THE CONSUMER'S D E F I N I T l O N O F QUAL I T Y IN M E A T
...........
0.
E.
BRADY
M I SS OUR I
UN I VE R S I TY 0 F
O . . . . ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O ~ . . . O . . . O . . . . .
Please l e t me say a t t h e oneet that I have no unusual insight i n t o
a consumer's definition of meat quality. I a m a l s o mindful that it i s d i f f i c u l t
t o objectively discuss t h i s subject. It i s f o r these reasons that 1 have drawn
heavily on the r e s u l t s we have secured i n our c o n ~ m acceptance
r
and preference
work a t the Missouri Station, As you m y know, t h i s work i s cooperative between
the departments of Agricultural Economics, Animal l3~6bandryand Home Economics.
In the main, it is reasonable t o asfiume that consumers consider
quality i n terms of r e l a t i v e merit o r excellence. Quite obviously there must
be one o r more a t t r i b u t e s t o obtain t h i s rating. Each consumer m y not be f u l l y
aware of a l l of the a t t r i b u t e s and each consumer may weigh certain of the a t t r i butes differently. It would therefore, not be any great discovery if we would
find t h a t there are considerable differences i n opinion among consumers. When
one considers the great variation i n backgxund of' the consumers i n any large
metropolitan area, he cannot help but be iupressed with the great opportunity
f o r variations i n choice. In any large group we a l s o f i n d t h e "educated",
"sophisticated" or w h a t otherwise might be called the "cultivated" t a s t e . A t
the other extreme we find consumers with h r g e l y d o m n t t a s t e . In between we
have the great majority of consumers w i t h 6ome idea, more o r less of quality.
Their opinions on meat quality are diff'erent from meat s p e c i a l i s t s ' in a great
many respects. The s p e c i a l i s t uses certain physical quality indexea to'estirnate
eating quality. The great majority of consumers will depend t o a f a r greater
extent on t h e i r p s t experiences i n buying mat a t a certain market.
It is not my intent t o touch on many of the ramifications of t h i s
subject. In passing I would like t o mention that many of us have attempted t o
r e l a t e grade t o preference. We are sometimes eomewhat perturbed when t h e r e
appears t o be no cloae relationship. Yet, I am sure we a l l agree that grading
provides a means of taking a very heterogeneous supply and breaking it down int o more homogenous groupings a t least as far as certain a t t r i b u t e s are concerned.
These a t t r i b u t e s i n c e r t a i n cases may be expected t o cause a mrked degree of
preference as i n the case of lean and very f a t pork. I n other case8 t h i s would
be quite unlikely, as f o r example, i n the case of shank meat from Prime and
Commercial c a t t l e .
One of the especially interesting points, f o r example, i s t h a t we
of consumers who prefer each of the grades of beef; Prime,
Choice, Good and Commercial, i n so far as chuck roast8, r i b roasts and l o i n
( s h e l l ) steaks a r e concerned. This i s true even when a l l of t h e cuts a r e
identically priced on a pound b a s i s , These differences have been shown i n both
t h e Columbia and t h e St. Louis studies. T h i s suggests that (1)we have groups
of consumers who have a d e f i n i t e preference f o r each grade of beef, and ( 2 )
many, i f n o t the majority of consumers, have no real understanding of quality
a t t r i b u t e s . While both of these statements may be true, we are increasingly
inclined t o believe that t h e latter statement i s perhaps t h e better evaluation
of the situation. As someone has pointed out, the coneumer cannot be an expert
on a l l matters even if he o r she might so wiah. There i 6 some doubt t h a t conhave large groups
112.
sumers w i l l become too greatly concerned with the subject of meat quality
unless they a r e strongly motivated t o do so.
Next, I should l i k e t o discuss with you evaluatj-on of quality
a t t r i b u t e s . For simplicity sake, I am dividing t h i s phase i n t o three parts,
namely t h e :
1. P i l o t scale study on beef i n 1952
2.
Columbia study on pork i n 1953
3.
St. Louis study on beef in 1354
I s h a l l attempt t o give you the essence of each study with regard
t o the subject given me, and if time i s available, show you some of the r e s u l t s
on s l i d e s .
-
P i l o t Scale Laboratory Study on Beef-1952
In t h i s study the consumer bought f r e e choice a t the University
They were
Meat Laboratory from four grades of r i b roasts and r i b steaks.
a l l priced a t the O.P.S. l e v e l f o r the Commercial grade.
Here the least popular grade f o r both steaks and roasts was Prime,
while more people bought Commercial steaks and Good roasts than any other
grade. The highest percentage f o r any grade was 33. Only a small minority
could identify the grade they had purchased even a f t e r they were shown a card
with the grade names l i s t e d on it. Regardless of the grade they actually purchased, about 2 0 percent thought they plrchased the Prime grade, 60 percent
thought they purchased the Choice grade, and less than 20 percent thought they
had purchased the Good grade. No one thought they had selected the Commercial
grade. This indicates t h a t aa l i t t l e as they knew about grade terminology
they knew a great deal less about the a t t r i b u t e s of a grade. This is f u r t h e r
borne out by the f a c t that about 75 percent said t h i s was the grade they
usually purchased.
The principle "eating" a t t r i b u t e s they considered i n selecting a
steak were: tenderness, t a s t e o r flavor, freedom from waste and price. To
secure t h i s they selected principally on three physical bases: marbling,
amount of f a t and color.
Columbia Study i n Pork i n 1953
In t h i s study interviews were used from approximately 360 respondents selected i n Colunibia. Two grades of pork were used, namely, Choice No. 1
and Medium. In t h i s study bacon, ham and pork chops were used and respondents
indicated t h e i r preference both before and a f t e r cooking. The medium grade was
preferred p r i o r t o cooking and after cooking the preference wa6 even more s t r i k in@;
The principle reasons given f o r t h e i r preference or lack of preference p r i o r t o cooking were: leamess, freshness, fatness and color. After
cooking the principle reasons they gave were: flavor, tenderness and leanness.
St. Louis StUQ on Beef in 1954
I n t h i s study chuck roasts and s h e l l steaks were used from four
grades of beef. Both close asd regular trims were made on the exterior f a t ,
113
A t o t a l of 1450 usable schedules were collected. None of t h e meat was sold.
The preference f o r steaks and roasts was greatest f o r the Prim grade being
34 and 28 percent respectively.
Only a small proportion of the consumers were able t o indicate any
relationship between tenderness and grade. The principle criticism that most
respondents had with steaks they purchased was that they lacked tenderness.
Approximately 40 percent of the consumers used some method of tenderizing
steaks and 25 percent used some method of tenderizing roasts. In one s t o r e
selling U. S. Good grade 58 percent of the respondents tenderized steaks while
i n another s t o r e s e l l i n g U. S. Prime grade no one indicated t h a t it was necessary t o tenderize t h e i r steaks.
of those interviewed as t o t h e most important eating characteristic
of steaks 57 peecent said tenderness, 30 percent said flavor, 8 percent said
juiciness, 5 percent said amount of f a t . Th.ree quarters of the consumers i n t e r viewed were at one time or another dissatisfied w i t h t h e quality of t h e i r meat.
Of the t o t a l number of complaints 72 percent were on tenderness, 18 percent
were on flavor, 10 percent were on juiciness.
Fm the Prime and Choice grades there was a somewhat higher preference
f o r the t r i m e d than the untrimmed. T h i 6 vas not true f o r t h e other two grades.
The princiFie differences that t h e respon3cnts saw betwnen t h e various grades
were : amouit of subcutaneous fat, amount of inteinuscular fat, amount of
marbling, color of lean, amount of bone and texture.
I would l i k e t o again state that t h i s does not by any mean6 constit u t e a fill report on our consumer preference and acceptance work. To date Tot
a l l of the data has been analyzed and several publications a r e now i n the state
of being prepared. Our r e s u l t s t o date do suggest t h e following:
1. Quality i s a very elusive term even f o r the expert. It i t 3 not
surprising, therefore, t h a t it perhsps means very l i t t l e t o the majority of
consumers vho strongly r e l a t e eating s a t i s f a c t i o n very largely with where o r
from whom the meat was purchased.
2. The coI18umer i s more familiar with price than with other characteristics and often uses it as a guide t o quality. With increasing budgetary
limitations it is generally confounded w i t h quality.
3 . While the consumer may sometimes venture i n t o t h e unknown i n the
purchase of meat items, it i s usually w i t h considerable reservation and is
largely on the basis of special consideratims. Since these excursions have
generally resulted i n disappointments there i s a strong tendency f o r the consumer t o s t a y with what she is familiar with, especially if she is assured of
quality repeatability. This i s true in order that she may be assured of having
a w e l l prepared meat item f o r her family.
-
e
-
DR. BRADY: Now if we can run through t h e s l i d e s very quickly,
I should l i k e t o point out that we are not interested i n t h e results.
You may be interested i n them. Hawever, we are not showing them neces-
114.
s a r i l y f o r the r e s u l t other than t o indicate the type of questionnaire
and the type of information we got from the respondents.
(Slide) Actually w h a t we have on there is the Columbia study
and the St. Louis study side by side. The point we want t o make there
is r e a l l y if the consumers know they have a d e f i n i t e preference f o r a
grade. If they don't then they p r e t t y much actually shuffle around when
you ask them t o pick out the meat. The highest percentage you have f o r
any grade i s about one-third. That is t r u e of both roasts and steaks.
You see you get a complete turn-around of the St. Louis study i n the
Columbia study.
(Slide) This next question relates the grade they thought
they picked i n the Columbia study t o the a c t u a l grade. You can see t h a t
the presumed grades read across from the l e f t , and you can see that a l most everybody today if they are conscious of anything they a r e conscious
of t h i s word "choice and, as I pointed out a moment ago, most people
selected the choice grade.
(Slide) This is J u s t about the same thing put up a l i t t l e d i f ferently. It emphasizes the f a c t that when you give them the grade very
f e w people think they buy the lower two grades, and they were l i s t e d -they were not scattered. In other words, they were prime, choice, good,
commercial and u t i l i t y , and s o we would assume t h a t the prime, i f they
did not already know it, would be w h a t some people would c a l l the best
grade.
(Slide) This i s the question we asked. "Is t h i s the grade you
usually buy?" This poses a problem. You cannot put your respondent on
the spot. In other words, if you t r y t o put him i n a place that he i s
being quizzed he i s on the defensive. I t h i n k you should actually expect
t h a t people w i l l say, "Why, certainly I know my meat. This is the grade
I always buy.'' I am bringing t h i s out because it shows the f a l l a c y of
taking some of these answers t o o seriously.
(Slide) This indicates the problem t h a t you have. "Why do
you purchase the grade you do?" In other words, you l e t them t e l l you.
Here percentage-vise a r e the most comon answers, and yet add them up
and they make l e s s than a majority. In other words, they a r e a minority
of a l l who replied but these are the most comon ones. So when you ask
an open end question you always have a l o t of d i f f i c u l t y breaking it
down
how you a r e going t o assemble the answers, how you a r e going t o
g e t them bracketed into something that actually means something. But it
m y be of SOW i n t e r e s t t o know the reasons they give f o r purchasing the
grades they do.
--
(Slide) The principal reason f o r purchasing a p a r t i c u l a r steak.
Those are the things I mentioned before. There a r e other reasons. These
do not even make up the majority. Well, I guess they do i n a few cases -marbling, amount of f a t and color. Those are the people whom we see when
they buy the meat.
(Slide) This was p r e t t y interesting t o us. "How lean do you
consider t h i s steak t o be?" I n other word^, t h i s i s a r i b steak now
prime, choice, good and commercial. They could t e l l the difference then.
-
115.
I n other words, nobody thought that the prime grade, f o r example, was very
lean, b u t 7 per cent thought t h e prime wa8 lean. So you can see abaut
where they bracketed themselves i n g i v i w Just a word reply, using those
f o u r - very lean, lean, average, fat.
(Slide) This is on the basis of the pork study i n '53. These
are a c t u a l f i g u r e s we have between the choice and medium, W
e have a c t u a l l y
given the per cent t h a t had no preference. Again I think t h i s i l l u s t r a t e s
t h e point I made before. I f e e l confident t h e r e were a l o t more people
who had no preference, but they were confronted with a question t o answer
one way o r another. It i s of i n t e r e s t t o know t h a t they went p r e t t y heavy
on t h i s medium, and I think you w i l l see the reason later.
(Slide) Here a r e t h e r e a ~ o n sgiven f o r t h e i r preferences p r i o r
t o cooking. You c w Bee they saw the difference i n leanness, because you
only have t o look over the medium t o see t h a t 74 per cent of them could
see it on the bacon, 44 per cent on the hams, and 60 per cent on the chops.
On the choice you w i l l notice t h i s matter of freshness. T h a t i s
one of the things that show up. In other words, you d o n ' t haxe t h e holding
quality. You don't have the color i n the medium.
(Slide) After they had cooked the meat we asked them what t h e i r
preference was. Most of the things l i k e -- well, leanness s t i l l stays i n
there but p r a c t i c a l l y everything e l s e hS6 gone out of the picture, I n
other words, the most important thing is f l a v o r . Actually, we e x p c t t h a t
i n pork. Tenderness is not very important. Tenderness i s important in
beef. Apparently not so i n pork.
(Slide) In our St. Louia study we put a four-way d e a l on the
p l a t t e r . J u s t t o see w h a t percentage of people could see a difference we
put them s i d e by side. You can see that most of the people could see
differences i n f a t , marbling, color of lean, color of f a t , and r i g h t down
the l i n e .
MR. FARWELL:
Thank ycu very much, Dan.
We a r e going on now f r o m the consumer's d e f i n i t i o n t o t r y t o
f i n d out a l i t t l e about what the technologist thinks about meat. Last
year some ideas were thrown out and George Wilson expressed himself' a
l i t t l e on quality. So, of course, we jumpd r i g h t i n and grabbed George
off f o r t h i s subject and he has agreed t o talk a l i t t l e about the technol o g i s t 's d e f i n i t i o n of q u a l i t y i n meat. (Applause)