• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Front Cover
 Abstract
 Title Page
 Acknowledgement
 Table of Contents
 List of Tables
 List of Figures
 Summary
 Introduction
 Objectives and procedure
 Findings
 Conclusion
 Reference
 Appendix A. The tender trim program...
 Appendix B. Beef consumer...
 Appendix C. Tables






Group Title: Industry report - University of Florida, Florida Agricultural Market Research Center ; no. 84-1
Title: Consumer acceptance of lean-fed beef in Florida
CITATION PDF VIEWER THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00026919/00001
 Material Information
Title: Consumer acceptance of lean-fed beef in Florida a report
Series Title: Industry report Florida Agricultural Market Research Center
Alternate Title: Lean-fed beef in Florida
Physical Description: vii, 36 p. : ill. ; 28 cm.
Language: English
Creator: Degner, Robert L
Riddle, Pamela H
Dodson, D. L
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 FL
Publication Date: 1984
 Subjects
Subject: Beef -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Meat -- Quality   ( lcsh )
Consumers' preferences   ( lcsh )
Genre: government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
bibliography   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )
 Notes
Bibliography: Bibliography: p. 22.
Statement of Responsibility: by R.L. Degner, D.L. Dodson and P.H. Riddle.
General Note: "September 1984."
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00026919
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: aleph - 000989123
oclc - 17856024
notis - AEW5981

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:

Lean%20fed%20beef ( PDF )


Table of Contents
    Front Cover
        Front Cover
    Abstract
        Abstract
    Title Page
        Title Page 1
        Title Page 2
    Acknowledgement
        Page i
    Table of Contents
        Page ii
    List of Tables
        Page iii
        Page iv
    List of Figures
        Page v
    Summary
        Page vi
        Page vii
    Introduction
        Page 1
        Page 2
    Objectives and procedure
        Page 3
    Findings
        Page 4
        Page 5
        Page 6
        Page 7
        Page 8
        Page 9
        Page 10
        Page 11
        Page 12
        Page 13
        Page 14
        Page 15
        Page 16
        Page 17
        Page 18
        Page 19
        Page 20
    Conclusion
        Page 21
    Reference
        Page 22
    Appendix A. The tender trim program and carcass specifications
        Page 23
        Page 24
        Page 25
    Appendix B. Beef consumer questionnaire
        Page 26
        Page 27
        Page 28
        Page 29
        Page 30
        Page 31
    Appendix C. Tables
        Page 32
        Page 33
        Page 34
        Page 35
        Page 36
Full Text















































-' -YW uiu -I~-pr~------~--- -I---- --- -- ~-- -~ ---- ~~u - ~ d~YI~.Uld_WUrJIC~ rR---u-u~- L- C~L--.r~ rc--ilt--.-..-_i


/ES"t,
t~(41"












ABSTRACT


The study obtained consumers' evaluations of lean-fed beef that had
been purchased in Florida supermarkets. The beef was from steers and
heifers that had been fed for a minimum of 90 days on a 75 percent con-
centrate ration. The carcasses, which ranged from 450 to 750 pounds,
were of "A" maturity, electronically stimulated at slaughter, and chilled
for at least 48 hours prior to shipping. The fat thickness over the rib-
eye ranged from 0.2 to 0.6 inches, and the rib-eye contained "slight"
marbling. All sub-primals were mechanically tenderized using a Ross
blade-type tenderizer.

Shoppers' names and telephone numbers were obtained in 20 stores in
13 Florida cities. A sample of 510 shoppers was interviewed by telephone
in mid-1983. The sample contained purchasers and non-purchasers of lean-
fed beef.

A nine-point rating scale was used to obtain evaluations for exter-
nal fat, marbling, tenderness, flavor, juiciness and overall quality of
steaks and roasts that had been purchased. Evaluations were favorable.
About 95 percent of the steak purchasers and 92 percent of the roast
purchasers planned to buy the lean-fed beef again. Only 3 and 4 percent,
respectively, said they would not buy it again. Product evaluations and
repeat purchase intentions were not associated with any identifiable
socioeconomic groups. There were few aversions to lean-fed beef among
non-purchasers.
















Consumer Acceptance of
Lean-Fed Beef in Florida









A report by


R.L. Degner, D.L. Dodson and P.H. Riddle









September 1984









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
















The Florida Agricultural Market Research Center is
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 agricul-

tural 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.
















ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS


This research would not have been possible without the extraordi-
nary cooperation of Mr. Lamar Blanton, Vice President, Meat Operations
of Publix Supermarkets, Lakeland, Florida. The same spirit of coopera-
tion was also found throughout the Publix organization, including all
Area Meat Department Supervisors and store level personnel. We are
very grateful for their patience and assistance.

Appreciation is also expressed to Polly Golden, Executive Director
of the Florida Beef Council, and to the many members of the Florida
Cowbelles' Association for the untold days of volunteer help and per-
sonal sacrifices required to obtain the consumer sample and to conduct
many of the telephone interviews. Without the Cowbelles' contributions
of time and travel, the cost of the research would have been prohibi-
tive.

Thanks also go to Dr. Zane Palmer of the Animal Science Department
of the University of Florida for his insights and assistance during the
formative stages of the project, and to Dr. Jim Simpson for his review
of the manuscript.

We also thank Ms. Renelle Kiddy for typing the manuscript.










TABLE OF CONTENTS


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS


LIST OF TABLES . . . . .

LIST OF APPENDIX TABLES . . . .

LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . .

SUMMARY . . . . . . . .

INTRODUCTION . . . . . .

OBJECTIVES . . . . . .

PROCEDURE . . . . . . .

FINDINGS . . . . . . .
Product Awareness and Purchases
Awareness . . . .
Purchases . . . .
Product Evaluation . . . .
Appearance . . . .
Ratings of Selected Product
Repeat Purchase Intentions
Aversions to the Product
Store Switching . . .
Beef Usage by Purchasers and
Lean-fed Beef . . .

CONCLUSIONS . . . . . .

REFERENCES . . . . . .


APPENDIX A:

APPENDIX B:

APPENDIX C:


. . . . .











Characteristics

. . . . .
SNon-purchasers
. . . . .


The Tender Trim Program and Carcass Specifications

Beef Consumer Questionnaire . . . .

Tables . . . . . . . . . . .


Page

. . . . . . . . . . . . i










LIST OF TABLES


Table Page

1 Consumers' awareness of the lean beef product and
ability to identify brand name . . . . . . . 6

2 Fresh beef purchases by consumer sample in previous
month . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

3 Lean-fed beef purchasers' ability to recall any-
thing "unique or distinctive" about its appearance . . 8

4 Propensity of lean-fed beef purchasers to observe
anything unique or distinctive about the product,
by demographic groups . . . . . . . . . 9

5 Ratings of characteristics of lean-fed steak and
roast purchasers . . . . . . . .... .. .. 12

6 Repeat purchase intentions of lean-fed steak and
roast purchasers . . . . . . . .... .. .. 16

7 Usual government grade of beef purchased, all
respondents . . . . . . . . ... .. . .. .16

8 Primary reasons given by persons aware of the lean
beef product for not purchasing any . . . . .... 18

9 Frequency of fresh beef usage for purchasers and
non-purchasers of lean-fed beef . . . . . .... 20

10 Weekly beef consumption, quantities, and number of
times served, by purchasers and non-purchasers of
lean-fed beef . . . . . . . . ... ... .20










LIST OF APPENDIX TABLES


Table Pagi

1 Socioeconomic and demographic characteristics of the
consumer sample . . . . . . . .. .33

2 Frequencies of shoppers' ratings for selected charac-
teristics of lean-fed steaks . . . . . ... 35

3 Frequencies of shoppers' ratings for selected charac-
teristics of lean-fed roasts . . . . . .. . 35

4 Respondents' knowledge of USDA beef grades . . ... 36










LIST OF FIGURES


Figure Page

1 Shoppers' ratings of external fat, steaks and roasts . 10

2 Shoppers' ratings of marbling, steaks and roasts .... 10

3 Shoppers' ratings of tenderness, steaks and roasts . 13

4 Shoppers' ratings of flavor, steaks and roasts . . .. 13

5 Shoppers' ratings of juiciness, steaks and roasts . 14

6 Shoppers' ratings of overall quality, steaks and
roasts . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14










SUMMARY


* This study obtained Florida consumers' reactions to lean-fed beef
that had been purchased in supermarkets. The lean-fed beef met the
"Tender Trim" specifications developed by the Florida Cattlemen's
Association Feedlot Committee and the researchers in the Animal
Science Department at the University of Florida.

* The lean-fed beef had been fed for a minimum of 90 days on a 75
percent concentrate ration. Carcasses were from steers and heifers
only (no bullocks), and were of "A" maturity. Carcasses were elec-
tronically stimulated, and chilled a minimum of 48 hours prior to
shipping. Carcasses ranged from 450 to 750 pounds and were of
yield grade 3.2 or better. The fat thickness over the rib-eye
ranged from 0.2 to 0.6 inches, and the rib-eye contained "slight"
marbling. The fat was not yellow, and the lean was not dark, soft,
or coarse. Additionally, all sub-primals were mechanically tender-
ized using a Ross blade-type tenderizer.

* Specific objectives of this research were to obtain consumers'
evaluations of the product, their repeat purchase intentions and
non-purchasers' aversions to the product. Further, reactions to
the product by various market segments was sought.

* A pool of approximately 1,500 shoppers was obtained by interviewers
in 20 supermarkets in 13 cities in mid-Florida in May and June
1983. Interviewers obtained permission from shoppers for a later
telephone interview.

* A ramdom sample of 510 shoppers was interviewed by telephone.

* Over 60 percent of the shoppers were aware of the existence of the
lean-fed beef, and about 58 percent had purchased steaks or roasts
within the previous month.

* Most shoppers that were aware of the product had not noticed any-
thing "unique or distinctive" about the product. Of those that
said they had, the overwhelming majority mentioned favorable attri-
butes such as "well-trimmed," "good color," etc.

* Purchasers of lean-fed roasts and steaks evaluated external fat,
marbling, tenderness, flavor, juiciness, and overall quality using
a series of nine-point rating scales. The evaluations were very
favorable.

* Nearly 95 percent of the steak purchasers and 92 percent of the
roast purchasers planned to buy the lean-fed beef again. Only 3
and 4 percent, respectively, said they would not buy it again.









* Product evaluations and repeat purchase intentions were not asso-
ciated with any identifiable socioeconomic groups. Also, repeat
purchase intentions did not appear to be affected by the usual USDA
grade of beef purchased. Thus, it appears that the product appeals
to a broad spectrum of consumers.

* There were few aversions to lean-fed beef among shoppers that had
not purchased any. Most had not bought it because of established
shopping patterns.

* Households that had bought lean-fed beef tended to consume more
beef than those that had not bought any. They served beef more
frequently and in greater quantities.

* Store switching as a result of the introduction of the lean-fed
beef appears to have been minimal. The sample had equal numbers
switching to and from the affected stores, The number of shoppers
switching to other stores may have been slightly underestimated
due to the sampling procedure. However, other business indicators
detected no significant switching.

* In conclusion, consumer acceptance of lean-fed beef appears to be
favorable. Although the study was conducted only in Florida, the
results probably have much broader.applicability because many Flor-
ida residents are recent immigrants from other areas of the U.S.
and because U.S. consumers' preferences for many food products are
relatively homogenous. Widespread distribution of a leaner grade
of beef may increase cattle feeding opportunities for the Florida
beef industry, and may result in greater economic returns.









Consumer Acceptance of Lean-Fed Beef in Florida


Robert L. Degner, David L. Dodson and Pamela H. Riddle*


INTRODUCTION


The 1981 Beef Industry Conference, sponsored by the Institute of

Food and Agricultural Sciences at the University of Florida, focused on

problems confronting Florida cattlemen. Marketing problems and opportu-

nities were among the most frequently addressed topics (Davis, McAteer,

Smith, West). Two of the most commonly discussed marketing problems

were (1) high transportation costs associated with shipping Florida

calves to feedlot areas and shipping processed beef back to Florida con-

sumers, and (2) consumer acceptance of "no-roll" or less-than-Choice

beef (Palmer, et al.).

It is ironic that Florida is a leading U.S. producer of feeder

calves, yet is a fed beef deficient state. Spreen reported that only 15

percent of the beef consumption in Florida is produced within the state.

He and others have also found that Florida slaughtering plants are

importing substantial numbers of live fed cattle in order to utilize

excess capacity (Spreen, Palmer). Increased feeding of beef cattle has

been viewed by many as a way to generate greater economic returns for

the Florida beef industry.

As a result of the discussions that occurred during the Beef Indus-

try Conference, the Florida Cattlemen's Association Feedlot Committee

and the Animal Science Department at the University of Florida formed a



*Robert L. Degner is an associate professor, David L. Dodson is a
visiting assistant, and Pamela H. Riddle is a research assistant in the
Food and Resource Economics Department at the University of Florida.










joint committee to develop a viable fed beef production and marketing

plan. The joint committee developed the "Tender Trim" program, a plan

to produce and market a quality lean-fed, "no-roll" (non-USDA graded)

carcass, which would be more economical to produce and retail than the

traditional USDA Choice grade. Excessive finish, frequently required to

achieve the USDA Choice grade, would be avoided to reduce feeding costs.

However, animals would be fed sufficiently long to attain a high degree

of consumer acceptance with respect to palatability. The term "Tender

Trim" was selected by the committee to give an identity to carcasses

which meet rigid quality criteria and to convey an image of tenderness

and meatier retail cuts to the trade and to consumers.

For carcasses to receive the "Tender Trim" designation, they must

have been fed for a minimum of 90 days on a 75 percent or higher concen-

trate ration, be subjected to electronic stimulation at slaughter, be

steers or heifers (no bullocks) of "A" maturity, and have a slight

degree of marbling. Further, the lean must not be dark in color, soft,

or coarse, and carcass must not have yellow fat. Carcasses must also be

chilled for at least 48 hours before delivery and be of yield grade 3.2

or better. Additionally, the adjusted fat thickness over the rib-eye is

limited to 0.2 to 0.6 inches, and carcass weights permitted to range

from 450 to 750 pounds. Carcasses must also be evaluated by a beef

grader employed by the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer

Services. Further discussion of the "Tender Trim" specifications is

found in Appendix A.

The carcass quality criteria discussed above were decided upon

after careful consideration of trade practices and research which had

examined consumer preferences associated with various beef grades and









carcass handling practices. Nevertheless, there was still concern about

how consumers would react to beef from carcasses which met all of the

"Tender Trim" specifications, because most published research had dealt

with limited carcass characteristics or handling practices. An opportu-

nity to evaluate consumers' reactions to beef from carcasses meeting the

"Tender Trim" specifications arose early in 1983 when Publix Supermar-

kets of Lakeland, Florida began to sell "Flav'r Lean" beef through their

Food World supermarket chain. "Flav'r Lean" is a "no-roll" beef which

essentially meets all "Tender Trim" quality criteria. Additionally,

"Flav'r Lean" sub-primals are tenderized using a Ross blade-type mechan-

ical tenderizer.


OBJECTIVES


This study was undertaken to obtain consumers' reactions to lean-

fed beef. Specific objectives were to determine lean-fed beef purcha-

sers' organoleptic evaluations of the product and their repeat purchase

intentions. Another objective was to determine whether non-purchasers

had particular aversions to the product. Yet another goal was to see if

product evaluations, repeat purchase intentions, or product aversions

were related to identifiable market segments, primarily socioeconomic

groups.


PROCEDURE


A pool of approximately 1,500 shoppers was obtained by interviewers

stationed in 20 Food World stores in 13 Florida cities during high-

volume weekend periods in May 1983. Interviewers obtained permission

from shoppers for a later telephone interview dealing with "meat









preferences and food shopping." Most shoppers were contacted between

2:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m. on Thursdays or Fridays. Shoppers were

approached while waiting in check-out lines; in order to minimize

selection bias, interviewers were instructed to contact the second per-

son in a given check-out queue and to select shoppers in rotating order

from all active queues. From the original pool of 1,500 names, a stra-

tified random sample of 510 shoppers was selected. The sample was stra-

tified by store, and weighted by the transaction count observed during a

"typical" week in mid-April. Names remaining in the pool were randomly

designated as primary and secondary alternates to the primary sample.

Telephone interviews of shoppers were conducted approximately one

week after the initial contact in the stores. A copy of the question-

naire is included in Appendix B.


FINDINGS


Compared with the overall state population, the shoppers that were

included in the telephone sample were generally older, better educated,

and had higher incomes (Sales and Marketing Management). Further, the

sample contained disproportionately high numbers of females and whites.

This was expected, due to the source of the sample. Nevertheless, the

sample size was sufficiently large to insure valid statistical analyses

of responses by most socioeconomic categories. The socioeconomic and

demographic composition of the sample appears in Appendix Table 1.





5



Product Awareness and Purchases


Awareness

The sample of shoppers revealed that a relatively high proportion

was aware of the new type of beef. Nearly 62 percent knew of it, and

approximately half of these correctly remembered the brand name (Table

1). Although higher socioeconomic groups generally exhibited a slightly

greater level of awareness and brand recall, the differences were not

statistically significant.

Purchases

Slightly over 58 percent of the shoppers had purchased Flav'r Lean

roasts or steaks within the previous month (Table 2). An additional 10

percent had purchased other fresh beef, such as ground beef, liver, and

short ribs. About 32 percent had not purchased any beef from the

cooperating firm within the previous month. Because the "Tender Trim"

carcass specifications would be most noticeable on the quality of steaks

and roasts, attention was focused on the customers that had bought those

cuts.


Product Evaluation


Appearance

Purchasers of Flav'r Lean steaks and roasts were asked whether or

not they had noticed anything "unique or distinctive" about the product.

The primary purpose was to ascertain consumers' reactions to the ten-

derizing process which leaves slightly visible perforations, although

reactions to other product attributes were sought as well.

Two-thirds of the purchasers had not noticed anything out of the

ordinary; of those that said they had noticed something, the overwhelming










Table l.--Consumers' awareness of the lean beef product and
identify brand name.


ability to


Response Number Percent

Aware of product

Yes 315 61.8

No 195 38.2

Totals 510 100.0

Brand identification

Correctly identified 150 48.2

Unable to identify 161 51.8

Totals 311 100.0



Table 2.--Fresh beef purchases by consumer sample in previous month.


Type of Beef Purchased Number Percent

Lean steak or roast 296 58.3

Other fresh beef 50 9.8

No fresh beef within previous month
from cooperating firm 162 31.9

Totals 508 100.0










majority mentioned positive attributes (Table 3). The most frequently

noted characteristics were that Flav'r Lean was lean, well trimmed, had

improved color, and that it appeared to be fresher, mentioned by about

12, 11 and 6 percent of all purchasers. "Good marbling" was mentioned

by one respondent.

Only two purchasers noticed that the meat had been pierced through

the tenderizing process. Two others thought that the product had more

blood or water in the package than beef which they usually bought. Only

one noticed less marbling, compared with beef available elsewhere. Chi-

square analyses indicated that shoppers over 50 years of age, indivi-

duals with 12 or fewer years of education, and those from small house-

holds had a greater tendency to observe unique or distinctive features

(Table 4).

The overall implications of the responses from this question are

that the appearance of Flav'r Lean is not perceived to be much different

from other grades of beef by shoppers that had purchased it.

Ratings of Selected Product Characteristics

Shoppers that had bought and served a Flav'r Lean steak or roast,

regardless of cut, were asked to evaluate external fat, marbling, ten-

derness, flavor, juiciness, and overall quality using a series of nine-

point rating scales. Consumers evaluated only those products with which

they had first-hand experience. Approximately 185 and 205 evaluations

were obtained for steaks and roasts, respectively.

Both external fat and marbling were evaluated using a scale where

"one" was defined as "too lean" and "nine" as "too fat." For both attri-

butes, most respondents judged the steaks and roasts to be slightly too

lean. These results are shown by the distribution of the respondents'









Table 3.--Lean-fed beef purchasers' ability to recall anything
distinctive" about its appearance.


"unique or


Response Number Percent

No, did not notice anything 176 66.4

Yes, noticed something (89)a (33.6)a

Lean, well trimmed 32 12.1

Improved color 29 10.9

Fresher 15 5.7

Looks pierced 2 0.8

More blood in package, watery 2 0.8

Good marbling 1 0.4

Little marbling 1 0.4

Miscellaneous 3 1.1

Unusable responses 4 1.5

Total 265 100.0b

aThis subtotal is not included in totals.

bTotal does not sum to 100.0 percent due to rounding.









Table 4.--Propensity of lean-fed beef
unique or distinctive about


purchasers to observe anything
the product, by demographic groups.


Respondent
category Observed Not observed Totals

Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

All respondents 89 33.6 176 66.4 265 100.0

Age

Under 35 11 25.6 32 74.4 43 100.0
35-49 20 24.1 63 75.9 83 100.0
50-64 30 42.2 41 57.8 71 100.0
65-older 28 41.8 39 58.2 67 100.0

Education

Less than high
school 13 41.9 18 58.1 31 100.0
High school
graduate 45 38.8 71 61.2 116 100.0
Some college 22 32.4 46 67.6 68 100.0
College graduate
or more 8 16.7 40 83.3 48 100.0

Household size

1 person 12 60.0 8 40.0 20 100.0
2 people 43 42.6 58 57.4 101 100.0
3 people 13 28.9 32 71.1 45 100.0
4 people 12 25.0 36 75.0 48 100.0
5 or more people 8 16.3 41 83.7 49 100.0

aChi-square analyses indicated that the propensity of lean beef pur-
chasers to observe "anything unique or distinctive" about the product was
significantly related to age, education, and household size. Computed x
values and associated probabilities were: age, x = 8.981, P = 0.0295;
education, x2 = 8.600, P = 0.0351; household size, x2 = 18.522, P = 0.001.
However, neither income level nor sex were found to be associated with the
propensity to observe unique or distinctive product attributes. The small
number of blacks in the lean beef purchaser category precluded a valid Chi-
square test.










40 -


35% -


30% -
En

0)
S25X -
C-
0

4- 20% -
4-1
S15 -
C-

10% -


5% -


0%-


Rating

Figure l.--Shoppers' ratings of external fat,


steaks and roasts.


5 6 7 8 9
Too fat


Rating

Figure 2.--Shoppers' ratings of marbling, steaks and roasts.


6 7 8
Too


1S Steak


^ Roast


11=1=1 ^ m1


I I
1 2
Too lean


3 4


1


9
fat


40%


35%


30%



0
Eu



0
4
CO




a)
P4
S20%
o

15%


10%.





0%


771- Steak


-,", 3 Roast






-^^^ /

-^^ /

^^^^^


Too lean


_ - -


l









ratings and by the mean ratings, which were slightly below the mid-point

of five on the scale (Table 5, Figures 1 and 2, Appendix Tables 2 and 3).

Tenderness was rated on a scale where "one" was defined as

"extremely tender" and "nine" as "extremely tough." The mean ratings,

3.4 for both steaks and roasts, and the distribution of shoppers'

ratings indicates that most consumers thought that both products were

moderately tender (Figure 3, Table 5).

Reactions to flavor were examined with a rating scale where "one"

was "extremely flavorful" and "nine" represented "no flavor." The mean

ratings for steaks and roasts were 3.3 and 3.1, respectively, again

reflecting a moderately favorable reaction (Figure 4, Table 5).

The rating scale for juiciness used "one" to represent "extremely

juicy" and "nine" to represent "extremely dry." The mean ratings for

juiciness were approximately 3.5 for both steaks and roasts, a favorable

evaluation (Figure 5, Table 5).

Ratings of overall quality were obtained with a scale where "one"

was "excellent" and "nine" was "extremely poor." If "five" is interpre-

ted to represent an "average" evaluation, it is significant that 87 and

88 percent of the roast and steak purchasers, respectively, rated the

products as average or better than average (Figure 6, Appendix Tables 2

and 3). Mean ratings for overall quality for steaks and roasts were 3.2

and 3.3, respectively, also indicating a favorable reaction to the lean-

fed beef (Table 5).

The ratings of the various product characteristics were also examined

with a series of analysis of variance (ANOVA) models which were designed

to determine what relationships, if any, existed between the ratings

of the product characteristics discussed above and selected socioeconomic









Table 5.--Ratings of characteristics of lean-fed steaks and roasts.


Characteristic,
rating scale Steaks Roasts

------Mean ratingsa.....

External fat
1 = too lean, 9 = too fat 4.27 + .21 4.16 + .23

Marbling
1 = too lean, 9 = too fat 4.10 + .19 4.18 + .22

Tenderness
1 extremely tender, 9 = extremely tough 3.41 + .26 3.35 + .27

Flavor
1 = extremely flavorful, 9 = no flavor 3.29 + .27 3.12 + .26

Juiciness
1 = extremely juicy, 9 = extremely dry 3.47 + .26 3.55 + .26

Overall quality
1 = excellent, 9 = extremely poor 3.24 + .27 3.30 + .29

aSteak and roast evaluations are based upon approximately 185 and 205
observations, respectively.
bConfidence limits were calculated at the 95 percent probability
level.








































1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Extremely tender Extremely tough
Rating

Figure 3.--Shoppers' ratings of tenderness, steaks and roasts.





--/ Steak



-"a Roost















1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9




1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9


Extremely flavorful


Figure 4.--Shoppers' ratings


No flavor
Rating

of flavor, steaks and roasts.


[77 Steak



EM Roast


40%


35X -


30% -
i-

S25X -
.:

S20%-


4->-
0

15X

04
10 -


0%








40%


35%


30%

$n
Q 25%
0
2.
20

0

15%

0)
&< 10%C


1

















Ca

20
0







o 25%
20%
o
u


c
10%


5%


0%






40%


35%





2 25%





Pa


Excellent


5 6 7 8 9
Poor


Rating
Figure 6.--Shoppers' ratings of overall quality, steaks and roasts.


ZZ Steak


M__ Roast


/


40X -


35% -


30% -


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Extremely juicy Extremely dry
Rating
Figure 5.--Shoppers' ratings of juiciness, steaks and roasts.



_7 Steak


_- Roast



- a



---
I / y
!-_^ y" y"'

^1 1 1 r / % "


10%


5%


Ox


-


-





-


A pa










variables. These variables included education, age, income, race,

family size, and occupation categories as defined in Appendix Table 1.

Because of small numbers of observations within some of the socio-

economic classifications and the limited ordinal rating scale, which

may violate several underlying assumptions of the ANOVA procedure, the

models were intended as an exploratory procedure and not as a rigorous

analytical effort. The ANOVA models and comparisons of least squares

means for the various socioeconomic classifications indicate that

ratings were not significantly affected by the variables examined.

Despite the limitations of the statistical models, it is felt that the

results provide a good indication that lean-fed beef appeals to a broad

spectrum of consumers.

Repeat Purchase Intentions

Almost 95 percent of the lean-fed steak purchasers and 92 percent

of the roast purchasers said they planned to buy the products again.

Approximately 3 and 4 percent of the steak and roast purchasers,

respectively, were unwilling to buy more, and similar numbers were

undecided (Table 6). Repeat purchase intentions for consumers that

said they usually bought USDA graded beef (either Prime, Choice, or

Good) were not statistically different from consumers that did not know

what grade of beef they usually bought. Overall, only 37 percent of

those interviewed specified a correct USDA grade as the usual grade pur-

chased; the majority did not know what grade was usually bought (Table

7, Appendix Table 4).

Aversions to the Product

There were 66 shoppers, about 13 percent of the total sample, that

were aware of the lean-fed beef but had not purchased any. When asked










Table 6.--Repeat purchase intentions of lean-fed steak and roast pur-
chasers.


Purchase Intention Steaks Roasts

Number Percent Number Percent

Yes, plan to buy again 173 94.5 187 91.7

No, do not plan to buy
again 5 2.7 9 4.4

Don't know 5 2.7 8 3.9

Totals 183 100.0a 204 100.0

aDoes not sum to 100.0 percent due to rounding.



Table 7.--Usual government grade of beef purchased, all respondents.


Grade Name or Response Number Percent

Choice 174 35.2

Don't know 132 26.7

Grade A 82 16.6

Other names 55 11.1

"Best" or "top" 40 8.1

Prime 7 1.4

Good 5 1.0

Totals 495 100.0a

aDoes not sum to 100.0 percent due to rounding.









why, about two-thirds of these "non-purchasers" revealed no particular

aversion to the product (Table 8). Nearly one-fifth were unable to cite

any specific reason for not buying the lean-fed beef, and over 40 per-

cent gave reasons related to their established shopping patterns rather

than to the new beef product. Most said they bought meat at other

stores because of habit and convenience, while some simply buy little or

no meat. Others reported buying beef in large quantities, and thus had

not purchased beef since the introduction of the lean-fed beef (Table

8). Thirty-five percent or 23 of the non-purchasers cited product-

related reasons for not trying it. About one-third mentioned (high)

price as the primary reason.

Even though they had not tried the product, nearly 8 percent of the

non-purchasers, but only about one percent of the total shopper sample,

felt they would not like it for unspecified reasons. An equal number

specifically mentioned low product quality, but only one person stated a

preference for USDA Choice beef (Table 8). Other reasons given for not

trying the lean-fed beef included a preference for kosher beef and for

government graded beef, each mentioned by only one person. One person

criticized the beef's appearance ("it looks watery"), another was uncer-

tain of the tenderizing process, and one simply did not like the name

(Table 8).

Store Switching

All respondents were asked for their current primary source of meat

and for their major source six months prior to being interviewed. A

total of 54 shoppers, 11 percent, reported switching stores for the major-

ity of their meat purchases. Twenty-seven switched to the stores offer-

ing the lean-fed beef, and an identical number switched to other stores.









Table 8.--Primary reasons given by persons aware of the lean beef product
for not purchasing any.


Number Percenta

Product related

Price 8 12.1

Do not like product (general) 5 7.6

Product quality 4 6.1

Prefer Choice 1 1.5

Prefer kosher 1 1.5

Appearance 1 1.5

Prefer government graded 1 1.5

Uncertain of tenderizing 1 1.5

Do not like name 1 1.5

Subtotal 23 35.0

Shopping pattern related

Buy at other stores because of
habit, convenience, other reasons 17 26.0

Buy little or no meat 2 3.0

Have bought no beef recently 9 13.6

Subtotal 28 42.0

Miscellaneous 3 4.5

No reasons given 12 18.2

Totals 66 100.0

aSubtotals and total may not sum to indicated values due to rounding.
Percentages are based upon 66 respondents, who represent 12.9 percent of
the total sample of 510.










There were many reasons given for switching stores, but most were

not related to the beef or meat. Nine shoppers switched to the store

where lean-fed beef had been introduced for beef or meat-related reasons,

and nine switched to other stores for similar reasons. Only one shopper

mentioned the introduction of the lean-fed beef as the primary reason for

switching to another store for most meat purchases.

Because budgetary constraints precluded the acquisition of a random

sample of the general population of food shoppers, the degree of store

switching away from the stores selling lean-fed beef may be understated.

It is conceivable that some shoppers may have stopped shopping in the

Food World stores entirely as a result of the introduction of the lean-

fed beef, and thus would have had no chance of being included in the

sample. However, according to store management, other measures of busi-

ness activity within the stores indicate that switching to other stores

was negligible.

Beef Usage by Purchasers and Non-purchasers of Lean-Fed Beef

Purchasers of lean-fed beef tended to serve beef significantly more

often and in larger quantities than did non-purchasers. Nearly 60 per-

cent of the lean-fed beef purchasers served beef three or more times per

week, compared with about 47 percent of the non-purchasers (Table 9).

The lean beef purchasers served beef an average of 2.9 times per week,

compared with 2.5 times for the non-purchasers.

On the average, lean-fed beef purchasers bought about 5.8 pounds of

beef per week, compared with approximately 4.4 pounds for non-purchasers

(Table 10). Thus, it appears that lean-fed beef appeals to households

that are heavy beef users, i.e., those that serve beef more frequently

and in larger quantities than those that had not tried the product.









Table 9.--Frequency of fresh beef usage for purchasers
of lean-fed beef.


and non-purchasers


Number of servings Purchasers of Non-purchasers
per week lean beef of lean beef

Number Percent Number Percent

0-2 122 41.2 86 53.1

3 82 27.7 40 24.7

4 or more 92 31.1 36 22.2

Totals 296 100.0 162 100.0

achi-square analysis indicates a significant difference in frequency
of beef usage between purchasers and non-purchasers, x = 6.545, P=0.0379.



Table 10.--Weekly beef consumption, quantities and number of times served,
by purchasers and non-purchasers of lean-fed beef.


Average Average
Respondent consumption times served
classification per week per week

---Pounds--- ---Number---

Purchasers of lean beef 5.81 + 0.48a 2.92 + 0.16a

Non-purchasers of lean beef 4.36 + 0.58 2.53 + 0.23

All respondents 5.35 + 0.38 2.79 + 0.13

aConfidence limits were computed at the 95 percent probability level.









CONCLUSIONS


Consumers' reactions to lean-fed beef were very favorable.

Although they tended to rate external fat and marbling of steaks and

roasts as slightly too lean, a large majority rated tenderness, flavor,

juiciness and overall quality favorably. Further, repeat purchase

intentions were very high, indicating approval of the product.

The product appears to appeal to a broad spectrum of consumers.

Acceptance, as indicated by product ratings and repeat purchase inten-

tions, was similar for the various socioeconomic groups identified in

the survey.

Although the study was conducted only in one Florida supermarket

chain, it is likely that the findings have much broader applicability,

because many Florida residents have emigrated from other areas of the

U.S. Additionally, U.S. consumers are relatively homogeneous with

respect to preferences for many food products. Thus, the favorable

reaction to lean-fed beef in Florida may portend widespread acceptance

and distribution of a leaner grade of beef, thereby increasing cattle

feeding opportunities for the Florida beef industry.









REFERENCES


Blanton, Lamar, "Merchandising Lean-Fed Beef," Proceedings of the
Thirty-Second Beef Cattle Short Course, Animal Science Department,
Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida,
Gainesville, Florida, May 4-6, 1983, p. 159.

Davis, W., "Group Discussion Report: Marketing, Financial Management
and Transportation," Proceedings of the Beef Industry Conference,
Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida,
Gainesville, Florida, October 6-7, 1981, pp. 65-66.

McAteer, D. S., "The Feedlot Situation and Cattle Feeding Opportunities
in Florida," Proceedings of the Beef Industry Conference, Institute
of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida, Gaines-
ville, Florida, October 6-7, 1981, pp. 30-32.

Palmer, Zane, Wayne Davis, Sloan Baker, Bill Kunkle, Jim Carpenter and
Roger West, "Production of Tender Trim Beef in Florida," Proceed-
ings of the Thirty-Second Annual Beef Cattle Short Course, Animal
Science Department, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences,
University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, May 4-6, 1983,
pp. 147-158.

Sales and Marketing Management, 1983 Survey of Buying Power, July 25,
1983.

Smith, G. C., "Beef Processing and Grading," Proceedings of the Beef
Industry Conference, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences,
University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, October 6-7, 1981,
pp. 35-40.

Spreen, Thomas A., "Quantity and Type of Beef Consumed in Florida," Pro-
ceedings of the Thirty-Second Annual Beef Cattle Short Course, Ani-
mal Science Department, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences,
University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, May 4-6, 1983.

West, R. L., "Group Discussion Report: Beef Processing and Grading,"
Proceedings of the Beef Industry Conference, Institute of Food and
Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida,
October 6-7, 1981, pp. 41-43.

































APPENDIX A


The Tender Trim Program and Carcass Specifications









THE TENDER TRIM PROGRAM AND CARCASS SPECIFICATIONS


The Tender Trim marketing program is managed by Tender Trim, Incor-
porated, an organization of feedlot owners and packers. Use of Tender
Trim is made available to member packers by a franchise agreement between
the packer and Tender Trim, Incorporated. The Florida Department of
Agriculture grader works independent of all aforementioned parties and is
responsible for all carcass evaluation as to specification compliance and
the proper identification of Tender Trim carcasses by stamp and roller
brand.

The name Tender Trim was chosen because it conveyed the ideas of a
very acceptable eating quality (tenderness) and meatier retail cuts
(more trim of excess fat). Carcass quality specifications for Tender
Trim beef carcasses are as follows:

1. Carcasses must originate from cattle that have been fed a
minimum of 90 days on a 75% or higher concentrate ration.
Research has shown that feeding a high concentration does
have a positive effect on palatability. Feeding exerts
most all of its effects on palatability by this time.

2. Carcasses must be electrically stimulated (ES) by either
high or low voltage techniques. ES minimizes the varia-
tions in palatability within Good and Choice carcasses.
Broiled shortloin steaks from ES Good carcasses are equal
in tenderness to steaks from ES Choice carcasses. ES
improves palatability, where there is room for improve-
ment, and thereby minimizes the very small palatability
difference between Good and Choice carcasses.

3. Carcasses must show evidence of physiological maturity
within the "A" score. Steers and heifers advance to "B"
maturity at 29-30 months of age. The "A" maturity indi-
cates youthfulness and usually better color, firmness,
and texture of lean. "B" maturity carcasses may be more
variable in tenderness.

4. Carcasses must have a slight degree of marbling. Marbl-
ing does have a small, positive effect on palatability
and its presence is some indication that the animal had
been properly finished.

5. Carcasses will be from steers and heifers only since,
generally speaking, bullocks are more variable in palata-
bility. In some instances, bullocks have compared favor-
ably with steers and heifers, but the frequency of these
exceptional cases is so low that inclusion of bullocks
is unwarranted at the present time.









6. The lean of Tender Trim carcasses will not be dark in
color, soft in firmness or coarse in texture. Dark,
soft, coarse beef lacks attractiveness at the retail
counter and it is difficult to merchandise.

7. Carcasses will not have yellow fat since retailers and
consumers often associate this with lower quality beef.

8. Carcasses and primal/sub-primal cuts will be chilled at
least 48 hours before delivery. Time, post-ES treatment,
compliments the ES effect on tenderness; the aging effect
on tenderness proceeds more rapidly in ES beef. This
requirement is needed to assure good preservation by tem-
perature control and to contribute to the time needed for
"aging." Product would more likely reach the consumer
level no sooner than 4-5 days postmortem.

Carcass cutability or meatiness specifications for Tender Trim beef
are as follows:

1. Yield grade of carcasses will be 3.2 or better to assure
less waste fat and a higher percent of retail cuts.

2. Adjusted fat thickness over the rib-eye (FOE) will range
from 0.2 to 0.6 inches, the lower limit to indicate some
degree of finishing and the upper limit to further assure
high retail cut yields. Most carcasses complying with
the 3.2 yield grade specifications will have 0.5 or less
FOE and retail cuts should require less trimming to be
acceptable in the retail case.

3. Yield grade determination will be made only on carcasses
with intact kidney knobs.

Other carcass specifications are:

1. Carcass weight may range from 450 to 750 pounds even
though it is expected that 600 to 700 pound carcasses
will be in greater demand.

2. Carcasses will be evaluated by a beef grader employed by
the Florida Department of Agriculture.

3. Carcasses that meet all specifications will be identified
by the grader with the Tender Trim stamp and the roller
brand.





a
Source: Palmer, et al., 1983.

































APPENDIX B


Beef Consumer Questionnaire










Florida Agricultural Market Research Center Household Number
Food and Resource Economics Department, IFAS
University of Florida Name
Gainesville, Florida 32611
904/392-1846 Phone

City

Interviewer


BEEF CONSUMER SURVEY


Hello, this is _. I am calling for the Market Research
Center at the University of Florida. May I speak to ?
You were contacted while shopping at Food World recently and gave us per-
mission to call you about your meat preferences and shopping patterns.
First, I would like to ask a few general questions about your food shopping.

1. How often do you shop for your main food items? (circle)

1. 2 or more times per week
2. once a week
3. 2-3 times per month
4. once per month
5. no response

2. For your major food shopping trips, what percent of the time do you use
a shopping list? percent.

3. How many times each week do you typically serve fresh beef?

4. How many pounds of fresh beef does your household use in a typical
week? pounds.

5. What government grade of beef do you usually buy? (unaided)



6. Of course, this is strictly confidential - about how much do you
spend on groceries . .


OR Each month? $


Each week? $





28



7. Where do youtcurrently buy most of your meat? (If supermarket, small
grocery or meat market, ask which one; circle or list). Where did you
buy most of your meat 6 months ago? (circle or list).


Current Primary
Meat Source


Supermarket:
Food World
Publix
Winn-Dixie
Albertson's
Pantry Pride
A & P
Miller's
Other

Small Grocery:
List name


Meat Market:
List name


Farmer/rancher (circle only)


Primary Source
6 Months Ago


Supermarket:
Food World
Publix
Winn Dixie
Albertson's
Pantry Pride
A & P
Miller's
Other

Small Grocery:
List name

Meat Market:
List name


Farmer/rancher (circle only)


IF A SWITCH HAS OCCURRED: Why have you changed stores? (Probe)
(Note: If they say "better meat," ask how is it better? in what way?
etc. . .)










8. Food World recently introduced a new brand of fresh beef. Have you or
have you not heard of it? (circle 1 or 2 below).

1. Yes: If yes, what is it called?

] Do not remember (say, "It's called Flav'r Lean")

How did you first learn about Flav'r Lean beef?

1. Saw it in store
2. Newspaper ads
3. In-store signs
4. Friends
5. Radio
6. TV
7. Other
8. Do not remember

Have you or have you not bought any Flav'r Lean beef?

1. Yes (SKIP TO Q. 10)

2. No: If no, why not? (Probe)





Continue with Q. 9.

3. Do not remember

2. No, have not heard of it (say, "It's called Flav'r Lean," and con-
tinue with Q. 9).

9. Have you or have you not bought any fresh beef at a Food World store
within the past month?

1. Yes (continue with Q. 10)

2. No: If not--Are there any particular reasons why you have not?

(Probe)



SKIP TO Q. 21.

3. Do not remember SKIP TO Q. 21.


-- ~~--~-












10. Have you bought any steaks? (If yes, circle "steaks" in table below,
ask rating questions below and record ratings in table).

11. Have you bought any roasts? (Same instructions). If no, skip to
question 21.

Rating Questions for Flav'r Lean Steaks and Roasts

12. Did you or did you not notice anything unique or distinctive about the
appearance of Flav'r Lean beef?

1. Yes: What?

2. No

13. How would you rate the amount of external fat on the (steak/roast)
using a rating scale of 1 to 9, where 1 = too lean and 9 = too fat?

14. How would you rate the amount of internal fat or marbling of the
(steak/roast) using a rating scale of 1 to 9, where 1 = too lean and
9 = too fat?

15. How would you rate the tenderness of the (steak/roast), where 1 =
extremely tender and 9 = extremely tough?

16. How would you rate the flavor the (steak/roast), where I = extremely
flavorful and 9 = no flavor?

17. How would you rate the juiciness of the (steak/roast), where 1 =
extremely juicy and 9 = extremely dry?

18. How would you rate the overall quality of the (steak/roast), where 1 =
excellent and 9 = extremely poor?

19. Do you or do you not plan to buy Flav'r Lean steaks again?

20. Do you or do you not plan to buy Flav'r Lean roasts again?

After rating steaks, go back to question 11. After roasts, go to
question 21.

Type of Cut External Mar- Tender- Juici- Overall Buy
(circle if bought) Fat bling ness Flavor ness Quality Again

Steaks Y N DK
If buy again = "No" or "Do not know," ask "Why not?" (Probe)


Roasts Y N DK
If buy again = "No" or "Do not know," ask "Why not?" (Probe)













21. Are you or are you not able to purchase the variety of beef cuts or
items that you want at Food World?

1. Yes

2. No: If no--What items would you like to see available?


22. How many adults (age 18 and older) are in your household?

23. How many adults are employed full time? . . . . . .

24. How many adults are students? . . . . . . . . _

25. How many adults are unemployed? . . . . . . .

26. How many children are in your household? . . . .. .

27. What is the highest grade of school that you completed?

1. some grade school 5. some college
2. grade school graduate 6. college graduate
3. some high school 7. advanced college degree
4. high school or tech- 8. other
nical school graduate

28. What is the occupation of the head of the household?

29. What is the age of the head of the household?

1. under 18 3. 25-34 5. 50-64
3. 18-24 4. 35-49 6. 65 and older

30. Which of the following income classifications best describes your
total annual household income (after taxes)?

1. Under $10.000
2. $10,000-$14,999
3. $15,000-$24,999
4. $25,000-$49,999
5. $50,000 and over

31. Do you classify yourself as:

1. white
2. black
3. hispanic
4. oriental
5. other

32. Sex (from card, by observation):

1. male
2. female






































APPENDIX C


Tables













Appendix Table l.--Socioeconomic and
consumer sample.


demographic characteristics of the


Characteristic Number Percent

Number of adults per household


5 or more
Totals

Number of children per household

0
1
2
3
4
5 or more
Totals

Total number of persons per householdc

1
z
3
4
5 or more
Totals

Respondents' highest level of education

Up to some high school
High school graduate
Some college
College graduate or more
Totals

Age of head of household

Under 35
35-49
50-64
65-older
Totals


298
89
69
37
11
2
506


11.4
65.9
14.1
5.7
2.9
100.0



58.9
17.6
13.6
7.3
2.2
0.4
100.0



9.3
40.3
16.8
17.6
16.0
100.0



13.8
41.5
23.6
21.1
100.0



15.6
28.4
28.0
28.0
100.0


70
211
120
107
508









Appenaix Table l.--Socioeconomic and demographic
consumer sample--continued.


characteristics of the


Characteristic Number Percent

Annual household income after taxes

Under $10,000 67 14.4
$10,000-14,999 80 17.2
$15,000-24,999 128 27.5
$25,000-49,999 165 35.5
$bU,UOu-over 25 5.4
Totals 465 100.0

Sex

Male 66 13.0
Female 443 87.0
Totals 509 100.0

Race

White 469 92.3
Black 39 7.7
Totals 508 100.0

aAverage is 2.24

Average is 0.78

CAverage is 3.02









Appendix Table 2.--Frequencies of shoppers' ratings for selected characteristics of lean-fed steaks.


External Fat Marbling Tenderness Flavor Juiciness Overall Quality

Rating Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

1 1 1.1 2 1.1 24 12.9 28 15.1 24 13.0 27 14.5
2 16 8.7 18 9.8 37 19.9 51 27.6 40 21.7 52 28.0
3 39 21.2 43 23.4 51 27.4 40 21.6 40 21.7 46 24.7
4 50 27.2 46 25.0 28 15.0 17 9.2 26 14.1 22 11.8
5 50 27.2 59 32.1 26 14.0 28 15.1 35 19.0 17 9.1
6 12 6.5 7 3.8 7 3.8 9 4.9 8 4.3 6 3.2
7 10 5.4 7 3.8 8 4.3 5 2.7 5 2.7 8 4.3
8 3 1.6 1 0.5 1 0.5 2 1.1 1 0.5 4 2.2
9 2 1.1 1 0.5 4 2.2 5 2.7 5 2.7 4 2.2
Totalsa 184 100.0 184 100.0 186 100.0 185 100.0 184 100.0 186 100.0

aPercentage totals may not sum to 100 due to rounding.




Appendix Table 3.--Frequencies of shoppers' ratings for selected characteristics of lean-fed roasts.


External Fat Marbling Tenderness Flavor Juiciness Overall Quality

Rating Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

1 7 3.4 4 '. 41 20.0 45 21.8 28 13.8 44 21.2
2 24 11.7 25 12.2 35 17.1 4.6 22.3 38 18.7 44 21.2
3 45 22.0 47 22.9 50 24.4 51 24.8 44 21.7 46 22.2
4 42 20.5 40 19.5 25 12.2 15 7.3 32 15.8 24 11.6
5 56 27.3 62 30.2 27 13.2 25 12.1 35 17.2 22 10.6
6 13 6.3 8 3.9 11 5.4 13 6.3 12 5.9 6 2.9
7 10 4.9 11 5.4 6 2.9 3 1.4 8 3.9 6 2.9
8 4 2.0 5 2.4 7 3.4 4 1.9 1 0.5 6 2.9
9 4 2.0 3 1.5 3 1.5 4 1.9 5 2.5 9 4.3
Totalsa 205 100.0 205 100.0 205 100.0 206 100.0 203 100.0 207 100.0

percentage totals may not sum to 100 due to rounding.









Appendix Table 4.--Respondents' knowledge of USDA beef grades.


Respondent
classification Correct Incorrect Don't Know Total

Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

All respondents 186 37.6 177 35.7 132 26.7 495 100.0

Sexa
Males 33 50.8 22 33.8 10 15.4 65 100.0
Females 153 35.7 154 35.9 122 28.4 494 100.0

Ageb
Under 34 22 28.6 28 36.4 27 35.0 77 100.0
35-49 56 39.7 47 33.3 38 27.0 141 100.0
50-64 51 37.2 52 38.0 34 24.8 137 100.0
65-older 57 41.6 49 35.8 31 22.6 137 100.0

Income
Under $10,000 22 34.4 21 32.8 21 32.8 64 100.0
$10,000-14,999 31 39.2 27 34.2 21 26.6 79 100.0
$15,000-24,999 47 37.6 45 36.0 33 26.4 125 100.0
$25,000-49,999 65 40.9 55 34.6 39 24.5 159 100.0
$50,000-over 11 45.8 9 37.5 4 16.7 24 100.0


a 2
b 2
X


= 7.087, P = 0.0289

= 5.905, P = 0.4339


Cx2 = 3.110, P = 0.9272




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