Title: Some consumer opinions of Florida sweet corn
CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00074554/00001
 Material Information
Title: Some consumer opinions of Florida sweet corn
Physical Description: Book
Creator: Brooke, Donald Lloyd,
Publisher: Department of Agricultural Economics, Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00074554
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: oclc - 123907067

Full Text
j *)


Agricultural Economics
Mimeo Report EC67-2


September, 1966


SOME CONSUMER OPINIONS



OF



FLORIDA SWEET CORN






by


D. L. Brooke
Agricultural Economist










Department of Agricultural Economics
Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations
Gainesville, Florida













TABLE OF CONTENTS


page


Introduction . . .. .

Method of Procedure. . . . ....


Customer Exposure, Response and Characteristics.

Exposure and response. . . .
Household characteristics . . .
Repeat purchases . . ...


Customer Opinions. . .

Husked vs. green .
Number of ears ...
Ear length . ...
Quality. . .


. 2

* 2
. 2
. 4


* 9 0 9 *


a 0 .
. *


Summary .. .. . . . .


Conclusions . ..


. 9 9 *


Appendix . . . . *


ACKNOWLEDGMENTS


Grateful appreciation for valuable assistance in the
preparation and conduct of this study is expressed to all who
participated. The Florida Sweet Corn Advisory Committee pro-
vided part of the funds.

Acme Markets, Inc., Philadelphia Division, supplied the
test stores and handled the collection of completed question-
naires. H. J. Gosser and Company, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania,
handled the administration and accounting procedures.












SOME CONSUMER OPINIONS OF FLORIDA SWEET CORN


by

D. L. Brooke
Agricultural Economist


Introduction

Customers in some northern retail markets have had an opportunity
to purchase Florida sweet corn that was husked and packaged in consumer-
sized units at the point of production for most of the past two seasons.
During the 1964-65 season a retail store study determined that customers
were willing to purchase corn in those consumer-sized units and pay a
premium equal to the cost of packaging.1 In the 1965-66 season growers
were asking what consumer opinions were for yellow varieties of Florida
sweet corn, prepackaged (husked) and green unhuskedd), when both were avail-
able in the stores. Such information would be helpful in deciding whether
to package more corn at the shipping point or to continue shipping under
present methods.


Method of Procedure

To determine consumer opinions of prepackaged and green sweet
corn, a study of three weeks' duration was conducted in retail stores in
and around Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Packages of four 4 1/2-inch and
three 6-inch ears of husked corn were offered for sale along with green
corn, wrapped at each store in packages of two, three, four, five, six
and twelve ears, all six inches or longer. All prepackaged corn met U. S.
Consumer Grade A2 and green corn U. S. Fancy3 grade standards at time of
shipment from Florida,


1D. L. Brooke, Consumer Acceptance of Prepackaged Sweet Corn,
Florida Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin 712, August, 1966.

2USDA, United States Consumer Standards for Husked Corn on the
Cob, Washington, D. C., May 8, 1956.

3USDA, United States Standards for Green Corn (19 F.R. 2221),
Washington, D. C., May 18, 1954.










A 5-by-8-inch card was affixed to each package of corn displayed
for sale. The card contained an explanation of the reason for the study,
an appeal for cooperation, and a promise of a 15-cent refund if the
questions were answered and the card returned to the store. On the card
were 14 questions with space for a short answer to each.4

An experimental design of a block type was used. Six retail
stores, two each in a low, medium and high income area, were selected by
the cooperating chain according to the design criteria. Each of the
stores was a supermarket owned by a northeastern chain and had a weekly
average gross sale of $20,000 or more.

Since the purpose of the test was to obtain written answers to
certain questions from consumers, no control of price, display location
or product promotion was necessary. The only restriction placed was that
prepackaged and green corn be available at all times in the test stores.
Supply was maintained by the chain in the usual manner by regularly
scheduled deliveries from a central warehouse. City-wide promotion and
sales of green sweet corn were made by the chains in the latter three days
of the first and third weeks of the study.


Customer Exposure, Response and Characteristics

Exposure and response.--A total of 11,427 questionnaires were
affixed to packages of sweet corn in the six retail test stores (Table 1).
Nearly one-half of the exposure was in the low income area, one-fourth in
the medium and one-fourth in the high income area, In the low and medium
income areas one-third of the questionnaires were on husked (prepackaged)
corn and two-thirds on unhusked (green) corn. Exposure distribution was
50-50 in the high income area.


Response, as measured by returned questionnaires, was in about
the same ratio as exposure except in the high income area. There 43
percent of returns were on prepackaged corn and 57 percent on green corn.
Total response was slightly higher than average in the medium income
area.

Low income area customers returned a smaller percentage of the
questionnaires than customers in medium or high income areas (Table 2).
The percentage return for the medium and high income area customers was
twice that of low income area customers.

Household characteristics.--The number of persons per household
responding to the questionnaire was only slightly higher in the low income


See Appendix.










TABLE l.--Customer exposure and response to sweet corn questionnaire, by
income area and type of corn, six stores in three income areas,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, May 9-28, 1966


Income Exposure Response
Area Husked Green Total Husked Green Total

Number of Questionnaires
Low 2,002 3,609 5,611 73 133 206
Medium 996 2,141 3,137 80 152 232
High 1,330 1,349 2,679 85 112 197

All 4,328 7,099 11,427 238 397 635
Percent

Low 36 64 49 35 65 32
Medium 32 68 27 34 66 37
High 50 50 24 43 57 31

All 38 62 100 37 63 100



TABLE 2.--Response as percentage of exposure for sweet corn questionnaires,
by income area and type of corn, six stores in three income areas,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, May 9-28, 1966

Income Percent of Questionnaires Returned
Area Husked Green All


Low 3.6 3.7 3.7
Medium 8.0 7.1 7.4
High 6.4 8.3 7.4

All 5.5 5.6 5.6


area than in the other two areas (Table 3).
and per person declined as income increased.
were heavily influenced by the special sales
studied.


Ears purchased per household
It is believed that customers
in two of the three weeks


A greater proportion of the purchasers of prepackaged (husked)
corn were in the one- to two-persons households (Tables 4 and 5). As
household size increased beyond three persons, green corn buying was
highly dominant.











TABLE 3.--Households, persons and purchases of Florida sweet corn, by
income area, six stores in three income areas,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, May 9-28, 1966


Income Number of Average Number
Area Households Persons per Ears Purchased per
Household Household Person

Low 206 3.7 7.6 2.1
Medium 232 3.4 6.8 2.0
High 197 3.4 5.9 1.7

All 635 3.5 6.8 1.9



TABLE 4.--Relative differences in household sizes for purchasers of
husked and green sweet corn, six stores in three income areas,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, May 9-28, 1966


Persons in Type of Corn Purchased
Household Husked Green All

Percent of Respondents
1 5 3 4
2 38 19 26
3 25 21 23
4 21 30 26
5 7 14 12
6 3 9 7
7-9 1 4 3

Total 100 100 100



Repeat purchases.--A greater percentage of those who purchased
green corn intended to do so again (Table 6). Among income areas, the
greater percentage of people most likely to change their purchasing habits
were in the high income group. It is perhaps significant that an average
of 14 percent of thosepurchasing husked (prepackaged) corn stated that
they would not do so again. An additional 4 percent were undecided. Here
again, the greatest likelihood for change was in the high income group--
they buy less corn than other groups.

When answering the question on how often they bought fresh sweet
corn from December through May, a greater proportion checked weekly, twice
monthly or occasionally. Customers in low income areas purchased










TABLE 5.--Proportion of purchases of husked and green sweet corn, by
household size, six stores in three income areas,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, May 9-28, 1966


Persons in Type of Corn Purchased
Household Husked Green Total

Percent of Respondents
1 63 37 100
2 67 33 100
3 54 46 100
4 41 59 100
5 32 68 100
6 26 74 100
7-9 27 73 100

Average 37 63 100


TABLE 6.--Relationship of type
six stores in three income
May


of sweet corn purchased to repeat purchases,
areas, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania,
9-28, 1966


Income Type Corn Repeat Purchases Total
Area Purchased Yes No Undecided" Reporting

Percent of Respondents
Low Husked 86 11 3 100
Green 95 1 4 100

Medium Husked 89 8 3 100
Green 91 3 6 100

High Husked 71 22 7 100
Green 90 5 5 100


All Husked 82 14 4 100
Green 92 3 5 100



prepackaged fresh sweet corn more frequently than customers in other
income areas (Table 7). Many respondents who checked the occasional pur-
chase item wrote in such comments as, "whenever it looks fresh," "when
price is right," "when stores stock it," or "very seldom."










TABLE 7.--Relationship of level of income to frequency of purchases of
sweet corn from December through May, six stores in three income areas,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, May 9-28, 1966


Income Frequency of Purchases
Total
Area Twice Twice
r ea T e Weekly M y Monthly Occasional
Weekly Monthly

Percent Reporting
Husked
Low 21 29 18 23 9 100
Medium 14 32 20 14 20 100
High 9 24 27 12 28 100

All 14 28 22 16 20 100
Green
Low 9 20 23 21 26 100
Medium 8 27 20 16 28 100
High 6 19 21 18 36 100

All 8 23 21 18 30 100




"Whenever it looks fresh" implies that there are times during the
Florida shipping season when the corn reaching the customer has lost its
"fresh" appearance. This would occur from natural causes, from improper
handling of the merchandise in the channels of distribution, or from
lapse of time while on display.

"When stores stock it" implies that customer demand is not being
met. Corn is not available in sufficient quantity during part of the
Florida season to permit its being stocked in all retail stores at all
times.

"When price is right" implies that at certain prices, presumably
high prices, customers will not buy corn. Any price of 7 cents an ear or
less is a "sale" price in Philadelphia. A retail price of $4.20 per
5-dozen crate means an F.O.B. Florida price of $1.85 to $2.00. Florida
growers must have yields of 180 to 240 crates per acre to break even at
those prices. Under present cost conditions Florida growers cannot
profitably produce winter corn to retail for 7 cents per ear.5 Satisfying
demand at a price customers feel is "right" may be uneconomic for Florida
producers at certain times of the year.


5D. L. Brooke, Costs and Returns from Vegetable Crops in Florida,
Florida Agricultural Experiment Station Agricultural Economics Mimeo
Report EC66-10, February, 1966, pp. 11-12.










Customer Opinions


Husked vs. green.--Of all respondents, 37 percent purchased
husked (prepackaged) corn and 63 percent green corn (Tables 1 and 5).

Customers were asked if they preferred packaged or unpackaged and
husked or unhusked corn. It was thought necessary to phrase the question
as a multiple choice. Since green corn was being packaged at each retail
store it was entirely possible that some customers preferred packaged
green corn as well as packaged husked corn. Their answers were compared
with what they had purchased. Of the respondents reporting a preferred
type of corn, 78 percent of those who bought husked corn preferred it
already packaged. Only 50 percent of those buying green corn preferred
it packaged (Table 8). Two-thirds of all purchasers of husked corn
preferred it that way but only 20 percent of those purchasing green corn
indicated a preference for husked corn. Among income areas, as income
increased preference for packaging decreased.


TABLE 8.--Relationship of type of sweet corn purchased to preferred type,
six stores in three income areas, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania,
May 9-28, 1966

Type of Corn Preferred
Income Type Corn Packaged Husked
Area Purchased Yes No Yes No

Percent of Respondents
Low Husked 84 16 67 33
Green 62 38 23 77

Medium Husked 79 21 67 33
Green 51 49 21 79

High Husked 69 31 61 39
Green 36 64 14 85

All Husked 73 22 65 35
Green 50 50 20 80



Of the respondents preferring packaged corn, 41 percent did so
for reasons of convenience and 32 percent because they associated some
quality preservation with packaging (Table 9). One-tenth preferred
packaged corn for visibility reasons and 12 percent thought it cleaner.
Of those preferring unpackaged or green corn 40 percent liked to pick
their own ears, 27 percent thought they got better quality and 15 percent
gave better visibility as a reason. Better visibility was probably linked
to picking their own ears.











TABLE 9.--Reasons for customer preference for packaged or loose ears of
sweet corn, six stores in three income areas, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania, May 9-28, 1966

Reason for Income Area
Preference Low Medium High All
Percent of Respondents
Packaged
Convenience 42 32 51 41
Quality preservation 41 35 15 32
Better visibility 8 10 12 10
Cleaner 4 18 18 12
Like to pick own 1 3 1 2
Sweeter 3 2 3 3
Cheaper 1 -

Total 100 100 100 100
Loose Ears
Convenience 7 7 9 8
Quality preservation 18 34 27 27
Better visibility 25 16 9 15
Cleaner 2 1
Like to pick own 46 30 45 40
Sweeter 13 9 8
Cheaper 2 1 *

Total 100 100 100 100

*
Less than 0.5 of I percent.


Of the respondents stating a preference for husked (prepackaged)
corn, over 50 percent listed convenience as a reason, 22 percent said
better visibility and 13 percent listed quality preservation (Table 10).
Of those persons preferring green corn, 54 percent gave quality preser-
vation as a reason and 18 percent liked to pick their own corn. More
people who liked green corn listed sweetness as a reason than listed con-
venience, cleanliness or cheapness (price) as a reason for their
preference.

Quality preservation, convenience, visibility and desire to select
ears individually apparently motivate most people in the type of corn they
purchase. Convenience and visibility were uppermost in determining
preference for those purchasing husked (prepackaged) corn. The desire to
select their own ears and quality preservation were the factors motivating
buyers of green corn.











TABLE 10.--Reasons for customer preference for husked or green sweet corn,
six stores in three income areas, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania, May 9-28, 1966

Reason for Income Area
Preference Low Medium High All

Percent of Respondents
Husked
Convenience 53 50 59 54
Quality preservation 15 14 9 13
Better visibility 22 24 20 22
Cleaner 4 9 5 6
Like to pick own 5 2
Sweeter 6 3 2 3
Cheaper -

Total 100 100 100 100
Green
Convenience 9 7 9 8
Quality preservation 59 61 42 54
Better visibility 8 4 6 6
Cleaner 2 7 3
Like to pick own 19 13 23 18
Sweeter 2 13 10 9
Cheaper 3 3 2

Total 100 100 100 100



Number of ears.--Respondents were asked to record the number of
ears purchased and to indicate how many ears they would prefer in a
package. Husked (prepackaged) corn with three and four ears per package
was available along with green corn packaged at the store in trays or bags
to hold two, three, four, five, six and 12 ears per package. During
special sales, the packages of six and 12 ears were featured at slightly
reduced prices from the single or free choice green ear price. As a
result, one would expect a greater percentage of respondents purchasing
green ears to have bought 6- and 12-ear packages. It probably follows
that they would mark their preferences in that manner unless they had a
strong preference for a different number of ears.

Many purchasers, perhaps, did prefer the same number of ears they
had bought but there were some definite departures from the normal or
"easy" routine. Thirty-nine and 34 percent of all green corn buyers
purchased 6- and 12-ear packages, respectively (Table 11). However, 52
percent of the green corn buyers preferred six ears and only 16 percent
wanted 12 ears per package. The 4- and 5-ear packages of green corn were
also preferred by a modest percentage.











TABLE 11.--Number of ears purchased and preferred, by type of sweet corn,
six stores in three income areas, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania,
May 9-28, 1966


Number Type of Corn
of Husked Green
Ears
Bought Preferred Bought Preferred
Percent of Respondents

1 *
2 6
3 36 22 1 6
4 26 41 2 11
5 3 20 10
6 25 22 39 52
7 1
8 4 2 3
9 1 1
10 2 1 4
11 -
12 6 3 34 16

Total 100 100 100 100

Less than 0.5 of 1 percent.


Purchasers of husked (prepackaged) corn bought a 3- or a 4-ear
package or multiples thereof. They indicated a preference for 3-, 4- and
6-ear packages. It would appear that those preferring a 6-ear prepackaged
item would be willing to accept two 3-ear packages since they did purchase
in that manner.

Ear length.--Respondents were asked to indicate the length of ear
they preferred to purchase and to give reasons for their preference. It
can be seen from Table 12 that 85 percent of all respondents preferred an
ear of 6 inches or longer. Those who purchased husked (prepackaged) corn
indicated a 94 percent preference for an ear 4 1/2 inches or longer. Pur-
chasers of green corn voted 92 percent for 6 inches and over.

As reasons for preferring the stated length of ear, 84 percent of
the purchasers of husked corn and 76 percent of those purchasing green
corn indicated convenience and size to fit a family serving (Table 13).
The next most important reason for preferring longer ears was that they
were cheaper. This was certainly true for green corn purchased at the
sale price during the study. If the customer was thinking of serving two
children with a 6- to 8-inch ear she would be correct during nonsale
periods. A few people indicated quality as a reason and more of those
thought that large ears were better quality.









TABLE 12.--Length of ears preferred by customers, by type of sweet corn,
six stores in three income areas, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania, May 9-28, 1966

Length of Type of Corn
Ear Husked Green All
Percent of Respondents
Under 4" *
4" 6 1 3
4 1/2" 6 2
5" 12 5 8
6" 43 18 27
Over 6" 33 74 58
Indifferent 2 2

Total 100 100 100

*Less than 0.5 of 1 percent.

TABLE 13.--Relationship of length of ears preferred to reasons for
preference, by type of sweet corn, six stores in three income
areas, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, May 9-28, 1966

Reason for Ear Length Preferred
Preference 4 1/2" 6" ver Average
1" 4 1/26" Average
Percent of Respondents
Husked

Convenience 46 62 48 37 42 42
Family serving 45 31 44 49 34 42
Tender 1 1
Less waste 7 4 1
Small ears better quality 9 1
Large ears better quality 4 3 7 4
Cheaper 7 15 8
Indifferent 3 2 1

Total 100 100 100 100 100 100
Green
Convenience 100 47 66 39 44
Family serving 33 20 37 33
Tender 4 4
Less waste 1 1
Small ears better quality 7 2 2 2
Large ears better quality 6 7 7
Cheaper 6 4 9 8
Indifferent 7 2 1 1

Total 100 100 100 100 100 100











Quality.--Respondents were asked to indicate their opinion of the
eating quality of the corn by checking whether it was sweet and tender or
flat and tough. Eleven percent of all respondents indicated their corn
was flat and tough (Table 14). This opinion ranged from 8 percent in the
medium income area to 17 percent in the high income area. Of those cus-
tomers eating husked (prepackaged) corn, 17 percent were dissatisfied and
the dissatisfaction ranged from 7 percent for medium income to 28 percent
for high income consumers. Consumers of green corn found less fault with
the eating quality; 4 percent of the low and 9 percent of the medium and
high income customers indicated the green corn was flat and tough.


TABLE 14.--Relationship of income area and type of sweet corn purchased
to reported eating quality, six stores in three income areas,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, May 9-28, 1966

Type of Corn Purchased
Income Husked Green All
Area
Sweet- Flat- Sweet- Flat- Sweet- Flat-
Tender Tough Tender Tough Tender Tough
Percent of Respondents
Low 83 17 96 4 91 9
Medium 93 7 91 9 92 8
High 72 28 91 9 83 17

All 83 17 93 7 89 11


One study made several years ago indicated that eating quality of
corn was lower from stores having unrefrigerated retail store storage or
higher retail temperatures.6 It was observed in this study that store
storage practices were below average in the high income stores. This may
have resulted in more rapid aging of prepackaged corn.

Since it was felt there may be a relationship between customers'
opinion of quality and the length of time corn was kept at home before
being eaten, the comparison shown in Table 15 was made. This does not
show the expected relationship of more dissatisfaction with age. Over 85
percent of the corn was eaten within two days of purchase which leaves a
relatively thin sample for three days or longer from purchase to con-
sumption. Because of the rapid turnover in green corn supplies caused by
the two special sales, it is probable the average husked (prepackaged)
corn was one day older than green corn when purchased. Thus, green corn
was an average of four and prepackaged corn five days old when purchased.

As a further indication of possible consumer dissatisfaction,
they were asked to indicate whether, after cooking, any part of the ear

6R. K. Showalter et al., Long Distance Marketing of Fresh Sweet
Corn, Florida Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin 638, November,
1961., 19.










showed a brown or black color. As can be seen from Table 16, about 14
percent of the husked (prepackaged) corn and 11 percent of the green corn
showed some brown or black discoloration when cooked. Most of the dis-
coloration appeared on the end of the cob or to the end kernels--those
most likely to be damaged in packaging or handling.


TABLE 15.--Relationship of days from purchase to consumption and eating
quality, by type of sweet corn, six stores in three income areas,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, May 9-28, 1966


Days from Type of Corn Purchased
Purchase to Husked Green All
Consumption Sweet- Flat- Sweet- Flat- Sweet- Flat-
Tender Tough Tender Tough Tender Tough
Percent of Respondents
Same day 80 20 93 7 89 11
1 81 19 93 7 88 12
2 85 15 89 11 88 12
3 92 8 94 6 93 7
4-8 90 10 92 8 91 9

Average 83 17 92 8 89 11


TABLE 16.--Parts of ears discoloring when cooked, by type of sweet corn
purchased, six stores in three income areas, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania, May 9-28, 1966


Parts of Ears Type of Corn
Discoloring Husked Green All
Percent of Respondents
End kernels 7 4 5
Cob ends 4 2 3
Scattered kernels 3 2 2
Center kernels 2 2
All of ear 1 *
None 86 89 88

Total 100 100 100

Less than 0.5 of 1 percent.










It appears that there is a relationship between age of corn and
discoloration. From two to three times as much discoloration was reported
for corn eaten two days after purchase as compared with that eaten on the
day of purchase. Damage in handling would be more likely to show up as
the corn aged (Table 17).


TABLE 17.--Relationship
coloration of cooked
three income areas,


of days from purchase to consumption and dis-
corn, by type of sweet corn, six stores in
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, May 9-28, 1966


Days to Type of Corn
Consumption Husked Green All
Percent of Respondents
Same day 7 8 8
1 11 8 9
2 21 19 20
3 23 0 10
4-8 16 33 26

Average 12 11 11



Summary

To determine consumer opinions of husked and green sweet corn a
questionnaire was affixed to packages of corn displayed for sale in six
stores in three income areas in and around Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
for a period of three weeks from May 9 to 28, 1966. While almost 50 per-
cent of the sales of corn and, hence, distribution of questionnaires was
in the low income area, response (percentages of questionnaires returned)
by customers was highest from the medium and high income areas. Response
in numbers of questionnaires returned by income area was approximately
equal.

The number of persons per household responding to the question-
naire averaged 3.5 with a range of 3.7 in the low income to 3.4 persons
per household in the high income area. Ears of corn purchased per person
ranged from 2.1 in the low income area to 1.7 ears per person in the high
income area.

As the size of households increased, purchases changed from 67
percent husked (prepackaged) in two-person households to 74 percent green
in six-person households. Three-fourths of all people who bought husked
(prepackaged) corn preferred it already packaged but only one-half of
those who bought green corn wanted it packaged prior to sale. Convenience
and visibility were uppermost in determining preference for those pur-











chasing husked (prepackaged) corn. The desire to select their own corn
and quality preservation were the factors motivating buyers of green corn.

Most customers indicated a preference for a 3-, 4- or 6-ear package
of husked (prepackaged) corn and three to six ears per package of green
corn. Customers for husked (prepackaged) corn indicated a strong (94 per-
cent) preference for ears of 4 1/2 inches or longer while purchasers of
green corn voted 92 percent for an ear of six inches or longer. Reasons
given for preference in both instances were convenience and family serving
size and, for the larger ears only, that they were cheaper.

Customers appeared better satisfied with the quality of the green
corn than of the husked (prepackaged) corn they purchased. Handling
practices between terminal warehouses and retail display counters apparently
are not conducive to maintenance of the highest quality in sweet corn and
in husked (prepackaged) sweet corn in particular. Seventeen percent of the
husked (prepackaged) corn was flat and tough in taste and 14 percent showed
some discoloration when cooked. Only 7 percent of the green corn was flat
and tough in taste and 11 percent showed some discoloration when cooked.
There was an indication that discoloration increased with the age of the
corn.


Conclusions

1. Prepackaged sweet corn requires better handling methods
for the preservation of quality than are presently being
employed in the terminal markets.

2. Some change in market structure may be necessary to
insure highest quality to purchasers of prepackaged
corn. An example might be direct delivery to stores
from refrigerated trucks during store hours only.

3. There is a place for prepackaged as well as green fresh
sweet corn in the retail store.

4. While customers will accept shorter ears for convenience
purposes, their real preference appears to be for a long
ear of fresh sweet corn.

5. Customers buying corn in a package prefer three, four,
or six ears.

6. Customers were better satisfied with the quality of the
green corn than of the prepackaged corn purchased
during the study.













APPENDIX


Sweet Corn Questionnaire

Dear Customer:

You have purchased fresh sweet corn from Florida. When you have eaten it we
would appreciate your frank answers to a few important questions to assist in our
research. For that, the Manager's office at the store from which you purchased the
corn will give you 15 cents if you return the completed questionnaire to her before
June 4, 1966.
1. Date you purchased corn 2. Price paid
3. Number of persons in your household eating corn-on-the-cob
4, Was corn husked unhusked (green)
5. Number of ears purchased 6. Ear length (please measure)
7. (a) How many ears of corn would you prefer in a package
(b) What length (c) Why
8. Dt-.e corn was eaten 9. Was it sweet and tender_flat and tough
10. (a) Did any part of the ear(s) show a brown or black color when cooked
(b) Which parts) 11. Will you buy this type of corn again
12. How often do you buy fresh corn from December through May.
Twice weekly weekly_, twice monthly_ monthly other
13. (a) Do you prefer packaged unpackaged_, husked unhusked corn.
(b) Why
14. Number employed in household Weekly household income
15. Please enter any comments on the reverse side. Thank you.
Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations, Gainesville, Florida




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