<%BANNER%>

Naturally Confused: A Focus Group Study Describing Selected Consumers' Perceptions of All-Natural and Organic Pork


PAGE 1

NATURALLY CONFUSED: A FOCUS GROUP STUDY DESCRIBING SELECTED CONSUMERS PERCEPTIONS OF ALL-NATURAL AND ORGANIC PORK By KATHERINE CHODIL A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2007 1

PAGE 2

2007 Katherine Chodil 2

PAGE 3

To Mom, Dad, Scott, Brian, and Wrigley: The people and one dog who will always love me, no matter what. 3

PAGE 4

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This master' s thesis is the culmination of the best and most challenging 2 years of my life (so far). During this time, many people made this thesis a conquerable feat. They deserve much more than a simple acknowledgment. I thank my Mom and Dad for supporting me financially and emotionally through my poorly-paid years. Their support and pride in all that I do gives me motivation to exceed even my own expectations. I thank Jennifer Doup-Smith for helping me discover my niche in agricultural communications. Without her down-to-earth advice and encouragement, I would not be where I am today. Dr. Nick Place provided keen insight into areas I would have not otherwise considered in my thesis topic. His input made the scope and recommendations of my thesis relevant to all the right researchers and practitioners. I thank Dr. Ricky Telg for his attention to detail in writing and structure. Because of him, my writing abilities and thesis have improved ten-fold. After all, its not only the quality of the research that makes a thesis strong, it is the writing style and ability to clearly communicate it. I thank Dr. Tracy Irani and Courtney Meyers for their advice, encouragement, and constant reassurance that I could do this. Your confidence in me was exactly what I needed to complete my thesis. I thank Brian Estevez for daily hugs, work disruptions, office baseball, and always being there for me in a bind. I would have gone crazy without the joy he brings to the batcave day in and day out. 4

PAGE 5

To my wonderful colleagues, Elio Chiarelli and Carrie Pedreiro, thanks for walking through the fire with me. Having the both of them by my side was the key to my success. And lets face it, our theses rocked. I thank Brian Abrams for cooking, cleaning, walking the dog, and bringing me flowers throughout the busiest months. He is my strength on the toughest days. Im so lucky to be marrying the man of my dreams. And last, but not least, to all of my friends in Rolfs Hall, thanks for every Gators experience, Chipotle Fridays, office shenanigans, random get-togethers, and a bit okay, usually a lot, of laughter every day. They are all the greatest friends I could have ever hoped for. 5

PAGE 6

TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...............................................................................................................4 TABLE .............................................................................................................................................9 LIST OF FIGURES .......................................................................................................................10 ABSTRACT ...................................................................................................................................11 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................13 Statement of the Problem ........................................................................................................16 Significance of the Problem ....................................................................................................20 Purpose of the Study and Research Questions .......................................................................21 Assumptions ...........................................................................................................................22 Limitations ..............................................................................................................................22 Definitions of Key Terms .......................................................................................................23 2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE.................................................................................................25 Theory of Planned Behavior ...................................................................................................25 Means-End Theory .................................................................................................................28 Risk Perceptions .....................................................................................................................30 Consumer Perceptions of Qua lity, Price and Value M odel ....................................................33 Organic and Natural Pork Quality Perceptions ......................................................................36 Taste Perceptions ....................................................................................................................37 Price/Value Attitudes ..............................................................................................................38 Organic and Natural Claims Labeling Perceptions ................................................................40 Summary .................................................................................................................................43 3 METHODOLOGY.................................................................................................................45 Design of the Study ................................................................................................................45 Screening Process and Subject Selection ...............................................................................47 Instrumentation/Questioning Route ........................................................................................48 Procedure ................................................................................................................................49 Data Collection .......................................................................................................................51 Data Analysis ..........................................................................................................................52 Credibility, Transferability, Dependability, and Confirmability ............................................52 Summary of Methodology ......................................................................................................54 6

PAGE 7

4 RESULTS...............................................................................................................................55 Perceptions of All-Natural and Organic .................................................................................57 Skepticism Surrounding All-Natural ...............................................................................57 All-Natural Means No ..................................................................................................58 All-Natural Pork Associated with Animal Welfare .........................................................59 Organic Means Healthy ...............................................................................................59 Organic Equated with Produce ........................................................................................60 Organic Foods Cost More ...............................................................................................61 Reactions to USDA Standards for Organic and Policy for Natural Claims ...........................61 Confusion Surrounding Differences between USDA Standards and Guidelines ............61 Making the Information Clearer to Consumers ...............................................................63 Taste Perceptions of All-Natural Pork ....................................................................................63 All-Natural Boneless Pork Loin Tastes Better ................................................................64 Differing Taste Expectations ...........................................................................................64 Differing Taste Preferences .............................................................................................65 Results from Taste Questionnaire ...................................................................................66 Taste Perceptions and Willingness to Pay for All-Natural Pork Products .............................67 Taste Influences Willingness to Pay ................................................................................67 Summary .................................................................................................................................68 5 DISCUSSION.........................................................................................................................70 Key Findings ...........................................................................................................................70 Conclusions .............................................................................................................................71 Perceptions of All-Natural and Organic ..........................................................................71 Perceptions surrounding all-natural .........................................................................71 Perceptions surrounding organic ..............................................................................73 Reactions to USDA Standards for Organic and Policy for Natural Claims ....................74 Taste Perceptions of All-Natural Pork ............................................................................75 Willingness-To-Pay as Influenced by Taste Perceptions ................................................77 Implications ............................................................................................................................78 Perceptions of All-Natural and Organic ..........................................................................78 Taste Perceptions and Willingness to Pay for All-Natural Pork .....................................81 Recommendations ...................................................................................................................82 Practice ............................................................................................................................82 Future Research ...............................................................................................................86 Summary of Conclusions, Implications, and Recommendations ...........................................87 APPENDIX A IRB APPROVAL....................................................................................................................90 B ALL-NATURAL PORK FOCUS GROUP SCREEN QUESTIONAIRE.............................92 C INVITATION LETTER TO SELECTED PARTICIPANTS.................................................94 D MODERATOR GUIDE AND QUESTIONING ROUTE.....................................................95 7

PAGE 8

E TASTE TEST SURVEY FEEDBACK FORM....................................................................100 LIST OF REFERENCES.............................................................................................................102 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH.......................................................................................................109 8

PAGE 9

TABLE Table page 4-1 Demographics of focus group participants........................................................................56 9

PAGE 10

LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 2-2 Hierarchal value map of associations of Danish consumers with perceived attributes of organic pork ..................................................................................................................29 2-2 Total food quality model....................................................................................................35 3-1 Handout for participants regarding USDA policies for organic and natural claims..........48 10

PAGE 11

Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science NATURALLY CONFUSED: A FOCUS GROUP STUDY DESCRIBING SELECTED CONSUMERS PERCEPTIONS OF ALL-NATURAL AND ORGANIC PORK By Katherine Chodil May 2007 Chair: Tracy Irani Major: Agricultural Education and Communication Consumers concerns about food production have encouraged the rapid growth of the organic and natural meat markets in recent years. A variety of labeling and claims are used to address these concerns. Among those are the certified organic label and the all-natural claim. During the time consumers interest in organics was increasing, the niche pork market emerged. Niche pork producers may use the all-natural claim on labeling to differentiate and add value to their products. However, value is only added as much as the target consumers perceive all-natural products to be better. This study focused on consumers perceptions of the terms organic and all-natural as used on pork products. The purpose was to use focus groups to describe a representative sample of selected consumers perceptions of pork products with an all-natural or organic label. To achieve this purpose, focus group discussions addressed the following objectives: 1) Determine participants perceptions of the terms organic and all-natural in refe rence to pork products, 2) Determine participants' reactions to the United States Department of Agriculture organic standards for meat production and policy for natural claims, 3) Determine particip ants taste perceptions of a ll-natural pork products, and 4) Determine participants attitudes to ward the price of all-natural pork products as affected by tasting all-natural pork. 11

PAGE 12

The research design was qualitative in nature. Participants associated the term all-natural as used on pork products with perceptions of production and processing aspects, including hogs that are raised outdoors without the use of antibiotics or growth hormones, fed higher quality food, and no use of preservatives or chemicals in the final pork product. Results of this study showed that participants had positive perceptions of both organic and all-natural pork products, with some exceptions regarding taste, price, and trust in the information source. Participants were particularly skeptical of the term all-natural on pork package labeling. The only obvious differing perceptions between organic and all-natural was that organic also means no pesticides, is regulated by the government, costs more money, and is associated more with produce rather than meat. After participants reviewed and discussed a handout with the USDA standards for organic meat production and policy for natural claims, observations indicated that the USDA definition for all-natural did not corroborate with the participants definition of the word on meat packages. Participants generally had positive taste perceptions of all-natural pork products and perceived an all-natural pork sample to taste better than a conventional/unlabeled sample in a double-blind taste test. However, participants had differing taste expectations of all-natural pork products during the double-blind taste test. One of the focus groups expected all-natural pork products to taste inferior to conventional pork, while the other expected all-natural pork products to taste better. Overall, participants perceived a minimal amount of value in the term all-natural in isolation, but favored and were willing to pay a premium for all-natural pork products if they preferred the taste. 12

PAGE 13

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Consumers today are bombarded with labels and claims that are intended to address their concerns about how food products are produced, processed and regulated. Among those are the natural or all-natural claims and the certified organic label. With producers, marketers and consumers of organic food regularly using the concept of natural and naturalness to characterize organics (Verhoog, Matze, Lammerts Van Bueren, & Baars, 2003), the consumer may understandably be confused by the seemingly different contexts in which natural claims are used. An increase in consumers interest and confusion about organic products during the 1990s led to the institution of the U.S. Department of Agriculture National Organic Program in October 2002 (California Institute for Rural Studies, 2005). These standards were established to assure consumers that so-labeled products are produced, processed, and certified to meet the consistent national organic regulations (National Organic Program, 2002a). The organic standards provide a set of guidelines for food to be labeled organic that affect the growing, handling, and processing of organic food. For organic meat production, the standards prohibit the use of antibiotics and growth hormones, require animals to be fed 100% organic feed, and require animals to have access to outdoors and access to pasture for ruminants. The organic label is considered a certified label, whereas natural claims are upheld by USDA policy. The term natural (or all-natural) refers only to the processing of meat once the animal is slaughtered. It is defined by the USDA as containing no artificial ingredients, coloring ingredients, or chemical preservatives; and the product and its ingredients are no more than minimally processed (Food and Safety Inspection Service, 1999). Consumers concerns for food that is healthy, safe and ethically produced are often equated with organic. Concern for human health and safety motivates consumers to buy organic food as 13

PAGE 14

insurance and/or investment in health (Yiridoe, Bonti-Ankomah, & Martin, 2005; Zehnder, Hope, Hill, Hoyle, & Blake, 2003). These concerns have encouraged the rapid growth in the organic and natural food markets in recent years. Once limited to a small number of retail stores, organic foods are now available in natural supermarkets, conventional supermarkets, farmer markets, and discount club stores (Dimitri & Greene, 2002). Since 2000, most organic foods have been purchased in conventional supermarkets. Overall, most studies report that consumers purchase organic foods because they perceive them as safer, healthier, and more environmentally friendly than conventionally produced foods. Consumers perceptions of the merits of a production system are highly likely to influence their perception of the quality of a product produced from such a system (Edwards, 2005). Price, lack of knowledge, lack of trust, and limited availability are the major reasons preventing non-buyers from purchasing organics (Yiridoe, et al., 2005; California Institute for Rural Studies, 2005). In the organic food market, fresh produce is the top-selling category, followed by nondairy beverages, breads and grains, packaged foods, and dairy products (Dimitri & Greene, 2002). Although not in the top-selling categories, organic meat is the fastest-growing segment of the $14 billion organic food business. From 2004 to 2005, organic meat sales went up 55% to $256 million, but organic meat accounts for only 0.22% of overall meat sales (Organic Trade Association, 2006). According to ACNielsen LabelTrends (as cited in Moran, 2006), natural labeled meat sales in mass merchandiser stores have nearly doubled since 2003 to $681.3 million. The growing organic and natural meat markets suggest that factors relating to the production of meat may be a consideration in consumer purchasing decisions. Pork consumption has been on the rise since the late 1990s and is expected to continue rising as the U.S. population grows. A report from the USDA Economic Research Service 14

PAGE 15

covered the factors affecting pork consumption in the United States. Pork ranks third in meat consumption and totals to about 51 pounds per person annually. Per person, fresh pork accounted for an average of 38 percent of all pork consumed and processed pork accounted for 62 percent. Pork chops hold the largest share of the fresh pork market, while smoked ham is the most commonly consumed pork in the U.S. (Davis & Lin, 2005). During the time consumer interest in organics was increasing, U.S. market hog prices fell to historically low levels, leading to the establishment of niche pork markets in the late 1990s. The market decrease in 1998 adversely affected both small and large pork producers, but smaller scale producers competing in the open market faced a particularly dire situation (Wheatley, p. 18, 2003). Niche markets are a viable solution for smaller producers, because some of these markets capture a higher dollar, while requiring less capital-intensive methods of production. To capture this higher dollar, niche pork products claim product differentiation in two general ways superior or unique product quality and social or credence attributes (Honeyman, et al., 2006). All-natural pork is part of the niche pork market. Niche pork producers use the term natural or all-natural in different ways and it varies from producer to producer. Natural could mean the pork was processed in accordance with the USDAs natural claims policy, or it could refer to raising the pig naturally, meaning, for example, without the use of antibiotics or growth hormones and raising outdoors (Nichepork.org, 2006). Producers may switch to organic or natural production based on a combination between their agricultural philosophy and market forces. Attitudes are significant in determining producer conversion to organic farming systems and consumer purchase behavior, and there are many commonalities among attitudes (McEachern & Willock, 2004). Producers attitudes toward animal welfare, chemical use, and sustainability are certainly activators of their decision to 15

PAGE 16

convert to organic farming systems. However, the market forces are particularly important to farmers as well. The USDA Economic Research Service (2005) reports that many U.S. producers embrace organic farming to lower input costs, conserve nonrenewable resources, capture high-value markets, and boost farm income, especially as prices fall for staple commodities. Obstacles to adoption by farmers include high managerial costs and risks of shifting to a new way of farming, limited awareness of organic farming systems, lack of marketing and infrastructure, and inability to capture marketing economies (para. 4). An additional barrier is the cost of the services from the National Organic Program, which is required to sell food with an organic label. Meat producers seeking to capture a piece of the high-value natural and organic food market may appeal to consumers by incorporating some organic production techniques and processing within the natural claims policy. Understandably, producers want to use legitimate production and/or processing claims to capture a piece of the high-dollar market for such products. However, coupling those claims with the term all-natural may have led to consumer confusion. An article in the New York Times sums up the issue by stating, Probably the most confusing and fungible word in all of food labeling is the term ''natural.'' When it is applied to meat, it can signify many things that the animals were not given antibiotics or hormones, that they were not fed rendered animal byproducts and that they lived a happy life outdoors. Or it could mean almost nothing (Warner, 2006, p. C4). Statement of the Problem The labeling of natural pork products may influence consumer perceptions of production practices related to animal welfare and avoidance of hormones or antibiotics. The USDA has recognized that many individuals regard these conditions as an integral part of natural labeling even though such statements remain independent of the policy regarding the use of the term natural (Food and Safety Inspection Service, 1999). 16

PAGE 17

Much of the meat that is labeled with claims to address consumer concerns about environmental, livestock care, and human dietary issues meets the natural label requirements (Honeyman et al., 2006). These claims may include raised outdoors and/or no antibiotics, which are integral parts of organic livestock production. As a result, the average consumer may not perceive a clear difference between organic pork and natural pork. Consumers associate no hormones and no antibiotics with the natural label, at least in the case of beef (Diel & Associates, 2001). The average consumer is probably not aware that the USDA Food and Safety Inspection Service prohibits the use of growth hormones in raising hogs for consumption (2006). Pork labels are not allowed to claim no hormones added, unless it is followed by the statement federal regulations prohibit the use of hormones. Producers attempting to further differentiate their all-natural pork product may add the statement no hormones added even though that particular aspect of their production methods does not truly differentiate their product. However, unless the consumer is aware that federal regulations prohibits the use of hormones in pork production or reads the fine print, for them that claim may differentiate the product from others. Recent research shows that consumers are becoming more aware of labeling alluding to how the food was produced or processed, but their knowledge of what the labels exactly mean (i.e., the standards or policies set by the USDA to certify or verify the food for a certain label) lag behind their general awareness (California Institute for Rural Studies, 2005). Although consumers perceptions and understanding of the organic label has been explored, there have not been any studies on natural claims used on meat labeling. Exploring consumers perceptions of the terms all-natural and organic will offer insight into how the use of these on meat labels affects their attitudes toward those products and how the claims influence their purchasing decisions. 17

PAGE 18

Discovering perceptions of both terms offers a comparison so that we can describe the gaps and overlap between the two. The media are an important source for food-related information (Frewer, Howard, Hedderley, & Shepherd, 1996). Arguably, the medias role in communicating about food labels specifically is highly important. By design, a food label or claim does not communicate exactly what it means (i.e., standards for that label). It merely identifies or differentiates a certain type food product, whether it be organic, all-natural, or free range. The government standards, policies, and regulations for food labels are too comprehensive and are not written in a widely accessible manner. Thus, it partly falls upon the duty of the media to inform the consumers about food labels and what they mean. However, the mass media do not typically use objective sources when reporting about organic-labeled foods. Government regulators and scientists are rarely cited for information in these news stories. Journalists focus on controversy in science topics like agricultural production and therefore cite sources with a personal opinion about organic production when communicating about these foods (Meyers & Chodil, 2006). Agricultural communicators specialize in communicating about food production and products, and have access to government regulators and agricultural producers for more objective knowledge and information. This research has particular implications for agricultural communicators who are often called upon to bridge the knowledge gap between agriculture and the public and to develop marketing plans for agricultural products. These professionals are familiar with government regulations and producers practices with regards to all-natural claims and organic labeling. They need to understand consumers perceptions of organic and all-natural in order to communicate about these products in a way that resonates with consumers. 18

PAGE 19

The number of large pork producers continues to increase, while the number of small producers continues to decrease. Regardless of size, lack of profits to sustain expansion plans is expected to be the largest growth-limiting factor (Lawrence & Grimes, 2000). Environmental regulations and lack of market outlets are the next most highly ranked obstacles to growth. Market outlets are more important for smaller producers and environmental regulations are more important for larger producers (p. 6). Looking for ways to continue operations, smaller-scale producers have been entering niche markets by offering value-added pork products. A group of 10 producers in Florida and southern Georgia are part of these smaller producers that have joined together under the brand name Madison Farms All-Natural Pork to explore the marketing opportunities in value-added pork products (F. Hall, personal communication, November 15, 2006). This group of small producers contracted with an agricultural marketing company that decided to pursue market research with a representative sample of consumers. The agricultural marketing company decided to work with University of Florida researchers to provide Madison Farms All-Natural Pork with unbiased, rigorous research results. Adding value is a customer-oriented concept value is only added to food products to the extent that target consumers actually perceive these products as better (Grunert, 2005). For this reason, the group of producers sought to learn a representative sample of Florida consumers perceptions of all-natural pork to develop marketing plans for the southeastern United States. The largest niche pork marketers reside in the north central United States, which may explain why much of the marketing and consumer research regarding niche market pork attributes has been localized to the central and western regions of the United States. About 68% of the U.S. hog herd resides in the Corn Belt area, where they have access to that region's abundant supplies of feed grains and soybean meal (Davis & Lin, 2006). The southeastern 19

PAGE 20

United States has 20% of the hog herd, which is the second largest concentration in the nation. Pork consumption is highest in the Midwest, followed by the South (Davis & Lin, 2005). Pork is an integral part of the distinct cuisine in the southern United States and a staple ingredient in Southerners diets (Egerton, 1993). The prevalence of the hog industry and pork consumption in the southeastern United States makes it a good location to explore consumers perceptions. Significance of the Problem Marketing natural products as higher quality than conventional products has a unique set of challenges. The challenges of marketing natural products once consumer preferences have been determined are not clear. The underlying issue of the market information problem is quality signaling. If producers can not differentiate their product, securing premiums for the unique bundle of attributes their product may offer consumers cannot be achieved (Grannis & Thilmany, p. 477, 2002). Natural pork products attempt to signal quality to consumers through credence attributes, which are attributes that can not be assessed before purchase or after its use. Consumers demand for quality increases as more products encompass credence attributes, but quality signaling to consumers is difficult with these products (Auriol & Schilizzi, 2003). Previous research has demonstrated that quality signaling is most easily accomplished through the use of a certified label (Caswell & Mojduszka, 1996; Auriol & Schilizzi, 2003). There is no such thing as a certified natural label. The claim must be true in accordance with Food and Safety Inspection Service policy, but there is no formal inspection for that claim. Discerning consumers perceptions of risk, trust, and quality associated with organic and all-natural pork is crucial for effective marketing and communication about these products and their attributes. Although perceptions of organics have been explored in previous studies (Yiridoe, Bonti-Ankomah, & Martin, 2005) perceptions of natural claims have not. 20

PAGE 21

Research has found that many consumers are willing to pay 3 to 10% more for natural pork products and/or pork products with credence attributes, such as raised outdoors, no antibiotics, or family-farm raised (Grannis & Thilmany, 2001; Dransfield, et al., 2005). Studies have shown consumers are paying at least 10% to over 100% more for organic food (Dimitri & Oberholtzer, 2005; Dimitri & Greene, 2001). Since price is the prominent barrier for most consumers, a premium around 5% for natural fresh pork may be more appealing. Discovering the value consumers perceive in those products that makes them willing to pay more will help agricultural communications marketing professionals communicate the quality of those products. The rapid growth of the organic and natural meat market signifies a change in consumers preferences, so it is important to understand their perceptions of such labeled meat. Beyond that, exploring how the prevalence of organic foods has affected consumers perceptions of the natural claim may suggest ways in which producers can add value to their product, help food regulators determine future adjustments in policy, and help agricultural communicators communicate about these labels in a way that resonates with consumers. Purpose of the Study and Research Questions Consumer trust in information about food-related risks is related to perceptions of accuracy, knowledge, and concern for public welfare. Research suggests the media are the most trusted source of food-related risk information while trust in information from industry sources (such as marketing) is hindered by perceptions of selfish, economic interests (Frewer, Howard, Hedderley, & Shepherd, 1996). To be effective, marketing strategies and government regulations and policies for organic and all-natural food must consider consumers attitudes and/or social or cultural characteristics. The purpose was to use focus groups to describe consumers perceptions of pork products with an all-natural or organic label. Previous qualitative studies show that consumers have high 21

PAGE 22

expectations for the quality of pork with credence attributes, but are often confused by what the claims mean (Ngapo, 2003; Bredahl & Poulson, 2002 & Scholderer, et al., 2004). Based on the purpose of this study, the following research questions were developed to guide the study. RQ1: What are the perceptions of a representative sample of consumers toward the terms organic and all-natural in reference to pork products? RQ2: What are their reactions to the USDA organic standards for meat production and policy for natural claims? RQ3: What are their taste perceptions of all-natural pork products? RQ4: How do their taste perceptions affect their attitudes toward the price of all-natural pork products? Assumptions An important assumption in this study is the general lack of knowledge and understanding of the standards and policies behind meat labels and claims. A study on the impacts of the organic standards surveyed 1,000 households nationwide and found that only 37.1% of Americans are aware of the National Organic Program standards, while their understanding of what the standards entail varied (California Institute for Rural Studies, 2005). Yet 74.3% believe USDA organic labeled food is better for the environment, 70.2% feel is safer, 64.8% believe it is healthier, and 45.9% believe it is more nutritious. Another assumption is that consumers are projecting these beliefs associated with organic food on to food labeled as natural. Diel & Associates (2001) found that an average of 64% of consumers associate no antibiotics and no hormones with all-natural beef products. Limitations Most of the limitations in using and analyzing focus groups are the downsides of the advantages. First, the small number of participants in focus groups limits the ability to generalize the findings to a larger population. However, the goal of qualitative research is to gain a deep 22

PAGE 23

understanding of peoples concerns, beliefs, attitudes, lifestyle, motivations, and behavior. People communicate those most appropriately through their own words, which is the benefit of the open-ended discussion format of focus groups. Qualitative methods intend to gather deep insights on a particular topic and gain a rich, detailed understanding of peoples thoughts. Second, the location of the focus group typically means that participants will only come from the local area, in this case, the Gainesville, Florida area. Third, responses from participants are not independent of what other group members say, but arguably focus groups are a more accurate representation of reality (Krueger, 1994). Peoples opinions are influenced by what they learn from other people. Fourth, analyzing the data is difficult because of the focus groups open-ended question format (Krueger, 1998). The researcher must be objective and cautious when analyzing results to ensure comments are interpreted within the context they were meant. Definitions of Key Terms Accountability: Being answerable to audiences for fulfilling obligations, duties, and expectations (Sinclair & Irani, 2005, p. 61). All-natural: Synonymous with natural under USDA policy for natural claims; this was the term used throughout the focus group discussions. Credence attributes: Quality attributes of a product that can not be assessed by the consumer before or after use and affect products perceived quality only so much as consumers trust in the claims; for example, a label on a pork product indicating raised under environmentally friendly practices would be considered a credence attribute (Darbi & Karni, 1973; Scholderer et al., 2004). Conventional: Refers to food production or food products that are produced in ways that would not qualify the final food product for the natural claims, production claims (e.g., no antibiotics, no hormones, etc.), or the USDA organic label. Free range: Can only be used on poultry packaging in the United States and refers to raising the poultry in conditions where they have access to the outdoors. Natural: Defined by the USDA under the policy for natural claims as containing no artificial ingredients, coloring ingredients, or chemical preservatives; and the product and its ingredients are no more than minimally processed (Food and Safety Inspection Service, 1999). 23

PAGE 24

Niche pork products: Pork products that claim superior or unique product quality and credence attributes (Honeyman, et al., 2006). All-natural pork is considered a niche pork product. No antibiotics: Animals raised without the use of antibiotics Organic: Refers to any food qualifying for the USDA certified organic label under the National Organic Program standards. For organic meat production, the standards prohibit the use of antibiotics and growth hormones, require animals to be fed 100% organic feed, and require animals to have access to outdoors and access to pasture for ruminants (National Organic Program, 2002a). Perceived quality: The consumers judgment about the superiority or excellence of a product (Ziethaml, 1988). Perceived value: Highly personalized and thus varies for individuals; the definitions grouped into four categories are (1) value is low price, (2) value is whatever I want in a product, (3) value is the quality I get for the price I pay, and (4) value is what I get for what I give (Ziethaml, 1988, p. 13). 24

PAGE 25

CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE The theoretical framework for this study includes the theory of planned behavior, the means-end theory, and theories related to risk perceptions. All three areas of theory offer explanations of attitude formation, motivation, and behavior in consumer decision making with regard to natural and organic foods. These theories contributed to the analysis of the results. This study also draws on previous studies in perceptions of food quality, perceptions of taste, price-value attitudes, and perceptions of organic and natural foods. Theory of Planned Behavior The theory of planned behavior both explains and predicts behavioral intentions. The theory states that a persons behavioral intention is essentially determined by three factors: the attitude that the person holds towards the behavior; the degree of social pressure felt by the person to perform or not perform the behavior; and the degree of control that the person feels he or she has over performing the behavior. Attitudes are formed based on an individuals positive or negative belief about performing a behavior and the evaluation of the outcomes as good or bad of that behavior, referred to as behavioral beliefs. The subjective norm is predicted by an individuals perception and motivation to comply with social norms, referred to as normative beliefs. Similarly, control beliefs determine an individuals perceived control to perform or not perform a given behavior. In the theory of planned behavior, attitudes, subjective norm and perceived control have a direct effect on behavioral intention (see Figure 2-1). Although dependent on the application, the more positive the attitude and subjective norm with respect to a behavior, and the greater the perceived control, the stronger the intention is to perform the behavior (Ajzen, 1991). 25

PAGE 26

Figure 2-1. A model diagram of the theory of planned behavior (Ajzen, 2006). The theory was originally developed to explain social behaviors, but has since proved applicable to explain consumers food choice (Sparks, Conner, James, Shepherd, & Povey, 2001; Scholderer, Bredahl, & Magnusson, 2004). Shepherd (1999) contends that it generally affords good prediction of behavior, and can be used to determine the relative importance of different factors in influencing food choice. Bredahl, Grunert, and Frewer (1998) found that attitudes toward buying genetically modified food are determined by perceived attributes and consequences of buying and consuming that product, and by the attitude the person has toward food production in general. With food products, perceived behavioral control is based on a persons competence in judging risks and benefits of a product in purchase situations, and on time and access to those products. Using the theory of planned behavior to research Danish consumers attitudes toward fresh fish before an advertising campaign revealed some of the perceived barriers to actually purchasing fresh fish. Scholderer and Grunert (2001) showed that the theory is still useful in situations when consumers food purchase intentions are inconsistent with their actual behavior. The inconsistency may indicate that situational factors, such as labeling, shelf positioning, and packaging, play a predominant role. 26

PAGE 27

The theory of planned behavior can be applied to describing consumers purchasing behavior in regard to organic and all-natural food. The three factors of this theory could be applied to this topic as: personal attitudes toward organic and all-natural foods, social and cultural factors, and the degree of personal involvement in food purchases. Social and cultural factors (subjective norms) may be viewed as related to the cultural definition of natural in terms of pork production, the increasing prevalence of these products in supermarkets, and/or family status (e.g. What do I want to feed my family?). Sparks and Shepherd (1992) found that self-identity plays an additional role in the theory of planned behavior. Consumers that identified themselves as green consumers were more likely to have intentions to purchase organic food. Self-identity affected their intent to purchase organic food independently of attitude, subjective norm, and perceived behavioral control. This fourth factor in the theory of planned behavior can be applied in this study to help understand how consumers proclaimed self-identity as regular organic foods shoppers affects their intention to buy all-natural pork. These consumers may buy all-natural labeled foods because it has become a central aspect of their self-concept. Bentler and Speckart (1979) added past behavior as another independent variable that influences behavior in the theory of planned behavior. These researchers postulate that behaviors may be habitual and therefore not controlled by intentions. Food choices and purchase behavior may become habitual for many consumers since it is a regular occurrence in their lives (as cited in Eagly & Chaiken, 1993). As a result, organic food shoppers may not consider other options simply because they have always bought organic foods since the point in time when they made the conscious decision to do so. 27

PAGE 28

Means-End Theory The means-end theory (Gutman, 1982) is complementary to the theory of planned behavior, as it also reveals motivations behind consumers decisions. The theory is based on the assumption that consumers purchase products because of perceived benefits from using the product. The theory brings together the cognitive oriented and motivational oriented perspectives to provide a framework for studying and explaining consumer behavior. The cognitive perspective of consumer decision-making focuses on the consumers knowledge of a product in terms of its attributes and functional consequences (Reynolds & Olson, 2001). Within this perspective, food purchasing decisions are evaluated by the consumers knowledge of a particular foods nutritional consequences. The motivational perspective focuses on consumers personalities, lifestyles, and motivations to study their behavior. Again, in food purchasing decisions, research from this perspective would look at how a consumers self-schema as a healthy eater affects their purchasing decisions. The means-end theory argues that attributes, consequences and values are not independent precursors of attitude or behavior. A product attribute is not relevant in and by itself, but only to the extent that the consumer expects the attribute to lead to one or more desirable or undesirable consequences (Bruns, Fjord, & Grunert, 2002, p. 8). The means-end chain illustrates the links between product attributes, consequences, and values, where the means is the product and its functional consequences and the end is the fulfillment of life values. In simpler terms, the products attributes and the results of its use are a means to an end. The end is a personal need, goal or value that reflects the perceptual orientation of the consumer and shows how he or she translates a seemingly inconsequential product into an object having deep personal relevance and importance (Reynolds & Olson, 2001, p. 217). 28

PAGE 29

Bech-Larsen and Grunert (1998) used the means-end chain model to assemble a hierarchal value map of Danish consumers perceived attributes, consequences, and life values associated with organic pork (as cited in Scholderer, et al., 2004). Hierarchal value maps summarize qualitative interviews across participants/consumers to show how consumers translate the attributes of products into meaningful associations with respect to the self (Reynolds & Olson, 2001). The results indicate that consumers perceived attributes of organic pork, such as pigs are reared properly, less, no use of antibiotics, chemicals, and more expensive, are related to perceived functional consequences and result in fulfilling their life values. The hierarchal value map is shown in Figure 2-2. Figure 2-2. Bech-Larsen and Grunerts (1998) hierarchal value map of associations of Danish consumers with perceived attributes of organic pork. (Cited by Scholderer et al. 2004) 29

PAGE 30

Means-end theory provides one of the most powerful premises for developing a customer-focused communications strategy (Reynolds & Olson, 2001, p. 216). Peter and Olson (1994) argued that consumer involvement grows when marketers bring out personally relevant psychological and sociological reasons for consuming their products, and consequently, involvement can be manipulated by marketing programs (as cited in Reynolds & Olson, 2001). Although the intentions of this study are not to build a means-end chain, the theory helps explain how consumers translate all-natural and organic pork product attributes into functional consequences that relate to their life values or self-schema. It may be the case that attributes of these products appeal to consumers family status role (mother, care-taker, protector, etc.), beliefs regarding of animal welfare, and/or identity as an organic foods shopper. Risk Perceptions Consumer behavior is shaped by risk perception. Risk analysis theory falls within the psychometric paradigm, which explains the psychological basis of peoples perceptions of risk. The theory suggests that laypersons evaluate risk qualitatively in rich detail based on perceived control and understanding of the risk, whereas experts tend to evaluate risk empirically focusing on probability and severity of the risk (Slovic, 1987). In peoples subjective evaluation of risk, nine general properties of activities or technologies emerge: (1) voluntariness of risk, (2) immediacy of effect, (3) knowledge about the risk by the person who are exposed to the potentially-hazardous risk source, (4) knowledge about the risk in science, (5) control over the risk, (6) newness, i.e. are the risks new and novel or old and familiar ones, (7) chronic/ catastrophic, (8) common/dread, i.e. whether people have learned to live with and can think about the risk reasonably and calmly, or is it a risk that people have great dread for, and (9) severity of consequences (Fischoff, Slovic, Lichtenstein, Read, & Combs, 2000). 30

PAGE 31

Perceptions of knowledge, newness, or unfamiliarity, and the potential immediacy of consequences are highly correlated with consumer perception of food risk (Yeung & Morris, 2006). Food risk perceptions are conceptualized in terms of risk to human health, the environment, the economy, animal health, and future generations (Miles & Frewer, 2001). Ethical concerns about food production practices and food safety also encourage public food risk perceptions. Communication about risks must be a two-way process between the expert and public for optimal effectiveness (Slovic, 1987). Understanding public perception of risk provides insight into effective food safety and risk communication and how the public will react to new technology (Knox, 2000). Risk is often an unavoidable product of advances in science and technology, and the science of agriculture is no exception. Agricultural communicators regularly engage in risk communication when informing consumers about agricultural production and processing practices and their impact on the food system. Several studies have found the level of trust to be closely related to risk perception (Biel & Dahlstrand, 1995). Both risk and trust perceptions in the case of food are seen as multidimensional; they are dynamic and continuous rather than a static phenomenon (Miles & Frewer, 2001; Yee, Yeung, & Morris, 2005). McGuire (1985) explained that trust is determined by the extent to which an institution or information source is perceived as credible and honest (as cited in Frewer, Kole, Van De Kroon, & De Lauwere, 2005). Trumbo and McComas (2003) found that higher credibility for industry and the state directly predicts lower risk perception, whereas high credibility for citizen groups predicts greater risk perception (p. 343). However, with food risk perceptions, the persuasive content of the message and the type of risk have a greater effect on the number of risk-relevant thoughts than source credibility (Frewer, Howard, Hedderly, & Shepherd, 1997). 31

PAGE 32

Dependence on the media, particularly newspapers and television news, for food safety information is also correlated with greater food risk perception (Tucker, Whaley, & Sharp, 2006); however, the media are the most trusted for food-safety related information (Frewer, Howard, Hedderley, & Shepherd, 1996). Media tend to focus on the unknown when communicating food risk and describe it in qualitative terminology (Frewer, Raats, & Shepherd, 1993). Food additives, in particular, are heuristically reported as bad and related risk statements are often unqualified. In a focus group study of organic and conventional produce buyers, the organic food consumers cited several risk factors to explain their purchasing behavior. These risks include the fear of ill effects related to pesticide residues, growth stimulants, and fertilizers (Hammitt, 1990). The perceived risk from pesticides and the uncertainty surrounding genetically modified food are incentives for consumers to purchase organic foods (Gifford & Bernard, 2006). This study intends to reveal related perceived risks that may emerge as incentives to purchase all-natural labeled meat. Theories of risk perception may help us understand why consumers prefer to buy natural or organic meat to avoid those risks. Risk perceptions may be amplified by the increasing prevalence of these products in grocery stores. The no repetition associated with natural claims (e.g., no chemical additives, no preservatives, no antibiotics) may be telling the consumer that those are food risks. Other forms of risk perception associated with livestock production are the risk to the environment, society morals, and animals, better known as ethical risks. Ethical risk perceptions are gaining importance, but typically rank below health and meat safety risk perceptions (Verbeke & Viaene, 2000). However, pork and poultry come up most often when consumers perceive risks to animal welfare. It may be the case that when marketers use all32

PAGE 33

natural to refer to the raising of the pig, invoke images of pigs happily rooting around outdoors and offer pictures of families as the producers, consumers assume extreme opposites for pork without such labels. Consumer Perceptions of Quality, Price and Value Model Consumers perceptions of price, quality, and value and how they are related aid in conceptualizing the cognitive processes in consumer decision making. Ziethaml (1988) proposes a means-end model of price, quality, and value that defined and related the concepts from the consumers perspective. Essentially it is an extension of Gutmans means-end model. Quality is broadly defined as superiority or excellence. Ziethamls model emphasizes perceived quality rather than objective quality, where perceived quality is the consumers judgment about the superiority or excellence of a product and objective quality is the actual technical or manufactured quality. However, Ziethaml argues that at some point, all quality is perceived. With food products, quality is most affected by experience because most quality perceptions are contingent upon handling and consuming the product. Expectations of product quality are formed based on evaluations of available cues regarded by the consumers as reliable indicators of the quality of the product (Scholderer, Bredahl, & Magnusson, 2004). Quality cues at the point of purchase are most often extrinsic qualities, such as brand, labeling, and price, and during handling or consumption is when quality cues are intrinsic qualities (Olson 1978; Ziethaml 1988). Consumers make assumptions about intrinsic values based on information from extrinsic cues (Olson, 1978). For example, an organic label on a package of potato chips may generate the belief that it is probably more nutritious for me. Consumers rely on extrinsic attributes in initial purchase situations when they cannot evaluate the relevant intrinsic attributes of a product or when evaluation of intrinsic cues requires more input than the consumer perceives is worthwhile (Ziethaml, 1988). 33

PAGE 34

Darbi and Karni (1973) offer the term credence attributes for quality attributes of a product that can not be assessed by the consumer before or after use. For example, a label on a pork product indicating raised under environmentally friendly practices would be considered a credence attribute. Whether or not credence attributes signal good quality depends on consumers trust of the claims. If consumers do not trust all-natural claims, then they do not signal good quality. Extrinsic attributes can signal value to a consumer. Consumers definition of value is highly personalized and thus varies for individuals. The definitions grouped into four categories are (1) value is low price, (2) value is whatever I want in a product, (3) value is the quality I get for the price I pay, and (4) value is what I get for what I give (Ziethaml, 1988, p. 13). Perceived value affects how consumers view the quality of a product and whether or not they will purchase it. Grunert, Larsen, Madsen, and Baadsgaard (1996) build on Ziethamls model (1988) and others to present a total food quality model, shown in Figure 2-2. The model shows how extrinsic and intrinsic cues, cost, and expected quality determine the purchase decision. The model also shows the relationships between expected quality, preparation, consumption, and future purchases. Although the total food quality model has not been tested per se, it provides a common framework for various tested approaches to food quality perception, including the means-end approach. The model has proved useful in providing structure for examining and explaining food safety and quality (Grunert, 2005). The focus groups contributing to the development of the total food quality model also revealed four major dimensions of food quality, which appear to be universal in Western industrialized countries. Bruns, Fjord, and Grunert (2002) call them taste 34

PAGE 35

and appearance, health, convenience, and process. Health as a food quality is perceived by how it affects an individuals health. It also encompasses safety and risk-related perceptions. Figure 2-2. Grunert, Larsen, Madsen, and Baadsgaards (1996) total food quality model. Convenience means the saving of time, physical or mental energy at one or more stages of the overall meal process: planning and shopping, storage and preparation of products, consumption, and the cleaning up and disposal of leftovers (p. 9). Process, or the way a food is produced, has become of particular importance to consumers even when it has no bearing on the taste or healthiness of a product. This quality dimension covers organic production, concerns for animal welfare, the environment and so on. This quality dimension is also a credence characteristic, since the consumer must rely totally on guarantees about production-oriented quality from various sources (Bruns, Fjord, & Grunert, 2002, p. 9). These dimensions of quality are related and can vary from product to product. With respect to all-natural and organic pork, it may be the case that consumers base perceptions of quality on the beliefs they have about 35

PAGE 36

how the production or processing method affects the quality in terms of taste and healthiness. The healthiness aspect of pork is an important quality to consumers, and natural production techniques are closely related to the health quality (Scholderer, Bredahl, & Magnusson, 2004). Models of consumers perceptions of quality are applicable to understanding consumers perceptions of the quality of all-natural and organic pork and how those quality perceptions are related to perceived price and value of those products. The model helps us understand how the perceived quality of all-natural pork is assessed by the consumer, how consumers encode price, and how price and value play into perceptions of quality. Organic and Natural Pork Quality Perceptions Ngapo, et al. (2003) used focus groups to obtain insights into decision-making toward fresh pork purchases and pig production using consumers in France, England, Sweden, and Denmark. At the point of purchase, salient extrinsic quality cues were fat cover, price, country of origin, place of purchase, weight, and date of packing or best before date. Other labels on pork indicating how the pigs are raised were confusing to consumers and many distrusted the limited information available at the point of purchase. Grannis and Thilmany (2001) surveyed 1,370 consumers in Colorado, New Mexico, and Utah to determine what pork production practices are important to them. The pork attributes studied were no small or crowded pens, no antibiotics, no growth hormones, grazing managed to protect streams, grazing managed to protect endangered species, and animals born and raised within 250 miles. No use of hormones and no use of antibiotics had the highest average rating, while the local attribute had the lowest average rating. Antibiotics and hormones may have been rated highly by consumers surveyed by Grannis and Thilmany because those aspects are perceived as a health risk to consumers in the United States (Hwang, Roe, & Teisl, 2005). 36

PAGE 37

Bredahl and Poulsen (2002) analyzed focus group data to report how consumers defined high quality pork. Salient intrinsic quality cues were defined as good taste, tenderness, juiciness, freshness, leanness, and healthiness. Above all, high quality pork had to taste good. The researchers also revealed a perceptual link between production method and pork quality, where consumers perceived pork from pigs raised outdoors to be of higher quality than pork from pigs raised indoors. Scholderer et al. (2004) found a halo effect in consumer quality expectations of pork with credence attributes, meaning the credence attributes partly became experience attributes for the consumers. The study concluded that as long as the differences between quality expectations and quality experiences are small enough, quality expectations raise the level of experienced quality. Taste Perceptions The reasons consumers make food purchasing choices are quite complicated. When determining preference for one food over another, it is difficult to distinguish between effects caused by an actual difference in the attributes of a food product and effects caused by individuals having preferences for different attributes. Preferences for meats are most strongly affected by changes in color/appearance and texture (Risvik, 1994). Whether or not niche market pork production affects sensory qualities of pork is not clear. Edwards (2005) found a majority of studies evaluating taste differences between pigs raised outdoors and pigs raised indoors have shown no difference in juiciness or tenderness, and no studies showed a difference in meat flavor. Scholderer et al. (2004) found that credence attribute labeling affected consumers perceptions of the taste of fresh pork. In taste testing, consumers perceived pork chops labeled free range or organic to have higher eating quality than pork chops left unlabeled or labeled conventional. When comparing the same pork without labels, consumers consistently 37

PAGE 38

perceived the organic pork chops to have a slightly lower eating quality. The study reported that consumers have high expectations of pork labeled as organic or free range. Sensory evaluation is the science of judging and evaluating the quality of a food by the use of the senses, i.e. taste, smell, sight, touch and hearing (Oregon State University Food Resource, 1998). Researchers in the field of sensory evaluation have expressed the need to include sensory evaluation into marketing strategies because taste is an individual experience affected by a number of things, including cultural influences, psychosocial influences, situational variables and expectations (Cardello, 1995b). Jaeger (2006) proposed synthesizing research in communication and marketing with research in sensory evaluation to enable a more complete understanding of the non-sensory factors that influence consumers relationships with and decisions regarding food. Integrating the two fields of research reveals that non-sensory factors, including convenience, price, production technology, personal health, branding, and societal issues do account for some aspects of consumers food related behaviors (Jaeger, 2006). Price/Value Attitudes Estimating willingness to pay (WTP) yields beneficial information for agricultural marketers and policy-makers. Various methods attempting to model realistic considerations for obtaining consumers WTP for quality and safety attributes have been a major stem of agricultural economics research (Grunert, 2005). When scanner data is available, hedonic pricing methods are used to obtain WTP. Hedonic pricing measures values of the individual characteristics of a product by looking at how the price people are willing to pay changes when the characteristics change. When scanner data is not available contingent valuation, experimental auctions and conjoint analysis are popular methods for obtaining WTP (Grunert, 2005). Conclusions from WTP studies should be taken with caution, because consumers price 38

PAGE 39

involvement or awareness is related to many factors. Consumers do not always know or remember actual prices, so they encode prices in a way that is meaningful to them. For example, organic and natural foods are encoded by consumers as expensive rather than in terms of actual price. Many food purchases are part of habitual behavior and may not involve a lot of conscious thought at all (Grunert, 2005). Price is one of several extrinsic cues available to consumers to judge quality. Ziethaml (1988) defines price from the consumers perspective as what is given up or sacrificed to obtain a product, which includes monetary, time, search and psychic costs. However, Ziethamls review of research indicates that the use of price as an indicator of quality varies among consumers. In categories where quality variation is expected (i.e., cars, jewelry, refrigerators), price may indicate quality. Where products differ little in price, the consumer may not attribute high quality to slightly higher cost, as is generally the case with food items. While price is an important factor in consumer decision making, several studies have shown that attributes, such as taste, appearance, tenderness, and leanness rank above price in meat purchasing decisions (Food Processing Center, 2001, Diel & Associates, 2001; Dransfield, et al., 2005). A national study of 1,200 consumers in Australia found that organic food preference was not related exclusively to higher income. The decision to purchase conventional or organic food relied on a myriad of considerations such as personal preferences, beliefs and practical issues of cost, availability, and convenience. For organic consumers, the most motivating purchase factors were health and natural content of foods followed by price. Ethical concerns for the environment and treatment of animals were rated equivalent to price in overall importance (Lockie, Lyons, Lawrence, & Mummery, 2002). 39

PAGE 40

Cues to a products intrinsic attributes, such as all-natural, produced without hormones or lean labels, affect consumers perceptions of its quality (Zeithaml, 1988). Consumers are generally willing to pay more for pork products with labels using terms positively associated with pork production, such as family-farm raised, no antibiotics, no hormones, and environmentally friendly production practices (Freese, 2000; Hurley, Miller, & Kliebenstein, 2006; R Parker & Associates, Inc. & Ashcraft Research, 2005). A survey of consumers in north central U.S. found that 34% of respondents were willing to pay a 10% premium for all-natural products. However, a consumer would need to be convinced that it is worth a premium of 15, 20, or even 25% to buy organic and/or all-natural meat because food safety, tenderness, and taste rank above price (Food Processing Center, 2001). An online survey of 200 female consumers found that price was the most influential factor in purchase decisions of niche pork products, and 49% of respondents ranked price above every other attribute tested (R Parker & Associates, Inc. & Ashcraft Research, 2005). Grannis and Thilmany (2001) used market surveys to estimate consumer willingness-to-pay for natural pork products in Colorado, New Mexico, and Utah. They found that a significant proportion of respondents were willing to pay a 9% premium for natural ham and a 10% premium for natural pork chops. A study with European consumers found that consumers were willing to pay about 3% extra for pork when all characteristics of appearance and labeling stating home country produced and raised outdoors were available. After tasting the labeled product, they were willing to pay between 4% and 10% more (Dransfield, et al., 2005). Organic and Natural Claims Labeling Perceptions In the United States, the federal government is increasingly using informational labeling as a means of shaping (a) consumers knowledge, purchasing patterns, and use practices, and (b) 40

PAGE 41

manufacturers product offerings and marketing practices (Caswell & Mojduszka, 1996, p. 1248). Patchwork methods of organic certification and consumer confusion about organic food in the United States resulted in the implementation of national standards for the production and labeling in the National Organic Program. Since most producers see organic certification as a marketing tool, labeling guidelines are one of the most important sections in certification standards. Most of the differences in labeling guidelines and certification systems were relatively minor, except in the area of livestock production. The uniform national standard for organics significantly impacts the market by increasing buyer confidence (Fetter & Caswell, 2002). Consumers want to be assured their food is safe and organic food is often equated with safer food. Perceptions of food safety and risk typically relate to concern about food production technologies. In the United States, concern is highest for pesticides and hormones, followed by antibiotics, genetic modification, and irradiation (Hwang, Roe, & Teisl, 2005). The USDA organic regulations address these concerns and the USDA certified organic label distinguishes the food as free of those perceived risks. The United States government frames the organic label as a marketing label, and rejects the idea that organic food production would have relative advantages to the environment, health or food quality (Bostrm & Klintman, 2003). The organic label, natural claims and production technique claims are not meant to differentiate the food as safer, but unintentionally, they may have. Government regulations have typically been used to distinguish between safe and unsafe foods; therefore, organic standards could give consumers the impression that conventionally produced foods are unsafe (Klonsky & Tourte, 1998). The organic label signals quality to the consumer because it is certified by a reputable certification agent whom consumers trust the USDA. Previous research has demonstrated that 41

PAGE 42

quality signaling is most easily accomplished through the use of a certified label (Zarkin & Anderson, 1992; Caswell & Mojduszka, 1996; Auriol & Schilizzi, 2003). Certification may be defined as a process whereby an unobservable quality level of some product is made known to the consumer through some guarantee system, usually issued by a third independent party (Auriol & Schilizzi, 2003, p. 10). Organic products overcome the problem of quality signaling because they are certified by the USDA. Natural meat products differentiating themselves through claims on labeling such as raised outdoors, fed natural feed, and family-farm raised have difficulty signaling quality. These claims on pork labels are often confusing and mistrusted by European consumers (Ngapo, et al., 2003). Distrust in food product claims results if the information source is perceived to be promoting their own vested interests or are perceived as unaccountable or over accountable to others (Frewer, et al., 1996). Quality labels, like all-natural, is a fuzzy category that covers many different things (Grunert, 2005). Quality labels can be awarded by manufacturers, groups of manufacturers, retailers, government bodies, and independent organizations, for example, consumer associations. The criteria for awarding the labels can be very strict or almost non-existent. Some labels refer to very specific qualities, such as the labels indicating organic production, whereas others are intended as general quality labels (p. 378). Studies on consumer perceptions of pork with credence attributes found that consumers prefer an abundance of information on packaging labels; however, just giving consumers more information will not reduce asymmetry when consumers do not feel confident about using the information (Grunert, 2005). Although quality labels are important to differentiate a product and demand a higher price, consumers may need other quality cues more familiar to them, such as the color of the meat, date of packaging, visible fat content, and taste to be convinced of its quality. 42

PAGE 43

Summary The variation in pork producer-set standards for all-natural and consumer confusion about the meaning of the term is reminiscent of the patchwork of state and regional standards for organic. One package of pork labeled as all-natural may only refer to the processing as USDA policy stipulates, while its shelf neighbor may use it to refer to various production techniques as well. Understandably, producers want to use legitimate production/process claims to capture a piece of the high-dollar market for such products. However, coupling those claims with the term all-natural may have led to consumer confusion about the meaning of the term. The USDA National Organic Program website (2002b) and the NichePork (part of National Pork Board) website (2006) address the question of natural versus organic, so the policy-makers and marketers are aware of this confusion. Studies have shown consumers are not aware of the standards behind production and processing claims and often mistrust and are confused by those claims (Ngapo, et al., 2003; California Institute for Rural Studies, 2005). The prevalence of natural and all-natural labeled meat products exceeds the prevalence of organic labeled meat products. Consumers are generally willing to pay more for these products, but need to be convinced of their quality (Freese, 2000; Hurley, Miller, & Kliebenstein, 2006; R Parker & Associates, Inc. & Ashcraft Research, 2005). Understanding consumers perceptions and intentions to buy all-natural pork products is important for differentiating these products and developing effective marketing plans around signaling good quality to consumers. Exposing the confusion consumers may perceive over the term all-natural is helpful to regulatory bodies and policy makers if they seek to build credibility for pork products that use the term and for those that do not. Perceptions consumers have surrounding all-natural pork products can be explored in-depth through focus group methodology. In Europe, the use of focus groups has proven 43

PAGE 44

effective in revealing consumers perceptions of pork with various production and processing claims (Bredahl & Poulsen, 2002; Ngapo, et al., 2003; Scholderer et al. 2004). 44

PAGE 45

CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY A review of the literature demonstrates that consumers generally associate organic labels and production claims (i.e., no antibiotics, raised outdoors, locally grown) on pork packaging with perceptions of quality in terms of taste and price/value (Dransfield, et al., 2005; Npago, et al. 2003; Grannis & Thimany, 2002). However, pork with production claims on the labeling may not be perceived by consumers as signaling quality, because the claims are often mistrusted and confusing (Npago, et al. 2003). The all-natural claim, in particular, has not been explored using focus groups, nor has it been explored in comparison to the organic label. The purpose of this study was to utilize focus group methods to describe consumers perceptions of pork products with an all-natural label and gather their reactions to marketing materials for these products. After reviewing the literature, four research questions were developed as follows: RQ1: What are the perceptions of a representative sample of consumers toward the terms organic and all-natural in reference to pork products? RQ2: What are their reactions to the USDA organic standards for meat production and policy for natural claims? RQ3: What are their taste perceptions of all-natural pork products? RQ4: How do their taste perceptions affect their attitudes toward the price of all-natural pork products? Design of the Study This study was qualitative in nature, using focus group methodology to explore a sample of consumers perceptions of the terms organic and all-natural in reference to pork. A qualitative study was determined to be most appropriate to answer the research questions posed in this study. Qualitative studies intend to explore and describe complicated topics in rich detail. 45

PAGE 46

They can be used to illustrate what has already been uncovered through quantitative methods or lay the groundwork for more rigorous investigation. In qualitative studies the researcher is the instrument, which allows for flexibility as unforeseen, related information emerges (Guba & Lincoln, 1989). Focus groups are one way to achieve the purposes and goals of qualitative research. Focus group discussions create a process of sharing and comparing among the participants to provide the context and depth behind their thoughts and experiences (Morgan & Krueger, 1998). Focus groups can provide insight into complicated topics where opinions or attitudes are conditional or where the area of concern relates to multifaceted behavior or motivation (Krueger, 1994, p. 45). This type of research methodology is representative of reality because open-ended questions allow participants to respond in their own words. The focus group discussion format encourages interaction among participants and allows people to change their opinions based on discussion with other participants. The moderator also has flexibility to further probe unanticipated areas related to the topic that would otherwise not be discovered using a more structured questioning design. Focus groups have high face validity because the technique is easily understood and results are presented in an uncomplicated format (Morgan & Kreuger, 1998). The conversations among participants in focus groups are particularly useful for understanding behavior and motivation. Focus groups may not always reveal deep motivational insights, but they can show that people may be less logical, less thoughtful, and less organized than expected (Morgan & Krueger, 1998, p. 58). The ability of the moderator to both direct and follow the discussion is useful to get participants to articulate their motivations, feelings, and 46

PAGE 47

opinions. The participants also bounce ideas and questions off each other, allowing them to become more explicit about their own views. Screening Process and Subject Selection The University of Floridas Institutional Review Board approved this research study prior to the screening process and focus group meetings (Appendix A). A series of two focus groups were conducted in Gainesville, Florida, on July 15, 2006. In first week of July 2006, the University of Florida Survey Research Center recruited participants from Alachua County in north central Florida using standard random digit telephone dialing techniques. The screening questionnaire (Appendix B) used to identify participants for the focus group sessions emphasized the importance of potential participants insights and opinions on the topic of all-natural pork. Questions were asked to ensure the participants would be familiar with food packages and also willing to engage in the taste-testing portion of the focus groups. The questionnaire identified people who were the primary purchasers of food for their households and meat (including pork) eaters. Questions about age, race, ethnicity, gender, and income were asked to ensure that groups were diverse. Participants were also offered a $50 incentive as compensation for participating in the focus groups. A total of 19 participants were recruited nine for the first session and 10 for the second session. Morgan and Kreuger (1998) recommend over-recruiting to achieve an ample number of attendees. A personalized invitation was sent one week before the focus group session (Appendix C) and each participant was telephoned the day before the session to remind them of the session and determine if they would attend. These tactics emphasized the importance of their participation and helped increase actual attendance. 47

PAGE 48

Instrumentation/Questioning Route The questioning route (Appendix D) used in both focus group sessions was peer-reviewed by members of the Agricultural Education and Communication Department familiar with focus group procedure to ensure its quality and validity. Wording, structure, and order were carefully chosen to maximize effectiveness and to ensure unbiased language. Included in the questioning route was time to review and discuss a single-page handout listing the USDAs organic standards and natural claims policy as they apply to meat (see Figure 3-1) in the same language available to and intended for consumers on its websites. USDA Natural Standards for Meat Products USDA Organic Standards for Meat Products No artificial ingredients No coloring ingredients No chemical preservatives Product and ingredients minimally processed (minimally processed means the raw product is not fundamentally altered, such as most fresh meat/poultry) Label must explain the use of the term natural (such as no added colorings or artificial ingredients; no hormones) Fed 100% organic feed Vitamin and mineral supplements allowed No growth hormones or antibiotics Vaccines allowed to keep animal healthy Producers may not withhold treatment for a sick or injured animal, but if the animal is treated with a prohibited medication (e.g., antibiotics) it may not be sold as organic Animals must have access to outdoors, but may be temporarily confined only for health reasons, safety, animals stage of production, or to protect soil/water quality Processing and packaging must be done in a way to prevent mixing the organic product with non-organic products and prohibited substances The above standards set by the USDA National Organic Program apply to any farm or handling operation that wants to sell an agricultural product as organically produced. Figure 3-1. Handout to focus group participants regarding USDA policies for organic and natural claims. Standards for Natural obtained from USDA Food and Safety Inspection Service (1999) Natural and organic claims. Standards for Organic obtained from USDA National Organic Program (2002a). 48

PAGE 49

During the development of the questioning route, this was the only information available. Since then, the USDA Food and Safety Inspection Service (2006) redesigned its website pertaining to meat and poultry labels and included the information that federal regulations prohibit the use of hormones in pork production on the same page that defines the term natural (para. 18-19). The handout was designed so that it could be read relatively quickly and with ease to make certain the session stayed within the approximate two-hour time constraint. It was not provided until after an initial discussion of the terms organic and all-natural to ensure the information would not affect participants original perceptions. Taste-testing was also incorporated into each focus group to obtain participants taste perceptions and to see whether or not tasting the product affected their price attitudes and willingness to pay for all-natural pork products. A survey feedback form (see Appendix E) was designed to gather each participants reaction to each pork sample before they discussed their reactions with the rest of the group. This was done to help the participants think about the taste of each sample and record their thoughts for discussion. Procedure On July 15, 2006, the researchers conducted two focus groups in Gainesville, Florida, with a total of 15 participants (seven in one session and eight in the other). Participants included eight females and seven males; ages ranged from 22 to 66, with white and African American ethnic representation. The ideal focus group size is six to ten participants because this size range provides enough difference in opinions to stimulate a discussion (Morgan & Kreuger, 1998). Two focus groups in the same setting is the minimum needed for validity. Each session lasted two hours and the moderator followed standard focus group procedures (Krueger, 1994; Morgan, 1997). The moderator used a structured questioning route to provide consistency between the two sessions (Morgan, 1997). 49

PAGE 50

Each session began with explanations of the purpose of the focus group and brief instructions. Before getting into formal questions, general introductions encouraged participants to become comfortable in the group setting and also identified the characteristics the participants shared. Participants were first asked to provide information about their food and meat shopping behaviors. These questions were intended to promote conversation among all participants. Discussion then centered on participants understanding of the terms organic and all-natural and then narrowed in on those terms in reference to pork products. Following unaided discussion questions, participants were provided a single page handout listing the USDAs organic standards and natural claims (Figure 3-1) to gather their opinions about the standards and policy for organic and natural labeled meat. In the second half of each session, participants engaged in affective testing (one component of sensory evaluation or sensory analysis). The purpose of affective testing is to gather subjective data of the product being evaluated (Bopp, 1997). The first taste test was a comparison of an all-natural pork loin sample to a conventional pork loin sample. For the purpose of this study, conventional is used to describe pork products that were not produced in ways that would qualify them for all-natural or organic status. The all-natural pork used in consumer testing was natural pork (in accordance with USDA policy) from pigs raised outdoors, and produced with 1) no antibiotics or growth-stimulant hormones, 2) no meat by-products in feed, and 3) growers following an animal welfare protocol. Participants were only told they were comparing an all-natural pork sample to a conventional pork sample. This taste test was a double-blind taste test in that neither the participants nor the moderator knew which product was the all-natural pork. Once both samples had been tested, the moderator asked participants to compare the two pork loins to determine which one they preferred and decide if there was a difference between 50

PAGE 51

the two samples. After tasting each sample, each participant recorded initial reactions on a survey feedback form (Appendix E). Participants were then told by the chef which sample was the all-natural pork loin and the moderator asked for reaction. Following the comparison taste test, participants tasted all-natural ground pork and all-natural spare ribs with no comparison samples. Again, participants recorded initial reactions on a survey feedback form. Following each taste test, the moderator asked participants for their reactions about the products tasted. The moderator then led participants in a price threshold exercise with four cuts of pork (loin roast, chops, ground pork, and spare ribs). For each cut, the moderator showed the price per pound for the all-natural product and the conventional product. Participants were then asked for their reaction to the price difference and how many would be willing to pay for the all-natural product (as it was always more expensive). At the end of each session, the moderator briefly summarized the main points of the discussion, watching participant body language for agreement, hesitation, or confusion, and asked if the summary was accurate and allowed for comments and questions (Krueger, 1998). Before leaving, participants received $50 compensation for their time and a package of the clients all-natural boneless pork loin. They were not aware they would be additionally compensated with the pork product until after the completion of session. Data Collection The focus group sessions were recorded using audio, video, and field notes. During the discussion, the moderator took brief notes and two assistant moderators took detailed notes, including body language and complete statements from participants. The assistant moderators and videographer remained unobtrusive to the focus group discussion. The moderator kept track of which participants were not speaking often and occasionally addressed them directly to elicit insights from all participants. This tactic also helped the more reserved participants become more 51

PAGE 52

comfortable speaking. Video recordings offered further analysis of body language, tone, and caught audio for the few quotes that were unclear during audio cassette transcriptions. Data Analysis After each session, the assistant moderators and moderator collaborated in a debriefing discussion to be sure all of the main points were understood and recorded, and discussed reactions and key themes. This also helped identify differences between the two sessions. Sessions were transcribed and analyzed by using Glasers (1978) constant comparative technique. Researchers looked for common themes, similarities and dissimilarities, observations of non-verbals, interactions, and reactions to product and price threshold stimuli. Transcripts were coded for themes, and categories created. As themes emerged, they were compared to existing categories to look for common relationships. New categories were created for distinct themes that did not fit existing categories. Credibility, Transferability, Dependability, and Confirmability Credibility in qualitative studies is equivalent to internal validity in quantitative studies. It involves how well the research accurately represented the insights and opinions of the participants (Ary, Jacobs, & Razavieh, 2002). This study achieved credibility through consensus by conducting peer debriefing with colleagues familiar with focus group methodology throughout the development, implementation, and analysis of this study. Colleagues were provided raw data and the researchers analysis to corroborate findings. Focus group participant feedback was also elicited at the end of each session to confirm the accuracy of the main points. To control for bias in the analysis, the researcher conducted negative case sampling by looking for themes and examples opposite of expectations. For example, the researcher expects consumers to be uninformed about the USDA policy for all-natural labels, so by looking for examples of participants knowledge of the definition of all-natural the researcher employs 52

PAGE 53

negative case sampling. This technique makes it more difficult to ignore certain information (Ary, Jacobs, & Razavieh, 2002, p. 454). Transferability is analogous with external validity in quantitative studies and refers to the generalizability of qualitative findings. The ability to apply this studys findings to other groups of people in different places and at different times, depends on how well the findings fit with the other contexts. This study did not aim for generalizable findings. Instead, the goal was to understand the topic in-depth. The results of this study applied to different contexts will require judgments and comparisons by the potential user (Ary, Jacobs, & Razavieh, 2002). Dependability is similar to reliability, but instead it addresses the consistency of the data analysis over time. The researchers met this criterion by using an audit trail, including original data analysis, codes, semantic relationships, and listing of all domains for verification and trustworthiness. The researcher also used the code-recode strategy by coding the data, leaving it for a period of time and then re-coding to match the two sets of coded material (Ary, Jacobs, & Razavieh, 2002). Confirmability in qualitative studies is the same as objectivity in quantitative studies. Qualitative researchers are concerned with whether the data they collect and the conclusions they draw would be confirmed by others investigating the same situation (Ary, Jacobs, & Razavieh, 2002, p. 456). The audit trail, in which contains all data in raw form and clear notes on the printed transcripts, was the strategy used to meet this criterion. In qualitative studies the researcher is the instrument, so it is important to acknowledge the researchers background, interests, and beliefs that have shaped this research. The researcher studies communication within the field of agriculture and is particularly attentive to the labeling and marketing of meat products. Once an organic foods shopper, the researcher is sensitive to 53

PAGE 54

organic consumers interests. Personal influences and knowledge acquisition about conventional agriculture production has since deflated the researchers preference for organic foods. The researchers continued interest in the organic and natural foods phenomenon sparked this exploration of consumers perceptions surrounding these labels. Despite these beliefs, previous experiences, and background, the researcher kept these separate from the data collection and analysis to conduct credible research and allow the conclusions to emerge from results. Summary of Methodology The researchers used two focus groups in Gainesville, Florida, with participants who were the primary food purchasers for their household and pork consumers, and lived in Alachua County. Both groups were diverse demographically and each group contained at least one organic shopper. Each session was recorded using audio and video recording devices, while one assistant moderator took handwritten notes and the other typed notes during the sessions. Data were analyzed by looking for common themes, similarities and dissimilarities, observations of non-verbals, interactions, and reactions to product and price threshold stimuli. Transcripts were coded for themes, and categories created. All conclusions were peer reviewed by the research committee and appropriate strategies were used to address credibility, transferability, dependability, confirmability, and reflexivity. 54

PAGE 55

CHAPTER 4 RESULTS This chapter presents the findings of two focus group sessions. The purpose of this study was to describe consumers perceptions of pork products with an all-natural label. To achieve this purpose, focus group discussions addressed 1) participants perceptions of the terms organic and all-natural in reference to pork products, 2) participants reactions to the USDA organic standards for meat production and policy for natural claims, 3) participants taste perceptions of all-natural pork products, and 4) participants attitudes toward the price of all-natural pork products as affected by tasting all-natural pork. Results are presented in order of the research questions in narrative format based on the participants discussion. Participants demographics and reported food purchasing-related behaviors contribute to the understanding of the findings. Potential participants answered demographic questions during the telephone screening process and efforts were made to select for a diverse and representative group in terms of income, age, race, and gender (Table 4-1). The median household income in Gainesville, Florida is $31,426 (Gainesville Facts, n.d.). Participants were also asked if they purchase organic or all-natural foods to ensure they would be familiar with these types of products. During the focus group discussions, participants were asked about their food purchasing behavior/preferences and food information sources. Each participant was given an opportunity to answer these questions to ensure everyone had provided their individual responses. Most participants shopped at the regional grocery chains Publix, Albertsons, and Winn Dixie. Some shopped at local independent grocers, including Wards and Hitchcocks. Few indicated that they shopped at national grocery chains, such as Sams Club. Only three out of the 15 total participants considered themselves regular organic foods shoppers. Participants reported receiving their food-related information from a variety of media sources, including the Internet, 55

PAGE 56

newspapers, magazines, ads, TV commercials, cooking shows, Food Network, magazines, samples in the grocery store, and televised news. Table 4-1. Demographics of focus group participants Group Participant Age Race Income more or less than $30,000 Gender Do you purchase organic or all-natural foods? One 1 47 African American More Female Yes One 2 47 White Less Female Yes One 3 26 White More Male Yes One 4 37 White More Male Yes One 5 42 African American More Female Yes One 6 41 White More Female Yes One 7 66 White More Male Yes One 8 41 White More Female Yes One 9 26 African American More Female No Two 10 38 White More Female Yes Two 11 37 White More Male Yes Two 12 45 White More Female Yes Two 13 24 African American Less Female Yes Two 14 44 White More Female Yes Two 15 22 African American Less Male No Two 16 25 African American Less Female Yes Two 17 53 White More Male Yes Two 18 28 White More Female Yes Two 19 55 White More Male Yes Fifteen of the selected participants (Table 4-1) were in attendance for the focus group sessions, seven in the first and eight in the second. Based on moderators and assistant moderators observations, both groups were diverse in age range. The first group had one African American female, three white females, and three white males. The second group had one African American female, three white females, one African American male, and three white males. It is important to note that most selected participants indicated they do purchase organic or all-natural foods in the screening questionnaire to ensure they were aware of these food products. The question posed during the focus group discussion revealed a different answer 56

PAGE 57

(most did not consider themselves organic shoppers) from the majority of participants, because it was phrased to determine if they considered themselves regular organic foods shoppers. Perceptions of All-Natural and Organic To explore this research question, participants were asked to define the terms all-natural and organic as associated with pork products. Themes discovered surrounding perceptions of all-natural were the mistrust or skepticism that all-natural means anything at all, the idea that all-natural means no (no hormones, no antibiotics, no chemicals, etc.), and the connection between all-natural pork and superior welfare for the pigs. Themes discovered surrounding perceptions of organic were similar to the no theme seen in perceptions of all-natural, but also included the perception that organic foods are healthier, from the garden, and more expensive. Skepticism Surrounding All-Natural The first group immediately expressed skepticism surrounding the term all-natural, while the second group expressed this shortly after initial responses indicating no preservatives, no additives, no antibiotics and no fertilizer. Although the majority of participants in both groups felt the term all-natural meant not loaded with chemicals, most expressed skepticism as to the validity of manufacturer claims in this respect. I dont think that anything is truly natural. Im skeptical, was a common response. Participants were not convinced all-natural means anything. All-natural isnt exactly what you think. Another related theme that emerged here was that the term might be a marketing or advertising ploy. A participant in the second group called the term, a form of advertisement. I dont believe it. Participants in both groups, unaided, brought up that they did not know regulations for all-natural products. A typical statement was, I know for organic there are laws, but I dont know if there are any for natural. Some participants in group two ultimately decided 57

PAGE 58

that there were no guidelines for using the term all-natural on product labeling. I dont think they need guidelines for all-natural. Just like diet. All-Natural Means No Despite their skepticism, participants in both groups had similar responses, indicating perceptions of the term all-natural as meaning no no preservatives, no additives, no antibiotics, no hormones, no extra liquids in the meats, no phosphates, and no chemicals. According to a participant, all-natural means it has less bad stuff. Another remarked, That it was a real animal. Participants often qualified their statements about preservatives, additives, antibiotics, hormones, extra liquids, phosphates, and animal welfare in a negative tone, emphasizing that these are concerns for them. So all-natural, to me, means that hopefully its not had hormones shot into it to make it fatter. Participants said pork with this label designation would be fresher and untreated. One participant termed it, All pig and nothing but pig. All participants had negative reactions to use of chemicals, feeling all-natural conveyed less chemicals used in food production. Some participants also expressed confusion about what the term meant, although that did not necessarily influence their overall perception of the product. Said one participant from group one, Well I really dont know what all-natural means. Sure it sounds good, and I would probably buy something that said all-natural over something that didnt say all-natural. Participants in this group all agreed with this statement. With respect to meat and pork products and labeling, participants immediately brought up a local all-natural chicken producer, which participants perceived as having promoted its products as no hormones, no antibiotics, no additives, no preservatives. One participant summed up this theme, saying: 58

PAGE 59

. . Teach me, show me, that if you say, at B obs Farm when we sell you our pork and it says all-natural, it means we didnt put a bunch of preservatives in it . it wasnt pumped full of water, and nothing was added, phosphates werent added. Like that Sanderson Farms, the chicken people. I mean they say "oh, we dont have a ny phosphates." I dont know if phosphates are good for me or bad for me, but when they tell me they dont have any I start thinking maybe we should get that chicken. All-Natural Pork Associated with Animal Welfare Several participants focused on the connection between all-natural and livestock raised free range, particularly in group one. One participant said, I think of Martha Stewart and the free range turkeys in response to what comes to mind when they see the term all-natural on a package of meat. They also associated the term with the idea that the pigs from which these products were produced would be small-farm raised, fed natural foods, and/or fed organic foods. A woman in group one said, I would hope that what [the pig] was eating was a better quality. Like feeding your dog the Cheap Charlie instead of like Science diet. Another from this group said: I would hope that it means fewer hormones and fewer antibiotics. I would hope that all-natural would mean that somebodys grandparents raised it on a farm somewhere rather than they were locked in a little metal cubbyhole where they couldnt turn around with a feeding tube in one end and an IV in the other side. Filling it full of things just to keep it alive long enough to get it to slaughter. Organic Means Healthy When asked to define what the term organic meant to them, participants in both groups had both positive and negative reactions. One participant in group two summed up the definition of organic foods by saying [organic foods are] without chemicals, pesticides, hormone-free, from animals fed organic and not meat products, but may not look as pretty. All participants in both groups said organic means no pesticides; others said it also means [livestock] werent fed ground-up animals, and vegetables havent been wiped with vegetable oil and wax. 59

PAGE 60

Some immediately thought of these foods as tasteless or tasting like cardboard. Participants in both groups said that organic was better for you. One woman commented, I think that its probably better for you than all-natural. Some participants in group one and all in group two said organic foods taste better, and all perceived these foods as healthier. Several members of both groups indicated that organic foods were very important to them. A man in group one said, [Organic] means you dont have to worry, this was raised by tested methods that are safe, healthy and natural. Said another in group one, Organic is really important to me. My wife and I grow organic tomatoes, but its difficult to make it organic, and it takes a while to do it because of pesticides and such. No pesticides is an important factor. Other members of this participants group spent some time picturing tomatoes as representative of organic foods in which they would be interested. When discussing their perceived criteria for all-natural and organic foods in group one, all participants agreed that these were individual concerns. One participant said: Im not that concerned, because after getting away from home-grown things, I figure somethings not going to be good for you no matter what you do. Its great to take precautions, nothings 100%, and I think every shopper is going to be different about that. Organic Equated with Produce Participants in both groups identified organic as having more to do with food coming from the garden or the earth. Said one, Its very much more like what came out of your garden. Participants typically referenced fruits and vegetables when discussing their perceptions of organic, an example being I dont care if all the tomatoes are uniform shape I would like my tomatoes to taste like a tomato. Most participants equated organic food with produce; few considered the term organic as relating to meats. A common statement being, I never thought of meat as being organic. A participant in group one described organic in relation to all-natural as: 60

PAGE 61

Basically a high-tech way of saying all-natural, but theres a little bit more to it. I think people are a little more aware of the process, where with all-natural were not really sure what it actually means. In organic we know that it means no pesticides, but I can only equate that with vegetables. I never thought of meat as being organic. Organic Foods Cost More All participants perceived organic foods to cost more. Only one out of seven in the first group and two out of eight in the second group were organic shoppers, due to price considerations. Some indicated they sometimes buy organic vegetables, but not other products. Price was a factor for most participants, as well as differences in family members food preferences. One woman in group two offered, My husband doesnt care if he wants it, hell eat it. But if I see two products on the shelf and theyre the same price and one says all-natural or organic, Ill buy that. But if its a two or three dollar difference, Ill buy whatever is cheaper. Said another in group one, We try to buy the organic, but sometimes price enters the picture being that we dont have any children, most of the time we dont even bother. Reactions to USDA Standards for Organic and Policy for Natural Claims To gather participants reactions to the USDA standards for organic meat production and policy for natural claims, they were provided a one-page handout listing this information from the USDA. The theme that emerged from the focus groups surrounding this objective was confusion and unanswered questions/concerns about the differences between organic and all-natural. Participants posed numerous questions throughout this part of the discussion. Confusion Surrounding Differences between USDA Standards and Guidelines Most participants in both groups said they did not understand the differences between the organic and all-natural labeling guidelines prior to reading the handout. A common statement was, I kind of knew that organic was much more specific than all-natural, but I couldnt have 61

PAGE 62

told you what all-natural included. Participants in group one were particularly confused and all agreed they still had many unanswered questions after reading the handout. Many questions were raised by participants in response to the handout, such as: Now Im questioning what is artificial really? Do they put coloring in organic fruits?and Do I have to meet all of these guidelines [points to organic] and all of these [points to all-natural]? When discussing the differences between the two terms, one woman in group two said, Seeing what natural doesnt have, and what organic doesnt have, doesnt necessarily tell you what the other guys do have. Another participant offered, I buy a lot of chicken. So I usually see that packages that say all-natural and I pick it up. Ive never really paid attention to the organic, but now Ill pay more attention, I think. Participants in both groups brought up concerns for the animals welfare in response to the standards for organic, such as concerned about the animals and the things I cant see because I cant go hang out at the farm it came from. Another participant said: What struck me the most was that animals must have access to outdoors and they dont mention that under the [all-natural standards]. So does that mean that they naturally confine all the animals, and otherwise, unless theyre raised organic, theyre kind of stuck in cages? Participants in group one all agreed that if a product is organic it should also be all-natural, but that it is not clear from reading the handout. A common statement being, To me organic should mean all-natural. Say not only are we organic, but were also all-natural. Group two brought up additional perceptions concerning their preferences for locally grown food and buying local, which was not addressed on the handout or by the moderator. I think its important to think locally when you buy anything, said one man from this group. An organic shopper said she prefers to buy produce even if it is not labeled organic at a local grocer because they have the better quality food. Many perceived local food (in particular, fruit and 62

PAGE 63

vegetable produce) as fresher and better tasting. One man said, In my opinion [locally produced food] is always better because it hasnt been handled as much or shipped as far. Making the Information Clearer to Consumers Participants were also asked to offer suggestions for ways to make the information about organic standards and natural claims clearer to consumers like themselves. The overwhelming response from both groups was to provide the information through advertising campaigns. Both groups referred to a recent local advertising campaign (participants referred to billboards and TV commercials) from Sanderson Farms, which, many said, was in terms they understand. A common suggestion for advertising campaigns was, If were using an all-natural label, this is what you can be assured it means. It means were not pumping it full of X, Y, and, Z. You know that it was free range. Participants in group two suggested posting the information from the USDA in the grocery store in a manner that is quick to read and easy to understand. One woman said: I have to read quickly. So if Im looking for something that doesnt have preservatives, doesnt have chemicals, I need to see that fully. Because not only am I trying to compare prices and do math, Im trying to keep a five-year-old from running three aisles away. The participants all agreed that having a separate section or aisles for organic food is helpful. Since price typically came up as the dominant barrier preventing participants from buying organics, one man offered: Post [the information] on the butcher counter so people can know why theyre paying more. Taste Perceptions of All-Natural Pork To explore participants taste perceptions of all-natural pork, they moved to another room which had been set up with tableware and silverware. They then participated in a double-blind taste testing of an all-natural roasted boneless pork loin sample produced by a local company as compared to a similarly cut and prepared conventional product sample. The themes discovered 63

PAGE 64

here were perceptions that all-natural boneless pork loin tastes better than conventional pork loin, differing taste expectations of all-natural pork, and differing taste preferences. All-Natural Boneless Pork Loin Tastes Better The all-natural boneless pork loin samples produced by Madison Farms All-Natural Pork and conventional boneless pork loin samples from a grocery store were prepared to the same internal temperature with no added ingredients. An objective observer ensured the two pork samples were prepared the same. Before the identity of the pork products was revealed, most in both groups said they could taste a difference between the two pork dishes. Both groups preferred the texture and flavor of the all-natural pork sample and said the conventional pork sample was drier, not as flavorful, and mushier. Typical comments from participants that fell under this category included the following: The second one just doesnt have the flavor the first one has. The second portion just seemed to be a little bit more dense and dry. I noticed mostly the texture, cause I dont like mushy meat. I think it should be kind of firm. So the second one tasted mushier. Yes, I thought the first sample was moist and flavorful; even the skin portion that I ate was not greasy. And the second portion just seemed to be a little bit more dense and dry. Differing Taste Expectations There was some difference between groups with respect to their perceptions as to which meat product was all-natural and which one was conventionally produced. Although both groups preferred the flavor and texture of the all-natural boneless pork loin sample, they differed in how they expected each type to taste. Before the identity of each sample was revealed, group one associated what they perceived as good taste with the all-natural pork and labeled the all-natural pork as all-natural when guessing which sample was which. Participants in group two noted a 64

PAGE 65

difference in the leanness or fat content of the samples. Said one I think that the first one had a little more fat, which I know is not good for you. Group two associated poor taste and the seemingly leaner pork with all-natural and labeled the conventional pork as all-natural. After the moderator told the participants which sample was which, both groups said they would buy the all-natural pork they had tasted. In the first group, a participant stated, I would now buy all-natural. I would look for a label that says all-natural. All participants in this group then concurred. Group one noticed a color difference between the two and said that the conventional one may have had artificial coloring added. Both groups noticed a difference in texture, attributing this to outdoor production practices. Because the (all-natural pork) was firmer, maybe its because those pigs got to run around more and have more muscle said one woman in group one. Differing Taste Preferences After the blind taste comparison, participants in both groups were given the opportunity to taste several other all-natural pork products and record and state their reactions. Participants tasted all-natural ground pork, and then spare ribs from the same company. Although most were not familiar with the companys pork, and did not buy these cuts regularly, participants found this product appealing on several fronts. They found the ground pork to be not fatty or greasy, less fatty than hamburger, and tastes just like pork, although both groups thought it needed seasoning. The majority of participants in both groups liked and would purchase this product. Participants had differing taste perceptions of the all-natural spare ribs. The participants said the ribs they tasted were too dry; however, both groups also noted that people have different taste preferences for ribs in terms of how dry they are. Three members of both group one and group two stated they liked the all-natural ribs. In the first group, the majority of members said they would buy it; however, no one made this claim in the second group. 65

PAGE 66

A woman in group one explained that being from Louisiana, she prefers a lot of flavor in her pork. She often responded that the pork she sampled, specifically the ground pork and spare ribs, needed more spices and flavor to suite her taste preferences. Unaided, the participants in group one brought up the generic pork marketing campaign, Pork: The other white meat. One woman said, I remember they used to have those commercials saying the other white meat, so I would look to see if [the pork] looks really white. So it looks sort of like chicken to me. Several participants in this group noted the color of the all-natural boneless pork loin compared to the conventional boneless pork loin sample. One participant questioned if the conventional sample had added coloring to make it whiter in color. Results from Taste Questionnaire A survey feedback form (see Appendix E) was designed to gather each participants reaction to each pork sample before they discussed their reactions with the rest of the group. This was done to help the participants think about the taste of each sample and record their thoughts for discussion. The results from the brief survey forms differed from each groups consensus, especially in group two. Overall, group ones written comments were in agreement with their spoken comments about each sample of pork. The comments differed only in that most indicated their likelihood of buying the all-natural ground pork product as average, whereas during discussion all agreed they would buy this product. Group two demonstrated some major differences between discussion and survey feedback. Written comments from the double-blind comparison between the all-natural sample and convention sample indicated an equal number of positive and negative taste perceptions. When asked to compare the samples they had just tasted on the survey form, three indicated the conventional sample tasted better than the all-natural sample, three indicated it tasted worse, and two indicated it tasted the same. However, during 66

PAGE 67

discussion all participants came to the consensus that the first sample or all-natural sample tasted better. Taste Perceptions and Willingness to Pay for All-Natural Pork Products To explore how participants taste perceptions of all-natural pork affect their attitudes toward the price of these products, a willingness-to-pay exercise was conducted. The moderator used index cards marked with the price per pound of four cuts of pork (loin, chops, ground pork, and ribs), three of which participants had tasted. The moderator showed the prices for both all-natural and conventional products, and then asked participants about their willingness to pay. Themes that emerged here were, first, that tasting a product influences their willingness to pay a premium for all-natural pork products and second, that marketing how these products taste is important to get consumers to buy these products. Taste Influences Willingness to Pay Starting with the boneless pork loin, all participants in both groups (except for one in group two that preferred to buy meat from a butcher) said they would buy the all-natural product because they had tasted it and liked the taste. The per pound price differential on this cut was $4.25 for the conventional product, as compared to $5.69 for the all-natural product. Both groups also said that because they liked the taste, they didnt really care how much more it cost after comparing conventional to all-natural, although they did note the higher price. As one participant stated, So I would pay it. And because its all-natural. But it is quite a bit more. Said another, I tasted it and Id rather, honestly, Im like I dont care how much more it costs, I would pay the $5.69. Both groups said taste is the key to convince people the product is worth the premium price. For this reason, both groups suggested a way to market this product would be to focus on using samples at the grocery store. 67

PAGE 68

Both groups were willing to pay more for the all-natural ground pork product, finding the $1.85/$2.99 price differential not a barrier. With respect to the ribs, only three out of seven in the first group and two out of eight in the second group would pay the $3.80 per pound for the all-natural product, as compared to the $2.45 per pound for the conventional product. Finally, the moderator held up prices for loin chops, which the groups had not taste tested, to determine how taste affects attitudes toward price. The price per pound for conventional loin chops was $3.85 per pound; for the all-natural product, $5.99. Both groups said the price difference seemed too steep. Seven out of eight in group two and four out of seven in group one would not purchase the all-natural loin chops because it was too expensive. The participants that defined themselves as regular organic foods shoppers were consistently willing to pay the premium for all-natural pork, with the exception of one woman in group two that indicated she would buy neither the conventional or the all-natural pork product. This participant said she would only buy organic pork from a butcher and never buys pre-packaged meat. None of the participants mentioned their income as related to their willingness to pay a premium for all-natural pork products. Summary Overall, participants had positive association with the terms organic and natural. Participants associated all-natural with perceptions of animal welfare, higher quality feed, and no preservatives or chemicals in the final pork product and identified these perceived aspects as potential health and animal welfare risks. They also expressed confusion with respect to distinctions between all-natural claims and organic standards, and would like the information about these terms posted in grocery stores and clearly defined in advertising and labeling. In the affective testing of different all-natural pork cuts, personal taste preferences played a central role. However, taste expectations toward all-natural pork products differed between the two focus 68

PAGE 69

groups. Group one expected all-natural pork to taste better than conventional pork, while group two expected all-natural pork to taste inferior. Participants said being able to taste the product influenced their intent to purchase and willingness to pay a premium for all-natural pork products. 69

PAGE 70

CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION This chapter explains the key findings, conclusions, implications, and recommendations drawn from the results of two focus group sessions. The purpose of this study was to describe consumers perceptions of pork products with an all-natural or organic label. To achieve this purpose, focus group discussions addressed the following objectives: 1) participants perceptions of the terms organic and all-natural in reference to pork products, 2) participants reactions to the USDA organic standards for meat production and policy for natural claims, 3) participants taste perceptions of all-natural pork products, and 4) participants attitudes toward the price of all-natural pork products as affected by tasting all-natural pork. Key Findings Overall, participants had positive associations with the term all-natural. However, both groups initially expressed skepticism as to the validity of this claim on labeling and were not convinced it held any meaning or was regulated. Despite these doubts, participants associated all-natural with perceptions of no preservatives or chemicals in the final pork product, higher quality feed, and improved animal welfare and identified these perceived aspects as potential health and animal welfare risks. Similar perceptions and the absence of pesticides were also associated with the term organic, but most equated the term with produce rather than meat. Participants revealed differing taste perceptions of organic foods, but all perceived these foods are healthier. In response to the USDA standards for organic livestock production and policy for natural claims, participants expressed confusion with respect to distinctions between the two terms and had many unanswered questions. They said they would like the information about these terms posted in grocery stores and clearly defined in advertising and labeling. 70

PAGE 71

In the affective taste testing of different all-natural pork cuts, personal taste preferences played a central role. However, taste expectations toward all-natural pork products differed between the two focus groups during the double-blind comparison of all-natural boneless pork loin and conventional boneless pork loin. One group expected all-natural pork to taste better than conventional pork, while the other expected it to taste inferior. Participants said being able to taste the product influenced their intent to purchase and willingness to pay a premium for all-natural pork products. Participants who preferred the taste were more willing to pay a premium for the all-natural pork products. Conclusions Perceptions of All-Natural and Organic Participants had positive perceptions of both organic and all-natural pork products, with some exceptions regarding taste, price, and trust in the information source, which are consistent with factors that typically dissuade consumers from purchasing organic products (Yiridoe, et al., 2005; California Institute for Rural Studies, 2005). Perceptions surrounding all-natural Participants perceived the use of the term all-natural on pork packaging as a gimmick or marketing ploy. Frewer, Howard, Hedderley, and Shepherd (1996) point out that trust in information from industry sources (such as marketing and labeling) is hindered by perceptions of selfish, economic interests. Many did not believe the government regulated the use of this term and were thus skeptical of its meaning or claims on packaging labels. As found in a survey study about consumer perceptions of all-natural beef (Diel & Associates, 2001), participants associated no hormones and no antibiotics with their perceptions of all-natural pork. However, these focus group discussions brought out additional perceptions participants associated with all-natural pork, including hogs that are raised outdoors, fed higher 71

PAGE 72

quality food, and no use of preservatives or chemicals in the final pork product. Participants also revealed that they do not understand why or how particular additives in meat are bad for them, but when marketing makes claims about not having additives, they are more inclined to buy that product or favor food products with the no labeling theme. The no labeling theme participants related to all-natural pork products also revealed insights into their risk perceptions associated with pork production and consumption. In terms of potential risk to their health, participants brought up chemicals (both from production and processing), additives, hormones, and antibiotics. However, participants never qualified or quantified these perceived risks. This is consistent with Slovics (1987) risk analysis theory in that laypersons perceptions and analysis of risk are based on perceived control and understanding of the risk rather than probability or severity of its occurrence. Most participants reported obtaining their food-related information from various media sources, which may be why they did not understand the risks they perceived (additives, chemicals, hormones, etc.). Frewer, Raats, and Shepherd (1993) found that the media focus on the unknown when communicating food risk. Food additives, in particular, are reported as heuristically bad. Also, dependence on the media, predominantly newspapers and television news, for food safety information is correlated with greater food risk perception (Tucker, Whaley, & Sharp, 2006). The absence of perceived risks associated with all-natural pork products can be considered one of several perceived product attributes that has a functional consequence in terms of consumers life values, such as physical well-being and ethical treatment of animals. Based on Gutmans means-end theory (1982), the perceived attributes of all-natural pork products, such as no antibiotics, no growth hormones, no chemicals, and improved animal welfare, may translate into fulfillment of life values. Most of the same perceived attributes and values from Bech72

PAGE 73

Larsen and Grunerts (1998) means-end chain research (Figure 2-1) with Danish consumers perceptions of organic pork surfaced during these focus group discussions about all-natural pork. Based the similarity of perceived attributes, participants likely associated the perceived attributes of all-natural pork with their life values of good health, ethical treatment of animals, and family security. Perceptions surrounding organic Participants perceptions surrounding organic differed on whether or not these foods tasted better than their conventional counterparts. However, all agreed that organic foods are healthier. This is consistent with previous research with regular organic consumers who often list higher nutritional value as a reason to purchase organic food. However, no scientific evidence has shown a difference in nutritional content between organic and conventional foods (Kouba, 2003). Participants also expressed willingness to compromise on the physical appearance of produce for the perceived healthier organic version as these foods look more like what came out of your garden. Most participants did not equate organic with meat, saying, I never thought of meat as being organic. Although the discussion was focused on organic pork, participants equated organic more to fresh produce, particularly tomatoes. This may be due to the limited availability of organic meat products in supermarkets. Meat was not allowed to be labeled organic until a provisional label was approved by the USDA in 1999, whereas organic gardening dates back to the 1950s (Dimitri & Greene, 2002). Despite positive perceptions surrounding organic foods, the price of organic foods was an inhibiting factor for most participants desire to purchase these products. Most would prefer to buy these products, but if the premium is more than the value they perceived, then they said they will buy whatever is cheaper. This study and others agree that price of organic foods is 73

PAGE 74

consistently a barrier for consumers who wish to purchase these products (California Institute for Rural Studies, 2005). In general, participants attitudes toward all-natural and organic pork were based on beliefs associated with the absence of risk to their health and the improved welfare of the hogs in the production and processing of those products. The perceived risk factors were similar to those cited by organic consumers (Hammitt, 1990). Reactions to USDA Standards for Organic and Policy for Natural Claims After reading the handout with the USDA standards for organic meat production and policy for natural claims, participants were surprised to learn that theres a big difference. They admitted that they were generally unaware of the differences between the organic regulations and natural labeling policies. Before receiving the handout participants perceived the term all-natural to be a catchall term not only meaning no chemicals and no additives, but also meaning no antibiotics, no hormones, and raised outdoors. A study exploring consumers perceptions of the naturalness of organic farming in the Netherlands discovered that high standards of animal welfare were associated with the naturalness in the production methods of meat (Verhoog, et al., 2002, p. 37). Although participants expressed distrust in claims used on food packaging, they did not express distrust in the USDA organic standards and natural claims on the handout. In the United States, trust in government food regulators is high (Roe & Teisl, 2007; Waarden, 2006; Taylor, 2003). Participants had numerous unanswered questions in response to the USDA organic standards for livestock and policy for natural claims. It was clear the USDA definition for all-natural did not corroborate with the participants definition of the word on meat packages. Most 74

PAGE 75

said that if a product is organic it should also be natural, but that was not evident in the USDA standards and policy. The participants in these focus groups said that the information about the differences between these two terms would be clearer through advertising campaigns and consumer education in grocery stores. Many were able to provide examples of recent advertising campaigns for natural and all-natural foods, such as Arbys, Wendys, and Sanderson Farms. Sanderson Farms was cited as particularly effective, because the television ads and billboards communicated examples of what the term all-natural means on their chicken products. Participants also suggested posting the USDA standards for organic production and policy for natural claims information on the butcher counter in a quick and easy-to-read format in grocery stores, so consumers could understand the differences and potentially understand why they have to pay more for these products. Another suggestion was to separate all organic food into its own section of the grocery store, so consumers do not have to search for it. Taste Perceptions of All-Natural Pork Personal preference plays a large role in taste perceptions (Risvik, 1994). Some participants expressed differing preferences for moistness, texture and flavor, and that influenced their reaction to the taste of the pork product samples. Previous experience with the cuts of pork may also have influenced their taste perceptions (Cardello, 1995a). All participants in both groups perceived a difference in flavor and texture between the all-natural and conventional pork loins in the double-blind taste test, preferring the all-natural pork loin. Participants were aware they tasted an all-natural pork loin and a conventional pork loin, so they were anticipating a difference. The anticipation may have amplified their perceived differences. Previous studies conducted with trained taste panels vary in their findings of sensory differences between organic and conventional foods (Dransfield, et al., 2005; Fillion & Arazi, 75

PAGE 76

2002; Jonsll, et al., 2002). Studies pertaining to taste differences in pork products indicate either no difference between organic pork and conventional pork, or inferior eating quality for organic pork (Scholderer, et al., 2004; Edwards, 2005). Interestingly, participants had different preconceived notions of how all-natural food would taste, which influenced how they evaluated the provided samples. Group one associated good flavor and texture with the all-natural product, but group two associated the leaner and less flavorful sample with the all-natural product. This suggests that a segment of consumers may perceive all-natural meat to taste better, while another segment may perceive it to taste inferior to conventionally produced products. The written comments and results from the brief taste survey forms (Appendix E) differed from each groups consensus during discussion, especially in group two. This is the nature of group dynamics in focus group methodology and also what occurs in a naturalistic setting. Perceptions are shaped not only by personal experiences, but also by interactions with others. The focus group discussion format encourages interaction among participants and allows people to change their opinions based on discussion with other participants (Morgan & Kreuger, 1998). The group dynamics of the focus group sessions may also have played a role in each groups discussion. Group one had two self-proclaimed regular organic foods shoppers, whereas group two only had one self-proclaimed regular organic foods shopper. The single regular organic shopper in group two also considered herself a whole foods shopper in addition to a regular organic shopper. She had negative perceptions of pre-packaged, labeled meat and said she only buys meat from a butcher. Her opinions did not have as much influence on the group the two participants in group one did. The two organic shoppers in the first group were vocal and expressive during the discussions, which may have led to group-think, especially during the 76

PAGE 77

double-blind taste test portion of the session. These participants were influential during the taste testing portion, because they had positive taste expectations for all-natural pork. One of these regular organic shoppers said, organic food tastes better during the discussion of the term organic. These participants held strong convictions in their positive perceptions of organic and all-natural foods and may have influenced the other participants conversations because of that. Willingness-To-Pay as Influenced by Taste Perceptions Intent to purchase all-natural pork products relied heavily on the fact that participants had tasted the products. The majority of participants said they were willing to pay more for some all-natural pork products because they had preferred the taste of them. Both groups were willing to pay more for the all-natural pork loin and ground pork, because the price differential was not a barrier to them and they liked the taste of these products. Even though the $1.44 price difference between the conventional and all-natural boneless pork loin seemed high to the participants, they were willing to pay that premium because they had preferred the taste. Bredahl and Poulsen (2002) found that perceptions of high-quality pork are predominantly affected by its taste. The researchers also discovered a perceptual link between production method and pork quality, where consumers perceived pork labeled as from pigs raised outdoors to be of higher eating quality than pork from pigs raised indoors. Participants were decidedly split on their willingness to purchase all-natural ribs and all-natural loin chops. Several participants said the all-natural pork chops were too expensive compared to the conventional pork chops. In regards to the spare ribs, some revealed that they do not typically buy spare ribs in the grocery store, because they do not know how to prepare them or do not want to pay for the bone weight. In the end, the split willingness to pay a premium for these products was due to personal taste preferences and differing price-value attitudes. Models 77

PAGE 78

of price, quality, and value explain that perceived value affects how consumers view the quality of a product and whether or not they will purchase it (Ziethaml, 1988). The participants that defined themselves as regular organic food shoppers were consistently willing to pay the premium for all-natural pork products when given the choice between conventional and all-natural pork products. This is consistent with the role of self-identity and the role of past behavior in the theory of planned behavior (Bentler & Speckart, 1979; Sparks & Shepherd, 1992). The regular organic foods consumers seem to be willing to pay a premium for all-natural labeled pork, because it has become a central aspect of their self-concept or a habitual behavior. However, a different conclusion may have been made if participants were given the option to choose between conventional, all-natural, and organic pork in the willingness-to-pay exercise. This research shows that all-natural pork is appealing to self-proclaimed regular organic foods consumers. This segment is consistently willing to pay a premium for these products if given the choice between conventional and all-natural pork products. Implications Perceptions of All-Natural and Organic The variation in pork producer-set standards for all-natural and consumer confusion about the meaning of the term is reminiscent of the patchwork of state and regional standards for organic prior to the implementation of the National Organic Program (Fetter & Caswell, 2002). One package of pork labeled as all-natural may only refer to the processing, as USDA policy stipulates, while its shelf neighbor may use it to refer to various production techniques as well. Understandably, producers want to use legitimate production/process claims to capture a piece of the high-dollar market for such products. However, coupling those claims with the term all-natural has led to consumer confusion surrounding all-natural as demonstrated in this research 78

PAGE 79

and in Diel & Associates (2001) research with natural beef products. Another contributing factor is that the concept of natural and naturalness is regularly used by producers, marketers, and consumers of organic foods to characterize organics (Verhoog, Matze, Lammerts Van Bueren, & Baars, 2002). This conceptualization of organic as natural has also blurred the distinction between organic and natural labeling. Participants in these focus groups perceived all-natural pork to be from hogs that are raised outdoors without the use of antibiotics and growth hormones, fed higher quality food, and no use of preservatives, additives, or chemicals in the final pork product. The results of this research implies that consumers perceive the term all-natural as encompassing production practices integral to the organic standards. The only prominent differing perceptions between organic and all-natural was that organic also means no pesticides, is regulated by the government, costs more money, and is associated more with produce rather than meat. Consumers attitudes toward all-natural and organic pork are based on beliefs associated with the absence of risk to their health and the improved welfare of the hogs in the production and processing of those products. The intense marketing and premiums associated with organic and all-natural food products may be leading consumers to believe they have to pay a higher price for safer food. Participants perceived chemicals (both from production and processing), additives, hormones, antibiotics, and pesticides as risks to their health. Consumers may not understand how or why these are risks, but are more inclined to favor or purchase foods with the no labeling theme. Organic and all-natural are product attributes that consumers have come to value. These value perceptions may lead to increased market diversity as more niche products emerge to fulfill consumers needs. Consumers have more choices with the increasing prevalence of organic and niche market food products in grocery stores. When there was only one choice, consumers were willing to accept 79

PAGE 80

more uncertainties and a lack of understanding about meat production to a greater degree, because the benefit of nourishment outweighed those factors. The emergence of organic, all-natural, and other production/processing claims on meat packages seems to have led consumers to question the quality, value, and safety of cheaper, conventional meat products. However, the perceived value in all-natural labeled meat is minimal if not compounded with other factors, such as price, taste, and an understanding of how these products are different or better. Participants did not understand exactly why organic and all-natural products are more expensive, indicating the supposed value of these products has not been clearly communicated. Unless the participant considered themselves a regular organic food shopper, most would not purchase these products if they cost more than approximately $1.00 over the conventional counterpart. Although most participants perceived conventional pork as containing the risks organic and all-natural products claim not to have, the risks are not alarming enough to prompt them to pay a premium for those products. Communicating the value of these products may rest on the ability of marketers to show industry accountability in producing organic and all-natural meat products. Accountability has been defined in terms of being answerable to audiences for fulfilling obligations, duties, and expectations (Sinclair & Irani, 2005, p. 61). Consumers want to see what they are paying for; as one woman put it, Im concerned about the things I cant see because I cant go hang out at the farm it came from. These focus groups brought out consumers risk perceptions surrounding pork production and consumption. It may be the case that the prevalence of the no labeling themes (no antibiotics, no growth hormones, no preservatives, etc.) associated with all-natural and organic meat products has inadvertently communicated to consumers that the aspects that these products do not contain are harmful to peoples health and livestocks well-being. By default, consumers 80

PAGE 81

may believe that conventional or unlabeled meat products contain these perceived risks, which could potentially lead to the devaluation of these products in a market where they become the cheap or generic products. The USDA Food and Safety Inspection Service updated its website in August 2006 to include a page defining production and processing claims, including organic and natural, on meat and poultry packaging. As a result of this update, the information is easier to find. However, the language used on the site is still the same as used on the handout provided to the focus group participants. Consumers perceive all-natural and organic to be very similar, but the USDA defines the two terms to be quite different from each other. Consumers may not be inclined to research the definition of these meat and poultry labeling claims. Participants in these focus groups did not mention the Web as a place or communication medium that would effectively reach most consumers like them. A better understanding of organic and all-natural could increase consumers confidence in the integrity and value of these products. Participants lack of understanding of the difference between all-natural and organic, and the perceptions of fewer food risks associated with these labeling terms suggests a major knowledge gap between experts and consumers. Klonsky and Tourte (1998) assert that the organic label is not meant to differentiate those foods as safer, but unintentionally it may have. As the results of this study suggest, all-natural and production technique claims may also be differentiating those foods as safer. Taste Perceptions and Willingness to Pay for All-Natural Pork Participants perceived a minimal amount of value in the term all-natural in isolation, but certainly favored and were willing to pay a premium for all-natural pork products if they preferred the taste. Perceptions of the taste of pork are affected by a number of factors including previous experience, personal preferences, ethnic/cultural background, and the porks appearance 81

PAGE 82

and preparation. Participants in these focus groups were influenced by the National Pork Checkoffs Pork: The other white meat campaign. As a result of this campaign, consumers prefer pork products to be white in color when cooked. Being able to taste the all-natural pork product was an important factor to motivate consumers to purchase the product. As a result of trying the product, participants were able to experience the consequences without the investment, thus reducing the perceived risk in the consumer decision-making process. Through experiencing both intrinsic (taste) and extrinsic (labeling, marketing) attributes, the quality of a food product is seemingly easier for consumers to evaluate (Zeithaml, 1988). Scholderer et al. (2004) found that consumers have high taste expectations of pork labeled organic or free range. This study indicates that expectation may not always be the case. One segment of consumers may perceive organic and all-natural pork to taste good while another segment may perceive it to taste inferior or healthy (not flavorful). Participants in the group that expected all-natural pork to taste poor predicted the perceived drier and seemingly leaner conventional sample to be the all-natural pork. The negative taste stigma seems to be related to the perception that all-natural pork products are healthier and leaner than conventional pork products. Recommendations Practice This research yields recommendations for practice, as well as future research. Based on the conclusions and implications of this study, agricultural communicators, educators, and extension agents need to communicate the reasons for and the differences between the organic label and natural claims, especially if they are only meant to be marketing labels and not discern them as safer. Participants perceived these products as absent of risk to their health and animal welfare. 82

PAGE 83

The market for conventional agricultural products could be negatively impacted if consumers do not understand why organic and all-natural labeled foods are supposedly better or why they cost more money. If organic and all-natural labeled foods continued to be perceived as the safer food choice, the market for conventional foods could potentially suffer. Labels are used by the USDA to balance the market for agricultural products, so this organization is the decision-maker when it comes to food labels. The USDA would be a credible resource for information about the reasons for all-natural and organic food labeling, because the study participants perceived information from industry and marketing sources as marketing ploys. Communication about the organic label and natural claims needs to go beyond a website. Agricultural communicators should consider websites as a small part of a larger effort to reach consumers with information about organic labels and all-natural claims. The efforts to inform consumers about the use of these terms must be strategically available since they are unlikely to pursue this information on their own. Participants recommended posting this information in grocery stores in a separate organic foods section of the grocery store or near the butcher counter. Participants could not clearly differentiate between all-natural and organic. All-natural, in particular, was not regarded as a credible or regulated claim on meat labeling. Producers and marketers could continue to take advantage of these misperceptions, or policy makers could step in and rewrite the policy for natural claims. The policy could add some of the common perceptions of the term, such as no antibiotics, no growth hormones, and livestock raised outdoors. Regardless of whether the USDA steps in to make some of these recommended changes, agricultural communications professionals need to focus on communicating the meaning of all83

PAGE 84

natural claims in a manner that consumers can quickly receive and easily understand. Participants in both focus groups said they would prefer this information in advertising campaigns. In particular, they preferred specific examples of what is and what is not in pork products with all-natural labels. It is strongly recommended that the meaning of all-natural be closely tied to the brand or producer, so when a consumer buys that brand they feel assured that all-natural always means what the marketing states. In order for consumers to perceive value in all-natural claims, demonstrating accountability is important. Agricultural communicators and marketers should communicate how producers production and processing practices ensure the safety and quality of the food. Demonstrating that producers go above and beyond what laws and regulations require of them would increase perceptions of accountability. The majority of consumers are probably unaware that growth hormones, one of the top perceived food risks in the United States (Hwang, Roe, & Teisl, 2005), is prohibited in pork and poultry production. However, niche pork producers continue to attempt to add value to their products by identifying no hormones on the label and it is now an aspect perceived integral to the meaning of all-natural as brought up in these focus group discussions. It may be the case that this type of marketing is perpetuating this perceived risk. The study participants were confused about the exact meaning behind all-natural labeling claims. They emphasized the importance of educating consumers like themselves about all-natural and organic labeling on meat products in order to communicate the value and quality of these products and increase perceptions of credibility for such claims. Arguably, the same needs to be done for meat production in general, regardless of the claims or labeling the producer qualifies for or uses. Demonstrating producers commitments to ensuring meat quality and safety will be important to protect the market for unlabeled or conventional meat products. Agricultural extension agents 84

PAGE 85

and family, youth, and consumer science extension agents have an important role to play in working together to continually educate consumers about meat production and labeling. These efforts are important to maintain credibility in food labeling and claims. Agricultural extension agents should use the results of this study to help pork producers identify aspects of their production techniques that would add value to their products. The focus groups participants perceived value in several production and processing techniques that increased their perceptions of quality in pork products. Extension agents should also provide this information to pork producers seeking to enter niche markets, so that they may develop production plans and effective marketing strategies. As Jaeger (2006) found, it is valuable to integrate taste in marketing communications strategies. An implication for agricultural marketers is that the success of communications aimed at marketing niche food products may rest on the ability to include product sampling strategies while appealing to consumers taste perceptions with marketing materials. Participants indicated that tasting the all-natural pork was the most important factor to convince them to pay a premium for it and purchase it. Based on the results of this study, food marketers should consider integrating point of purchase sampling, or developing labeling and marketing materials that appeal to and emphasize how the product tastes. Lighting, shelf placement, display, packaging, photos of the prepared product, and recipes are all possible ways to appeal to consumers senses in the grocery store. It is important to note that personal taste preferences and previous experiences with pork influence perceptions of taste. The sample all participants had obvious positive taste perceptions for was the all-natural boneless pork loin sample. They were split on taste preferences for the all-natural spare ribs and many had not had ground pork outside of the focus group session. Using 85

PAGE 86

boneless pork loin cuts in point-of-purchase sampling may be most effective to appeal to as many consumers as possible. Participants also said they would be more likely to buy the pork they taste in the grocery store if they are given a recipe and/or coupon. Future Research The intention of this research was to explore perceptions and opinions of the sample audience in detail. Based on the results of this study, more studies are needed to examine consumers perceptions of the terms organic and all-natural, especially in the area of meat production and processing. The participants in these focus groups had some preconceived notions about the terms, but could not clearly differentiate between them. It would be beneficial to replicate this study in other parts of the United States. Quantitative studies also need to be developed on a larger scale to make the results generalizable to United States consumers. Participants in this study revealed insight into the absence of perceived food risks associated with all-natural and organic pork. More studies are needed to determine if similar perceptions emerge surrounding other agricultural commodities. Further research should investigate causality between food production and processing labels, such as organic and all-natural, and perceptions of risk. Other studies should examine consumers trust in the USDA since risk perceptions are closely related to perceptions of trust. Another related area to examine would be the USDAs public relations and consumer education efforts. Participants vaguely knew what organic and all-natural meant on meat labeling and also indicated that they did not believe that all-natural was regulated by the government. The study participants indicated that they get their information about food from various media sources. However, this question was asked to prompt discussion among participants about the topic and was not pertinent to the purpose of the study. Future research should investigate 86

PAGE 87

where they get information about meat production and processing specifically, and how the media frames natural and organic foods. One of the recommendations for practice, in regards to marketing all-natural pork products, is to develop marketing materials that appeal to the taste senses. After all, point-of-purchase sampling is not always feasible for marketers to do within budget. What else, besides actually tasting a food, triggers and appeals to consumers palate? Future studies should explore the effectiveness for various marketing tactics and communication materials that emphasize how the all-natural pork product tastes. More studies are needed to explore agricultural communications strategies for all-natural meat products and determine whether or not the strategies enhance consumers understanding. Pork producers perceptions of using the term all-natural on pork product labels should also be explored in future research. Do they believe its use adds value to their products? Exploring their decision-making process for using particular production practices and making those claims on labeling would complement the results of this study. The results of this study could be used to develop in-depth interview questions or surveys to reach a sample of producers. Future studies should triangulate data from related populations, such as restaurant owners and chefs, because they influence the available food choices for consumers. Understanding food professionals perceptions of the use of natural and organic pork in restaurants would demonstrate the perceived value of these products in the restaurant setting. Summary of Conclusions, Implications, and Recommendations Participants generally had positive perceptions of both organic and all-natural pork products, with some exceptions regarding taste, price, and trust in the information source. In regards to all-natural specifically, participants expressed skepticism as to the validity of the manufacturers claim and perceived its use as a marketing ploy. Food marketers would benefit 87

PAGE 88

from creating advertising campaigns that clearly tie the producers definition of all-natural to the brand name. Participants recalled recent marketing campaigns for all-natural meat products and said that examples of what was and what was not in their products helped them remember those brands. If the producer is going above and beyond the government standards for natural claims, emphasizing that in marketing would increase the brands credibility, accountability, and positive reputation. The only obvious differing perceptions between organic and all-natural was that organic also means no pesticides, is regulated by the government, costs more money, and is associated more with produce rather than meat. All-natural and organic pork products were perceived as absent of risks to human health and animal welfare. Agricultural communicators at the USDA need to better communicate about their meat production and processing labeling policies and regulations. Policy-makers at the USDA should also revise the policy for natural claims to increase consumer confidence in the use of such claims on meat and poultry packaging. Participants perceived the term all-natural as pertaining not only to some meat processing aspects, but also to livestock production practices integral to the organic standards. The policy should prohibit the use of antibiotics and hormones and require livestock to have access to outdoors, or make the distinction between organic and natural/all-natural more clear. Good taste is highly regarded in judging the quality of all-natural pork and convincing consumers that it is worth a premium. It may not always be the case that consumers expect all-natural pork products to taste good. Group two of the focus group sessions expected all-natural pork products to taste inferior to conventional pork. Communicating good taste is important to attract those who have negative taste expectations. Participants said it is important to emphasize 88

PAGE 89

these products taste either through point-of-purchase sampling or through marketing messages that focus on appealing to taste. The fundamental importance of good taste is salient among consumers perceptions of high-quality pork worth a premium price, like all-natural pork products. Participants clearly perceived value in other perceived attributes of all-natural pork, but doubted the credibility of all-natural claims on package labeling. Emphasizing taste, communicating accountability, and clearly differentiating all-natural pork from other pork products is important to increase perceptions of value and credibility in the use of such claims. Agricultural communication and marketing strategies incorporating these factors would be well-received if they demonstrate accountability to consumers perceptions of these products and how the brand or producer is achieving consumers quality expectations. 89

PAGE 90

APPENDIX A IRB APPROVAL 90

PAGE 91

91

PAGE 92

APPENDIX B ALL-NATURAL PORK FOCUS GROUP SCREEN QUESTIONAIRE Hello, my name is %name and Im calling from the Florida Survey Research Center at the University of Florida. The Institute for Food and Agricultural Sciences, IFAS, at the University of Florida will be conducting focus groups in Gainesville on Saturday, July 15, and were currently recruiting participants. May I please speak to the person in your household who is at least 18 years old and responsible for purchasing food and groceries? The focus group will take about an hour and a half to complete and participants will be paid $50 for their time. 1. Are you interested in hearing more about this research project? [YNDR] IF NO: Terminate, Do not save. Thank you. Have a nice evening (day). IF YES: The focus groups are being conducted to find out peoples opinions and perceptions of all-natural pork. Its not a requirement that youve eaten all-natural pork in the past, but you do need to be someone who purchases food for your household and who eats pork, at least occasionally. Youll be ask to taste several pork dishes during the focus groups. The focus groups will be held at the Florida Farm Bureau, on SW 34 th Street in Gainesville, on Saturday, July 15, at 10:30AM and 1:30 PM. Light refreshments will be served, as well as all-natural pork, and a $50 stipend will be paid to those who participate. 2. Do you have any dietary restrictions, or religious or personal beliefs that preclude you from eating pork? [YNDR] IF NO: Terminate, Do not save. Thank you, but this research only involves consumers who eat pork at least occasionally. Have a nice evening (day). IF YES: 3. Are you interested in being considered for participation in one of these focus groups? [YNDR] IF NO: Terminate, Do not save. Thank you. Have a nice evening (day). IF YES: Thank you. Ill need to ask you a few demographic questions so that we can be sure that participants are representative. 4. Do you live in the Gainesville area? [YNDR] 92

PAGE 93

5. What is your 5-digit zip code? [#, DR] 6. In what year were you born? [year, R] 7. Just to be sure that we have a representative sample, would you please tell me your race? [Black/African American, White, Asian, Other, R] 7A. And, would you say that you are of Hispanic ancestry or not? [YNDR] 8. Is your familys total yearly income before taxes $30,000 or less, or more than $30,000? [less than $30,000, more than $30,000, DR] 9. Gender [Dont ask, just record] [Male, Female] 10. Do you ever purchase organic or all-natural food products? [YNDR] If you are selected to participate in this focus group study, a University researcher will call you and a confirmation letter containing details such as time, date, location, and driving instructions will be mailed to you. To facilitate that follow-up, can you please tell me: 11. Your first name: [text] 12. Your last name: [text] 13. Your preferred mailing address: [address] 14. And, can I confirm that your telephone number is [phone#]? [YNDR] Thank you, that completes the first part of the process. If you are selected to participate, you will receive a call within 7 business days. 93

PAGE 94

APPENDIX C INVITATION LETTER TO SELECTED PARTICIPANTS July 8, 2006 Mr. John Smith 567 W. University Avenue Apt. 1234 Gainesville, FL 32607 Dear Mr. Smith: The UF Institute for Food and Agricultural Science (IFAS) is conducting a focus group to learn more about peoples opinions and perceptions of all-natural pork. Thank you for agreeing to participate in this important focus group The focus group will be held at the Florida Farm Bureau, on SW 34 th Street in Gainesville, on Saturday, July 15th at 1:30 PM. Light refreshments will be served, as well as dishes made with all-natural pork, and you will receive a $50 stipend for your participation. We appreciate your attendance since the participants have been selected to provide a diversity of opinions about all-natural pork. A seat has been reserved for you in the focus group and your responses are important. If for some reason you cannot attend, please call 352-392-5957 before Friday, July 14th at 4 PM. Thank you again for your participation. Sincerely, Michael J. Scicchitano, Ph.D. Director 94

PAGE 95

APPENDIX D MODERATOR GUIDE AND QUESTIONING ROUTE Moderator reads: Hello and welcome to our session. Thank you for taking the time to join our discussion about pork. My name is Courtney Meyers and I am a graduate student at the University of Florida. Assisting me today is Tracy Irani, Katie Chodil, and Ricky Telg also from UF. Madison Farms Pork is sponsoring this focus group because they want your feedback on the development of pork products. You have been invited here because you have characteristics of interest to us. You are all consumers who purchase meat for your household. Before we begin, let me share some things that will make our discussions easier and more productive. There are no right or wrong answers, but rather differing points of view. Please feel free to share your point of view even if it differs from what others have said. Please speak up and only one person should talk at a time. Were tape recording and video recording the session because we dont want to miss any of your comments. Well be on a first-name basis, and in our later reports there will not be any names attached to comments. You may be assured of confidentiality. My role here is to ask questions and listen. I wont be participating in the conversation, but I want you to feel free to talk with one another. Ill be asking around 20 questions, and Ill be moving the discussion from one question to the next. There is a tendency in these discussions for some people to talk a lot and some people not to say much. But it is important for us to hear from each of you today because you have different experiences. So if one of you is sharing a lot, I may ask you to let others respond. And if you arent saying much, I may ask for your opinion. 95

PAGE 96

Our session will last about two hours and will also include time for taste testing. If you have your cell phone or pager and need to leave it on, please leave the room when you get a call and return as quickly as possible. Lets begin by getting to know more about you. Lets go around the room and have everyone introduce themselves. Please tell us your name, a little bit about yourself, and your favorite food. Unaided Id like to begin todays discussion by learning more about how you shop for food. Are you the one in your household who normally buys food? Where do you do your grocery shopping? What sources do you use to learn about food products? How often to you buy meat and how much do you buy? What do you look for when you buy meat? Okay lets talk more specifically about how you buy pork. When did you last buy pork? Do you remember how much you paid for it? On average, how often would you say you buy pork? What do you look for when buying fresh pork? Most food products have some type of label or packaging that try to convince you to buy that product or inform you of its contents. How much attention do you give to food labels when making purchasing decisions? What does the term all-natural bring to mind? If you saw a label or sticker on a food package that said all-natural what does that mean to you? What does it mean to you if its on a package of pork? In reference to food products, what does the term organic mean? 96

PAGE 97

Production standards for pork product labeling, Aided Im going to show you the standards that make conventional, all-natural, and organic products different. [Definition of all-natural and organic standards for pork product labeling provided on handout] Did you understand the differences between the standards for these products prior to viewing this information? To what extent? How can the distinctions between these standards for food products be made clearer? Taste Testing, Aided Heres the fun part. We have prepared a few different dishes that contain all-natural pork. Try to really taste the pork in each dish. After you taste the pork or finish the dish, answer the questions on the slips of paper being passed around. The first taste test we will do is to compare an all-natural pork loin roast to a conventional pork loin roast. This is a blind taste test in that you will not know which type you are sampling. Please write your reactions to each sample on the provided sheet. Now that you have tried both types, which do you think tasted better? Could you taste a difference between the two samples? ________ was the all-natural pork product. Are there any further reactions to that? We now have two other pork products for you to sample. These are both all-natural products. I hope you all enjoyed doing the taste testing. What do you think of the pork you just tried? Now that youve tried the pork, how likely would you be to buy it? Why or why not? Would you be willing to pay more for this product with the all-natural label than one without? Why or why not? The price points for ______________ is __________ for conventional and __________ for all-natural (display prices on index cards) [Repeat for all three products] What do you think about the price difference? 97

PAGE 98

Marketing Materials, Aided (dependent on two-hour time limit) To inform people about their all-natural pork, Madison Farms Pork has these informational pieces. [Pass around marketing materials] What do you think of these? Are you interested in reading these materials? Where should they be made available? Would you be likely to pick this information up at a grocery store? What other ways could this information be made available that you think would be more effective? After learning USDAs definition of all-natural and organic products, what is your reaction to the guidelines Madison Farms uses for its pork products? Concluding discussion As weve talked today and tasted some all-natural pork: Have you thought of anything else youd like to say or bring up about pork that we have not discussed? I am now going to try to summarize the main points from todays discussion. (key messages and big ideas that developed from the discussion) The main topics Is this an adequate summary? Moderator reads: As was explained at the beginning of the session, the purpose of this focus group was to get your feedback and opinions on pork. Your comments today will aid in the development of pork products and labeling. Your input has provided us with a better understanding of what other consumers may think about all-natural pork. Have we missed anything or are there any other comments? 98

PAGE 99

Moderator reads: Thank you for taking time out of your day to share your opinions. Your participation is greatly appreciated and has provided valuable insight into this topic. Thanks again. Debriefing questions to be discussed between moderator and assistant. What are the most important themes or ideas discussed? How did these differ from what we expected? How did these differ from what occurred in earlier focus groups? What points need to be included in the report? What quotes should be remembered and possibly included in the report? Were there any unexpected or anticipated findings? Should we do anything differently for the next focus group? 99

PAGE 100

APPENDIX E TASTE TEST SURVEY FEEDBACK FORM Try to really taste the pork in each dish. After each taste, or after you finish the portion please answer the questions. All-natural and conventional pork blind taste test BONELESS LOIN ROAST (1): a. How would you compare the taste of this product with your current brand? [ ] Much better [ ] Better [ ] About the same [ ] Worse [ ] Much worse b. What is the likelihood of you purchasing this product if it was available? [ ] Very high [ ] Somewhat high [ ] Average [ ] Somewhat low [ ] Very low c. What is your perceived value of this product? [ ] Very high [ ] Somewhat high [ ] Average [ ] Somewhat low [ ] Very low d. Comments and reactions _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ BONELESS LOIN ROAST (2): a. How would you compare the taste of this product with your current brand? [ ] Much better [ ] Better [ ] About the same [ ] Worse [ ] Much worse b. What is the likelihood of you purchasing this product if it was available? [ ] Very high [ ] Somewhat high [ ] Average [ ] Somewhat low [ ] Very low c. What is your perceived value of this product? [ ] Very high [ ] Somewhat high [ ] Average [ ] Somewhat low [ ] Very low d. How would you compare this pork to the pork you just tasted? [ ] Much better [ ] Better [ ] About the same [ ] Worse [ ] Much worse e. Comments and reactions _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ 100

PAGE 101

GROUND PORK: a. How would you compare the taste of this product with your current brand? [ ] Much better [ ] Better [ ] About the same [ ] Worse [ ] Much worse b. What is the likelihood of you purchasing this product if it was available? [ ] Very high [ ] Somewhat high [ ] Average [ ] Somewhat low [ ] Very low c. What is your perceived value of this product? [ ] Very high [ ] Somewhat high [ ] Average [ ] Somewhat low [ ] Very low d. Comments and reactions _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ SPARE RIBS: a. How would you compare the taste of this product with your current brand? [ ] Much better [ ] Better [ ] About the same [ ] Worse [ ] Much worse b. What is the likelihood of you purchasing this product if it was available? [ ] Very high [ ] Somewhat high [ ] Average [ ] Somewhat low [ ] Very low c. What is your perceived value of this product? [ ] Very high [ ] Somewhat high [ ] Average [ ] Somewhat low [ ] Very low d. Comments and reactions _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ 101

PAGE 102

LIST OF REFERENCES Ajzen, I. (1991). Theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(1), 179-211. Ajzen, I. (2006). Theory of planned behavior diagram. Retrieved November 20, 2006 from http://www.people.umass.edu/aizen/tpb.diag.html Auriol, E. & Schilizzi, S.G.M. (2003). Quality signaling through certification: Theory and an application to agricultural seed markets. Working paper no 165, IDEI University of Toulouse. Barkema, A. (1993). Reaching consumers in the twenty-first century: The short way around the barn. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 75, 1126-1131. Bostrm, M. & Klintman, M. (2003). Framing, debating, and standardising natural food in two different political contexts: Sweden and the U.S. Score Working Paper 2003:3. Stockholm, Sweden: Stockholm Center for Organizational Research, Stockholm School of Economics. Bredahl, L., Gunert, K. & Frewer, L. (1998). Consumer attitudes and decision-making with regard to genetically engineered food products A review of the literature and presentation of models for future research. Journal of Consumer Policy, 21(3), 251-277. Bredahl, L., & Poulsen, C.S. (2002). Perceptions of pork and modern pig breeding among Danish consumers (No. 01) Aarhus: Aarhus School of Business. Bruns, K., Fjord, T. A. and Grunert, K. G. (2002). Consumers food choice and quality perception. MAPP working paper 77. Aarhus: Aarhus School of Business. California Institute for Rural Studies. (2005). Regulating organic: Impacts of the national organic standards on consumer awareness and organic consumption patterns. Retrieved June 5, 2006, from http://www.cirsinc.org/docs/Regulating_Organic.pdf Cardello, A.V. (1995a). Food quality: Relativity, context and consumer expectations. Food Quality and Preference, 6(3), 163-170. Cardello, A.V. (1995b). Sensory evaluation and consumer food choice. Cereal Foods World, 40(11), 876-878. Caswell, J.A. & Mojduszka, E.M. (1996). Using informational labeling to influence the market for food quality. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 78(5), 1248-1253. Darbi, M.R., & Karni, E. (1973). Free competition and the optimal amount of fraud. Journal of Law and Economics, 16(1), 67-88. Davis, C.G., & Lin, B. (2005). Factors affecting U.S. pork consumption. USDA/ERS Publication No. LDP-M-130-01. Washington D.C.: USDA/ERS. Retrieved September 26, 2006 from http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/LDP/may05/ldpm13001/ldpm13001.pdf 102

PAGE 103

Diel & Associates. (2001). Study of consumer perceptions of all natural meat products. Perkins, OK: Diel & Associates. Dimitri, C., & Greene, C. (2002). Recent growth patterns in the U.S. organic foods market (USDA Economic Research Service Agriculture Information Bulletin 77). Retrieved September 21, 2006 from http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/aib777/aib777c.pdf Dimitri, C., & Oberholtzer, L. (2005, September). Organic price premiums remain high. Amber Waves, 3(4), Retrieved November 6, 2006 from http://www.ers.usda.gov/AmberWaves/September05/Findings/OrganicPrice.htm Dransfield, E., Ngapo, T.M., Nielsen, N.A., Bredahl, L., Sjoden, P.O., Magnusson, M., et al. (2005). Consumer choice and suggested price for pork as influenced by its appearance, taste and information concerning country of origin and organic pig production. Meat Science, 69(1), 61-70. Eagly, A.H. & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. Orlando, Florida: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers. Egerton, J. (1993). Southern food: At home, on the road, in history. Chapel Hill, NC: UNC Press. Edwards, S.A. (2005). Product quality attributes associated with outdoor pig production. Livestock Production Science, 94(1-2), 5-14. Fetter, T.R. & Caswell, J.A. (2002). Variation in organic standards prior to the National Organic Program. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture, 17(2), 55-74. Fischoff, B., Slovic, P., Lichtenstein, S., Read S. & Combs, B. (2000). How safe is safe enough? A psychometric study of attitudes toward technological risks and benefits. In: P. Slovic (Ed.), The perception of risk (pp. 80-104). London: Earthscan. Fillion, L., & Arazi, S. (2002). Does organic food taste better? A substantiation approach. Nutrition and Food Science, 34(4), 153-157. Food and Safety Inspection Service. (1999, March 8). Natural and organic claims. Retrieved June 5, 2006 from http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OPPDE/larc/Claims/Organic_Claims.htm Food Processing Center. (2001). Attracting customers with locally-grown products. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Food Processing Center. Freese, B. (2000). The survey says: Consumers want your kind of pork. Successful Farming, 98(12), 30-31. Frewer, L.J., Howard, C., Hedderley, D., & Shepherd, R. (1996). What determines trust in information about food-related risks? Underlying psychological constructs. Risk Analysis, 16(4), 473-486. 103

PAGE 104

Frewer, L.J., Kole, A., Van De Kroon, S.M.A. & De Lauwere, C. (2005). Consumer attitudes towards the development of animal-friendly husbandry systems. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 18(?), 345-367. Frewer, L.J., Raats, M.M., & Shepherd, R. (1993). Modelling the media: The transmission of risk information in the British quality press. IMA Journal of Management Mathematics, 5(1), 235-247. Gainesville Facts. (n.d.) The City of Gainesville. Retrieved March 23, 2007 from http://www.cityofgainesville.org/about Gifford, K., & Bernard, J. (2006). Influencing consumer purchase of likelihood of organic food. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 30(2), 155-163. Glaser, B. (1978). Theoretical sensitivity. Mill Valley, CA: The Sociology Press. Grannis, J., & Thilmany, D. (2001). Marketing opportunities for natural pork products: Defining the consumers who would purchase natural pork. Journal of the American Society of Farm Managers and Rural Appraisers, 63(1), 93-98. Grannis, J., & Thilmany, D. (2002). Marketing natural pork: An empirical analysis of consumers in the Mountain Region. Agribusiness, 18(4), 475-489. Grunert, K.G., Baadsgaard, A., Larsen, H.H., & Madsen, T.K. (1996). Market orientation in food and agriculture. London: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Grunert, K.G. (2005). Food quality and safety: Consumer perception and demand. European Review of Agricultural Economics, 32(3), 369-391. Hammitt, J. K. (1990). Risk perceptions and food choice: An exploratory analysis of organicversus conventional-produce buyers. Risk Analysis, 10(3), 367-374. Honeyman, M.S., Pirog, R.S., Huber, G.H., Lammers, P.J., & Hermann, J.R. (2006). The United States pork niche market phenomenon. Journal of Animal Science, 84(8), 2269-2275. Hurley, S.P., Miller, D.J., & Kliebenstein, J.B. (2006). Estimating willingness to pay using a polychotomous choice function: An application to pork products with environmental attributes. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 31(2), 301-317. Hwang, Y., Roe, B., & Teisl, M.F. (2005). An empirical analysis of United States consumers' concerns about eight food production and processing technologies. AgBioForum, 8(1), 40-49. Jaeger, S.R. (2006). Non-sensory factors in science research. Food Quality and Preference, 17(1-2), 132-144. 104

PAGE 105

Jonsll, A., Johansson, L., Lundstrom, K., Andersson, K., Nilsen, A., & Risvik, E. (2002). Effects of genotype and rearing system on sensory characteristics and preference for pork. Food Quality and Preference, 13(2), 73-80. Klonsky, K. & Tourte, L. (1998). Organic agricultural production in the United States: Debates and directions. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 80(5), 1119-1124. Knox, B. (2000). Consumer perception and understanding of risk from food. British Medical Bulletin, 56(1), 97-109. Kouba, M. (2003). Quality of organic food products. Livestock Production Science, 80(1-2), 33-40. Krueger, R. A. (1994). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Lawrence, J.D. & Grimes, G. (2000). Production and marketing characteristics of U.S. pork producers. Working paper no 343, Iowa State University. Lockie, S., Lyons, T., Lawrence, G., & Mummery, K. (2002). Eating green: Motivations behind organic food consumption in Australia. Sociologia Ruralis, 42(1), 23-40. McEachern, M.G. & Willock, J. (2004). Producers and consumers of organic meat: A focus on attitudes and motivations. British Food Journal, 106(7), 534-552. Meyers, C.A. & Chodil, K.M. (2006). Feeding the debate: A framing analysis of the news media coverage of organic food. Paper forthcoming 2007, August at the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication, Washington, D.C. Miles, S. & Frewer, L.J. (2001). Investigating specific concerns about different food hazards. Food Quality and Preference, 12(1), 47-61. Moran, S. (2006, June 10). The range gets crowded for natural beef. The New York Times p. C1. Morgan, D. L. (1997). Focus groups as qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Morgan, D.L. & Krueger, R.A. (Ed.). (1998). The focus group kit (Vols. 1-5). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. National Organic Program. (2002a). Organic production and labeling standards. Retrieved June 5, 2006, from http://www.ams.usda.gov/nop/FactSheets/ProdHandE.html National Organic Program. (2002b).Organic food standards and labels: The facts. Retrieved November 20, 2006 from http://www.ams.usda.gov/NOP/Consumers/brochure.html 105

PAGE 106

Ngapo, T.M., Dransfield, E., Martin, J.F., Bredahl, L., & Nute, G.R. (2003). Consumer perceptions: Pork and pig production. Insights from France, England, Sweden and Denmark. Meat Science, 66(1), 125-134. NichePork.org. (2006). FAQs. Retrieved November 20, 2006 from http://nichepork.org/faqs3.asp. Olson, J.C. (1978). Inferential belief formation in the cue utilization process. Advances in Consumer Research, 5, 5-19. Oregon State University Food Resource. (1998). Sensory evaluation and the hedonic scale. Retrieved September 17, 2006 from http://food.oregonstate.edu/sensory/dena.html Organic Trade Association. (2006, May 7). Organic sales continue to grow at a steady pace. Retrieved August 31, 2006 from http://www.organicnewsroom.com/2006/05/organic_sales_continue_to_grow.html R Parker & Associates, Inc. & Ashcraft Research. (2005, May). An evaluation of the importance to consumers of selected niche pork attributes. Retrieved September 20, 2006 from http://nichepork.org/Documents/Consumer_Study.ppt Reynolds, T.J. & Olson, J.C. (2001). Understanding consumer decision making: The means-end approach to marketing and advertising approach. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Risvik, E. (1994). Sensory properties and preferences. Meat Science, 36(1-2), 67-77. Roe, B. & Tiesl, M.F. (2007). Genetically modified food labeling: The impacts of message and messenger on consumer perceptions of labels and products. Food Policy, 32, 49-66. Scholderer, J. & Grunert, K.G. (2001). Does generic advertising work? A systematic evaluation of the Danish campaign for fresh fish. Aquaculture economics and Management, 5, 252-272. Scholderer, J., Bredahl, L., & Magnusson, M. (2004). Consumer expectations of the quality of pork produced in sustainable outdoor systems. The Aarhus School of Business. MAPP Project paper 03/04. Aarhus, Denmark: MAPP. Retrieved October 11, 2006 from http://130.226.203.239/pub/mapp/pp/pp0304.pdf Scholderer, J., Nielsen, N.A., Bredahl, L., Claudi-Magnussen, C. & Lindahl, G. (2004). Organic Pork: Consumer quality perceptions. The Aarhus School of Business MAPP Project Paper 02/04. Aarhus, Denmark: MAPP. Retrieved October 11, 2006 from http://130.226.203.239/pub/mapp/pp/pp0204.pdf Sinclair, J. & Irani, T. (2005). Advocacy advertising for biotechnology: The effect of public accountability on corporate trust and attitude toward the ad. Journal of Advertising, 34(3), 59-73. 106

PAGE 107

Slovic, P. (1987). Perception of risk. Science, 236(4799), 280-285. Sparks, P. & Shepherd, R. (1992). Self-identity and the theory of planned behavior: Assessing the role of identification with green consumerism. Social Psychology Qaurterly, 55(4), 388-399. Sparks, P., Conner, M., James, R., Shepherd, R., & Povey, R. (2001). Ambivalence about health-related behaviours: an exploration in the domain of food choice. British Journal of Health Psychology, 6(1), 53-68. Taylor, M. (2003). Rethinking U.S. leadership in food biotechnology. Nature Biotechnology, 21(8), 852-854. Trumbo, C.W. & McComas, K.A. (2003). The function of credibility in information processing of risk perception. Risk Analysis, 22(2), 343-353. Tucker, M., Whaley, S., & Sharp, J. (2006). Consumer perceptions of food-related risks. International Journal of Food Science and Technology, 41(2), 135-146. USDA Economic Research Service (2005, November 16). Organic production. Retrieved October 11, 2006 from http://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/Organic Verbeke, W.A. & Viaene, J. (2000). Ethical challenges for livestock production: Meeting consumer concerns about meat safety and animal welfare. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 12(2), 141-151. Verhoog, H., Matze, M., Lammerts Van Bueren, E., & Baars, T. (2003). The role of the concept of the natural (naturalness) in organic farming. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 16(1), 29-49. Waarden, F. (2006). Taste, traditions, transactions, and trust: The public and private regulation of food. In Ansell, C. & Vogel, D. (Eds.), Whats the beef? The Contested governance of European food safety (pp. 35-59). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Warner, M. (2006, June 10). When it comes to meat, Natural is a vague term. The New York Times, p.C4. Wheatley, W.P. (2003). The natural and organic pork market: A sustainable niche for small-scale producers? A review and analysis of the evidence. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture, 18(1), 18-26. Yee, W.M., Yeung, R.M., & Morris, J. (2005). Food safety: Building consumer trust in livestock farmers for potential purchase behavior. British Food Journal, 107(1), 841-854. Yeung, R. & Morris, J. (2006). An empirical study of the impact of consumer perceived risk on purchase likelihood: a modeling approach. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 30(3), 294-305. 107

PAGE 108

Yiridoe E.K., Bonti-Ankomah S., & Martin R.C. (2005). Comparison of consumer perceptions and preference toward organic versus conventionally produced foods: A review and update of the literature. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems, 20(4), 193-205. Zehnder, G., Hope, C., Hill, H., Hoyle, L., & Blake, J.H. (2003). An assessment of consumer preferences for IPM and organically grown produce. Journal of Extension, 41(2). Retrieved September 20, 2006 from http://www.joe.org/joe/2003april/rb3.shtml Zeithaml, V.A. (1988). Consumers perceptions of price, quality, and value: A means-end model and synthesis of evidence. Journal of Marketing, 52(3), 2-22. 108

PAGE 109

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Katherine Chodil lived in a suburb of southwest Chicago until she moved to Indiana to pursue a degree at Purdue University, West Lafayette campus. She received her Bachelor of Science degree in agricultural communications from Purdue in May 2005. This thesis is the culmination of her Master of Science degree in agricultural education and communication at the University of Florida. In August 2007, she will continue on for a Ph.D. in agricultural education and communication. 109


xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID E20101112_AAAAEM INGEST_TIME 2010-11-12T21:05:30Z PACKAGE UFE0020157_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES
FILE SIZE 8848 DFID F20101112_AACRLJ ORIGIN DEPOSITOR PATH chodil_k_Page_087thm.jpg GLOBAL false PRESERVATION BIT MESSAGE_DIGEST ALGORITHM MD5
a7b39cff86734cf72c3f2b3dcc464800
SHA-1
454c5e6bc866a68bc0490f56441a4648fa7be990
9054 F20101112_AACRKV chodil_k_Page_079thm.jpg
1df7537b939f1bff571d927c04acfb78
6b5895f470a1f609d22df4b28d8787e20fc1e0a4
33850 F20101112_AACRLK chodil_k_Page_088.QC.jpg
0daa30e584284b2032f6ae65de9f31b6
753e5ce88c0d6623278827b681c0272bdbb89943
36496 F20101112_AACRKW chodil_k_Page_080.QC.jpg
ac3bd69b184302431433eaf6f8e1e284
cf4a5edf332a2f12e750fc91f18f00e91b630267
6733 F20101112_AACRMA chodil_k_Page_098thm.jpg
754d4abf05d4fc90b395eb2a3838660d
86a68ede1702a87c1cfd1fd1654045520e43a21b
8374 F20101112_AACRLL chodil_k_Page_088thm.jpg
f00f13b243b5558641f870fa7744b468
4b71815a327a5a48c25458a30774f94f7d060436
9076 F20101112_AACRKX chodil_k_Page_080thm.jpg
e0b86ccd57cb4bc21659cdd2f10f7318
033c0f7f9fd6001ce9df2297263ee0951f6f2748
12454 F20101112_AACRMB chodil_k_Page_099.QC.jpg
47ab935717defb245cbfc1c19c3831ca
570d526b019a1153716062155fe735c4f6900358
16886 F20101112_AACRLM chodil_k_Page_089.QC.jpg
38aa9a6f9f9413b7175e27b04bdbcaf6
a1e934d4cc7ebc563fbfbbebaa8dfe7ace6a160b
8827 F20101112_AACRKY chodil_k_Page_081thm.jpg
4c81ff31b51d54c2959031c39d63976a
7960b234ec62ea85d09e8646854d58c36cd90428
4889 F20101112_AACRLN chodil_k_Page_090thm.jpg
3e57cce32cdd97d41763db2a9dabad22
3ae867899c355567b67300206c154f82ea8e130c
33886 F20101112_AACRKZ chodil_k_Page_082.QC.jpg
94481770bddef97ba164cf6477120ddb
e4737bb89e35b07d637cd24bd3ee6a4640072437
3151 F20101112_AACRMC chodil_k_Page_099thm.jpg
744bd92bd794dbe4b82cf2773c25193d
81f18e1749bfb6dcdb85fb4a38b788cdb7ca45a2
23066 F20101112_AACRLO chodil_k_Page_091.QC.jpg
4f191a14a0c91893cf86ef73b17d067c
4c6f8a432ab20b9aa95298cc0d6ca0ed7597b176
27286 F20101112_AACRMD chodil_k_Page_100.QC.jpg
172a367862ec1a45b759f0c15672c869
c7c58d82a48e0887f7896174ace80f701374f05d
5376 F20101112_AACRLP chodil_k_Page_091thm.jpg
b8962a6becf55e67a61d830dbf241f74
2ce31ca2becf46a98147661e8a1dc6bc0c669ba0
7375 F20101112_AACRME chodil_k_Page_100thm.jpg
f392b157c79fb0b9b341486975341b83
b9fb56639112e963b3d3f09da38cdde1b7c3cfce
8234 F20101112_AACRLQ chodil_k_Page_092thm.jpg
ff31b9cb38f0fc84b4ae0b2901d58883
b56ce0aa2ef29d2398aaafa53effe6fd9c4a98d4
20452 F20101112_AACRMF chodil_k_Page_101.QC.jpg
1719e947ed3b6f254565c092db7d1d42
fe1529235b0b6244a9bf00475e4055f7bf6b74d0
19967 F20101112_AACRLR chodil_k_Page_093.QC.jpg
836378d81c88154c70f6ebd438aa518a
e38962a2d51d03beb9fdcdba85af24bd36288332
9674 F20101112_AACRMG chodil_k_Page_102thm.jpg
4d180615ea1b9b87a237acc1dd252921
7c9753c053a8b0f28a0443e42aa3303531e496d1
5206 F20101112_AACRLS chodil_k_Page_093thm.jpg
da2597b5496b71d9aa8a78a2fee1a155
fb82388c86adb6fcac9b4ce970671886fec0fcb6
38408 F20101112_AACRMH chodil_k_Page_103.QC.jpg
60d905ad6344c7ce509160a0c9fcf680
2fe58b52ff4e6172f2e30c999a71958107c441e5
17180 F20101112_AACRLT chodil_k_Page_094.QC.jpg
1cc5e30b3f780a280b43df4867e5bf2c
c64781b306b661e994eb6615ee72b537892a5a8f
9434 F20101112_AACRMI chodil_k_Page_103thm.jpg
2fbe40dadc08574439a61fdd335678ed
735d3c54b05884f45b2d032643c568dc5be2bc97
4119 F20101112_AACRLU chodil_k_Page_094thm.jpg
4b49b6bf02ab3588600ea58388595807
3ec96638433b081cccc747d71578e32c6a11f017
36082 F20101112_AACRMJ chodil_k_Page_104.QC.jpg
239f0b4e69092c861414639624370ff4
cb8d966d4d0d32084142077327de6422f942f916
30791 F20101112_AACRLV chodil_k_Page_095.QC.jpg
969245e4fde933fa6b6c4e96ad23780b
5c985141798898975f8dc9734e2fda88e6147998
1053954 F20101112_AACQJI chodil_k_Page_037.tif
f92c73c437b154c0e73ee939d1262ae1
365ed57567988251af17a2c3a0c93b95e8f316dc
9052 F20101112_AACRMK chodil_k_Page_104thm.jpg
276c591628196ba657da9bbf7018cc39
3436a381da4a60de45ec05ba8d576a19cb7c6090
25096 F20101112_AACRLW chodil_k_Page_096.QC.jpg
664dd537df64199300190c31f7bd4b21
efcf265b5ae23f1c90c904d4b43b33b501b981f7
115048 F20101112_AACQJJ chodil_k_Page_073.jp2
7400cfcbb6f71eb3ea79217bbfc0304f
aedaec9ca82a033dd7978889d30db656e8044633
37812 F20101112_AACRML chodil_k_Page_105.QC.jpg
ed8fbfd5a835fa8e1366439176a85434
4ae60e4b3a4a470432af25f6635b228fe3226db7
6364 F20101112_AACRLX chodil_k_Page_096thm.jpg
4f4fea36967e0c3b475d5fa89538a3ad
30eeb9f6167b57528da73601ffa33377e1cb6a5d
65535 F20101112_AACQJK chodil_k_Page_090.jpg
a035936f644b4c189050085c7670b8b8
5ab5b28b07b4026570df4adc6f80133dcc308a3b
9312 F20101112_AACRMM chodil_k_Page_105thm.jpg
9dd7023bfcad8b60c6758f4da9d8cefb
98fefe619d299583548487b1107249c79d139a5b
29209 F20101112_AACRLY chodil_k_Page_097.QC.jpg
938e040cbd5476023894cf89ec07a42c
1ebdcc353335f1102dd4eee6e2ecd9719c6d131d
34356 F20101112_AACQJL chodil_k_Page_020.QC.jpg
8dfe5090ce21c1befd1a9471ec194927
da06009fd33dbe746e3fb33d644abc00fa338e12
38964 F20101112_AACRMN chodil_k_Page_106.QC.jpg
3c79b5b0e1b170e7d0496abf4ed048de
5f3ec2b5e2f592d590b15e26fc1f46f4542d791e
7637 F20101112_AACRLZ chodil_k_Page_097thm.jpg
9ae67e18551a48bf0d9368fd1ccb7073
55250a9a5cf3fdf5a166cb624282bb5afd1fc6dd
7824 F20101112_AACQKA chodil_k_Page_095thm.jpg
bcf68bf0f280347062b802e335705cb9
4c1e98d2dfa0da98d5bdfa5fdaff73ec0ece0852
31964 F20101112_AACQJM chodil_k_Page_058.QC.jpg
1cb2a2a335d7d8356894d2210f7c7b97
8512b1ab5bf36a741aa3c11d3c22600b46cd3fe2
9348 F20101112_AACRMO chodil_k_Page_106thm.jpg
e7d619f379e9362e55eaadeb53f2c741
a3b1beeb3ca0cab6fe266ccd92b7a9eeb33f0986
F20101112_AACQJN chodil_k_Page_047.tif
20fa021d695074a479993146cee31192
5d65b060d31047242dbf68baec9bd8030fc14d22
36528 F20101112_AACRMP chodil_k_Page_107.QC.jpg
4c59dda099df419c0b7b6b14ed69994a
fc018bac4db825269b2b622d280092c0ac0bfeb6
55177 F20101112_AACQKB chodil_k_Page_033.pro
1f4a00e37880a3c06773108f98721724
c9b9cdfc23eff63019112ca2674adeb3952e66bf
F20101112_AACQJO chodil_k_Page_022.tif
9c7835235eb31d2f887835945ada1775
a3da18a365aafdc7091e13362aff61db9a38a851
9336 F20101112_AACRMQ chodil_k_Page_107thm.jpg
a734baea10c781c5f9185eca3a95348b
4944ad50e266d14cd7d29f08251b6d2c24d9c219
7614 F20101112_AACQKC chodil_k_Page_048thm.jpg
6d6acb82d29790eadea10115477f3b27
db9e01f78d1f5664c993e6ab0568a0e07f69291e
36140 F20101112_AACQJP chodil_k_Page_087.QC.jpg
d5ea98a157861c0f037d480593a3dd03
f4a061f22096cc231267f3872df554a7dd9fbf87
12057 F20101112_AACRMR chodil_k_Page_108.QC.jpg
278a98d658a038eb07cd59d0270a201f
4a78ff2177b05d81784be011e675e8955879abe7
82693 F20101112_AACQKD chodil_k_Page_098.jp2
c201b1ea5c3a55a9d894c860040bbebb
e43def8b46637593b7cb59a50ddb8b9416573c4c
4748 F20101112_AACQJQ chodil_k_Page_044.pro
622d33e82019ce18d3eac2eab409c905
a3f5b1f38f2cacefc37c86387d89fae25adc59d3
2941 F20101112_AACRMS chodil_k_Page_108thm.jpg
5a397fe6c84a4bc0a119a5bbd632fcb0
00e0cbc07a65a5e90cfc595c627daa647be05838
58402 F20101112_AACQKE chodil_k_Page_094.jpg
2645639ee593f3882735a23628d48dc4
fff67d1dfa98eacdd16f64feda4bee74e4e0946f
76499 F20101112_AACQJR chodil_k_Page_100.jp2
f03703b50f8e858ee9080b2994bd3d1d
6edac429eda2978643f860835f6e6bdfaad120a1
10525 F20101112_AACRMT chodil_k_Page_109.QC.jpg
91078f1284c89dabb429ebb3193e04c8
e001eb912eb07d13e620c324f20b2d22bdf3f597
133131 F20101112_AACQKF chodil_k_Page_023.jp2
c2983b6ebaf6d0cf2794cf3b29cfeb60
e12e248c2ebf40c093739b1dd84639bb979f298e
34886 F20101112_AACQJS chodil_k_Page_016.QC.jpg
0ecfa5a9a0afc88f1c4ae42e498eeee9
6c68ef480f97aa129eeac3741661d808ad1f385a
2492 F20101112_AACRMU chodil_k_Page_109thm.jpg
8f58e1efec079be29f0979efbc745baf
f7064c2b5344f35853b8508913a5b4cf46184d8c
F20101112_AACQKG chodil_k_Page_067.tif
ccc8333dbcd1d37322fe57415f1679cc
da27f6380744542a9a1e8c01cceda0757a42ef33
33088 F20101112_AACQJT chodil_k_Page_012.QC.jpg
705993e683a3614b3b9468006fc3cc1f
1a8bb43edee3de356fabeb35bd54bdd23e5c9024
126831 F20101112_AACRMV UFE0020157_00001.mets FULL
1dbfe583208d1f3a07ee67efbf05438e
d2bd34ef4b1a3fdfd9ae93ea0b2e24c0c175663c
9503 F20101112_AACQKH chodil_k_Page_009.jpg
d3d03932be95e0b80552112a2a191431
158a1632ca60b31b686a347b4b4cf8cc2e58c1d7
54044 F20101112_AACQJU chodil_k_Page_038.pro
1029c45a7425080149d1fb95e8fa1d81
654ed69c1343551cd51dd2500c0a3cc66d8f41a1
887 F20101112_AACQKI chodil_k_Page_002.pro
4f70d8ce7bfc70610eac38c03e1bc39f
729f6fef88680299422ae5ab072f8cfc7ae3f057
60402 F20101112_AACQJV chodil_k_Page_024.jp2
0670034ed58dfd97217644c6047a8344
2ceefe141dcb156322a029269b16c7b018358562
749 F20101112_AACQKJ chodil_k_Page_005.txt
eaf54a2cb975daa1d57257659466716d
dbee88d67fea67d5f4f0017ab97d72c958e9b118
25271604 F20101112_AACQJW chodil_k_Page_029.tif
89956da85181130c8505ed65c0fc73d5
ed5085f1dd990661eb5b79ee9c158523a761f021
32771 F20101112_AACQKK chodil_k_Page_109.jp2
a1120bc02be6fa7d6da1a8b0e8e53ae7
dc31afa8d4e3b0da060a6a9f8d0cdf7adb0aa9e3
35065 F20101112_AACQJX chodil_k_Page_064.QC.jpg
020fb80a814e493e24dfd6cab6d31fcc
de61d7590c3d871105f8607fe4569f0f747bfc21
85526 F20101112_AACQLA chodil_k_Page_096.jp2
4a17d12de7a118e4e866a8498b039869
6bcb5635c01acc4c03ddc6404fa40e24da352a82
114864 F20101112_AACQKL chodil_k_Page_032.jp2
3330c5311647950208e16fcbd8adaa26
3cdcc30cc0ecf0dd4dbeb29f44eeff4db5cb5813
F20101112_AACQJY chodil_k_Page_015.tif
d81a16b8b5aac62ee4b969695583b389
dfa9f4b8e0987d0181ac59f7d96e9b0432715fd2
40463 F20101112_AACQLB chodil_k_Page_004.pro
0190d6147ddaadbe0c3ddca99b05def9
b80662b3cf92e4301c990b74aef334d6f6e84a74
36976 F20101112_AACQKM chodil_k_Page_081.QC.jpg
d6e53fb866dfda523e637cdc153e607b
afd5fb9d6c8f5940f04c4b35674bcd7ef2465739
2145 F20101112_AACQJZ chodil_k_Page_076.txt
63fc47e8749cddf09b69a6a169e0a06e
2fe9f85042829da82d342b85cd15d4d2cc59a8cb
8051 F20101112_AACQKN chodil_k_Page_056thm.jpg
4d870a302ab603c42cfed2b2cd729e9a
31f6633847055a37557380c0508f843354d194f7
F20101112_AACQLC chodil_k_Page_100.tif
e5efcf41b04677587ff31c5cc4c4a156
e80af82d3cdc1ef1e64607fd88cdd1882a467b2d
F20101112_AACQKO chodil_k_Page_071.tif
b772cbc32b106cbb69d7fc96d9e9740d
dda21402548877b794cb86b6804071c832fee3a0
1161 F20101112_AACQLD chodil_k_Page_002.QC.jpg
89362323f8c9f787a01d18d4eda11b6b
bb1139ba070c44d3fa48a02373b59815eac21796
33647 F20101112_AACQKP chodil_k_Page_022.QC.jpg
591f1b76eb267bcca5002b2dbdb15824
15eddce0216752097adb5826bdfd73a8b7db6925
32177 F20101112_AACQLE chodil_k_Page_092.QC.jpg
7ad6db74d411542b6a3f7118a3760613
7298e437dd10c52e37bca7967d79c6a3b9ffff18
F20101112_AACQKQ chodil_k_Page_061.tif
8b9dd60473365e33d9e941a59eceb701
7361b2ef43081525e51317d3a297bbfca0d72fe4
1051985 F20101112_AACQLF chodil_k_Page_102.jp2
5f70300158063238fc841e36648ec350
98d7700d9afc2e5c33e7731d893d054933029b6c
18736 F20101112_AACQKR chodil_k_Page_090.QC.jpg
0cd934744cb5dc5d33a6199b7f0670a7
47db8061a7f26ae47c3b15452ac9bd2df2eca378
5645 F20101112_AACQLG chodil_k_Page_101thm.jpg
c4601b4e8fe2a6dfb21a96cc8b1fd2ec
b11149395ae5f5afb65eceb7b99ad50ec1a3ed04
F20101112_AACQKS chodil_k_Page_087.tif
ee314c2c6b26474ad64028aec88c068e
9dc032eabfc874a41c1a11303c79561293f7b66e
6218 F20101112_AACQLH chodil_k_Page_006thm.jpg
e59bbe5c8cbb9aa0bd53eedad18bfb70
7c89b09c1291b38988c7a5675f817d186fb12df5
102834 F20101112_AACQKT chodil_k_Page_071.jpg
52e4d0ac1a01543e09ea194aa236c701
d8821c68b59abafeb01737cd29c1a4ad4d66158f
F20101112_AACQLI chodil_k_Page_051.tif
52d4d0ca7d317d6b5d3900fef4ef415f
b2f69336eb086d91620bccc695adc535f6e7736d
8957 F20101112_AACQKU chodil_k_Page_065thm.jpg
d23b894e755591b75db2f693f75361e2
a291414f4fc5c2264420838be0c9e1d5b8fc4be2
12995 F20101112_AACQLJ chodil_k_Page_005.QC.jpg
d34861e5e4fcde9ef77f4eff8a1bc634
1b2aa061cc06e60812311ca50b94fce6efcd73d6
2211 F20101112_AACQKV chodil_k_Page_065.txt
38d211c6de3ea8f5b31f3bec15b117cf
94b35bd4823fd1e910464ca2db0abf3304b1d51c
2253 F20101112_AACQLK chodil_k_Page_092.txt
9dea0432c98af1b26b068c8ceb861102
b63df6a09a4db0efdcd12ecae1cd18f17beb1ec1
F20101112_AACQKW chodil_k_Page_009.tif
32f24cfa0fb9e843d577b550d4522da6
58e2cc57ddbf3c583a883f03d1eb05ee42e68e38
109241 F20101112_AACQLL chodil_k_Page_006.jpg
c92afa9eb1b48c240f93171c7b1b17a3
2d33b4dd3a1d6b75e159fbb62a86a9ed255e82e0
46248 F20101112_AACQKX chodil_k_Page_095.pro
6e31489db86c012b319fb45cd6a7448d
ee2f8d322b9c61aee7c3d37bbfa00e906cf0b14c
61112 F20101112_AACQMA chodil_k_Page_104.pro
ec98bc759aabc4527f22672a5f72df93
626afd2e54d450aa2cfece82ffd40b8de0f83d3a
105597 F20101112_AACQLM chodil_k_Page_028.jpg
f83ff822a2772dbf2b8d43c1c9302971
50954b44862c81971a25b060b5d886c912286a48
54547 F20101112_AACQKY chodil_k_Page_066.pro
ce50265eff54308871b6a2f59e2acdc9
fdeacf142e4d3a97fe4a8c8b83f878c6a209f50b
8969 F20101112_AACQMB chodil_k_Page_021thm.jpg
934c4e3710d6c0d55d1140510a01636c
88397490088eff60b4498f06ddd0c2d8f8d6da18
12961 F20101112_AACQLN chodil_k_Page_010.pro
3e5a7694eba1683fb317d0cf8083636b
f058118cf38de094eb262e4e05c6dafbd2da4e27
F20101112_AACQKZ chodil_k_Page_108.tif
3243e3fa163793090ae66f5e979d314f
c34e00fbaedd9788e993ebe390ffea3eb45f9c5c
4268 F20101112_AACQMC chodil_k_Page_089thm.jpg
3e381d11e8bc88e6f6cc30a26c5ffb72
a2698576fa194f12f858ff2c3ec01d4d913546f7
F20101112_AACQLO chodil_k_Page_039.tif
512c4a35bea697f67b22281998167253
e32957bb04d15c80a8bdf7393f5396aa0e864590
F20101112_AACQLP chodil_k_Page_036.tif
4882bcf6d41c9ee48496a36cd3f21a8d
c6ffde9eaf1a01d73e5d4ce39262350eed2f64d8
25014 F20101112_AACQMD chodil_k_Page_098.QC.jpg
8f3dc50988a77aa644aa031246ac99a2
ef9671a6bebea3b81257c7e65a7741540abeedd0
560 F20101112_AACQLQ chodil_k_Page_010.txt
5b53518afad75121020544ad138bc88a
40b89a9e777dcb37cd343e1214c0bda1fbf50e43
114436 F20101112_AACQME chodil_k_Page_086.jp2
91ab9a9f0f42747021882bef23368748
f8ef45137b426cd887501fecd7c23861d8bf02ea
25435 F20101112_AACQLR chodil_k_Page_010.jpg
3ac230f7359879fb5090d8a42f110db4
e49a4e6603ee96b9bbc5cf2f5391bbb91e341492
47656 F20101112_AACQMF chodil_k_Page_011.pro
deeec9c38f1de376625e481218cb76ee
996cd3521c0f775c7fa81c1ba4ec16ea74cbf8c7
F20101112_AACQLS chodil_k_Page_080.tif
03b7db21875f71adf80adfe185447bf3
d1c39bf578b7617942324132dba5b41281dd4c8d
105629 F20101112_AACQMG chodil_k_Page_048.jpg
d0f68e8ac95f6c04be9b77684bc32d1e
2a56ca7a58c50c2dcc20c09fdad959f978920d1a
110846 F20101112_AACQLT chodil_k_Page_071.jp2
9ac122e2fc06594ac237558426202eb3
b1e318f38b4964f749d0dd2a3b69f81406d83da9
78213 F20101112_AACQMH chodil_k_Page_098.jpg
0a6214367c5e1c5a910cab19534725ed
647d4069f7f802ebd07090e2054d5c2a7aba50a4
34851 F20101112_AACQLU chodil_k_Page_067.QC.jpg
7c14bef6e2917b249ed1583c7133d999
a77660bb8164307d37778a99e7fe0b7eedf6e1c5
1105166 F20101112_AACQMI chodil_k.pdf
5fb0c89f7f38a1abfbdbd9bbe7897286
415ef33868b41b7f81158053079c9bbff91c3692
110444 F20101112_AACQLV chodil_k_Page_077.jpg
2e7b3a98c6dcb7deca99669f963f3273
7ecac056772473e07f58f79cfe6a6e5d637048ec
36740 F20101112_AACQMJ chodil_k_Page_019.QC.jpg
17d7c7c3c6ea69231b18ed9b49ddd81c
dcebfcfc5c512b5a7488e95ba8966459f373c1ed
106117 F20101112_AACQLW chodil_k_Page_088.jpg
f66c851791befe2a7f0aeadbc8b6c968
8506b8479ba5d97358238fd7498b7a2cdb2f14e8
38434 F20101112_AACQMK chodil_k_Page_102.QC.jpg
acf1c53fbe78472468c91176622f2e61
6e9dfbb15d91f2eb04929b107026fe4f896c6228
109210 F20101112_AACQLX chodil_k_Page_036.jpg
40506a528a6d3e3575e94f022deb7c34
0f4bfdc4041b97766265dc65212e4406be97748e
35859 F20101112_AACQNA chodil_k_Page_031.QC.jpg
564feff12ecf7ed10a48df64cc1f251b
e6f64a04a29f90029338cd88a8d05fa9e84187b1
8464 F20101112_AACQML chodil_k_Page_042thm.jpg
8301426b5943925d41afe71a7cd06b56
b7d423243612227baeda4fe87a2fe14cab1cbf9a
57945 F20101112_AACQLY chodil_k_Page_059.pro
e00cd50136c5c2a4fae134d413a5594d
5712cc14390fc3ba00a30e8f8e7e7a4f79fbfd26
2534 F20101112_AACQNB chodil_k_Page_107.txt
0a6e13927095635c85df7ee930e2e551
4b089c112956a89d15503cc232d9b6419d8db0e8
F20101112_AACQMM chodil_k_Page_096.tif
d34098061f9f496c95bbdc76ec47d079
81ad9a0fd6367397fedd1fc3f77ebcca5daf4698
8749 F20101112_AACQLZ chodil_k_Page_057thm.jpg
92ec1407ebc31c64f210273472fc3868
12cb8949d1934f56a70aefda6a4dc50d544fcbe0
8540 F20101112_AACQNC chodil_k_Page_022thm.jpg
a47dc507aa9e343080329b6bc380d104
1bc3bf5707db5608ce1341e2e8496c89ab0562a7
109682 F20101112_AACQMN chodil_k_Page_027.jp2
033b73c732e819bbc9d31b42e4b6278c
73e196f666fa0a1a96c04e2af6b7d65fb769c11c
105645 F20101112_AACQND chodil_k_Page_058.jp2
d450bade174aa8264037f61e4aa4e3dd
7795583972f8011387851478aee2272a8f3ffb8b
109208 F20101112_AACQMO chodil_k_Page_067.jp2
0b923618b64a6652b5b12fdb37ff7822
56acb2531c3dc96ac61ba976528f29df035ec97d
2355 F20101112_AACQMP chodil_k_Page_105.txt
c6b39c851fae984c3674fbb5f0a260bb
ca132bb1bcc84d9baf56ada911c0efa15a868628
111479 F20101112_AACQNE chodil_k_Page_064.jp2
06befbc5fe68e424d51f4fe8ba5e9643
56cae56d844b72596fb5d793ea690fe18ef59020
42739 F20101112_AACQMQ chodil_k_Page_108.jpg
c78506415aac89f466a3988f7e25f2f1
d4e7c89931c4fc36e5fcb18906553e520d4a5661
2170 F20101112_AACQNF chodil_k_Page_075.txt
9aca146c11ad9aeca7e4b62d138c2931
938f42fec34ca32824075d1b760dfc2de2ce4d9a
48919 F20101112_AACQMR chodil_k_Page_012.pro
d20daa08ea3b76495939a31f2431441e
4371bc20554215b4db62af0cef62f1b8dc2711c1
F20101112_AACQNG chodil_k_Page_073.tif
832aa03a2f731c4a59e15c55e0313520
35331a572f0786f3690494f5e023c8126260d308
8707 F20101112_AACQMS chodil_k_Page_031thm.jpg
4cc95a74c4cae38a6f2866c21d8e9f20
b1198e07631cec9677d0fda605658f6775777a69
102258 F20101112_AACQNH chodil_k_Page_070.jpg
ef7ab6b2878ad29978f81d510cabd744
ad725ab3a0378faf1cbea01c13e4df9fb50effc2
F20101112_AACQMT chodil_k_Page_095.tif
73d3a6bf04cc390178b44d4c90b04894
fd30de350512676d4d0a3ce3f4fc6c8fa18ea41b
F20101112_AACQNI chodil_k_Page_027.tif
9c06ff8ca80eef0640bf6ea2834a1ad2
11ac8f8a744dab7bc74878754164014899a5039d
34834 F20101112_AACQMU chodil_k_Page_100.pro
4372001149c56e5c6ef2a27c2bb8c10b
ab1140d3a0a445cc49e77e0541e017aee1caedc3
99930 F20101112_AACQNJ chodil_k_Page_047.jpg
73e39f22469b4a947ac2fa1baba992c2
44d5b859beea5efb9a3a6f5a23cd25fc251f26c4
81760 F20101112_AACQMV chodil_k_Page_029.jpg
52cf320cf64eaa8e5a8d01fea52d437f
a2ee630d554dc88585b59307f21b0cf8fa0295e4
7888 F20101112_AACQNK chodil_k_Page_070thm.jpg
1ea1e7a79236613b38ca8c97ef648919
e66830bae4204ed067cdf9a1244e23b94f16d3fa
50779 F20101112_AACQMW chodil_k_Page_027.pro
8c4dac43beb199c3efa9c4ad2b34212c
12db0dc6a60c6f8a7a5fb264336388cbbff20d54
120356 F20101112_AACQNL chodil_k_Page_021.jp2
4ed67554c8ee10d5736067d23dda34a3
eae01735ff74c838ca0eb88202d963d49d3576de
35905 F20101112_AACQMX chodil_k_Page_066.QC.jpg
23bce8ace954565fa272d9005429283c
65e48497e9e61d004e377eb16c26e95dc131f6c0
27924 F20101112_AACQOB chodil_k_Page_001.jpg
43c189b573bdbf9f82f1d8b349719ec5
30555ad65ac248e4e6926465c54a3206644b27dd
90 F20101112_AACQNM chodil_k_Page_002.txt
f0c737d828d31ee66c4fa900e33995ee
31a3ea479dd264af278e032be1662f1a5d862460
2104 F20101112_AACQMY chodil_k_Page_070.txt
647f40621a2d93123da8e87b8bd66bdd
ec2d9cedfd2c2cc2b13cc75a181bcf8ee40e8719
4031 F20101112_AACQOC chodil_k_Page_002.jpg
350c64a36e78bfc3abb004c23862bcc4
298e7639050b9116744f2f1e39bf0cfc045e02ce
117443 F20101112_AACQNN chodil_k_Page_013.jp2
8630d423be38066ce6e372ba9877669c
d6943e4bb66ac803624a49caa5f03243dd7cec9c
9558 F20101112_AACQMZ chodil_k_Page_026thm.jpg
325df122145334ae0648757a7b0a25c4
d53cb5e6e993bbd97ab715503477b985ef872df6
8175 F20101112_AACQOD chodil_k_Page_003.jpg
ae14532be6a1e13dfad87fa0180193fc
38dd91c3d9f111315eb68595e9e1b11964f1b52f
2091 F20101112_AACQNO chodil_k_Page_071.txt
92eb61d0e13e43c745d83436ad522aa3
b668fc270da61c6bc4f42ea45e8de7d8c3bf7b86
82829 F20101112_AACQOE chodil_k_Page_004.jpg
142786e9b5151df07bc8aa085f5817bd
e744f6a032e095970d01f86c3ddb28a199a20eee
1051931 F20101112_AACQNP chodil_k_Page_006.jp2
34e707aacbae7462e3299244bbf81433
ee50030dd477974f09fa79d36e04afd13c174c12
116971 F20101112_AACQNQ chodil_k_Page_066.jp2
f382191cb7af54ec7c8cd9b90e2a59d7
2aca0c6c9be1d7edb549d618a6b0394882d5b453
40190 F20101112_AACQOF chodil_k_Page_005.jpg
986140a0ff9a8a23e393ce75b1275ae7
6a7a26fc74cb4da3034d11aab728f836d18a7b06
24714 F20101112_AACQNR chodil_k_Page_101.pro
29dc80cf4a09f0b9831414e9db972f41
3e8ad07d64807df75f931bad3428e75d30c1e77b
151619 F20101112_AACQOG chodil_k_Page_007.jpg
c6e2624e9c0389010a04d9df4a89552a
fa79279bf5588858f8fa7721ccda53ae52eaca83
53287 F20101112_AACQNS chodil_k_Page_040.pro
cbb39315b10a4f6b7dedf8bd541e8a62
c757e321a86cba686668360119d1bc2320c40ef9
18193 F20101112_AACQOH chodil_k_Page_008.jpg
e01da92a1a6d895d3130b8717d48aee2
d166cd88849477caa7485ed2ea6f0f0fc796cb51
110633 F20101112_AACQNT chodil_k_Page_042.jpg
a4b5367f48535fea5074fc313cd9c3e5
b0e938e12ae902cfa96155fe4f4722b24c8b345a
99698 F20101112_AACQOI chodil_k_Page_011.jpg
ad8341cc9de6f92c747a8cbd95f3563c
95dbec39b602ffd38dffb9f0aef68e420bddc12e
54854 F20101112_AACQNU chodil_k_Page_061.pro
d77acd192fc6c2649378023c7c2a6ea0
9277450befa2f843223bf68a04d8ae30fa5771fc
98783 F20101112_AACQOJ chodil_k_Page_012.jpg
8e51d80f608f63364721903d552f4caf
1683b9e95e7ba52a5e8fc15f54b9f8302626b2a7
111825 F20101112_AACQNV chodil_k_Page_050.jpg
8da155e8138d147a3bcfe51c1fab4955
419f49a507206b805dacdf338489b29255da5c7b
109350 F20101112_AACQOK chodil_k_Page_013.jpg
b07442918d9e9464280df2952b0ac879
5e718f02a204673f5c25298cad62a6955064f406
111163 F20101112_AACQNW chodil_k_Page_066.jpg
8d6d9aaef99512811a2bb7cd8163e3a2
c3c89841138dcb1c5062ec7c927e040564803a16
112131 F20101112_AACQOL chodil_k_Page_014.jpg
55b073278d1b558fe8e5230a087ceef2
1da96057d6a97945dc9104562567850817cad5fa
114705 F20101112_AACQNX chodil_k_Page_059.jpg
89152bd0b6bd7b5ac5eb46920dd49649
483fbc3c322c32dbb61ebecca66085bb05bebc71
110529 F20101112_AACQPA chodil_k_Page_031.jpg
83b5c0755b9278c2d5bf1d110baf7903
a0d030c122276789eacb59110c5bf019c218281a
112501 F20101112_AACQOM chodil_k_Page_015.jpg
b38002b9da39c0745ee2e499ae6b8d1a
e1c5dadce92210a9b0ae3ec5232c5f1a44d3ed67
164088 F20101112_AACQNY UFE0020157_00001.xml
750f0758b228619bad49b529252da99e
63d8b23bc6fea50deba75d05e3cb8a4d074a34e2
107443 F20101112_AACQPB chodil_k_Page_032.jpg
89a96ee97734788c6e77f4ce3324aea9
750cfc0de0dcc338de111f3057a2327998de0ec6
110352 F20101112_AACQON chodil_k_Page_016.jpg
7694c94f5d1b191ee5b86d4c4455ce8e
6c2f38f37b21367619845a1f45fa3d605ab9f4b5
111647 F20101112_AACQPC chodil_k_Page_033.jpg
db20f57f10184303f07248fb5ece6c79
e8ea8f66e41ae36acc7953b1a6ef0299c1d71a85
111161 F20101112_AACQOO chodil_k_Page_017.jpg
4b1bd251dda3e3afe18f8e52e1f96479
646712861bd5b07ea273330da4bcc4a8a5370859
101687 F20101112_AACQPD chodil_k_Page_034.jpg
a7b990b775757742408839489db3e4ef
8e36d414275475eacbcee5b546699f250aecf93e
105427 F20101112_AACQOP chodil_k_Page_018.jpg
94b26ca74af638f3881d836c78e6acd8
9f0cfd615ce15121023a267e0d727b3b2a653097
95839 F20101112_AACQPE chodil_k_Page_035.jpg
4a5f485e0d50d7099b6bbfee947f117b
f338123607f1d6321cc7f9c97da3ee893a1445c8
112427 F20101112_AACQOQ chodil_k_Page_019.jpg
5ee1fb226262346dbd46fc1dbd30dbc2
61d3e131a4539dba83a57c1d2ba99fa2b29ad194
109868 F20101112_AACQPF chodil_k_Page_037.jpg
d10ada446c1dd40bf06a548c88c1523d
0454a8830d38de44243087583a7518310420df42
108782 F20101112_AACQOR chodil_k_Page_020.jpg
ca354e9a02ffa84001b003cce8664c0f
14966e09b528a55c124ca787108d873a6c7e0b9e
112965 F20101112_AACQOS chodil_k_Page_021.jpg
e306cf7a99b7ffab4034f0220779aada
1b3dd88da1aa28c63c48bd9acef96f0e254590e0
109047 F20101112_AACQPG chodil_k_Page_038.jpg
7b8fbcafcf815bac565acc97d9078acd
310765375bd429927501e21f334706171aece18d
104295 F20101112_AACQOT chodil_k_Page_022.jpg
1df3d3f64d84d572bb34733db95fcd46
0bb4b3fc36120837afa1c505a536e2ca1ab20db1
104602 F20101112_AACQPH chodil_k_Page_039.jpg
af99767b1a8d434031d85764664a9c75
a388b017057da5b64536ec40db3eb8a89fb56786
122973 F20101112_AACQOU chodil_k_Page_023.jpg
e79cb126e33df91a45613fb98b9c6aea
706780a185477ac22e3a1b280dd5d20a1777af0b
109500 F20101112_AACQPI chodil_k_Page_040.jpg
755c6f5fe78d7006901243c6311250be
f4a0749c61bb5d5f01a69142f0c398677ffbcef6
54513 F20101112_AACQOV chodil_k_Page_024.jpg
0faa1e4745d15d4f90e9830ed385767d
6562809dad86bdb5b3058e2bee3aadcfb869fd90
110040 F20101112_AACQPJ chodil_k_Page_041.jpg
b07dd308ce5100f8f557b3d172d44abf
1a84959c8cf09dfcae3cd962879f8923ee10dc86
99035 F20101112_AACQOW chodil_k_Page_025.jpg
4c7fe685c524f92b9601301667d3f141
c0b968356be65589ae0a365c4368864065423c3a
110778 F20101112_AACQPK chodil_k_Page_043.jpg
c3da49d650e2068a645d05dd81615b41
9000757b72ed1d041229c7f99ef78777ce6968f7
107749 F20101112_AACQOX chodil_k_Page_026.jpg
b60ae15146390cf4a0e47baee898eb58
4aeff4672faf461f73b7817e8f74f06862ed5062
113137 F20101112_AACQQA chodil_k_Page_063.jpg
e1806002f4a99e52d55134b7b2fc03a0
4e8df9185fff0678cc6202f3279e3c3129f894b1
12831 F20101112_AACQPL chodil_k_Page_044.jpg
da7000863b15a9e1805014262919b897
2d0ba7283cee5f6dfd649620a48e107dc2a3f119
104542 F20101112_AACQQB chodil_k_Page_064.jpg
1a0efba79227ecf00b0c53ae25281cc0
358760fd35a7b9a900466c1de1648346bdece6c5
97152 F20101112_AACQPM chodil_k_Page_045.jpg
bdb7df0bf7495ca9524c79e81d59c555
74bf374c3ed917d2d6b87f5538bd0c33094e0bb1
103577 F20101112_AACQOY chodil_k_Page_027.jpg
04969369e5f0be194eea84ef01ef085b
cffee084585d759545cd664d6b756637474ceb21
112549 F20101112_AACQQC chodil_k_Page_065.jpg
8cc8d582330ffae3e4e38c98ceb9e008
db4c5e0aed6d096b8cc4927f8be29a57afe7b96c
101993 F20101112_AACQPN chodil_k_Page_046.jpg
a609547729a7f32c875365b758ec7279
6bbb64891c1189d7ee5ffe34f835c53498754fc8
110041 F20101112_AACQOZ chodil_k_Page_030.jpg
5acfe2ce3f6811a29c1cf57f35b445b7
0ed3945b1ea7abe77de12768edf35d443369ec46
102245 F20101112_AACQQD chodil_k_Page_067.jpg
84d03cf1dda65417b85142eb0100af6f
9c25af6ffd18b451c013b98f3d80e928aa682727
108696 F20101112_AACQPO chodil_k_Page_049.jpg
8e56335576667653b3a03f82d4c7bccd
3eae0936bda6f4abafd2987694b0647a901e5c1d
111240 F20101112_AACQQE chodil_k_Page_068.jpg
8e133666ef6fe1192edf3f96c2046178
72c86075610cee8c3a3d77ef7dfccbe71d6aea4b
110612 F20101112_AACQPP chodil_k_Page_051.jpg
be77abc0bd7485b02cb4eec37e8ff461
ef63c0432464c0913e29cdea573feab3962795e5
18633 F20101112_AACQQF chodil_k_Page_069.jpg
a35a744611bbeb34d72c146ca06285e8
d4966a0d58e4253876116039111165039a296cc6
109916 F20101112_AACQPQ chodil_k_Page_052.jpg
80e948e1c76a0d951ea324c687343401
fc9ba150ddbcc3aca0ad6aa0f2441942c89a11a3
111925 F20101112_AACQQG chodil_k_Page_072.jpg
92eb25894daac052703102f8e88cdf4b
60d590dd83a2dd30d1cd91d98b8b1acfa0ae7ed0
106353 F20101112_AACQPR chodil_k_Page_053.jpg
b48b8977797b0502fb10fd1daa97c877
c1aa0f8738f2d7ba5233e0f957444fbbe42a166c
79762 F20101112_AACQPS chodil_k_Page_054.jpg
e20bd77425d97b965e3466b44d4b4469
94ab739f52b36d36c409d46bb2be354ede8abf3a
106881 F20101112_AACQQH chodil_k_Page_073.jpg
871fa649309b3a6d4c07126d8a6d1af3
c4eac762250b948e5cd77359c7792c932d1934b3
111256 F20101112_AACQPT chodil_k_Page_055.jpg
42237d04997f3f65b636014e2141a4a3
376fa51c078357a4a78cc56d088921d25cc280d1
100585 F20101112_AACQQI chodil_k_Page_074.jpg
a1a4ef652b59626ca048e0ebd049efdc
aeaaff0bd545070994df5d55e89a61da681a6926
97269 F20101112_AACQPU chodil_k_Page_056.jpg
b4fe80a263dfbedd6de79b812969fee0
618a5c52eda5f4fea4b517e3aac74f7c3739a422
110474 F20101112_AACQQJ chodil_k_Page_075.jpg
0e1b637304fe10d1cbb906ae0718c8d7
fcce6788c87e63d0e27d1be92fb196caf24f444d
107258 F20101112_AACQPV chodil_k_Page_057.jpg
cc5d69003bc10bfc53cbd49eb371cf45
f33a21370f01b090162698cd06be508ab483abe4
110233 F20101112_AACQQK chodil_k_Page_076.jpg
68c77ca933c7f7d519d011c09747febc
d78e01e1e01a3a58f84620374418de54f14a2564
99554 F20101112_AACQPW chodil_k_Page_058.jpg
49a41e58a57d70dbfbc4cdd9f56f88b6
8d94522bab6ce63330b3ab54cefd738e1c4c4443
106451 F20101112_AACQQL chodil_k_Page_078.jpg
20bd188a7c2d368717bfebb41f834ce3
c53074030668227ab38db9df287b4a1c217a23c6
111251 F20101112_AACQPX chodil_k_Page_060.jpg
2b6861f2ea2a07d36952deca601fb6f6
15f49e6eac06d5592a307c1bde4602d1424d2dfb
78238 F20101112_AACQRA chodil_k_Page_096.jpg
ab8196095547482c801787665a73de02
2638985ea88964eb3e0acc2b0baa97747d6e70ce
112823 F20101112_AACQQM chodil_k_Page_079.jpg
1e59c73ff96677a33c226d5c96a5601d
7580e4f94b64716aa1f00adf59e772d6b9536e72
111390 F20101112_AACQPY chodil_k_Page_061.jpg
2a1b5f8e84c22af3b4634d7b0db86e44
57b1fa5795e307fe4d86be1535ec534be8cdf119
94012 F20101112_AACQRB chodil_k_Page_097.jpg
6137ff1d11bae7ce4d9790e02b8b3bad
b76e77a4a0472d22289aa767c12024afa04f8308
112103 F20101112_AACQQN chodil_k_Page_080.jpg
88a6c3cd182197727dcde19b10e1cc2e
64e2e48379ba7699e39ccc1355683e8b2b6ec27d
114104 F20101112_AACQPZ chodil_k_Page_062.jpg
7df3ddbcda34e74b05723746bbb8708b
8c7984ec606987a6383dcd2696ce2be07b24bf6c
40240 F20101112_AACQRC chodil_k_Page_099.jpg
4ec9c764dfcb1ad7c814214d5450bce5
f62ece2044f455fb4308d0a4de5fa771cc98739d
111480 F20101112_AACQQO chodil_k_Page_081.jpg
311dae3078ef34cfc2f880e8352c65ae
809a887975e73e137b36bf5e990478cc71e5e2bc
84348 F20101112_AACQRD chodil_k_Page_100.jpg
3bb5df6d9a396f3363d6c3e3216ad4ad
e6e80f97020834d95f3cc07ae73625e326dc2310
99862 F20101112_AACQQP chodil_k_Page_082.jpg
24be1ca28f16a0f299b7fce0a097df49
3e1c0357f79a628b104aedaeffab7bab146ed62c
63319 F20101112_AACQRE chodil_k_Page_101.jpg
c726c40dc644d85b119d285de1b729c2
369274d2f79d16f3ccb2ee857254f93d87dddbec
103402 F20101112_AACQQQ chodil_k_Page_083.jpg
8fe2641718a80fbd1bad90992930dc72
3a21cc77e33fa3eefa0e1552b39e3e6d828050b6
128428 F20101112_AACQRF chodil_k_Page_102.jpg
834d663131c7c91ebc2ff725699cdc35
34d74c0ba520429b3dae154a2c3db670a6308b68
113033 F20101112_AACQQR chodil_k_Page_084.jpg
532270ba09b7df35637c111927ebb529
3d1ce59c93b3803a762600cae211f06ac72b62ee
133766 F20101112_AACQRG chodil_k_Page_103.jpg
b3d8cee32f5a23ed6d9f7bedb30380d1
7c019db09ecea751454851e0dac4a93227d5e7de
108225 F20101112_AACQQS chodil_k_Page_085.jpg
0759ef0629d1a449dbb09308ee7006a9
a42ba5aada66903ce215f72df73a334d798e6ed6
122637 F20101112_AACQRH chodil_k_Page_104.jpg
625c3957c3387c59aee6c09a523c3a41
e425cb1b471779b5cd5b84cfe5c3820ad7ef08c0
106302 F20101112_AACQQT chodil_k_Page_086.jpg
899a83283892836e695ed674f812e207
9c4dca64fbfc27ba34cb666d6d3651e046a20368
110821 F20101112_AACQQU chodil_k_Page_087.jpg
1b2edac153728f45b54cc567765bdc00
0cc9bb337d63d9480fd3de38007d7b019c427a87
124896 F20101112_AACQRI chodil_k_Page_105.jpg
22b10c281b564d301af05449ac6e8aa4
70261d876b74273b0818a66f908eda6171d485a6
51588 F20101112_AACQQV chodil_k_Page_089.jpg
de645f2c8075dfbda6d508cd07cc6eb8
e9218d0804dfa032f4c9350500a84b2b487ac6ec
138033 F20101112_AACQRJ chodil_k_Page_106.jpg
615c4b5f2f6879a6d2292a17f267d3f7
8bd42fc2d10f0822481700f7f80b537d7474ed2e
81070 F20101112_AACQQW chodil_k_Page_091.jpg
d61a558b468cac5239aeef18bdcdfd53
982be21978b8adad970949606454d6c07a50d96c
122668 F20101112_AACQRK chodil_k_Page_107.jpg
af1932436fdbe181e9875f80fc809c8a
9a999bdfcdea2e8b8914a3344e364cd9c039827f
107450 F20101112_AACQQX chodil_k_Page_092.jpg
080516401a4482f75fb456c6e72f0b71
b5557e393f43567a6f944a1a08cda95ee33f79a5
117548 F20101112_AACQSA chodil_k_Page_017.jp2
a6a5d9505d0aad0bbabc3cb28a9bf046
063d42c8b43d1773151d7b4fe7bfd013cd4833cd
31782 F20101112_AACQRL chodil_k_Page_109.jpg
3b88b88cc0058e0ee81a394833113fda
af6d5d42946f30a8c5f39274951a6d70c84276ab
62993 F20101112_AACQQY chodil_k_Page_093.jpg
95f2770b1c66bc391ac28ec85b805d30
dae9e1a1e4912633a5b4e4eaae0364a2e0797d29
112696 F20101112_AACQSB chodil_k_Page_018.jp2
4987bbbb375a1b97748c3d7e03daf936
e70ff1616335c65115b2ac66cce8cc075e5241e5
26758 F20101112_AACQRM chodil_k_Page_001.jp2
47626db176ab9ff216e56ff125e9d4e8
10ee39794446925c668f208582b5fe1eabc6450c
96128 F20101112_AACQQZ chodil_k_Page_095.jpg
f2febe5afce41dd4f5a6f5cfc5815b62
c3a66e6e7afbb971c8a7b59dfdcdd67a96902b62
120389 F20101112_AACQSC chodil_k_Page_019.jp2
6550ac87e7fc66805b7c961787fbed20
cb33c647f49378bc913ee1a7eb2c241b42a19309
5141 F20101112_AACQRN chodil_k_Page_002.jp2
892bec8e4cf5ae5e08c8e93e7adc2fd9
05ac635f7847daec1fb806ccff2f727ecd84c08c
117837 F20101112_AACQSD chodil_k_Page_020.jp2
52b738a9f6e6a2d66fa88e793b14600a
0d379d2a0daf61afbc3a705b5459f1f27b60dece
10037 F20101112_AACQRO chodil_k_Page_003.jp2
257f2f647faaf4a7b89b4b07b37667b2
a152e6810d7fc554fe9d16e26676a26b17841318
110707 F20101112_AACQSE chodil_k_Page_022.jp2
97ff721d4d0b39f1c0801a9986a02a88
47977bcece95c0b081eeb7452903f33db8ca69ff
88728 F20101112_AACQRP chodil_k_Page_004.jp2
305ca41428ddf3cad4c4faab837bf557
b9cb5d82933ecd87e213355cad559100a8c9daa8
105052 F20101112_AACQSF chodil_k_Page_025.jp2
0f62631f1c8e635785092ea4cdf70f19
ff5d0583077e6964ad4f0709be99aac933c6a39e
42236 F20101112_AACQRQ chodil_k_Page_005.jp2
876354253655f9dbbd40c6bfe3cf0a63
5ea58051b6f2fb6be2ef0f809c008f0070514ecf
1051982 F20101112_AACQSG chodil_k_Page_026.jp2
1480329b12f984c53692519f127bf4b1
b2250be6c400a817eec6c7d224599e4ae1aac5b4
1051983 F20101112_AACQRR chodil_k_Page_007.jp2
75bfd831a8bcbf059892a95a19f9da24
9cc1d8d6879b7ed41789d5aebe4be8cb8fdfe299
113848 F20101112_AACQSH chodil_k_Page_028.jp2
cfe6316320f2e6b842e5759fe77d402d
662ec32a523147d5cdc80585be0bfb9461c380ce
257770 F20101112_AACQRS chodil_k_Page_008.jp2
99e251daaaab3948eeb39bcd2c54502a
80426d41c473242d87a63ddfa7ea35c715b912c6
837282 F20101112_AACQSI chodil_k_Page_029.jp2
000350b4e507b4d78ae104f8da6e0f69
61f1f066411d62d5cc0165eaabfb80c98f043878
118253 F20101112_AACQRT chodil_k_Page_009.jp2
98f50d619e282d91b0bf9154f2390cec
ad199285aa89a1f8c2509f2ea57b07822abd5ed8
410597 F20101112_AACQRU chodil_k_Page_010.jp2
95d190d2f67460b24ae9a47859216d45
e60d2bf435c4e6ac81d77c667f6be09d7b6e6ec3
117282 F20101112_AACQSJ chodil_k_Page_030.jp2
14fb4aeab4ec6d1bef6fa1c164428442
1afcf9af9c848a7c074328e842871ed12e8a1a47
104583 F20101112_AACQRV chodil_k_Page_011.jp2
1301b787663583a6f8feaaaf4f634858
9391901eebd095a15b3d9284c38e827588244124
117113 F20101112_AACQSK chodil_k_Page_031.jp2
0e550bf1eada8346e4738729d968c078
89903ff2c2864a6a63f6a9fa35621e530dd93f18
104502 F20101112_AACQRW chodil_k_Page_012.jp2
327ac98992f4d04a103e3ebfb97a32bc
2eac50bc7f1a09f0794f62df91bd37ce09c5bfe6
119071 F20101112_AACQTA chodil_k_Page_048.jp2
048abf6c62e7cfc8b69bd14028a055b1
654f3fbf48fd655112cbbf509b7636ee47bbe356
118944 F20101112_AACQSL chodil_k_Page_033.jp2
0e3151f4cb1d332a84fe0307c5c45bbc
5197eb16a490b9684691ff7870be90774a2b03a2
120299 F20101112_AACQRX chodil_k_Page_014.jp2
710c64a69c701e976dfc3132d4575a19
0e5a01540ee39a7b525d13fcab219423448804ba
116802 F20101112_AACQTB chodil_k_Page_049.jp2
e4cb3d20dbfae09a68d167e6ff2873a1
52f6df0b0fe3f76cf00caafbceb615c4e0ea7634
109455 F20101112_AACQSM chodil_k_Page_034.jp2
ce8aca9eacc80798db2ecd9c7261f3bc
4c1d59733790cbe572070da81067e7e86f3ea31f
118812 F20101112_AACQRY chodil_k_Page_015.jp2
0fa507a5f03703675c377e2a9f1f0e32
1e12cb17c7f81ff3faf40f324595c567827190a8
119866 F20101112_AACQTC chodil_k_Page_050.jp2
a1c93c04a0080e432c73bb6a09e963e0
dfc2bd8b86288b6ad8fbdb5aca0a3a1b79ee4865
947313 F20101112_AACQSN chodil_k_Page_035.jp2
9173b0d4480d43cb35941e2c9f38ed8d
51282418fea6ac5792c94e2c31bf897a59205c72
118977 F20101112_AACQRZ chodil_k_Page_016.jp2
6f821e1b41fa4a9d4aac5dd8b9c4384e
5724b6493bf20c7a3ced8b4bb9ce1a97792b3f44
119267 F20101112_AACQTD chodil_k_Page_051.jp2
54e3c2ab350650ccdb3d3998868c90f8
25f99c697ec2879701151043018a9085916c6d4a
117027 F20101112_AACQSO chodil_k_Page_036.jp2
856d339c6d08680dc52ae93ecdf9d268
6818db81e5b1fb839bcee916049c8cf483cf831a
119098 F20101112_AACQTE chodil_k_Page_052.jp2
83037d62ff2b698fec10c94fcb42ab51
44498b9f838b7f12e54a02495e6e447aa2d5f312
116066 F20101112_AACQSP chodil_k_Page_037.jp2
1ede66d820ba78a678641ab71689e973
a8a3ff769d2938dd41df4b70a816e7f736a7401c
114533 F20101112_AACQTF chodil_k_Page_053.jp2
e26eb29457e18b2892fcba79c3aeaf33
aeaa93549fcda00b46ab619756eb3d67259f5789
118227 F20101112_AACQSQ chodil_k_Page_038.jp2
83aac17d672707d3d9edb3d0a2ee0acd
4b6539dc8f831962479a63462da6d5ad088af988
86621 F20101112_AACQTG chodil_k_Page_054.jp2
4dea67e9f8615f69ae71db19478b278d
5934ec1782eaa7e2942a39f85c640b7637a42702
111730 F20101112_AACQSR chodil_k_Page_039.jp2
6dcca1ad149cbbb4984dc757dbe495e7
c4df54dde37216bc14d6efe1298c216935470265
118430 F20101112_AACQTH chodil_k_Page_055.jp2
6ef08199c7a802e6b07b4f1c3b540954
7276439b39631d02517067b5a123c9a15560b94c
116911 F20101112_AACQSS chodil_k_Page_040.jp2
43e9309f3583c38014b2823b64524354
5886cd77823ca8aae90a4a69f2cc6f720ca0a8a2
103990 F20101112_AACQTI chodil_k_Page_056.jp2
89376da1e4e8c14249e7141766f6a03d
5bebc69f903d2c99c12eec74f4d16274745bb3d7
119164 F20101112_AACQST chodil_k_Page_041.jp2
7473df9f4a49c2e53d85e3fcc1e68214
b361c88a24ab0e773c0416d6b589bcca07ddb942
113955 F20101112_AACQTJ chodil_k_Page_057.jp2
d222cc21109b60c084759675cc5fbcbc
c174b6854eba2d4e8915a36490741138aec2a540
119123 F20101112_AACQSU chodil_k_Page_042.jp2
b1746278a3991c3e389494490ba15b1c
40413918c3b10f3a58dabc4d123fe1626c2f6c31
118265 F20101112_AACQSV chodil_k_Page_043.jp2
1ae9d5553adb2ad38ab460eeb938c840
9a2e9b67da59893896bca15e87461f8b329129df
120301 F20101112_AACQTK chodil_k_Page_059.jp2
26e9d1afe296485ea922df11dd7141b2
f9fd370082a5850f4e30b0c393c9a4c9abc9ddfe
14010 F20101112_AACQSW chodil_k_Page_044.jp2
31483205cdc5ce199eb266c4a072640c
99774b731810b14e79cee667750688dff2837612
118740 F20101112_AACQTL chodil_k_Page_060.jp2
57c2480500f0d315240dacca09081d5c
95900c6604ab86eab05ada53043596708500e3ca
103923 F20101112_AACQSX chodil_k_Page_045.jp2
b9239aab1445bce8fa57aea6c6c6216e
feda0324b1a5d6e096c5a61d1348df339c8e3de1
120170 F20101112_AACQUA chodil_k_Page_080.jp2
1ad97e51e1eb54093f61c372224f3bb3
ea74bfa1e0a5d07b2fdfe08c5fd720be90fb3e76
115039 F20101112_AACQTM chodil_k_Page_061.jp2
580aeef179abf70051868d4ced3c8692
a8943e7ca3b51f8d4bce201679a084d659dce911
109992 F20101112_AACQSY chodil_k_Page_046.jp2
0b2569d46dc8dbfd99e07b742c2071f4
4f508ba2c1311dc202531be89af34dd1723b6df8
117642 F20101112_AACQUB chodil_k_Page_081.jp2
83e1ec132abe4d8366b0042e059fe953
e4f44136b2a35342e5a874b72eee84793a25b434
119316 F20101112_AACQTN chodil_k_Page_062.jp2
c2ba761b5de1330ffe7a03405e7fc759
1efe4709a97b5c77ee20ed34c7f58ba049f8d031
107499 F20101112_AACQSZ chodil_k_Page_047.jp2
a477145fa8556dbbad811dd381b02794
c4da473476419f750ed248054595913e1d64bd3d
109928 F20101112_AACQUC chodil_k_Page_082.jp2
672c052a2a5ce7f759dd32a90bb186ac
5452c65cce0bf80e36d950c2699628fd3a5d81e3
117211 F20101112_AACQTO chodil_k_Page_063.jp2
39a096dd427789a6b31676cfb20b07c6
ef0522f8bff3d24b38c8c607931eb8ca6f956658
112246 F20101112_AACQUD chodil_k_Page_083.jp2
bf8f9a46503fa33d09682474e80358c3
ad34187733c29c37c4a7854e3c8bcb5cfbc0987a
117233 F20101112_AACQTP chodil_k_Page_065.jp2
8ef54cc0a5652e802e42d348d496e320
a64d2841cfe0a0c9a505045ef74899876b29e49f
119997 F20101112_AACQUE chodil_k_Page_084.jp2
775105092d030e0da9b9f8b614332cf9
c95640591e8e7267d8297b03a73a0d42dd4f3820
118361 F20101112_AACQTQ chodil_k_Page_068.jp2
8b0e5bde26a40e6739f522ffe6d4009d
919967a5908552535b3864bb00101ec30fc15122
116259 F20101112_AACQUF chodil_k_Page_085.jp2
a9ad9927e23f5a69d388589c82d13f6b
f36c54ca9c74a23b2bbcfdec0e8edea5c0528bcf
20357 F20101112_AACQTR chodil_k_Page_069.jp2
2dd00d22a5b4020e03d2aa763a18fe2f
642e49b1ff1ed67f5173d31774e728fd9c1544e5
38280 F20101112_AACRAA chodil_k_Page_054.pro
e5c97b9d8b4ebe18a1ca98de3ea51540
88b840021af1a859be2b5c5c8932ee4ef886dbcc
117840 F20101112_AACQUG chodil_k_Page_087.jp2
fd8af8e4c509b375e1c0cbcc61774e15
43212c9a28c90d9bb3c69d7595bf5ed46ce0af73
108493 F20101112_AACQTS chodil_k_Page_070.jp2
d4dee8a5544eba5f1163c29fc3d9b4b2
89c392bd08974951042c52632686302dd54b2f71
55096 F20101112_AACRAB chodil_k_Page_055.pro
8005e77e39c46b67769b145939da474d
daf681e83af4d1ad6cae3444e1d08bdf16a06788
112986 F20101112_AACQUH chodil_k_Page_088.jp2
f4cbbb1d3bd5091f39275bc5075aeefc
77971abbf19579ea61355e6d849d81d4f9a6673f
119677 F20101112_AACQTT chodil_k_Page_072.jp2
95587242355c662374f2acb245bf3a64
42a226d43d5c9e7a2a478c7435f870edaa49689a
55432 F20101112_AACRAC chodil_k_Page_056.pro
04bbaea5907b5da2e2bba260b108db16
4dcc6142fa62c0601b1c6cbd5d866ca98158f957
54796 F20101112_AACQUI chodil_k_Page_089.jp2
2b79a00cd987967daed027a5655edb9f
37a26e01b10a3849add038cc08b17081a7b6a114
107386 F20101112_AACQTU chodil_k_Page_074.jp2
de1eca0e27e52fe9b738ce23e6013dbf
1ac4f35c032e2cce3512c3c6023b7e1a5af189d7
53929 F20101112_AACRAD chodil_k_Page_057.pro
15aecd66c921f7ae32c1ac103c824ffe
a2f7c3ec6b5271ecf5c196d9058694c7a9aa9a00
701402 F20101112_AACQUJ chodil_k_Page_090.jp2
40acc4f92ddffd5f1d553be31ee5442e
80b612361c9ffb5cc7333665ee62dae097c50087
49985 F20101112_AACRAE chodil_k_Page_058.pro
01093e38f625ab8851c6522d16f318a9
93541acda6763eb7ddd9af829842d39902dd34cf
890329 F20101112_AACQUK chodil_k_Page_091.jp2
73a89481d57c8e6c6abfcd2c6b5137ce
cf9893f0027b9c93003c5aad48e49ec47b8bba1d
117777 F20101112_AACQTV chodil_k_Page_075.jp2
c72dbeefb4cd1eef9b31e3b818b2d234
ba94fd99fbd8632f8ef7408434009fb0d810496f
55979 F20101112_AACRAF chodil_k_Page_060.pro
d53f7d149a0edd28834785ecccb2d4ac
d83c1e4f37812eb1c78d84b57da27c350366a520
118557 F20101112_AACQTW chodil_k_Page_076.jp2
cb2073758e2dc1e39cdba57a4899f589
be251d8da5c2a8e0b6f766970afa3be4fa81c6d8
57629 F20101112_AACRAG chodil_k_Page_062.pro
4cb6f72c4fa1dde8b188e078050227b0
572219ad668f8ee059ba2a532963bb5e1391a908
F20101112_AACQVA chodil_k_Page_003.tif
46a88839a030b6fd796c578a2925263d
4bcf17726183fb8659ff6faa3fb32071ed82877c
111416 F20101112_AACQUL chodil_k_Page_092.jp2
f2574665a2c2b9fc20601032a6e6a1bb
539258961bbabdd929cac674b5ab2ea9bd924d5b
119486 F20101112_AACQTX chodil_k_Page_077.jp2
988e22cccbfad70b647445662a26b63d
85043196903012499a6b4886d3a5495b81882a84
54685 F20101112_AACRAH chodil_k_Page_063.pro
fb794d4c1af1e96a08eca22eedd2185c
6e7148f8a9d6ca51f33b821201415b57b8902c89
F20101112_AACQVB chodil_k_Page_004.tif
b649ae82969fb114a6947e2eb4160972
c3327386c645defd7ad3a688e0e86291c64c9ea3
66123 F20101112_AACQUM chodil_k_Page_093.jp2
ec0423352d81d46175bdb5d292cbef23
38b8fdf172e1a84c9436687a2cc759b0e8d69c0a
113665 F20101112_AACQTY chodil_k_Page_078.jp2
237061569f5b83d7a1775ff34a917e75
ddae6a3d1b4a6695e453ffe52e9b165acaf3114e
52433 F20101112_AACRAI chodil_k_Page_064.pro
c80f0183683b1ef3205c11cd9783a3b1
5ce85af1707c97f4688ed313844337b33a128396
F20101112_AACQVC chodil_k_Page_005.tif
ad7bea8ad6790df807e56c4d137ecd27
8851f96c8c3333a3508f55566ce23d96bb075b8e
62367 F20101112_AACQUN chodil_k_Page_094.jp2
0273bf32a92f0f34506b7bf89bea536d
a9239b772e38945e848e403b45e55fbf55e848c3
121026 F20101112_AACQTZ chodil_k_Page_079.jp2
7ca50d87702d8c764aea400ee8f65237
15f6ddb09c584f8f8ef4d3db6414ec5b606f67b5
56291 F20101112_AACRAJ chodil_k_Page_065.pro
cf54ce6c2537714f507fbfdead7e6385
e062c5bb94fa2cc57f376bf2c5077f597c43a9e8
F20101112_AACQVD chodil_k_Page_006.tif
9e3592bc438f3a85169763a24b80e92f
641f18a1d97bcb8ee1fcd07bd77c748c3214e940
99858 F20101112_AACQUO chodil_k_Page_095.jp2
2727192a4939dbed9cd351a2adb005ea
8965670770a9d4a08cd59f2c8de17ef1d7d4b0d0
51530 F20101112_AACRAK chodil_k_Page_067.pro
4de126f3e581c1253387bfc7a56ca2f7
291daeca7df86c61dd7b43005326134c752c1e93
F20101112_AACQVE chodil_k_Page_007.tif
0e45e7e4855b0a388fe8b287fc3e4817
78951bdba4c0e381a9c90159744e4a23c6bf47c1
98026 F20101112_AACQUP chodil_k_Page_097.jp2
01bbcb145018820d453fe3153f94d6ee
889b4ba635a5d418af5bd06ece5f76a4aee779a4
56122 F20101112_AACRAL chodil_k_Page_068.pro
bd09cc1801fe8968d3610ff39291f1cd
adf5cabba25653305f0d9562f4803b72bc240315
F20101112_AACQVF chodil_k_Page_008.tif
a06951e6c66ef21a8addf48aa2407808
1a3dd65849de3000d0c89dd443e669deab6bda1b
40924 F20101112_AACQUQ chodil_k_Page_099.jp2
4bae2606e539957687716a4949d31fcf
2b8a99767fae66297d69feb26304bd5fa03f2735
7976 F20101112_AACRAM chodil_k_Page_069.pro
7c7e970011d7a1fc668545453587922c
ef37c6247eafbe7fc7f53be141acf75dda5110d1
F20101112_AACQVG chodil_k_Page_010.tif
212677371d80266c932a72e1a582d24a
0e53f2ca4c70b71552b6b5d11ae206b5ec5abd2b
56033 F20101112_AACQUR chodil_k_Page_101.jp2
89f451957435c191029aa2d57032c1ce
33e739375a52878b6361ff25d80806d45ad0061f
51642 F20101112_AACRBA chodil_k_Page_083.pro
48ec8384af6d78a27bd85241f43bcaa6
481252a352746bc634d306a5104976bee89cc996
50349 F20101112_AACRAN chodil_k_Page_070.pro
1f3850b55814242b22e2affc77683d10
24e62810425df246ee76159118be8b65bf7f1572
F20101112_AACQVH chodil_k_Page_011.tif
4ef3c9604edc62d47ee73289b5ccf255
104562a72f742350ee591a47c7ade441b0680440
1051959 F20101112_AACQUS chodil_k_Page_103.jp2
c9ec9c37e84f08ffd06a84709b86b925
8dd117fa21607582faedca470e3c4a509dd403f2
56359 F20101112_AACRBB chodil_k_Page_084.pro
3eb2e02f6bb8c97f05be2790f9ad5438
16a4e14e436f83c4f1cdc2277dcf02c8e3968936
51944 F20101112_AACRAO chodil_k_Page_071.pro
256c6fce5b2650691ef0f7c39b0bfd69
b8e05f13adc814eb61fb2b400d722831a0167560
F20101112_AACQVI chodil_k_Page_012.tif
116ca451f66968b7c35157c65567caee
55cb7e8bd80188bf13f428eab9b6a11bbd212aa2
1051947 F20101112_AACQUT chodil_k_Page_104.jp2
f75f971496e0025374cd414dfd77f2fa
5e5f6f6eedf233d8c1589a768e4d96c119caa3f6
54154 F20101112_AACRBC chodil_k_Page_085.pro
9749f1ad854988448657d25608045b44
7493b5b8d02a0e3254cef7c62f0137b65790d705
56050 F20101112_AACRAP chodil_k_Page_072.pro
c48fdc2bf9b0eac18d3fcb7895bc2a2d
16463485c4e9496ca072719b3d68d6f5fed272c3
F20101112_AACQVJ chodil_k_Page_013.tif
a39125667779408153a84716e7f44e6b
436d92f295dee7655fcfcf424229394ec425d183
F20101112_AACQUU chodil_k_Page_105.jp2
5acac3d8a8fbf1abf198ee854b77b23c
14fb7c6fe1977d9b28c3c6155966f40f672eacc0
53138 F20101112_AACRBD chodil_k_Page_086.pro
07bd55a9e1408457a209ed58c7ab0207
db658160309616b878f76f77f822aeeb8c04308c
52865 F20101112_AACRAQ chodil_k_Page_073.pro
d329040e9c184ed44b1f3ec1e8893f1a
6a062ee99114da3a93d1544f48ce82dacb2071a9
F20101112_AACQVK chodil_k_Page_014.tif
0d0faea7d7f0c584a3d31950e1565163
ebd3702f0e7ba0f96ce148d333288332fc14b04a
1051953 F20101112_AACQUV chodil_k_Page_106.jp2
0cd922800387809c0fea26bba1b23715
c281c64bd97620bb339c06b03d6d87a2d79ab9e7
55065 F20101112_AACRBE chodil_k_Page_087.pro
fdfcb53c41292aa1d930ddcb5502ccb4
6185d7b143b1ab123852927b2cf5ec056a7e342b
49248 F20101112_AACRAR chodil_k_Page_074.pro
c5f9b8f5401a4c3b88f8a64565be6b17
e96b65ffcfa1d9b6076d47b5ad7969ca2fddcd3f
F20101112_AACQVL chodil_k_Page_016.tif
5066a8c8714dd47481166f611fc59a20
3ea57f4b173f62f74af63d987f41f867abf040c3
1051966 F20101112_AACQUW chodil_k_Page_107.jp2
e165fad872de28581feaddddc6dfbbf4
a02268e660f7acbd2df6ca1bdf9111447a085935
52387 F20101112_AACRBF chodil_k_Page_088.pro
d49cea582febf4a35b468e4c66cafe3a
dc28f0fbeec988ff71c446c852ae04580387335a
55269 F20101112_AACRAS chodil_k_Page_075.pro
2c57c0dbb093738ec88a6434602b9897
b1be8b86eea0d8fc2e402b7108b5045c58ce1fc2
441844 F20101112_AACQUX chodil_k_Page_108.jp2
faa00e95fe1c37aac40ae4501ac598cb
ef6143bebed68349f814628220dcac13e35b5268
24072 F20101112_AACRBG chodil_k_Page_089.pro
49b23966296f9d14178f3af8e9a9def2
1b3fca49f31cc990ec934d181eeaadaec7f0e9b0
F20101112_AACQWA chodil_k_Page_034.tif
0ee6455b21bd813ef0ab3f2c21e4ca8b
8d5aab9b0c7c79b3b8cb8e4fb4f267367065550c
F20101112_AACQVM chodil_k_Page_017.tif
46eafea0b4ef18913cac7c3ae739fffa
1b637a31689cb3da5ed47fd0f870ccb262d3489a
F20101112_AACQUY chodil_k_Page_001.tif
6af970517799c7aaca6774ec5561fa52
a88ba5fc32c6219e766372628c20aad986ec7dcb
47619 F20101112_AACRBH chodil_k_Page_090.pro
5b6c62c88883d0d9ec947989e42bbd7e
3e74192b8798c483d5f3c538e769a5ed174337b7
F20101112_AACQWB chodil_k_Page_035.tif
a0234359381f8953d38998eb2d958c96
6facf968e28d1a9f218f126effb8f6c6b462da58
54490 F20101112_AACRAT chodil_k_Page_076.pro
b4ae249e61edd55c4cf1571d3c264df9
28a2f08fefa3b328668e03f4021b8bd05a253579
F20101112_AACQVN chodil_k_Page_018.tif
fde0a9f521c5e87f9d88b32d2f3c89e1
31fe746d20cc7a6855de10daca8cf9ccceb75c3e
F20101112_AACQUZ chodil_k_Page_002.tif
344f990352c0c934880f07ebbd1864e5
717054edf8a55cec97d074f47ee13271845d8175
63100 F20101112_AACRBI chodil_k_Page_091.pro
8f9e1ebf4a44f9a629c2bae7995a12ca
f4f57a54053fb507193ea003f2d45456458713e9
F20101112_AACQWC chodil_k_Page_038.tif
6f972dce203be71984573f7da0b815f6
ba1b28786134f3a22ca93314eb81ad82e952afa2
56216 F20101112_AACRAU chodil_k_Page_077.pro
a519947a2efb5484aa8a946fab6bac46
a57a807f86369178ea11cf6d5add1a2fc41e67d7
F20101112_AACQVO chodil_k_Page_019.tif
fec57dbcbdce3c9459aa38def6e33069
b8a80d204f6a8cd443d9de63dd3689a5b3ad3739
53144 F20101112_AACRBJ chodil_k_Page_092.pro
75083e4c72347dfa3836bf6bffa1a905
ef101a1ea2830d161978a58e0dc55bbd95382c68
F20101112_AACQWD chodil_k_Page_040.tif
5c3892eccb2e13636dfa479ae6add51e
dfbf2a01aeaeecb41a837cdb2aca5ce4366fd7a7
53346 F20101112_AACRAV chodil_k_Page_078.pro
557d09ad60e86560634123124a068de6
605c2dc1ca92d7dd76ff0f593524c945b6d5ae82
F20101112_AACQVP chodil_k_Page_020.tif
ddf5ecaecfc8dde676481eb73fee029d
c2725c6151c3c8d7d7cf38f2f9848cf264c40c19
30302 F20101112_AACRBK chodil_k_Page_093.pro
ced70ca41bd766ad556b3402e946a9b1
1598a0297d7f7091c5d239bf856885ac096bc51b
F20101112_AACQWE chodil_k_Page_041.tif
8feb87513fe1aa75bd4d33852acc9fd6
4889d93e2aedcb4786c2ea2310cced6753372434
F20101112_AACQVQ chodil_k_Page_021.tif
e41a596029cd2d17d81fdb4b3a637144
bdaf6cdf77afc7d64380e3c06ea486f9b80e1eb4
27980 F20101112_AACRBL chodil_k_Page_094.pro
1f4db28ec4210bfcff06571519df8919
6210874359e65f2da6e37837c045f85030f8a2a3
F20101112_AACQWF chodil_k_Page_042.tif
7da655329c426dbc88fb3e2c41e40970
a37f611cca79b61e0b0df8e6ae1778f7473e286f
F20101112_AACRAW chodil_k_Page_079.pro
44297df4794de22b1e58a7748b19da86
d4ac5765ab21d25527e1da585fc004c667b92cf4
F20101112_AACQVR chodil_k_Page_023.tif
a6b1914c81d8f0c6237b322d95b25f0b
f8d0d5e5ba3e3cdbae1d547472328b95c8866140
3651 F20101112_AACRCA chodil_k_Page_006.txt
7ce5458744bff0f11271c214fb7a4456
309e38c390032881d9055a71d9f996d51f5d2f90
39671 F20101112_AACRBM chodil_k_Page_096.pro
e22bd46352426f5ccb4d2660ded083a7
40314dc9f3d300470062bdccfbe637aa23a11066
F20101112_AACQWG chodil_k_Page_043.tif
64932e0cb3eee60521d442ee86189975
e4e3474dc275e34d78c7aca168b4ee98f1167f92
56028 F20101112_AACRAX chodil_k_Page_080.pro
8ad9c9dd09ad1974b5d78f3cc1e843da
0d5faa92efb045429e9235184684b36a460be074
F20101112_AACQVS chodil_k_Page_024.tif
e9cc483d36fe35933c3559ee313b94d2
d6949d5b02891e88e684aa70107f8a2abbf3246d
4390 F20101112_AACRCB chodil_k_Page_007.txt
183ff2b22bf7b6a4c2ab69e2ede5bf1b
f9e674d189695dbe0d94f1e79016174e636adaf4
48043 F20101112_AACRBN chodil_k_Page_097.pro
439b8ef4f732a2267a06b347ce994a6c
fab780e946fec661820131184513747572346484
F20101112_AACQWH chodil_k_Page_044.tif
d8a270d6d0b24b315e8a9621d3368e6a
3701d568ca0e23c0dbbd2982a90b5734468d3e6b
55188 F20101112_AACRAY chodil_k_Page_081.pro
bcd0d7e9a882412e0408f03d649ac549
9c7b3d552d7b499082f1f17a50b5f5f995e4c5d8
F20101112_AACQVT chodil_k_Page_025.tif
01eb4788c903b58341b832c2011fbe55
53f8d9b07f7bc08cbfca64a69f2c3131b40835d1
539 F20101112_AACRCC chodil_k_Page_008.txt
8aa0f638393fe843f5526393f3460f1b
f15d37920a7555c46b5e4f549fdab8c177f05123
37743 F20101112_AACRBO chodil_k_Page_098.pro
e283b891cf84fe3439a3f0cde46a231a
34d7b739630b67dc651c53ae30eea737ee7e1d1b
F20101112_AACQWI chodil_k_Page_045.tif
043d9a56a53d77fc90225736fde6739d
860311185fa38d7a02e620300d6c9bde7965f8e1
50981 F20101112_AACRAZ chodil_k_Page_082.pro
8e2b6c3ff59ec700e7dc4d542788adee
b4d388a2152679d755f9eb7d3b98fe41fe850abc
F20101112_AACQVU chodil_k_Page_026.tif
9964da8c14a38fbe1ffb31dfebacf2cc
9851e82d2d01500ff34267f43b22ad337890fd28
278 F20101112_AACRCD chodil_k_Page_009.txt
2e69f90ac75163c01991a020df056ca4
dcf5a4904ef0a0679c56d3f7e019326a69701c92
18022 F20101112_AACRBP chodil_k_Page_099.pro
fda559eafb88e14f3136d081585b5e2e
3145a446c3699e33b78200f4db4ea7c8a00d55d4
F20101112_AACQWJ chodil_k_Page_046.tif
712df245f05d24033785708e0232cc03
d462b22a18c9b1f3e266b3781c0dc56b231ef01d
F20101112_AACQVV chodil_k_Page_028.tif
aa88bdbb0a763e6ae8d32128447c0426
5890dab9da7980a6bc22795b6e5dedba32d58d06
2064 F20101112_AACRCE chodil_k_Page_011.txt
762462cc230af69eac7008622ca5358f
c021bf27ad552fe74c10f4afe0c0cb038ee011e9
65828 F20101112_AACRBQ chodil_k_Page_102.pro
40d4dab16f6bbd7e970a37a4b66f5a9a
ff09f4bb32a6385bfa43317450268d7a070972fd
F20101112_AACQWK chodil_k_Page_048.tif
e891c89e53bddea405092bb871e1034c
b50cb1bbfca724b2887b887e68aed0254275c059
F20101112_AACQVW chodil_k_Page_030.tif
3927f5f3f0c0a37ac7e24ba87c0b43f5
c94bfe115fc595ec18f3cd8a06f7a556a06dbc1e
1939 F20101112_AACRCF chodil_k_Page_012.txt
8c02d06774b166392e80d7626547e01f
b0887220a4ff3eebc2d4f259a0cdda2f2dfd8a1d
63521 F20101112_AACRBR chodil_k_Page_103.pro
3bc95ac4b792308c8d18d072bcbb6c7e
7abbf4175b6169fb08147be27199068761a45b68
F20101112_AACQWL chodil_k_Page_049.tif
c842b35e3c3402d7666d5eedef22786c
27ef22ca6a897f1aa2ac66447113565e0b005b08
F20101112_AACQVX chodil_k_Page_031.tif
2f6105d973f0e20ad4ab5b3d99562289
152fb55d38d6cba988831d364f80b3c94f3b6344
2194 F20101112_AACRCG chodil_k_Page_013.txt
e8418e240858494013d3fd9d31fd3a3b
28b516f510607ef25e00b5a4e011c715eb1e4d1a
F20101112_AACQXA chodil_k_Page_066.tif
14b620be16b2da784e71ba9671d7e58e
8f53c8d91e811a96d8cb04f84f8fbc0d2755bddc
58797 F20101112_AACRBS chodil_k_Page_105.pro
116873bc2005e973755d0ef6f214ca4d
1067b251c981258d45581d6fd9c043ea4560218e
F20101112_AACQWM chodil_k_Page_050.tif
fb20c4e83d088496fef1e1d924330047
53bcdb92341328f61b3e7802369224a73ed326c8
F20101112_AACQVY chodil_k_Page_032.tif
aa3c421b7e269894e3aaad5c011d1427
a835bcc39fc5ccf57170ce4f4fab252f8228d5fc
2155 F20101112_AACRCH chodil_k_Page_014.txt
b02e4f6bbcfd42668be4bf132b2cedaa
a86a88587f36668daf77731cfa52c13b58f88e58
F20101112_AACQXB chodil_k_Page_068.tif
08f202593584df460d10ffa7206e07d1
5a5080b9274b87baad8e1e18341d58fab736e4e5
64641 F20101112_AACRBT chodil_k_Page_106.pro
176b9f287e6d087cdf5ede6bcbd7d9b2
f02c922fcf9abeb609f53ed720656b754ade290c
F20101112_AACQVZ chodil_k_Page_033.tif
e224ec919c68b5533a472702bc2ca203
58955e477b92046ab6bdff0940046d768f8865b2
2178 F20101112_AACRCI chodil_k_Page_015.txt
0888548c2431e03d3094a62ec26753e5
e3ab030715adafb2b555030a2074b41f075b18f7
F20101112_AACQXC chodil_k_Page_069.tif
a5092912ef838212c6fa7404dcc6aa64
9b1944c66b632091d2c3ab32225ba39b150996c5
62850 F20101112_AACRBU chodil_k_Page_107.pro
2e6ae60974d52b6dc0fd03bb9b9e01f3
c5f09d3b7664add0d0080f91767972e38a346d3a
F20101112_AACQWN chodil_k_Page_052.tif
a4c19bd4ce64ff4bc2e2f87cfafd9a78
d8882e0b4e710d851a76c7ad5e053b1e0e0dab62
2230 F20101112_AACRCJ chodil_k_Page_016.txt
170d1bbbfdff34d51611f164872bc0a6
15f533cd43f7481fa495235c0cb795341e1d7db0
F20101112_AACQXD chodil_k_Page_070.tif
7fe3d523032055b5fc4fa911b4c9e0eb
dbac27167a70d4c4883e132383e93acc98d2edd6
17396 F20101112_AACRBV chodil_k_Page_108.pro
d5d17644190f0a74ff921aa890e99833
280e0cb67b0e8aea363689dc992bf0959c78c06a
F20101112_AACQWO chodil_k_Page_053.tif
0e6f56dcbf125dde503141b6c144eb93
0f3778302b6186e3906d7edca7be60a6501290b4
2157 F20101112_AACRCK chodil_k_Page_017.txt
0b97f85f4c571bcc4605f4ed4b20168f
81cb549be0f7fe4619f45892391b9f9c01a8fba5
F20101112_AACQXE chodil_k_Page_072.tif
d21c4feef6f30fe4e7ab94acdc3182b0
d7bb04fd26c589cc316fe2ec6452bdf01d8865b9
13299 F20101112_AACRBW chodil_k_Page_109.pro
9631c05266d82537938e0e12c9de32f7
f5fedae601339656cfe0909cba4c0e6cd7a07676
F20101112_AACQWP chodil_k_Page_054.tif
3ecd3f9f416e2e88bbc5310f3038a60a
940be84a8ab395844644e0d060dfa038c307ec31
2037 F20101112_AACRCL chodil_k_Page_018.txt
c691f1944965d8812142cd2ca0a47250
211d70e5cc9d60321e6ef31ae9f7326287b97759
F20101112_AACQXF chodil_k_Page_074.tif
8a6171007ec6ad3b2b5cd75ed9f9d799
16a2a5bbb02443be966d1eb0a4dd68d14a602ee3
F20101112_AACQWQ chodil_k_Page_055.tif
2eeed5cc833a30997e35cc25ca065c18
001b71f9a5649c0583625052796aabb35f8c44e5
2184 F20101112_AACRCM chodil_k_Page_019.txt
f8b9a3baed3eac6035ee28e0e15dad77
e65f987342c340b24883e43ee2bdaf2fb0612649
F20101112_AACQXG chodil_k_Page_075.tif
90ff24d7ad7fc096e52b83ef1e87b456
6cd44b36ef37c1f8dc923d3506ad9a46336af5f7
495 F20101112_AACRBX chodil_k_Page_001.txt
f80c635936f8a6108abbd3f40b54425a
7958419aca89e88433044c9db866facdf87a59b6
F20101112_AACQWR chodil_k_Page_056.tif
1f75d1b2e451a5fac885ddf7dfc8730a
3211ffd7c82e28b3a19a80525f0411a6068aff18
2187 F20101112_AACRDA chodil_k_Page_033.txt
f99f2bcefd1d2d23cd053134928a625c
5ca31d3c8d856259d3e8b294358f868b7ed8b1a4
2214 F20101112_AACRCN chodil_k_Page_020.txt
1c2346818b52fbfb7924f7e2d8a89c62
1ef873f7b9e10801f6cde82d887e0b98f2a0fe51
F20101112_AACQXH chodil_k_Page_076.tif
47f5b31bbb8ecc894c1b403e0dbda16f
2794a20264e0d772050334a5f213f70760d6d3e9
169 F20101112_AACRBY chodil_k_Page_003.txt
3b5ec14eda78e0ed64c353b1b34087c2
83e767be9c9b5b843ddfd3200c78368a243e9cd2
F20101112_AACQWS chodil_k_Page_057.tif
4a28605e7a305107e49c0e6f73d8f240
e1bea1eb8d2057cc24965ab1e8102f3ba04486d0
2010 F20101112_AACRDB chodil_k_Page_034.txt
5e18adb402e6dd2b81d48d324b5c9764
44c546626e1e9701076e07edbfc9ddea159420ae
2199 F20101112_AACRCO chodil_k_Page_021.txt
dbb3159170f14d880faa16b5046d4ef1
9e2f48c9ed2eb80fcf4fbc1613b1b4c4ea126373
F20101112_AACQXI chodil_k_Page_077.tif
441c5c5eddb100016c6efb48a41ff730
c1340ab4490877e0343faa6a8e01acb1059cbb09
1666 F20101112_AACRBZ chodil_k_Page_004.txt
a8008da119e78e6bda5293d059d771d0
c701fd1b2d2221ad38fbda4e89e13c6aa028fe37
F20101112_AACQWT chodil_k_Page_058.tif
0d97f70172c4d826dd94ad7a0a1d0fad
c989d7a43d0ff722bc65c11a1dab4b54fed5faa6
1268 F20101112_AACRDC chodil_k_Page_035.txt
505305e29b0d722869dd17326e82a060
f8ac69bcdb16d8f549da5c08d1076de6ade63e93
2106 F20101112_AACRCP chodil_k_Page_022.txt
65a614bcae19da1e34bac73783f98e39
ffa6ce1257e0019468d060f4bd0c9b64376cfd01
F20101112_AACQXJ chodil_k_Page_078.tif
82b5b8cee4752e722316604a98b67944
b55739f5fa85100782f83e2b51200829cfee8b37
F20101112_AACQWU chodil_k_Page_059.tif
1e3bf5495681ccba96b0d410fc523c19
bd203ca0a284046210b785a18c44874b02eac620
2123 F20101112_AACRDD chodil_k_Page_036.txt
1f11cc8be1a2991020b295c391d557fb
4513ff34faa1aaec7f5bf7f434464f7e7fd36779
2612 F20101112_AACRCQ chodil_k_Page_023.txt
04eda79753e9c7c69996c33317cda457
c19b36d228c63e79b36356c565ad0d7b0cad01af
F20101112_AACQXK chodil_k_Page_079.tif
09ca4286ad6298b709b039fd9245005d
5e5d3020dde54826911356e3153ad311180f08f3
F20101112_AACQWV chodil_k_Page_060.tif
833b0b185e932d849177921734ba0bca
55e4d88b1822393f1f53235548c1b91f1173beda
2138 F20101112_AACRDE chodil_k_Page_037.txt
72f6cd3762581fbb02222608e9c945ef
ceb2525ec5bdc820c96c427970a2ac6c7c03b53b
1162 F20101112_AACRCR chodil_k_Page_024.txt
a735af7ab09ff430a4474142a57db71c
db160af427a5927cdcb91062f565c6b402ad3196
F20101112_AACQXL chodil_k_Page_081.tif
8957514ace956d074a783f75fc2fbb52
b95742008b761887a3f105d6b479d5e63b9c610d
F20101112_AACQWW chodil_k_Page_062.tif
5de11b941fb5543909d5f1184ca871c1
046ef26439ecb6d6f2f2c3d8b6752b501383ed61
2160 F20101112_AACRDF chodil_k_Page_038.txt
067911a470bb66fb0c26d40dabcc12ec
457b81f09c07d4780d98aab39c31c9206f15edd8
F20101112_AACQYA chodil_k_Page_099.tif
df48c11cf10ef604f4330a196d38808f
a4baa2d506021cc0a141e909607e512667dd8c75
2040 F20101112_AACRCS chodil_k_Page_025.txt
93fa4857210fdbbea705ce4bb2c62972
9cfcca5c772814a30ca983ba4f1f8b5fdd906906
F20101112_AACQXM chodil_k_Page_082.tif
5320a48de7631e8d14cf9243f3feb336
b75c6434b88c44257c560860d51b50f5d4e66f09
F20101112_AACQWX chodil_k_Page_063.tif
fe3bf0e99a4a0153edc89fd3828ccb25
3275ce32d09210f927deaf7707c51efd31989642
2036 F20101112_AACRDG chodil_k_Page_039.txt
04a00b87db5ec934308859b1ade25753
3f2909ff89fdb27659456e9b6b4dd34040ed71ce
F20101112_AACQYB chodil_k_Page_101.tif
b6b0e74b018b41e3a32c137f74cc5b8d
6c1c673c66c969bace2793ced1df86692dcd6ae3
1786 F20101112_AACRCT chodil_k_Page_026.txt
31b763c76cdce20e7b6250adb6a70966
0775ed23c769dd67fadd7276ae10d6e2eac789cd
F20101112_AACQXN chodil_k_Page_083.tif
ef50ef6bdd8157e6d5bba20ce01a4f7c
d7b5ba80159cf3b169871b6f47abcb751acc8731
F20101112_AACQWY chodil_k_Page_064.tif
08925877d64014c06c8d6fa550bde8a9
c0f6317555ce19646aeb0da20ed4dc9201fff524
F20101112_AACRDH chodil_k_Page_040.txt
446f457d9ec94c982c7081d1abca5ec4
e095010fd0cafaf971c6d919e51c7ea8b3ff8914
F20101112_AACQYC chodil_k_Page_102.tif
5571591110e657d347c48f87ebc93a52
9ded6753a7e2bb68686d5419b16811a06a5c0d21
2012 F20101112_AACRCU chodil_k_Page_027.txt
c0e3e369f0eddd662039622880b3a615
f23c4986e1b71cfa4f125b427acfc55110f4b2e7
F20101112_AACQWZ chodil_k_Page_065.tif
96b587be948d37135075da41612f80ed
8130ec2f051cb20ddbc93e693f9e988c1a03ab03
2149 F20101112_AACRDI chodil_k_Page_041.txt
ca4f450c8545f531dadf264c7d02c2a7
76c15492c69c943c17fa2bb2a4e54314a598c99a
F20101112_AACQYD chodil_k_Page_103.tif
e207238410d6ddaaf11f6138a839f0aa
dad793fb2d18c944f3951620e86dfe31b07d832b
2105 F20101112_AACRCV chodil_k_Page_028.txt
8b23b98fac496d4e1bc00f3c85089967
9b2b2706c649ede493898fdd7e93b96d54abb033
F20101112_AACQXO chodil_k_Page_084.tif
2d1b6a411d26466be45e6d097792205f
65f4427d89d5b12462b70a9a25717fc1f23cacfe
2204 F20101112_AACRDJ chodil_k_Page_042.txt
4d646fb934a25108254c009eda4f1ba9
8e174f0ca4a465bcabf76cfb1f23ce85f7c31652
F20101112_AACQYE chodil_k_Page_104.tif
9dd43394f61696a05d8b52c4ddd96a89
fb6598efa1b772f32a01466c1f842a85d5a5b0bb
2151 F20101112_AACRCW chodil_k_Page_029.txt
a8003890b7efa205e9bb6e43785c040e
d8a9f0b0ccbadc9ce398918f08c7d578de730d8b
F20101112_AACQXP chodil_k_Page_085.tif
3fe29392ec2f8b1a12f020607efda329
08fca26f279edee6fe72be991da182e72fd34cc6
2169 F20101112_AACRDK chodil_k_Page_043.txt
7ee1f075a4a4505a026aa957b14b98db
176f2275c42e5fe4199263efefc7fc37bd6df097
F20101112_AACQYF chodil_k_Page_105.tif
03d274f2ef82e553247c2c03fc697924
dc92eb89cd4f89cf9854daee19b2098852ab6c4d
F20101112_AACRCX chodil_k_Page_030.txt
e93ed194ef24aa5273733d2f64a0d646
a85cba486d9b9cdd9e458c0bb9aec23a74ebe5c5
F20101112_AACQXQ chodil_k_Page_086.tif
92b87a357e2388a96323639fc04b7816
04ee6dba52f2a8379c9528663730c331afacee3f
191 F20101112_AACRDL chodil_k_Page_044.txt
eddeef9bada971dc3355b66b756e4cea
4296853095aea6d61b0c3b2b42ea0872649a4fda
F20101112_AACQYG chodil_k_Page_106.tif
d259e50ff34468ac44bbde874fd10aa5
60a0533039367683bed5b28310f0560877c558a5
F20101112_AACQXR chodil_k_Page_088.tif
7b230ecddf92f6206920fcb13d5487db
700031d5f4cd44078c4c95a252304f99dcb7b9f4
2341 F20101112_AACREA chodil_k_Page_059.txt
6024403457b8f45c401857f681bcdd1e
74d36ccb730ee6da75db98a0e5177d66a3e3d3e2
2044 F20101112_AACRDM chodil_k_Page_045.txt
a17e0611a927fec8fbe5ff9927e7a95d
b146804d5390aff463e1ad52ec497ec4580e6c6a
F20101112_AACQYH chodil_k_Page_107.tif
e339054e9741cd2daa615b69818a1be7
25f162a2b70b36a248e3ca94c0dc427db8ac679d
2113 F20101112_AACRCY chodil_k_Page_031.txt
5521b8567b6b7d90b2db989a53934f3e
b8ac9a8c46ea7f1fdfd502e1f3014efe42f36f91
F20101112_AACQXS chodil_k_Page_089.tif
844a1c42f0134e83f08d1eeaea17476d
8a23bc4f166ab1e0731b22d8fea4dbcce81279c7
2229 F20101112_AACREB chodil_k_Page_060.txt
c0a2d0c7cbbf3a25fec044230a150577
65e4063f5cd52718f13f6aebd8df1ea5a23e9623
1971 F20101112_AACRDN chodil_k_Page_046.txt
892a73cc010d5d11b9370696132a4113
6ce8b4641745bfcad783f1d966c6db43484288d9
F20101112_AACQYI chodil_k_Page_109.tif
85571e816038d978c6913381352b2aab
560b5b904fbd424e611879c14d6347f2ed2ab62a
2085 F20101112_AACRCZ chodil_k_Page_032.txt
8837cfef2796707ebbcb8231124e7d3f
5ec3565225c82d8413310bb5f9b88019f0409420
F20101112_AACQXT chodil_k_Page_090.tif
448be3da1a7f9b3cbd4effc1f335d78e
cd7c1064fd3738960cbea61502c0281140d27fd6
F20101112_AACREC chodil_k_Page_061.txt
02a7e06db1585f979636e6fd63087c43
24dc32f746138f9af256dbfac305e2f25595d469
1959 F20101112_AACRDO chodil_k_Page_047.txt
bc2efead686ec096ea94b47c7aab2341
c8a0258db1c22935dfb6923245970436fe880181
8893 F20101112_AACQYJ chodil_k_Page_001.pro
5d3b32ed362967296a2d72d5fecdc914
809a89479d400c0c0eb444856973e28c64e32a91
F20101112_AACQXU chodil_k_Page_091.tif
0dcb7a9dcde7f211116c58098faba132
3d258265ed2d76a77008b2d288b521cca98c4e54
2299 F20101112_AACRED chodil_k_Page_062.txt
e2d2752efa01b9970d3bd1f74e56d36c
ff7a21b0301092ae0938a797d5773e94daf576f6
2483 F20101112_AACRDP chodil_k_Page_048.txt
496e679bdadb4bcbf435810bb28169bc
68c94a6785a8e9f9e046243693502f7822b08b77
2980 F20101112_AACQYK chodil_k_Page_003.pro
f813cf3fe564dcb919df1a1ae3ca52bc
a5ee814838a8fb7a3199d7b51914a24398df056b
F20101112_AACQXV chodil_k_Page_092.tif
bf0f82d18285b9fba8c9a181475dcac8
9ff2cda2cc67da7abb7a0cfd43b68209d8b2fa85
2201 F20101112_AACREE chodil_k_Page_063.txt
160ddd3dddb7fc99c4e689495c108d4c
4ed800dc77695e9a0743855ec95fa0db76461b51
2179 F20101112_AACRDQ chodil_k_Page_049.txt
342e7dcfa68d0b7086684adbb5d54176
140782203208cc18cef076b541a5ec0b5ab9e582
18347 F20101112_AACQYL chodil_k_Page_005.pro
653be1ed6e6da64e45b4ec05e724cca0
e73a1be4207771040c9f3e7a802a3c3af0051960
F20101112_AACQXW chodil_k_Page_093.tif
01c82f973220f7f233982c0253934a4e
dfde161dc8406b09eb5734d12eb8d149cb7125d2
2075 F20101112_AACREF chodil_k_Page_064.txt
b0eab36333ca869cb1da0c64479d6fe1
104e847cda084db2734180508a6182836b47d8b1
2208 F20101112_AACRDR chodil_k_Page_050.txt
82aef6f6766bc76d52b4fbcdb204c3e1
6659b11b2e57737604b99faa0061fe47b708e55c
88648 F20101112_AACQYM chodil_k_Page_006.pro
3ce80a881ee89cbb6f216165e8f4416f
1bdd4535f31fe0426d2304bbbe90f1f6cd4f5b31
F20101112_AACQXX chodil_k_Page_094.tif
88858a2d6f013fbe64f866337444bd39
bfdbaf65d4258f5568ff05bb58628d6f7fa91135
2147 F20101112_AACREG chodil_k_Page_066.txt
2972b5cbadc4f9cc25b6cf9ebffc2e13
cf8818fd46f8c3d6d93e236bdaffbe328de4be52
64397 F20101112_AACQZA chodil_k_Page_023.pro
8824587934c43402ccab6fa911df893f
e5781514c9215607a769c34f51a742a23d91cb72
2227 F20101112_AACRDS chodil_k_Page_051.txt
b23a73d8a23740760ee3b8a8c2a5d9d5
29b6b3c1ec710b42fa192867e604bb20cb8b7e78
107968 F20101112_AACQYN chodil_k_Page_007.pro
361a1a05eff1aef4f4a7498e393e006a
d943959731b850d1a4da25d897d136ae2c9d222b
F20101112_AACQXY chodil_k_Page_097.tif
b8e981107e0ed98a9987290a2e8187c5
003c8a04ef82d1b90fc743434c3ec71342076e46
2050 F20101112_AACREH chodil_k_Page_067.txt
dca53e89fcc9b418b30dbae394420808
0860a611dbe8b2ebe0134795552f039b88f72113
28138 F20101112_AACQZB chodil_k_Page_024.pro
b57de852e393c0fd300cfa80a3955c8f
9832e4b26e9c27020d079222395301fcb2fdea8f
2195 F20101112_AACRDT chodil_k_Page_052.txt
430b11085f08d1953c5ff6d7f74f6f6b
02afc0456cfe454d0f5147a97ea00bc542fbdd32
10291 F20101112_AACQYO chodil_k_Page_008.pro
0ad5bf852ceb6345fa4dcd2a6f11070f
c90ddfb567b0944807923e1249f849a2f6397f84
F20101112_AACQXZ chodil_k_Page_098.tif
b204c696868c5a57dd07b97d3d81df8c
f6ac6b47f2fb98c3bc4d398f9c44c7b352187692
2244 F20101112_AACREI chodil_k_Page_068.txt
b74d6a97f5e35898cdca6c03336a49de
4471fd7f655a7cdd812c3af5fbf82cf282c8ebbb
48971 F20101112_AACQZC chodil_k_Page_025.pro
61fa43ea43af03ff016a5111792aea73
dea13b9620fc9e24f6a97d569beadba49255a8ff
2136 F20101112_AACRDU chodil_k_Page_053.txt
686cb9b92182d5f5c4709f51ea0dfdf4
68d0afaacef11cdfedd29e1fcd2d715b6d47668e
320 F20101112_AACREJ chodil_k_Page_069.txt
a30903d63e391100898b3fbb6464073a
42f15e73ec8e4c9969179928ddb07c431bb9e0a2
43680 F20101112_AACQZD chodil_k_Page_026.pro
682c12ae4e7b660ce05fd0abfc208c51
e33f44f55a13df3fc811a29a13bf18c804f699f9
1556 F20101112_AACRDV chodil_k_Page_054.txt
d543d7997acd9c731de3992b03f81160
a5c2b4d8a7d5325f33f6ad3285a15fd60ead4237
5361 F20101112_AACQYP chodil_k_Page_009.pro
b7c879228a953a94da39f97f2c7c6694
419e2b9dab109d5026b95783c409a18083c187cb
2200 F20101112_AACREK chodil_k_Page_072.txt
20b640a2480e0401b6d5c69bd2e9ee5a
cbf057bfd80dd7e14098a1d4f2241f779edd07da
52644 F20101112_AACQZE chodil_k_Page_028.pro
d72adbd6ce0c4f7fd2439d6a63507a15
87037749448960f6157c13b417980c0ceff343c3
2239 F20101112_AACRDW chodil_k_Page_055.txt
694cff4242bf6ecaa06a118188ca3916
fdb1b3b16b32e6d96a0b9e6dbfd350dead58fc99
53666 F20101112_AACQYQ chodil_k_Page_013.pro
8cbeec24f399a92667556829917a1c8b
60918ee6538fdf84e58315c179014863d64bd5b1
2082 F20101112_AACREL chodil_k_Page_073.txt
745b7f2e3961b8cbc4620dbd4d37b962
ef9dc72163d68830580fc37a02298ec58706ea25
38954 F20101112_AACQZF chodil_k_Page_029.pro
b901a7c42db0cb7df84c19752080caed
b057e8cf7c8d9feb2e6cae718e66dcbab4557fd0
2628 F20101112_AACRDX chodil_k_Page_056.txt
749e0422497fe4708aa9d7f3cbdfd8aa
25be52a811f90f5f98dbc1fc08a608215c588b39
54711 F20101112_AACQYR chodil_k_Page_014.pro
89c6f3d4af26970ec809f384e3bf40b0
4102bf29b60151b279615ed69325f3a9a683107c
1892 F20101112_AACRFA chodil_k_Page_090.txt
c08e75f5f4a016fc5c189aca31685308
8ef48f590b52d1a61e7a54de54d5db942ba7965e
1961 F20101112_AACREM chodil_k_Page_074.txt
48cb7c19be96ba8963ac5747c54a5ff4
28e9ab9206c77c38412c42e060cfeb049ee530fe
54112 F20101112_AACQZG chodil_k_Page_030.pro
aab026018ca7b4b8511366c8bbbcfeef
62b5c2e19e5a5067ad3347ca7dac58c54c75534b
F20101112_AACRDY chodil_k_Page_057.txt
bd72d9bb7c8f7a7568ce531b5feb7c6b
45afe3439079fcb488c9241574aa5d9b78d5658b
2876 F20101112_AACRFB chodil_k_Page_091.txt
39019f9aefaa458abe38fe3a7cb4c558
3594084a6bf95e2c5eb88afb867dab2f05ec4aeb
2205 F20101112_AACREN chodil_k_Page_077.txt
de92b6b5b0a5214c641f382b4770e9e6
b5e7873ee67d35ab53a230a42fa0ab7166e41d33
53691 F20101112_AACQZH chodil_k_Page_031.pro
1940d853511700501d41efb701652c34
9699aa14e1f423f95c29209d3dbbf1464c6bc908
55491 F20101112_AACQYS chodil_k_Page_015.pro
73ade0d56470c765a7bf70dcfac75ef5
ee58aca40b5b8b425422476d0f48bf0ed1d48a8e
1266 F20101112_AACRFC chodil_k_Page_093.txt
325d3e142647e0d8ea1f3f314265e97a
b6dc915cb80d35688f4dac8facb4dc74208e05fc
2131 F20101112_AACREO chodil_k_Page_078.txt
e8279202444b04012222e8fa68abe4a2
95b05c11482ad2f5c16570224656d3908e64c8f1
52911 F20101112_AACQZI chodil_k_Page_032.pro
7b0460fd131d2f76f04b0e7bff355deb
1f17ebc66aae1b99ed26df986311a078db1f6ac3
1978 F20101112_AACRDZ chodil_k_Page_058.txt
3bab1e877c2fd757be8c66e696962075
fb150ac201923ee0f82044fd5860c264894079e4
55373 F20101112_AACQYT chodil_k_Page_016.pro
d30dd864d7f28a8bbb4f54cc2ebe10a3
9b279988ca016d17bd37939aaad105e4ff761ea5
1167 F20101112_AACRFD chodil_k_Page_094.txt
de5d98bb3ec970af66046acec9fcaa91
0695d09f9a1713c539cc8ba027c6a5d9a8386ac3
F20101112_AACREP chodil_k_Page_079.txt
fdffbaafe7b4640f18ae5b039da0e38e
d083f949fda42f0fb9c6c56819e637752d55844a
50833 F20101112_AACQZJ chodil_k_Page_034.pro
7b17b3348ea94e9be2db2f5509d2b11d
a1aeca7c90795c8dc5e7c71c702d63322c941a26
55001 F20101112_AACQYU chodil_k_Page_017.pro
ba46d7e6aec89bc8ef87083e68d0e6c8
4b42e27301fc572eb1c048f2e81a1d009484ce50
1898 F20101112_AACRFE chodil_k_Page_095.txt
8d33a4224cc28453ae42afee4648c0a4
ad9327c34a8a6daff4d74ed2648c8fd78679e723
2198 F20101112_AACREQ chodil_k_Page_080.txt
6b855dde7fbd93d637016889d07c9f1d
668c48208fc8e78335ec84c49a2e7bb17a40fe69
32622 F20101112_AACQZK chodil_k_Page_035.pro
de8b726f3778d85c088fb8f7b18df65b
2d8481b41937b89dc970b09046d423642ee7f6a5
51809 F20101112_AACQYV chodil_k_Page_018.pro
125dcc0ce61588d6ead25515af358070
0957d4e4f8d40e26ff397f52249b3cabc80f5e1f
1599 F20101112_AACRFF chodil_k_Page_096.txt
5a3ca9711347793f3693d90cdbf925b5
c19c0ed47618daf472f3568d3662a22a139d7382
F20101112_AACRER chodil_k_Page_081.txt
af77bdc34d55320f55db7c07fca620d9
283975359b9d7d152f34c0c0bd29ec011ebb46a4
53345 F20101112_AACQZL chodil_k_Page_036.pro
ab053f34a0c1c1dac0a56b04a50d322e
5c472c3fca62969a002d22958c32319f23239d79
55635 F20101112_AACQYW chodil_k_Page_019.pro
37ed3caeafd90b342463c33d984e4f6e
88954a7227e90162cf585c16265cc4a744fd2831
1955 F20101112_AACRFG chodil_k_Page_097.txt
bcca2ecd34bb310b9aea4be075a39f86
de6f3dd8723c629937511efa857f5e3d5b206b8a
2043 F20101112_AACRES chodil_k_Page_082.txt
f3957e93e0b701a46bb3e9b0f689c5e4
de13939658820017f65b77e9ed05459d4f56cf84
53296 F20101112_AACQZM chodil_k_Page_037.pro
784a448b59396e7a50c2d677a807b604
69397c90ee95f94083a7e5dda073a5ee389652e8
54755 F20101112_AACQYX chodil_k_Page_020.pro
382043f429457ff38423a011a20c665f
803c647711778ddbe5d338372add616b53e39858
1531 F20101112_AACRFH chodil_k_Page_098.txt
ae11d6177b8ea2c9bb9d400dc22b95b0
f9f7f4b1c181dca1a498b595e6f835e188593423
F20101112_AACRET chodil_k_Page_083.txt
09263a94e0b350b780c54ca6ed198831
54a100693a8c9447ac0c774030502526cd7937a0
51545 F20101112_AACQZN chodil_k_Page_039.pro
c4e1b977dfcdb222de33c0d6cf512147
da2a3307c22f3ffe8764fda68ec4f877abc009ab
55280 F20101112_AACQYY chodil_k_Page_021.pro
3513679b804989221ed2d22b7f898880
729b3c4985b22af8976f11f1a11415ca5d19c954
724 F20101112_AACRFI chodil_k_Page_099.txt
fd159fc5e94147e88fa97b6bbc555092
3e46218c01a40541b3671b830dc1ed6876684e7e
F20101112_AACREU chodil_k_Page_084.txt
291d28e595e36679bc9bceab5503f915
eb1017ab3e45ae1b3e0ced6f31ad21a7f0553b5c
54540 F20101112_AACQZO chodil_k_Page_041.pro
651c367d19c2d5e7cdbf21576230d755
1153ed28966e640b4e5384003bf0a00a008300dc
50781 F20101112_AACQYZ chodil_k_Page_022.pro
829602297c9cdee3b0edc1eb9eb7bb4c
e4368e30eb4187b329b963272f7959c54340b2c1
1588 F20101112_AACRFJ chodil_k_Page_100.txt
9798e56bf424710f1f6c37850497512e
22430005ead14ba835bfb81dc27eb934195b414e
F20101112_AACREV chodil_k_Page_085.txt
cc69312f725724bf93068ce5e60a351b
8ffd84f7cd0e5a69d405a63f387e6445e99eb62f
55303 F20101112_AACQZP chodil_k_Page_042.pro
86a3409c966430669375392bce0c64f7
38e616f3d22633bc2f5143ca2ddda14239dadbf3
1100 F20101112_AACRFK chodil_k_Page_101.txt
af6a2fe075cd6e6c195100ad391cc841
338e2ba60848ae71874522cd696416122e05396e
2096 F20101112_AACREW chodil_k_Page_086.txt
4428b6e69a39ff2ebe260020be37ba5b
b06893654ffdf3ad11e3d1649a642b479f9912d5
2639 F20101112_AACRFL chodil_k_Page_102.txt
e1d68025f9eba44b9654fd34eeddb2b8
4e32f6d77e7ff7a3a1dc854d74d142e7f5a4c218
2185 F20101112_AACREX chodil_k_Page_087.txt
fb99559d97fbd36bba31c514a61dc236
14c76ebab147174eed11cfafb630fbdd0947754c
54387 F20101112_AACQZQ chodil_k_Page_043.pro
8b1408661e376e841504ab2ec65bdb58
8ad6c507692bbf78b80b1984617c5736ef76891a
2563 F20101112_AACRFM chodil_k_Page_103.txt
b6c899478e45b89756fb4d653a46af36
e6822119642d373bf753305c68b7b8e004246868
2062 F20101112_AACREY chodil_k_Page_088.txt
35fe3c9c37723829242f529c24cb3f53
96a947ccdaca7f05e6bd88240ae06b352bcb7b22
48310 F20101112_AACQZR chodil_k_Page_045.pro
fecd91cdce7567f2b44e70941ffa3bc4
4af00399d7c0f066a83d9bb2f56a956ced9b9ef0
34182 F20101112_AACRGA chodil_k_Page_007.QC.jpg
d576f32de49aaf8d420cd38804370872
aaa6695e6099447079f675fbdccc1ef0a4136df6
2469 F20101112_AACRFN chodil_k_Page_104.txt
31c557f909062a214d389c94aaeaa9db
89183ccf88a61f11bcbf90d200011f622ed4a187
962 F20101112_AACREZ chodil_k_Page_089.txt
61f16462d6ed2688ddd66fc09f5ba126
e67a6edcae19231837f715ec4ed93690b7c94564
50020 F20101112_AACQZS chodil_k_Page_046.pro
16ed9c24b865b8baedd8c2fef5b78110
fd33bc7368f7fce7fc225e732c9416e3071614aa
7954 F20101112_AACRGB chodil_k_Page_007thm.jpg
4ab10bce501a4aa14b68a912af8ea196
4e566836fcdc5c4076da6d1dc2199c69f81b987e
2606 F20101112_AACRFO chodil_k_Page_106.txt
877ff78f58ca37b2d538d6535bdfdea9
dba3b1544e9abe4efa17198c12cfefb49562ccaf
48893 F20101112_AACQZT chodil_k_Page_047.pro
8f9efc2a317f46a5b1412ea831647d37
ce5afcadd58efb921ec1d19386d971ffeab074b2
5214 F20101112_AACRGC chodil_k_Page_008.QC.jpg
5a4f8b174e554c82ba024ec1a9d9bc5e
4892618b7306dfd9e02254c39bd0e3579104e44a
707 F20101112_AACRFP chodil_k_Page_108.txt
6195a6bdfaf92644bd7bf848aa5f5a54
4909af774db140457e996aa733e1b17ca1ea6770
57470 F20101112_AACQZU chodil_k_Page_048.pro
a0db6f2a33bd421737afe348047e076c
ba3c6dff2cd137371f4f369b004ad36c6a7a731e
1539 F20101112_AACRGD chodil_k_Page_008thm.jpg
f65f8e3258b70dabffc4b7d2aa69e638
4ed504ac32c8820c3a475290eb3c20557f62d0af
54285 F20101112_AACQZV chodil_k_Page_049.pro
3ffdf1838832ab01da9eff766a9814a8
e80c742f4cb71d05307c4bac04c6c4c6f0995bfd
2963 F20101112_AACRGE chodil_k_Page_009.QC.jpg
97fdddbf3487657a4420588782527824
edea7b398dd94a727fa8dd8b2b646240b8d5dcb3
567 F20101112_AACRFQ chodil_k_Page_109.txt
fa5ddbbc4f890a8e749e83b3d7ef190b
ffb31f024afcd69952d1010f7dba770ee01b45d0
56126 F20101112_AACQZW chodil_k_Page_050.pro
dcadbeb4d640a1fe2ff3a19fc9fb11ba
87c309f76ed8cee3a4a2364f48063ee6fd7e4003
1246 F20101112_AACRGF chodil_k_Page_009thm.jpg
4c3a724341ef0be3438a9c97341d92dc
c9af86018c543aa5ce774bea1b4d2baf03663c10
2051 F20101112_AACRFR chodil_k_Page_001thm.jpg
15228a4ae49c60c22fca00c4da7f4faf
b1f2925e74fa26657d23506025dabcd0aca4f95c
55750 F20101112_AACQZX chodil_k_Page_051.pro
7e343bb7e2e8d3345a26723964497b10
ade05e63a8706bd5e7a6db4a13123ca8d375f7b9
7538 F20101112_AACRGG chodil_k_Page_010.QC.jpg
2ef0045222c36c40dd54111d51892b2f
88b89aee88dbbaaba3c2f1aa1dc66c7ab70019ea
8478 F20101112_AACRFS chodil_k_Page_001.QC.jpg
8cdd2404678d470d5651a72d040cede3
68f8b4346e0dcf4b825e0f5f5178251f1ee83f9b
54612 F20101112_AACQZY chodil_k_Page_052.pro
0a0990e31516ddb66d95948908dc3dd7
5b95484e9decd0bddd8cb90550ff22629c9e97cd
2437 F20101112_AACRGH chodil_k_Page_010thm.jpg
a19e465f628a4dcc650b0eaa92282c67
764174fa00a6eaf850bcbab2be459fd5354f90d7
523 F20101112_AACRFT chodil_k_Page_002thm.jpg
e371e429eae9443eef26774b0d49a2ca
347eefbb35d4be6ca87f72d1228a36f87e43b6f1
54123 F20101112_AACQZZ chodil_k_Page_053.pro
f2877a1ddd9e4b106506aedf6feeb48b
d053e5c5616a4de3a0e126774cc2ead646403eb1
30665 F20101112_AACRGI chodil_k_Page_011.QC.jpg
cb756be94af41bf000081e071ba5038b
d9bde058afe7b5e912c7cc3f3cb91a71e31250ee
3000 F20101112_AACRFU chodil_k_Page_003.QC.jpg
ec5b49b2caea38a901fa3f3b0f497fa7
02e5148bf98d9fa106eee2f2b72a3368e559419f
7728 F20101112_AACRGJ chodil_k_Page_011thm.jpg
ace18825c94830e633c03519ae7579a0
fe52366d7ed3d58e5909a5f9d648c9eaa0f7a504
1035 F20101112_AACRFV chodil_k_Page_003thm.jpg
773b05d8a9bb9e50c7a8ace66c336999
e67cbbeec8dca1e70aded5c4d9ee98a1eeec24ab
7700 F20101112_AACRGK chodil_k_Page_012thm.jpg
f4c2e8b546ef88c18041d2b50532154c
42c98f19b11039971334a6f8436f90ee71424f89
26864 F20101112_AACRFW chodil_k_Page_004.QC.jpg
e7c7ef58ddde0aeedbd911cc10152c79
a45e1a5314477db7009a5b400c550657f72062cf
35811 F20101112_AACRGL chodil_k_Page_013.QC.jpg
0b57d0db013eea7248a2a49601398d93
e2fe523da8db136aa4298c3c839e177499a80a8f
7103 F20101112_AACRFX chodil_k_Page_004thm.jpg
69206aa00b9a8f9b33d9678560d38791
1a1dbffdf0fa765d656051193e53335bbbea722a
9178 F20101112_AACRHA chodil_k_Page_023thm.jpg
c3b8b081355472c6aead979dbf6284c8
e035777cffbb2bf83597f584a8915b613461b63d
8802 F20101112_AACRGM chodil_k_Page_013thm.jpg
e04483b3e81d6553c243f122618f95a8
c1cff250a93a713279aa16210c59b4137b4046cb
3637 F20101112_AACRFY chodil_k_Page_005thm.jpg
ba5ea053e0235a5d111a88c3daf5441c
7f34e70de2ed2c06a19b779a3e37a683c1d85222
15827 F20101112_AACRHB chodil_k_Page_024.QC.jpg
4274deb90cff2ea2d54093e052eb2061
123d2919aacff0a08a5057f4ecf7394a69e9101c
36408 F20101112_AACRGN chodil_k_Page_014.QC.jpg
4a47a1cf8ac6f1cb95120848f5bec720
fdd5604b14030d9519b5c681318f9bbcb4cf62c9
24023 F20101112_AACRFZ chodil_k_Page_006.QC.jpg
3858e7657e297af872cb8b89d3dbecb9
2d7db009c721a9e526c756b3f5c9f3ee4b1ef5f6
4024 F20101112_AACRHC chodil_k_Page_024thm.jpg
30663c82e66754eaa00dba535f690ec5
da401c1fa9a8de86d022e2bf4eb7695b9e71d7cc
8867 F20101112_AACRGO chodil_k_Page_014thm.jpg
eea20e1cdc077927f9e60d2d655a9ff0
f6fc1efbfdf3d6ae66b490babfb3f73482fa2d87
31999 F20101112_AACRHD chodil_k_Page_025.QC.jpg
64b57462a93d928b19e8761d702362a6
030554f99bd50495e3fb24b4e134acdd17befdbc
36669 F20101112_AACRGP chodil_k_Page_015.QC.jpg
d9eb8d99d9dd63ac2bfede356e4d5e01
b39247ddd9925054aac9393855b300698b80cf3c
7933 F20101112_AACRHE chodil_k_Page_025thm.jpg
e3a7bd8161874c3df0d4bc9803ba9dc7
b537580c8839396b51d8fc28f00c0074be4bb3b2
9071 F20101112_AACRGQ chodil_k_Page_015thm.jpg
048bf76c5dc6618794f0e470a256e95d
3d70f1c8d55e56e960a8c36a44da223ecd5eaf77
36667 F20101112_AACRHF chodil_k_Page_026.QC.jpg
da42c0bd7f364e89c975ec7660da767b
377e8aefd1bd66b7494912d77bf916cf34747a7a
8863 F20101112_AACRGR chodil_k_Page_016thm.jpg
cb5af1d85dcda00fa5e65eff92bd92e1
810297480bb55d6a00c4801808bcd78bf38e37b5
33540 F20101112_AACRHG chodil_k_Page_027.QC.jpg
43cc5859dba6cb1ca9c7c4e2609ed75e
613a19d0880926a233991a732c9c614032237fa0
35702 F20101112_AACRGS chodil_k_Page_017.QC.jpg
a31e54c735c64be33b23358731a42423
371d8c8fff2567398b08e0e057b93de073792a1f
8160 F20101112_AACRHH chodil_k_Page_027thm.jpg
eba998f3da3245cee83e8659a4e4561f
f6997346ccedd742aef7487b0c60308226bcc1e3
8803 F20101112_AACRGT chodil_k_Page_017thm.jpg
8743bba22f7554f70ee14d710d8ddc1c
064bcb9aa35475cf9cc5f85ddf53c314d3c86a04
34400 F20101112_AACRHI chodil_k_Page_028.QC.jpg
55c9c62aef8cf7accb401ae831391400
1e2a1017b8ec262ed49d61f339e88643e7dc8932
33784 F20101112_AACRGU chodil_k_Page_018.QC.jpg
a30ef1c531430b45eae91a163b75c6cf
c667b556da3431a28e78d3b69a6717b31f0f1491
8640 F20101112_AACRHJ chodil_k_Page_028thm.jpg
dede18800edb6101afee673b4c30c91f
6de705ddb751c826c42b26f2ee8f2d6d42cdb8cf
8384 F20101112_AACRGV chodil_k_Page_018thm.jpg
fa42d2359e189f99639142e23749443b
8721c159742305b8686309bfcb6bce25575496b4
27060 F20101112_AACRHK chodil_k_Page_029.QC.jpg
64b0de430f926e0fb8da5347c078eb2b
b077afc41745356d543b48635986ba433fa4ed67
9136 F20101112_AACRGW chodil_k_Page_019thm.jpg
1dc5a5ecf014b8ba146c7d4e7503c333
f7e685dc870f590fbadf1e0f8d6a43657dd77a09
7274 F20101112_AACRHL chodil_k_Page_029thm.jpg
3d68446e846c47c1a41f2ef5f0a2db33
f7bb5806a0a74c719c7693da18fb284523aa97ac
8375 F20101112_AACRGX chodil_k_Page_020thm.jpg
a7d83def28a5a7528367d54d24856f6b
8bae48e4e8a073cd2c50b55002d8dad917e2c26e
35282 F20101112_AACRHM chodil_k_Page_030.QC.jpg
07bf8271184de2591e3940459e7635fd
3d99109d832fbc8d43f7de387675e729eaf1d8cd
36895 F20101112_AACRGY chodil_k_Page_021.QC.jpg
8a6dab44e79bad310917e8df93aac9af
68a0309a89c34a6d5b7221225239cd0891631cad
35733 F20101112_AACRIA chodil_k_Page_038.QC.jpg
e91d65a8ba2e5e3069f9f29ab624c418
1cda476af18e7e4bd94ab9d7e0cdb0221744a889
8805 F20101112_AACRHN chodil_k_Page_030thm.jpg
3c55708690840400e19aa625def7e8a6
ddeecdb1d1be9fa350df4556f7772dd006551b79
38118 F20101112_AACRGZ chodil_k_Page_023.QC.jpg
f6e0cb51fb7fa25affc70fe8342ed69e
1c73e6553ef3af9a2c3245014cfdff58c2bd7f6e
8606 F20101112_AACRIB chodil_k_Page_038thm.jpg
e442e6d4d9c9dd1011fec406fc153b3d
c58b18e3859dfdfe13b65fa7521ecc3716da3ed5
34639 F20101112_AACRHO chodil_k_Page_032.QC.jpg
a50034d1467cbb648a3a0ae0d7a38acc
eb00885b06a361978c81d945b102edeec269cc74
33424 F20101112_AACRIC chodil_k_Page_039.QC.jpg
32e043fb7c42f9b04565516625844a8f
0ffdf721464b5d6dc3ad92fa14b8e8474baf2e8b
8455 F20101112_AACRHP chodil_k_Page_032thm.jpg
803118ea557de7f40cc2d6de0600a638
1f4d7daed1abc6d88291a196ae40e197b593d5eb
8701 F20101112_AACRID chodil_k_Page_039thm.jpg
3bcdc99af739147d7b93cc54a88762dd
64cfb750e1dec8d486770983c5021059986f8fb5
37022 F20101112_AACRHQ chodil_k_Page_033.QC.jpg
cb6d806f6cc3962cbf2955e543bb7347
18ab0eb86c5ae3908ac7dbaff643719a3e8b1fae
36497 F20101112_AACRIE chodil_k_Page_040.QC.jpg
3f1482bb811dde1d36515839d72ee15f
0e822ce594ad31897649e1e34042203a32d1e8a8
8879 F20101112_AACRHR chodil_k_Page_033thm.jpg
88c221556bf4df3c506b7839537cfbd8
311ac32ccd34f60c1a058a11927f5286272e35ba
8812 F20101112_AACRIF chodil_k_Page_040thm.jpg
c5d58122c0584447d91d8e3bdc5d2894
0c9a142e86b6aaf8307ca37ad811ca08d51a6724
33743 F20101112_AACRHS chodil_k_Page_034.QC.jpg
e7af1d9b5fe92fe1b035cdcb464c605a
66cb1676652e04292b4b6ecc2496b7848fadf180
35359 F20101112_AACRIG chodil_k_Page_041.QC.jpg
ae25952b4d74c410ec9bb23690194e52
7933847dafdf902c0c2588c0ee809ac8958a04ea
8532 F20101112_AACRHT chodil_k_Page_034thm.jpg
9bd921db176f0e4a2b8018aef780feab
1abb2126a6f36cc17d070b4180dca4ed14bbb901
8830 F20101112_AACRIH chodil_k_Page_041thm.jpg
75646e5fea9885b66e9d7bf8ff786e77
5e2b137b420bb1fc031bf606c0b7364d1cfb5900
32097 F20101112_AACRHU chodil_k_Page_035.QC.jpg
50e935216504c611d266ef65b36bb1fa
0672faea9b14764fd3efb0c0e6e85303719caa3f
34491 F20101112_AACRII chodil_k_Page_042.QC.jpg
769e15d9740fcefbba99bd8d36cfb16b
5b6902c07f01609b4b728083e12198816feb71ed
8544 F20101112_AACRHV chodil_k_Page_035thm.jpg
47981e51655c79fbe1fd95303e8d4931
0f23028b760e60d0b3046c13da1383db2fc14544
35471 F20101112_AACRIJ chodil_k_Page_043.QC.jpg
aabd3a6924a52f20893facbd0579bcdc
fc96852358aa7698a3d4e5d58d26ede9026a966e
35320 F20101112_AACRHW chodil_k_Page_036.QC.jpg
057c667b9a424e1398b577c0df0ede09
56eb99700c372a4197cdb9d69b0a5b5fdeb077c0
8820 F20101112_AACRIK chodil_k_Page_043thm.jpg
336c2740c04d612f7f1176162e104731
78eca70f417888a04a91c2eb6b40591c7d62c7a9
8903 F20101112_AACRHX chodil_k_Page_036thm.jpg
eaf6eb2f73567285bd9e58eff41944ff
01c6c459fb12c713469d70f42fb58bd678e49828
4766 F20101112_AACRIL chodil_k_Page_044.QC.jpg
b5b2b5115a69f01fbe0bb89aea02b667
2588c9b9d9b63464263afad6b83b23edcd69cf77
35012 F20101112_AACRHY chodil_k_Page_037.QC.jpg
132ac584f89a758d77d60f5c1b57a821
dba60f136042c6668f5126a8b07fa37072558c0b
36701 F20101112_AACRJA chodil_k_Page_052.QC.jpg
3b7d202d5049c9ad698b21a304c9c9e1
605e4be57a21658fed316b3242e86db89700c4c9
1239 F20101112_AACRIM chodil_k_Page_044thm.jpg
eacc83a170202846778e8c637bcd1d92
5302e0f6f065558079954fe048435ac4a7c806a3
8438 F20101112_AACRHZ chodil_k_Page_037thm.jpg
32d474b61797f6632602d6d33d551b4f
ff1d34e875e6e022981c378dc3037cfaf4067d8f
8835 F20101112_AACRJB chodil_k_Page_052thm.jpg
e91965cbac0a1a769ac4c30acd8b2f39
04d051b0d19a01383e33e68bafd24db067cb4baa
31100 F20101112_AACRIN chodil_k_Page_045.QC.jpg
90cd60110bd4be538f479b4cedefc555
1aed670a5b6a2c85352ae9977ee144bb41c9d75c
34066 F20101112_AACRJC chodil_k_Page_053.QC.jpg
6ac221447f9188463772bc4310a17bb0
298afe2ed100958d0a7d93552d0a0dd5ee6b1c01
8072 F20101112_AACRIO chodil_k_Page_045thm.jpg
f12ba492ea780861ad5cfe1f9f784eb2
4fd6e3c2fd84b3e0f5e98576b78e4c04cc2b5316
8543 F20101112_AACRJD chodil_k_Page_053thm.jpg
f530bea3328b690bf229c534f4b5c740
53c0b2226f2308cd0a366ccf62ad26896b587c9f
33341 F20101112_AACRIP chodil_k_Page_046.QC.jpg
40cde760f8d241ad8e28234ec18b57c5
d1033a351db9e181479e70e9e08157e448e47414
26309 F20101112_AACRJE chodil_k_Page_054.QC.jpg
1f9c1dfb8e9ad9737eb1de9f13f21950
320f3720dc93cc97cb54b0137345c850a7236a41
8513 F20101112_AACRIQ chodil_k_Page_046thm.jpg
687567c38c03aa0199bf02da33baa43e
5774b02ca6be26e9b89fb1514cb28236db1ea126
6353 F20101112_AACRJF chodil_k_Page_054thm.jpg
c03c684cfc4a124f89ee866003d20273
9bd9817be1c36ac1056d18aa3f0765c26be65f00
32807 F20101112_AACRIR chodil_k_Page_047.QC.jpg
ec0e1308fffabb70703d63bf75485f02
bfd82df9cf359ccfaf97b4176f71c83610138bf9
35710 F20101112_AACRJG chodil_k_Page_055.QC.jpg
d9f6e4c0c83a07b0a7eb6774aa267730
6b70a949c8f71daac6b313bcb3071da1d0554f68
8340 F20101112_AACRIS chodil_k_Page_047thm.jpg
bc47ac77b223c7155aebc3d1f9461e4e
49260ab79e082a55f60b2e95f0cbe1e5bdcc385d
8730 F20101112_AACRJH chodil_k_Page_055thm.jpg
26f4f4897d50dfb61ec3e85c135a6ae8
88e660b2f187b846f3c95e66b9aefa0dbd9d8c77
31666 F20101112_AACRIT chodil_k_Page_048.QC.jpg
f9e706886518b273fa9e671d81775732
04165139ddc0d6c8c83c558385a3fa99300fb735
30552 F20101112_AACRJI chodil_k_Page_056.QC.jpg
d74e4c4206e8993405d702c89453acf0
5ef3bde4f514b74dbe8f7fc76a1303c6307f38e4
35346 F20101112_AACRIU chodil_k_Page_049.QC.jpg
7ba7e38b8442362558c022472f97edef
1a5483df3373acb38147f1cb7451652a5fc15e20
35825 F20101112_AACRJJ chodil_k_Page_057.QC.jpg
4cbb573a59e3d3bc1049db1bd28712bb
12ea8072a29c9d8edcc60d74540d62efe5a72d33
F20101112_AACRIV chodil_k_Page_049thm.jpg
33d5678c515d29a6f1a5b197dc27c7af
82fd9c03ff5cfc08b08ec89ae4114bc2170e0b8a
8216 F20101112_AACRJK chodil_k_Page_058thm.jpg
da0babfbab426db05142e826508ce8fa
e67d9da5f4c616fa08fef3ba3fd47621fb0957fd
36213 F20101112_AACRIW chodil_k_Page_050.QC.jpg
02990c75b1e4645bae2b6f6d14a013d4
90f4f4499c6d39fdc54eb26d2f5607981af07a4f
34624 F20101112_AACRJL chodil_k_Page_059.QC.jpg
1c525e89c9023d76a50f8d1688a7179f
59bf53d408092c1e9b249bbf5363db43a73b10db
9127 F20101112_AACRIX chodil_k_Page_050thm.jpg
a93c47e7609d31eb94b7eb501b49d8ba
67c3432a1ab70e960b3f40983c37dc8df13cbfd8
9025 F20101112_AACRKA chodil_k_Page_068thm.jpg
e89ce6fae222292690eb5bd213cb8a83
06fa67fb51ba045b81aa15fc1d03fbef4cc6af34
8362 F20101112_AACRJM chodil_k_Page_059thm.jpg
612c6e21333acc81eb4102458eb6520b
72fe1922ddc3c24f3406ea8e636ade149ebc1b94
36693 F20101112_AACRIY chodil_k_Page_051.QC.jpg
4dd3ca67deb8cca3ab3cacdd9331c2bd
9626935089b849b4e078048b7fcf6198585433e1
6647 F20101112_AACRKB chodil_k_Page_069.QC.jpg
76d6f8085b0803e4b0ddb03cf3795ff0
1878286d284dd13ce3376354be0fc8e93f77431f
36038 F20101112_AACRJN chodil_k_Page_060.QC.jpg
88d63e80be4781c1ac9e2ac8e99003ba
256f6e2e32efba393ff73b44eb7d293b07d788d3
F20101112_AACRIZ chodil_k_Page_051thm.jpg
211fec331ae38f1b693c9a226ba1d420
4e99331790b738a7147530ed136378ffdf02d329
1826 F20101112_AACRKC chodil_k_Page_069thm.jpg
8b0ef04aa41deba02a4f861042b9d3e2
0a43cdb093f31a849e39d75470996b7e5c8a4935
9044 F20101112_AACRJO chodil_k_Page_060thm.jpg
4579782a4af0ba4978455a5c6e3a3c77
fe59b787b5538e28de3f65b3eeeca44f6520de8e
32226 F20101112_AACRKD chodil_k_Page_070.QC.jpg
1095b33d97e56276968032216e1a63a4
2f8759828717ef314ee487cc68e8ef12d93622cf
35916 F20101112_AACRJP chodil_k_Page_061.QC.jpg
409600c9c60aa1dfbae3a6938b72f64e
296b2065a9f9c358b472c4a9c3c461b67058172d
34671 F20101112_AACRKE chodil_k_Page_071.QC.jpg
404b3f723d104e2e161d29de5d7e20e5
59eebaef0661412c18ac3a1754200ce255cb6b31
8515 F20101112_AACRJQ chodil_k_Page_061thm.jpg
93d20d41a910dc485d1c887f89527380
c39e5f4972bccc159fe103e81a577ca7904efb17
8559 F20101112_AACRKF chodil_k_Page_071thm.jpg
c00c332332af196540390ca21fd9266f
fcdbe57caf44c1d16f687a1e61681f048b1d073b
35837 F20101112_AACRJR chodil_k_Page_062.QC.jpg
6216013414ce9738d48b4894291f6870
80d0d56fd4dee3ea02d2f13da16a388b574c50a9
36767 F20101112_AACRKG chodil_k_Page_072.QC.jpg
b3c7e530d2e41441110ba53af5cf10ba
61ac37ad8ae21472ea54d39459f9bbf4290e0dd7
9168 F20101112_AACRJS chodil_k_Page_062thm.jpg
d21c223ca18e12217ed38326c2f2ef99
367c90e57b958d25aa6109383af75cfca77a3de7
9157 F20101112_AACRKH chodil_k_Page_072thm.jpg
49b56e084920b343083cdda14daed41f
71f7f7a2e446503df805a2f5248d24f512fb47ac
35686 F20101112_AACRJT chodil_k_Page_063.QC.jpg
1ce42502a5f59a90f9d0caa029854be3
a4a4705208e71f230a227a982f9d94cc1bdf550a
34621 F20101112_AACRKI chodil_k_Page_073.QC.jpg
c8b961a6f631e110dad9f81f4d1e4f62
07880916904eb527fe79411a42f3352da51d0eab
8794 F20101112_AACRJU chodil_k_Page_063thm.jpg
4270c240434d84f2d031ff9465e3373d
e559f76ec48aac24da8c22fff59ea31192783dc3
8471 F20101112_AACRKJ chodil_k_Page_073thm.jpg
a5ec4319fa96f3d2f0f42107530e1b47
799aed0408b48c86c4b74027ab4d81f8ed14bcaa
8523 F20101112_AACRJV chodil_k_Page_064thm.jpg
05542e66185b564f89b259e29f4e7ee8
ef5799023b2edfefb21d0cd23e754220e9b23334
32590 F20101112_AACRKK chodil_k_Page_074.QC.jpg
412fcec8ea7cc6cee01f2631d184054c
d58c8e375cedf29ce160ab0bdb7510bd5e542ebd
37214 F20101112_AACRJW chodil_k_Page_065.QC.jpg
e76ca04fb5819b0ffbaeb95ffb83b23e
fa326eb218d71fdac73957e796753fbcd1d0ed12
F20101112_AACRKL chodil_k_Page_074thm.jpg
5ddf27ddb07646f519d22eb1c9860149
26a8f68aac65d8ae9b90473b0f00c18ea5e3ee3d
9165 F20101112_AACRJX chodil_k_Page_066thm.jpg
aecbf7cfe2e8fcb1a78bcb2b7a175795
431c861f61aeca6a99b97b37e7b6636c9babc0d6
8393 F20101112_AACRLA chodil_k_Page_082thm.jpg
2ae1471c8c2d6acfccb591a991d91eaa
69d96de393f276cf49cbeeb660d4de4f5aa451be
36153 F20101112_AACRKM chodil_k_Page_075.QC.jpg
c44c129e6bdaff5c8635d4e5575a1736
f4fda2b3b4d20ce88d88a8dcb73eb97cae2c723a
8561 F20101112_AACRJY chodil_k_Page_067thm.jpg
324d10eed75704588f8f9fe91a9f1a3c
195d04ea72655d28c4276318027f2afa0c4777c0
37192 F20101112_AACRJZ chodil_k_Page_068.QC.jpg
42a36f0e78661651a030702ec0677b14
79ed547ff99187b180167762c531be255adfe7d9
33672 F20101112_AACRLB chodil_k_Page_083.QC.jpg
df4742d5c2d8706539cc1942cdbbff26
2ca29962956e142cc538003f528ad66718fd8b60
8537 F20101112_AACRKN chodil_k_Page_075thm.jpg
2c3d44a8d4c6d2f057e361ddc1930949
ddb0cdda8c25d1daaa14e53284f0c2f9d093a69a
8424 F20101112_AACRLC chodil_k_Page_083thm.jpg
5c287b83345b6d6231ce61248c82736d
21a6be48a55f6447d22ec38658eff89e5b3ea8cf
36287 F20101112_AACRKO chodil_k_Page_076.QC.jpg
56e377291869c1a5a491593e7e1edeae
ff5f1aaafabe7ad5bd55d380c000d068cdc02a45
36357 F20101112_AACRLD chodil_k_Page_084.QC.jpg
117d01f147e17537a3999a8a907deb33
a5598e71e76f52cf3b17a60bff01431097adc731
9153 F20101112_AACRKP chodil_k_Page_076thm.jpg
f5f3bfe32def26d6450bfff8ed3f59d4
d6602fe0546fea83192a0f2a8864ba80ddd1aa84
9048 F20101112_AACRLE chodil_k_Page_084thm.jpg
c06e1f72182f8a3003f240172e1ef4a4
afb10a8b3493954b14048a4e9c38499f033b06fd
36816 F20101112_AACRKQ chodil_k_Page_077.QC.jpg
99f9501dedee1fa40e1a2c6ffac06180
1303fc5c7bbc43b5d90b83533afab3a9b527ff59
34828 F20101112_AACRLF chodil_k_Page_085.QC.jpg
5f8b0fd21f25cc94ca7424f27ae20201
c28f8f33c298f77de5c722cd0c9ad42c00a4d30d
9108 F20101112_AACRKR chodil_k_Page_077thm.jpg
1a4dd0623367a8be85e98e45ba594358
eb0c1bc8e346af8ecd1feeaeebece53771d80fad
8729 F20101112_AACRLG chodil_k_Page_085thm.jpg
6603ef88e7a31c9958cf4a8ef3e59c70
d7209b37a2daf280f517fe59558284ca9b59482b
35316 F20101112_AACRKS chodil_k_Page_078.QC.jpg
fe2fe6e160ec4667042a32847729f64a
518afeee6f2f6f29ec112371e5edbd5a9bc99d93
35351 F20101112_AACRLH chodil_k_Page_086.QC.jpg
d2d75de04370344c161da9d0556ecc69
8dfb2dfc8137198706f35c0593c1f5a993b9bc29
8613 F20101112_AACRKT chodil_k_Page_078thm.jpg
73f352ea3571ecc36eff8eabf147fc10
a1e902fbebbcd88a58ee5bd448976e636b268ea4
8683 F20101112_AACRLI chodil_k_Page_086thm.jpg
ed53a6e825bbe1cedea55be57e3beaa7
62aad37c6adefb00044d53b7bd8e16fcea0ded45
36465 F20101112_AACRKU chodil_k_Page_079.QC.jpg
f5f8ac50437ed22e62f1a5a87cfe447c
b968851d068d88ce3755a976c228d3700a2fc3f6


Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0020157/00001

Material Information

Title: Naturally Confused: A Focus Group Study Describing Selected Consumers' Perceptions of All-Natural and Organic Pork
Physical Description: Mixed Material
Copyright Date: 2008

Record Information

Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
System ID: UFE0020157:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0020157/00001

Material Information

Title: Naturally Confused: A Focus Group Study Describing Selected Consumers' Perceptions of All-Natural and Organic Pork
Physical Description: Mixed Material
Copyright Date: 2008

Record Information

Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
System ID: UFE0020157:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text





NATURALLY CONFUSED: A FOCUS GROUP STUDY DESCRIBING SELECTED
CONSUMERS' PERCEPTIONS OF ALL-NATURAL AND ORGANIC PORK




















By

KATHERINE CHODIL


A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF SCIENCE

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA

2007

































2007 Katherine Chodil
















To Mom, Dad, Scott, Brian, and Wrigley: The people and one dog who will always love me, no
matter what.









ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This master's thesis is the culmination of the best and most challenging 2 years of my life

(so far). During this time, many people made this thesis a conquerable feat. They deserve much

more than a simple acknowledgment.

I thank my Mom and Dad for supporting me financially and emotionally through my

poorly-paid years. Their support and pride in all that I do gives me motivation to exceed even my

own expectations.

I thank Jennifer Doup-Smith for helping me discover my niche in agricultural

communications. Without her down-to-earth advice and encouragement, I would not be where I

am today.

Dr. Nick Place provided keen insight into areas I would have not otherwise considered in

my thesis topic. His input made the scope and recommendations of my thesis relevant to all the

right researchers and practitioners.

I thank Dr. Ricky Telg for his attention to detail in writing and structure. Because of him,

my writing abilities and thesis have improved ten-fold. After all, it's not only the quality of the

research that makes a thesis strong, it is the writing style and ability to clearly communicate it.

I thank Dr. Tracy Irani and Courtney Meyers for their advice, encouragement, and constant

reassurance that I could do this. Your confidence in me was exactly what I needed to complete

my thesis.

I thank Brian Estevez for daily hugs, work disruptions, office baseball, and always being

there for me in a bind. I would have gone crazy without the joy he brings to the batcave day in

and day out.









To my wonderful colleagues, Elio Chiarelli and Carrie Pedreiro, thanks for walking

through the fire with me. Having the both of them by my side was the key to my success. And

let's face it, our theses rocked.

I thank Brian Abrams for cooking, cleaning, walking the dog, and bringing me flowers

throughout the busiest months. He is my strength on the toughest days. I'm so lucky to be

marrying the man of my dreams.

And last, but not least, to all of my friends in Rolfs Hall, thanks for every Gators

experience, Chipotle Fridays, office shenanigans, random get-togethers, and a bit okay, usually

a lot, of laughter every day. They are all the greatest friends I could have ever hoped for.










TABLE OF CONTENTS

page

ACKNOWLEDGMENT S .........4..... ...............
ACKNOWLEDGMENTBLES ......................................................................................................................


LIST OF FIGURES .................................. .. .... ..... ................. 10

A B S T R A C T ........................................... ................................................................. 1 1

CHAPTER

1 INTRODUCTION ............... .......................................................... 13

State ent of the Problem ................................................. ...... ................. 16
Significance of the P problem ................................................................................ ........... 20
Purpose of the Study and Research Questions .................................................................... 21
A ssu m p tio n s ..................................................................................................................... 2 2
L im itatio n s ................... ...................2...................2..........
D definition s of K ey T erm s ........................................................................ .. ....................... 23

2 R E V IEW O F L ITER A TU R E .................................................................... ...... .................25

T theory of P planned B ehavior................................................................................. .... ..... 25
Means-End Theory ................................. .. ... .... ................... 28
Risk Perceptions ............................. ..... ..... ........................... 30
Consumer Perceptions of Quality, Price and Value Model..................................................33
Organic and N natural Pork Quality Perceptions ........................................... .....................36
T aste P perception s ................................................................................ 37
Price/V alue Attitudes ............................. .. ...... .......... .......... .. ..38
Organic and Natural Claims Labeling Perceptions ..................................... .................40
S u m m ary ................... ...................4...................3..........

3 METHODOLOGY ............................. ...................... ........45

D design of the Stu dy ............. .................................................... ...................4 5
Screening Process and Subject Selection ........................................ .......... ............... 47
Instrum entation/Q questioning R oute................................................................. ................... 48
P ro ced u re ................... ...................4...................9..........
D ata C o lle ctio n ................................................................................................................. 5 1
Data Analysis................................................. ........ .........52
Credibility, Transferability, Dependability, and Confirmability .............. ............. 52
Summary of Methodology ......................................................................54






6









4 R E SU L T S ....................................................... 55

Perceptions of A ll-N natural and O rganic .................................. ............................................ 57
Skepticism Surrounding All-Natural ......................... ....................57
All-N natural M means "N o".......................................................................... ............... 58
All-Natural Pork Associated with Animal W elfare................................. ... ..................59
Organic M means "H healthy" .............................. ... .......................................... 59
O organic Equated w ith Produce......... .................. .................................. ............... 60
O organic Foods Cost M ore ................... ............... ....... ....................................... 61
Reactions to USDA Standards for Organic and Policy for Natural Claims .........................61
Confusion Surrounding Differences between USDA Standards and Guidelines............61
Making the Information Clearer to Consumers.......................................................63
Taste Perceptions of All-Natural Pork........ .................................................. 63
All-Natural Boneless Pork Loin Tastes Better............... ... .... ................64
D offering Taste Expectations ...................... .... ................... ................... ............... 64
D offering Taste Preferences ...................... .. .. ......... ........................... ............... 65
Results from Taste Questionnaire .......................... ......... ....... .................... 66
Taste Perceptions and Willingness to Pay for All-Natural Pork Products ...........................67
Taste Influences W willingness to Pay.......................................... ........... ............... 67
Su m m ary ...... ......... .. ............. .. ........................................................ 6 8

5 D IS C U S S IO N ...................... .. ............. .. .......................................................7 0

K ey F in d in g s ..................................................................................................................... 7 0
Conclusions........ ............................................. ......... 71
Perceptions of All-Natural and Organic ............................................ .......... 71
Perceptions surrounding all-natural ....................................................... 71
Perceptions surrounding organic ..................... .............. ............................ 73
Reactions to USDA Standards for Organic and Policy for Natural Claims ....................74
Taste Perceptions of All-Natural Pork ............ .......................................75
Willingness-To-Pay as Influenced by Taste Perceptions .................................... 77
Im p licatio n s .............................. ...... ...................................................................7 8
Perceptions of All-Natural and Organic................................. .. ...... .............. 78
Taste Perceptions and Willingness to Pay for All-Natural Pork ............ ............. 81
R ecom m endations.. ......................... .................................................. 82
Practice ........................ ..................... .. ... .....................82
F utu re R research .............................. .. ......... ............ ................. ... ......................... 86
Summary of Conclusions, Implications, and Recommendations .......................................87

APPENDIX

A IRB APPROVAL................. .................................. .......90

B ALL-NATURAL PORK FOCUS GROUP SCREEN QUESTIONNAIRE .............................92

C INVITATION LETTER TO SELECTED PARTICIPANTS...................... .....................94

D MODERATOR GUIDE AND QUESTIONING ROUTE ............................................. 95









E TASTE TEST SURVEY FEEDBACK FORM ......................................... ...............100

L IST O F R E F E R E N C E S .................................................................................. ..................... 102

B IO G R A PH IC A L SK E T C H ......................................................................... .. ...................... 109



















































8









TABLE

Table page

4-1 D em graphics of focus group participants ........................................................................56









LIST OF FIGURES


Figure pe

2-2 Hierarchal value map of associations of Danish consumers with perceived attributes
of organic pork ............................................................................29

2-2 T otal food quality m odel.......................................................................... ....................35

3-1 Handout for participants regarding USDA policies for organic and natural claims..........48









Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science

NATURALLY CONFUSED: A FOCUS GROUP STUDY DESCRIBING SELECTED
CONSUMERS' PERCEPTIONS OF ALL-NATURAL AND ORGANIC PORK

By

Katherine Chodil

May 2007

Chair: Tracy Irani
Major: Agricultural Education and Communication

Consumers' concerns about food production have encouraged the rapid growth of the

organic and natural meat markets in recent years. A variety of labeling and claims are used to

address these concerns. Among those are the certified organic label and the all-natural claim.

During the time consumers' interest in organic was increasing, the niche pork market emerged.

Niche pork producers may use the all-natural claim on labeling to differentiate and add value to

their products. However, value is only added as much as the target consumers perceive all-

natural products to be better. This study focused on consumers' perceptions of the terms

"organic" and "all-natural" as used on pork products.

The purpose was to use focus groups to describe a representative sample of selected

consumers' perceptions of pork products with an all-natural or organic label. To achieve this

purpose, focus group discussions addressed the following objectives: 1) Determine participants'

perceptions of the terms "organic" and "all-natural" in reference to pork products, 2) Determine

participants' reactions to the United States Department of Agriculture organic standards for meat

production and policy for natural claims, 3) Determine participants' taste perceptions of all-natural

pork products, and 4) Determine participants' attitudes toward the price of all-natural pork products

as affected by tasting all-natural pork.









The research design was qualitative in nature. Participants associated the term "all-natural"

as used on pork products with perceptions of production and processing aspects, including hogs

that are raised outdoors without the use of antibiotics or growth hormones, fed higher quality

food, and no use of preservatives or chemicals in the final pork product. Results of this study

showed that participants had positive perceptions of both organic and all-natural pork products,

with some exceptions regarding taste, price, and trust in the information source. Participants

were particularly skeptical of the term "all-natural" on pork package labeling. The only obvious

differing perceptions between organic and all-natural was that organic also means no pesticides,

is regulated by the government, costs more money, and is associated more with produce rather

than meat. After participants reviewed and discussed a handout with the USDA standards for

organic meat production and policy for natural claims, observations indicated that the USDA

definition for all-natural did not corroborate with the participants' definition of the word on meat

packages.

Participants generally had positive taste perceptions of all-natural pork products and

perceived an all-natural pork sample to taste better than a conventional/unlabeled sample in a

double-blind taste test. However, participants had differing taste expectations of all-natural pork

products during the double-blind taste test. One of the focus groups expected all-natural pork

products to taste inferior to conventional pork, while the other expected all-natural pork products

to taste better. Overall, participants perceived a minimal amount of value in the term "all-

natural" in isolation, but favored and were willing to pay a premium for all-natural pork products

if they preferred the taste.









CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

Consumers today are bombarded with labels and claims that are intended to address their

concerns about how food products are produced, processed and regulated. Among those are the

"natural" or "all-natural" claims and the certified organic label. With producers, marketers and

consumers of organic food regularly using the concept of natural and naturalness to characterize

organic (Verhoog, Matze, Lammerts Van Bueren, & Baars, 2003), the consumer may

understandably be confused by the seemingly different contexts in which natural claims are used.

An increase in consumers' interest and confusion about organic products during the 1990s

led to the institution of the U.S. Department of Agriculture National Organic Program in October

2002 (California Institute for Rural Studies, 2005). These standards were established to assure

consumers that so-labeled products are produced, processed, and certified to meet the consistent

national organic regulations (National Organic Program, 2002a). The organic standards provide a

set of guidelines for food to be labeled organic that affect the growing, handling, and processing

of organic food. For organic meat production, the standards prohibit the use of antibiotics and

growth hormones, require animals to be fed 100% organic feed, and require animals to have

access to outdoors and access to pasture for ruminants. The organic label is considered a certified

label, whereas "natural" claims are upheld by USDA policy. The term "natural" (or all-natural)

refers only to the processing of meat once the animal is slaughtered. It is defined by the USDA

as containing "no artificial ingredients, coloring ingredients, or chemical preservatives; and the

product and its ingredients are no more than minimally processed" (Food and Safety Inspection

Service, 1999).

Consumers' concerns for food that is healthy, safe and ethically produced are often equated

with organic. Concern for human health and safety motivates consumers to buy organic food as









insurance and/or investment in health (Yiridoe, Bonti-Ankomah, & Martin, 2005; Zehnder,

Hope, Hill, Hoyle, & Blake, 2003). These concerns have encouraged the rapid growth in the

organic and natural food markets in recent years. Once limited to a small number of retail stores,

organic foods are now available in natural supermarkets, conventional supermarkets, farmer

markets, and discount club stores (Dimitri & Greene, 2002). Since 2000, most organic foods

have been purchased in conventional supermarkets.

Overall, most studies report that consumers purchase organic foods because they perceive

them as safer, healthier, and more environmentally friendly than conventionally produced foods.

Consumers' perceptions of the merits of a production system are highly likely to influence their

perception of the quality of a product produced from such a system (Edwards, 2005). Price, lack

of knowledge, lack of trust, and limited availability are the major reasons preventing non-buyers

from purchasing organic (Yiridoe, et al., 2005; California Institute for Rural Studies, 2005). In

the organic food market, fresh produce is the top-selling category, followed by nondairy

beverages, breads and grains, packaged foods, and dairy products (Dimitri & Greene, 2002).

Although not in the top-selling categories, organic meat is the fastest-growing segment of

the $14 billion organic food business. From 2004 to 2005, organic meat sales went up 55% to

$256 million, but organic meat accounts for only 0.22% of overall meat sales (Organic Trade

Association, 2006). According to ACNielsen LabelTrends (as cited in Moran, 2006), natural

labeled meat sales in mass merchandiser stores have nearly doubled since 2003 to $681.3

million. The growing organic and natural meat markets suggest that factors relating to the

production of meat may be a consideration in consumer purchasing decisions.

Pork consumption has been on the rise since the late 1990s and is expected to continue

rising as the U.S. population grows. A report from the USDA Economic Research Service









covered the factors affecting pork consumption in the United States. Pork ranks third in meat

consumption and totals to about 51 pounds per person annually. Per person, fresh pork accounted

for an average of 38 percent of all pork consumed and processed pork accounted for 62 percent.

Pork chops hold the largest share of the fresh pork market, while smoked ham is the most

commonly consumed pork in the U.S. (Davis & Lin, 2005).

During the time consumer interest in organic was increasing, U.S. market hog prices fell

to historically low levels, leading to the establishment of niche pork markets in the late 1990s.

The market decrease in 1998 adversely affected both small and large pork producers, but

"smaller scale producers competing in the open market faced a particularly dire situation"

(Wheatley, p. 18, 2003). Niche markets are a viable solution for smaller producers, because some

of these markets capture a higher dollar, while requiring less capital-intensive methods of

production. To capture this higher dollar, niche pork products claim product differentiation in

two general ways superior or unique product quality and social or credence attributes

(Honeyman, et al., 2006). All-natural pork is part of the niche pork market. Niche pork producers

use the term "natural" or "all-natural" in different ways and it varies from producer to producer.

Natural could mean the pork was processed in accordance with the USDA's natural claims

policy, or it could refer to raising the pig "naturally," meaning, for example, without the use of

antibiotics or growth hormones and raising outdoors (Nichepork.org, 2006).

Producers may switch to organic or "natural" production based on a combination between

their agricultural philosophy and market forces. Attitudes are significant in determining producer

conversion to organic farming systems and consumer purchase behavior, and there are many

commonalities among attitudes (McEachern & Willock, 2004). Producers' attitudes toward

animal welfare, chemical use, and sustainability are certainly activators of their decision to









convert to organic farming systems. However, the market forces are particularly important to

farmers as well. The USDA Economic Research Service (2005) reports that many U.S. producers

embrace organic farming to lower input costs, conserve nonrenewable resources, capture high-

value markets, and boost farm income, especially as prices fall for staple commodities.

"Obstacles to adoption by farmers include high managerial costs and risks of shifting to a new

way of farming, limited awareness of organic farming systems, lack of marketing and

infrastructure, and inability to capture marketing economies" (para. 4). An additional barrier is

the cost of the services from the National Organic Program, which is required to sell food with

an organic label. Meat producers seeking to capture a piece of the high-value natural and organic

food market may appeal to consumers by incorporating some organic production techniques and

processing within the natural claims policy.

Understandably, producers want to use legitimate production and/or processing claims to

capture a piece of the high-dollar market for such products. However, coupling those claims with

the term all-natural may have led to consumer confusion. An article in the New York Times

sums up the issue by stating,

Probably the most confusing and fungible word in all of food labeling is the term "natural."
When it is applied to meat, it can signify many things -that the animals were not given
antibiotics or hormones, that they were not fed rendered animal byproducts and that they
lived a happy life outdoors. Or it could mean almost nothing (Warner, 2006, p. C4).

Statement of the Problem

The labeling of natural pork products may influence consumer perceptions of production

practices related to animal welfare and avoidance of hormones or antibiotics. The USDA has

recognized that many individuals regard these conditions as an integral part of "natural" labeling

even though such statements remain independent of the policy regarding the use of the term

"natural" (Food and Safety Inspection Service, 1999).









Much of the meat that is labeled with claims to address consumer concerns about

environmental, livestock care, and human dietary issues meets the "natural" label requirements

(Honeyman et al., 2006). These claims may include "raised outdoors" and/or "no antibiotics,"

which are integral parts of organic livestock production. As a result, the average consumer may

not perceive a clear difference between "organic" pork and "natural" pork. Consumers associate

no hormones and no antibiotics with the natural label, at least in the case of beef (Diel &

Associates, 2001). The average consumer is probably not aware that the USDA Food and Safety

Inspection Service prohibits the use of growth hormones in raising hogs for consumption (2006).

Pork labels are not allowed to claim "no hormones added," unless it is followed by the statement

federal regulations prohibit the use of hormones. Producers attempting to further differentiate

their all-natural pork product may add the statement "no hormones added" even though that

particular aspect of their production methods does not truly differentiate their product. However,

unless the consumer is aware that federal regulations prohibits the use of hormones in pork

production or reads the fine print, for them that claim may differentiate the product from others.

Recent research shows that consumers are becoming more aware of labeling alluding to how the

food was produced or processed, but their knowledge of what the labels exactly mean (i.e., the

standards or policies set by the USDA to certify or verify the food for a certain label) lag behind

their general awareness (California Institute for Rural Studies, 2005). Although consumers'

perceptions and understanding of the organic label has been explored, there have not been any

studies on natural claims used on meat labeling. Exploring consumers' perceptions of the terms

"all-natural" and "organic" will offer insight into how the use of these on meat labels affects

their attitudes toward those products and how the claims influence their purchasing decisions.









Discovering perceptions of both terms offers a comparison so that we can describe the gaps and

overlap between the two.

The media are an important source for food-related information (Frewer, Howard,

Hedderley, & Shepherd, 1996). Arguably, the media's role in communicating about food labels

specifically is highly important. By design, a food label or claim does not communicate exactly

what it means (i.e., standards for that label). It merely identifies or differentiates a certain type

food product, whether it be organic, all-natural, or free range. The government standards,

policies, and regulations for food labels are too comprehensive and are not written in a widely

accessible manner. Thus, it partly falls upon the duty of the media to inform the consumers about

food labels and what they mean. However, the mass media do not typically use objective sources

when reporting about organic-labeled foods. Government regulators and scientists are rarely

cited for information in these news stories. Journalists focus on controversy in science topics like

agricultural production and therefore cite sources with a personal opinion about organic

production when communicating about these foods (Meyers & Chodil, 2006). Agricultural

communicators specialize in communicating about food production and products, and have

access to government regulators and agricultural producers for more objective knowledge and

information. This research has particular implications for agricultural communicators who are

often called upon to bridge the knowledge gap between agriculture and the public and to develop

marketing plans for agricultural products. These professionals are familiar with government

regulations and producers' practices with regards to all-natural claims and organic labeling. They

need to understand consumers' perceptions of organic and all-natural in order to communicate

about these products in a way that resonates with consumers.









The number of large pork producers continues to increase, while the number of small

producers continues to decrease. Regardless of size, lack of profits to sustain expansion plans is

expected to be the largest growth-limiting factor (Lawrence & Grimes, 2000). "Environmental

regulations and lack of market outlets are the next most highly ranked obstacles to growth.

Market outlets are more important for smaller producers and environmental regulations are more

important for larger producers" (p. 6). Looking for ways to continue operations, smaller-scale

producers have been entering niche markets by offering value-added pork products. A group of

10 producers in Florida and southern Georgia are part of these smaller producers that have joined

together under the brand name Madison Farms All-Natural Pork to explore the marketing

opportunities in value-added pork products (F. Hall, personal communication, November 15,

2006). This group of small producers contracted with an agricultural marketing company that

decided to pursue market research with a representative sample of consumers. The agricultural

marketing company decided to work with University of Florida researchers to provide Madison

Farms All-Natural Pork with unbiased, rigorous research results. Adding value is a customer-

oriented concept -value is only added to food products to the extent that target consumers

actually perceive these products as better (Grunert, 2005). For this reason, the group of producers

sought to learn a representative sample of Florida consumers' perceptions of all-natural pork to

develop marketing plans for the southeastern United States.

The largest niche pork marketers reside in the north central United States, which may

explain why much of the marketing and consumer research regarding niche market pork

attributes has been localized to the central and western regions of the United States. About 68%

of the U.S. hog herd resides in the Corn Belt area, where they have access to that region's

abundant supplies of feed grains and soybean meal (Davis & Lin, 2006). The southeastern









United States has 20% of the hog herd, which is the second largest concentration in the nation.

Pork consumption is highest in the Midwest, followed by the South (Davis & Lin, 2005). Pork is

an integral part of the distinct cuisine in the southern United States and a staple ingredient in

Southerners diets (Egerton, 1993). The prevalence of the hog industry and pork consumption in

the southeastern United States makes it a good location to explore consumers' perceptions.

Significance of the Problem

Marketing natural products as higher quality than conventional products has a unique set of

challenges.

The challenges of marketing natural products once consumer preferences have been
determined are not clear. The underlying issue of the market information problem is
quality signaling. If producers can not differentiate their product, securing premiums for
the unique bundle of attributes their product may offer consumers cannot be achieved
(Grannis & Thilmany, p. 477, 2002).

Natural pork products attempt to signal quality to consumers through credence attributes,

which are attributes that can not be assessed before purchase or after its use. Consumers' demand

for quality increases as more products encompass credence attributes, but quality signaling to

consumers is difficult with these products (Auriol & Schilizzi, 2003). Previous research has

demonstrated that quality signaling is most easily accomplished through the use of a certified

label (Caswell & Mojduszka, 1996; Auriol & Schilizzi, 2003). There is no such thing as a

"certified natural" label. The claim must be true in accordance with Food and Safety Inspection

Service policy, but there is no formal inspection for that claim. Discerning consumers'

perceptions of risk, trust, and quality associated with organic and all-natural pork is crucial for

effective marketing and communication about these products and their attributes. Although

perceptions of organic have been explored in previous studies (Yiridoe, Bonti-Ankomah, &

Martin, 2005) perceptions of natural claims have not.









Research has found that many consumers are willing to pay 3 to 10% more for natural pork

products and/or pork products with credence attributes, such as raised outdoors, no antibiotics, or

family-farm raised (Grannis & Thilmany, 2001; Dransfield, et al., 2005). Studies have shown

consumers are paying at least 10% to over 100% more for organic food (Dimitri & Oberholtzer,

2005; Dimitri & Greene, 2001). Since price is the prominent barrier for most consumers, a

premium around 5% for natural fresh pork may be more appealing. Discovering the value

consumers perceive in those products that makes them willing to pay more will help agricultural

communications marketing professionals communicate the quality of those products. The rapid

growth of the organic and natural meat market signifies a change in consumers' preferences, so it

is important to understand their perceptions of such labeled meat. Beyond that, exploring how

the prevalence of organic foods has affected consumers' perceptions of the natural claim may

suggest ways in which producers can add value to their product, help food regulators determine

future adjustments in policy, and help agricultural communicators communicate about these

labels in a way that resonates with consumers.

Purpose of the Study and Research Questions

Consumer trust in information about food-related risks is related to perceptions of

accuracy, knowledge, and concern for public welfare. Research suggests the media are the most

trusted source of food-related risk information while trust in information from industry sources

(such as marketing) is hindered by perceptions of selfish, economic interests (Frewer, Howard,

Hedderley, & Shepherd, 1996). To be effective, marketing strategies and government regulations

and policies for organic and all-natural food must consider consumers' attitudes and/or social or

cultural characteristics.

The purpose was to use focus groups to describe consumers' perceptions of pork products

with an all-natural or organic label. Previous qualitative studies show that consumers have high









expectations for the quality of pork with credence attributes, but are often confused by what the

claims mean (Ngapo, 2003; Bredahl & Poulson, 2002 & Scholderer, et al., 2004). Based on the

purpose of this study, the following research questions were developed to guide the study.

* RQ1: What are the perceptions of a representative sample of consumers toward the terms
"organic" and "all-natural" in reference to pork products?

* RQ2: What are their reactions to the USDA organic standards for meat production and
policy for natural claims?

* RQ3: What are their taste perceptions of all-natural pork products?

* RQ4: How do their taste perceptions affect their attitudes toward the price of all-natural
pork products?

Assumptions

An important assumption in this study is the general lack of knowledge and understanding

of the standards and policies behind meat labels and claims. A study on the impacts of the

organic standards surveyed 1,000 households nationwide and found that only 37.1% of

Americans are aware of the National Organic Program standards, while their understanding of

what the standards entail varied (California Institute for Rural Studies, 2005). Yet 74.3% believe

USDA organic labeled food is better for the environment, 70.2% feel is safer, 64.8% believe it is

healthier, and 45.9% believe it is more nutritious. Another assumption is that consumers are

projecting these beliefs associated with organic food on to food labeled as "natural." Diel &

Associates (2001) found that an average of 64% of consumers associate no antibiotics and no

hormones with all-natural beef products.

Limitations

Most of the limitations in using and analyzing focus groups are the downsides of the

advantages. First, the small number of participants in focus groups limits the ability to generalize

the findings to a larger population. However, the goal of qualitative research is to gain a deep









understanding of people's concerns, beliefs, attitudes, lifestyle, motivations, and behavior.

People communicate those most appropriately through their own words, which is the benefit of

the open-ended discussion format of focus groups. Qualitative methods intend to gather deep

insights on a particular topic and gain a rich, detailed understanding of people's thoughts.

Second, the location of the focus group typically means that participants will only come from the

local area, in this case, the Gainesville, Florida area. Third, responses from participants are not

independent of what other group members say, but arguably focus groups are a more accurate

representation of reality (Krueger, 1994). People's opinions are influenced by what they learn

from other people. Fourth, analyzing the data is difficult because of the focus group's open-

ended question format (Krueger, 1998). The researcher must be objective and cautious when

analyzing results to ensure comments are interpreted within the context they were meant.

Definitions of Key Terms

* Accountability: "Being answerable to audiences for fulfilling obligations, duties, and
expectations" (Sinclair & Irani, 2005, p. 61).

* All-natural: Synonymous with "natural" under USDA policy for natural claims; this was
the term used throughout the focus group discussions.

* Credence attributes: Quality attributes of a product that can not be assessed by the
consumer before or after use and affect products' perceived quality only so much as
consumers' trust in the claims; for example, a label on a pork product indicating "raised
under environmentally friendly practices" would be considered a credence attribute (Darbi
& Karni, 1973; Scholderer et al., 2004).

* Conventional: Refers to food production or food products that are produced in ways that
would not qualify the final food product for the natural claims, production claims (e.g., no
antibiotics, no hormones, etc.), or the USDA organic label.

* Free range: Can only be used on poultry packaging in the United States and refers to
raising the poultry in conditions where they have access to the outdoors.

* Natural: Defined by the USDA under the policy for natural claims as containing "no
artificial ingredients, coloring ingredients, or chemical preservatives; and the product and
its ingredients are no more than minimally processed" (Food and Safety Inspection
Service, 1999).









* Niche pork products: Pork products that claim superior or unique product quality and
credence attributes (Honeyman, et al., 2006). All-natural pork is considered a niche pork
product.

* No antibiotics: Animals raised without the use of antibiotics

* Organic: Refers to any food qualifying for the USDA certified organic label under the
National Organic Program standards. For organic meat production, the standards prohibit
the use of antibiotics and growth hormones, require animals to be fed 100% organic feed,
and require animals to have access to outdoors and access to pasture for ruminants
(National Organic Program, 2002a).

* Perceived quality: The consumer's judgment about the superiority or excellence of a
product (Ziethaml, 1988).

* Perceived value: Highly personalized and thus varies for individuals; the definitions
grouped into four categories are "(1) value is low price, (2) value is whatever I want in a
product, (3) value is the quality I get for the price I pay, and (4) value is what I get for what
I give" (Ziethaml, 1988, p. 13).









CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF LITERATURE

The theoretical framework for this study includes the theory of planned behavior, the

means-end theory, and theories related to risk perceptions. All three areas of theory offer

explanations of attitude formation, motivation, and behavior in consumer decision making with

regard to natural and organic foods. These theories contributed to the analysis of the results. This

study also draws on previous studies in perceptions of food quality, perceptions of taste, price-

value attitudes, and perceptions of organic and natural foods.

Theory of Planned Behavior

The theory of planned behavior both explains and predicts behavioral intentions. The

theory states that a person's behavioral intention is essentially determined by three factors: the

attitude that the person holds towards the behavior; the degree of social pressure felt by the

person to perform or not perform the behavior; and the degree of control that the person feels he

or she has over performing the behavior. Attitudes are formed based on an individual's positive

or negative belief about performing a behavior and the evaluation of the outcomes as good or bad

of that behavior, referred to as behavioral beliefs. The subjective norm is predicted by an

individual's perception and motivation to comply with social norms, referred to as normative

beliefs. Similarly, control beliefs determine an individual's perceived control to perform or not

perform a given behavior. In the theory of planned behavior, attitudes, subjective norm and

perceived control have a direct effect on behavioral intention (see Figure 2-1). Although

dependent on the application, the more positive the attitude and subjective norm with respect to a

behavior, and the greater the perceived control, the stronger the intention is to perform the

behavior (Ajzen, 1991).









Copyright 0 2006 I ek Aizen


Behaviur-GI A tt it Lide
ad ie f S: Towai4d lh#
Behavior-


Nort tive Sub'ec ive
Beliefs or"



contral Perceived
6011'efs Behavioral
Control


Figure 2-1. A model diagram of the theory of planned behavior (Ajzen, 2006).

The theory was originally developed to explain social behaviors, but has since proved

applicable to explain consumers' food choice (Sparks, Conner, James, Shepherd, & Povey, 2001;

Scholderer, Bredahl, & Magnusson, 2004). Shepherd (1999) contends that it generally affords

good prediction of behavior, and can be used to determine the relative importance of different

factors in influencing food choice. Bredahl, Grunert, and Frewer (1998) found that attitudes

toward buying genetically modified food are determined by perceived attributes and

consequences of buying and consuming that product, and by the attitude the person has toward

food production in general. With food products, perceived behavioral control is based on a

person's competence in judging risks and benefits of a product in purchase situations, and on

time and access to those products. Using the theory of planned behavior to research Danish

consumers' attitudes toward fresh fish before an advertising campaign revealed some of the

perceived barriers to actually purchasing fresh fish. Scholderer and Grunert (2001) showed that

the theory is still useful in situations when consumers' food purchase intentions are inconsistent

with their actual behavior. The inconsistency may indicate that situational factors, such as

labeling, shelf positioning, and packaging, play a predominant role.


-









The theory of planned behavior can be applied to describing consumers' purchasing

behavior in regard to organic and all-natural food. The three factors of this theory could be

applied to this topic as: personal attitudes toward organic and all-natural foods, social and

cultural factors, and the degree of personal involvement in food purchases. Social and cultural

factors (subjective norms) may be viewed as related to the cultural definition of "natural" in

terms of pork production, the increasing prevalence of these products in supermarkets, and/or

family status (e.g. "What do I want to feed my family?").

Sparks and Shepherd (1992) found that self-identity plays an additional role in the theory

of planned behavior. Consumers that identified themselves as "green consumers" were more

likely to have intentions to purchase organic food. Self-identity affected their intent to purchase

organic food independently of attitude, subjective norm, and perceived behavioral control. This

fourth factor in the theory of planned behavior can be applied in this study to help understand

how consumers' proclaimed self-identity as "regular organic foods shoppers" affects their

intention to buy all-natural pork. These consumers may buy all-natural labeled foods because it

has become a central aspect of their self-concept.

Bentler and Speckart (1979) added past behavior as another independent variable that

influences behavior in the theory of planned behavior. These researchers postulate that behaviors

may be habitual and therefore not controlled by intentions. Food choices and purchase behavior

may become habitual for many consumers since it is a regular occurrence in their lives (as cited

in Eagly & Chaiken, 1993). As a result, organic food shoppers may not consider other options

simply because they have always bought organic foods since the point in time when they made

the conscious decision to do so.









Means-End Theory

The means-end theory (Gutman, 1982) is complementary to the theory of planned

behavior, as it also reveals motivations behind consumers' decisions. The theory is based on the

assumption that consumers purchase products because of perceived benefits from using the

product. The theory brings together the cognitive oriented and motivational oriented

perspectives to provide a framework for studying and explaining consumer behavior. The

cognitive perspective of consumer decision-making focuses on the consumer's knowledge of a

product in terms of its attributes and functional consequences (Reynolds & Olson, 2001). Within

this perspective, food purchasing decisions are evaluated by the consumer's knowledge of a

particular food's nutritional consequences. The motivational perspective focuses on consumers'

personalities, lifestyles, and motivations to study their behavior. Again, in food purchasing

decisions, research from this perspective would look at how a consumer's self-schema as a

"healthy eater" affects their purchasing decisions. The means-end theory argues that attributes,

consequences and values are not independent precursors of attitude or behavior. "A product

attribute is not relevant in and by itself, but only to the extent that the consumer expects the

attribute to lead to one or more desirable or undesirable consequences" (Brunso, Fjord, &

Grunert, 2002, p. 8).

The means-end chain illustrates the links between product attributes, consequences, and

values, where the means is the product and its functional consequences and the end is the

fulfillment of life values. In simpler terms, the product's attributes and the results of its use are a

means to an end. "The end is a personal need, goal or value that reflects the perceptual

orientation of the consumer and shows how he or she translates a seemingly inconsequential

product into an object having deep personal relevance and importance" (Reynolds & Olson,

2001, p. 217).










Bech-Larsen and Grunert (1998) used the means-end chain model to assemble a hierarchal

value map of Danish consumers' perceived attributes, consequences, and life values associated

with organic pork (as cited in Scholderer, et al., 2004). Hierarchal value maps summarize

qualitative interviews across participants/consumers to show how consumers translate the

attributes of products into meaningful associations with respect to the self (Reynolds & Olson,

2001). The results indicate that consumers' perceived attributes of organic pork, such as "pigs

are reared properly," "less, no use of antibiotics, chemicals," and "more expensive," are related

to perceived functional consequences and result in fulfilling their life values. The hierarchal

value map is shown in Figure 2-2.


Feel good about self,
pleasure, happiness (n=23)
Good conscience,
sense of duty, ethics (n=9)

Family well-being, Good health and
security (n=7) a i:nng li-r n ,

Need to do
other things (n=9)
Decent treatment
of animals (n=13)

avoid illness (n=23)

save money (n=16)

\Better taste
of meat (n=11)



Pigs are reared e ( God, natural, non-animal Leaner Le no se
properly (n=16) Moe expensive (n=22) pig(n=)meat(n= of antibiotics, Better qul
chemicals (n--20) of meat (n=8)


Figure 2-2. Bech-Larsen and Grunert's (1998) hierarchal value map of associations of Danish
consumers with perceived attributes of organic pork. (Cited by Scholderer et al.
2004)









"Means-end theory provides one of the most powerful premises for developing a customer-

focused communications strategy" (Reynolds & Olson, 2001, p. 216). Peter and Olson (1994)

argued that consumer involvement grows when marketers bring out personally relevant

psychological and sociological reasons for consuming their products, and consequently,

involvement can be manipulated by marketing programs (as cited in Reynolds & Olson, 2001).

Although the intentions of this study are not to build a means-end chain, the theory helps

explain how consumers translate all-natural and organic pork product attributes into functional

consequences that relate to their life values or self-schema. It may be the case that attributes of

these products appeal to consumers' family status role (mother, care-taker, protector, etc.),

beliefs regarding of animal welfare, and/or identity as an organic foods shopper.

Risk Perceptions

Consumer behavior is shaped by risk perception. Risk analysis theory falls within the

psychometric paradigm, which explains the psychological basis of people's perceptions of risk.

The theory suggests that laypersons evaluate risk qualitatively in rich detail based on perceived

control and understanding of the risk, whereas experts tend to evaluate risk empirically focusing

on probability and severity of the risk (Slovic, 1987). In people's subjective evaluation of risk,

nine general properties of activities or technologies emerge: (1) voluntariness of risk, (2)

immediacy of effect, (3) knowledge about the risk by the person who are exposed to the

potentially-hazardous risk source, (4) knowledge about the risk in science, (5) control over the

risk, (6) newness, i.e. are the risks new and novel or old and familiar ones, (7) chronic/

catastrophic, (8) common/dread, i.e. whether people have learned to live with and can think

about the risk reasonably and calmly, or is it a risk that people have great dread for, and (9)

severity of consequences (Fischoff, Slovic, Lichtenstein, Read, & Combs, 2000).









Perceptions of knowledge, newness, or unfamiliarity, and the potential immediacy of

consequences are highly correlated with consumer perception of food risk (Yeung & Morris,

2006). Food risk perceptions are conceptualized in terms of risk to human health, the

environment, the economy, animal health, and future generations (Miles & Frewer, 2001).

Ethical concerns about food production practices and food safety also encourage public food risk

perceptions. Communication about risks must be a two-way process between the expert and

public for optimal effectiveness (Slovic, 1987). Understanding public perception of risk provides

insight into effective food safety and risk communication and how the public will react to new

technology (Knox, 2000). Risk is often an unavoidable product of advances in science and

technology, and the science of agriculture is no exception. Agricultural communicators regularly

engage in risk communication when informing consumers about agricultural production and

processing practices and their impact on the food system.

Several studies have found the level of trust to be closely related to risk perception (Biel &

Dahlstrand, 1995). Both risk and trust perceptions in the case of food are seen as

multidimensional; they are dynamic and continuous rather than a static phenomenon (Miles &

Frewer, 2001; Yee, Yeung, & Morris, 2005). McGuire (1985) explained that trust is determined

by the extent to which an institution or information source is perceived as credible and honest (as

cited in Frewer, Kole, Van De Kroon, & De Lauwere, 2005). Trumbo and McComas (2003)

found that "higher credibility for industry and the state directly predicts lower risk perception,

whereas high credibility for citizen groups predicts greater risk perception" (p. 343). However,

with food risk perceptions, the persuasive content of the message and the type of risk have a

greater effect on the number of risk-relevant thoughts than source credibility (Frewer, Howard,

Hedderly, & Shepherd, 1997).









Dependence on the media, particularly newspapers and television news, for food safety

information is also correlated with greater food risk perception (Tucker, Whaley, & Sharp,

2006); however, the media are the most trusted for food-safety related information (Frewer,

Howard, Hedderley, & Shepherd, 1996). Media tend to focus on the unknown when

communicating food risk and describe it in qualitative terminology (Frewer, Raats, & Shepherd,

1993). Food additives, in particular, are heuristically reported as bad and related risk statements

are often unqualified.

In a focus group study of organic and conventional produce buyers, the organic food

consumers cited several risk factors to explain their purchasing behavior. These risks include the

fear of ill effects related to pesticide residues, growth stimulants, and fertilizers (Hammitt, 1990).

The perceived risk from pesticides and the uncertainty surrounding genetically modified food are

incentives for consumers to purchase organic foods (Gifford & Bernard, 2006). This study

intends to reveal related perceived risks that may emerge as incentives to purchase all-natural

labeled meat.

Theories of risk perception may help us understand why consumers prefer to buy natural or

organic meat to avoid those risks. Risk perceptions may be amplified by the increasing

prevalence of these products in grocery stores. The "no" repetition associated with natural claims

(e.g., no chemical additives, no preservatives, no antibiotics) may be telling the consumer that

those are food risks. Other forms of risk perception associated with livestock production are the

risk to the environment, society morals, and animals, better known as ethical risks. Ethical risk

perceptions are gaining importance, but typically rank below health and meat safety risk

perceptions (Verbeke & Viaene, 2000). However, pork and poultry come up most often when

consumers perceive risks to animal welfare. It may be the case that when marketers use all-









natural to refer to the raising of the pig, invoke images of pigs happily rooting around outdoors

and offer pictures of families as the producers, consumers assume extreme opposites for pork

without such labels.

Consumer Perceptions of Quality, Price and Value Model

Consumers' perceptions of price, quality, and value and how they are related aid in

conceptualizing the cognitive processes in consumer decision making. Ziethaml (1988) proposes

a means-end model of price, quality, and value that defined and related the concepts from the

consumer's perspective. Essentially it is an extension of Gutman's means-end model.

Quality is broadly defined as superiority or excellence. Ziethaml's model emphasizes

perceived quality rather than objective quality, where perceived quality is the consumer's

judgment about the superiority or excellence of a product and objective quality is the actual

technical or manufactured quality. However, Ziethaml argues that at some point, all quality is

perceived. With food products, quality is most affected by experience because most quality

perceptions are contingent upon handling and consuming the product. "Expectations of product

quality are formed based on evaluations of available cues regarded by the consumers as reliable

indicators of the quality of the product" (Scholderer, Bredahl, & Magnusson, 2004).

Quality cues at the point of purchase are most often extrinsic qualities, such as brand,

labeling, and price, and during handling or consumption is when quality cues are intrinsic

qualities (Olson 1978; Ziethaml 1988). Consumers make assumptions about intrinsic values

based on information from extrinsic cues (Olson, 1978). For example, an organic label on a

package of potato chips may generate the belief that "it is probably more nutritious for me."

Consumers rely on extrinsic attributes in initial purchase situations when they cannot evaluate

the relevant intrinsic attributes of a product or when evaluation of intrinsic cues requires more

input than the consumer perceives is worthwhile (Ziethaml, 1988).









Darbi and Kami (1973) offer the term "credence attributes" for quality attributes of a

product that can not be assessed by the consumer before or after use. For example, a label on a

pork product indicating "raised under environmentally friendly practices" would be considered a

credence attribute. Whether or not credence attributes signal good quality depends on

consumers' trust of the claims. If consumers do not trust all-natural claims, then they do not

signal good quality.

Extrinsic attributes can signal value to a consumer. Consumers' definition of value is

highly personalized and thus varies for individuals. The definitions grouped into four categories

are "(1) value is low price, (2) value is whatever I want in a product, (3) value is the quality I get

for the price I pay, and (4) value is what I get for what I give" (Ziethaml, 1988, p. 13). Perceived

value affects how consumers view the quality of a product and whether or not they will purchase

it.

Grunert, Larsen, Madsen, and Baadsgaard (1996) build on Ziethaml's model (1988) and

others to present a total food quality model, shown in Figure 2-2. The model shows how extrinsic

and intrinsic cues, cost, and expected quality determine the purchase decision. The model also

shows the relationships between expected quality, preparation, consumption, and future

purchases.

Although the total food quality model has not been tested per se, it provides a common

framework for various tested approaches to food quality perception, including the means-end

approach. The model has proved useful in providing structure for examining and explaining food

safety and quality (Grunert, 2005). The focus groups contributing to the development of the total

food quality model also revealed four major dimensions of food quality, which appear to be

universal in Western industrialized countries. Brunso, Fjord, and Grunert (2002) call them taste









and appearance, health, convenience, and process. Health as a food quality is perceived by how it

affects an individual's health. It also encompasses safety and risk-related perceptions.


Figure 2-2. Grunert, Larsen, Madsen, and Baadsgaard's (1996) total food quality model.


"Convenience means the saving of time, physical or mental energy at one or more stages of

the overall meal process: planning and shopping, storage and preparation of products,

consumption, and the cleaning up and disposal of leftovers" (p. 9). Process, or the way a food is

produced, has become of particular importance to consumers even when it has no bearing on the

taste or healthiness of a product. This quality dimension covers organic production, concerns for

animal welfare, the environment and so on. "This quality dimension is also a credence

characteristic, since the consumer must rely totally on guarantees about production-oriented

quality from various sources" (Brunso, Fjord, & Grunert, 2002, p. 9). These dimensions of

quality are related and can vary from product to product. With respect to all-natural and organic

pork, it may be the case that consumers base perceptions of quality on the beliefs they have about









how the production or processing method affects the quality in terms of taste and healthiness.

The healthiness aspect of pork is an important quality to consumers, and natural production

techniques are closely related to the health quality (Scholderer, Bredahl, & Magnusson, 2004).

Models of consumers' perceptions of quality are applicable to understanding consumers'

perceptions of the quality of all-natural and organic pork and how those quality perceptions are

related to perceived price and value of those products. The model helps us understand how the

perceived quality of all-natural pork is assessed by the consumer, how consumers encode price,

and how price and value play into perceptions of quality.

Organic and Natural Pork Quality Perceptions

Ngapo, et al. (2003) used focus groups to obtain insights into decision-making toward

fresh pork purchases and pig production using consumers in France, England, Sweden, and

Denmark. At the point of purchase, salient extrinsic quality cues were fat cover, price, country of

origin, place of purchase, weight, and date of packing or "best before" date. Other labels on pork

indicating how the pigs are raised were confusing to consumers and many distrusted the limited

information available at the point of purchase.

Grannis and Thilmany (2001) surveyed 1,370 consumers in Colorado, New Mexico, and

Utah to determine what pork production practices are important to them. The pork attributes

studied were no small or crowded pens, no antibiotics, no growth hormones, grazing managed to

protect streams, grazing managed to protect endangered species, and animals born and raised

within 250 miles. No use of hormones and no use of antibiotics had the highest average rating,

while the "local" attribute had the lowest average rating. Antibiotics and hormones may have

been rated highly by consumers surveyed by Grannis and Thilmany because those aspects are

perceived as a health risk to consumers in the United States (Hwang, Roe, & Teisl, 2005).









Bredahl and Poulsen (2002) analyzed focus group data to report how consumers defined

high quality pork. Salient intrinsic quality cues were defined as good taste, tenderness, juiciness,

freshness, leanness, and healthiness. Above all, high quality pork had to taste good. The

researchers also revealed a perceptual link between production method and pork quality, where

consumers perceived pork from pigs raised outdoors to be of higher quality than pork from pigs

raised indoors. Scholderer et al. (2004) found a "halo" effect in consumer quality expectations of

pork with credence attributes, meaning the credence attributes partly became experience

attributes for the consumers. The study concluded that as long as the differences between quality

expectations and quality experiences are small enough, quality expectations raise the level of

experienced quality.

Taste Perceptions

The reasons consumers make food purchasing choices are quite complicated. When

determining preference for one food over another, it is difficult to distinguish between effects

caused by an actual difference in the attributes of a food product and effects caused by

individuals having preferences for different attributes. Preferences for meats are most strongly

affected by changes in color/appearance and texture (Risvik, 1994). Whether or not niche market

pork production affects sensory qualities of pork is not clear. Edwards (2005) found a majority of

studies evaluating taste differences between pigs raised outdoors and pigs raised indoors have

shown no difference in juiciness or tenderness, and no studies showed a difference in meat

flavor.

Scholderer et al. (2004) found that credence attribute labeling affected consumers'

perceptions of the taste of fresh pork. In taste testing, consumers perceived pork chops labeled

"free range" or "organic" to have higher eating quality than pork chops left unlabeled or labeled

"conventional." When comparing the same pork without labels, consumers consistently









perceived the organic pork chops to have a slightly lower eating quality. The study reported that

consumers have high expectations of pork labeled as organic or free range.

Sensory evaluation is the science of judging and evaluating the quality of a food by the use

of the senses, i.e. taste, smell, sight, touch and hearing (Oregon State University Food Resource,

1998). Researchers in the field of sensory evaluation have expressed the need to include sensory

evaluation into marketing strategies because taste is an individual experience affected by a

number of things, including cultural influences, psychosocial influences, situational variables

and expectations (Cardello, 1995b).

Jaeger (2006) proposed synthesizing research in communication and marketing with

research in sensory evaluation to enable a more complete understanding of the non-sensory

factors that influence consumers' relationships with and decisions regarding food. Integrating the

two fields of research reveals that non-sensory factors, including convenience, price, production

technology, personal health, branding, and societal issues do account for some aspects of

consumers' food related behaviors (Jaeger, 2006).

Price/Value Attitudes

Estimating willingness to pay (WTP) yields beneficial information for agricultural

marketers and policy-makers. Various methods attempting to model realistic considerations for

obtaining consumers' WTP for quality and safety attributes have been a major stem of

agricultural economics research (Grunert, 2005). When scanner data is available, hedonic pricing

methods are used to obtain WTP. Hedonic pricing measures values of the individual

characteristics of a product by looking at how the price people are willing to pay changes when

the characteristics change. When scanner data is not available contingent valuation, experimental

auctions and conjoint analysis are popular methods for obtaining WTP (Grunert, 2005).

Conclusions from WTP studies should be taken with caution, because consumers' price









involvement or awareness is related to many factors. Consumers do not always know or

remember actual prices, so they encode prices in a way that is meaningful to them. For example,

organic and natural foods are encoded by consumers as "expensive" rather than in terms of

actual price. Many food purchases are part of habitual behavior and may not involve a lot of

conscious thought at all (Grunert, 2005).

Price is one of several extrinsic cues available to consumers to judge quality. Ziethaml

(1988) defines price from the consumer's perspective as what is given up or sacrificed to obtain a

product, which includes monetary, time, search and psychic costs. However, Ziethaml's review

of research indicates that the use of price as an indicator of quality varies among consumers. In

categories where quality variation is expected (i.e., cars, jewelry, refrigerators), price may

indicate quality. Where products differ little in price, the consumer may not attribute high quality

to slightly higher cost, as is generally the case with food items.

While price is an important factor in consumer decision making, several studies have

shown that attributes, such as taste, appearance, tenderness, and leanness rank above price in

meat purchasing decisions (Food Processing Center, 2001, Diel & Associates, 2001; Dransfield,

et al., 2005).

A national study of 1,200 consumers in Australia found that organic food preference was

not related exclusively to higher income. The decision to purchase conventional or organic food

relied on a myriad of considerations such as personal preferences, beliefs and practical issues of

cost, availability, and convenience. For organic consumers, the most motivating purchase factors

were health and natural content of foods followed by price. Ethical concerns for the environment

and treatment of animals were rated equivalent to price in overall importance (Lockie, Lyons,

Lawrence, & Mummery, 2002).









Cues to a product's intrinsic attributes, such as all-natural, produced without hormones or

lean labels, affect consumers' perceptions of its quality (Zeithaml, 1988). Consumers are

generally willing to pay more for pork products with labels using terms positively associated

with pork production, such as family-farm raised, no antibiotics, no hormones, and

environmentally friendly production practices (Freese, 2000; Hurley, Miller, & Kliebenstein,

2006; R Parker & Associates, Inc. & Ashcraft Research, 2005). A survey of consumers in north

central U.S. found that 34% of respondents were willing to pay a 10% premium for all-natural

products. However, a consumer would need to be convinced that it is worth a premium of 15, 20,

or even 25% to buy organic and/or all-natural meat because food safety, tenderness, and taste

rank above price (Food Processing Center, 2001). An online survey of 200 female consumers

found that price was the most influential factor in purchase decisions of niche pork products, and

49% of respondents ranked price above every other attribute tested (R Parker & Associates, Inc.

& Ashcraft Research, 2005).

Grannis and Thilmany (2001) used market surveys to estimate consumer willingness-to-

pay for natural pork products in Colorado, New Mexico, and Utah. They found that a significant

proportion of respondents were willing to pay a 9% premium for natural ham and a 10%

premium for natural pork chops. A study with European consumers found that consumers were

willing to pay about 3% extra for pork when all characteristics of appearance and labeling stating

"home country produced" and "raised outdoors" were available. After tasting the labeled

product, they were willing to pay between 4% and 10% more (Dransfield, et al., 2005).

Organic and Natural Claims Labeling Perceptions

"In the United States, the federal government is increasingly using informational labeling

as a means of shaping (a) consumers' knowledge, purchasing patterns, and use practices, and (b)









manufacturers' product offerings and marketing practices" (Caswell & Mojduszka, 1996, p.

1248).

Patchwork methods of organic certification and consumer confusion about organic food in

the United States resulted in the implementation of national standards for the production and

labeling in the National Organic Program. Since most producers see organic certification as a

marketing tool, labeling guidelines are one of the most important sections in certification

standards. Most of the differences in labeling guidelines and certification systems were relatively

minor, except in the area of livestock production. The uniform national standard for organic

significantly impacts the market by increasing buyer confidence (Fetter & Caswell, 2002).

Consumers want to be assured their food is safe and organic food is often equated with

safer food. Perceptions of food safety and risk typically relate to concern about food production

technologies. In the United States, concern is highest for pesticides and hormones, followed by

antibiotics, genetic modification, and irradiation (Hwang, Roe, & Teisl, 2005). The USDA

organic regulations address these concerns and the USDA certified organic label distinguishes

the food as free of those perceived risks. The United States government frames the organic label

as a "marketing label," and rejects the idea that organic food production would have relative

advantages to the environment, health or food quality (Bostrom & Klintman, 2003). The organic

label, natural claims and production technique claims are not meant to differentiate the food as

safer, but unintentionally, they may have. Government regulations have typically been used to

distinguish between safe and unsafe foods; therefore, organic standards could give consumers the

impression that conventionally produced foods are unsafe (Klonsky & Tourte, 1998).

The organic label signals quality to the consumer because it is certified by a reputable

certification agent whom consumers trust -the USDA. Previous research has demonstrated that









quality signaling is most easily accomplished through the use of a certified label (Zarkin &

Anderson, 1992; Caswell & Mojduszka, 1996; Auriol & Schilizzi, 2003). "Certification may be

defined as a process whereby an unobservable quality level of some product is made known to

the consumer through some guarantee system, usually issued by a third independent party"

(Auriol & Schilizzi, 2003, p. 10). Organic products overcome the problem of quality signaling

because they are certified by the USDA. Natural meat products differentiating themselves

through claims on labeling such as "raised outdoors," "fed natural feed," and "family-farm

raised" have difficulty signaling quality. These claims on pork labels are often confusing and

mistrusted by European consumers (Ngapo, et al., 2003). Distrust in food product claims results

if the information source is perceived to be promoting their own vested interests or are perceived

as unaccountable or over accountable to others (Frewer, et al., 1996).

Quality labels, like "all-natural," is a fuzzy category that covers many different things

(Grunert, 2005).

Quality labels can be awarded by manufacturers, groups of manufacturers, retailers,
government bodies, and independent organizations, for example, consumer associations.
The criteria for awarding the labels can be very strict or almost non-existent. Some labels
refer to very specific qualities, such as the labels indicating organic production, whereas
others are intended as general quality labels (p. 378).

Studies on consumer perceptions of pork with credence attributes found that consumers

prefer an abundance of information on packaging labels; however, just giving consumers more

information will not reduce asymmetry when consumers do not feel confident about using the

information (Grunert, 2005). Although quality labels are important to differentiate a product and

demand a higher price, consumers may need other quality cues more familiar to them, such as

the color of the meat, date of packaging, visible fat content, and taste to be convinced of its

quality.









Summary

The variation in pork producer-set standards for all-natural and consumer confusion about

the meaning of the term is reminiscent of the patchwork of state and regional standards for

organic. One package of pork labeled as all-natural may only refer to the processing as USDA

policy stipulates, while its shelf neighbor may use it to refer to various production techniques as

well. Understandably, producers want to use legitimate production/process claims to capture a

piece of the high-dollar market for such products. However, coupling those claims with the term

all-natural may have led to consumer confusion about the meaning of the term. The USDA

National Organic Program website (2002b) and the NichePork (part of National Pork Board)

website (2006) address the question of natural versus organic, so the policy-makers and

marketers are aware of this confusion. Studies have shown consumers are not aware of the

standards behind production and processing claims and often mistrust and are confused by those

claims (Ngapo, et al., 2003; California Institute for Rural Studies, 2005). The prevalence of

natural and all-natural labeled meat products exceeds the prevalence of organic labeled meat

products. Consumers are generally willing to pay more for these products, but need to be

convinced of their quality (Freese, 2000; Hurley, Miller, & Kliebenstein, 2006; R Parker &

Associates, Inc. & Ashcraft Research, 2005). Understanding consumers' perceptions and

intentions to buy all-natural pork products is important for differentiating these products and

developing effective marketing plans around signaling good quality to consumers. Exposing the

confusion consumers may perceive over the term "all-natural" is helpful to regulatory bodies and

policy makers if they seek to build credibility for pork products that use the term and for those

that do not. Perceptions consumers have surrounding all-natural pork products can be explored

in-depth through focus group methodology. In Europe, the use of focus groups has proven









effective in revealing consumers' perceptions of pork with various production and processing

claims (Bredahl & Poulsen, 2002; Ngapo, et al., 2003; Scholderer et al. 2004).









CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY

A review of the literature demonstrates that consumers generally associate organic labels

and production claims (i.e., no antibiotics, raised outdoors, locally grown) on pork packaging

with perceptions of quality in terms of taste and price/value (Dransfield, et al., 2005; Npago, et

al. 2003; Grannis & Thimany, 2002). However, pork with production claims on the labeling may

not be perceived by consumers as signaling quality, because the claims are often mistrusted and

confusing (Npago, et al. 2003). The "all-natural" claim, in particular, has not been explored

using focus groups, nor has it been explored in comparison to the organic label. The purpose of

this study was to utilize focus group methods to describe consumers' perceptions of pork

products with an "all-natural" label and gather their reactions to marketing materials for these

products.

After reviewing the literature, four research questions were developed as follows:

* RQ1: What are the perceptions of a representative sample of consumers toward the terms
"organic" and "all-natural" in reference to pork products?

* RQ2: What are their reactions to the USDA organic standards for meat production and
policy for natural claims?

* RQ3: What are their taste perceptions of all-natural pork products?

* RQ4: How do their taste perceptions affect their attitudes toward the price of all-natural
pork products?



Design of the Study

This study was qualitative in nature, using focus group methodology to explore a sample of

consumers' perceptions of the terms "organic" and "all-natural" in reference to pork. A

qualitative study was determined to be most appropriate to answer the research questions posed

in this study. Qualitative studies intend to explore and describe complicated topics in rich detail.









They can be used to illustrate what has already been uncovered through quantitative methods or

lay the groundwork for more rigorous investigation. In qualitative studies the researcher is the

instrument, which allows for flexibility as unforeseen, related information emerges (Guba &

Lincoln, 1989). Focus groups are one way to achieve the purposes and goals of qualitative

research.

Focus group discussions create a process of sharing and comparing among the participants

to provide the context and depth behind their thoughts and experiences (Morgan & Krueger,

1998). "Focus groups can provide insight into complicated topics where opinions or attitudes are

conditional or where the area of concern relates to multifaceted behavior or motivation"

(Krueger, 1994, p. 45). This type of research methodology is representative of reality because

open-ended questions allow participants to respond in their own words. The focus group

discussion format encourages interaction among participants and allows people to change their

opinions based on discussion with other participants. The moderator also has flexibility to further

probe unanticipated areas related to the topic that would otherwise not be discovered using a

more structured questioning design. Focus groups have high face validity because the technique

is easily understood and results are presented in an uncomplicated format (Morgan & Kreuger,

1998).

The conversations among participants in focus groups are particularly useful for

understanding behavior and motivation. Focus groups may not always reveal deep motivational

insights, but they can show that "people may be less logical, less thoughtful, and less organized

than expected" (Morgan & Krueger, 1998, p. 58). The ability of the moderator to both direct and

follow the discussion is useful to get participants to articulate their motivations, feelings, and









opinions. The participants also bounce ideas and questions off each other, allowing them to

become more explicit about their own views.

Screening Process and Subject Selection

The University of Florida's Institutional Review Board approved this research study prior

to the screening process and focus group meetings (Appendix A). A series of two focus groups

were conducted in Gainesville, Florida, on July 15, 2006. In first week of July 2006, the

University of Florida Survey Research Center recruited participants from Alachua County in

north central Florida using standard random digit telephone dialing techniques. The screening

questionnaire (Appendix B) used to identify participants for the focus group sessions emphasized

the importance of potential participants' insights and opinions on the topic of all-natural pork.

Questions were asked to ensure the participants would be familiar with food packages and also

willing to engage in the taste-testing portion of the focus groups. The questionnaire identified

people who were the primary purchasers of food for their households and meat (including pork)

eaters. Questions about age, race, ethnicity, gender, and income were asked to ensure that groups

were diverse. Participants were also offered a $50 incentive as compensation for participating in

the focus groups.

A total of 19 participants were recruited nine for the first session and 10 for the second

session. Morgan and Kreuger (1998) recommend over-recruiting to achieve an ample number of

attendees. A personalized invitation was sent one week before the focus group session (Appendix

C) and each participant was telephoned the day before the session to remind them of the session

and determine if they would attend. These tactics emphasized the importance of their

participation and helped increase actual attendance.










Instrumentation/Questioning Route

The questioning route (Appendix D) used in both focus group sessions was peer-reviewed

by members of the Agricultural Education and Communication Department familiar with focus

group procedure to ensure its quality and validity. Wording, structure, and order were carefully

chosen to maximize effectiveness and to ensure unbiased language. Included in the questioning

route was time to review and discuss a single-page handout listing the USDA's organic standards

and natural claims policy as they apply to meat (see Figure 3-1) in the same language available

to and intended for consumers on its websites.



USDA "Natural" Standards for Meat Products USDA "Organic" Standards for Meat Products


* No artificial ingredients

* No coloring ingredients

* No chemical preservatives

* Product and ingredients minimally
processed (minimally processed means the
raw product is not fundamentally altered,
such as most fresh meat/poultry)

* Label must explain the use of the term
"natural" (such as no added colorings or
artificial ingredients; no hormones)


Fed 100% organic feed

Vitamin and mineral supplements allowed

No growth hormones or antibiotics

Vaccines allowed to keep animal healthy

Producers may not withhold treatment for a
sick or injured animal, but if the animal is
treated with a prohibited medication (e.g.,
antibiotics) it may not be sold as organic

Animals must have access to outdoors, but
may be temporarily confined only for health
reasons, safety, animal's stage of
production, or to protect soil/water quality

Processing and packaging must be done in
a way to prevent mixing the organic product
with non-organic products and prohibited
substances

The above standards set by the USDA National
Organic Program apply to any farm or handling
operation that wants to sell an agricultural product
as organically produced.


Figure 3-1. Handout to focus group participants regarding USDA policies for organic and natural
claims. Standards for "Natural" obtained from USDA Food and Safety Inspection
Service (1999) "Natural and organic claims." Standards for "Organic" obtained from
USDA National Organic Program (2002a).









During the development of the questioning route, this was the only information available.

Since then, the USDA Food and Safety Inspection Service (2006) redesigned its website

pertaining to meat and poultry labels and included the information that "federal regulations

prohibit the use of hormones" in pork production on the same page that defines the term

"natural" (para. 18-19). The handout was designed so that it could be read relatively quickly and

with ease to make certain the session stayed within the approximate two-hour time constraint. It

was not provided until after an initial discussion of the terms "organic" and "all-natural" to

ensure the information would not affect participants' original perceptions.

Taste-testing was also incorporated into each focus group to obtain participants' taste

perceptions and to see whether or not tasting the product affected their price attitudes and

willingness to pay for all-natural pork products. A survey feedback form (see Appendix E) was

designed to gather each participant's reaction to each pork sample before they discussed their

reactions with the rest of the group. This was done to help the participants think about the taste

of each sample and record their thoughts for discussion.

Procedure

On July 15, 2006, the researchers conducted two focus groups in Gainesville, Florida, with

a total of 15 participants (seven in one session and eight in the other). Participants included eight

females and seven males; ages ranged from 22 to 66, with white and African American ethnic

representation. The ideal focus group size is six to ten participants because this size range

provides enough difference in opinions to stimulate a discussion (Morgan & Kreuger, 1998).

Two focus groups in the same setting is the minimum needed for validity. Each session lasted

two hours and the moderator followed standard focus group procedures (Krueger, 1994; Morgan,

1997). The moderator used a structured questioning route to provide consistency between the

two sessions (Morgan, 1997).









Each session began with explanations of the purpose of the focus group and brief

instructions. Before getting into formal questions, general introductions encouraged participants

to become comfortable in the group setting and also identified the characteristics the participants

shared. Participants were first asked to provide information about their food and meat shopping

behaviors. These questions were intended to promote conversation among all participants.

Discussion then centered on participants' understanding of the terms "organic" and "all-natural"

and then narrowed in on those terms in reference to pork products. Following unaided discussion

questions, participants were provided a single page handout listing the USDA's organic

standards and natural claims (Figure 3-1) to gather their opinions about the standards and policy

for organic and natural labeled meat.

In the second half of each session, participants engaged in affective testing (one component

of sensory evaluation or sensory analysis). The purpose of affective testing is to gather subjective

data of the product being evaluated (Bopp, 1997). The first taste test was a comparison of an all-

natural pork loin sample to a conventional pork loin sample. For the purpose of this study,

"conventional" is used to describe pork products that were not produced in ways that would

qualify them for all-natural or organic status. The all-natural pork used in consumer testing was

natural pork (in accordance with USDA policy) from pigs raised outdoors, and produced with 1)

no antibiotics or growth-stimulant hormones, 2) no meat by-products in feed, and 3) growers

following an animal welfare protocol. Participants were only told they were comparing an all-

natural pork sample to a conventional pork sample. This taste test was a double-blind taste test in

that neither the participants nor the moderator knew which product was the all-natural pork.

Once both samples had been tested, the moderator asked participants to compare the two

pork loins to determine which one they preferred and decide if there was a difference between









the two samples. After tasting each sample, each participant recorded initial reactions on a

survey feedback form (Appendix E). Participants were then told by the chef which sample was

the all-natural pork loin and the moderator asked for reaction. Following the comparison taste

test, participants tasted all-natural ground pork and all-natural spare ribs with no comparison

samples. Again, participants recorded initial reactions on a survey feedback form. Following

each taste test, the moderator asked participants for their reactions about the products tasted.

The moderator then led participants in a price threshold exercise with four cuts of pork

(loin roast, chops, ground pork, and spare ribs). For each cut, the moderator showed the price per

pound for the all-natural product and the conventional product. Participants were then asked for

their reaction to the price difference and how many would be willing to pay for the all-natural

product (as it was always more expensive).

At the end of each session, the moderator briefly summarized the main points of the

discussion, watching participant body language for agreement, hesitation, or confusion, and

asked if the summary was accurate and allowed for comments and questions (Krueger, 1998).

Before leaving, participants received $50 compensation for their time and a package of the

client's all-natural boneless pork loin. They were not aware they would be additionally

compensated with the pork product until after the completion of session.

Data Collection

The focus group sessions were recorded using audio, video, and field notes. During the

discussion, the moderator took brief notes and two assistant moderators took detailed notes,

including body language and complete statements from participants. The assistant moderators

and videographer remained unobtrusive to the focus group discussion. The moderator kept track

of which participants were not speaking often and occasionally addressed them directly to elicit

insights from all participants. This tactic also helped the more reserved participants become more









comfortable speaking. Video recordings offered further analysis of body language, tone, and

caught audio for the few quotes that were unclear during audio cassette transcriptions.

Data Analysis

After each session, the assistant moderators and moderator collaborated in a debriefing

discussion to be sure all of the main points were understood and recorded, and discussed

reactions and key themes. This also helped identify differences between the two sessions.

Sessions were transcribed and analyzed by using Glaser's (1978) constant comparative

technique. Researchers looked for common themes, similarities and dissimilarities, observations

of non-verbals, interactions, and reactions to product and price threshold stimuli. Transcripts

were coded for themes, and categories created. As themes emerged, they were compared to

existing categories to look for common relationships. New categories were created for distinct

themes that did not fit existing categories.

Credibility, Transferability, Dependability, and Confirmability

Credibility in qualitative studies is equivalent to internal validity in quantitative studies. It

involves how well the research accurately represented the insights and opinions of the

participants (Ary, Jacobs, & Razavieh, 2002). This study achieved credibility through consensus

by conducting peer debriefing with colleagues familiar with focus group methodology

throughout the development, implementation, and analysis of this study. Colleagues were

provided raw data and the researcher's analysis to corroborate findings. Focus group participant

feedback was also elicited at the end of each session to confirm the accuracy of the main points.

To control for bias in the analysis, the researcher conducted negative case sampling by looking

for themes and examples opposite of expectations. For example, the researcher expects

consumers to be uninformed about the USDA policy for all-natural labels, so by looking for

examples of participants' knowledge of the definition of "all-natural" the researcher employs









negative case sampling. This technique "makes it more difficult to ignore certain information"

(Ary, Jacobs, & Razavieh, 2002, p. 454).

Transferability is analogous with external validity in quantitative studies and refers to the

generalizability of qualitative findings. The ability to apply this study's findings to other groups

of people in different places and at different times, depends on how well the findings fit with the

other contexts. This study did not aim for generalizable findings. Instead, the goal was to

understand the topic in-depth. The results of this study applied to different contexts will require

judgments and comparisons by the potential user (Ary, Jacobs, & Razavieh, 2002).

Dependability is similar to reliability, but instead it addresses the consistency of the data

analysis over time. The researchers met this criterion by using an audit trail, including original

data analysis, codes, semantic relationships, and listing of all domains for verification and

trustworthiness. The researcher also used the code-recode strategy by coding the data, leaving it

for a period of time and then re-coding to match the two sets of coded material (Ary, Jacobs, &

Razavieh, 2002).

Confirmability in qualitative studies is the same as objectivity in quantitative studies.

"Qualitative researchers are concerned with whether the data they collect and the conclusions

they draw would be confirmed by others investigating the same situation" (Ary, Jacobs, &

Razavieh, 2002, p. 456). The audit trail, in which contains all data in raw form and clear notes on

the printed transcripts, was the strategy used to meet this criterion.

In qualitative studies the researcher is the instrument, so it is important to acknowledge the

researcher's background, interests, and beliefs that have shaped this research. The researcher

studies communication within the field of agriculture and is particularly attentive to the labeling

and marketing of meat products. Once an organic foods shopper, the researcher is sensitive to









organic consumers' interests. Personal influences and knowledge acquisition about conventional

agriculture production has since deflated the researcher's preference for organic foods. The

researcher's continued interest in the organic and natural foods phenomenon sparked this

exploration of consumers' perceptions surrounding these labels. Despite these beliefs, previous

experiences, and background, the researcher kept these separate from the data collection and

analysis to conduct credible research and allow the conclusions to emerge from results.

Summary of Methodology

The researchers used two focus groups in Gainesville, Florida, with participants who were

the primary food purchasers for their household and pork consumers, and lived in Alachua

County. Both groups were diverse demographically and each group contained at least one

organic shopper. Each session was recorded using audio and video recording devices, while one

assistant moderator took handwritten notes and the other typed notes during the sessions. Data

were analyzed by looking for common themes, similarities and dissimilarities, observations of

non-verbals, interactions, and reactions to product and price threshold stimuli. Transcripts were

coded for themes, and categories created. All conclusions were peer reviewed by the research

committee and appropriate strategies were used to address credibility, transferability,

dependability, confirmability, and reflexivity.









CHAPTER 4
RESULTS

This chapter presents the findings of two focus group sessions. The purpose of this study

was to describe consumers' perceptions of pork products with an "all-natural" label. To achieve

this purpose, focus group discussions addressed 1) participants' perceptions of the terms

"organic" and "all-natural" in reference to pork products, 2) participants' reactions to the USDA

organic standards for meat production and policy for natural claims, 3) participants' taste

perceptions of all-natural pork products, and 4) participants' attitudes toward the price of all-

natural pork products as affected by tasting all-natural pork. Results are presented in order of the

research questions in narrative format based on the participants' discussion.

Participants' demographics and reported food purchasing-related behaviors contribute to

the understanding of the findings. Potential participants answered demographic questions during

the telephone screening process and efforts were made to select for a diverse and representative

group in terms of income, age, race, and gender (Table 4-1). The median household income in

Gainesville, Florida is $31,426 (Gainesville Facts, n.d.). Participants were also asked if they

purchase organic or all-natural foods to ensure they would be familiar with these types of

products. During the focus group discussions, participants were asked about their food

purchasing behavior/preferences and food information sources. Each participant was given an

opportunity to answer these questions to ensure everyone had provided their individual

responses. Most participants shopped at the regional grocery chains Publix, Albertson's, and

Winn Dixie. Some shopped at local independent grocers, including Wards and Hitchcock's. Few

indicated that they shopped at national grocery chains, such as Sam's Club. Only three out of the

15 total participants considered themselves regular organic foods shoppers. Participants reported

receiving their food-related information from a variety of media sources, including the Internet,









newspapers, magazines, ads, TV commercials, cooking shows, Food Network, magazines,

samples in the grocery store, and televised news.

Table 4-1. Demographics of focus group participants
Income Do you
more or purchase
less than organic or all-
Group Participant Age Race $30,000 Gender natural foods?
One 1 47 African American More Female Yes
One 2 47 White Less Female Yes
One 3 26 White More Male Yes
One 4 37 White More Male Yes
One 5 42 African American More Female Yes
One 6 41 White More Female Yes
One 7 66 White More Male Yes
One 8 41 White More Female Yes
One 9 26 African American More Female No
Two 10 38 White More Female Yes
Two 11 37 White More Male Yes
Two 12 45 White More Female Yes
Two 13 24 African American Less Female Yes
Two 14 44 White More Female Yes
Two 15 22 African American Less Male No
Two 16 25 African American Less Female Yes
Two 17 53 White More Male Yes
Two 18 28 White More Female Yes
Two 19 55 White More Male Yes

Fifteen of the selected participants (Table 4-1) were in attendance for the focus group

sessions, seven in the first and eight in the second. Based on moderator's and assistant

moderators' observations, both groups were diverse in age range. The first group had one

African American female, three white females, and three white males. The second group had one

African American female, three white females, one African American male, and three white

males. It is important to note that most selected participants indicated they do purchase organic

or all-natural foods in the screening questionnaire to ensure they were aware of these food

products. The question posed during the focus group discussion revealed a different answer









(most did not consider themselves organic shoppers) from the majority of participants, because it

was phrased to determine if they considered themselves regular organic foods shoppers.

Perceptions of All-Natural and Organic

To explore this research question, participants were asked to define the terms "all-natural"

and "organic" as associated with pork products. Themes discovered surrounding perceptions of

"all-natural" were the mistrust or skepticism that all-natural means anything at all, the idea that

all-natural means "no" (no hormones, no antibiotics, no chemicals, etc.), and the connection

between all-natural pork and superior welfare for the pigs. Themes discovered surrounding

perceptions of "organic" were similar to the "no" theme seen in perceptions of all-natural, but

also included the perception that organic foods are healthier, "from the garden," and more

expensive.

Skepticism Surrounding All-Natural

The first group immediately expressed skepticism surrounding the term "all-natural," while

the second group expressed this shortly after initial responses indicating "no preservatives, no

additives, no antibiotics" and "no fertilizer." Although the majority of participants in both groups

felt the term all-natural meant "not loaded with chemicals," most expressed skepticism as to the

validity of manufacturer claims in this respect. "I don't think that anything is truly natural. I'm

skeptical," was a common response. Participants were not convinced all-natural means anything.

"All-natural isn't exactly what you think."

Another related theme that emerged here was that the term might be a marketing or

advertising ploy. A participant in the second group called the term, "a form of advertisement. I

don't believe it." Participants in both groups, unaided, brought up that they did not know

regulations for all-natural products. A typical statement was, "I know for organic there are laws,

but I don't know if there are any for natural." Some participants in group two ultimately decided









that there were no guidelines for using the term "all-natural" on product labeling. "I don't think

they need guidelines for all-natural." "Just like 'diet.'"

All-Natural Means "No"

Despite their skepticism, participants in both groups had similar responses, indicating

perceptions of the term "all-natural" as meaning "no" no preservatives, no additives, no

antibiotics, no hormones, no extra liquids in the meats, no phosphates, and no chemicals.

According to a participant, "all-natural means it has less bad stuff." Another remarked, "That it

was a real animal." Participants often qualified their statements about preservatives, additives,

antibiotics, hormones, extra liquids, phosphates, and animal welfare in a negative tone,

emphasizing that these are concerns for them. "So all-natural, to me, means that hopefully it's

not had hormones shot into it to make it fatter." Participants said pork with this label designation

would be fresher and "untreated." One participant termed it, "All pig and nothing but pig." All

participants had negative reactions to use of chemicals, feeling all-natural conveyed less

chemicals used in food production.

Some participants also expressed confusion about what the term meant, although that did

not necessarily influence their overall perception of the product. Said one participant from group

one, "Well I really don't know what all-natural means. Sure it sounds good, and I would

probably buy something that said all-natural over something that didn't say all-natural."

Participants in this group all agreed with this statement.

With respect to meat and pork products and labeling, participants immediately brought up

a local all-natural chicken producer, which participants perceived as having promoted its

products as "no hormones, no antibiotics, no additives, no preservatives." One participant

summed up this theme, saying:









... Teach me, show me, that if you say, at Bob's Farm when we sell you our pork and it
says all-natural, it means we didn't put a bunch of preservatives in it... it wasn't pumped
full of water, and nothing was added, phosphates weren't added. Like that Sanderson
Farms, the chicken people. I mean they say "oh, we don't have any phosphates." I don't
know if phosphates are good for me or bad for me, but when they tell me they don't have
any I start thinking maybe we should get that chicken.

All-Natural Pork Associated with Animal Welfare

Several participants focused on the connection between all-natural and livestock raised free

range, particularly in group one. One participant said, "I think of Martha Stewart and the free

range turkeys" in response to what comes to mind when they see the term all-natural on a

package of meat.

They also associated the term with the idea that the pigs from which these products were

produced would be small-farm raised, fed natural foods, and/or fed organic foods. A woman in

group one said, "I would hope that what [the pig] was eating was a better quality. Like feeding

your dog the Cheap Charlie instead of like Science diet." Another from this group said:

I would hope that it means fewer hormones and fewer antibiotics. I would hope that all-
natural would mean that somebody's grandparents raised it on a farm somewhere rather
than they were locked in a little metal cubbyhole where they couldn't turn around with a
feeding tube in one end and an IV in the other side. Filling it full of things just to keep it
alive long enough to get it to slaughter.

Organic Means "Healthy"

When asked to define what the term "organic" meant to them, participants in both groups

had both positive and negative reactions. One participant in group two summed up the definition

of organic foods by saying "[organic foods are] without chemicals, pesticides, hormone-free,

from animals fed organic and not meat products, but may not look as pretty." All participants in

both groups said organic means "no pesticides"; others said it also means "[livestock] weren't

fed ground-up animals," and "vegetables haven't been wiped with vegetable oil and wax."









Some immediately thought of these foods as "tasteless" or tasting "like cardboard."

Participants in both groups said that organic "was better for you." One woman commented, "I

think that it's probably better for you than all-natural." Some participants in group one and all in

group two said organic foods taste better, and all perceived these foods as "healthier." Several

members of both groups indicated that organic foods were very important to them. A man in

group one said, "[Organic] means you don't have to worry, this was raised by tested methods

that are safe, healthy and natural." Said another in group one, "Organic is really important to me.

My wife and I grow organic tomatoes, but it's difficult to make it organic, and it takes a while to

do it because of pesticides and such. No pesticides is an important factor." Other members of this

participant's group spent some time picturing tomatoes as representative of organic foods in

which they would be interested.

When discussing their perceived criteria for all-natural and organic foods in group one, all

participants agreed that these were "individual concerns." One participant said:

I'm not that concerned, because after getting away from home-grown things, I figure
something's not going to be good for you no matter what you do. It's great to take
precautions, nothing's 100%, and I think every shopper is going to be different about that.

Organic Equated with Produce

Participants in both groups identified organic as having more to do with food coming from

the garden or "the earth." Said one, "It's very much more like what came out of your garden."

Participants typically referenced fruits and vegetables when discussing their perceptions of

organic, an example being "I don't care if all the tomatoes are uniform shape... I would like my

tomatoes to taste like a tomato."

Most participants equated organic food with produce; few considered the term organic as

relating to meats. A common statement being, "I never thought of meat as being organic." A

participant in group one described organic in relation to all-natural as:









Basically a high-tech way of saying all-natural, but there's a little bit more to it. I think
people are a little more aware of the process, where with all-natural we're not really sure
what it actually means. In organic we know that it means no pesticides, but I can only
equate that with vegetables. I never thought of meat as being organic.

Organic Foods Cost More

All participants perceived organic foods to cost more. Only one out of seven in the first

group and two out of eight in the second group were organic shoppers, due to price

considerations. Some indicated they sometimes buy organic vegetables, but not other products.

Price was a factor for most participants, as well as differences in family members' food

preferences. One woman in group two offered, "My husband doesn't care ...if he wants it, he'll

eat it. But if I see two products on the shelf and they're the same price and one says all-natural or

organic, I'll buy that. But if it's a two or three dollar difference, I'll buy whatever is cheaper."

Said another in group one, "We try to buy the organic, but sometimes price enters the picture

...being that we don't have any children, most of the time we don't even bother."

Reactions to USDA Standards for Organic and Policy for Natural Claims

To gather participants' reactions to the USDA standards for organic meat production and

policy for natural claims, they were provided a one-page handout listing this information from

the USDA. The theme that emerged from the focus groups surrounding this objective was

confusion and unanswered questions/concerns about the differences between organic and all-

natural. Participants posed numerous questions throughout this part of the discussion.

Confusion Surrounding Differences between USDA Standards and Guidelines

Most participants in both groups said they did not understand the differences between the

organic and all-natural labeling guidelines prior to reading the handout. A common statement

was, "I kind of knew that organic was much more specific than all-natural, but I couldn't have









told you what all-natural included." Participants in group one were particularly confused and all

agreed they still had many unanswered questions after reading the handout.

Many questions were raised by participants in response to the handout, such as: "Now I'm

questioning what is 'artificial' really?" "Do they put coloring in organic fruits?"and "Do I have

to meet all of these guidelines [points to organic] and all of these [points to all-natural]?"

When discussing the differences between the two terms, one woman in group two said,

"Seeing what natural doesn't have, and what organic doesn't have, doesn't necessarily tell you

what the other guys do have." Another participant offered, "I buy a lot of chicken. So I usually

see that packages that say all-natural and I pick it up. I've never really paid attention to the

organic, but now I'll pay more attention, I think."

Participants in both groups brought up concerns for the animals' welfare in response to the

standards for organic, such as "concerned about the animals" and "the things I can't see

...because I can't go hang out at the farm it came from." Another participant said:

What struck me the most was that 'animals must have access to outdoors' and they don't
mention that under the [all-natural standards]. So does that mean that they naturally
confine all the animals, and otherwise, unless they're raised organic, they're kind of stuck
in cages?

Participants in group one all agreed that if a product is organic it should also be all-natural,

but that it is not clear from reading the handout. A common statement being, "To me organic

should mean all-natural. Say 'not only are we organic, but we're also all-natural."

Group two brought up additional perceptions concerning their preferences for locally

grown food and buying local, which was not addressed on the handout or by the moderator. "I

think it's important to think locally when you buy anything," said one man from this group. An

organic shopper said she prefers to buy produce even if it is not labeled organic at a local grocer

because "they have the better quality food." Many perceived local food (in particular, fruit and









vegetable produce) as fresher and better tasting. One man said, "In my opinion [locally produced

food] is always better because it hasn't been handled as much or shipped as far."

Making the Information Clearer to Consumers

Participants were also asked to offer suggestions for ways to make the information about

organic standards and natural claims clearer to consumers like themselves. The overwhelming

response from both groups was to provide the information through advertising campaigns. Both

groups referred to a recent local advertising campaign (participants referred to billboards and TV

commercials) from Sanderson Farms, which, many said, was in terms they understand. A

common suggestion for advertising campaigns was, "If we're using an all-natural label, this is

what you can be assured it means. It means we're not pumping it full of X, Y, and, Z. You know

that it was free range."

Participants in group two suggested posting the information from the USDA in the grocery

store in a manner that is quick to read and easy to understand. One woman said:

I have to read quickly. So if I'm looking for something that doesn't have preservatives,
doesn't have chemicals, I need to see that fully. Because not only am I trying to compare
prices and do math, I'm trying to keep a five-year-old from running three aisles away.

The participants all agreed that having a separate section or aisles for organic food is

helpful. Since price typically came up as the dominant barrier preventing participants from

buying organic, one man offered: "Post [the information] on the butcher counter so people can

know why they're paying more."

Taste Perceptions of All-Natural Pork

To explore participants' taste perceptions of all-natural pork, they moved to another room

which had been set up with tableware and silverware. They then participated in a double-blind

taste testing of an all-natural roasted boneless pork loin sample produced by a local company as

compared to a similarly cut and prepared conventional product sample. The themes discovered









here were perceptions that all-natural boneless pork loin tastes better than conventional pork loin,

differing taste expectations of all-natural pork, and differing taste preferences.

All-Natural Boneless Pork Loin Tastes Better

The all-natural boneless pork loin samples produced by Madison Farms All-Natural Pork

and conventional boneless pork loin samples from a grocery store were prepared to the same

internal temperature with no added ingredients. An objective observer ensured the two pork

samples were prepared the same. Before the identity of the pork products was revealed, most in

both groups said they could taste a difference between the two pork dishes. Both groups

preferred the texture and flavor of the all-natural pork sample and said the conventional pork

sample was drier, not as flavorful, and "mushier." Typical comments from participants that fell

under this category included the following: "The second one just doesn't have the flavor the first

one has."

"The second portion just seemed to be a little bit more dense and dry."

"I noticed mostly the texture, 'cause I don't like mushy meat. I think it should be kind of

firm. So the second one tasted mushier."

"Yes, I thought the first sample was moist and flavorful; even the skin portion that I ate

was not greasy. And the second portion just seemed to be a little bit more dense and dry."

Differing Taste Expectations

There was some difference between groups with respect to their perceptions as to which

meat product was all-natural and which one was conventionally produced. Although both groups

preferred the flavor and texture of the all-natural boneless pork loin sample, they differed in how

they expected each type to taste. Before the identity of each sample was revealed, group one

associated what they perceived as good taste with the all-natural pork and labeled the all-natural

pork as all-natural when guessing which sample was which. Participants in group two noted a









difference in the leanness or fat content of the samples. Said one "I think that the first one had a

little more fat, which I know is not good for you." Group two associated poor taste and the

seemingly leaner pork with all-natural and labeled the conventional pork as all-natural.

After the moderator told the participants which sample was which, both groups said they

would buy the all-natural pork they had tasted. In the first group, a participant stated, "I would

now buy all-natural. I would look for a label that says all-natural." All participants in this group

then concurred. Group one noticed a color difference between the two and said that the

conventional one may have had artificial coloring added. Both groups noticed a difference in

texture, attributing this to outdoor production practices. "Because the (all-natural pork) was

firmer, maybe it's because those pigs got to run around more and have more muscle" said one

woman in group one.

Differing Taste Preferences

After the blind taste comparison, participants in both groups were given the opportunity to

taste several other all-natural pork products and record and state their reactions. Participants

tasted all-natural ground pork, and then spare ribs from the same company. Although most were

not familiar with the company's pork, and did not buy these cuts regularly, participants found

this product appealing on several fronts. They found the ground pork to be "not fatty or greasy,"

"less fatty than hamburger," and "tastes just like pork," although both groups thought it needed

seasoning. The majority of participants in both groups liked and would purchase this product.

Participants had differing taste perceptions of the all-natural spare ribs. The participants

said the ribs they tasted were too dry; however, both groups also noted that people have different

taste preferences for ribs in terms of how dry they are. Three members of both group one and

group two stated they liked the all-natural ribs. In the first group, the majority of members said

they would buy it; however, no one made this claim in the second group.









A woman in group one explained that being from Louisiana, she prefers "a lot of flavor" in

her pork. She often responded that the pork she sampled, specifically the ground pork and spare

ribs, needed more spices and flavor to suite her taste preferences.

Unaided, the participants in group one brought up the generic pork marketing campaign,

"Pork: The other white meat." One woman said, "I remember they used to have those

commercials saying 'the other white meat,' so I would look to see if [the pork] looks really

white. So it looks sort of like chicken to me." Several participants in this group noted the color of

the all-natural boneless pork loin compared to the conventional boneless pork loin sample. One

participant questioned if the conventional sample had added coloring to make it whiter in color.

Results from Taste Questionnaire

A survey feedback form (see Appendix E) was designed to gather each participant's

reaction to each pork sample before they discussed their reactions with the rest of the group. This

was done to help the participants think about the taste of each sample and record their thoughts

for discussion. The results from the brief survey forms differed from each group's consensus,

especially in group two. Overall, group one's written comments were in agreement with their

spoken comments about each sample of pork. The comments differed only in that most indicated

their likelihood of buying the all-natural ground pork product as average, whereas during

discussion all agreed they would buy this product. Group two demonstrated some major

differences between discussion and survey feedback. Written comments from the double-blind

comparison between the all-natural sample and convention sample indicated an equal number of

positive and negative taste perceptions. When asked to compare the samples they had just tasted

on the survey form, three indicated the conventional sample tasted better than the all-natural

sample, three indicated it tasted worse, and two indicated it tasted the same. However, during









discussion all participants came to the consensus that the first sample or all-natural sample tasted

better.

Taste Perceptions and Willingness to Pay for All-Natural Pork Products

To explore how participants' taste perceptions of all-natural pork affect their attitudes

toward the price of these products, a willingness-to-pay exercise was conducted. The moderator

used index cards marked with the price per pound of four cuts of pork (loin, chops, ground pork,

and ribs), three of which participants had tasted. The moderator showed the prices for both all-

natural and conventional products, and then asked participants about their willingness to pay.

Themes that emerged here were, first, that tasting a product influences their willingness to pay a

premium for all-natural pork products and second, that marketing how these products taste is

important to get consumers to buy these products.

Taste Influences Willingness to Pay

Starting with the boneless pork loin, all participants in both groups (except for one in

group two that preferred to buy meat from a butcher) said they would buy the all-natural product

because they had tasted it and liked the taste. The per pound price differential on this cut was

$4.25 for the conventional product, as compared to $5.69 for the all-natural product. Both groups

also said that because they liked the taste, they didn't really care how much more it cost after

comparing conventional to all-natural, although they did note the higher price. As one participant

stated, "So I would pay it. And because it's all-natural. But it is quite a bit more." Said another,

"I tasted it and I'd rather, honestly, I'm like I don't care how much more it costs, I would pay the

$5.69."

Both groups said taste is the key to convince people the product is worth the premium

price. For this reason, both groups suggested a way to market this product would be to focus on

using samples at the grocery store.









Both groups were willing to pay more for the all-natural ground pork product, finding the

$1.85/$2.99 price differential not a barrier. With respect to the ribs, only three out of seven in the

first group and two out of eight in the second group would pay the $3.80 per pound for the all-

natural product, as compared to the $2.45 per pound for the conventional product. Finally, the

moderator held up prices for loin chops, which the groups had not taste tested, to determine how

taste affects attitudes toward price. The price per pound for conventional loin chops was $3.85

per pound; for the all-natural product, $5.99. Both groups said the price difference seemed too

steep. Seven out of eight in group two and four out of seven in group one would not purchase the

all-natural loin chops because it was too expensive.

The participants that defined themselves as regular organic foods shoppers were

consistently willing to pay the premium for all-natural pork, with the exception of one woman in

group two that indicated she would buy neither the conventional or the all-natural pork product.

This participant said she would only buy organic pork from a butcher and never buys pre-

packaged meat. None of the participants' mentioned their income as related to their willingness

to pay a premium for all-natural pork products.

Summary

Overall, participants had positive association with the terms "organic" and "natural."

Participants associated "all-natural" with perceptions of animal welfare, higher quality feed, and

no preservatives or chemicals in the final pork product and identified these perceived aspects as

potential health and animal welfare risks. They also expressed confusion with respect to

distinctions between all-natural claims and organic standards, and would like the information

about these terms posted in grocery stores and clearly defined in advertising and labeling. In the

affective testing of different all-natural pork cuts, personal taste preferences played a central role.

However, taste expectations toward all-natural pork products differed between the two focus









groups. Group one expected all-natural pork to taste better than conventional pork, while group

two expected all-natural pork to taste inferior. Participants said being able to taste the product

influenced their intent to purchase and willingness to pay a premium for all-natural pork

products.









CHAPTER 5
DISCUSSION

This chapter explains the key findings, conclusions, implications, and recommendations

drawn from the results of two focus group sessions. The purpose of this study was to describe

consumers' perceptions of pork products with an all-natural or organic label. To achieve this

purpose, focus group discussions addressed the following objectives: 1) participants' perceptions

of the terms "organic" and "all-natural" in reference to pork products, 2) participants' reactions

to the USDA organic standards for meat production and policy for natural claims, 3)

participants' taste perceptions of all-natural pork products, and 4) participants' attitudes toward

the price of all-natural pork products as affected by tasting all-natural pork.

Key Findings

Overall, participants had positive associations with the term "all-natural." However, both

groups initially expressed skepticism as to the validity of this claim on labeling and were not

convinced it held any meaning or was regulated. Despite these doubts, participants associated

"all-natural" with perceptions of no preservatives or chemicals in the final pork product, higher

quality feed, and improved animal welfare and identified these perceived aspects as potential

health and animal welfare risks. Similar perceptions and the absence of pesticides were also

associated with the term "organic," but most equated the term with produce rather than meat.

Participants revealed differing taste perceptions of organic foods, but all perceived these foods

are healthier. In response to the USDA standards for organic livestock production and policy for

natural claims, participants expressed confusion with respect to distinctions between the two

terms and had many unanswered questions. They said they would like the information about

these terms posted in grocery stores and clearly defined in advertising and labeling.









In the affective taste testing of different all-natural pork cuts, personal taste preferences

played a central role. However, taste expectations toward all-natural pork products differed

between the two focus groups during the double-blind comparison of all-natural boneless pork

loin and conventional boneless pork loin. One group expected all-natural pork to taste better than

conventional pork, while the other expected it to taste inferior. Participants said being able to

taste the product influenced their intent to purchase and willingness to pay a premium for all-

natural pork products. Participants who preferred the taste were more willing to pay a premium

for the all-natural pork products.

Conclusions

Perceptions of All-Natural and Organic

Participants had positive perceptions of both organic and all-natural pork products, with

some exceptions regarding taste, price, and trust in the information source, which are consistent

with factors that typically dissuade consumers from purchasing organic products (Yiridoe, et al.,

2005; California Institute for Rural Studies, 2005).

Perceptions surrounding all-natural

Participants perceived the use of the term "all-natural" on pork packaging as a gimmick or

marketing ploy. Frewer, Howard, Hedderley, and Shepherd (1996) point out that trust in

information from industry sources (such as marketing and labeling) is hindered by perceptions of

selfish, economic interests. Many did not believe the government regulated the use of this term

and were thus skeptical of its meaning or claims on packaging labels.

As found in a survey study about consumer perceptions of all-natural beef (Diel &

Associates, 2001), participants associated no hormones and no antibiotics with their perceptions

of all-natural pork. However, these focus group discussions brought out additional perceptions

participants associated with all-natural pork, including hogs that are raised outdoors, fed higher









quality food, and no use of preservatives or chemicals in the final pork product. Participants also

revealed that they do not understand why or how particular additives in meat are bad for them,

but when marketing makes claims about not having additives, they are more inclined to buy that

product or favor food products with the "no" labeling theme.

The "no" labeling theme participants related to all-natural pork products also revealed

insights into their risk perceptions associated with pork production and consumption. In terms of

potential risk to their health, participants brought up chemicals (both from production and

processing), additives, hormones, and antibiotics. However, participants never qualified or

quantified these perceived risks. This is consistent with Slovic's (1987) risk analysis theory in

that laypersons' perceptions and analysis of risk are based on perceived control and

understanding of the risk rather than probability or severity of its occurrence. Most participants

reported obtaining their food-related information from various media sources, which may be why

they did not understand the risks they perceived (additives, chemicals, hormones, etc.). Frewer,

Raats, and Shepherd (1993) found that the media focus on the unknown when communicating

food risk. Food additives, in particular, are reported as heuristically bad. Also, dependence on the

media, predominantly newspapers and television news, for food safety information is correlated

with greater food risk perception (Tucker, Whaley, & Sharp, 2006).

The absence of perceived risks associated with all-natural pork products can be considered

one of several perceived product attributes that has a functional consequence in terms of

consumers' life values, such as physical well-being and ethical treatment of animals. Based on

Gutman's means-end theory (1982), the perceived attributes of all-natural pork products, such as

no antibiotics, no growth hormones, no chemicals, and improved animal welfare, may translate

into fulfillment of life values. Most of the same perceived attributes and values from Bech-









Larsen and Grunert's (1998) means-end chain research (Figure 2-1) with Danish consumers

perceptions of organic pork surfaced during these focus group discussions about all-natural pork.

Based the similarity of perceived attributes, participants likely associated the perceived attributes

of all-natural pork with their life values of good health, ethical treatment of animals, and family

security.

Perceptions surrounding organic

Participants' perceptions surrounding "organic" differed on whether or not these foods

tasted better than their conventional counterparts. However, all agreed that organic foods are

healthier. This is consistent with previous research with regular organic consumers who often list

higher nutritional value as a reason to purchase organic food. However, no scientific evidence

has shown a difference in nutritional content between organic and conventional foods (Kouba,

2003). Participants also expressed willingness to compromise on the physical appearance of

produce for the perceived healthier organic version as these foods look "more like what came out

of your garden."

Most participants did not equate "organic" with meat, saying, "I never thought of meat as

being organic." Although the discussion was focused on organic pork, participants equated

organic more to fresh produce, particularly tomatoes. This may be due to the limited availability

of organic meat products in supermarkets. Meat was not allowed to be labeled organic until a

provisional label was approved by the USDA in 1999, whereas organic gardening dates back to

the 1950s (Dimitri & Greene, 2002).

Despite positive perceptions surrounding organic foods, the price of organic foods was an

inhibiting factor for most participants' desire to purchase these products. Most would prefer to

buy these products, but if the premium is more than the value they perceived, then they said they

will buy "whatever is cheaper." This study and others agree that price of organic foods is









consistently a barrier for consumers who wish to purchase these products (California Institute for

Rural Studies, 2005).

In general, participants' attitudes toward all-natural and organic pork were based on beliefs

associated with the absence of risk to their health and the improved welfare of the hogs in the

production and processing of those products. The perceived risk factors were similar to those

cited by organic consumers (Hammitt, 1990).

Reactions to USDA Standards for Organic and Policy for Natural Claims

After reading the handout with the USDA standards for organic meat production and

policy for natural claims, participants were surprised to learn that "there's a big difference."

They admitted that they were generally unaware of the differences between the organic

regulations and natural labeling policies.

Before receiving the handout participants perceived the term "all-natural" to be a catchall

term not only meaning no chemicals and no additives, but also meaning no antibiotics, no

hormones, and raised outdoors. A study exploring consumers perceptions' of the "naturalness" of

organic farming in the Netherlands discovered that high standards of animal welfare were

associated with the naturalness in the production methods of meat (Verhoog, et al., 2002, p. 37).

Although participants expressed distrust in claims used on food packaging, they did not

express distrust in the USDA organic standards and natural claims on the handout. In the United

States, trust in government food regulators is high (Roe & Teisl, 2007; Waarden, 2006; Taylor,

2003).

Participants had numerous unanswered questions in response to the USDA organic

standards for livestock and policy for natural claims. It was clear the USDA definition for all-

natural did not corroborate with the participants' definition of the word on meat packages. Most









said that if a product is organic it should also be natural, but that was not evident in the USDA

standards and policy.

The participants in these focus groups said that the information about the differences

between these two terms would be clearer through advertising campaigns and consumer

education in grocery stores. Many were able to provide examples of recent advertising

campaigns for natural and all-natural foods, such as Arby's, Wendy's, and Sanderson Farms.

Sanderson Farms was cited as particularly effective, because the television ads and billboards

communicated examples of what the term "all-natural" means on their chicken products.

Participants also suggested posting the USDA standards for organic production and policy for

natural claims information on the butcher counter in a quick and easy-to-read format in grocery

stores, so consumers could understand the differences and potentially understand why they have

to pay more for these products. Another suggestion was to separate all organic food into its own

section of the grocery store, so consumers do not have to search for it.

Taste Perceptions of All-Natural Pork

Personal preference plays a large role in taste perceptions (Risvik, 1994). Some

participants expressed differing preferences for moistness, texture and flavor, and that influenced

their reaction to the taste of the pork product samples. Previous experience with the cuts of pork

may also have influenced their taste perceptions (Cardello, 1995a).

All participants in both groups perceived a difference in flavor and texture between the all-

natural and conventional pork loins in the double-blind taste test, preferring the all-natural pork

loin. Participants were aware they tasted an all-natural pork loin and a conventional pork loin, so

they were anticipating a difference. The anticipation may have amplified their perceived

differences. Previous studies conducted with trained taste panels vary in their findings of sensory

differences between organic and conventional foods (Dransfield, et al., 2005; Fillion & Arazi,









2002; Jonsall, et al., 2002). Studies pertaining to taste differences in pork products indicate either

no difference between organic pork and conventional pork, or inferior eating quality for organic

pork (Scholderer, et al., 2004; Edwards, 2005).

Interestingly, participants had different preconceived notions of how all-natural food

would taste, which influenced how they evaluated the provided samples. Group one associated

good flavor and texture with the all-natural product, but group two associated the leaner and less

flavorful sample with the all-natural product. This suggests that a segment of consumers may

perceive all-natural meat to taste better, while another segment may perceive it to taste inferior to

conventionally produced products.

The written comments and results from the brief taste survey forms (Appendix E) differed

from each group's consensus during discussion, especially in group two. This is the nature of

group dynamics in focus group methodology and also what occurs in a naturalistic setting.

Perceptions are shaped not only by personal experiences, but also by interactions with others.

The focus group discussion format encourages interaction among participants and allows people

to change their opinions based on discussion with other participants (Morgan & Kreuger, 1998).

The group dynamics of the focus group sessions may also have played a role in each

group's discussion. Group one had two self-proclaimed regular organic foods shoppers, whereas

group two only had one self-proclaimed regular organic foods shopper. The single regular

organic shopper in group two also considered herself a whole foods shopper in addition to a

regular organic shopper. She had negative perceptions of pre-packaged, labeled meat and said

she only buys meat from a butcher. Her opinions did not have as much influence on the group

the two participants in group one did. The two organic shoppers in the first group were vocal and

expressive during the discussions, which may have led to group-think, especially during the









double-blind taste test portion of the session. These participants were influential during the taste

testing portion, because they had positive taste expectations for all-natural pork. One of these

regular organic shoppers said, "organic food tastes better" during the discussion of the term

"organic." These participants held strong convictions in their positive perceptions of organic and

all-natural foods and may have influenced the other participants' conversations because of that.

Willingness-To-Pay as Influenced by Taste Perceptions

Intent to purchase all-natural pork products relied heavily on the fact that participants had

tasted the products. The majority of participants said they were willing to pay more for some all-

natural pork products because they had preferred the taste of them. Both groups were willing to

pay more for the all-natural pork loin and ground pork, because the price differential was not a

barrier to them and they liked the taste of these products. Even though the $1.44 price difference

between the conventional and all-natural boneless pork loin seemed high to the participants, they

were willing to pay that premium because they had preferred the taste. Bredahl and Poulsen

(2002) found that perceptions of high-quality pork are predominantly affected by its taste. The

researchers also discovered a perceptual link between production method and pork quality,

where consumers perceived pork labeled as from pigs raised outdoors to be of higher eating

quality than pork from pigs raised indoors.

Participants were decidedly split on their willingness to purchase all-natural ribs and all-

natural loin chops. Several participants said the all-natural pork chops were too expensive

compared to the conventional pork chops. In regards to the spare ribs, some revealed that they do

not typically buy spare ribs in the grocery store, because they do not know how to prepare them

or do not want to pay for the bone weight. In the end, the split willingness to pay a premium for

these products was due to personal taste preferences and differing price-value attitudes. Models









of price, quality, and value explain that perceived value affects how consumers view the quality

of a product and whether or not they will purchase it (Ziethaml, 1988).

The participants that defined themselves as regular organic food shoppers were

consistently willing to pay the premium for all-natural pork products when given the choice

between conventional and all-natural pork products. This is consistent with the role of self-

identity and the role of past behavior in the theory of planned behavior (Bentler & Speckart,

1979; Sparks & Shepherd, 1992). The regular organic foods consumers seem to be willing to pay

a premium for all-natural labeled pork, because it has become a central aspect of their self-

concept or a habitual behavior. However, a different conclusion may have been made if

participants were given the option to choose between conventional, all-natural, and organic pork

in the willingness-to-pay exercise. This research shows that all-natural pork is appealing to self-

proclaimed regular organic foods consumers. This segment is consistently willing to pay a

premium for these products if given the choice between conventional and all-natural pork

products.

Implications

Perceptions of All-Natural and Organic

The variation in pork producer-set standards for all-natural and consumer confusion about

the meaning of the term is reminiscent of the patchwork of state and regional standards for

organic prior to the implementation of the National Organic Program (Fetter & Caswell, 2002).

One package of pork labeled as "all-natural" may only refer to the processing, as USDA policy

stipulates, while its shelf neighbor may use it to refer to various production techniques as well.

Understandably, producers want to use legitimate production/process claims to capture a piece of

the high-dollar market for such products. However, coupling those claims with the term "all-

natural" has led to consumer confusion surrounding all-natural as demonstrated in this research









and in Diel & Associates (2001) research with natural beef products. Another contributing factor

is that the concept of natural and naturalness is regularly used by producers, marketers, and

consumers of organic foods to characterize organic (Verhoog, Matze, Lammerts Van Bueren, &

Baars, 2002). This conceptualization of organic as natural has also blurred the distinction

between organic and natural labeling. Participants in these focus groups perceived all-natural

pork to be from hogs that are raised outdoors without the use of antibiotics and growth

hormones, fed higher quality food, and no use of preservatives, additives, or chemicals in the

final pork product. The results of this research implies that consumers perceive the term "all-

natural" as encompassing production practices integral to the organic standards.

The only prominent differing perceptions between organic and all-natural was that organic

also means no pesticides, is regulated by the government, costs more money, and is associated

more with produce rather than meat. Consumers' attitudes toward all-natural and organic pork

are based on beliefs associated with the absence of risk to their health and the improved welfare

of the hogs in the production and processing of those products.

The intense marketing and premiums associated with organic and all-natural food products

may be leading consumers to believe they have to pay a higher price for safer food. Participants

perceived chemicals (both from production and processing), additives, hormones, antibiotics, and

pesticides as risks to their health. Consumers may not understand how or why these are risks, but

are more inclined to favor or purchase foods with the "no" labeling theme. Organic and all-

natural are product attributes that consumers have come to value. These value perceptions may

lead to increased market diversity as more niche products emerge to fulfill consumers' needs.

Consumers have more choices with the increasing prevalence of organic and niche market food

products in grocery stores. When there was only one choice, consumers were willing to accept









more uncertainties and a lack of understanding about meat production to a greater degree,

because the benefit of nourishment outweighed those factors. The emergence of organic, all-

natural, and other production/processing claims on meat packages seems to have led consumers

to question the quality, value, and safety of cheaper, conventional meat products. However, the

perceived value in all-natural labeled meat is minimal if not compounded with other factors, such

as price, taste, and an understanding of how these products are different or better.

Participants did not understand exactly why organic and all-natural products are more

expensive, indicating the supposed value of these products has not been clearly communicated.

Unless the participant considered themselves a regular organic food shopper, most would not

purchase these products if they cost more than approximately $1.00 over the conventional

counterpart. Although most participants perceived conventional pork as containing the risks

organic and all-natural products claim not to have, the risks are not alarming enough to prompt

them to pay a premium for those products. Communicating the value of these products may rest

on the ability of marketers to show industry accountability in producing organic and all-natural

meat products. Accountability "has been defined in terms of being answerable to audiences for

fulfilling obligations, duties, and expectations" (Sinclair & Irani, 2005, p. 61). Consumers want

to see what they are paying for; as one woman put it, "I'm concerned about the things I can't see

...because I can't go hang out at the farm it came from."

These focus groups brought out consumers' risk perceptions surrounding pork production

and consumption. It may be the case that the prevalence of the "no" labeling themes (no

antibiotics, no growth hormones, no preservatives, etc.) associated with all-natural and organic

meat products has inadvertently communicated to consumers that the aspects that these products

do not contain are harmful to people's health and livestock's well-being. By default, consumers









may believe that conventional or unlabeled meat products contain these perceived risks, which

could potentially lead to the devaluation of these products in a market where they become the

"cheap" or "generic" products.

The USDA Food and Safety Inspection Service updated its website in August 2006 to

include a page defining production and processing claims, including organic and natural, on meat

and poultry packaging. As a result of this update, the information is easier to find. However, the

language used on the site is still the same as used on the handout provided to the focus group

participants. Consumers perceive all-natural and organic to be very similar, but the USDA

defines the two terms to be quite different from each other. Consumers may not be inclined to

research the definition of these meat and poultry labeling claims. Participants in these focus

groups did not mention the Web as a place or communication medium that would effectively

reach most consumers like them. A better understanding of organic and all-natural could increase

consumers' confidence in the integrity and value of these products.

Participants' lack of understanding of the difference between all-natural and organic, and

the perceptions of fewer food risks associated with these labeling terms suggests a major

knowledge gap between experts and consumers. Klonsky and Tourte (1998) assert that the

organic label is not meant to differentiate those foods as safer, but unintentionally it may have.

As the results of this study suggest, all-natural and production technique claims may also be

differentiating those foods as safer.

Taste Perceptions and Willingness to Pay for All-Natural Pork

Participants perceived a minimal amount of value in the term "all-natural" in isolation, but

certainly favored and were willing to pay a premium for all-natural pork products if they

preferred the taste. Perceptions of the taste of pork are affected by a number of factors including

previous experience, personal preferences, ethnic/cultural background, and the pork's appearance









and preparation. Participants in these focus groups were influenced by the National Pork

Checkoff s "Pork: The other white meat campaign." As a result of this campaign, consumers

prefer pork products to be white in color when cooked.

Being able to taste the all-natural pork product was an important factor to motivate

consumers to purchase the product. As a result of trying the product, participants were able to

experience the consequences without the investment, thus reducing the perceived risk in the

consumer decision-making process. Through experiencing both intrinsic (taste) and extrinsic

(labeling, marketing) attributes, the quality of a food product is seemingly easier for consumers

to evaluate (Zeithaml, 1988).

Scholderer et al. (2004) found that consumers have high taste expectations of pork labeled

"organic" or "free range." This study indicates that expectation may not always be the case. One

segment of consumers may perceive organic and all-natural pork to taste good while another

segment may perceive it to taste inferior or "healthy" (not flavorful). Participants in the group

that expected all-natural pork to taste poor predicted the perceived drier and seemingly leaner

conventional sample to be the all-natural pork. The negative taste stigma seems to be related to

the perception that all-natural pork products are healthier and leaner than conventional pork

products.

Recommendations

Practice

This research yields recommendations for practice, as well as future research. Based on the

conclusions and implications of this study, agricultural communicators, educators, and extension

agents need to communicate the reasons for and the differences between the organic label and

natural claims, especially if they are only meant to be marketing labels and not discern them as

safer. Participants perceived these products as absent of risk to their health and animal welfare.









The market for conventional agricultural products could be negatively impacted if consumers do

not understand why organic and all-natural labeled foods are supposedly better or why they cost

more money. If organic and all-natural labeled foods continued to be perceived as the safer food

choice, the market for conventional foods could potentially suffer. Labels are used by the USDA

to balance the market for agricultural products, so this organization is the decision-maker when it

comes to food labels. The USDA would be a credible resource for information about the reasons

for all-natural and organic food labeling, because the study participants perceived information

from industry and marketing sources as marketing ploys.

Communication about the organic label and natural claims needs to go beyond a website.

Agricultural communicators should consider websites as a small part of a larger effort to reach

consumers with information about organic labels and all-natural claims. The efforts to inform

consumers about the use of these terms must be strategically available since they are unlikely to

pursue this information on their own. Participants recommended posting this information in

grocery stores in a separate organic foods section of the grocery store or near the butcher

counter.

Participants could not clearly differentiate between all-natural and organic. All-natural, in

particular, was not regarded as a credible or regulated claim on meat labeling. Producers and

marketers could continue to take advantage of these misperceptions, or policy makers could step

in and rewrite the policy for natural claims. The policy could add some of the common

perceptions of the term, such as no antibiotics, no growth hormones, and livestock raised

outdoors.

Regardless of whether the USDA steps in to make some of these recommended changes,

agricultural communications professionals need to focus on communicating the meaning of all-









natural claims in a manner that consumers can quickly receive and easily understand.

Participants in both focus groups said they would prefer this information in advertising

campaigns. In particular, they preferred specific examples of what is and what is not in pork

products with all-natural labels. It is strongly recommended that the meaning of all-natural be

closely tied to the brand or producer, so when a consumer buys that brand they feel assured that

"all-natural" always means what the marketing states. In order for consumers to perceive value

in all-natural claims, demonstrating accountability is important. Agricultural communicators and

marketers should communicate how producers' production and processing practices ensure the

safety and quality of the food. Demonstrating that producers go above and beyond what laws and

regulations require of them would increase perceptions of accountability.

The majority of consumers are probably unaware that growth hormones, one of the top

perceived food risks in the United States (Hwang, Roe, & Teisl, 2005), is prohibited in pork and

poultry production. However, niche pork producers continue to attempt to add value to their

products by identifying "no hormones" on the label and it is now an aspect perceived integral to

the meaning of "all-natural" as brought up in these focus group discussions. It may be the case

that this type of marketing is perpetuating this perceived risk. The study participants were

confused about the exact meaning behind all-natural labeling claims. They emphasized the

importance of educating consumers like themselves about all-natural and organic labeling on

meat products in order to communicate the value and quality of these products and increase

perceptions of credibility for such claims. Arguably, the same needs to be done for meat

production in general, regardless of the claims or labeling the producer qualifies for or uses.

Demonstrating producers' commitments to ensuring meat quality and safety will be important to

protect the market for unlabeled or conventional meat products. Agricultural extension agents









and family, youth, and consumer science extension agents have an important role to play in

working together to continually educate consumers about meat production and labeling. These

efforts are important to maintain credibility in food labeling and claims.

Agricultural extension agents should use the results of this study to help pork producers

identify aspects of their production techniques that would add value to their products. The focus

groups participants perceived value in several production and processing techniques that

increased their perceptions of quality in pork products. Extension agents should also provide this

information to pork producers seeking to enter niche markets, so that they may develop

production plans and effective marketing strategies.

As Jaeger (2006) found, it is valuable to integrate taste in marketing communications

strategies. An implication for agricultural marketers is that the success of communications aimed

at marketing niche food products may rest on the ability to include product sampling strategies

while appealing to consumers' taste perceptions with marketing materials. Participants indicated

that tasting the all-natural pork was the most important factor to convince them to pay a premium

for it and purchase it. Based on the results of this study, food marketers should consider

integrating point of purchase sampling, or developing labeling and marketing materials that

appeal to and emphasize how the product tastes. Lighting, shelf placement, display, packaging,

photos of the prepared product, and recipes are all possible ways to appeal to consumers' senses

in the grocery store.

It is important to note that personal taste preferences and previous experiences with pork

influence perceptions of taste. The sample all participants had obvious positive taste perceptions

for was the all-natural boneless pork loin sample. They were split on taste preferences for the all-

natural spare ribs and many had not had ground pork outside of the focus group session. Using









boneless pork loin cuts in point-of-purchase sampling may be most effective to appeal to as

many consumers as possible. Participants also said they would be more likely to buy the pork

they taste in the grocery store if they are given a recipe and/or coupon.

Future Research

The intention of this research was to explore perceptions and opinions of the sample

audience in detail. Based on the results of this study, more studies are needed to examine

consumers' perceptions of the terms "organic" and "all-natural," especially in the area of meat

production and processing. The participants in these focus groups had some preconceived

notions about the terms, but could not clearly differentiate between them. It would be beneficial

to replicate this study in other parts of the United States. Quantitative studies also need to be

developed on a larger scale to make the results generalizable to United States consumers.

Participants in this study revealed insight into the absence of perceived food risks

associated with all-natural and organic pork. More studies are needed to determine if similar

perceptions emerge surrounding other agricultural commodities. Further research should

investigate causality between food production and processing labels, such as organic and all-

natural, and perceptions of risk. Other studies should examine consumers' trust in the USDA

since risk perceptions are closely related to perceptions of trust. Another related area to examine

would be the USDA's public relations and consumer education efforts. Participants vaguely

knew what organic and all-natural meant on meat labeling and also indicated that they did not

believe that "all-natural" was regulated by the government.

The study participants indicated that they get their information about food from various

media sources. However, this question was asked to prompt discussion among participants about

the topic and was not pertinent to the purpose of the study. Future research should investigate









where they get information about meat production and processing specifically, and how the

media frames natural and organic foods.

One of the recommendations for practice, in regards to marketing all-natural pork products,

is to develop marketing materials that appeal to the taste senses. After all, point-of-purchase

sampling is not always feasible for marketers to do within budget. What else, besides actually

tasting a food, triggers and appeals to consumers' palate? Future studies should explore the

effectiveness for various marketing tactics and communication materials that emphasize how the

all-natural pork product tastes. More studies are needed to explore agricultural communications

strategies for all-natural meat products and determine whether or not the strategies enhance

consumers' understanding.

Pork producers' perceptions of using the term "all-natural" on pork product labels should

also be explored in future research. Do they believe its use adds value to their products?

Exploring their decision-making process for using particular production practices and making

those claims on labeling would complement the results of this study. The results of this study

could be used to develop in-depth interview questions or surveys to reach a sample of producers.

Future studies should triangulate data from related populations, such as restaurant owners

and chefs, because they influence the available food choices for consumers. Understanding food

professionals' perceptions of the use of natural and organic pork in restaurants would

demonstrate the perceived value of these products in the restaurant setting.

Summary of Conclusions, Implications, and Recommendations

Participants generally had positive perceptions of both organic and all-natural pork

products, with some exceptions regarding taste, price, and trust in the information source. In

regards to "all-natural" specifically, participants expressed skepticism as to the validity of the

manufacturer's claim and perceived its use as a marketing ploy. Food marketers would benefit









from creating advertising campaigns that clearly tie the producer's definition of all-natural to the

brand name. Participants recalled recent marketing campaigns for all-natural meat products and

said that examples of what was and what was not in their products helped them remember those

brands. If the producer is going above and beyond the government standards for natural claims,

emphasizing that in marketing would increase the brand's credibility, accountability, and

positive reputation.

The only obvious differing perceptions between organic and all-natural was that organic

also means no pesticides, is regulated by the government, costs more money, and is associated

more with produce rather than meat. All-natural and organic pork products were perceived as

absent of risks to human health and animal welfare. Agricultural communicators at the USDA

need to better communicate about their meat production and processing labeling policies and

regulations. Policy-makers at the USDA should also revise the policy for natural claims to

increase consumer confidence in the use of such claims on meat and poultry packaging.

Participants perceived the term "all-natural" as pertaining not only to some meat processing

aspects, but also to livestock production practices integral to the organic standards. The policy

should prohibit the use of antibiotics and hormones and require livestock to have access to

outdoors, or make the distinction between organic and natural/all-natural more clear.

Good taste is highly regarded in judging the quality of all-natural pork and convincing

consumers that it is worth a premium. It may not always be the case that consumers expect all-

natural pork products to taste good. Group two of the focus group sessions expected all-natural

pork products to taste inferior to conventional pork. Communicating good taste is important to

attract those who have negative taste expectations. Participants said it is important to emphasize









these products' taste either through point-of-purchase sampling or through marketing messages

that focus on appealing to taste.

The fundamental importance of good taste is salient among consumers' perceptions of

high-quality pork worth a premium price, like all-natural pork products. Participants clearly

perceived value in other perceived attributes of all-natural pork, but doubted the credibility of

all-natural claims on package labeling. Emphasizing taste, communicating accountability, and

clearly differentiating all-natural pork from other pork products is important to increase

perceptions of value and credibility in the use of such claims. Agricultural communication and

marketing strategies incorporating these factors would be well-received if they demonstrate

accountability to consumers' perceptions of these products and how the brand or producer is

achieving consumers' quality expectations.











APPENDIX A
IRB APPROVAL


UNIVERSITY OF
FLORIDA


98A Psychology Bldg.
PO Box 112250
Gainesville, FL 32611-2250
Phone: (352)392-0433
Fax: (352) 392-9234
E-mail: irb2@ufl.edu
http://irb.ufl.edu


June 28, 2006

Traci Irani, PhD
213 A Rolfs Hall
Campus
Ira S. Fischler, Chairee a
University of Florida
Institutional Review Board


SUBJECT: Approval of Protocol #2006-U-0606
TITLE: All-Natural Pork Focus Group
SPONSOR: None


I am pleased to advise you that the University of Florida Institutional Review Board has recommended
approval of this protocol. Based on its review, the UFIRB determined that this research presents no
more than minimal risk to participants. Given your protocol, it is essential that you obtain signed
documentation of informed consent from each participant. Enclosed is the dated, IRB-approved
informed consent to be used when recruiting participants for the research.

It is essential that each of your participants sign a copy of your approved informed
consent that bears the IRB approval stamp and expiration date. I

If you wish to make any changes to this protocol, including the need to increase the number of
participants authorized, you must disclose your plans before you implement them so that the Board
can assess their impact on your protocol. In addition, you must report to the Board any unexpected
complications that affect your participants.

If you have not completed this protocol by June 28, 2007, please telephone our office (392-0433),
and we will discuss the renewal process with you. It is important that you keep your Department
Chair informed about the status of this research protocol.

ISF:dl


An Equal OpporMnity lnsiwtionI


Institutional Review Board
FWA00005790


DATE:


FROM:















Informed Consent

Protocol Title: All-Natural Pork Focus Group

Please read this consent document carefully before you decide to participate in this study.

Purpose of the research study: The purpose of this study is to discuss all-natural pork products.

What you will be asked to do in the study: The focus group will allow you to discuss your
opinions in an open and receptive setting. You will be asked to share the things you consider
when purchasing pork. You will also taste some prepared pork and provide feedback on your
experience. Your comments and suggestions will be used to determine the market for all-natural
pork.

Time required: The session will last no more than two hours.

Risks and Benefits: There are no anticipated risks or benefits to participating in the study.

Compensation: You will be paid $50.00 compensation for participating in this focus group.

Confidentiality: Your identity will be kept confidential to the extent provided by law. You will
be assigned a code number. Your name will not be connected to any comments. The list
connecting your name to this number will be kept in a locked file. The discussion will be audio-
and video-tape recorded. An assistant moderator will take detailed notes. Only the researcher and
research assistants will have access to the tapes, notes, and transcripts. They will be kept in a
locked file. When the study is completed and the data have been analyzed, the list and the tapes
will be destroyed. Your name will not be used in any report.

Voluntary participation: Your participation in this study is completely voluntary. There is no
penalty for not participating.

Right to withdraw from the study: You have the right to withdraw from the study at anytime
without consequence.

Whom to contact if you have questions about the study: Dr. Tracy Irani, Associate Professor,
Department of Agricultural Education and Communication, 213A Rolfs Hall, (352) 392-0502,
ext. 225, irani@ufl.edu

Whom to contact about your rights as a research participant in the study: UFIRB Office,
Box 112250, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611-2250; ph 392-0433.

Agreement: I have read the procedure described above. I voluntarily agree to participate in the
procedure and I have received a copy of this description.

Participant: Date:

Principal Investigator: Date:
Approved by
University of Florida
Institutional Review Board 02
Protocol # 2006-U- 0606
For Use Through 06/28/2007









APPENDIX B
ALL-NATURAL PORK FOCUS GROUP SCREEN QUESTIONNAIRE

Hello, my name is %name and I'm calling from the Florida Survey Research Center at the
University of Florida. The Institute for Food and Agricultural Sciences, IFAS, at the University
of Florida will be conducting focus groups in Gainesville on Saturday, July 15, and we're
currently recruiting participants. May I please speak to the person in your household who is at
least 18 years old and responsible for purchasing food and groceries?

The focus group will take about an hour and a half to complete and participants will be paid $50
for their time.

1. Are you interested in hearing more about this research project? [YNDR]

IF NO: Terminate, Do not save. "Thank you. Have a nice evening (day)."

IF YES:

The focus groups are being conducted to find out people's opinions and perceptions of
all-natural pork. It's not a requirement that you've eaten all-natural pork in the past, but
you do need to be someone who purchases food for your household and who eats pork, at
least occasionally. You'll be ask to taste several pork dishes during the focus groups.

The focus groups will be held at the Florida Farm Bureau, on SW 34th Street in
Gainesville, on Saturday, July 15, at 10:30AM and 1:30 PM. Light refreshments will be
served, as well as all-natural pork, and a $50 stipend will be paid to those who
participate.

2. Do you have any dietary restrictions, or religious or personal beliefs that preclude you
from eating pork? [YNDR]

IF NO: Terminate, Do not save. "Thank you, but this research only involves
consumers who eat pork at least occasionally. Have a nice evening (day)."

IF YES:

3. Are you interested in being considered for participation in one of these focus groups?
[YNDR]

IF NO: Terminate, Do not save. "Thank you. Have a nice evening (day)."

IF YES:

Thank you. I'll need to ask you a few demographic questions so that we can be sure that
participants are representative.

4. Do you live in the Gainesville area? [YNDR]










5. What is your 5-digit zip code? [#, DR]

6. In what year were you born? [year, R]

7. Just to be sure that we have a representative sample, would you please tell me your race?
[Black/African American, White, Asian, Other, R]

7A. And, would you say that you are of Hispanic ancestry or not? [YNDR]

8. Is your family's total yearly income before taxes $30,000 or less, or more than $30,000?
[less than $30,000, more than $30,000, DR]

9. Gender [Don't ask, just record] [Male, Female]

10. Do you ever purchase "organic" or "all-natural" food products? [YNDR]


If you are selected to participate in this focus group study, a University researcher will call you
and a confirmation letter containing details such as time, date, location, and driving instructions
will be mailed to you.

To facilitate that follow-up, can you please tell me:

11. Your first name: [text]
12. Your last name: [text]
13. Your preferred mailing address: [address]

14. And, can I confirm that your telephone number is [phone#]? [YNDR]

Thank you, that completes the first part of the process. If you are selected to participate, you will
receive a call within 7 business days.









APPENDIX C
INVITATION LETTER TO SELECTED PARTICIPANTS

July 8, 2006

Mr. John Smith
567 W. University Avenue
Apt. 1234
Gainesville, FL 32607

Dear Mr. Smith:

The UF Institute for Food and Agricultural Science (IFAS) is conducting a focus group to learn
more about people's opinions and perceptions of all-natural pork. Thank you for agreeing to
participate in this important focus group

The focus group will be held at the Florida Farm Bureau, on SW 34th Street in Gainesville, on
Saturday, July 15th at 1:30 PM. Light refreshments will be served, as well as dishes made with
all-natural pork, and you will receive a $50 stipend for your participation.

We appreciate your attendance since the participants have been selected to provide a diversity of
opinions about all-natural pork. A seat has been reserved for you in the focus group and your
responses are important. If for some reason you cannot attend, please call 352-392-5957 before
Friday, July 14th at 4 PM.

Thank you again for your participation.

Sincerely,



Michael J. Scicchitano, Ph.D.
Director









APPENDIX D
MODERATOR GUIDE AND QUESTIONING ROUTE

Moderator reads: Hello and welcome to our session. Thank you for taking the time to

join our discussion about pork. My name is Courtney Meyers and I am a graduate student at the

University of Florida. Assisting me today is Tracy Irani, Katie Chodil, and Ricky Telg also from

UF. Madison Farms Pork is sponsoring this focus group because they want your feedback on the

development of pork products.

You have been invited here because you have characteristics of interest to us. You are all

consumers who purchase meat for your household.

Before we begin, let me share some things that will make our discussions easier and more

productive. There are no right or wrong answers, but rather differing points of view. Please feel

free to share your point of view even if it differs from what others have said. Please speak up and

only one person should talk at a time. We're tape recording and video recording the session

because we don't want to miss any of your comments. We'll be on a first-name basis, and in our

later reports there will not be any names attached to comments. You may be assured of

confidentiality.

My role here is to ask questions and listen. I won't be participating in the conversation, but

I want you to feel free to talk with one another. I'll be asking around 20 questions, and I'll be

moving the discussion from one question to the next. There is a tendency in these discussions for

some people to talk a lot and some people not to say much. But it is important for us to hear from

each of you today because you have different experiences. So if one of you is sharing a lot, I may

ask you to let others respond. And if you aren't saying much, I may ask for your opinion.









Our session will last about two hours and will also include time for taste testing. If you

have your cell phone or pager and need to leave it on, please leave the room when you get a call

and return as quickly as possible.

Let's begin by getting to know more about you. Let's go around the room and have

everyone introduce themselves. Please tell us your name, a little bit about yourself, and your

favorite food.

Unaided

I'd like to begin today's discussion by learning more about how you shop for food.

* Are you the one in your household who normally buys food?
* Where do you do your grocery shopping?
* What sources do you use to learn about food products?
* How often to you buy meat and how much do you buy?
* What do you look for when you buy meat?


Okay let's talk more specifically about how you buy pork.

* When did you last buy pork? Do you remember how much you paid for it?
* On average, how often would you say you buy pork?
What do you look for when buying fresh pork?

Most food products have some type of label or packaging that try to convince you to buy that

product or inform you of its contents.

* How much attention do you give to food labels when making purchasing decisions?
* What does the term "all-natural" bring to mind?
* If you saw a label or sticker on a food package that said "all-natural" what does that mean
to you?
* What does it mean to you if it's on a package of pork?
* In reference to food products, what does the term "organic" mean?









Production standards for pork product labeling, Aided

I'm going to show you the standards that make conventional, all-natural, and organic

products different. [Definition of all-natural and organic standards for pork product labeling

provided on handout]

* Did you understand the differences between the standards for these products prior to
viewing this information? To what extent?
* How can the distinctions between these standards for food products be made clearer?


Taste Testing, Aided

Here's the fun part. We have prepared a few different dishes that contain all-natural pork.

Try to really taste the pork in each dish. After you taste the pork or finish the dish, answer the

questions on the slips of paper being passed around.

The first taste test we will do is to compare an all-natural pork loin roast to a conventional

pork loin roast. This is a blind taste test in that you will not know which type you are sampling.

Please write your reactions to each sample on the provided sheet.

* Now that you have tried both types, which do you think tasted better?
* Could you taste a difference between the two samples?
* was the all-natural pork product. Are there any further reactions to that?


We now have two other pork products for you to sample. These are both all-natural products.

I hope you all enjoyed doing the taste testing.

* What do you think of the pork you just tried?
* Now that you've tried the pork, how likely would you be to buy it? Why or why not?
* Would you be willing to pay more for this product with the all-natural label than one
without? Why or why not?
* The price points for is for conventional and for
all-natural (display prices on index cards) [Repeat for all three products]
* What do you think about the price difference?









Marketing Materials, Aided (dependent on two-hour time limit)

To inform people about their all-natural pork, Madison Farms Pork has these informational

pieces. [Pass around marketing materials]

* What do you think of these?
* Are you interested in reading these materials?
* Where should they be made available?
* Would you be likely to pick this information up at a grocery store?
* What other ways could this information be made available that you think would be more
effective?
* After learning USDA's definition of all-natural and organic products, what is your reaction
to the guidelines Madison Farms uses for its pork products?


Concluding discussion

As we've talked today and tasted some all-natural pork:

* Have you thought of anything else you'd like to say or bring up about pork that we have
not discussed?


I am now going to try to summarize the main points from today's discussion. (key messages and

big ideas that developed from the discussion) The main topics ....

* Is this an adequate summary?


Moderator reads: As was explained at the beginning of the session, the purpose of this focus

group was to get your feedback and opinions on pork. Your comments today will aid in the

development of pork products and labeling. Your input has provided us with a better

understanding of what other consumers may think about all-natural pork.

* Have we missed anything or are there any other comments?









Moderator reads: Thank you for taking time out of your day to share your opinions. Your

participation is greatly appreciated and has provided valuable insight into this topic. Thanks

again.


Debriefing questions to be discussed between moderator and assistant.

* What are the most important themes or ideas discussed?
* How did these differ from what we expected?
* How did these differ from what occurred in earlier focus groups?
* What points need to be included in the report?
* What quotes should be remembered and possibly included in the report?
* Were there any unexpected or anticipated findings?
* Should we do anything differently for the next focus group?









APPENDIX E
TASTE TEST SURVEY FEEDBACK FORM

Try to really taste the pork in each dish. After each taste, or after you finish the portion
please answer the questions.

All-natural and conventional pork blind taste test

BONELESS LOIN ROAST (1):

a. How would you compare the taste of this product with your current brand?
[ ] Much better [ ] Better [ ] About the same [ ] Worse [ ] Much worse


b. What is the likelihood of you purchasing this product if it was available?
[ ] Very high [ ] Somewhat high [ ] Average [ ] Somewhat low [

c. What is your perceived value of this product?
[ ] Very high [ ] Somewhat high [ ] Average [ ] Somewhat low [


] Very low


] Very low


d. Comments and reactions







BONELESS LOIN ROAST (2):

a. How would you compare the taste of this product with your current brand?
[ ] Much better [ ] Better [ ] About the same [ ] Worse [ ] Much worse

b. What is the likelihood of you purchasing this product if it was available?
[ ] Very high [ ] Somewhat high [ ] Average [ ] Somewhat low [ ] Very low

c. What is your perceived value of this product?
[ ] Very high [ ] Somewhat high [ ] Average [ ] Somewhat low [ ] Very low

d. How would you compare this pork to the pork you just tasted?
[ ] Much better [ ] Better [ ] About the same [ ] Worse [ ] Much worse

e. Comments and reactions