• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Title Page
 Abstract
 Table of Contents
 List of Tables
 List of Appendix Tables
 Acknowledgement
 Abstract
 Introduction and Objectives
 Findings
 Conclusions
 Appendix
 Bibliography






Group Title: Technical paper / Florida Sea Grant ;, no. 20.
Title: Consumer acceptance of low temperature smoked fish fillets
CITATION PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00074937/00001
 Material Information
Title: Consumer acceptance of low temperature smoked fish fillets
Series Title: Technical paper Florida Sea Grant
Physical Description: x, 48 p. : ; 28 cm.
Language: English
Creator: Degner, Robert L
Otwell, W. Steven
Koburger, John A
Publisher: Florida Agricultural Market Research Center, Food and Resource Economics Dept., Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville Fla
Publication Date: 1981
 Subjects
Subject: Fish as food   ( lcsh )
Smoked fish   ( lcsh )
Genre: government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
bibliography   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )
 Notes
Bibliography: Bibliography: p. 48.
Statement of Responsibility: by Robert L. Degner, W. Steven Otwell and John A. Koburger.
General Note: "March 1981."
Funding: Technical paper (Florida Sea Grant) ;
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00074937
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved, Board of Trustees of the University of Florida
Resource Identifier: aleph - 000990246
oclc - 12157193
notis - AEW7158

Table of Contents
    Title Page
        Title Page
    Abstract
        Abstract
    Table of Contents
        Table of Contents 1
        Table of Contents 2
    List of Tables
        List of Tables 1
        List of Tables 2
    List of Appendix Tables
        Unnumbered ( 7 )
    Acknowledgement
        Acknowledgement
    Abstract
        Abstract 1
        Abstract 2
    Introduction and Objectives
        Page 1
        Page 2
        Page 3
        Page 4
        Page 5
    Findings
        Page 6
        Page 7
        Page 8
        Page 5
        Page 9
        Page 10
        Page 11
        Page 12
        Page 13
        Page 14
        Page 15
        Page 16
        Page 17
        Page 18
        Page 19
        Page 20
        Page 21
        Page 22
        Page 23
        Page 24
        Page 25
        Page 26
        Page 27
        Page 28
        Page 29
        Page 30
    Conclusions
        Page 31
        Page 32
        Page 30
    Appendix
        Page 33
        Page 34
        Page 35
        Page 36
        Page 37
        Page 38
        Page 39
        Page 40
        Page 41
        Page 42
        Page 43
        Page 44
        Page 45
        Page 46
        Page 47
    Bibliography
        Page 48
Full Text













CONSUMER ACCEPTANCE OF LOW TEMPERATURE
SMOKED FISH FILLETS

BY

Robert L. Degner, W. Steven Otwell
and John A. Koburger


Technical Paper No. 20
March 1981







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


Technical papers are duplicated in limited quantities for
specialized audiences requiring rapid access to information and
may receive only limited editing. The preparation of this paper
was supported in part by Florida Sea Grant College and NOAA
Office of Sea Grant, U.S. Department of Commerce, grant number
04-8-M01-76. It was published by the Marine Advisory Program
which functions as a component of the Florida Cooperative
Extension Service, John T. Woeste, Dean, in conducting Cooperative
Extension work in Agriculture, Home Economics, and Marine Sciences
State of Florida, U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Department
of Commerce, and Boards of County Commissioners, cooperating.
Printed and distributed in furtherance of the Acts of Congress
of May 8 and June 14, 1914. The Florida Sea Grant College is an
Equal Employment Opportunity-Affirmative Action Employer
authorized to provide research, educational information and
other services only to individuals and institutions that
function without regard to race, color, sex, or national origin.











ABSTRACT


A sample of 402 consumers in Jacksonville and Tampa, Florida was

used to evaluate a new seafood product form called "low temperature

smoked (LTS) fish fillets." Skinless fish fillets are smoked for a

relatively short time at relatively low temperatures. After smoking, the

product is packaged and stored like other seafood products. Upon thawing,

it can be cooked in conventional ways.

For this test, mullet fillets which had been frozen for about one month

after smoking were deepfat fried and presented to the consumer panel.

Sensory evaluations were very favorable. Acceptance was also indicated by

purchase intentions. Ninety-one percent of the primary food shoppers in

the sample indicated they would buy the product if available in retail food

stores, and about 68 percent of all respondents expressed a willingness to

order the product if available in restaurants.







NOTE:

This paper was originally published in September 1980 by the Florida

Agricultural Market Research Center as Industry Report 80-3.

A companion paper, "Low Temperature Smoked Fish Fillets: A

Potential New Product Form For Florida Fish," Florida Sea Grant Technical

Paper No. 19, December 1980, discusses the technical aspects of the

production process in preparing low temperature smoked fish fillets.













TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page

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

LIST OF APPENDIX TABLES ......................................... vii

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

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

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

OBJECTIVES ..................... .......................... ...... 1

The Product .................. .......................... 2

Research Procedure ........................................4

FINDINGS .... ................................................... 5

The Consumer Sample ........................................ 5

Test Product Evaluation ..................................... 10
Sensory Evaluation ................... ................ 10

Effects of Socioeconomic and Demographic Characteristics on
Product Appeal ........................................ 14

Acceptability as a Menu Item .......... ..................... 15

Comparison of the Test Product With Other Smoked Fish .......15

Evaluations by Primary Food Shoppers .......................17

Respondents' Ability to Identify Species ...................18

Suggestions for Product Improvement ........................18

Evaluation of Possible Product Names ......................21

Evaluation as a Retail Product .............................22
Purchase intentions ................................... 22
Substitution of the test product for currently available
frozen fish fillets ................................. 22


iii











TABLE OF CONTENTS--Continued

Page

Pricing ............................................ 25
Preferred package size .......................... 28

Evaluation of a restaurant menu item .................. 28
Restaurant order intentions ...................... 28

CONCLUSIONS ................................................... 30

APPENDIX ..................................................... 33

REFERENCES ................................................... 48













LIST OF TABLES


Table Page

1 Nonrespondents' reasons for not sampling the test product.... 7

2 Number and percent of primary food shoppers, both cities.... 8

3 Frequency of use of frozen fish fillets, both cities........ 8

4 Usual cooking method for frozen fish fillets, both cities... 9

5 Consumer ratings of physical attributes of the smoked fish
fillets .................. .................................. 11

6 Consumer ratings of characteristics of the test product and
previously eaten smoked fish ............................... 13

7 Number and percent of respondents that had previously eaten
smoked fish, Jacksonville and Tampa........................ 14

8 Mean overall appeal ratings for the test product by selected
demographic variables and classifications ................. 16

9 Ratings of selected characteristics of smoked fish fillets,
by primary food shoppers ................................... 17

10 Respondents' ability to correctly identify species from which
test products were made .................................... 19

11 Suggested improvements for the test product................. 20

12 Resondents' ratings for selected names for the test product. 23

13 Primary food shoppers' purchase intentions for the test pro-
duct at a "competitive price".................... ......... 23

14 Primary food shoppers' indicated substitution of the test
product for currently available frozen fish fillets, at
prevailing prices...................................... 25

15 A summary of primary shoppers' estimates of a "fair" retail
price for the test product................................. 26

16 Primary shoppers' anticipated frequency of use of the test
product at various retail prices ........................... 27









LIST OF TABLES -- Continued


Table Page

17 Primary food shoppers' preferred package sizes for frozen
fish fillets............................................. 29

18 Frequency of consumption of fish fillets in restaurants, all
respondents................................................ 30

19 Respondents' intentions to order the test product if avail-
able in restaurants, by current frequency of fish fillet
orders..................................................... 31












LIST OF APPENDIX TABLES

Table Page

1 Socioeconomic and demographic composition of the consumer
panel.................................................... 33

2 Species identified by respondents as the source of the
fish fillets............................................ 35

3 Primary shoppers' estimates of a "fair" retail price for
the test product ...................................... 36









ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS


Appreciation is expressed to the Florida Sea Grant College and the

Gulf and South Atlantic Fisheries Development Foundation, Inc. for their

financial support. Special thanks are also due Judy King, FAMRC statistician,

for her assistance in editing and analyzing the data, and to Patricia

Beville and Cyndy Cooper for typing the manuscript.






The Florida Agricultural Market Research Center is a service of

the Food and Resource Economics Department of the Institute of Food and

Agricultural Sciences. Purpose of the Center is to provide timely,

applied research on current and emerging marketing problems affecting

Florida's agricultural 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.


viii













SUMMARY


A new seafood product form was recently developed by the Food
Science and Human Nutrition Department and consumer tested in cooperation
with the Food and Resource Economics Department.
The product is known as "low temperature smoked (LTS) fish fillets".
It is a skinless fish fillet which has been flavored by smoking at
relatively low temperatures for a relatively short period of time. It
is smoked at 120F for 1 1/2 hours, compared with smoking temperatures
of 1500 to 200F for 4 to 12 hours for conventionally smoked fish.

The new process requires less heat for production and results in
less product shrinkage, only 2 percent compared with 40-50 percent for
conventional smoking.

After smoking, the product is packaged and frozen like other fish
fillets. Upon thawing, it can be deep fat fried, pan fried, or broiled.
The product for this consumer test had been frozen one month and was
prepared by deep fat frying.
A wide range of species can be used. For this test, mullet fillets
were prepared. Use of underutilized species like mullet offers Florida
fisherman and seafood processors the opportunity to convert low valued
species to a profitable item.

A consumer sample of 402 individuals was obtained using the mall
intercept approach. Two hundred in Jacksonville and 202 in Tampa.
After sampling the product, respondents were interviewed to determine
their sensory reactions and fish fillet use patterns.

Consumers' evaluations of product color, smoked flavor, texture,
saltiness, smell, overall taste, and overall appeal were very favorable
for all socioeconomic and demographic classes.

Respondents rated the test product significantly higher than previously
eaten smoked fish.

Acceptability of the product as-a family meal received relatively
high ratings. Acceptability as a special meal for friends and as a
restaurant meal was rated somewhat lower, but judged to be quite favor-
able nevertheless.

Respondents' ability to correctly identify mullet as the species
used for the test product had.no effect on overall appeal ratings.









Ninety-one percent of the primary food shoppers interviewed said
they would buy the product if available in retail food stores.

Most primary food shoppers said they would substitute the LTS
fillets for conventional fillets from 1/3 to 1/2 of the time. It is
likely, however, that availability of the product would increase total
fish consumption.

On a volume basis, the test product could substitute for about 50
percent of conventional fillet purchases.

The average suggested "fair price" for the test product was $2.02
per pound; the median was $1.90 and the mode was $1.50. The range was
$0.60 to $6.00 per pound.

Over 68 percent of all respondents said they would order the LTS
fillets if available in restaurants.

In conclusion, the LTS fillets were well accepted by the consumer
sample. Because an acceptable product can be made from currently under-
utilized species, Florida fishermen and seafood processors can also gain
by development of this product.













CONSUMER ACCEPTANCE OF LOW TEMPERATURE SMOKED
FISH FILLETS


Robert L. Degner, W. Steven Otwell
and John A. Koburger

INTRODUCTION


In the face of continually changing consumer tastes and preferences

new product development is a constant challenge to any industry. One of

the functions of the Food Science and Human Nutrition Department of the

Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences at the University of Florida

is to develop new uses and new forms of products from agricultural

commodities and fishery resources. An essential part of this develop-

mental process is the evaluation of consumer response to newly created

products. The Florida Agricultural Market Research Center of the Food

and Resource Economics Department conducts extensive consumer research.

Without adequate evaluation at various stages of the developmental

process, much technical and scientific effort can be lost if the product

does not conform to consumers' needs and desires.

OBJECTIVES


The study is designed to determine consumer acceptance of low

temperature smoked (LTS) fish fillets. Specific objectives were to


Robert L. Degner is assistant professor in Food and Resource Economics,
and W. Steven Otwell is an assistant professor and John A. Koburger is a
professor of the Food Science and Human Nutrition Department, all of the
University of Florida










obtain consumer evaluation of basic product characteristics such as

exterior and interior color, smoked flavor, texture, saltiness, smell,

and acceptability as a family meal, a special meal for friends, and as

a restaurant menu item. Acceptable retail prices for the LTS fillets

were also estimated.


The Product

The low temperature smoked fish fillets are a new product form

recently developed by Drs. Koburger and Otwell of the Food Science and

Human Nutrition Department of the University of Florida, in cooperation

with the Florida Sea Grant College. The product was developed to expand

the use of traditional and underutilized fish species harvested in

Florida. The product is a skinless fish fillet which has been flavored

by smoking at relatively low temperatures for a relatively short time.

The fillets are smoked at 1200F for 1 1/2 hours, compared with smoking

temperatures of 1500 to 200F for periods ranging from four to twelve

hours for conventionally smoked fish. Obviously, the low temperature

process has the advantage of requiring less heat energy for production,

compared with the traditional hot smoking process. Another advantage is

reduced product shrinkage. Preliminary tests show a loss of only 2

percent, compared with 40 to 50 percent for hot smoking procedures.

After smoking, the product is cooled, frozen and packaged like

other seafood products. Tests have demonstrated that the LTS fillets

made from mullet can remain frozen for over three months with no detri-

mental effects on flavor and texture. Prior to serving, the product can

be fried, baked, or broiled. Cooking results in a final product that









differs from the traditional hot smoked fish in that it has a higher

moisture content and a greater yield.

The process may be used for a wide variety of species. Tests show

that the product can be made from lean or fatty fish, from popular or

underutilized fish (Otwell, et al., 1980). Also, the process is ideally

suited for utilization of "spent" (roe removed) mullet carcasses. This

is particularly important because Florida is the principal mullet roe

exporting state. After removal of the roe for export, spent mullet

carcasses are usually dumped overboard or sold at very low prices. The

LTS process offers a means of converting the low-value spent mullet

fillets into a potentially profitable item for fishermen and seafood

processors.

Further, the process and the basic characteristics of the product

lend itself to most seafood distributors' operations. The product

offers the advantages of extended shelf-life, high yield, and portion

control, which are important to retail outlets, restaurants, and other

food service firms. Preliminary taste panel tests indicated that the

product would be well received by consumers, offering them an additional

choice of seafood items.

The LTS fillets used in this consumer study were made from spent

mullet that had been frozen for approximately one month. Details of the

LTS process are included in the Appendix. The test product samples for

this consumer study were thawed under refrigeration, then deep fat fried

in peanut oil at 3500F for two minutes. The six-ounce cooked fillets

were cut into two-ounce samples for presentation to consumers. Cooking

of the product samples was done at the test sites by Otwell and Koburger

to ensure quality control.








Research Procedure


Four hundred and two consumers received samples of the test product

and were personally interviewed by professionally trained interviewers.

Two hundred consumers were interviewed in Jacksonville and 202 in Tampa,

Florida. Jacksonville and Tampa were selected as the test cities be-

cause both are relatively large metropolitan areas which afford a broad

spectrum of consumers from various socioeconomic backgrounds. Further,

market research firms with test kitchen facilities and trained inter-

viewers were available in both cities.

The consumer sample was obtained using the mall intercept approach

in late Febraury 1980. Interviewers solicited respondents from shoppers

patronizing large malls in each city. Approximately two-thirds of'all

shoppers approached consented to sample the product and submit to a

brief interview. Interviewers screened respondents to 1) include only

those who ate fish, 2) include only those over 18 years of age, and 3)

to include equal proportions of males and females. In both malls, the

pedestrian traffic flow was sufficiently low to allow interviewers to

approach all shoppers passing by the intercept location. Thus, the

interviewers were not allowed to exercise any discretion as to the

shoppers they approached.

Upon giving their consent to sample the product and to be inter-

viewed, respondents were taken to a private interviewing area adjacent

to the test kitchen. Each respondent was given a warm sample of the

test product along with a bland milk cracker and a glass of water. The

cracker was provided in order to neutralize the taste of food, tobacco





5


items, and gum that respondents may have consumed. The water was provid-

ed so that the respondents could rinse after sampling the product.

Immediately after sampling the test product, respondents were asked

to evaluate the product and then questioned about their basic consumption

patterns for fish fillets. The duration of the interviews ranged from

approximately five to seven minutes. The questionnaire, which had been

thoroughly pretested on Gainesville area homemakers, is also included in

the Appendix.

FINDINGS


The results of this consumer study are discussed below in two

general sections. The first major section discusses the socioeconomic

and demographic composition and fish consumption patterns of the con-

sumer sample, and the second presents the consumers' evaluations of the

test product.


The Consumer Sample


The socioeconomic and demographic characteristics of the consumers

in Jacksonville and Tampa were very similar with respect to household

size, the number of children, age, and income. As mentioned previously,

respondents were preselected on the basis of sex, thus the proportions

of female and male were equal. The two cities differed, however by

education level and race of the respondents. The Tampa sub-sample

contained a disproportionately larger number of respondents with less

than high school educations and a significantly smaller proportion of

blacks than did the Jacksonville sample.


L----~--~----








Although the income distributions for the sub-samples were not

significantly different from each other, the income distributions for

the respective cities were significantly different from published esti-

mates (Survey of Buying Power, 1979). The sub-samples in both cities

had disproportionately high numbers of incomes, over $25,000 per house-

hold per year, and disproportionately low numbers of incomes less than

$8,000, (Appendix Table 1). This probably results in conservative

product ratings since the highest income category rated the product

slightly lower than other income categories and blacks tended to rate it

higher than white respondents. These findings are discussed in more

detail in a later section. It should be pointed out, however, that most

socioeconomic and demographic characteristics did not appear to signi-

ficantly affect the product ratings and other consumer responses. Thus,

it is reasonable to assume that conclusions drawn from this study apply

to other populations even though the socioeconomic and demographic

characteristics may be somewhat different.

As mentioned previously, approximately two-thirds of the shoppers

contacted in the two malls agreed to sample the product and be inter-

viewed. Those who declined were asked for their primary reason. The

majority, slightly over half, indicated a lack of sufficient time (Table

1). The next largest group, about 14 percent, said they disliked fried

fish. About 7 percent said they disliked a smoked flavor and an equal

proportion declined because of diet restrictions. A few refused to

sample the product because of uncertainty as to quality and sanitation

of the product, the time of day, proximity to a meal, or because of a

fear of fish bones. About 14 percent refused to cooperate and refused









to give a reason (Table 1). The racial composition of the non-respondent

group was not significantly different from the group of consumers that

agreed to sample the product.


Table l.--Nonrespondents' reasons for not sampling the


test product.


Reason Number Percent


Do not have time 104 53.1

Dislike fried fish 28 14.3

Dislike smoked flavor 13 6.6

Diet restrictions 13 6.6

Unsure of quality or sanitation 5 2.6

Too early in morning or too soon after eating 5 2.6

Product may contain bones 1 0.5

No specific reason 27 13.8


Totals 196 100.0a


a
Does not sum to 100 percent due to rounding.


All 402 respondents were asked to evaluate the product and to

answer questions related to general usage of fish fillets. However,

those respondents who were primarily responsible for food shopping in

their households and who had purchased frozen fish fillets for at home

consumption were asked to provide additional detail with respect to

frequency of use and to retail prices. It was felt that "primary shoppers"

would be able to provide reliable data on these questions. A total of

191 primary shoppers were interviewed in the two cities (Table 2).









Table 2.--Number and percent of primary food shoppers, both cities.


Do you shop for most of
your household groceries?


Both cities


Number Percent


Yes 191 58.8
No 134 41.2

Total 325 100.0

a
Chi-square analysis indicates no significant difference between
cities at the 0.05 probability level. X2 = 1.06, with 1 degree of freedom.


In the overall sample of consumers, approximately 20 percent report-

ed never using frozen fish fillets at home. A similar number, almost 19

percent, said frozen fish fillets were served infrequently, that is less.

than once per month. Approximately 37 percent said that frozen fish

fillets were served in their households once or twice a month, while

nearly one-fourth of the respondents said that they were served once per

week or more (Table 3).


Table 3.--Frequency of use of frozen fish fillets, both cities.


Frequency Number Percenta


Never 80 19.9
Infrequently, less than once per month 75 18.7
Frequently, once or twice per month 148 36.8
Very frequently, once per week or more 99 24.6

Totals 402 100.0


a
A chi-square analysis indicated no statistically significant differ-
ences between cities, x = 3.97 with 3 degrees of freedom.





5


items, and gum that respondents may have consumed. The water was provid-

ed so that the respondents could rinse after sampling the product.

Immediately after sampling the test product, respondents were asked

to evaluate the product and then questioned about their basic consumption

patterns for fish fillets. The duration of the interviews ranged from

approximately five to seven minutes. The questionnaire, which had been

thoroughly pretested on Gainesville area homemakers, is also included in

the Appendix.

FINDINGS


The results of this consumer study are discussed below in two

general sections. The first major section discusses the socioeconomic

and demographic composition and fish consumption patterns of the con-

sumer sample, and the second presents the consumers' evaluations of the

test product.


The Consumer Sample


The socioeconomic and demographic characteristics of the consumers

in Jacksonville and Tampa were very similar with respect to household

size, the number of children, age, and income. As mentioned previously,

respondents were preselected on the basis of sex, thus the proportions

of female and male were equal. The two cities differed, however by

education level and race of the respondents. The Tampa sub-sample

contained a disproportionately larger number of respondents with less

than high school educations and a significantly smaller proportion of

blacks than did the Jacksonville sample.


L----~--~----








The usual method of cooking frozen fish fillets was similar in the

two cities. Almost 40 percent usually bake them while almost equal

proportions, 23 percent, pan-frying is the predominant method of pre-

paration. Very few households, less than 1 percent, usually steam or

microwave cook frozen fish fillets. Roughly 3 percent of the respond-

ents could not specify the most common method of cooking but instead use

a combination of baking, frying or broiling (Table 4). The usual method

of cooking cited by the respondents had no significant effect on their

ratings of overall product appeal or overall taste. This is consistent
with laboratory taste tests which indicated the manner in which the test

products were prepared had little effect on the test product ratings.


Table 4.--Usual cooking method for frozen fish fillet, both cities.


Usual cooking method Number Percent

Baked 127 39.6
Panfry 74 23.1
Broil 73 22.7
Deepfat fry b 34 10.6
Miscellaneous 3 0.9
Undetermined 10 3.1
Totals 32T 100.0

a
When the usual cooking methods are aggregated into the two general
categories "fried" and "baked" (broiled, microwave cooking and steaming
are included in the baked category and "undetermined" category responses
were assigned on the basis primacy) chi-square analysis indicates no
statistically significant difference in preparation methods between
cities, X2 = 0.015 with 1 degree of freedom.
b
Miscellaneous includes microwave cooking and steaming.
c
Respondents were unable to specify their "usual" cooking method,
but four said the broil and bake equally, three panfry and broil equally,
two panfry and bake equally, and one reportedly deepfat fries and broils
filets with equal frequency.








Test Product Evaluation

Sensory Evaluation

Immediately after the respondents had sampled the test product,

they were asked to evaluate selected physical attributes of the LTS fish

fillets. These attributes included exterior and interior color, smoked

flavor, texture, and saltiness. Respondents evaluations of these attri-

butes were obtained with a series of semantic differential scales.

Numerical values of one to five were assigned to the semantic differ-

ential scales and means and standard deviations calculated. A mean

value of 3.0 indicated a "just right" rating on each attribute. Per-

centage distributions for the various responses are also reported

(Table 5).

Many respondents rated the exterior and interior color of the

fillets as being slightly too dark. The mean ratings were 2.6 and 2.7,

respectively. Approximately 63 percent of the respondents felt that the

exterior color was just right, but one-third rated the exterior color at

being slightly too dark. The distribution of the ratings for interior

were very similar (Table 5). Obviously, the exterior and interior color

of the fillets can be influenced by the choice of species used for the

product. and variations in production and cooking methods. It is

encouraging to note the relatively large proportion of respondents that

was satisfied with the color of the mullet fillets.

The evaluation of the smoked flavor was judged to be of particular

importance. The mean rating of this attribute was 3.0. Over 78 percent

of the respondents indicated that the smoked flavor was just right.

About 12 percent said that the product did not have quite enough smoke

flavor. On the other hand, almost 8 percent was slightly too smokey.








Table 5.--Consumer ratings of physical attributes of the smoked fish fillets.


Meana Standard Percent of
Attribute value deviation respondents


Exterior color 2.6 0.6 ---
Much too dark -- --- 2.2
Slightly too dark --- --- 33.1
Just right -- -- 63.2
Slightly too light --- --- 1.5
Much too light --- --- 0.0
Total TUU.
Interior color 2.7 0.5 -----
Much too dark --- -- 1.2
Slightly too dark --- 30.9
Just right --- 66.7
Slightly too light -- 1.0
Much too light -- --- 0.3
Total 100.Ou
Smoked flavor 3.0 0.6
Much too Smokeyy" --- --- 2.2
Slightly too Smokeyy" --- -7.7
Just right --- 78.4
Not quite enough
smoked flavor --- -- 11.7
Need much more smoked flavor --- --- 0.0
Total 100.0
Texture 2.8 0.5 ---
Much too tough --- --- 0.5
Slightly too tough --- 28.1
Just right -- 69.2
Not quite tough enough -- --- 2.2
Need to be much tougher -- --- 0.0
Total TO1.0
Salt 2.9 0.6
Much too salty --- 2.0
Slightly too salty --- 16.9
Just right 65.9
Not quite enough salt --- --- 14.9
Needs much more salt --- 0.3
Total 100.0

a
Means were calculated by assigning numerical values of 1-5, respectively,
to the semantic differential scales in the order listed. Thus, a mean of 3.0
would indicate a "just right" rating on each attribute. According to Chi-square
tests for each attribute there were no statistically significant differences in
ratings between the two cities. There were 402 observations.

b
Does not sum to 100 percent due to rounding.









Only 2 percent said that the product had too much of a smoked flavor and

none said that it needed much more smoked flavor (Table 5). On the

basis of these results, it appears that the smoking time of 1 1/2 hours

is sufficient to please a very large proportion of the consumer sample.

The texture of the fillets was evaluated by using the term "tough-

ness". Almost 70 percent of the respondents said that the degree of

toughness was just right. However, slightly over 28 percent said the

product was slightly too tough as compared to only 2 percent that said

the product was not tough enough. One-half of 1 percent said the product

was much too tough but no one said the product needed to be much tougher.

Again, the choice of species has an effect on texture. While a signi-

ficant proportion of the sample viewed the test product as being slightly

too tough, it should be noted that there was a high degree of acceptability.

Since brining is essential to the production process, consumer

reactions to the degree of saltiness is also of considerable importance.

However, as with the other basic variables, the brine concentration may

be adjusted to improve acceptability. The mean rating of 2.9 indicates

that the product may be slightly too salty. However, examination of the

rating distribution reveals that almost two-thirds rated thought the

degree of saltiness was just right. Almost equal proportions of re-

spondents said that the product was slightly too salty or not quite

salty enough, 17 percent versus 15 percent. Two percent said the product

was much too salty, compared with only 0.3 percent who said it needed

much more salt (Table 5).

Respondents were also asked to rate the product with respect to
smell, overall taste, overall appeal, and its acceptability as a menu

item for a family meal, a special meal for friend, and a restaurant menu










item. They werealso asked to rate any smoked fish they had previously

eaten for comparison. Interviewees were asked to rate these character-

istics using a 0 to 10 rating scale where 10 equaled excellent and 0

equaled extremely poor.

The ratings for smell, overall taste, and overall appeal were 7.8,

8.2, and 7.9, respectively for all respondents. Respondents in the two

cities rated these characteristics similarly (Table 6).


Table 6.--Consumer ratings of characteristics of the test product and
previously eaten smoked fish.



Characteristics Both citiesa Tampa Jacksonville

--------------- Mean rating -------------

Smell 7.8 ---
Overall taste 8.2 ---
Overall appeal 7.9 --- ---
As a family meal --- 7.4 8.0
As a special meal for friends ---- 6.4 7.0
As a restaurant meal 6.6
Rating of previously eaten
smoked fish 6.9b


a
Means are based on a rating scale
extremely poor. Where only one mean is
test indicated that differences between
significant at the 0.05 level.


b
A paired
rating and the
significant at
freedom.


where 10 = excellent and 0 =
reported for both cities, a t-
cities were not statistically


t-test indicates the difference between the overall appeal
rating given previously eaten smoked fish is statistically
the 0.01 probability level, t = 5.49 with 319 degrees of


I









Effects of Socioeconomic and Demographic Characteristics on
Product Appeal


Analysis of covariance was used to determine whether respondent's

ratings for overall appeal were influenced by sex, race, income, age,

household size or ability to correctly identify the species from which

the product was made. The effect of the time of day interviewed on the

overall rating was also examined, but was judged to have little impact.

Sex, race, income, and household size apparently influence the over-
all appeal ratings. Females rated the product significantly higher than

males. The average overall appeal rating given by women was 8.6, com-

pared with 8.2 for men (Table 7). Black respondents tended to rate the

product higher than did white, 8.7 compared with 8.0.

Table 7.--Number and percent of respondents that had previously eaten
smoked fish, Jacksonville and Tampa.



Had previously eaten smoked fish a
City Yes No


Number Percent Number Percent
Jacksonville 144 71.3 58 28.7

Tampa 180 90.0 20 10.0


a
Chi-square analysis indicates a statistically significant difference
at the 0.01 probability level, X2 = 22.50, with 1 degree of freedom.


The overall appeal ratings for most income categories were similar,

except for the highest income category. Households which exceed $25,000

in annual income rated the product significantly lower than did all others.

However, even though they gave it a lower rating, their rating of 7.8 is

judged to be satisfactory.








The overall appeal ratings did not appear to be significantly

related to age. The average ratings for the various age categories were

quite similar (Table 8).

Acceptability as a Menu Item

Acceptability of the test product as a family meal and as a special

meal for friends received significantly higher ratings in Jacksonville,

but ratings in both cities were relatively high. These differences are

attributed to the finding that blacks tended to rate the product higher

as a family meal and as a special meal for friends than did the white

respondents and the Jacksonville sample contained a larger proportion of

blacks. Rating of the product as a family meal averaged 7.4 in Tampa

and 8.0 in Jacksonville, and the ratings as a special meal for friends

averaged 6.4 in Tampa and 7.0 in Jacksonville. Ratings of the test

product's acceptability as a restaurant meal were similar for the two

cities. The average rating was 6.6.(Table 6).


Comparison of the Test Product With Other Smoked Fish

Respondents that had previously eaten some type of smoked fish were

asked to rate it using the 0 to 10 rating scale. The average rating for

previously eaten smoked fish was 6.9 compared with the overall appeal

rating of 7.9 for the test product (Table 6).
A significantly larger proportion of the consumers in Tampa had

previously eaten smoked fish. Ninety percent of the Tampa respondents

had eaten smoked fish compared with only 71 percent of the Jacksonville

consumers (Table 7). Greater familiarity with smoked fish was expected

for the Tampa consumers because of the prevalence of seafood processors

producing smoked products. Smoked fish items have traditionally been









Table 8.--Mean overall appeal ratings for the test product by selected
demographic variables and classifications.



Product characteristic
demographic variable,
classification F value Mean rating


Overall appeal

Sex 5.93* ---
Female ---- 8.6a
Male ----- 8.2b

Race 7.29** ---
White --- 8.0a
Black --- 8.7b

Income 2.79* -----
Under $8,000 per year 8.5a
$8,000 9,999 --- 8.7a
$10,000 14,999 ---8.5a
$15,000 24,999 -8.2a
$25,000 over 7.8b

Age 0.87 ---
Under 18c -8.3a
18 24 --- 8.2a
35 49 --- 8.5a
50 64 ---- 8.4a
65 + --- 8.4a

Household size 1.76 -----
1 --- 8.4a
2 ---- 8.5a
3 ---- 8.6a
4 or more --- 8.0

Species 0.29
Do not know -8.3a
Correct ---- 8.3a
Incorrect ----- 8.5a

a
Statistical significance at the 0.05, 0.01 levels is indicated by
one and two asterisks, respectively.
b
Means reported here are least squares means. Means for a given
demographic variable followed by the same letter are not significantly
different at the 0,10 percent probability level.
c
Although respondents were screened to eliminate those under 18 years
of age, two were inadvertently included.









more readily available in the Tampa area. It should be noted, however,

that the ratings in the two cities for previously eaten smoked fish were

similar and the test product received higher overall appeal ratings in

both:

Evaluations by Primary Food Shoppers

The ratings for overall taste, overall appeal, and acceptability

for various types of meals were also analyzed to determine whether

primary food shoppers and non-shoppers evaluated the product similarly.

Primary food shoppers rated the product significantly higher with respect

to overall taste than did non-shoppers. The average rating for overall

taste was 8.4 for primary shoppers compared with 8.0 for the non-shoppers.

There were no statistically significant differences in ratings for the

remaining characteristics (Table 9).

Tabe 9.--latings of selected characteristics of smoked fish fillets, by
primary food shoppers.


Primary food All
Characteristics shopper Non-shopper respondents

------------------- Mean ratings ---------------

Overall taste 8.4 8.0 8.2

Overall appeal --- --- 7.9

As an occasional meal --- --- 7.7

As a special meal for friends --- -- 6.7

As a restaurant meal --- --- 6.6
a
Where.only one mean is reported for all respondents, a t-test indicated
that means for the two groups were not significantly different at the 0.05
probability level.








Respondents' Ability to Identify Species

Few respondents, only 23 percent, correctly identified mullet as

the species from which the test product were made. Nearly 40 percent

said they did not know, and almost 37 percent ventured an incorrect

species. A significantly larger proportion of Tampa respondents (Table

10) correctly identified the species as mullet. Nearly a third of Tampa

respondents correctly identified the species, compared with only 14

percent in Jacksonville.

The 147 respondents that incorrectly identified the species mention-

ed 31 different species as the possible source of the fillets. The most

frequently mentioned species were trout, flounder, perch, mackeral,

grouper, codfish and whiting, mentioned by a total of 23 percent of the

respondents (Appendix Table 2). Other guesses ranged from high value

species such as salmon and halibut to rarely eaten species such as shad

and bonito (Appendix Table 2).

Respondents' ability to correctly identify the species from which

the fillets were made did not seem to affect the overall appeal ratings.

Respondents that did not know what species the product was made from and

those that correctly identified the species had the same mean rating,

8.3 (Table 7). Those that incorrectly identified the species had a mean

rating of 8.5. However, this difference was not statistically significant.

Suggestions for Product Improvement

Over half were satisfied with the product as prepared and offered

no suggestion for improvement. Most suggestions dealt with product

attributes and characteristics which were evaluated using the rating

scales previously discussed, and were consistent with the ratings.








Table 10.--Respondents' ability to
test products were made.


correctly identify species from which


Response Tampa Jacksonville Both cities

Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

Did not know
species 77 38.7 83 41.1 160 39.9

Correctly
identified
species 65 32.7 29 14.4 94 23.4

Incorrectly
identified
species 57 28.6 90 44.6 147 36.7

Totalsb 199 100.0 202 100.0 401 100,0


a
Chi-square analysis indicates a statistically significant
in responses between cites, at the 0.01 probability level, X2 =
2 degrees of freedom.


difference
21.40, with


Percentages may not sum to 100 due to rounding.


For example, about 3 percent of the respondents suggested that the

exterior color should be lighter and only one respondent, 0.3 percent said

the exterior color should be darker (Table 11). Almost 9 percent suggest-

ed that the interior color of the fillets should be lighter and only

0.5 percent, two respondents, suggested that the interior color be darker.

With respect to smoked flavor, 15 respondents or 3.7 percent suggested

that the smoked flavor be reduced, and 21 respondents, or 5.2 percent

recommended increasing the smoked flavor.
A few respondents, 7 of the 402, recommended using a batter or a

breading. Interestingly, two respondents suggested using less batter,

despite the fact that none was used on the test product.






20

Table 11.--Suggested improvements for the test product.


Suggestion First response All responses

Number Percent Number Percent

None 207 51.5 --

Basic characteristics
Exterior color should be
lighter 7 1.7 12 3.0
Exterior color should be
darker 0 0.0 1 0.3
Interior color should be
lighter 25 6.2 35 8.7
Interior color should be
darker 1 0.3 2 0.5
Reduce smoke flavor 12 3.0 15 3.7
Increase smoke flavor 19 4.7 21 5.2
Texture should be more tender 19 4.7 26 6.5
Reduce salt 25 6.2 33 8.2
Increase salt 11 2.7 18 4.5
Use filet that does not
taste or smell as strong 8 2.0 9 2.2
Make less greasy 3 0.8 4 1.0
Should be more moist 16 4.0 23 5.7
Should be less moist 3 0.8 3 0.8
Make thicker 7 1.7 9 2.2
Make smaller (bite-sized) 2 0.5 2 0.5
Make larger 2 0.5 2 0.5
Change shape 1 0.3 2 0.5

Breading or batter
Needs more batter 3 0.8 5 1.2
Needs less batter 2 0.5 2 0.5
Bread with cornmeal 2 0.5 2 0.5

Cooking
Microwave 1 0.3 1 0.3
Do not overcook 4 1.0 8 2.0
Miscellaneous 9 2.2 9 2.2

Serving suggestions
Add spices 2 0.5 4 1.0
Serve with sauce 9 2.2 10 2.5
Flavor with lemon juice 2 0.5 5 1.2


Totals 402 100.0a --b --b

a
Does not sum to 100 percent due to rounding.
b
Not summed due to multiple responses.









A few respondents recommended alternative cooking methods such as

cooking in a microwave oven, conventional baking, or pan frying. About

2 percent of the respondents felt that the fillets had been overcooked,

and that prevention of overcooking could result in a better product. A

few suggested that the product would be enhanced by serving with sauces

or other flavorings such as lemon juice (Table 11).

Evaluation of Possible Product Names

Several fanciful names were developed and evaluated to illustrate

various types of names that could be used for the test product. There

are undoubtedly many names which could be informative and at the same time

convey a favorable product image to the consumer. These names are intended

only as a point of departure.

All respondents were asked to rate four possible names for the new

product using the rating scale where 10 = excellent and 0 = extremely poor.

Of the four names tested, "Natural Smoked Fish Fillets" was preferred;

it received an average rating of approximately 6.9 (Table 12). From a

statistical standpoint, "Natural Smoked Fish Fillets" was rated signi-

ficantly higher than "Smoked Flavored Fillets" and "Florida Smokies",

which had mean ratings of approximately 6.0 and 5.8, respectively. The

two latter means were not significantly different from each other. The

fourth name, "Campfire Fish Fillets" received relatively low evaluations

in both cities. The mean ratings for the name "Campfire Fish Fillets",

were 5.6 and 5.9 for Tampa and Jacksonville respondents, respectively; the

mean rating by Tampa respondents was significantly lower than the mean

rating by Jacksonville respondents. When responses are analyzed on an









overall basis, the mean rating for "Campfire Fish Fillets" was 5.2,

significantly lower than the three previous names (Table 12).

Evaluation as a Retail Product

Purchase intentions


Primary food shoppers were asked whether or not they would buy the
test product if available at "competitive prices". Ninety-one percent

said they would buy the product if available, only 9 percent said they

would not (Table 13). Responses were similar in both cities. The except-

ionally high proportion of positive responses indicate considerable

potential as a retail product.

Substitution of the test product for currently available
frozen fish fillets


Primary shoppers were asked to indicate their probable rate of sub-
stitution of the test product for currently available frozen fish fillets
if the LTS fillets were "priced the same" as the fillets usually bought.

Respondents in Jacksonville expressed a greater willingness to substitute

the LTS fillets for the conventionally prepared product. About one-

fourth of the primary food shoppers in Jacksonville said they would

substitute the test product 100 percent of the time, compared with only

9 percent of the Tampa respondents. However, approximately 30 percent of

the Tampa respondents said they were willing to substitute the test product

about 20 to 25 percent of the time compared with 12 percent of the Jack-

sonville consumers. Overall, about 18 percent of the primary shoppers

who said they were willing to buy the test product were willing to substitute

it exclusively for conventional frozen fish fillets. An additional 11









Table 12.--Respondents' ratings for selected names for the test product.


Both Statistical
Name cities significance a

Mean rating b

"Natural Smoked fish
fillets" 6.94 A,

"Smoked flavored fillets" 5.97 B

"Florida Smokies" 5.84 B

"Campfire fish fillets" 5.24 C

a
Ratings for the various names were compared using paired t-tests.
Means connected by a series of the same letter are not significantly
different at the 0.05 probability level. The mean ratings for the name
"Campfire fish filets" were 5.64 and 4.85 for Tampa and Jacksonville
respondents, respectively. A standard t-test indicated that the differ-
ence in these means was statistically significant at the 0.05 probability
level. Means for other names were similar for the two cities.

b
Means are based on a rating scale where 10 = excellent and 0 =
extremely poor. There were 402 observations for each mean.


Table 13.--Primary food shoppers' purchase intentions for the
at a "competitive price".


test product


Purchase intentions Number Percenta


Yes, would buy if available 171 91.0

No, would not buy 17 9.0


Totals 188 100.0

a
Chi-square analysis indicates no statistically significant differ-
ence in purchase intentions by city, X2 = 0.90, with 1 degree of freedom.
Chi-square analyses for purchase intentions by age, income, race, or
household size were not statistically valid because of sparse numbers
of observations.









percent said they would substitute it three-fourths of the time, while

one-half of the shoppers expressed a probable substitution rate of one-

third to one-half of the time. The remaining 20 percent of the primary

shoppers said they would probably substitute the test product from 20 to

25 percent of the occasions when frozen fish fillets were served at

home.

An estimate of the total annual quantities of frozen fish fillets

bought by the entire sample of 402 respondents was made by utilizing the

information on frozen fish fillet purchase frequency and preferred

package size. Assuming that the preferred package size is indicative of

the quantity served on each occasion, the 190 primary food shoppers

would purchase a total of 7,272 pounds of frozen fish fillets annually.

Given each respondent's stated substitution ratio, it appears that

primary food shoppers would substitute 3,889 pounds of the test product

for conventional frozen fish fillets. This amounts to 53 percent of the

total. Indications are the estimated per capital consumption of frozen

fish fillets of the respondents households is biased upward. The estimated

per capital consumption of frozen fish fillets in the primary shopper

households is almost 14 pounds per year, compared with 2.7 pounds for

the U.S. as a whole (U.S. Department of Commerce, 1980). While part of

the discrepancy can be justified on the basis of the manner in which the

consumer sample was selected, the important consideration is the sub-

stitution ratio. The estimated consumption of the test product was

probably also overstated as well, therefore, substitution ratio of the

test product for the conventional fish fillets may be reasonably accurate.

However, even if the substitution ratio is greatly exaggerated, the

market potential for the product appears to be very favorable (Table 14).








Table 14.--Primary food shoppers' indicated substitution of the test
product for currently available frozen fish fillets, at
prevailing prices.


Rate of
substitution Tampa Jacksonville Both cities

Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

100 7 9.1 23 25.3 30 17.9

75 8 10.4 11 12.1 19 11.3

33-50 39 50.7 46 50.6 85 50.6

20-25 23 29.9 11 12.1 34 20.2

Totals 77 100.0 91 100.0 168 100.0

a
Chi-square analysis indicates a statistically significant difference
between cities at the 0.01 probability level, X2 = 12.74, with 3 degrees of
freedom.

b
Percentages may not sum to 100 due to rounding.

Pricing

Primary shoppers who indicated a willingness to buy the LTS fillets

if available in retail stores were asked what they would consider to be

a "fair price". The average price was slightly over $2.00 per pound,

but there was considerable dispersion as evidenced by the standard de-

viation of 74 cents per pound. The median fair price was $1.90 per pound',

and the mode was $1.50 (Table 15). Respondent's estimates of a fair

retail price ranged from 60 cents per pound to $6.00 per pound. Although

approximately one-third indicated a fair price would.be $1.50 per pound

or less, a similar number felt a fair price would be in excess of $2.12

per pound (Appendix Table 3).






26

Table 15.--A summary of primary shoppers' estimates of a "fair" retail
price for the test product.


Statistic a Price per pound


--- Dollars ---
Mean, standard deviation 2.02 (a = 0.74)

Median 1.90

Mode 1.50


a
All statistics are based upon 162 observations.

Primary shoppers were also asked how frequently they would serve

the test product, if available, at prices of $3.00, $2.00, $1.50 and

$1.00 per pound. At a price of $3.00 per pound, approximately 22 percent

of the respondents in both cities said they would never serve the product.

Another 22 percent said they would serve it infrequently, that is, less

than once per month. Half of the respondents said they would serve it

one to three times per month, and 6 percent said they would serve it

once per week or more (Table 16).

At a price of $2.00 per pound, about 96 percent of the Tampa re-

spondents and 92 percent of the Jacksonville respondents said they would

purchase the product. Roughly 80 percent said they would serve the

product frequently, more than once per month. Sixty-five percent of the

Tampa respondents said they would serve it from one to three times per

month if available at $2.00 per pound and the remaining 10 percent said

they would serve it at least once per week. Half of the Jacksonville

respondents said they would serve LTS fillets one to three times per










Table 16.--Primary
product


shoppers' anticipated frequency of use of the test
at various retail prices.


Price per pound,
dollars/frequency a Both cities b Tampa Jacksonville


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


3.00
Never
Infrequently
Frequently
Very frequently

Total

2.00
Never
Infrequently
Frequently
Very frequently

Totals c

1.50
Never
Infrequently
Frequently
Very frequently

Totalsc

1.00
Never
Infrequently
Frequently
Very frequently

Totalsc


21.9
22.5
49.7
5.9

100.0


3.8
21.3
65.0
10.0


100.0


0.0
12.5
75.0
12.5


7.7
19.8
49.5
23.1

100.0


0.0
12.1
50.6
37.4


TO1.


0.0
8.8
66.3
25.0


0.0
8.8
38.5
52.8


100.0


a
Frequency of use
per month; frequently,
per week or more.


is defined as follows: Infrequent, less than once
one to three times per month; very frequently, once


When only one percentage is reported for both cities, a chi-square
analysis indicated that differences between cities were not statistically
significant at the 0.05 probability level.

c
Totals may not sum to 100 percent due to rounding.









month if available at $2.00 per pound, but 23 percent said they would
serve them once per week or more (Table 16).

At $1.50 per pound all respondents indicated a willingness to serve

the product at least occasionally. At a retail price of $1.50 and also
$1.00 approximately 87 to 91 percent of the primary shoppers said they

would serve the product one or more times per month (Table 16).
Preferred package size.--Primary food shoppers that expressed a

willingness to buy the product were asked what package size they preferred

for the LTS fillets. Slightly over 16 percent expressed the need for a

eight ounce package and about 22 percent specified a 12 ounce package.

The largest proportion, almost 37 percent, suggested a one pound package

(Table 17). Approximately 12 and 6 percent of the respondents mentioned

two and three pound packages, respectively. The remaining 6 percent

specified a variety of preferred package sizes ranging from one-third

to six pounds (Table 17).

Evaluation as a restaurant menu item

All respondents were asked how frequently, if ever, they ordered
fish fillets in restaurants. The finding were similar for the two cities.

Approximately 15 percent of all respondents said they never consumed fish

fillets in restaurants, and about 27 percent ordered them infrequently,

that is less than once per month. The largest proportion, nearly 44

percent, ordered fish fillets once or twice per month. Fourteen percent
said they ordered fish fillets once a week or more (Table 18).

Restaurant order intentions.--The order intentions for the test

product were analyzed by current frequency of fish fillet orders.

Surprisingly, of the 61 respondents (15 percent) who said they never









Table 17.--Primary food shoppers' preferred package sizes for frozen
fish fillets.



Preferred Both cities
package size Number Percent


Ounces

8 28 16.4

12 38 22.2

16 63 36.8

32 21 12.3

48 10 5.9

Various 11 6.4


Totals 171 100.0


a
When the 32 and 48 ounce package classifications are combined and
the "various" category eliminated, chi-square analysis indicates no
statistically significant difference in package size preferences between
cities, x2 = 2.73, with 3 degrees of freedom.

b
The "various" size category includes responses that ranged from
0.33 to 6 pounds.


order fish fillets in restaurants, almost 56 percent said they would

order the test product if available. Thirty-six percent of this group said

they would not, and 8 percent were undecided. Of the respondents that order

fish fillets in restaurants less often than once per month, about 64 per-

cent said they would order the LTS fillets, about 30 percent would not,

and 6 percent were undecided. Consumers that order fish fillets once

to three times per month expressed the greatest propensity to order. Seventy-

eight percent said they would not, while only 5 percent were undecided.









Table 18.--Frequency of consumption of fish filets in restaurants, all
respondents.



Frequency Both cities

Number Percent


Never 61 15.2

Infrequently, less than once
per month 108 26.9

Frequently, once or twice
per month 176 43.9

Very frequently, once per
week or more 56 14.0


Totals 401 100.0

a
Chi-square analysis indicates no statistically significant differ-
ences in consumption on frequency by cities at the 0.05 probability
level, 2 = 2.73, with 3 degrees of freedom.


Restaurant patrons that order fish fillets once per week or more often

expressed a reasonably high propensity to order the LTS fillets. About

61 percent said they would order them, 30 percent said they would not,

and about 9 percent were undecided.

When all consumers are treated as one group, about 68 percent said

they would order the product as a restaurant meal, 25 percent would not,

and about 6 percent were undecided (Table 19). Thus, it appears the LTS

fillets would make an acceptable restaurant item.
CONCLUSIONS

The LTS fillets have considerable widespread appeal, as evidenced

by the sensory evaluations of the consumer sample. Although the sensory









Table 19.--Respondents' intentions to order the test product if available
in restaurants, by current frequency of fish filet orders.


Order intentions for test product
Current frequency of Number of Do not
fish filet orders respondents Yes No know Totals

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

Never 61 55.7 36.1 8.2 100.0

Infrequently, less than
once per month 108 63.9 29.6 6.5 100.0

Frequently, one to three
times per month 175 78.3 16.6 5.1 100.0

Very frequently, once
per week or more 56 60.7 30.4 8.9 100.0

All respondents 400 68.5 25.0 6.5 100.0



evaluations were generally favorable, slight modifications in the pro-

duction process (i.e., brining, smoking, etc.) and variations in cooking

methods and times may improve ratings slightly.

The large proportions of the respondents that expressed a willing-

ness to buy the product at retail food stores or restaurants and the

indicated frequency of use provide further indications of favorable

consumer reaction.

This study has demonstrated that an acceptable product can be made

from a currently underutilized species. Thus, Florida fishermen and

seafood processors can gain by development of this product.




3~J









Table 18.--Frequency of consumption of fish filets in restaurants, all
respondents.



Frequency Both cities

Number Percent


Never 61 15.2

Infrequently, less than once
per month 108 26.9

Frequently, once or twice
per month 176 43.9

Very frequently, once per
week or more 56 14.0


Totals 401 100.0

a
Chi-square analysis indicates no statistically significant differ-
ences in consumption on frequency by cities at the 0.05 probability
level, 2 = 2.73, with 3 degrees of freedom.


Restaurant patrons that order fish fillets once per week or more often

expressed a reasonably high propensity to order the LTS fillets. About

61 percent said they would order them, 30 percent said they would not,

and about 9 percent were undecided.

When all consumers are treated as one group, about 68 percent said

they would order the product as a restaurant meal, 25 percent would not,

and about 6 percent were undecided (Table 19). Thus, it appears the LTS

fillets would make an acceptable restaurant item.
CONCLUSIONS

The LTS fillets have considerable widespread appeal, as evidenced

by the sensory evaluations of the consumer sample. Although the sensory








APPENDIX

Appendix Table 1.--Socioeconomic and demographic composition of the consumer
panel.



Demographics Both cities Jacksonville Tampa


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


Number of adults in
household


1
2
3
4
5
6
Total b


14.2
58.5
17.7
6.7
2.0
1.0
100.0


Number of children
in household


55.8
20.5
16.8
5.3
1.5
0.3
100.0


6
Total


Education


4.0
42.6


11th grade or less
12th grade
13, 14 or 15 (college or
vocations)
16 or more
Totals


11.0
34.5

29.5
25.0
100.0


29.2
24.3
100.0


Age


Under 18 years
18-24 years
25-34 years
35-49 years
50-64 years
65 + years
Refused
Total


1.0
28.9
24.2
20.7
18.2
6.7
.3
100.0










Appendix Table l.--Socioeconomic and demographic composition of the consumer
panel--Continued.



Demographics Both cities Jacksonville Tampa

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

Incomec

Under $8,000 per year 9.7 --
$8,000 9,999 8.0
$10,000 14,999 17.5 --
$15,000 24,999 29.9 --
$25,000 and over 32.7 --
Refused 2.2 --
Totalb 100.0

Sex

Female 50.3 --- ---
Male 49.8 --
Totalb 100.0

Race

White ---- 85.2 97.0
Black ---- 14.8 3.0
Totalsb 100.T T100.


a
Where only one percentage is reported
analysis indicated that differences between
significant at the .05 level.


for both cities, a chi-square
cities were not statistically


Does not sum to 100 percent due to rounding.


The income distributions for the consumer panel in the two cities
differed substantially from published estimates of income distributions
(Survey of Buying Power, 1979). Chi-square analysis indicated the differ-
ences statistically significant at the 0.01 levels, X2 = 62.28 and
38.13 with 4 degrees of freedom in Tampa and Jacksonville, respectively.
The consumer sample in both cities had disproportionately high numbers
of high incomes (over $25,000 per household per year) and disproportion-
ately low numbers of low incomes (less than $8,000).








Appendix Table 2.--Species identified by respondents as the source of the
fish fillets.

Species Frequency Percent




Do not know 160 40.00
Mullet 94 23.50
Trout 17 4.25
Flounder 17 4.25
Perch 13 3.25
Mackeral 12 3.00
Grouper 11 2.75
Codfish 11 2.75
Whiting 11 2.75
Bass 7 1.75
Salmon 4 1.00
Snapper 4 1.00
Catfish 4 1.00
Shark 3 0.75
Haddock 3 0.75
Whitefish 3 0.75
Redfish 3 0.75
Halibut 2 0.50
Pollack 2 0.50
Sole 2 0.50
Tuna 2 0.50
Herring 2 0.50
Carp 1 0.25
Drum 1 0.25
Pike 1 0.25
Kipper 1 0.25
Bluefish 1 0.25
Turbot 1 0.25
Dolphin 1 0.25
Swordfish 1 0.25
Pompano 1 0.25
Shad 1 0.25
Bonito 1 0.25
"Saltwater" (non-specific) 1 0.25
"Freshwater" (non-specific) 1 0.25

Total 400 100.00










Appendix Table 3.--Primary shoppers' estimates of a "fair" retail price
for the test product.


Suggested price
per pounds


Respondents


Dollars


Number


0.60
0.69
0.89
0.98
0.99
1.00
1.15
1.19
1.25
1.29
1.33
1.39
1.49
1.50
1.59
1.60
1.65
1.67
1.69
1.70
1.75
1.79
1.80
1.89
1.90
1.95
1.98
1.99
2.00
2.10
2.12
2.25
2.29
2.33
2.35
2.50
2.52
2.59
2.64
2.67
2.87
2.95


Percent

0.62
0.62
1.23
0.62
0.62
1.85
0.62
0.62
2.47
1.23
1.85
2.47
1.85
17.28
1.23
1.23
0.62
0.62
1.23
1.23
2.47
3.70
1.85
1.23
1.23
1.23
1.85
0.62
10.49
0.62
0.62
3.09
0.62
0.62
0.62
10.49
2.47
0.62
0.62
3.70
0.62
0.62


Cumulative percent

0.62
1.24
2.47
3.09
3.71
5.56
6.18
6.80
9.27
10.50
12.35
14.82
16.67
33.95
35.18
36.41
37.03
37.65
38.88
40.11
42.58
46.28
48.13
49.36
50.59
51.82
53.67
54.29
64.78
65.40
66.02
69.11
69.73
70.35
71.97
81.46
83.93
84.55
85.17
88.87
89.49
90.11









Appendix Table 3.--Primary shoppers' estimates of a "fair" retail price
for the test product--Continued.


Suggested price
per pound


Respondents


Percent

3.09
1.23
1.85
1.23
0.62
0.62
0.62
0.62

100.00


Cumulative percent

93.20
94.43
96.28
97.51
98.13
98.78
99.37
100.00

100.00


a
Some prices were
12-ounce packages.

b


calculated from respondents' suggestions based on


Percentages may not sum to 100 due to rounding.


Dollars


Number


3.00
3.19
3.32
3.33
3.49
3.72
5.32
6.00

Totals











The Basic Low Temperature Smoking Process


The following procedures were used for preparation of the test

product samples. Additional information on alternative procedures are

reported by Otwell et al.


Brining

Soak clean skinless fish fillets in a prechilled (400F) salt brine.

The recommended salt concentration is 4 percent (4 cups salt per 9

gallons water). Soaking time should be no less than 30 minutes. Occas-

ional, gentle stirring will facilitate soaking. After brining, the

fillets should be dried on racks held in refrigeration for approximately
30 minutes, until a glaze-like pellicle develops on the surface.


Smoking

Place racks of fillets in a preheated smokehouse and smoke for 1

1/2 hours at 1200F in moderate smoke at a relative humidity of approx-

imately 60 percent. Smoking temperatures between 80 to 1200F may be

effective depending on the characteristics of different smokehouses.

The finished product is not cooked, but has a pale yellow, damp appear-
ance and the surface flesh is firm.

Packaging and Storage


Refrigerate the cold smoked fillets to 40F or below, then package.

Fillets should be layered with freezer paper and wrapped in plastic

bags. Avoid bulk packaging to permit a more rapid freeze. Store frozen
at 00F (-20C) or below.





39


Cooking


Thaw frozen fillets in refrigeration overnight, then fry, bake or

broil as desired. Deep fat frying at 3050F until golden brown is an

excellent cook method. Frying does not require batter or breading.





Smoked Fish Fillet Study


Time of interview



PRODUCT EVALUATION


After respondent has sampled the product ask the following; circle responses.
How would you rate this product with respect to (Hand Sheet A).

A. Exterior color ?


much too slightly
dark too
dark


3
just
right


4
slightly
too
light


5
much too
light


B. Interior color?


2
slightly
too
dark


3
just
right


4
slightly
too
light


5
much too
light


C. Smoked flavor ?


2
slightly
too
Smokeyy"


3
just
right


4
not quite
enough
smoke flavor


5
needs much
more smoke
flavor


D. Texture?


4
not quite
tough
enough


5
needs to be
much tougher


E. Salt ?


not quite
enough
salt


needs much
more salt


1
much too
dark


1
much too
Smokeyy"


1
much too
tough


2
slightly
too
tough


3
just
right


much too
salty


slightly
too
salty


just
right








2. Using a rating scale where 10 = excellent and 0 = extremely poor, how
would you rate this product with respect to:


Characteristic Rating


Smell
Overall taste
Overall appeal
As an occasional meal for
your family
As a special meal for friends
As a restaurant meal


3. Have you ever eaten smoked fish before today? 1. Yes 2. No

Using the rating scale where 10 = excellent and 0 = extremely poor,
how would you rate the smoked fish you had eaten previously as far
as overall appeal?

4. A. How often, if ever, are frozen fish fillets served in your household?
1. Never Why not?
(Skip to question 8)

2. Infrequently; times a year
3. Once a month
4. Once every 3 weeks
5. Once every 2 weeks
6. Every week
7. Times a week
(If response is 2-7):

B. How are frozen fish fillets usually prepared in your household?
1. Deep fat fry
2. Pan fry
3. Broil
4. Baked
5. Other (specify)

C. Do you shop for most of the groceries for your household?
1. Yes 2. No (Skip to question 8)





Smoked Fish Fillet Study


General Product Usage


5. If these frozen smoked fish fillets were available in stores
at a"competitfve" price, would you or would you not buy them?
(Circle 1 or 2; complete others as appropriate).

1. Would buy. What would you consider to be a fair price?(unaided)
$ 12 oz. pka $ 1 lb. pkg
What size package would you prefer (unaided)?


1. 8 oz.
2. 12 oz.
3. 1 lb.


4. 2 Ibs.
5. 3 Ibs.
6. Other (specify)


2. Would not buy -- Go to question 8.


Product Pricing
6. If these smoked fillets cost$ how often do you think you
would buy and serve them? (Place a check in appropriate cell under
each price, except for frequency classification 2 & 7. For these
indicate the number of times per year or week).


Frequency $3/lb $2/lb $1.50/lb $1/lb


1. Never
2. Infrequently,
times a year
3. 1 time per month
4. 2 times per month
5. 3 times per month
6. Every week
7. ,times a week





Smoked Fish Fillet Study
43



7. If priced the same as the frozen fish fillets you usually buy,
how often do you think you would substitute the smoked fillets
for the usual ones?

1. Always: 2. 3/4 of time 3. 1/2 of time
4. 1/4 of time 5. Other; specify ratio of smoked
to total times

8. How often, if ever, do you eat fish fillets in a restaurant?
1. Never (If never) Why not?
2. Infrequently; times per year
3. 1 time per month
4. 2 times per month
5. 3 times per month
6. Every week
7. times per week

9. If these smoked fish fillets were available in restaurants, would
you order them? (Circle)

1. Yes 2. No 3. Do not khow

10. What suggestions, if any, do you have for improving this product?






11. Using the rating Scale where 10 = excellent and 0 = extremely poor,
how would you rate the following names for this product?
1. "Campfire fish fillets"
2. "Florida Smokies"
3. "Natural Smoked fish fillets"
4. "Smoke flavored fillets"

12. What species (kind) of fish do you think these fillets were made
of? (unaided) 1. Don't know 2.(specify)




Smoked Fish Fillet Study


Smoked Fish Fillet Study
44

Demographics


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

14. How many children (under 18) are in you household?


15. What is the highest grade of school that
number to the right of description)


1. Elementary 01
2. Junior High
3. High School
4. College
or vocational


you have completed? (Circle


02 03 04 05 06
07 08
09 10 11 12
13 14 15 16


5. Graduate School (Master's degree)
6. Graduate School (Doctorate)


16. To which of the following age groups do you belong? (show card A)


Under
18-24
25-34
35-49


18 years
years
years
years


50-64 years
65 + years
(refused)


17. Which of the following categories best describes your household's
total after tax or take-home income from all sources? (show card B)
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. (refused)


Thank you very much for your help.
appreciate your cooperation in this


(By observation -- Questions 18 & 19)

18. Sex of respondent: 1. Female

19. Race:
1. White (excluding Spanish origin)
2. White, Spanish/American Indian
3. Black
4. Oriental


We at the University of Florida
smoked fish fillet marketing study.


2. Male






Smoked Fish Fillet Study


45






SHEET A


A. Exterior color?


much too slightly
dark too
dark


3
just
right


4
slightly
too
light


5
much too
light


B. Interior color?


1 2
much too slightly
dark too
dark


3
just
right


4
slightly
too
light


5
much too
light


C. Smoked flavor?


2
slightly
too
Smokeyy"


3
just
ri ht


4 5
not quite needs much
enough more smoke
smoke flavor flavor


D. Texture?


2
slightly
too
tough


2
slightly
too
salty


3
just
right


3
just
right


4
not quite
tough
enough


4
not quite
enough
salt


5
needs to be
much
tougher


5
needs 'much
more salt


1
much too
Smokeyy"


1
much too
tough


E. Salt?


1
much too
salty






46




CARD A CQNEIDENIIAL
AGE

1. Under 18 years
2. 18-24 years
&r
3. 25-34 years
4. 35-49 years
5. 50-64 years
6. 64 + years








CARD B CQNEIDEN1IAL
HOUSEHOLD AFTER TAX INCOME

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







47
SMOKED FISH FILLET STUDY


NON RESPONDENTS


1. (If person refuses to sample fillets ask: What is the main reason
you won't try the sample?)

(Circle unaided first response)

1. Do not have time
2. Do not like fried fish
3. Cannot eat fried fish because of diet restrictions
4. Do not like smoked flavor of any kind
5. May contain bones
6. Unsure of sanitation
7. Unsure of quality
8. No specific reason


(complete questions 2 4 by observation)


2. Sex: Male


3. Age:


Female_


_ Under 35 years
35-64 years
65 + years


4. Race:

1. __ hite (excluding Spanish origin)
2. White, Spanish
3. Black
4. Oriental












REFERENCES

Otwell, W. Steven, J. A. Koburger and R. L. Degner. Low Temperature
Smoked Fish Fillets, Sea Grant Report, Florida Sea Grant College,
August 1980.

Sales and Survey Marketing Management, Survey of Buying Power, 1979.
Vol. 123, No. 2, Part I, New York, July 1979.

Thompson, Ralph B. (Ed.). Florida Statistical Abstract 1979. Bureau
of Economic and Business Research, College of Business Administration,
University of Florida, University of Florida Press, Gainesville,
1979.

U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
National Marine Fisheries Service, Fisheries of the United States,
1979, Currect Fishing Statistics, No. 8000, April, 1980.




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