadine grapes have rougher skins than some other varieties, and
this often leads to spots or russetingg". The "Dixie" has a rougher
skin than many other muscadine varieties and more often exhibits the
spots.





9


lugs of grapes to the cooperating retailer's warehouse on Tuesday,

August 24 in a stationwagon. Two lugs of each variety were distributed

to each of the six test stores the following morning, in conjunction

with the stores' regularly scheduled produce shipments. Since growers

chose to make no further shipments, the 24 lugs were the only muscadine

grapes available for the in-store tests.


Trade Evaluation of Muscadine Grapes


Initial plans were to interview produce managers in all stores

handling muscadine grapes. However, since muscadine grape supplies were

limited to the six test stores, acceptance was ascertained only for the

produce managers of the six stores.

Produce managers in the cooperating stores were interviewed in

person by FAMRC staff approximately 10 days after the sales test.

Produce managers were probed to determine labor, requirements for packag-

ing loose grapes relative to bunch grapes, shelf life, the extent of

customer compliments or complaints, and their own evaluation of the

physical quality of the grapes. Managers were also asked for their

evaluation of the price cards used in the study and their willingness to

sell muscadines in the future.

Consumer Interviews


Grape Purchaser Samples

A professional interviewer was stationed in each of the six test

stores between the hours of 2:00 P.M. and 8:00 P.M. on Thursday and

Friday and 12:00 noon until 6:00 P.M. on Saturday, August 30 through





10


September 1. The hours were selected to obtain a consumer sample which

would include adequate numbers of homemakers employed outside the home.

Interviewers obtained the names and telephone numbers of all grape

purchasers willing to be interviewed by telephone at a later date.

Approximately 77 percent of all grape purchasers consented to be in-

terviewed by telephone. A sample of 200 muscadine grape purchasers and

200 purchasers of other table grapes was initially planned for the

study. However, since the supply of muscadine grapes was so restricted,

interviewers were only able to obtain names and telephone numbers of 107

muscadine grape purchasers. Of these, only 78 were subsequently inter-

viewed. A number provided incorrect telephone numbers, while others re-

fused to answer questions even though they had originally agreed to an

interview. Obtaining the required number of other grape purchasers was

no problem due to the greater numbers intercepted in the test stores.

Names and addresses of 532 purchasers of other grapes were compiled,

from which a random sample of 290 was drawn for interview.


Questionnaire Development

Questionnaires used in interviewing both samples were thoroughly

pretested in Gainesville prior to interviewing grape purchasers. Copies

of the questionnaires are found in Appendix A. Both the muscadine

purchaser questionnaires and the other grape purchaser questionnaires

were designed to provide basic information related to food and produce

expenditures in general and grape purchase patterns in particular. Both

questionnaires used word association and word "personification" questions

to assess consumers' perceptions of the words "muscadine" and scuppernong"

(Kahn, Asch). Muscadine purchasers were asked to evaluate selected





11


physical characteristics of the muscadine grapes compared to the type of

grape they usually purchased. Their repeat purchase intentions were

also explored.


Interviewing Procedure


Approximately one week after consumers were contacted in the stores

as they purchased muscadine or other grapes, they were interviewed by

telephone by professional interviewers. A minimum of one week was

allowed in order to give consumers a chance to use the grapes which

they had purchased Due to the very small number of muscadine purchasers

that had been contacted in the stores, numerous attempts were made to

interview every one of the purchasers. Some were called on many occasions

at various times of the day and night in attempts to complete interviews.

Other grape purchasers were called twice at different times of the

day in attempts to interview them. After two unsuccessful attempts,

interviewers were instructed to call a designated alternate which had

also been randomly selected.


FINDINGS


In-store Sales Results


Each of the six test stores received two lugs of "Higgins" and two

lugs of "Southland" muscadine grapes on Wednesday, August 29. The

muscadine grapes were received along with their regularly scheduled

produce shipments. Representatives of FAMRC personally visited each of

the test stores on the morning of delivery to insure display of the

muscadine grapes as quickly as possible. However, due to the lateness





12


of some deliveries and the large quantities of produce delivered to some

stores, it was late morning to early afternoon before the muscadine

grapes were packaged and displayed in all stores. Therefore, sales data

from the first day of exposure could not be used for analysis because of

the varying amounts of exposure time from store to store. Problems also

occurred on Saturday, September 1. Five of the six stores sold out of

muscadine grapes during the afternoon and early evening. The out-of-

stocks precluded the use of data from most of the stores for the fourth

day as well. Thus, when the inexact observations obtained Thursday and

Saturday are deleted, only 12 store-day observations could be used for

analysis.

Both varieties of muscadine grapes were packaged in green plastic

foam trays with a film overwrap. In most stores the net weight of

muscadine grape packages was slightly under one pound, usually about 15

ounces. Both varieties of muscadine grapes were priced at 78U per

pound, as compared with 834 per pound for the "Ribier", a black seeded


variety, which was available in some stores.


Red seedless grapes were


available at all stores at 88 per pound, but "Thompson" seedless were

heavily advertised at 58U per pound (Table 1). Red seeded grapes were

not available, due to the abundance and consequently low prices of the

seedless varieties during the test.

Display space was allocated approximately equally between the bronze

and purple muscadine varieties. Approximately 3 square feet were devoted

to the bronze and slightly less for the purple variety. The range was

from about 1.5 to 4.25 square feet. The space allocated to the bronze and

purple muscadines constituted about 10 percent of the total shelf space





13


Table l.--Retail prices of table grapes, test stores, Tampa, Florida, August
29 through September 1, 1979.


Type of Grape a Price per pound


---- Cents ----

Bronze muscadine ("Higgins") 78

Purple muscadine ("Southland") 78

Green seedless ("Thompson") 58

Red seedless 88

Black seeded ("Ribier") 83


a
Red seeded varieties were not available in the test stores due to the
heavy supplies and low prices of the seedless varieties.


allocated to all grapes (Table 2). The black seeded variety, was available

in some of the stores during the test. In these stores display space

allocated to this grape was only about one square foot or 2.8 percent of

the total grape display space. Because the "Thompson" seedless was

featured during the test period, it received a large amount of display

space. On the average, over 20 square feet of space was allocated to

them. The display space devoted to the green seedless grapes ranged

from about 7 to slightly over 30 square feet per store. Overall, 70

percent of the grape space was used for green seedless (Table 2).

Sales of both types of muscadine grapes compared favorably with those

of the red seedless and the black seeded. Sales of the bronze muscadines

average slightly over 13 pounds per store per day. Sales ranged from 5.3

to 19.1 pounds per day and constituted 3.8 percent of total grape sales

over all six stores (Table 3).





14


Table 2.--Display space allocated to various types of fresh table grapes.


Proportion
Type of grape Average Low High of total

-------------- Square feet ---------- Percent

Muscadines
Bronze 2.95 2.00 4.25 10.1
Purple 2.70 1.41 4.25 9.3

Green seedless 20.38 6.83 30.07 70.1

Red seedless 2.56 1.22 4.00 7.7

Black seeded 1.15 1.89 4.00 2.8

Totals, all types 29.40 15.94 42.28 100.0


a
Percentages are based on 12 "store-days" except for the black seeded
variety, which is based on 5 observations.


Table 3.--Average daily sales of various types of fresh table grapes, test
supermarkets.


Daily sales Average
Type of grape Averaged Low High proportion

------------- Pounds ---------- Percent

Muscadines
Bronze 13.1 5.3 19.1 3.8
Purple 11.5 2.9 19.8 3.4

Green seedless 300.2 81.0 584.0 87.9

Red seedless 9.4 0.0 25.5 2.8

Black seeded 17.4 7.5 33.5 2.1

Totals, all types 342.6 143.4 622.3 100.0


a
Averages are based on 12 observations from 6 supermarkets except for
black seeded which are based on 5 observations. Most observations were made
on Thursday and Friday. It should be noted however that these observations
preceded the Labor Day weekend and thus reflect heavier than normal sales.





15


Sales of the purple variety were quite similar. Average sales were

11.5 pounds per store per day, with a range of 2.9 to 19.8 pounds. On

the average, the purple muscadine grape sales amounted to 3.4 percent of

all grape sales. Red seedless sales averaged 9.4 pounds per store per

day while sales of the black seeded variety averaged 17.4 pounds. These

sales comprised 2.8 and 2.1 percent, respectively, of total grape sales.

Caution should be used in interpreting these figures, particularly for

the black seeded variety, because that variety was not available to all

stores in quantity. Green seedless sales averaged slightly over 300

pounds per store per day and constituted nearly 88 percent of the total

grape sales. Daily sales per store ranged from 81 to 584 pounds (Table

3).

Sales were also analyzed in terms of pounds sold per 1,000 customers.

On this basis, an average of 10.3 pounds of muscadine grapes were sold

per 1,000 customers. Bronze sales ranged from 1.8 to 26.1 pounds per

1,000 customers over the six stores. Again, sales of the purple muscadine

grape were similar. The average for the purple variety was 8.7 pounds,

while the range was 1.9 to 21.9 pounds per 1,000 customers. Slightly

over 11 pounds of black seeded grapes were sold per 1,000 customers and

slightly over 6 pounds of the red seedless were sold per 1,000 customers.

The green seedless exhibited the largest sales figures. On the

average, nearly 188 pounds of green seedless grapes were sold for every

1,000 customers. The range was from approximately 44 pounds to slightly

over 500 pounds per 1,000 customers (Table 4). The six test stores sold

a total of approximately 214 pounds of grapes per 1,000 customers.

Total grape sales ranged from 34 to over 300 pounds per 1,000 customers.





16


Table 4.--Average daily sales of various types of fresh table grapes per
1,000 customers, selected supermarkets, Tampa, Florida, 1979.


Daily sales
Type of grape Average Low High

Pounds per 1,000 customers

Muscadines
Bronze 10.3 1.8 26.1
Purple 8.7 1.9 21.9

Green seedless 187.9 43.8 505.5

Red seedless 6.2 0.0 16.9

Black seeded 11.2 4.4 32.8

Totals, all types 214.3 34.0 309.2


a
Averages are based on 12 observations from 6 supermarkets except
for black seeded which are based on 5 observations. Most observations
were made on Thursday and Friday. It should be noted however, that
these observations preceded the Labor Day weekend and thus, reflect
heavier than normal sales.


Grape sales were also analyzed by income level of the respective

stores' clientele. Unfortunately, when store sales are classified by

income areas, there are only four, three, and five observations for

"low", "medium", and "high" income stores, respectively. Thus, con-

clusions drawn from such scanty data may be rather tenuous. It appears

however, that there were no significant differences in muscadine sales

by income area (Appendix Tables 1 and 2).

Even though muscadine grapes were available in the stores for a

very brief period of time, it is apparent that consumers will buy them

if they are available. Most of the stores exhausted their supplies of

muscadines within the four-day test period. It should be noted however,





17


that this four-day period constituted one of the highest volume sales

periods of the entire year, the Labor Day weekend. To the nature of

many family Labor Day weekend outings may have resulted in disportion-

ately heavy grape sales. It is probable that grape sales in non-holiday

weeks may be substantially lower, in terms of total store sales and

sales per 1,000 customers.


Trade Evaluation of Muscadine Grapes

The questions asked of the six produce managers focused on six

major areas. They were labor requirements, shelf life, customer re-

action, product characteristics, point-of-sale (POS) material, and

finally, their willingness to sell muscadine grapes in the future.

On the average, produce managers reported that muscadine grapes

required about two minutes per lug longer than bunch grapes commonly

handled. Muscadine grapes took nine minutes per lug, where most of the

other varieties took only seven minutes per lug (Appendix Table 3). Due

to the short duration of this in-store test, the initial packaging and

pricing time requirements were the only ones considered. None of the

managers interviewed reported reworking any packages during the four day

period.

Only two managers reported discarding some of the bronze muscadine

grapes at the time of packaging. The average quantity of bronze grapes

discarded for all six stores amounted to 8 ounces (227 g.) per lug or

slightly over 2 percent by weight. Three managers reported discarding

some of the purple muscadine grapes at the time of packaging. However,

the quantity was quite small, amounting to only 3 ounces (85 g.) per lug

or slightly less than 1 percent (Appendix Table 4).





18


The largest proportion of discarded grapes was reported for the

green seedless variety. Managers discarded an average of 1 pound (454

g.) of green seedless grapes per lug or 4.5 percent. They reported a

discard rate of 5 and 6 ounces (140 and 170 g.) for the red and black

seeded varieties respectively, for a total of approximately 1.5 percent

per lug.

The brief duration of the in-store sales test made an objective

evaluation of shelf life difficult, if not impossible, for the produce

managers. Nevertheless, they were asked for their perception of shelf

life for the muscadine varieties and for other varieties commonly sold.

On the average, the managers felt that Florida bronze and purple muscadine

grapes would remain saleable for slightly over one week. The average

was 7.5 days (Appendix Table 5). The average shelf life attributed to

the green seedless was only 5 days, and for the red seeded varieties,

slightly less. Black seeded varieties had a perceived shelf life of

only 4.4 days. None of the managers observed deterioration problems with

the Florida muscadine grapes during the four days during which they were

in the stores. Several mentioned recurring problems with soft rot on

the stem ends of bunch grapes that had become detached from the stems.

Apparently the managers associated the tough skins of the muscadines

with increased keeping qualities or shelf life rather than associating

the loose grapes with rotting problems.

Managers received very few complaints or compliments in regard to

the muscadine grapes. Two managers had a total of three complaints.

All three were in regard to tough skin. One customer complained about

the tough skin of the bronze variety while two complaints were received

about the purple variety. Two managers each reported one customer that





19


made positive comments about the bronze muscadine grapes. Both customers

praised the taste of the bronze. No positive comments about the purple

variety were reported by the six managers.

The managers were also asked to evaluate a number of characteristics

of the grapes. These characteristics included general appearance,

color, surface blemishes, taste, and overall eating quality. They were

also asked to appraise the quality of the pack with respect to the

presence of mashed or crushed berries and soft or rotten berries. A

summary of the average ratings for each characteristic is found below

(Table 5), and detailed tables are found in Appendix B. Evaluations

were made with rating a scale where 10 equals "excellent" and 0 equals

"extremely poor" with respect to each of the characteristics.


Table 5.--Produce managers' evaluations of selected characteristics
of selected grapes.


Type of grape
Muscadines Green Seeded
Characteristic Bronze Purple seedless Red Black


--------------- Average ratinga-------------

General appearance 6.3 7.5 8.2 6.8 6.8

Color 5.7 7.0 8.3 7.3 7.2

Surface blemishes 4.3 6.3 6.5 7.3 6.8

Mashed or crushed berries 7.7 7.5 7.7 7.5 6.5

Soft or rotten berries 7.5 8.2 8.2 7.2 6.7

Taste 6.0 7.4 9.2 8.2 7.5

Overall eating quality 5.8 6.4 9.3 7.8 7.0


a
The rating scale used was: 0 = extremely poor and 10 = excellent.
Averages are based n" six observations.






20


On general appearance, managers rated the bronze muscadine lowest

with an average rating of 6.3. The green seedless was rated highest,

with an average rating of 8.2. The purple muscadine was second with an

average rating of 7.5 (Table 5, Appendix Table 6).

The bronze and purple muscadines also received the lowest ratings

on color, with average ratings of 5.7 and 7.0, respectively. However,

there was considerable disagreement among managers. Some rated the

muscadine grapes "extremely low" on color while others rated them

"extremely high". Again, green seedless received the highest average

rating with respect to color (Table 5, Appendix Table 7).

An analysis of the ratings with respect to the proportion of soft

or rotten berries in the lugs revealed an average rating of 8.2 for both

the green seedless and for the purple muscadine variety. The bronze

muscadine had an average rating of 7.5, slightly above that received by

the red seeded variety which averaged 7.2. The black seeded varieties

again ranked lowest with an average rating of 6.7 (Table 5, Appendix

Table 10).

Taste was also evaluated by the managers using the same rating

scale. The highest average taste rating went to green seedless with an

average of 9.2. The next highest average was received by red seeded

varieties with an average of 8.2 and then followed by black seeded

varieties with an average of 7.5. The purple muscadine taste rating of

7.4 was very similar to that received by the black seeded varieties.

The bronze muscadine received the lowest taste rating, averaging only

6.0 (Table 5, Appendix Table 11).

Finally, managers were asked to use the same rating scale to evaluate

overall eating quality. The green seedless variety received the highest





21


rating, 9.3. The red and black seeded varieties came next, with 7.8 and

7.0 average rating, respectively. The purple and bronze muscadines

received the lowest overall average ratings of 6.4 and 5.8, respectively

(Table 5, Appendix Table 12).

In addition to the product characteristics discussed above, managers

made some comments about the pack or the product. One manager expressed

a preference for the recloseable lugs used by one of the cooperating

growers. Another commented that the new muscadine grapes were certainly

an improvement over the native varieties, but he still felt that the new

varieties were better suited for jelly and wine than for the fresh

market.

Another said the lack of stems provided the consumer with a better

buy because they were not paying for the inedible stems. Another manager

expressed concern that the muscadine season coincided with that of the

green seedless season. He cited the 204 per pound price differential in

effect during the study as evidence of stiff competition.

Price cards used as point-of-sale material during the test were

also evaluated by the produce managers. The average rating for the

price cards was 8.7 out of the possible 10. Three of the managers

suggested using more color, and one suggested separate price cards for

each variety of muscadines, i.e., all bronze illustrated on one and all

purple on the other. The managers were satisfied with the size and

overall quality. The managers said they had not received POS material

for other grapes.

Managers were asked to estimate what effect, if any, the use of the

term "muscadine" on POS material would have on sale of the grapes.

Their responses were limited to a 5 point semantic differential scale





22


which ranged from "very negative" to "very positive". Two managers felt

that the use of the word muscadine would have a slightly negative effect

on sales, one felt that it would have no effect either way, while two

felt that the use of the term would have a slightly positive effect on

sales and one felt that it would have a very positive effect.

However, an evaluation of the term scuppernongg" for bronze muscadine

grapes was judged to be slightly less than desirable. One felt that the

use of the term would have a very negative effect on sales. Two others

felt that it would have a slightly negative effect and one felt that it

would have a neutral effect. The remaining two managers felt that using

the term scuppernong would have a slightly positive effect on sales

(Appendix Table 13).

All managers expressed an interest in selling both varieties of

muscadine grapes again next year, provided a sufficient supply could be

obtained. The overall consensus was that there was a market for this

particular kind of grape. Most were quick to point out that it would

never be a large volume commodity like the green seedless grape, but

that it could compete with other seeded varieties if priced competively

and promoted.

Consumer Survey


A total of 78 muscadine grape purchasers and 290 purchasers of

other table grapes (termed "other grape purchasers") were interviewed by

telephone approximately one week after they had been contacted in the

stores. Muscadine grape purchasers and other grape purchasers spent an

average of slightly over $50.00 per week on all groceries and approximately





23


$10.00 per week or about 19 percent on produce. There were no statistically

significant differences in total grocery expenditures or produce expenditures

between the two groups of grape purchasers (Appendix Table 14).

Purchase rates for selected types of table grapes were analyzed for

the muscadine purchaser sample and the other grape purchaser sample.

Purchase rates were classified as "light", "medium" or "heavy". "Light"

users were defined as those that made a purchase once per month or less

and "medium", two to three times per month. "Heavy" users were defined

as those that made a purchase of once per week or more.

An analysis of the two groups' purchase rates for selective types

of table grapes revealed that the purchase rates for green seedless

grapes were significantly different for the two groups (Appendix Table

15). About half of the muscadine purchasers were classified as heavy users

(purchase once per week or more) of green seedless grapes but almost 60

percent of the other grape purchasers were classified as heavy users of

green seedless grapes. On the other hand, a slightly larger proportion

of muscadine grape purchasers were classified as heavy users of green,

red, and black seeded varieties. For example, 5.5 percent of the muscadine

purchasers were classified as heavy users of red seeded grapes compared

with only 1.7 percent of the other grape purchasers. Further, slightly

over 16 percent of the muscadine purchasers were classified as hbavy

users of black seeded varieties compared with only 3.5 percent of the

other grape purchaser sample. Conversely, a very high proportion of the

other grape purchasers sampled were classified as being light users of

the seeded varieties.

A number of demographic and socioeconomic variables were compared

for the two groups of grape purchasers. Chi-square analysis was used to





24


determine whether or not statistically significant differences existed

between the two groups with respect to age, education, employment status

of the household head, family composition, race, income, and sex of the

purchaser (Appendix Table 16). The only statistically significant

difference was with respect to race, which is consistent with other

findings (Proctor). Thirty-nine percent of the grape purchasers were

black compared with only 22 percent of the other grape purchaser sample.

It was found that blacks were more familiar with muscadines than were

whites. Blacks' greater familiarity with muscadines is probably due to

predominantly rural southern backgrounds and the fact that muscadine

grapes grow wild in many southern areas.


Purchasers' Evaluations of Muscadine Grapes


Muscadine grape purchasers were not called for an interview until

at least seven days had elasped from the time they had purchased the

muscadine grapes. Two-thirds had tried the grapes the same day of

purchase. Over 97 percent had tried them within one day and all re-

spondents had tried them within four days of purchase. On the day of

interview approximately 90 percent had consumed or had discarded all

muscadines purchased. Only 8 percent reported having some on hand

(Appendix Tables 17, 18). Four of the 78 respondents, slightly over 5

percent, said they discarded the muscadine grapes without eating them.

All discards occurred within 24 hours of purchase. Three of the four

said they simply did not like the taste, while one said that they were

spoiled. Interestingly, the one person reporting spoilage had refrigerat-

ed the muscadine grapes. Two of the three respondents said they did not

like the taste, two had not refrigerated the grapes; one had (Table 6).





25


Tdble 6.--Reasons given by muscadine grape purchasers for discarding
muscadine grapes.


Reason Number Percent


Did not like taste 3 75.0

Spoilage 1 25.0


Totals 4 100.0



Almost 90 percent of the grape purchasers refrigerated their grapes but

slightly over 10 percent did not (Table 7).


Table 7.--Refrigeration of muscadine grapes by purchasers.


Reason Number Percent


Type of home storage 69 88.5

Unrefrigerated 8 10.2

Do not recall 1 1.3


Totals 78 100.0


Consumption patterns


Adults were the major consumers of the muscadine grapes purchased.

Approximately three-fourths of the respondents said adults in the house-

holds consumed most of the muscadine grapes. Children were the primary

consumers in slightly less than 10 percent of the households. The





26


remaining 16 percent of the respondents said that adults and children

consumed the muscadine grapes in equal proportions (Table 8).


Table 8.--Consumption of muscadine grapes, adults versus children.



Major consumers of muscadine
grapes purchased Number Percent


Adults consumed most 55 74.3

Children 7 9.4

Both equally 12 16.2


Totalsa 74 100.0


a
Percentage does not sum to 100 due to rounding.


Virtually all of the grapes were eaten fresh, as out-of-hand snacks.

Only one person reported eating muscadine grapes as part of a meal.

Morning, afternoon, and nighttime snacks were mentioned by 52, 77, and

71 percent of the respondents, respectively, as times when they ate

muscadine grapes (Table 9). The one person that ate muscadine grapes as

part of a meal used them in a salad. None of the respondents used the

grapes in jellies, for juices, or wine.


Evaluation of muscadine grave characteristics


Muscadine grape purchasers were probed to determine the muscadine

grape qualities they liked most and the qualities disliked most. Most

respondents were able to verbalize only one or two qualities.





27


Table 9.--Occasions when muscadine grapes were eaten.


Occasion Responses


Number Percenta

Breakfast 0 0
Morning snack 39 52
Lunch 1 1
Afternoon snack 58 77
Dinner 0 0
Nighttime snack 53 71


Total number of respondents 75 ---


a
Percentages are based on 75 respondents: the total percentage
exceeds 100 because of multiple responses.


Qualities liked.--Taste was the first quality cited by 57 percent of the

muscadine purchasers. When probed for additional responses two-thirds of all

respondents stated taste as a quality liked. Sweetness, texture, juiciness

and appearance were mentioned first by 15, 7, 7, and 3 percent, respectively.

When all responses are analyzed, these same qualities were mentioned by

35, 17, 12 and 8 percent of the respondents. A few mentioned size,

smell, color, freshness, general eating quality, and price as qualities

liked most. Several mentioned nostagia and medicinal qualities, which

are included in a miscellaneous category (Table 10).

Qualities disliked.--Thirty-two percent of the muscadine purchasers

mentioned tough skin as the quality disliked most. Seeds, tartness, and

taste were mentioned by 9, 8, and 3 percent, respectively. Four percent

mentioned the high price as the thing they disliked the most. Analysis of

subsequent responses revealed that tough skins were disliked by 42 percent





28


Table lO.--Muscadine grape qualities liked by muscadine purchasers.



Qualities liked most First response All responses

--------------- Percenta-- ----------

Taste 57 67
Sweetness 15 35
Texture 7 17
Juiciness 7 12
Appearance 3 8
Size 1 4
Smell 0 1
Color 0 1
Freshness 0 5
General eating qualities 0 5
Price 0 1
Miscellaneous 4 4
Nothing at all 7 7


Totals 100c d


a
Percentages are based on 75 observations.

b
"Miscellaneous" includes nostalgia, medicinal qualities.

c
Does not sum to 100 percent due to rounding.

d
Percentages were not summed because of multiple responses.


of the respondents, seeds by 16 percent, and tartness by 11 percent. It

should be noted that 41 percent of the respondents had no complaints at

all about the muscadine grapes (Table 11).

Perceived shelf life.--About two-thirds of the muscadine grape

purchasers felt that the shelf life of the muscadine grapes would be no

different from the type of grapes that they normally buy. The remaining

respondents were about evenly divided as to which type of grape would





29


Table 11.--Muscadine grape qualities disliked by muscadine purchasers.



Quality disliked most First response All responses


--------------- Percent ---------------

Tough skin 32 42
Seeds 9 16
Too tart 8 11
Taste (general) 3 3
Watery 1 1
Color 1 1
Appearance 0 1
Not ripe enough 0 1
Price 4 4
No complaints 41 41


Total 100


a
Percentages were based on 76 observations.

b
Does not sum to 100 percent due to rounding.

c
Percentages were not summed because of multiple responses.



have a long shelf life. Seventeen percent felt that muscadine grapes

would have a longer shelf life but about 16 percent thought the other

types of grapes would remain edible for a longer period of time (Table

12). On the average, respondents, thought that muscadine grapes would

have a shelf life of about one week, the same as other grapes. It

should be pointed out that most respondents probably did not have an

opportunity to observe the maximum shelf life for muscadine grapes.

Most started eating the grapes soon after purchase, and had very few

muscadine grapes on hand by the time of the interviews.





30


Table 12.--Muscadine grape purchasers' perceived differences in shelf life
of muscadine grapes versus other types of grapes.


Response Number Percent


No difference in shelf life 47 67.1

Muscadine grapes have longer shelf
life 12 17.1

Other grape have longer shelf
life 11 15.7


Totals 70 100.0


a
A paired t test on the shelf life ratings (t = 1.35, 60 d.f.) indicates
that muscadine purchasers did not perceive a significant difference
in shelf life for muscadine grapes compared with other types of grapes.

b
Total does not sum to 100 percent due to rounding.


Comparisons of the bronze muscadine variety with other table grapes.--

Muscadine grape purchasers were asked to rate the muscadine grapes which

they had purchased and also rate the type of grape usually purchased

with respect to color, flavor, freshness, shelf life and overall quality.

They were asked to rate these characteristics on a scale where ten

equals "excellent" and zero equals "poor". Additionally, they were

asked to evaluate the muscadine varieties with respect to sweetness

using a three-point semantic differential scale i.e., "too sweet", "just

right", "not sweet enough". Hull texture or consistency was evaluated

with respect to toughness using a similar type of scale.

Purchasers of the bronze muscadine variety who usually purchased green

seedless grapes indicated a preference for the color and flavor of the

green seedless grapes. Freshness and shelf life were not received to





31


be significantly different, but they judged over all quality of the

bronze muscadine grape to be below that of the green seedless

(Appendix Table 19).

Very few of the muscadine purchasers usually bought red seeded

grapes. The small sample size, coupled with the fact that red seeded

grapes are not nearly as popular as the green seedless grapes, resulted

in very few comparisons of the muscadine grapes with the red seeded

grapes. However, for those observations that were obtained, the bronze

muscadine grape received better ratings on all of the characteristics

evaluated. These results should be interpreted with caution; the dif-

ferences were not statistically significant (Appendix Table 20).

Comparisons of the bronze muscadine grape with black seeded grapes

revealed a preference for the bronze muscadine grapes. Flavor, freshness

and overall quality ratings for the bronze muscadine variety were signi-

ficantly better than for the black seeded grapes. The color and shelf

life ratings of the bronze muscadine were also superior to that of the

black seeded grapes, but the differences were not statistically signi-

ficant (Appendix Table 21).

Comparisons of the purple muscadine variety with other table grapes.--

Purchasers of the purple muscadine grapes that usually bought green

seedless grapes tended to rate the green seedless variety higher than

the purple muscadine variety. The rating differences for color and

flavor were both statistically significant; however, ratings for fresh-

ness, shelf life, and overall quality were not (Appendix Table 22).

Rating comparisons for the purple muscadine and the red seeded

showed a preference for the purple muscadine grape. However, this

preference is based on an extremely small number of observations. None

were statistically significant (Appendix Table 23).





32


Comparisons of the purple muscadine grape with the black seeded

grapes showed a preference for the purple muscadine grape with respect

to all the characteristics evaluated. All were statistically signi-

ficant. Shelf life of the purple muscadine grapes also received higher

ratings than did the black seeded grapes. However, as mentioned earlier,

this is probably based on received or subjective evaluations rather

than an objective comparison (Appendix Table 24).

Comparison of the bronze with the purple muscadine variety.--

Fourteen shoppers purchased both bronze and purple muscadine grapes.

They were asked to rate the characteristics of both varieties. The

purple variety received higher ratings on all characteristics. The

rating difference for color was statistically significant at the 0.05

probability level and rating differences for flavor and overall quality

were statistically significant at the 0.10 probability level. Dif-

ferences for freshness and shelf life were not statistically significant

(Appendix Table 25).

Muscadine grape purchasers'evaluations of sweetness and hull "texture"

or "consistency".--All muscadine grape purchasers were asked to evaluate

sweetness and hull texture or consistency of the respective variety or

varieties which they had brought. None of the bronze muscadine grape

purchasers said that the bronze was too sweet. Seventy-eight percent

said that the bronze was just right with respect to sweetness but 22

percent said that it was not sweet enough. Only one purchaser of the

purple variety indicated that it was too sweet. Eighty percent said

that it was just right and 18 percent said that the purple variety was

not sweet enough (Appendix Table 26).





33


The skin of the bronze variety was judged too tough by 39 percent

of the purchasers. Fifty-seven percent said that the hull texture was

just right. Surprisingly, two respondents or 4 percent, said that it was

not tough enough. Twenty-seven percent of the purchasers of the purple

variety said that the hull was too tough. Sixty-nine percent said that

it was just right, and 4 percent said that the texture or consistency

was not tough enough (Appendix Table 26).


Repeat purchase intentions


One of the most important measures of a product's potential success

is the degree of customer satisfaction as expressed by repeat purchase

intentions. A very high proportion of the muscadine grape purchasers

expressed an intention to buy them again. Overall, 87 percent said that

they intended to buy them again, 8 percent did not plan to buy them

again, and 5 percent were undecided (Table 13). Of the six persons that

did not plan to buy muscadine grapes aaain, five cited taste and one

expressed displeasure with the grapes because they were not ripe enough.

Slightly over two-thirds of the muscadine grape purchasers were familiar

with muscadine grapes to some degree. Eighty-nine percent of those

familiar with them intended to buy them again, 4 percent did not and 8

percent were undecided.

Of the 25 people that were unfamiliar with muscadine grapes prior

to buying them during the in-store sales test, 21 or 84 percent intended

to buy them again. Four purchasers or 16 percent did not plan to buy

them again; none were undecided (Table 13). Repeat purchase intentions

were also analyzed by variety of muscadine grapes purchased. Repeat

purchase intentions were similar regardless of the muscadine variety

purchased.





34


Table 13.--Repeat purchase intentions for muscadines by consumer familiarity.



Repeat purchase Degree of familiarity
intentions Familiar Unfamiliar Total

Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

Plan to buy
muscadines again 47 89 21 84 68 87

Do not plan to buy
muscadines again 2 4 4 16 6 8

Undecided 4 8 0 0 4 5


Totals a 43 100 25 100 78 100


a
Percentage totals may not sum to 100 percent due to rounding.


Other Grape Purchasers' Awareness of and Aversions


to Muscadine Grapes


A sample of 290 shoppers that purchased grapes other than muscadine

grapes were interviewed to determine whether or not they had seen the muscadine

grapes and if so, why they had not purchased them. The interviews also

provided insight as to whether these shoppers had any identifiable socio-

economic or demographic characteristics which would set them apart from the

shoppers that had purchased muscadine grapes.


Other grape purchasers' awareness of muscadine grapes


Other grape purchasers were asked to describe the types of grapes

they had observed while they were in the store on the day an interviewer had

contacted them. Respondents were given no clues as to what types of grapes





35


were actually offered in the stores. Respondents' unaided recall indicates

that 92 percent remembered seeing green seedless grapes in the stores

(Table 14). Almost one-fourth of the other grape purchasers recalled seeing

black seeded grapes in the stores, and about one-fifth, or about 21 percent

remembered seeing the red seeded and seedless varieties. Many of those in-

cluded in the 21 percent could not differentiate between the red seeded and

seedless varieties.


Table 14.--Types of grapes observed by purchasers of other grapes, unaided
recall.a



Types of grapes observed Percent
during shopping trip Number of total


Green seedless 266 92

Black seeded 69 24

Red seeded and seedless 61 21

Purple muscadine 24 8

Bronze muscadine 8 3

Purple and bronze muscadine 10 3


a
An additional 18 persons, 6 percent, recalled seeing muscadine grapes
when asked directly. Thus, 60 respondents, 21 percent of the other grape
purchasers recalled seeing at least one variety of muscadine grapes.

b
Percentages are based on 290 observations. Percentages and numbers
are not summed because of multiple responses.


Twenty-four of the 290 shoppers or approximately 8 percent recalled

seeing only the purple muscadine variety. Eight respondents, roughly

3 percent of the total, recalled seeing only the bronze muscadine variety.






36


An additional 10 respondents, about 3 percent, recalled seeing both the

purple and the bronze muscadine varieties. Thus, 42 other grape purchasers,

14 percent, recalled seeing at least one variety of muscadine grapes

without any aid or clues from the interviewers. An additional 18 persons,

6 percent, recalled seeing muscadine grapes when asked directly. Thus,

60 respondents, 21 percent of the other grape purchasers, recalled

seeing at least one variety of muscadine grapes (Table 14).


Other grape purchasers' aversions to muscadine grapes

All shoppers that recalled seeing muscadine grapes in the stores

were asked why they had not purchased them. The most common reason

given, mentioned by almost 43 percent of the respondents, as the fact

that muscadines contain seeds. A sizeable proportion, almost 27 percent,

mentioned price as being the primary reason for not buying them. Appear-

ance and uncertainty as to the nature of the grape were reasons given

by almost equal numbers of shoppers, roughly 12 and 11 percent, respectively.

Tough skin was the major reason given by two of the respondents, or 3.6

percent (Table 15).


Table 15.--Other grape purchasers primary reasons for not buying
muscadine grapes.



Reasons Number Percent


They contain seeds 24 42.9
Price (too expensive) 15 26.8
Appearance 7 12.5
Unsure of them 6 10.7
Tough skin 2 3.6
Like other varieties 2 3.6
Total 56 100.0






37


Consumers' Perceptions of the Words "Muscadine" and "Scuppernong"


Throughout the in-store sales test and during the initial sections

of the consumer interview use of the words "Muscadine" and "Scuppernong"

were carefully avoided. As mentioned earlier, the point-of-sales material

referred to the grapes only as "Florida grapes". This was done so that

images evoked by the words muscadine and scuppernong could be evaluated

with consumers without introducing bias.

Several projective interviewing techniques were used. The first

was a word association test which asked the respondent to verbalize the

first thing that entered his or her mind when the words muscadine or

scuppernong were mentioned (Kahn). A second projective technique used

was that of a word personification analysis (Asch). Respondents were

asked to describe persons named Muscadine or Scuppernong. Their des-

criptions provided insights as to the images that the words created.

Responses from the muscadine grape purchaser sample and the other

grape purchaser sample were quite similar. Slightly over one-third of

both groups mentioned grapes as the first thought association after

hearing the word muscadine. The next most frequent thought association

was "wine" with 16 and 11 percent of both groups, respectively. Only 1

percent of each group mentioned jelly as their first thought association.

The word "fruit" or names of specific fruits were cited by 8 percent of

the muscadine grape purchasers and 9 percent of the other grape purchasers.

Thus, 59 percent of the muscadine purchasers mentioned grapes, wine,

jelly, or some kind of fruit as the first word to come to mind after

hearing the word muscadine, as compared to 57 percent for the other

grape purchasers (Appendix Table 27). A variety of responses was obtained

from the remaining respondents. Interviewees mentioned many different





38


types of prepared food products such as cheese, ice cream, and seafood.

Various chemicals, medicines, and a number of mechanical objects such as

a motor scooter, canoes, machines, etc. were also mentioned.

Substantial numbers of muscadine purchasers and other grape purchasers,

38 percent and 28 percent, respectively, associated grapes with the word

scuppernong. Very few mentioned wine, jelly, or a fruit in general as a

response to the word scuppernong (Appendix Table 28). In total, 44

percent and 35 percent of the muscadine purchasers and other grape

purchasers respectively associated grapes, wine, jelly, or some fruit

with the word. The remaining responses indicated a considerable amount

of confusion with respect to the word scuppernong. A few associated

scuppernongg" with foods in general, with vegetables such as cucumbers,

mushrooms, or corn, animals such as dogs or fish, or mechanical objects

such as a scuba diving tool, a parachute, or a gong.

All respondents were immediately asked after their word association

whether the association was pleasant or unpleasant. Reactions were

similar for muscadine purchasers and other grape purchasers. Sixty-

three percent indicated a pleasant or positive reaction to the word

muscadine, 14 percent negative, and 23 percent neutral (Appendix Table

29). Reactions to the word scuppernong were not as favorable. Of the

muscadine purchasers' sample, 49 percent indicated a pleasant or positive

response to the word. A negative response was indicated by 22 percent

and a neutral response by 30 percent (Appendix Table 29).

Analysis of the word personification tests for the words muscadine

and scuppernong revealed no significant differences in responses between

the muscadine grape purchasers sample and the other grape purchasers.

Respondents generally described a person named "Muscadine" as a physically





39


attractive, middle-aged male who was well educated with above average

income. A very high proportion, 92 percent, indicated they would like a

person named Muscadine as a friend (Appendix Table 30). The overall

image evoked by the word muscadine appeared to be fairly positive.

The image profile generated for a person named Scuppernong was

judged to be less favorable than that evoked by the word muscadine. A

preponderance of those interviewed also described a person named Scuppernong

as male. However, they described the person as having less education,

less income, and as being less physically attractive. Fewer respondents

indicated that they would like this person as a friend. Thus, it appears

that the word muscadine would be preferred to the word scuppernong for

promotional purposes. However, it is likely that neither is ideal for

promoting Florida-grown grapes.

Prior to the questions about the words muscadine and scuppernong,

the muscadine grape purchasers were asked whether or not they knew the

"Florida grapes" by any other name. Only 11 muscadine grape purchasers,

14 percent, were able to give another name for the "Florida grapes".

The names given to the muscadine grapes included "scuffadines", "Scupper-

ings", "bullies", and "bullets". Obviously, these are corruptions of

either scuppernong or Bullace.3 Scuppernong was correctly used by only

one of the 78 respondents (Table 16). None of the respondents correctly

referred to the "Florida grapes" as muscadine grapes. From these results,

it is quite apparent that the terms muscadine and scuppernong are not

widely recognized and used, even among Florida consumers with a propensity

to purchase muscadine grapes.


3
See footnote 1.





40


Table 16.--Muscadine grape purchasers' ability to recall another name for
the "Florida grapes".


Response Number Percenta


"Bullets" 6 8

"Scuffadines" 2 3

"Bullies" 1 1

"Scupperings" 1 1

"Scuppernongs" 1 1


Totals 11 14b


a
Percentages are based on 78 observations.

b
Total does not agree due to rounding.


All muscadine grape purchasers were asked to rate the names "Muscadine

grapes" and "Florida grapes" for the muscadine grapes which they had

purchased. Purchasers of the bronze variety were also asked to rate the

fanciful name "Bronze Goddess" and the common name scuppernongg". Only

purchasers of the purple variety were asked to evaluate the fanciful

name "Royal Delight".

The term "Florida grape" received an average rating of 8.99, the

highest of the group. The names "Bronze Goddess" and "Royal Delight"

received the next highest ratings, 8.56 and 7.75, respectively. The

term scuppernong received the fourth highest rating with an average of

7.43, and the term muscadine received the lowest rating, an average of

7.19. Mean differences for the terms "Florida", "muscadine", and





41


scuppernongg grapes" were compared using paired "t" tests. A statis-

tically significant preference at the 0.05 probability level was found

for the term "Florida grape" over both "muscadine" and scuppernongg". A

similar comparison of the terms muscadine and scuppernong revealed no

statistically significant difference in the mean ratings (Table 17).


Table 17.--Muscadine grape purchasers' ratings of selected names for "the
grapes they bought."


Name Number Mean rating


"Florida" grape 72 8.99

"Bronze Goddess" 43 8.56

"Royal Delight" 40 7.75

"Scuppernong" 44 7.43

"Muscadine grape" 62 7.19


a
All muscadine grape purchasers were asked to rate the names "mus-
cadine" and "Florida" grapes using a scale where 10 = excellent and 0 =
poor. Only purchasers of the bronze variety were asked to rate "Bronze
Goddess" and "Scuppernong" and only purchasers of the purple variety were
asked to evaluate "Royal Delight."

b
Mean differences for "Florida grapes", "Muscadine grapes", and
"Scuppernong grapes" were compared used paired "t" tests. A statistically
significant preference (at the 0.05 probability level) for the term "Florida"
grapes" over both "muscadine" and scuppernongg" grapes was indicated (t =
4.5 with 61 degrees of freedom and t = 3.3 with 41 degrees of freedom,
respectively.) A similar comparison of the term "muscadine" and "scupper-
nong" revealed no statistically significant difference in preference.





42


CONCLUSIONS


Muscadine grapes can be marketed through retail supermarkets in

Florida. Sale volumes of muscadines compared favorably with sales of

other seeded grapes. Muscadines appealed to black consumers, in parti-

cular in the retail store test in Tampa in 1979. These findings are

consistent with other studies (Proctor).

Grapes of all types are primarily a snack food, and most muscadines

were eaten by adults rather than children. Consumers buying muscadines

said they would purchase them again, and supermarket produce managers

would handle muscadine grapes if available.

Current Florida production of muscadines is small and widely dis-

persed over the state. These conditions make it extremely difficult for

the industry to provide commercial quantities of grapes for significant

retail marketing. Individual growers with larger acreages have been

successful in marketing their grapes through local retail food stores.

Packing, assembling, storing and distributing adequate consistent

supplies of high quality muscadine grapes to supermarkets is apparently

not within the capability of the present Florida industry. Virtually

all Florida growers have small acreages, operated on a part-time or

hobby basis. Developing packing and refrigeration facilities, providing

containers and transportation, and operating in the competitive pricing

environment of commercial produce channels is not feasible for most

growers as long as they act independently. Entering the commercial

market will require growers to adapt commercial production and distribution

techniques. Florida muscadine growers must determine, individually and

collectively, if they wish to enter this market.

































APPENDIX A





44


FLORIDA GRAPE GROWER'S AGREEMENT

with
The Florida Cooperative Extension Service
and
The Florida Agricultural Experiment Station


Project Title:


Commercial Fresh Market Potential for Florida Muscadine
Grapes


In order to achieve the objectives of this research project I, the under-
signed, hereby agree to the following:

1. To provide the following quantities and varieties of grapes during
the time period indicated:


Variety or varieties Quantity Dates


(22.5 lb. lugs)
Bronze

a) Carlos
b) Dixie _______ _____ _______
c) Higgins
d) Fry

Black

(a) Southland
b) Magoon
(c) Cowart
(d) Jumbo


2. Prices paid to all growers will
the test by Felicity Trueblood,
the cooperating retailer.


be negotiated and agreed to prior to
a representative of the growers, and





45


3. Agree to carefully monitor the quality of grapes shipped to insure
a high-quality pack acceptable to the retailer. I further agree to:

(a) pick during the cool part of the day, i.e., before 9:00 A.M.
(b) Sort to remove damaged, scarred, or undersized grapes, leaves,
and stems as well as other foreign matter.

(c) Pack in an approved container. Net weight should be 22.5 Ibs,
at the vineyard. The overfill provides an allowance for
shrinkage.

(d) Identify each lug as to shipper, color, variety, and date packed.

(e) Provide refrigerated storage (less than 500 F.) if necessary.

(f) Provide refrigerated transportation to the retailer's distribution
center.






Date ___________ Signed
Agent, Florida Grape Grower's Association



Date Signed
Florida Cooperative Extension Service


Signed ___
Florida Agricultural Experiment Station






UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
INSTITUTE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES


RETAILER INSTRUCTIONS


Thank you for your help in this marketing experiment.


The following


information and suggestions can help make Florida grapes a profitable item

in your department.


1. These grapes are harvested
varieties of the muscadine
and other southern states.
they are succulent and very


without stems. They are improved
grape which is native to Florida
They contain a few seeds, but
flavorful.


2. Please package them as you do your other grapes; however
since they are a new product to most shoppers, slightly
smaller packages may encourage sales.

3. Please use a refrigerated display for both varieties of
Florida grapes. Give them about the same shelf space as the
red and black grapes you normally sell.

4. Please use the enclosed price cards over your Florida grape
displays. Since this is an experiment our supply is limited,
but if you need more, contact Mr. Mitchell. Please do not
use any point-of-purchase material other than the price-cards,
since it may influence our experiment.

5. Please reorder as soon as possible. Although supplies are
very limited, you must avoid out-of-stocks if at all possible.


We appreciate your cooperation and sincerely hope that this will be

profitable to you.



Robert L. Degner,
Research Economist




COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATIONS COOPERATIVE EX FT NSION F PVIC;E
SCHOOL OF FOREST RESOURCES AND CONSERVATION


46


FOOD AND RESOURCE ECONOMICS DEPARTMENT
ORIDA AGRICULTURAL MARKET RESEARCH CENTER
1083 McCARTY HALL


GAINESVILLE, FLORIDA 32611
TELEPHONE 904/392 1846


'-Ur~l-n-ll.llli~













Try Flori
Grapes


da


Price card developed and used by the Florida Agricultural
Market Research Center in conducting an in-store sales
test of muscadine grapes.


47





48
Florida Grape Purdhasers




















GRAPE MARKETING STUDY

Florida Agricultural Market Research Center
Food and Resource Economics Department
IFAS, University of Florida

Hello, Mrs. Jones? (Verify identity of respondent). My name is
and I am a representative of the Agricultural Market Research Center at the University
of Florida in Gainesville. I am calling to ask you a few questions about the grapes
you bought last week at Kash and Karry. As I recall, you bought some (types) of
grapes. How many pounds of the (type(a)) grapes did you buy that day we contacted
you in the store? Have you bought any more grapes since that day? (If yes), what
type and how many?


Quantity bought
Day of contact Since contacted


(For office use)


Pounds


Bronze Florida
Purple Florida
Green seedless (Thompson)
Green with seeds
Red seeded (Tahay)
Dark purple or black with seeds


Had you planned or not planned to buy grapes before you saw them in the store?


2. Not planned


Type


(Circle)


1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.


;. Planned




Florida Grape Purchasers


3. During the summer months of June, July, and August, how frequently,
usually buy (type of grape)?


49
if ever, do you


Green seedless
(Thompson)


Seeded
red


Green


purple/bla


Never

Infrequently, < once per month

Once per month

Once every 3 weeks

Once every 2 weeks

Every week

Several times per week


4. Before I ask you more questions specifically about grapes, I would like to ask a few
general questions about food shopping. Of course, our conversation is strictly con-
fidertial. Approximately how much do you spend each week for food?

$ per week

5. Of this, how many dollars would you estimate is spent for fresh produce?

$ per week

6. What other fresh fruit items, if any did you buy last week? (all stores, all sh6pinc
trips) How much of each did you buy?


Item Quantity Item Quantity


(Read Zist)

Apples
Apricots
Bananas
Berries (all)
Cherries
Grapefruit
Lemons, Limes
Oranges


Pounds


Peaches
Pears
Plums & Nectarines
Pineapple
Melons (all)
Other (specify)


For Office use -- Grand total


Frequency


1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.


Pounds





Florida Grape Purchasers 50


7. Now I am going to mention a word that you may or may not have heard before. I
would like for you to tell me the very first thing that comes to your mind when
you hear the word, whether it makes sense or not. What is the first thing
that comes to your mind when you hear the word, MUSCADINE? Is that pleasant or
unpleasant to you? What is the second thing that comes to mind? Is that pleasant
or unpleasant to you?


Pleasant Unpleasant

Pleasant Unpleasant


Neutral

Neutral


8. Suppose someone named MUSCADINE moved next door to you. How would you describe this
person? (unaided response).


Female; /


Middleaged


Well educated


Physically attractive,


Old; /


Poorly educated; /


Tall

Rich


Unattractive;


short


Average;


Poor


Ethnic background

Other comments


9. From your first impression of this person, would you or would you not like this person!


Would like


2.


Would not like


10. Now I am going to mention a word that you may or may not have heard before. I
would like for you to tell me the very first thing that comes to your mind when
you hear the word, whether it makes sense or not. What is the first thing
that comes to your mind when you hear the word, SCUPPERNONG? Is that pleasant or
unpleasant to you? What is the second thing that comes to mind? Is that pleasant
or unpleasant to you?


Pleasant Unpleasant

Pleasant Unpleasant


Neutral

Neutral


11. Suppose someone named SCUPPERNONG moved next door to you. How would you describe this
person? (unaided response).


Female; /


Physically attractive,


Young Middleaged Old; /

Well educated Poorly educated; /


Tall

Rich


Unattractive;


short


Average;


Poor


Ethnic background

Other comments

12. From your first impression of this person, would you or would you not like this person?


2. Would not like


1.

2.


Male


Young


1.


1.

2.


Male


1. Would like




51
Florida Grape Purchasers



13. How many of the Florida grapes, if any, do you have left right now?

I. All are left (Terminate, explaining that you will call back in a few days
after they have tried them. If respondent does not know, have her check.)


2. 3/4 left

3. 1/2 left

4. 1/4 left

5. none ate all

6. Discarded without eating: why?

Spoilage _Disliked because of

14. Were they refrigerated immediately after getting them home? Yes No

15. How many days did you have them before you tried them? days

16. How long do you think you could keep them in your refrigerator without significant
spoilage? days (no range)

17. How long do you think you could keep the (kind) grapes you usually buy in
your refrigerator? (no range)

18. How did you use the Florida grapes? (Circle all ways used, specify percentages if
used in more than one way.)

How used Percent

1. Ate fresh
(If eaten fresh) what time of day or meal were they
eaten?)

a. Breakfast d. Morning snack
b. lunch e. Afternoon snack
c. Dinner f. Nighttime snack

2. Used in salad

3. Jelly/preserves

4. Fresh juice

5. Wine

6. Other (specify)

7. Don't Know





Florida Grape Purchasers 52


19. Who in your household ate most of the Florida grapes?

1. Adults
2. Children
3. Both equally
20. I would like for you to rate the Florida grapes on several points using a
rating scale where 10 = excellent and 0 = poor. (Rate characteristics) Now
how would you rate the type of grape you usually buy? (Rate only the type of grape
they usually buy).



(Circle type of grape usually bought
Florida Green Seeded
Characteristic Bronze Purple Seedless Green Red Dark purple

Color

Flavor/taste

Freshness when bought

Shelf life or keeping
quality

Overall quality




Now, I would like you to compare several other characteristics:

21. How would you describe the sweetness of:

--------------------- Rotate-----------------------

Florida bronze Too sweet Just right Not sweet enough

Florida purple Too sweet Just right Not sweet enough

Usual type Too sweet Just right Not sweet enough

(Specify)





Florida grape purchasers


53


22. How would you describe the skin or hull texture or consistency?
------------------ Rotate ----------------------

Too tough Just right Not tough enough

Florida bronze

Florida purple

Usual type

(Rotate)

23. What did you like most, if anything, about the Florida grapes? (Probe)

1. 2. 3.

24. What did you dislike most, if anything, about the Florida grapes? (Probe)


1.


2.


3.


25. If you were to see Florida grapes in your supermarket again next summer, would
you or would you not buy them again?

1. Would buy again.

2. Would not buy again -- why not?


26. Using the rating scale where 10 = excellent and 0 = po
following names for the grapes you bought? (Only one

1. Muscadine grapes
2. "Florida" grapes
3. "Bronze Goddess (If purchaser of "PForid
4. Scuppernong grapes (If purchaser of "Florid
5. Royal Delight If purchaser of "Florid(
6. None of these; suggested name:

27. Were the Florida grapes a new type of grape to you?

28. If no, Do you know this type of grape by another name?

Yes (If yes) what?

No, know but can't identify.

29. Have you ever patronized a U-pick vineyard in Florida?


or, how would you rate the
choice, Rotate 1-3).



a Bronze")
a Bronze")
a Purple")


Yes


No


Yes No





54
Non-Purchasers


3. During the summer months of June, July, and August, how frequently, if ever, do you
usually buy (type of grape)?


Green seedless
Frequency (Thompson)


Seeded
Green red


purple/black


1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.


Never

Infrequently, < once per month

Once per month

Once every 3 weeks

Once every 2 weeks

Every week

Several times per week


4. Before I ask you more questions specifically about grapes, I would like to ask a few
general questions about food shopping. Of course, our conversation is strictly con-
fidential. Approximately how much do you spend each week for food?

$ per week

5. Of this, how many dollars would you estimate is spent for fresh produce?

$ per week
hat other fresh fruit items, if any did you buy last week? (all stores, all shopping
trips) How much of each did you buy?


Item Quantity Item Quantity


(Read list)

Apples
Apricots
Bananas
Berries (all)
Cherries
Grapefruit
Lemons, Limes
Oranges


Pounds


Peaches
Pears
Plums & Nectarines
Pineapple
Melons (all)
Other (specify)


For Office use -- Grand total


Pounds


I @I II




Non-Purchasers 55

7. Now I am going to mention a word that you may or may not have heard before. I
would like for you to tell me the very first thing that comes to your mind when
you hear the word, whether it makes sense or not. What is the first thing
that comes to your mind when you hear the word, MUSCADINE? Is that pleasant or
unpleasant to you? What is the second thing that comes to mind? Is that pleasant
or unpleasant to you?


Pleasant Unpleasant

Pleasant Unpleasant


Neutral

Neutral


8. Suppose
person?


someone named MUSCADINE moved next door to you. How would you describe this
(unaided response).


Physically attractive,


Unattractive;


Young Middleaged

Well educated Pc


Old; /


poorly educated; /


Ethnic background

Other comments


9. From your first impression of this person, would you or would you not like this perso


Would like


2.


Would not like


10. Now I am going to mention a word that you may or may not have heard before. I
would like for you to tell me the very first thing that comes to your mind when
you hear the word, whether it makes sense or not. What is the first thing
that comes to your mind when you hear the word, SCUPPERNONG? Is that pleasant or
unpleasant to you? What is the second thing that comes to mind? Is that pleasant
or unpleasant to you?


Pleasant Unpleasant

Pleasant Unpleasant


Neutral

Neutral


11. Suppose
person?


someone named SCUPPERNONG moved next door to you. How would you describe thi
(unaided response).


Male


Female; /


Young Middleaged


Physically attractive,


Old; /


Tall


Unattractive;


short


Average;


Well educated


Poorly educated; /


Ethnic background

Other comments

12. From your first impression of this person, would you or would you not like this persc


2. Would not like


1.

2.


Male


Female; /


Tall

Rich


short


Average;


Poor


1.


1.

2.


Rich


Poor


1. Would like






Non-Purchasers


30. The other day when we contacted you in Kash and Karry, you had just
How many different types of grapes were on display there? Number
Would you describe them?


bought some grapes.


(Unaided recall; circle number of ones identified)

1. Green seedless
2. Green seeded
3. Red seeded (Tokay)
4. Purple seeded (Ribier)
5. Florida bronze
6. Florida purple
7. Can't describe or name any
8. Other:



(If (5) and (6) Florida grapes) were not mentioned above, ask following:

Did you see any "Florida grapes"?

1. No (Go to Demographics)

2. Yes


31. Why did you decide to not buy the Florida grapes?


56




Demographics 57
Demographics


I would like to ask you a few more questions about you and your household.

32. How many adults (age 18 and over) are in your household?
33. How many children (under 18)?


34. What is the highest grade of school that you have


completed?


Elementary 01
Junior High
High School
College
or vocational
Graduate school
Graduate school


02
07
09
13


03
08
10
14


04 05 06


10
15


(Master's degree)
(Doctorate)


12
16

17
18


35. Are you 1.
2.
3.


employed?
Unemployed?
Retired?


Occupation
Occupation
Former occupation


36. Are you 1. Married (If yes) Is your spouse:


a. employed?
b. Unemployed?
c. Retired?


Occupation
Occupation
Former occupation


2. Unmarried


37. To which of the following racial or ethnic groups do you belong?


1.
2.


White
Black


3. American Indian
4. Oriental


or Alaskan native


38. To which of the following age groups do you belong?


1.
2.
3.
4.


Under
18-24
25-34
35-49


18 years
years
years
years


5.
6.
7.


50 64 years
65 + years
(Refused)


39. Which of the following categories best describes your household's total after tax
or take-home income from all sources?

1. Under $8,000 per year
2. $8,000-9,999
3. $10,000-14,999
4. $15,000-24,999
5. $25,000 and over
6. (Refuaed)


40. Sex of respondent:


1.


Female


2.


Male


Thank you very muqh for your help. We at the University of Florida appreciate
..r r-nnnora-nn in this rape marketing study.


1.
2.
3.
4.

5.
6.


(Circle)





58


Store
Manager
Date

PRODUCE MANAGER QUESTIONNAIRE
Grape Marketing Study

1. Approximately how many minutes does it take (on the average) to package a
lug of the following Florida grape?

a. Thompson seedless Minutes
b. Red seeded Minutes
c. Black seeded Minutes

2. At the time of packaging, approximately how many of each type would you
have to discard out of one 22 lb. lug?

a. Florida bronze Why?

b Florida black Why?

c. Thompson seedless Why? __

d. Red seeded Why?

e. Black seeded Why?

3. During the four days that you had Florida grapes in your store, did you
have to rework any packages of Florida grapes after they had been on
display?

Yes H_ ow many? What percent? % Why?


No

4. From the time of delivery to your store, how many days would each of the
following types of grapes remain saleable, i.e., what is the total shelf
life? What are the major causes of deterioration?



Type Shelf life Major deterioration problems

Florida bronze days

Florida black days

Thompson seedless days

Red seeded days

Black seeded days





59


5. What complaints (and how many) if any, have you had from your customers
about the Florida bronze? (Specify Number).

The Florida black? (Specify Number).

6. What compliments, if any, have you had from your customers about the
Florida bronze? (Specify Number).

The Florida black? (Specify Number).

7. How many requests, if any have you or your helpers had from customers
for more:

Florida bronze?

Florida black?_

8. Using a rating scale where 0 = extremely poor and 10 = excellent, I would
like to get your personal evaluation of several characteristics of the
Florida grapes compared to the grapes that you usually sell.


Florida Thompson Seeded
Characteristic Bronze Black seedless Red Black

General appearance

Color

Surface blemishes

Mashed or crushed
berries

Soft or rotten
berries

Taste

Overall eating quality

Point-of-sale material

9. Are there any other quality features that you would like to comment on?
No

Yes What?





Non-Purchasers 60





















GRAPE MARKETING STUDY

Florida Agricultural Market Research Center
Food and Resource Economics Department
IFAS, University of Florida

Hello, Mrs. Jones? (Verify identity of respondent). My name is
and I am a representative of the Agricultural Market Research Center at the University
of Florida in Gainesville. I am calling to ask you a few questions about the grapes
you bought last week at Kash and Karry. As I recall, you bought some (types) of
grapes. How many pounds of the (type(a)) grapes did you buy that day we contacted
you in the store? Have you bought any more grapes since that day? (If yes), what
type and how many?


quantity bought
Day of contact Since contacted


(For office use


Pounds


Bronze Florida
Purple Florida
Green seedless (Thompson)
Green with seeds
Red seeded (Tahay)
Dark purple or black with seeds


?. Had you planned or not planned to buy grapes before you saw them in the store?


2. Not planned


1. Type


(Circle)


1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.


I. Planned






61


10. How could the Florida grape POS material be improved?




11. If the Florida grapes were called "Muscadines" on POS material and in other
advertising material, what effect, if any, do you think it would have on
their sales?


Very negative


Slightly negative Neutral Slightly positive Very positive


12. If the Bronze Florida grapes were called "Scuppernongs"
and in other advertising material, what effect, if any,
would have on their sales?


on POS material
do you think it


Very negative Slightly negative Neutral Slightly positive Very positive

13. If you could be assured of a sufficient supply of the bronze grapes for
about three weeks next summer, would you or would you not want to sell
them?


Yes


Comment:


No Comment:


14. If you could be assured of a sufficient supply of the black grapes for aboul
three weeks next summer, would you or would you not want to sell them?


Yes


Comment:


No Comment:

































APPENDIX B





63


Appendix Table l.--Average daily sales per store, by income area, selected
types of grapes.


Income area
Type of grapea Low Medium High

---------------- Pounds ------------

Green seedless ("Thompson") 178.3 400.3 337.7
Bronze muscadine ("Higgins") 14.1 14.0 11.9
Purple muscadine ("Southland") 10.6 16.3 9.4
Red seedless 11.8 16.0 3.5

a
Red and black seeded varieties were not available in all stores
during the two days during which data were obtained.

b
Average daily sales for "low", "medium" and "high" stores are based
on 4, 3, and 5 observations, respectively.



Appendix Table 2.--Average sales per thousand customers, by income area,
selected types of grapes.


Income areasb
Type of grapea Low Medium High

------------- Pounds ----------------

Green seedless ("Thompson") 128.3 168.1 247.5
Bronze muscadine ("Higgins") 10.4 6.6 12.4
Purple muscadine ("Southland") 7.5 7.9 10.2
Red seedless 9.7 8.3 2.2

a
Red and black seeded varieties were not available in all stores
during the two days during which data were obtained.

b
Sales per 1,000 customers for "low", "medium", and "high" income
stores are based on 4, 3, and 5 observations, respectively.





64



Appendix Table 3 .--Produce managers' estimates of time required for packaging
and pricing selected types of grapes.


Time required to tray wrap, weigh and
price one lug
Average Lowest Highest


Type of grape


Red seeded

Green seedless

Black seeded

Bronze muscadine

Purple muscadine


------------- Minutes ---------------

7.0 3.0 12

7.0 2.5 12

7.3 4.0 12

9.0 3.0 12

9.0 3.0 12


a
Averages are based on six observations.



Appendix Table 4.--Quantities and proportions of selected types of grapes
discarded at time of packaging.


Discards
Type of grape Average quantity per luga Percent

Ounces Grams

Bronze muscadine ("Higgins") 8 227 2.3

Purple muscadine ("Southland") 3 85 0.8

Green seedless 16 454 4.5

Red seeded varieties 5 142 1.5

Black seeded varieties 6 170 1.8


a
Only two managers reported discards of the bronze muscadine grapes;
three discarded some purple muscadine grapes. Averages are based on six
observations.





65


Appendix Table 5.--Produce managers' perception of shelf life for selected
grapes.



Type of grape Averagea Lowest Highest

----------------- Days -------------------

Bronze muscadine 7.5 5 10

Purple muscadine 7.5 5 10

Red seeded 5.0 3 7

Green seedless 4.7 3 7

Black seeded 4.4 3 6


a
Averages are based on six observations.



Appendix Table 6.--Produce managers' ratings of selected grapes' general
appearance.



General appearance rating
Type of grape Average Lowest Highest


Green seedless 8.2 7 9

Purple muscadine 7.5 4 10

Red seeded 7.3 6 9

Black seeded 6.8 9 5

Bronze muscadine 6.3 5 8


a
The rating scale used was: 10 = excellent, 0 = extremely poor.

b
Averages are based on six observations.





66


Appendix Table 7.--Produce managers' rating of selected grapes' color.


Color rating
Type of grape Averageb Lowest Highest


Green seedless 8.33 7 10

Red seeded 7.33 5 9

Black seeded 7.17 3 10

Purple muscadine 7.00 3 10

Bronze muscadine 5.67 2 10


a
The rating scale used was: 10 = excellent, 0 = extremely poor.

b
Averages are based on six observations.


Appendix Table 8.--Produce managers rating of selected grapes' surface
blemishes.


Surface blemish rating
Type of grape Averageb Lowest Highest


Red seeded 7.3 5 10

Black seeded 6.8 3 10

Green seedless 6.5 2 9

Purple muscadine 6.3 3 10

Bronze muscadine 4.3 2 6

a
The rating scale used was: 10 = excellent, free of surface blemishes,
0 = extremely blemished.

b
Averages are based on six observations.






67


Appendix Table 9.--Produce managers rating of selected grapes with respect
to the proportion of mashed, crushed, or split berries
contained in lugs.


Mashed or crushed rating a
Type of grape Average b Lowest Highest


Bronze muscadine 7.7 3 10

Green seedless 7.7 5 9

Purple muscadine 7.5 5 10

Red seeded 7.5 4 9

Black seeded 6.5 3 9


a
The rating
split berries, 0
berries.


scale used was: 10 = excellent, free of
= extremely large quantities of mashed,


mashed, crushed, or
crushed or split


b
Averages are based on six observations.

Appendix Table 10.--Produce managers' rating of selected grapes with respect
to the proportion of soft or rotten berries contained in
lug.


Soft or rotten rating
Type of grape Averageb Lowest Highest


Green seedless 8.2 7 10

Purple muscadine 8.2 5 10

Bronze muscadine 7.5 3 10

Red seeded 7.2 4 9

Black seeded 6.7 5 8


a
The rating scale used was: 10 = excellent, free of soft or rotten berries,
0 = extremely large quantities of soft or rotten berries.

b
Averages are based on six observations.






68


Appendix Table ll.--Produce managers' ratings of taste of selected grapes.


Type of grape


Green seedless

Red seeded

Black seeded

Purple muscadine

Bronze muscadine


Averaged


9.2

8.2

7.5

7.4

6.0


Taste rating
Lowest


8

7

5

5

5


a
The rating scale used was: 10 = excellent, 0 = extremely poor.

b
Averages are based on six observations.


Appendix Table 12.--Produce managers' rating of selected grapes for overall
eating quality.


Type of grape


Green seedless

Red seeded

Black seeded

Purple muscadine

Bronze muscadine


Overall quality rating
AverageD Lowest Highest


9.3 8 10

7.8 6 10

7.0 6 8

6.4 4 9

5.8 4 8


a
The rating scale used was: 10 = excellent, 0 = extremely poor.

b
Averages are based on six observations.


Highest


10

10

9

9

9


-~----CI-





69


Appendix Table 13.--Produce managers' opinions of the effects of using the words
"muscadine" and scuppernongg" in advertising on sales of
muscadine grapes?



Rating "Muscadine" "Scuppernong"

---------------- Number ---------------

Very negative 0 1

Slightly negative 2 2

Neutral 1 1

Slightly positive 2 2

Very positive 1 0


a
The term
of muscadines,
varieties.


Appendix Table


"muscadine" was used in a hypothetical example for all varieties
whereas the term scuppernongg" was reserved for the bronze


14.--Average weekly grocery and produce expenditures for
muscadine grape purchasers and other grape purchasers.


Average weekly expenditures
All Produce proportion
Sample groceries Produce of all groceries

------- Dollars ------- ----- Percent ---

Muscadine purchasers 51.65 10.30 19.9

Other grape purchasers 50.14 9.62 19.0

Average, both groups 50.46 9.78 19.2


a
Comparison of mean expenditures for the two groups indicated no
statistically significant differences for groceries or produce (t = 0.51,
d.f. = 342 and t = 0.79, d.f. = 339, respectively).





70


Appendix Table 15.--Purchase rates for selected types of grapes, by muscadine
purchasers and other grape purchasers.


Purchase rate for selected
types of table grapes Muscadine purchasers Other grape purchasers

Number Percent Number Percenl
Green Seedlessc

Light 20 26.0 41 14.0
Medium 19 24.7 80 27.7
Heavy 38 49.3 168 58.1
Totals 77 TO1 0 00T

Green seeded

Light 64 90.1 284 98.3
Medium 4 5.6 4 1.4
Heavy 3 4.2 1 0.3
Totals 7T T00.0 289

Red seeded

Light 64 87.7 277 96.2
Medium 5 6.8 6 2.1
Heavy 4 5.5 5 1.7
Totals 73 100.0 288 100.0

Black seeded

Light 51 68.9 271 94.1
Medium 11 14.9 7 2.4
Heavy 12 16.2 10 3.5
Totals -7 218 O 100 O


a
The usage rates are defined as follows:
or less; medium, two to three times per month;


Light, purchased once per month
and heavy, once per week or more


b
Percentages may not round to 100 percent due to rounding.


c
Chi-square analysis indicates a statistically significant difference
1 user rate of "Thompson" seedless grapes by type of grape purchaser;
X = 6.1 with 2 d.f. Sparse values in cells of contingency tables for other
types of grapes precluded conventional Chi-square analyses.





71


Appendix Table 16.--Demographic composition of the muscadine purchaser
and other grape purchaser samples.



Demographic variable, Muscadine Other grape
classification purchasers purchasers All


---------------- Percent


Age of purchaser (years)

Under 35
35 through 64
Over 65

Totals

Education

Less than high school
High school graduate
Some college, college
degrees)

Totals

Employment status of household
head

Employed
Unemployed
Retired

Totals

Occupational classification

White collar
Blue collar

Totals

Family composition


Children
No children


29
57
14


34
48
18


33
50
17


100T


23
51

26


56
28
15


64
36


55
45


25
51

24


26
51

23


49
33
17


56
44


45
55


51
32
17


58
42


47
53


Totals


1O6




72


Appendix Table 16.--Continued


Demographic variable, Muscadine Other grape
classification purchasers purchasers All

---------------- Percent -----------------
Racec

White 61 78 74
Black 39 22 26

Totals T00 T00 TWO

Income (Annual)

Less than $8,000 22 23 23
$8,000 $9,999 21 12 14
$10,000 $14,999 13 14 14
$15,000 $24,999 17 16 16
$25,000 and over 6 9 8
Refused 18 26 25

Totals 100 100 100

Sex of purchaser

Female 91 90 90
Male 9 10 10

Totals T1' 100 TO0


a
Percentages for the demographic variables
numbers of muscadine purchasers and other grape


Age: 77
Education: 77
Employment status
of household head 77
Occupational
classification 56


281
278

282

211


were based on the following
purchasers, respectively:


Family composition
Race:
Income:
Sex:


73
77
78
78


283
279
288
290


b
Mean household sizes were also compared for the two groups. The
average for the muscadine purchaser sample was 3.5 compared with 3.1 for the
other grape purchaser sample. However, the difference was not statistically
significant at the 0.05 probability level (t = 1.44, with 353 degrees of
freedom).

c
The proportion o; blacks purchasing muscadines was found to be statis-
tically significant, X = 8.82, with 1 degree of freedom.





73


Appendix Table 17.--Number of days muscadine grapes were stored by cehsumers
before trying.


Number of days Cumulative
stored Number Percent percent

0 52 67.5 67.5

1 23 29.9 97.4

2 1 1.3 98.7

4 1 1.3 100.0

Totals 77 100.0 100.0





Appendix Table 18.--Proportion of muscadine grape purchases on hand when
interviewed.


Proportion of muscadine
purchases on hand Number Percent

All 0 0.0,

Three-fourths 1 1.3

Half 0 0.0

One-fourth 5 6.4

None, ate all 67 85.9

Discarded without eating 4 5.1

Do not know 1 1.3

Totals 78 100.0





74


Appendix Table 19.--Rating comparisons for selected characteristics, bronze
muscadine versus green seedless grapes.


Mean ratings Mean
Characteristics Bronze Green seedless difference ta d.t.


Color 8.3 9.7 -1.4 -3.13** 35

Flavor 8.2 9.4 -1.2 -2.20* 34

Freshness 9.0 9.7 -0.7 -1.61 34

Shelf life 8.8 9.5 -0.8 -1.53 30

Overall quality 8.5 9.6 -1.0 1.90t 34


a
Mean rating differences were analyzed using a paired t test. Stat-
istical significance at the 0.01, 0.05, and 0.10 probability levels are
designated by the following symbols, respectively: **, *, and t.




Appendix Table 20.--Rating comparisons for selected characteristics, bronze
muscadine versus red seeded grapes.


Mean ratings Mean
Characteristics Bronze Red seeded difference ta d.f.


Color 9.0 8.5 0.5 1.0 1

Flavor 9.5 8.0 1.5 3.0 1

Freshness 10.0 8.5 1.5 3.0 1

Shelf life 9.0 7.5 1.5 1.0 1

Overall quality 9.5 7.5 2.0 --- 1


a
Mean rating differences were analyzed using a paired t test.
istical significance at the 0.01, 0.05, and 0.10 probability levels
designated by the following symbols, respectively: **, *, and t.


Stat-
are





75


Appendix Table 21.--Rating comparisons for selected characteristics, bronze
muscadine versus black seeded grapes.


Mean ratings Mean
Characteristics Bronze Black seeded differences ta d.f.

Color 9.6 8.8 0.8 1.4 4

Flavor 9.8 8.6 1.2 2.45t 4

Freshness 9.4 8.4 1.0 2.24t 4

Shelf life 8.7 8.3 0.3 1.0 2

Overall quality 9.6 7.8 1.8 4.8** 4


a
Mean rating differences were analyzed using a paired t test. Stat-
istical significance at the 0.01, 0.05, and 0.10 probability levels are
designated by the following symbols, respectively: **, *, and t.


Appendix Table 22.--Rating comparisons for selected characteristics, purple
muscadine versus green seedless grapes.


Mean rating Mean
Characteristic Purple Green seedless difference ta d.f.

Color 8.6 9.4 -0.9 -1.96t 37

Flavor 8.4 9.3 -0.9 -1.85t 35

Freshness 9.2 9.3 -0.1 -0.2 35

Shelf life 8.9 9.0 -0.1 -0.26 34

Overall quality 8.7 9.4 -0.7 -1.58 35


a
Meari rating differences were analyzed using a paired t test. Stat-
istical significance at the 0.01, 0.05, and 0.10 probability levels are
designated by the following symbols, respectively: **, *, and t.




76


Appendix Table 23.--Rating comparisons for selected characteristics, purple
muscadine versus red seeded grapes.


Mean rating Mean
Characteristic Purple red seeded difference ta d.f.


Color 10.0 7.5 2.5 1.67 1

Flavor 9.5 6.5 3.0 1.50 1

Freshness 10.0 8.0 2.0 --- 1

Shelf life 9.5 7.5 2.0 1

Overall quality 10.0 8.0 2.0 --1


a
Mean rating differences were analyzed using a paired t test. Stat-
istical significance at the 0.01, 0.05, and 0.10 probability levels are
designated by the following symbols, respectively: **, *, and t.


Appendix Table


24.--Rating comparisons for selected characteristics, purple
muscadine versus black seeded grapes.


Mean rating Mean
Characteristic Purple black seeded difference ta d.f.


Color 9.4 7.4 2.0 3.65* 4

Flavor 9.4 8.0 1.4 2.75* 4

Freshness 9.6 7.6 2.0 2.83* 4

Shelf life 10.0 6.5 3.5 3.66* 3

Overall quality 9.4 7.0 2.4 6.00** 4


a
Mean rating differences were analyzed using a paired t test. Stat-
istical significance at the 0.01, 0.05, and 0.10 probability levels are
designated by the following symbols, respectively: **, *, and t.





77


Appendix Table 25.--Rating comparisons for selected characteristics, bronze
muscadine versus purple muscadine grapes.


Mean ratings Mean
Characteristics Bronze Purple difference ta d.f.

Color 8.0 8.7 -0.7 -1.79* 13

Flavor 8.1 8.7 -0.6 -1.29t 11

Freshness 9.1 9.2 -0.1 -1.00 11

Shelf life 8.6 8.8 -0.2 -0.80 9

Overall quality 8.6 8.8 -0.3 -1.39t 11


a
Mean rating differences were analyzed using a paired t test.
istical significance at the 0.01, 0.05, and 0.10 probability levels
designated by the following symbols, respectively: **, *, and t'


Stat-
are


Appendix Table 26.--Muscadine grape purchasers' evaluations of sweetness
and hull texture or consistency by muscadine variety.


Characteristic, Muscadine variety
evaluation Bronze Purple

Number Percent Number Percent

Sweetness

"Too sweet" 0 0 1 2
"Just right" 35 78 39 80
"Not sweet enough" 10 22 9 18

Totals 45 100 49 100

Hull texture or consistency

"Too tough" 18 39 13 27
"Just right" 26 57 34 69
"Not tough enough" 2 4 2 4

Totals 46 100 49 100





78


Appendix Table 27.--Grape purchasers initial thought associations related
to the word "muscadine".


Muscadine purchasers' Other grape purchasers'
Thought initial responses initial response


Grapes

Wine

Jelly

Fruit

Subtotal

Foods, general

Drinks

Vegetables, plants

Animals, general

Chemicals, medicines

Phonic associations

Miscellaneous

Negative taste, smell

Nothing

Totals


- ----------- Percent a

34 36

16 11

1 1

8 9

59 57

9 7

1 -b


4

1

11

3

1

1

9

100


6

1

4

2

6
-b

16

100


a
Percentages for muscadine purchasers and other grape purchasers are
based on 76 and 287 observations, respectively. Totals may not sum to
100 because of rounding.

b
Less than 0.5 percent.





79


Appendix Table 28.--Grape purchasers' initial thought associations related
to the word scuppernongg."



Muscadine purchasers' Other grape purchasers'
Thought associations initial response initial response

------------------ Percenta----------

Grapes 38 28
Wine 1 3
Jelly 1 0
Fruit 4 4

Subtotal 44 35

Foods, general 5 6
Drinks 0 2
Vegetables, plants 3 1
Animals 4 2
Mechanical objects 14 6
Chemicals, medicines 4 3
Negative taste 4 6
Positive taste 0 1
Geographic locations 1 1
Miscellaneous activities 2 6
Miscellaneous positive 1 --b
Miscellaneous neutral 4 3
Miscellaneous negative 1 5
Nothing 11 23

Totals 100a 100a

a
Percentages for muscadine purchasers and other grape purchasers are
based on 76 and 285 observations, respectively. Totals may not sum to 100
due to rounding.

b
Less than 0.5 percent.





80


Appendix Table 29.--Grape purchasers' attitudes toward initial thought
associations related to the words "muscadine" and
scuppernongg."



Word, type of Attitude
grapes purchased Positive Negative Neutrala Totalsb

-------------------- Percentc--------------

"Muscadine"

Muscadine purchasers 72 13 15 100
Other grape purchasers 60 14 26 100
Both groups 63 14 23 100

"Scuppernong"

Muscadine purchasers 65 15 19 100
Other grape purchaserse 49 22 30 100


a
The neutral category includes respondents that were
immediately verbalize thought associations.

b
Totals may not sum to 100 percent due to rounding.


not able to


c
Percentages for muscadine purchasers and other grape purchasers
are based on 78 and 290 observations, respectively.

d
Chi-square analysis indicates Do statistically significant differ-
ences in responses between groups, X = 4.1 with 2 degrees of freedom.

e
Chi-square analysis indicates a statistically significant differ-
e ce in responses between groups at the 0.05 percent probability level;
X = 7.0 with 2 degrees of freedom.





81


Appendix Table 30.--Image profiles of "persons named muscadine and stuppernong"
based on respondents' descriptions of selected physical
and socioeconomic attributes.



Attributed "Muscadine" "Scuppernong"

---------------- Percentb--------------

Age
"Young" 33 27
"Middle-aged" 57 55
"Ol d" 10 18
Total 100 TO

Education
"Well educate" 74 57
"Average education" 0 2
"Poorly educated" 26 41
Total 100 100

Income
"Rich" 66 59
"Average" 1 9
"Poor" 33 41
Total 100

Physical attractiveness
"Attractive" 74 58
"Unattractive" 26 42
Totals T00 TO

Friendship
Would like as a friend 92 88
Would not like as a friend 8 12
Totals 100 T-

Sex
Male 76 66
Female 16 24
Do not know 9 22
Totals T0 T


a
Chi-square analysis indicates no statistically significant differences
between muscadine purchasers and other grape purchasers at the 0.05 probability
level.

b
Percentages are based on 193 to 245 observations.





82


REFERENCES


Asch, S. C. "Forming Impressions of Personalities", Journal of Abnormal
and Social Psychology, Vol. 41:258-289, 1946.

Federal-State Market News Service, Los Angeles Wholesale Market Report,
Vol. LXV, (Various July, August Issues), 1979.

Hart, Kenneth H. and Leo Polopolus. Potential For Commercial Grape
Production in Florida, Agricultural Economics Report No. 8, Department
of Agricultural Economics, Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations,
Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida,
Gainesville, April 1970.

Kahn, Robert L. and Charles F. Cannell. The Dynamics of Interviewing, New
York: Wiley, 1957.


Mathis, Kary and Robert L. Degner, Grape
Marketing Environment, Staff Report
Research Center, Food and Resource
of Florida, Gainesville, November,


Production in Florida: The Current
No. 3, Florida Agricultural Market
Economics Deparmtnet, University
1977.


Mortensen, J. A. "Grape Varieties Recommended for Florida", Leesburg ARC
Research Report WG 78-1, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences,
University of Florida, Gainesville (Mimeograph) January 11, 1978.

Norris, Roslyn, Editor, Proceedings: Viticultural Symposium, July 27, 1979.
Florida A&M University, Center for Viticultural Science and Small
Farm Development, Tallahassee, Florida.

Proctor, E. A. Muscadine Grape Fresh Market Study, AG-153, The North
Carolina Agricultural Extension Service, Raleigh, North Carolina,
February 1979.




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs