UNITED ST ATES GRADES FOR PERlSHABLE AGRKULTURAL COMMODETIES A STUDY OF THE HSTORECAL DEVELOPMENT IN RELATION TO CONSUMER USE AND RECOGNITION OF THESE GRADES Thesis {or Hm Degree of M. A. MECHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY Robert T. Kennedy 1956 UNITED STATES GRADES FOR PERISHABLE AGRICULTURAL COMMODITIES A Study of the Historical Development in Reletion to Consumer Use and Recognition of these Grades By Robert T. ggnnedy AN ABSTRACT Submitted to the School of Graduate Studies of Michigan State University of Agriculture and Applied Science in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS Department or General Business Curriculum in Food Distribution 1956 ‘ ’/- / «K! 4-", Appro ve d (X " ' :f ' I“ . 5‘ -r F- 1“";"fl1'3‘m' “M ‘1"...- - ABSTRACT The writer has prepared this thesis in order to con- sider the correlation between United States grades for per- ishable agricultural commodities and consumer quality pref- erences for these items. A study of the historical develOpment of these grades has revealed that they were established primarily at the request of the producers of such products. The grades were based chiefly on established trade practices, and have be- come an important factor in facilitating trading in these commodities. Both growers and middlemen benefit from the uniform standards established by grades and they have made extensive use of the Federal standards. However. the grades have not been used widely at the retail level. Due to the consumer's traditional preference for personal observation of these products before purchase. the retailer has not received customer demand for the use of grades. However. with future improvements in the preservation and packaging of perishables consumer demand for the use of grades may increase. Present investigations reveal that consumers have limited knowledge of grades and do not consider the same factors as do BXpGrtB when rating products. Therefore. some adjustment may be necessary in order to develop exten- sive use of grades at the retail level. Grades based upon consumer preferences will effectively aid the shopper in The Food Distribution program at Michigan State University is under the sponsorship of the National Association of Food Chains .43.: UNITED STATES GRADES FOR PERISHABLE AGRICULTURAL COMMODITIES A Study of the Historical Development in Relation to Consumer Use and Recognition of these Grades By Robert T. Kennedy A THESIS Submitted to the School of Business and Public Service of Michigan State University of Agriculture and Applied Science in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS Department of General Business Curriculum in Food Distribution 1956 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The writer wishes to exnress his sincere appreciation to Dr. Ward McDowell for his advice and assistance in the preparation of this thesis and to Dr. Edward A. Brand. Director of the Curriculum in Food Distribution, for his counseling throughout the year. He is also indebted to Dr. Henry Larzelere and Dr. George Motts of the Department of Agriculture Economics for their aid throughout this study. Grateful acknowledgment is also due to Mr. Lansing P. Shield and the management of the Grand Union Company whose support made this study possible. Gratitude is also due to Mr. Lloyd W. Moseley and Mr. Charles W. Garratt of the Grand Union Company for their continued advice and guidance. Appreciation is also due . the National Association of Food Chains and to the O'Donnel-Usen Company for their support. TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER PAGE I. INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . 1 Purpose of Thesis . . . . . . . . Method . . . . . . . . . . . . Scope . . . . . . . . . . II. DEVELOPMENT OF FEDERAL GRADING STANDARDS . Early Action . . . . . . . . . . Extended Coverage . . . . . . Legislative Action . . . . . Standard Apple Barrel Act . . Grain Standards Act of 1916 . . Warehouse Act of 1916 . . . Perishable Agricultural Commodity Act Export Apple and Pear Act . . . . . Commodity Exchange Act of 1936 . . 20 Peanut Stocks and Standards Act of 1936 20 Recent Acts. . . . . . . . . . 21 III. DEVELOPMENT OF STANDARDS FOR PERISHABLE PRODUCTS 0 O O C I O O O 0 O O O 23 Food Production Act of 1917 and Succeeding Legislation . . . . . . 25 First Official Standards . . . . . . 28 Standards for Meats. . . . . . . . 34 Poultry Standards . . . . . . . 36 Standards for Dairy Products. . . . . 37 Grades at Retail Level. . . . . . 38 IV. THE DETROIT AREA CONSUMER SURVEY . . . . “2 Introduction . . . . . ”2 Method of Selecting Panel Members . . . 43 Manner of Display . . . . . . . . “6 Pork Results . . . . . . . . . . ”8 Apple Results. . . . . . . . . . 52 Egg Results . . . . . . . . . . 55 Potato Results . . . . . . . . . 60 Poultry ReSultB . . . . . . . . . 63 v. SUMMARY............ 67 BIBLIOGMPHY. O C O O O O O O O O O O O 73 APPENDIX 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O I 77 TABLE Is II. III. IV. VI. LIST OF TABLES Questionnaire. . . . . . . . . . Expert Rating and Panel Members Selections For Pork —- February. . . . . . . Expert Rating and Panel Members Selections For Apples -- February . . . . . . Expert Rating and Panel Members Selections For Eggs I- February.. . . . . . . Expert Rating and Panel Members Selections For Potatoes -— February . . . . . Expert Rating and Panel Members Selections For Chickens —- February . . . PAGE nu 1+9 53 56 6O 63 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Purpose g2 Thesis United States grades for agricultural products have been used principally by growers, buyers, and wholesalers, and these grades have had little use by retailers. This restricted use is easily understood in the case of agricul- tural products such as grains or other commodities which must be refined and changed in form before sale at retail. However, the more perishable items such as fresh fruits, vegetables, and meats generally pass from grower to consumer without change in form. This thesis will investigate the historical development of the United States grading system and the Department of Agriculture's inspection service in order to discover the factors which led to the use of Fed- eral grades principally at the producing and wholesale level. An attempt will be made to discover why these grades have apparently failed to follow through the entire marketing system from grower to consumer, and have received little recognition by retailers and consumers. As a result of the uses of grades principally at the wholesale level, trade terms have usually been adopted as 2 the terms used for the official United States grades. An example is the use of prime, choice, good, and similar terms to describe the relative qualities of beef. For this reason, considerable consumer education is necessary to acquaint the retail customer with the relative qualities indicated by each grade. In an attempt tocietermine if the reason for the limited use of grades at retail has been due to confusing grade terms, simplified consumer grades have been established for some products. Thus far, the consumer grades have been limited in use, for consumers still tend to buy perishable food commodities principally through visual inspection. How- ever, improved packaging and preservation of perishable agri- cultural products may significantly increase volume for these commodities. A result of increased volume may be consumer demand for the use of grades at the retail level as an aid to selecting the quality desired. The U.S. Department of Agriculture is sponsoring investig- ations to determine what factors influence consumer decisions in the purchase of perishable products with the possibility of relating these preferences to consumer grades. This paper will consider some of the factors revealed by a consumer panel investigation conducted under the auspices of the Michigan Agriculture Experiment Station.. The principal areas in- vestigated by the panel study were consumer recognition of quality in relation to existing grades, and the factors which influenced the panel members' preferences regarding the perishable agricultural products considered. 3 Preliminary results of this study will be used to determine consumer quality preferences, together with future possibil- ities for more extensive use of consumer grades at the retail level. Method In order to consider the deve10pment of U.S. grades for agricultural products, a study of legislation related toggrading will be undertaken. The principal source of this information is the Congressional Record. Consumer recognition of the established grades and quality preferences will be considered in the light of a monthly consumer panel survey conducted in Detroit by Dr. Henry Larzelere of Michigan State University. The project is under the auspices of Michigan State University Agriculture EXperiment Station. . The results from three of the monthly panels will be used to analyze consumer ratings for five types of agricultural products. Scoge This study will deal chiefly with perishable agricul- tural products used for food and sold in a fresh or unproc- essed state. The development of grades for non-food products as well as grades for processed, canned, or frozen food commodities is beyond the scope of this paper. CHAPTER II DEVELOPMENT OF FEDERAL GRADING STANDARDS The need for the establishment of Federal grading standards became apparent early in this century. As the market for various agricultural products widened, the potential buyers and sellers of these products found them— selves geographically separated by great distances. Buying on personal inspection became less satisfactory, and some system of objective grading became necessary in order to provide a common language for both the buyer and seller. The growth of large terminal wholesale markets, and the sale of farm products by telegraph and by futures contract emphasized the need for a system of uniform grading. Be- cause grain and cotton were the first agricultural products to be traded in large volume over long distances, they were the first products to be sold on the basis of grades. Before Federal grades were established for these products each grain and cotton exchange formulated its own set of grades. In addition, some grain producing states also established their own grades. These sundry methods were not satisfactory for much confusion resulted from the various interpretations of the standards. Frequent con- flicts arose with abuses and defrauding, such as short- weights or under-grading. common. Early,Actigg This problem came to the attention of the Federal government, and in 1902 funds were allotted to the Bureau of Plant Industry, "to investigate the varieties of wheat in order-to standardize the naming of varieties as an assistance in commercial grading.'1 In 1906, the Bureau was authorized to carry on special investigations in the grading of grain. This authority has beenggradually widened, and each annual appropriation act allots funds to the Bureau of Agricultural Economics for carrying on research in the use of uniform grades for farm products generally. In addition. the following acts of Congress contain provi- sions relating to grading and labeling. 1. The Standard Apple Barrel Act of 1912 2. The Cotton Futures Act of 191” [revised and re- enacted in 1916] . The Grain Standards Act of 1916 The Warehouse Act of 1916 The Cotton Standards Act of 1923 O\U\::w O The Special Appropriation Act of May 17. 1928-- relating to the promption of Federal Wool Grades 1Taylor, Burtis, and Waugh. Barriers to Internal Eggglg in Farm Products, Bureau of Agricultural Economics, ihtited_ States Department of Agric'21ture, Special Report (Washington: U. S. Government Printing Office. March, 1939). p. 68. p 7. The Tobacco Statistics Act of 1929 8. The Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act of 1930 ' 9. The EXport Apple and Pear Act of 1933 10. The Tobacco Inspection Act of 1935 11. The Commodity Exchange Act of 1936 12. The Peanut Stocks and Standards Act of 1936 There were also several acts related toggrading and the inspection of perishable products passed during World War I as emergency measures. In addition to this formidable Federal list, every state has legislation prescribing grade standards for at least one farm product, or requiring or authorizing the establishment of such standards.2 Extended Coverage These acts and the standards established have helped reduce the multiplicity of grades and the confusion resulting from conflicting grading by private marketing establishments and the various agricultural states. As markets further broadened, products other than grain became important. and additional standards were established. As improvements were made in cold storage facilities and in rapid refrigerated transit, perishables such as dairy pro- ducts, fruits, and vegetables were shipped longer distances. 7 As a result, the amount of these items produced increased, and the need for the establishment of Federal grades for these products was accentuated. Among the earliest, and the most important Federal acts were the Cotton Futures Act of 191b, the Grain Stan- dards Act of 1916, and the Cotton Standards Act of 1923. All three have compulsory features, and the bulk of trading in grain and cotton is carried on in terms of the grades established under these acts. The only other act with compulsory features is the Commodity Exchange Act of 1936, which requires the use of grades for all butter traded on futures markets. All other grading legislation provides for optional compliance. Eggislative Action A study of Congressional action early in this cen- tury will help emphasize the factors which led to the estab- lishment of a uniform grading system for agricultural pro- ducts used for food. While the laws related to agricultural products other than foodstuffs are important, consideration of them will not be undertaken in this paper. As previously mentioned, funds were first allocated to the Bureau of Plant Industry in 1902 in order to consider standardizing grading procedures for wheat. In 1905, the Bureau was authorized to investigate the grading of grains. The following excerpts from a report prepared by the Sec- .retary of Agriculture and delivered to Congress on January 26, 1907 will help indicate early sentiments regarding grading. From time to time during the past five years demands have been made upon the Department for aid in grading and handling of grain. It has been fully recognized that this is a matter which demands most careful investigation, as both our home and foreign markets are involved. Grain grading as now practiced by the various State and other organized bodies has not been satisfactory, chiefly on account of lack of uniformity. The Department has consistently held the ground that some system of standardization is absolutely necessary as a first step toward securing uniform methods of grain grading. With a view to eventually bringing about this standardization, Congress at its last session authorized the estab- 1ishment of laboratories for the purpose of examin- ing and reporting upon the nature. quality. and condition of any sample, parcel, or consignment of seed or grain entering into interstate or foreign commerce. After a careful study of the situation two laboratories, all the funds at hand would per- mit, have been established--one at Baltimore, Md.. the other at New Orleans, La. It will be the ob- _ ject of these laboratories to make a thorough study of present systems of grain grading with a view to reaching, if practicable, concgusions which will make standardization possible. Debate following this report further emphasized the increasing realization by members of Congress that some method of uniform grading was necessary due to the steadily increasing volume of interstate and foreign shipments of grain. This was emphasized by the rapid development of grain boards of trade with resulting increased reliance on telegraohic and futures sales. The first steps toward estab- lishing Federal grading standards were accomplished by Congressional authorization placed in the annual Agricultural 3Report Prepared by the Secretary of Agriculture for Delivery to United States Congress, Congressional Record, Volume 41, Part 2, 59th Congress, 2nd Session, January 26, 1907. D. 1773. 9 appropriation bills which permitted investigation of grain grading by the Bureau of Plant Industry and the Bureau'of Agricultural Economics. The first Federal act, other than appropriation bills, which dealt with uniform grading stan- dards was the Standard Apple Barrel Act of 1912. In addi- tion to establishing uniform grades for apples, this act was designed to standardize container size and content. Standard Apple Barrel Act William Sulzer, Representative from New York, intro- duced a 0111 on March 7, 1912, which eventually Was passed as the Standard Apple Barrel Act of 1912. When introduced, the stated intent of this bill was "to establish a standard barrel and standard grade for apples when packed in barrels, 1+ and for other purposes.“ The bill consisted of seven sections. The first section listed the required dimensions for barrels used.to.ship apples in interstate commerce. Section two listed the important requirements of the act which dealt with the establishment of grading standards. That the standard grade for apples when packed in barrels which shall be shipped or delivered for shipment in interstate or foreign commerce or which shall be sold or offered for sale within the District of Columbia or the territories of the United States shall be as follows: Apples of one variety, which are well grown specimens, hand picked, of good color “United States Congress, Congressional Record, Volume #8, Part 10, 62nd Congress, 2nd Session, March 7, 1912. p. 2997. 10 for the variety, normal shape, practically free from insect and fungous injury, bruises, and other defects, except such as are necessarily caused in the Operation of packing, or apples of one variety which are not more than 10 per cent below the fore— going specifications shall be 'U. S. Standard, minimum size 2-1/2 inches,I if the minimum size of the apples is 2-1/2 inches in transverse diameter; 'U. S. Standard, minimum size 2-1/4 inches,‘ if the minimum size of the apples is 2-1/h inches in trans- verse diameter; or 'U. S. Standard, minimum size 2 inches', if the minimum size 0% the apples is 2 inches in transverse diameter. Section three stated, “that apples packed in barrels in accordance with the provisions of this act may be branded in accordance with section 2 of this act."6 Section four required that such barrels must be full, or they must be clearly marked if they were only partially filled. Section five stated that the barrel would be mis- branded if the barrel marking indicated that the contents of the barrel were ”U.S.Standard" grade when they really were not. The variety, locality where grOWn, and the name of the packer or person by whose authority the apples were packed and the barrel was marked were also required to be listed on the barrel if the "U.S. Standard“ term was affixed to the barrel. Section six listed the penalty for violations by packer or seller as follows: _ 5United States Congress, Congressional Record, Vol- ume 48, Part 10, 62d Congress, 2d Session, June 17, 1912, pl 829“. 61bid.. p. 829A. 11 One dollar for each barrel so sold or offered for sale, to be recovered at the suit of the United States in any court of the United States having jurisdiction. This penalty to be recovered under the provisions of an act approved June 30, 1906, entitled 'An act for preventing the manufacture, sale, or transportation of adulterated or mis- branded or poisonous or deleterious foods, drugs, medicine, and liquors, and the regulating traffic 7 therein, and for other purposes.’ (3b Slat, p. 768). Section seven gave the effective date which was July 1, 1913. Following the introduction of this bill, Representa- tive Sulzer clarified the intent and purpose of his bill during discussion before the House of Representatives on June 17, 1912. The main purpose was to prevent fraud and deception throughout the apple trade in order to benefit both producers, consumers and honest distributors. The bill was not compulsory and was designed to closely resemble legislation already in effect in some of the leading agri- cultural states in order to standardize practices through- out the country. Discussion and debate concerning this bill centered around problems of enforcement, the extent of coverage, and the almost unanimous desire of both apple growers and dealers to deliver apples as represented. The support for this legislation throughout the apple trade and among mem- bers of Congress was surprising since this was the first specific act dealing with the establishment of grades and 7Ibid.. p. 8295. 12 standards. The purpose of the act was to assure an honest pack and grade with resulting benefits to the consumer. Thus, although this act principally dealt with the pro- ducing, packing, and wholesaling operations, the importance of dealing fairly with the consumer was fully realized. The act unanimously passed the House of Representatives and was referred to the Senate for consideration.8 The bill was introduced to the Senate by Clarence Watson, Senator from West Virginia. After limited debate, the Senate eliminated the "U.S." designation before the term “Standard” and added the word grade so that the term read ”Standard Grade“ rather than "U.S. Standard." In addition, regarding violations, the word ”knowingly" was inserted in order to protect those making honest mistakes.9 The House agreed to these amendments and the bill was ap- proved and signed by the President on August 3, 1912.10 Thus, this act became the first legislation, aside from the Department of Agriculture appropriation bills, which attempted to standardize grading procedures. An important factor in the passage of this act was the almost unanimous 8United States Congress, Congressional Record, Vol- ume #8, Part 8, 62nd Congress, 2nd Session, June 17. 1912, p. 8299. 91bid., p. 9542. O 1 Ibid., p. 10165. 13 desire of the apple trade to secure legislation that would tend to establish uniform standards, and would benefit the producer and the packer, as well as the consumer. Compli- ance was optional and violations could occur only when the apple barrels were misbranded with regard to the qualitycu' quantity of the contents as established by the act. There- fore, those who wished to guarantee the quality and quantity of their product had ample opportunity, while those inter— ested in selling in bulk, in other type or size containers, or unbranded, had freedom to do so. This act established the optional compliance feature found in most of the suc- ceeding grading bills with the exception of grain and cotton legislation. In addition, it emphasized the desire for uniformity found among both the producer, packer or wholesaler; and the ultimate consumer, and paved the way for additional legislation covering other agricultural products. Grain Standards Act 9_f_ ;2_1_6_ In addition to an amendment dealing with cotton in the Agriculture Appropriations Bill of 1916, there were two amendments dealing with grading regulations. The first was the Grain Standards Act, and the other was the Warehouse Act. The grading provisions proposed for the Grain amend- ment authorized the Secretary of Agriculture to investigate the handling,gmading and transportation of grain and to establish standards for grain. After the grades were in established, no transactions involving the sale of grain by grade would be authorized unless the grain was inspected and graded under the United States standards thus established. The amendment further made provision for enforcement and established penalties for violations. Any person Who knowlingly violated any of the provisions of the act was liable to a $1,000 fine or one year in prison or both.11 Combined with regulations that had been established for cotton, Federal grading provisions were thus made mandatory for a large portion of the nation's agricultural product. Since grains and cotton were important factors in both domestic and foreign trade, the effects of these grading regulations were felt throughout the world. Egrehouse Act 9§_;2;§ The Warehouse amendment provided for bonded ware- houses and required that grain, flax seed and other fungible agricultural products be inspected and graded by a person duly licensed by the Secretary of Agriculture. The Juris- diction of the Department of Agriculture was extended to, "every building, structure or other protected inclosures in which any agricultural product is or may be stored for 11United States Statutes at Large, Public Laws, Volume 39, Part 1, 1915—1917. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., p. 485. 15 interstate or foreign commerce."12 Further, receipts for products stored in these bonded warehouses were required to list the grade of the product received and the standard in accordance with which the classification was made.13 The intent of this Act was to safeguard the grower from possible abuses such as grade switching, whereby dis- honest warehousemen substituted lower quality products for those deposited by the producer,and to insure against loss whenever possible. From 1916 to 1930, there was no legislation dealing specifically with the grading problem. However, as a result of war time needs, provisions for the grading of perishable food products were instituted in emergency leg— islation. These will be considered in the following chapter. Perishable Agricultural Commodity 533 In 1930, the Perishable Agricultural Commodity Act was instituted to relieve the farmer and to prevent mal- practice by middlemen. It was also designed to benefit consumers, since the products covered were in the form found at final consumption. The Act was designed to sup? press unfair and fraudulent practices in the marketing of 12Ibid., p. #85. 13 Ibid., p. #86. 16 perishable agricultural commodities in interstate commerce and defined unfair practices on the part of dealers, com— mission merchants, and brokers in handling perishable agri- cultural products. The Act stated that it was unfair to misrepresent the duality, market price, or condition of a product, or to dump the product without permission. It further provided that the handlers of perishable farm pro- ducts should be licensed by the Secretary of Agriculture for a fee of ten dollars yearly, and that violators' lic- enses would be suspended or forfeited. The Act was intended to benefit the producer, con- sumer, honest dealers, and a number of dealer organizations supported the bill. Previously, some dealers took advantage of the distance between them and the producer to arbitrarily downgrade quality, falsify market and final sales prices, claim the necessity of dumping merchandise that was really sold, and insist on discounts before accepting the merchan- . dise. Under legislation existing at the time, violators had to be taken to court. Since most claims would range from one to three hundred dollars, the legal expenses did not Justify suit. The following special message to Congress by the President of the United States recommending legisla- tion indicates his recognition of the problem: to provide for licensing of handlers of some per- ishable products so as to eliminate unfair practices. Every penny of waste between farmer and consumer that we can eliminate, whether it arises from 1? methods of distribution or from hazard or specula- tion will be a gain to both farmer and consumer. Debate on the measure centered upon the need for changes in existing legislation. Some Congressmen felt that the development of excessive licensing throughout the agricultural economy would prove costly and restrictive and would interfere with state coverage. However, the Act specifically stated that it would not effect existing leg- islation. Poultry and eggs which were originally added to the list of products covered, were later removed due to controversy over their inclusion. A perishable agricultural commodity was described as follows: "means any one of the following, whether or not frozen or packed in ice: Fresh fruits and fresh vegetables of every kind and character."15 While specific grading standards were not listed, quality was given important consideration in the following sections of the final Act which authorized inspection by the Department of Agriculture: The Secretary of Agriculture shall by regulation provide for the making of prompt investigations and the issuing of certificates as to the quality and condition of produce received in interstate commerce or in the District of Columbia, upon application of any person, firm, association, or corporation ship- ping, reigiving, or financially interested in such product. 1”Congressional Record, Volume 72, Part 8, 7lst Con- gress, 2nd Session, May 7, 1930, p. 8538. 1scongressional Record, Volume 72, Part 9, 72nd Con— gress, 2nd Session, June 3, 1930, p. 9975. 16Congressional Record, Volume 72, Part 8, 7lst Con- gress, 2nd Session, June 7, 1930, p. 8505. 18 For any commission merchant, dealer, or broker, for a fraudulent purpose, to remove, alter, or tamper with any card, stencil, stamp, tag, or other notice, placed upon any container or rail- road car containing any perishable agricultural commodity, if such card, stencil, stamp, tag, or other notice contains a certificate under author- ity of any Federal or State inspector as to the grade or Quality of the commodity contained in such container or railroad car or the State or? country in which such commodity was produced. With this legislation, recognition was given to the authority of the Department of Agriculture to regulate a substantial portion of the farm crop designed for immediate use and shipped in the form for final consumption. The desired effect of restricting malpractice and restricting dishonest dealers waseichieved through license forfeiture. The effect of the Act was to protect the producer when shipping to distant points, the honest dealer against un- fair competitive practices, and the consumer against ex- cessive prices. Export gpple and Pgar Act In 1933, a bill was introduced by Representative Robertson of Virginia to promote the foreign trade of the United States in apples and/or pears in foreign markets, to prevent deception or misrepresentation as to the quality of such products moving in foreign commerce, 17Congressional Record, Volume 72, Part 9, 72nd Congress, 2nd Session, June 3, 1930, p. 9976. 19 to provide for the commercial inspection of such products entering into commerce, and for other purposes. The purpose of the bill was to promote the export of apples and pears by assuring foreign nations that nothing except standard grades of fruit would be shipped. In the preceding two years, twenty-six nations had imposed re- strictions on these two American eXports due to varied qualities shipped.19 The bill provided for an inspection of export apples and pears by the De- partment of Agriculture and required that every shipment be accompanied by a certificate issued under the authority of the Secretary of Agriculture showing that such apples and pears meet the require- ments of the established United States grades or the requirements of the country to which shipped.20 The Act, known as the Export Apple and Pear Act of 1933, passed with little debate and highlighted the import- ance of grading standards in easing trade over long dis— tances, in this case, foreign shipments. Provisions were made to finance the inspection from fees collected and violators were subject to fines from one hundred to ten thousand dollars.21 18Congressional Record, Volume 77, Part 2, 73rd Congress, lst Session, April 10, 1933, p. 1453. 19Statement by Mr. Robertson, Congressional Record, Volume 77, Part 2. 73 rd Congress, lst Session April 10, 1933. p. 1563. 2°Ibid.. p. A186. 21 Ibid., p. #186. 20 Commodity_Exchange Agt g£_122§_ The Grain Futures Act of 1922 was amended by an Act introduced in 1936. The new act eliminated a loophole in the original law which permitted abuses in futures trading?2 The amendment also broadened the coverage from a limited number of grains to include, wheat, cotton, rice, corn, oats, barley, ryes, flaxseed, grain sorghums, mill feeds, butter, eggs, and potatoes.23 In addition provision for the use of grading standards was introduced, and the bill which became known as the Commodity Exchange Act of 1936. required contract markets to require that all futures contracts in a commodity made on that market provide for delivery of grades of that commodity conforming to United States Standards, 2” if such standards have been officially promulgated. Thus, the original legislation was corrected while coverage was broadened and the use of Federal grading standards was provided for. Peanut Stocks and Standards Act g; 1236 Standards were further extended to cover peanuts by the Peanut Stocks and Standards Act of 1926 which dealt ZZCongressional Record, Volume 79. Part 11, 7hth Congress, lst Session, July 25. 1935, p. 11993. ZBCongressional Record, Volume 80, Part 6, 7ch Congress, 2nd Session, May 29, 1936. p. 8293. 2"Congressional Record, Volume 79, Part 8, 7bth Congress, lst Session, June 3. 1935. p. 8593. 21 with the compilation of statistics regarding the quality of peanuts held by anyone other than the original producer. The Secretary of Agriculture was also, "authorized to estab- lish and promulgate grades, and standards for the classifi- cation of peanuts, whenever in his discretion he may see fit."25 Rgcent Acts Recent legislation has dealt with a broader coverage of the quality of agricultural products rather than specific commodities as in previous acts. The Agriculture Marketing Act of l9b6 is an example. The purpose of this act was: To inspect, certify, and identify the class, quality, quantity, and condition of agricultural products when shipped or received in interstate commerce, under such rules and regulations as the Secretary of Agriculture may prescribe, in- cluding assessment and collection of such fees as will be reasonable and as nearly as may be to cover the cost of the service rendered, to the end that agricultural products may be marketed to the best advantage, that trading may be fac- ilitated, and that consumers may be able to obtain the quality product which they desire, except that no person shall be required to gee the service authorized by this subsection.2 The annual Agricultural ApprOpriation Bills contain sections which provide for investigation of the quality of products being shipped in interstate commerce as shown by the Department of Agriculture Act, 1951. 25Congressional Record, Volume 80, Part 10, 74th Congress, 2nd Session, June 19, 1936, p. 10212. 26Code of Federal Regulations 19u9, Title 7, Agricul- ture, Parts 1-209, 1952 Cumulative Pocket Supplement for Use During 1953. Government Printing Office, Washington,D.C.. 1953! po 52. 30 uL-men; Market inspection and farm products.[§;gJ For the investigation and certification, in one or more Jurisdictions, to shippers and other inter- ested parties of the class, Quality, and condition of any agricultural commodity or food product, whether raw, dried, canned, or otherwise processed, and any product containing an agricultural commod- ity or derivative there of when offered for inter- state shipment or when received at such important central markets as the Secretary may from time to time designate, or at points which may be conven- iently reached therefrom under such rules and re- gulations as he may prescribe including payment of such fees as will be reasonable and as nearly as may be to cover the cost for the services ren— dered. Marketing farm products.[§igJ For acquiring and diffusing among the people of the United States useful information relative to the needed supplies, standardization, classification, grading, preparation for market, handling, transportation, storage, and marketing of farm and food products, including the demonstration and promotion of uniform standards of classification a; American farm and food products through the world. 27 Ibid., p. 52.3. 22 CHAPTER III DEVELOPMENT OF STANDARDS FOR PERISHABLE PRODUCTS The previous chapter dealt primarily with early leg- islation devoted to specific products. This chapter will deal more directly with the development of grades for per- ishables. This type of product generally passes through the trade from producer to consumer without change of form. Therefore, the formation of grades for these products will be of more interest to consumers, for the grades may help them obtain the quality product they desire. Most early grading legislation and sections of the annual Agricultural Appropriations Bills dealing with the grading problem were devoted to agricultural products such as cotton, grain, tobacco, and wool. Such products required refining or processing before they were ready for retailing or final consumption. However, fresh fruits and vegetables presented a somewhat different problem. They were generally highly perishable, and their condition could quickly deter- iorate. Therefore, quality or lack of it could be determined more easily by the consumer through visual means and personal handling. 1 The first step toward establishing uniform Federal grading standards for these products was incorporated in 24 the Standard Apple Barrel Act of 1912. This Act, described in Chapter II, was instituted to overcome abuses in the trade, and consumer benefits were not the primary factors behind the passage of the act. While the act was aimed toward protecting both grower and buyer, the extent of coverage was limited, and size was the differentiating factor between the three grades provided for. The real beginning of concentrated effort by the Federal Government to aid the fruit and vegetable industry in the marketing of their products occurred in 1913. The Agricultural Appropriations Act of that year authorized “The Secretary of Agriculture to diffuse among the people useful information on subjects connected with the marketing and distribution of farm products."1 Each year since 1913 a similar provision has been approved authorizing investi- gations with a view to establishing standards for farm products. Shortly after this authorization, the Secretary of Agriculture created the Office of Markets to carry out the investigations. During the first two years, major efforts were devoted to field investigations of potatoes, tomatoes, strawberries, cantaloupe, and peaches. The importance of 1Raymond Spangler, Standardization and Inspection of Fresh Fruits and Vegetables, U.S.D.A., Production and Mar- keting Administration, Miscellaneous Publication No. 60“, Washington:Government Printing Office, October, l9u6, p. 5. 25 uniform standards was emphasized by the increased volume of long distance shipments brought about by the improved methods of refrigeration and transportation for these per- ishable products. This led to year round rather than seasonal consumption. In 1915, the Department of Agricul- ture inaugurated a telegraphic market news service. The need for uniformity of product quality was quickly apparent because of price variations in different markets. Progress was slow in the formulating of these grades, but by the time the United States entered World War I the marketing of potatoes by grade was thought to be practical.2 Food Production Act g; 1917 and Succeeding_Legislation A wartime measure, the Food Production Act of 1917, provided authority for the establishment of standards and for permissive inspection of fruits and vegetables. The full title of this act was, "The Food Production Act to Provide Further for the National Security and Defense by Stimulating Agriculture and Facilitating the Distribution of Agriculture Products.” It authorized the Secretary of Agriculture to investigate and certify to shippers the condition as to soundness of fruits and vegetables and other commodities. After the passage of this act, a broad 2 Ibid., p. 5. national policy began to take shape, and the confusion caused by conflicting trade terms and practices abated rapidly as commercial grades were developed.3 The first recorded request for this type of legis- lation dealing with inspection and grading of fruits and vegetables was reported by Representative McLaughlin of Michigan on February 10, 1916 during a "Hearing before the Committee on Agriculture, House of Representatives, Sixty- Fourth Congress, First Session on the Agriculture Appropria- tions Bill.“ He reported that a grange in his district, located at Traverse City, suggested the advisability of Federal legislation for inspection of fruits at their snip— ping point in order to eliminate some of the grading diffi- culties that growers encountered when relying on terminal market inepection. As a result of the hearing and producer demand throughout the country, Senator Bryan proposed an amendment on February 3, 1917 to the Department of Agriculture Appro- priations Bill for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1918. This amendment was the origin of the movement for an offi— cial Inspection Service for fruits and vegetables. 3Merritt Baker, Grades and Grading, Agriculture 'Yearbook (Washington: Government Printing Office, 195A), p. 158. “Wells A. Sherman, Merchandisigg Fruit and Vegetables (Chicago: A. W. Shaw Company, 1928), p. 211. 27 The purpose of the amendment was: To enable the Secretary of Agriculture to in— vestigate and certify to shippers the condition as to soundness of fruits and vegetables when re- ceived at market under such rules and regulations as he may provide; Provided, That the certificates issued by the authorized agents of the department shall be received in all courts as prima facie evidence 0 the truth of the statements therein contained. The amendment failed to pass as part of the Appropriations bill, but was incorporated in the Food Production Act (HR 4188) previously mentioned and passed later that year. During debate on the Food Production bill. Repre- sentative Summers of Texas offered the following amendment. The Secretary of Agriculture, as rapidly and completely as practicable, shall establish and promulgate standards, not otherwise provided for by law, for foods, food material, and farm pro- ducts, and for the containers and packages in which foods,6food materials, and farm products are shipped. This proposal which provided for extensive coverage failed to get out of committee. However, in 1918, the coverage of the Agriculture ApprOpriations Act was broadened to include other perishable farm products and inspection was made self supporting through the authorization of the collection of fees.7 5Ibid., p. 219. Amendment offered by Representative Summers of Texas,Congressiona1 Record, Volume 55. Part 3, 65th Con- gress, lst Session, May 25. 1917. p. 2908. 7Sherman, op, cit., p. 227. 28 In the meantime, desire for shipping point inspec- tion mounted and an amendment dealing with this problem was offered by Representative Summers of Washington, March 11, 1922. This amendment to the Agriculture Appropriations Act of that year passed as follows: For enabling the Secretary of Agriculture to in- vestigate and certify to shippers and other inter- ested parties the quality and condition of fruits, vegetables, poultry, butter, hay, and other perish- able farm products, when offered for interstate shipment or when received in such important central markets as the Secretary of Agriculture may from time to time designate, or at pgints which may be conveniently reached therefrom: Therefore, Federal legislation provided for an in- spection service to deal with the quality and condition of perishables even though it failed to authorize the estab- lishment of specific standards for these products. First Official Standards In 1917, the potato crop was large and since this product was relatively durable, the Federal Reserve Board authorized its member banks to accept warehouse receipts as collateral security for loans on potatoes that had been properly packaged, stored, and insured.9 Following this action, the United States Food Administration requested the 8Ibid., p. 2u1. 9 Spangler, op. cit.. p. 5. 29 Department of Agriculture to recommend standard grades for potatoes, and then ordered all handlers of potatoes to operate on the basis of the grades assigned.10 This ruling was not lifted until after the Armistice. With this action, the first official U. S. grade fora. perishable fruit or vegetable commodity was established. Since that time, commercial grades have been assigned to eighty-two fresh market commodities with frequent revision and adjustment of standards whenever necessary. The commercial grades developed by the Department of Agriculture were generally a compromise between conflicting state Opinions, for many states had previously instituted standards that were almost impossible to meet. In these states, no tolerances were allowed for high speed packing, and therefore, little use could be made of the standards. The reasons for such high standards were generally competi- tive as part of the general promotion and publicity given to differences between neighboring states. By establishing more logical grades, abuses by packers as well as by buyers were overcome in the interest of better marketing.12 The Federal grades set a minimum quality below which no offical O Sherman, op. cit.. p. 199. 11 George Motts, Extract from Unpublished Material Relating to Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Grading, Chapter h. 12 Sherman, op. cit.. p. 19”. . 30 grades would apply, and any portion of the product falling below the line Was referred to officially as unclassified and became known in the trade parlance as "culls."13 The Department of Agriculture has continued to be the major agency promoting the development and use of grades in busi- ness transactions involving food products, and has develOped permissive grades for those farm products for which it seems desirable and technically feasible. In addition, inspection and grading services have been provided on a fee basis at suitable points for those desiring it.1u At present, terminal market inspection of the grade and condition of fresh fruits and vegetables is provided for by the Agriculture Marketing Service of the United States Department of Agriculture, while shipping point inspection is available through the Federal-State Inspection Service on a cooperative basis between the Federal and State Depart- ments of Agriculture.15 Terminal market inspection offices are located in most larger cities. If inspections are made at other points, the total cost will include travel expense from the nearest office. Both shipping point and terminal market inspection certificates provide the following information concerning 13Edward Gallahue, Price lp‘g Nexus and §_Symbol, Agricultupg Yearbook (Washington: Government Printing Office, 195“), p. 155. 1”Day Monroe, Hazel Kirk, and Ursula Stone, Food Buying and Our Markets (New York: Mr. Barrows and Company, 1110. , 15113) I p. 118: 15Motts, op, cit. 31 .the produce shipment, whether by rail or truck. 1. Inspection certificate serial number 2. Inspection point 3. Billing point h Date 5. Applicants name and address 6. Shippers name and address 7. Car initial and number 8. Kind of car 9. Time when inepection was begun and completed 10.’ Car equipment and condition at completion of inspection including a. products b. loading 0. pack d. size e. quality and condition f. grade 11. Fee and EXpenses 12. Signature of inspectorl6 While Federal inspection and grading of fruits and vegetables is permissive rather than mandatory, those growers, shippers, or dealers who indicate a U.S. grade on the package or container of produce become legally respon- sible that the contents conform to the Federal standards 16 Ibid. 32 for the indicated grade. The wide use of such grades in- dicates the benefits of uniform standards to those in the trade. From 1922 to 1923, the first fiscal year of ship- ping point inspections, there were 72,466 inspections per- formed. An idea of the increased use made of this service may be gained by a comparison with the figures for 19b5- 19h6 when 684,89h carlots were inspected at shipping points. In addition, 96,863 carlots of raw products were inspected at processing plants and 113,528 carloads were inspected at 7 terminal receiving markets for a total of 895.785.1 This is an impressive figure considering the fact that inspec- tion is voluntary and is paid for by those requesting the service. The majority of inspections take place at shipping points in order to establish the grade, condition, and pack of the product at the point of origin. This provides a sound foundation on which to make a contract sale and f.o.b. sales to buyers in distant markets are facilitated. Rejec- tions are minimized and a fair basis is established for settling disputes between financially interested parties. Waste is generally decreased for only properly conditioned products will be transported and transportation claims for damage may be settled more easily. COOperative sale by groups of growers is facilitated and all parties in long 1 7Spengler, op. cit., p. 6. 33 range transactions may more logically make use of market price quotations. Requests for inspections at receiving markets are generally made by receivers who believe that the condition of the produce has changed while in shipment. When deter- ioration has occured, the information on the terminal in- spection certificate may be used in making final settlement with the shipper and for the purpose of aiding in fixing responsibility for the deterioration of the produce. When a receiver requests an appeal inspection for a shipment which was graded at a shipping point, two inspectors are usually assigned and at least twice the usual number of samples are examined. No charge for this inspection is made if it is found that the shipping point inspection was in error and the report is changed. However, a double charge is levied if the original grade is sustained.18 Therefore, both producer and dealer are protected by the various steps of the inspection service which help verify the grades of the produce being shipped. In addition, the presence of the inspection service influences standardiza- tion, for there is always someone to appeal to for final decision on disputes related to quality or condition of perishable merchandise. 18Ibid., p. 24. 3h Standards for Meats Interest in grading legislation developed much later for meats than for other perishable agricultural commodi- ties. Early emphasis was centered primarily on safeguard— ing the wholesomeness of meat through the institution of sanitary requirements for meat handling. Public sentiment had been aroused early in this century through disclosures related to the lack of sanitary precautions prevailing in the slaughtering industry. Popular writers emphasized these abuses through various channels of communication. As a re- sult of the aroused public indignation, both the Meat In- spection Act and the Food and Drug Act were passed on the same day, June 30, 1906. These two acts were designed to assure the wholesomeness of certain agricultural products destined for consumer use through legislative action and Federal inspection. While interest in the quality and con- dition of meat Was thus apparent early in the century, of— ficial United States standards for market classes and grades of beef were not set until 1926.19 The original standards for beef were modified in 1939 to provide for grading of all steer, heifer, and cow beef on a single standard. In 1951, grades for veal and lamb were established.20 Grades for 19Merritt Baker, 0p. cit., p. 160. 2 0Ibid., p. 161. 35 live hogs and pork carcasses of the barrow and gilt class became effective on September 12, 1952.21 Although grades for meats were not established until much later than many other products, these grades probably have become more famil— iar to the ultimate cnnsumer than those for most other pro- ducts because of successful consumer education programs and the development of self-service meat operations. The Federal grading and stamping of beef was started by the United States Department of Agriculture on May 1, 1927. The initial request for the develOpment of a Federal grading- inspection service came from a producer organiza- tion called the Better Beef Association. The organization consisted of producers and their representatives from the leading cattle raising sections of our country. Theybe- lieved that a uniform, official grading program for measur— ing quality was needed to encourage the production or high quality beef and to assure the consumer of the quality of his punt-chasm"?2 Thus, once more the motivating force for inspection and grading came from the producing segment of the Population rather than from the relatively unorganized COHBumer group. ~~-‘ 2lPork-Facts for Consumer Education, Agriculture Information Bulletin No. 109, U.S.D.A. (Washington: Govern- ment Printing Office, January 1954):P- L’- ( 22U. 8. Grades for Beef, U.S.D.A. Leaflet No. 310 WaShlngton: Government Printing Office, 1955)- 36 The beef grading program was first set up on an ex- ;xxrixnental basis in ten major meat market-centers in 1927. This service for packers requesting grading was put on a self-supporting basis in 1928 by charging fees in the man- he}? 1oreviously initiated by the Federal fruit and vegetable inaoection and grading service. As the coverage grew to intxliide other meats besides beef, the demand for grading increased and by 1955, a staff of over four hundred graders was required to perform the grading required by the trade. Inspectors are now located in practically every section of the: [Inited States, and all segments of the meat industry takue aflvamtage of this service.23 An indication of the growth of the use of the voluntary Federal meat grading 39PV1ce may be gained by comparing the amount graded in 1930 which was 79,587,l+21 pounds of meat with the amount graded in 191+? which was 3,600,000,000 pounds. This was an incJI‘eaJe of approximately forty—five times in a seventeen year period. Approximately ninety per cent of all meat graded during this period was beef. Poultry Standards The grading of poultry dates from 1928 when turkeys ”8"? f‘irst graded for the Thanksgiving and Christmas markets. \ 23Ibid., p. 1. St 2”Catherine M. Viehmann, A Consumer's Guide to U. 8. We for Farm Products, U. S. D. A. Misc. Publication N0. Washington:fl Government Printing Office, 19%), p. 3. 37 However, most poultry is now inspected by the poultry in— spection service of the Production and Marketing Adminis- tration of the United States Department of Agriculture which checks for condition and wholesomeness. Firms that request this service may use the following legend on their packages: "Inspected for Wholesomeness by U. S. Department of Agriculture. " About 285,000,000 pounds of poultry were inspected by the Production and Marketing Administration in 19146.25 In some of the plants which handle eviscerated poultry, the product is also graded for quality after the inspection for wholesomeness and condition. However, at the present.volume appears rather limited.26 Standards for Daipy Products The grading of dairy products dates to 1919 and now includes products such as creamery butter, cheddar cheese, “V1 as cheese, non-fat dry milk solids, and dry whole milk.27 Except for butter, limited use has been made of grades in tl'11 3 area. Eggs, frequently categorized with dairy products, are another product like butter in which wide use of Federal Spades have been made, both at the wholesale and retail 13"813. The. actual grading is done through the facilities —\ 27Merrit Baker, op. cit., p. 162. 38 of the Production and. Marketing Administration of the United States Department of Agriculture or under license by this agency by cooperating State agencies.28 Grades _a_t_ Retail Level Although U. S. Government grades have been established for practically all perishable products in the unprocessed state, little use has been made of these grades at retail level. Reasons for this are difficult to definitely ascer- tain, but many educators and agricultural extension special- ists are of the opinion that the use of trade terms rather than numerical or alphabetical listings as grade designa- tions may be a partial cause. For eXMple, the use of the terms prime, choice, and good to designate the various grades of beef requires more consumer education and knowledge than would the use of the terms A, B, or C or 1, 2, 3. In addi- tion, an excessive number of grades have been established for Certain products with fine lines separating grades. Thus. grading requires expert knowledge to accurately deter- mine these differences. The very nature of such products compounds the difficulty for there are no definite divisions between quality for the various perishable products which have a continuous range from high quality to low qualitY- Also» since such products are perishable, grades assigned N 28 Viehmann, op. citL, p. 7. 39 at the shipping point or even at the terminal market are subject to change and require constant observation, culling or regrading. In an attempt to overcome the problems of an exces- sive number of grades for a single product and the use of confusing trade designations with which the consumer is not familiar, the United States Department of Agriculture has assigned consumer grades to certain fresh fruits and vege- tables. A8 of July 1955. consumer grades had been developed for brussel Sprouts, carrots, celery, corn, kale, parsnips, potatoes, spinach, field tomatoes, and turnips.29 This less complicated series of grades consists of only two consumer grades for each product which are, "U.S. Grade A," and "U.S. Grade B." The products may also be marked, "Unclassified,” which indicates that lots bearing this designation do not conform to the standards for any grade. The term, "Gulls," has long been used by the processing trade to describe poorer quality. The comparable term established for con— Sumer- grades is, "Off grade.“ These grades were established after World War II in answer- to a number of requests, particularly from consumer groups and those working with consumers, for a less compli- cated 86 rise of grades which would mean more to consumers. For example, the complexity of. some trade grades may be Shown in the cage of apples. The U.S. commercial grades \ 29Motts, op, cit. 1+0 for apples are U.S. Extra Fancy; Combination U.S. Extra Fancy--U.S. Fancy; U.S. Fancy; Combination U.S. Fancy-ems. No. l; U.S. No. l; U.S. No. 1 Cooker; U.S. No. 1 Early; Combination U.S. No. 1—~U.S. Utility; U.S. Utility; and finally, U.S. Hail. While these grades effectively serve growers, shippers, and others in the trade, consumers usually desire a quality of U.S. No. 1 or better, and thus a more limited range is possible. Present research by the United States Department of Agriculture is directed toward investi- gating the feasibility and need for extending consumer grades to include products such as apples. Thus far, only limited use has been made of grades developed entirely for consumer use. However, in some food items, such as eggs, it has been possible to adopt the terms "U.S. Grade A, B, or C" and have such terms carry through all wholesale trading channels direct to the retail level. The use of alphabetical designations rather than specific trade terms has tended to reduce consumer confusion regarding the quality of DPOducts marked in this manner. , Butter is graded in a Similar- manner, but grades begin with AA rather than A. Appm‘er‘i‘l‘.ly consumers prefer to purchase these products When IIMarked by grade, for the use of grade designation on contail'lers is rather extensive at the retail level for these items, As prepackaging and preserving methods for perish- ables are improved, demand for more extensive use of grades 1&1 at the retail level may result in the deve10pment of con- sumer grades for a wider variety of products. Whether or not this will occur is conjectural for nationally advertised brands may develOp and preclude the need for such grades in the minds of consumers, as has occured in the case of pro- ces se (1 perishable commodit ie a. CHAPTER IV THE DETROIT AREA CONSUMER SURVEY Introduction The previous chapters have dealt primarily with the histCJITIOal deve10pment of United States grades for perishable agricultural commodities. From this study, it is apparent that 'tlie major demand for the institution of a Federal grad— ing system has come from the producing and wholesaling seg- ments of the economy. As a result, grades have been developed chiefly to aid those in the trade. Dotential benefit to consumers through application at retail level has been a secondary consideration. Therefore, grades have had limited use at retail and consumers tend to select perishables by means other than United States grades. This chapter will show that consumer recognition of the factors considered in grading is limited and their quality preferences differ from those 01’ grading authorities. Iii an attempt to determine how accurately the present unitedStates commercial grades for certain agricultural prOductB reflect consumer preferences, Doctor Henry Larzelere of the Michigan State University Department of Agriculture Economics has been conducting a consumer panel study in the Detr01t area since December, 1955. This study is under the 43 Jurisdiction of/Michigan State University’Agriculture Experi- ment Station and is one of the first to investigate mixed pro- duct classifications sponsored by this organization. The panels are held in the Home Economics Laboratory at Wayne University in Detroit. The first panel was held December 12, 1955 as a test run, and the study has continued on the last Mond ay of each month since that time. From one hundred and twenty to one hundred sixty consumers attend each session and are given an opportunity to rate the products on display. A portion of the results thusfar obtained will be used in this chapter in an attempt to determine consumer preferences and their recognition of various grades. Method 9;: Selecting Panel Members Selection of consumers to participate as panel members was made from a mailing list of six thousand five hundred names prepared from the Detroit telephone book. A question- naire Was printed and sent to the selected names in groups or five hundred as needed through the past six months. The form requested information concerning the age, education, income, number of members in the family, frequency of pur- chase or the items to be displayed, and whether or not the I‘ecipient desired to attend a panel. This form was sent. together with a letter eXplaining the project and a return envelope, to each name selected. TWO weeks after the first mailing, a second questionnaire printed on different color paper. together with a different explanatory letter, was sent us to those who had not replied to the first letter. This method was used with each group of five hundred names through— out the survey. Acceptances averaged slightly over six per cent on the first mailing, and slightly under five per cent on the second mailing for a total of seven hundred and six- teen acceptances or slightly over eleven per cent of the six thousand five hundred names used. Four hundred and thirty- one negative replys were received and twO hundred and ninety- one letters were returned unopened by the Postal Department. The forms used for this study contained questions re- questing information concerning the age, education, and total income after taxes. Separate sections were devoted to the female and male heads of each family. The sections in which the above information was requested were arranged as follows: TABLE I QUESTIONNAIRE Age Education Income a -- under 30 a -- 0-8 years a -- under 2,000 b -- 31 ~ U5 b.-- 9-11 b -- 2,000-—h,000 c -- #6 - 60 0 --12—13 c -- h,000——5,400 d -- over 60 d --lb or more d -- 5,hOl--7.000 f --l0,000 and over WW From returns that had been completed, it was apparent that the majority fell within certain classifications of age, income, and education. Therefore, Dr. Larzelere decided to l+5 restrict the panel to those in age category _b [31-145] in order to obtain a more intensive study of the preferences of consumers within that area. The years of formal educa— tion completed by this age group fell mostly in the _c_:_ group [12-13]. About half as many were in group 9 [11+ or more]. and a slightly smaller number were in group _‘9 [9-11] years. Total income of all members within the household, from all sources after federal taxes were deducted, ranged chiefly from four thousand to ten thousand dollars per year. The 9 income category [5,401--7,000] showed a slight lead over both the _c_ category [7,00l--l0,000] and the _c_ category [h,OOl—5,L&OO], in the completed returns. Thus the majority 01' Persons who were selected for the panel were in the mid- dle income group and had received a high school education. 0n the returns, men indicated that they performed the family shopping in almost'twenty-five per cent of the cases, and about this proportion of males participated in the sur- vey. There were no racial or color categories on the ques— t1°nnaires and it is assumed that the sample gave a fairly representative distribution of the various components of Detroit's population. The first panel was held December 12, 1955 and those in the first group of five hundred who had expressed will- ingnesa to attend were contacted by telephone to arrange for the most suitable hours of attendance. The panels were c onducted from two in the afternoon until ten in the evening 46 in order to permit both homemakers and employed persons to attend at the most convenient times. During the study, some members were requested to return several succeeding months in order to determine if they performed in a consistent manner. Manner 9; Display The products displayed were apples, potatoes, eggs,' poultry, and pork chops with tomatoes added later in the study. The various agricultural departments at Michigan State University helped prepare the products to be displayed under the direction of Dr. Dewey, Dr. Bratzler, and Dr. Dawson. Mr. Walter Muzzey of the United States Department of Agriculture Poultry and Egg Inspection Service at Lansing also provided invaluable assistance. The products to be dis- played were graded according to U.S. grades in areas where these grades were in use, and by trade practices in the case of pork. The apples, potatoes, and shell eggs were displayed on paper plates. Poultry and pork were displayed in iced trays after being wrapped in pliofilm as commonly practiced in retail food stores. Some eggs were shown broken out in dishes while others were displayed in electric frying pans in order to show the final appearance before consumption. The displays were arranged on long tables according to com- modity, and in each commodity group there were from one to seven sections of the same product. Each section Was devoted to presenting different conditions of the products in order a? to help determine consumer recognition of various grading factors and the effect of these factors on consumer rating. For example, one section of the apple display was devoted to size. In that section there would be from three to five different size categories. The apples in this section were of the same type, color, shape, and grade so that only the size would differ. The apples were displayed on paper plates with one to five apples on each plate depending upon the availability. All the apples on each of the plates were as similar as possible. The panelists rated each group from first to fifth according to their personal preferences. No mention of the factors being considered was made in order ‘30 atSatire that the members judged according to personal evaluation. Throughout the study, symbols were used to indicate the various categories so that numerical or alphabetical Sequence would not influence selection. The symbols were alternated so that a particular figure would not continually indicate a certain quality. The positions of the products on display were also varied so that the highest quality would not be placed in a standard position. The symbols were #, fl, 5;, *, and () and were used throughout the study. During the investigation, Dr. Larzelere greeted each group of consumers and eXplained to them the procedure to be followed in rating the products on display. Assistants were eVellable to aid when any confusion arose, but attempts were made to obtain individual performance. The consumers were 1+8 given a series of cards to be filled out With their ratings. Most were extremely thorough, and spent approximately one ' hour completing their ratings. In order to more fully ex- plain the methods used and the results thusfar indicated, the re sults, for the February, March, and April panels, to- gether with the codes for each product used when arranging the displays have been compiled [See Appendix]. Prelimin- ary indications of consumer preferences may be gained by considering this data. As an aid to clarity, the exrert ratings for the February displays in each product group have been listed along with the total consumer first choice votes for each item. Detailed results for each group may be found in the Appendix. Pork Results For the February panel, three sections of pork were prepared. The chops in each section were selected and ar- ranged by Dr. Bratzler and his staff according to expert Opinion. The following table gives the order of arrangement and factors considered in each section. The item rated top quallity according to trade practice was placed in the A cat- egory and the remainder followed alphabetically in decreas- ing quality whenever the factors being considered were suf- ficient to permit this differentiation. Thus, in Section I, the A category would indicate the top choice of those pre- Dar‘ing the display while the E item would be the least deal Pable. In order to compare this with consumer ratings, 49 the number of first choice votes given each item by the panel members follow. TABLE II EXPERT RATING AND PANEL MEMBERS SELECTIONS FOR PORK -- FEBRUARY Expert Rating Consumer Selection as First Choice Section I--Marbling, Color, Firmness, and Size of Eye . A-- Top - in all four categories 19 B-~ Top - except marbling 2h C-- Top - except size of eye 19 D-~ Top - except color 59 E-- Top - except firmness 7 _—_ Section II - Trim A-- Top - no fat 22 B—~ Top - 1/8 inch fat cover 72 C-- Top - l/u inch fat cover 1h D-- Top - 3/8 inch fat cover 21 E-— Top - 1/2 inch fat cover 3 _— Section III - Cut A-- Center cut loin 58 B-- Center cut rib 24 C-— Sirloin #1 D-- Blade 2 The first section consisted of top quality chops with differences in marbling, color, firmness, and'the size of the eye. The chop rated doWn according to trade practices due to poor color received the majority of first place ratings by the consumers. They also rated a chop with marbling deficiencies slightly ahead of the chop without 50 any defects. However, they did agree that lack of firmness was the most undesirable feature. Chops in Section II dif- fered by amount of trim. The chop with one-eighth inch fat cover received the most first place votes, far ahead of the one with no fat and those with heavier fat cover. The third section consisted of varied cuts. The center cut loin chop led with the sirloin second, center cut rib third, and blade a distant fourth. The ratings in the latter section were close to expert eXpectations. However, the preference for a one-eighth trim over a very close trim, and a solid color chop with little marbling over chOps with lighter color and marbling were both surprising. The March panel repeated the earlier results. Chops were rated for color and varied trim and a chop with poor color and one-eighth inch trim secured the most first choice selections, while one with good color and one-eighth trim was second. A chop with poor color and three-eighths trim was third and one with the same trim and good color was last. Thus, it was apparent that the trim influenced the panel members. more than color, and that they prefered solid color meat rather than marbled, contrary to the experts.' Chops in the second section had one—eighth inch trim. Two were from the center cut loin and the one with poor color was rated first by the majority. The other three chops were blade cuts, two with good color and one with poor. The lat- ter was rated ahead of the former. 51 Section III consisted of various cuts to determine the effect of bone size upon selection. Center cut rib chops were most pOpular and a hip bone sirloin chop received the lowest rating. The fourth section had uniform chops of varied thickness. The three-quarter inch chop received over twice as many firsts as did a chop one inch thick. There was little difference between the rating for chops one-half and one-quarter inch thick. It has generally been supposed that a- thicker chop would be most popular, but possibly cooking time influences choice, and three-quarters of an inch width was preferred in this case. Another possibility is that consumers are used to seeing the thinner size in the stores in which they shop. The April panel verified the trim preferences, for chops with one-eighth trim for both good and poor color were more ponular than those with three-eighths trim. However, the chop with good color received the vast majority of first choi ce votes. Among five chops with a one-eighth trim, a center cut loin with poor color received more first place ratings than a similar cut with good color. Three of the chaps were blade ch0ps and the one with poor color was ranked lowest. Apparently color was secondary to other considera— tions influencing consumer selections. In the next section, price was introduced as a factor. A chop with poor color and one-eighth trim priced at sixty-five cents per pound received over one hundred more firsts than did one with the same trim but good color, priced at sixty—nine cents per 52 Section IV had chops with varied thickness, but this time the predominant favorite was one inch thick. The results enumerated indicate some of the difficul- ties to be found when establishing consumer grades due to varied preferences of consumers. There was no unanimous agreement on preferences although evidently the large maj- ority prefer one-eighth inch trim and are not adversely af- fected by solid dark color. Possibly such results will prove to be more beneficial for packers and retailers who prepare pork for display than for those interested in estab- lishing uniform grades based on consumer preferences. How- ever, the failure to agree on color and marbling importance with the experts may be significant in future grade revisions. Apple 219.21.24.22 The next item considered was apples. Table III lists the primary consideration in each section during the February panel . The first factor covered in February was that of general grade characteristics. U. S. Extra Fancy received the majority of first place votes and the Fancy, No. 1, and Utility were selected in the same sequence as they are of- ficially rated. Section II consisted of U. 8. Extra Fancy apples of the same size with attention to color variations. The apples with maximum color and minimum color were accur- ately judged but little preference could be noted between he with fifty per cent of the colon required for the class 0 and one with twenty-five per cent of maximum color. The 53 TABLE III EXPERT RATING AND PANEL MEMBER SELECTIONS FOR APPLE S--FEBRUARY EXpert Rating Consumer Selection as First Choice Section I -- General Grade Characteristics A-- U. 8. Extra Fancy 87 B-~ U. S. Fancy 37 6"- U. S. NO.1 1 D-- U. 8. Utility 2 Section II -- Color Variations [all apples this section U. S. Extra Fancy 2-1/2" to 2—3/Lw] A-- Maximum color, 95-100?) red B-- 50% maximum, 85 -— 90% red C-- 25% maximum. 75% red D-- minimum for grade, 66% red 73 18 31+ 6 Section III -- Brusing--All Apples U. S. No. l _- A-- No bruising B-- minimum bruising C-- 50% of maximum D-- Maximum L 37 37 ll 53 Section IV -- Defects —- All Apples U.S. Fancy _* A-- No defects B-- Stems missing 0" M13— Bhapen, lop sided D“ 590138, russeting 68 51 L, Lg, Section V -- Size -- All Apples same Grade K g“ 2-3/14 -- 3 inches C“ 2-1/2 _. 2-3/1» inches -- 2-1/14, -- 2-1/2 inches 86 31 9 A 51+ third section was devoted to bruising. In this category, the group with maximum amount of bruising received the most first place selections while those with minimum bruising and no bruising follOWed. Apparently color was more import- ant than defects in this case, although all apples were of the same grade. The fourth section considered defects and consumer rating again followed established standards. Apples with spots and russeting, or apples which were mis- shapen or lop-sided were far behind. The final section con- sidered size and here the two and three-quarter to three inch size was most popular. During the March panel, the consumers again rated ac- cording to general grade characteristics in line with estab- lished standards. With color, the apples were displayed with different grades and greater variations were thus ap- parent. Here, the selection reflected official practices and less trouble was noticed through the middle range of color than when the apples were all of one grade. Again in bruising, the ratings accurately reflected the Federal grades. Regarding defects, performance was similar, with spots and russeting the most undesirable defects. With size, the larg- est size U. S. Extra Fancy was most papular followed by a smaller size in the same grade. Third choice was U. S. Fancy, a large size and fourth the same grade in a smaller size. Apparently size was less important than overall grade charac- teristics in consumer rating which is in agreement with official opinion. 55 During the April panel, general grade characteristics were again considered for the lOWer grades and the rating agreed with established practice. Defects for Jonathon apples were considered and again apples with stems missing scored second and russeting was the most serious drawback. While rating for size, the large size in the top grade was first but was followed by the large size in the second grade rather than a smaller size in the best grade. Section V was devoted to bruising and top rating was given to apples with the maximum number 'of bruises. The variety was McIntosh which is highly susceptible to bruising and perhaps con- Sumers are used to purchasing them in this condition. Second position was given to the group with minimum bruising while those with one or two large bruises were listed low on the list. Numerous small bruises did not influence the rat— ing as much as did a few large ones. The results of a ple rating seem to indicate that color was very important to consumers, while small bruises did not bother them as much as large ones or as russeting. Missing stems reduce the popularity somewhat, but not as ““1011 as Other defects. The most desired size generally seems to be the two and three quarter to three inch size. The Consumers were also able to rate according to the order determined by Federal grade in a large number of 08883- Egg Results The next product category considered was eggs. The eggs displayed were arranged according to the following table: 56 TABLE IV EXPERT RATING AND PANEL MEMBERS SELECTIONS FOR EGGS -- FEBRUARY ' Consumer Selection Expert Rating as First Choice Section I--Shell Texture A—— A 3# 5-- A SH C-- A - B shell texture 5 D-— A - B shell texture #4 E-- A - C shell texture 1 Section II¥:Sta1ne if A—- A - minor stain 38 B-- A - adhering dirt 15 C-- A - B stain localized #9 D-- A - B stain scattered 28 E-~ A - C stain 17 Section III-—Eggs Broken Out on Plates A-— A 63 B-— A yolk - B albumen 25 C-- A yolk — C albumen 10 D-— B 17 E?” C 15 Section IV--Break Out by Panel Members A-- AA 56 B-- A 34 C-- B 22 D-- C 14 Section V——Eggs Broken Out on Plates A-- AA 67 B-w A 22 C-- A with meat spot smaller than 1/8 inch-- brown 6 D-— A with meatSpot smaller than l/8 inch -- white 13 E-- A with bloodspot smaller than 1/8 inch ‘ 21 _. Section VI-—Fried--Easy Up A—~A 55 B-~A yolk - B albumen 21 C-- C yolk— C albumen 10 D-- B ll E—— C 29 57 During February, in Section I there were two grade A shell eggs and one was selected as the first choice. However, an A egg with B shell texture received the second largest num— ber of tallies for first choice ahead of the other grade A egg. Section II consisted of eggs with stain or dirt on the shell. C grade stains and adhering dirt were the least desirable marks on the shells. Section III consisted of eggs broken out according to grade. Most consumers selected the grade A egg as first choice. Second choice was an egg with a grade A yolk and grade B albumen while third choice was a grade B egg. A grade C egg and a grade A egg with C albumen followed in that order indicating that perhaps a watery albumen is the least desired prOperty. Section IV consists of a break out test performed by the consumers of eggs which had been previously candled and separated into grades AA, A, B, and.C. Results reflected recognition of the various qualities required by the grades. Section V consisted of another display of eggs broken out from the shell. Grade AA rated highest, while little difference was noted between a grade A egg and a grade A egg With a small bloodspot. The final section consisted of eggs displayed in electric frying pans sunny side up. A grade A egg re- ceived top rating while a grade C egg rated second. The tendency of a grade C egg to spread and present a large albumen when cooked may be the reason the grade C egg rated high in the cooking test. 58 During the March panel, a grade A egg with normal shell received a preponderance of the first choice votes, while the others ranged down according to the roughness of the shell while dirt and stains caused lower ratings. With displays of half dozens of eggs, white shells were the first choice of most and uniform brown eggs were second. Tinted eggs and a half dozen consisting of three white and three brown eggs were next in order with shaded brown eggs last in preference. In a break out display, a grade A egg with B albumen and an A with a brown meatspot rated behind grade A eggs which showed varying aircells when candled. The last sectionvwas a repeat of the fried egg display and the rat- ings agreed with established grades. The April panel Was arranged in a.manner similar to the previous months with prices introduced in several sec- tions. The first section consisted of dozens of eggs in containers marked fifty, fifty-four, and fifty~eight cents Per dozen. They were C, B, and A grade eggs respectively. In front of each group was placed an egg of the respective Grade broken out on a plate. More panelists selected the fifty-four-cent egg than the fifty-eight for their first Choice with the fifty cent selection a distant third. In order to check on conformity, in section seven on the oppo- Site side of the table, the consumers were permitted to pur- Chase one-half dozen of eggs if they desired. The break out arrangement and price were similar to Section I with the prices per half dozen twenty-five, twenty-seven, and 59 twenty-nine cents. Thirty-one panelists purchased from the twenty-five cent group, forty-three from the twenty-seven cent group, and seventy-eight from the twenty—nine cent selection. Therefore, the panel members did not show the same preferences when actually purchasing the eggs as they did when merely rating them. Possibly this reflects con- sumer purchasing habits of buying by price in order to get the best quality when the goods are not visible as in the case of boxed eggs. Section II covered shell texture and a normal shell received the majority of first choice selec- tions, while a rough shell received the lowest rating. Again With stains, a normal shell and one with a small local- ized stain were Judged ahead of those with larger or scat— tered stains. With shell color, all white again rated far ahead of the all brown, followed by a combinationcaf three white and three brown. In the fried egg display, a B egg rated higher than a A with a B grade albumen while an A with a one—eighth inch bloodspot rated well below a C egg. The results indicate consumers place a premium on white shell eggs, but may rate grade C high when these eggs are broken out. Perhaps retailers would be able to sell.grade 0 eggs in volume if they maintained displays of freshly broken out eggs of this grade in order to show the consumer the relative quality. The low ratings for dirt, stains, or roughnegg on the shell probably indicates that most consumers do not see such eggs at retail outlets. Possibly the intro- duction of eggs broken into plastic containter will lead to 60 a wider use of the lower grade eggs. In comparison with expert ratings, the panel members ranked grade C eggs higher than eXpected. Their ratings were not affected as much as expected by a watery albumen, by localized shell stains, or by meatspots and bloodspots. However, they agreed with the expert ratings in a good portion of the sections considered. Potato Results The fourth commodity used for this investigation was potatoes. They were arranged according to the follOWing table: ”4” TABLE V EXPERT RATING AND PANEL MEMBERS SELECTION FOR POTATOES -— FEBRUARY Expert Rating Consumer Selection as First Choice Section I-—Size Variations A—- Under 1—7/8 inches . l B-- 1-7/8 to 2-l/b inches 1 C-- 2-l/h to 2-3/4 inches 38 D-- 2-3/h to 3-l/b inches 40 E-- 3-1/h inches and over 41 Section II--Skin Characteristics A-- U.S. No. l - smooth white 33 B--'U.S. No. l - smooth red 65 C-- U.S. No. l - russet 36 D-- U.S. No. 2 - white 3 E-- U.S. No. 2 - russet l __» Section III--Cleanliness--All U.S. No. 1 AP- Washed, very clean ”0 3'" Washed, slightly clean 26 C-- Unwashed, slightly dirty 57 D“ Unwashed, dirty 6 61 TABLE V -- Continued m Expert Rating Consumer Selection as First Choice Section IV--Bruises and Cuts A-- No cuts and bruises 56 B» 2% outs and bruises 25 C-- 5% cute and bruises , 28 .‘ D-- 10% cuts and bruises 16 fr“"' The first test was for size preferences and little differ- ence was noted between potatoes ranging from two and one- quarter inches to over three and one-quarter inches in 4_~s, diameter. Smaller potatoes, especially under one and seven- eighth inches in diameter were rated low. With skin charac- teristics, U. S. No. l. grades rated well ahead of No. 2 grades. Among the No. 1'6, smooth red ranked well ahead of smooth white and russet. The reds were Just reaching the market during February and apparently were more acceptable to the consumers due to retail displays at that time. With regard to cleanliness, potatoes which had been washed and scrubbed and those which had been washed but not scrubbed ranked behind a sample which had been brushed but not Washed. However, potatoes which were neither washed or brushed were rated last. Perhaps the more thorough methods of cleaning potatoes reveal more blemishes. Brushing or light Spraying is probably sufficient to remove the necessary . . D . . :‘sJ __ TABLE VI -- Continued 64 EXpert Rating Consumer Selection as First Choice Section IV--Form A-~ A 32 B-- A - minimum 12 C-— A - dislocated wing 50 D-~ A - broken wing and low A flesh 8 E-- A — broken leg and dislocated wing 27 _‘ Section V--Tears in Skin and Flesh A:9 A 22 B-- A 25 0-- A - s tear [back] 8 D-- A - B tear [breast] 25 E-- A - maximum tear [breast] 52 _—' Section VI--Finish A-- A 13 B-~ A 25 C-~ A 18 D-— A - A with minimum 33 E—- A - C tear [breast] nu __ Section VII-~Bruises A-- A 23 B—- A 13 C-- A 58 D-- A - B bruises on leg 12 E-- A - B bruise on breast 33 The first test was for the amount of flesh and the panel accurately determined the correct order of the chickens on display. selected. ties such as hunchback, there was less unanimous opinion. Again with finish, the top grades were However, with back and breast tears and deformi- Pin feathers produced lower grading than any of the previous defects. Dislocated wings and broken legs were somewhat I h“ 65 disregarded, and fleshiness was of primary consideration. Bruises also were overlooked by most panel members when rating, although birds with bruises received lower rating than those with tears. During the March panel, fleshing again showed preced— ence over such factors as blood in the bag containing the chicken, red breast area, or white pin feathers. Poor finish resulted in a lower rating than a broken wing with protruding bone. Poor shape was not a significant factor in affecting decisions while dark pin feathers caused lower rating than light. ones. During April, a skin blister resulted in lower rating than poor flesh, although the latter influenced panelists more than conformation and bruising. Pin feathers continued to cause low rating while an A bird With yellow flesh ranked Significantly higher than one with white flesh. Throughout the three months it was apparent that fleshiness was the most important consideration. Skin and meat tears were generally overlooked while finish, bruises, dislocated wings, and broken legs had limited influence on selections. Dark pin feathers probably had a more negative effect than any factor other than lack of fleshiness in in- fluaucing choice. Possibly consumers are used to broken bones and lack of conformation or find difficulty detecting theaa factors when the poultry is packaged. When poultry 1° frozen, bruises and other defects may be difficult to 66 detect. It is apparent that the consumers are interested in well fleshed, meaty chickens and most other considerations im- portant in grading are subordinated to this factor. While agreeing with the experts in general, the panel members rated lower for lack of fleshiness, and did not consider defects such as tears, deformities, or broken bones as significant as . brui ees, dark pin feathers, or poor finish. {I The above discussion of the preliminary findings ; obtained by analyzing results from the survey during three different months accentuate the difficulties concerned with e stabli shing c on sumer grade 8. CHAPTER V SUMMARY This study of the historical development of grades for agricultural products has shown that the demand for grades has come primarily from producers and dealers and their organizations. Until shortly after World War II, little interest in the use of grades at retail level Was apparent. As a result, most Federal action dealing with grading was devoted to aiding the grower and the wholesaler. For example, the annual Agricultural Apnr0priations Bills have contained provisions directed toward facilitating trading in perishable products through the use of grades since early in the century. In addition, specific legisla- tion has been instituted to promote uniform practices and to protect the producer from exploitation. While several acts were designed to aid the consumer as well as the producer and dealer, the benefits for the consumer were generally secondary. Thus, the grades which were developed were de- Signed principally to aid those in the trade and were based on established practices or scientific studies and measure- ment and did not consider consumer preferences directly. The development of United States grades for agricul- tural food products has benefited producers. dealers, and 68 all those who depend upon a uniform language to facilitate trading. However, consumers have benefited only indirectly from the improvements in the distribution of perishables resulting from the establishment of a uniform grading system, for they have had little opportunity to select by grade at their retail outlets. This restricted use of grades at the final distribution point has been attributed to various factors. One factor is the customer habit of selecting perishable food products through the use of the various personal senses including sight, touch, smell, and occasion- ally taste. For products such as melons, even hearing may be employed when shaking or thumping the product. Another factor is the wide variety of terms used for grade design- ations. These terms have generally been based on tradi- tional trade practices. In addition, there are apparently an excessive number of grades, with indefinite divisions between categories, for many perishable commodities. Thus, expert knowledge and eXperience are necessary to success- fully ascertain the various grades and quality indicated. ~In an attempt to overcome some of these problems, the United States Department of Agriculture has established consumer grades for several products. These grades are based upon a reduced number of alphabetical terms. Thus far, these grades have not been used extensively. However, With predictions of improvements in prepackaging and presentation heralding a potential volume increase for perishables, con- sumer- grades may gain in importance. Whether this will .fl'r'" 69 occur or not is at present conjectural. In order to be prepared if demand for consumer grades at retail level does become significant, the Department of Agriculture is epon— aoring investigations regarding consumer buying preferences for perishable foodstuffs. The area being investigated is the feasibility of correlating consumer grades to trade grades. This study reveals a lack of uniformity in con- sumer selection for many products. However, the results may provide a new basis on which to establish consumer grades depending upon the quality preferences of the majority rather than upon practices common in the trade. If this is not fessible, the results may prove helpful to retailers by in- forming them of the factors considered most important in the selection of perishables by their customers. The survey presented in the previous chapter shows that consumers are unable to consistently identify perish- ables according to Federal grades. They also fail to show unanimous agreement on the factors which are most important in determining personal evaluation of quality. Although they do not individually agree consistently with each other, collectively they indicate certain definite preferences. These preferences differ from the expectations of those in the trade in many instances for the consumers base their selections on personal tastes, and their choices Show 1infilted correlation with the ratings of experts. Therefore. if increased demand for grade use at the retail level should 7O occur, some grading practices may have to be revised. While it may not be practical to establish alphabetical grades with a limited number of terms for each product due to ex- tensive use and acceptance of the present system throughout the perishable trade, it may be possible to establish a separate group of consumer grades for all perishables for use extensively at retail level. In this manner, retail grades might be based on the quality preferences of the maj- ority of consumers, while the trade grades could retain their numerous and detailed trade terms for the special use of the producers and middlemen. Thus, the traditional im~ portance of a uniform grading system for facilitating trading may be maintained while a more effective retail system could be develOped to aid the shopper. Due to the need for constant rotation as a result of the highly perishable nature of most produce and fresh meat, grading at store level is very difficult for most products at the present time. The major problem is the almost con— stant need for regrading, eSpecially with fresh fruits and vegetables. Combined with the consumer habit of personal inspection before purchase, these factors have been suffic- ient to limit the use of grades at the retail level. How- ever, with the increasing use of packages in which the con— tents are partially or wholly concealed, consumers may be forced to depend upon grades to help them determine the particular quality that they desire. Future use of Federal grades at retail level will depend in large extent upon 7l prepackaging and preserving developments and improvements. When methods of preserVation advance sufficiently to assure the maintenance of quality and prevention of deterioration between the time the product is packaged and the time it is used, the use of grades on .containers .at retail level will be feasible for the more highly perishable commodities as well as for the more durable products. The types of con— tainers used to package perishables will also have consid- arable effect upon future use of grades at retail. If packages similar to those used presently for tomatoes and carrots become popular, the contents will be wholly or par— tially visible. However, the customer will be limited almost exclusively to visual means of selection. Therefore, consumers may request the use of grades to assist them in selecting the quality they desire. If packages similar to those used for canned or frozen foods find favor, the con- tents will not be visible and some other means of selecting these items will be necessary. In this case, consumer grades could be an important factor and would facilitate consumer recognition of quality. While the future demand for consumer grades is in- definite at this time, indications are that the prepackaging 0f perishable commodities at the producer level is likely. As a result, there is a possibility that consumers will de- sire to rely upon the assistance of Federal grades to help them select their perishables rather than upon controlled labels.or»nationally advertised brands as in the case of 72 canned and frozen food products. Whether or not brands do develop, consumer grades based upon the preferences of the consumer, rather than upon the traditional trade practices, may effectively be used to serve the consumer. By affixing an easily identified grade upon packages containing perish- ables,packers would help the retail customer to quickly determine the quality of the contents. When the use of grades is combined with some indication of the date when the merchandise was packaged, or when the grade designation would no longer be effective, the result should be increased sales volume for these commodities as a result of heightened satisfaction with perishable foods. BIBLIOGRAPHY 74 Ma Day, Monroe, Kirk, Hazel, and Stone, Ursula. Food Buyipg and our Markets. New York: Mr. Barrows and Company, Inc., 19 Shernmh, Wells A. Merchandising Fruit and Vegetables. Chicago: A. W. Shaw Company, 1928. Congressional Records U.55., Congressional Record. Reporg prepared 21 the Secretary of Agricultugg for delivery £p_the U.S. Congress Sgth Congress, 23 Session, Volume 41, Part 2, ' January 26, 1907. Statement 21 Representative William Sulzer before U 8. Congress. 62nd CongFess, Zd SesSion, Volume KB, Part 10, March 7, 1912. _ . Standard Apple Barrel Act. 62nd Congress, 2d Volume—ES, Part 10, June 17, 1912. . Debate pp §tandard Apple Barrel Act. 62nd Congress, 2d Session, Volume E8, Part 10, June 17, 1912. __a . Amendment offerggipy Representative Summers of Texas. 65th Congress, lst Session, Volume 55, fir? 3'. May 25. 1917. ____‘_ . Messagp from the President pp the Perishable Agricultur§_Commodities Act. 71st Congress, 2d Ses- sion, Volume 72, Part 8, May 7. 1930. ——~_l . Perishable Agricultural Commodities_Aet. 7lst Congress, 2d Session, Volume 72, Part 8, June 7, 1930; Part 9. June 3' 1930. ——~l‘____w.. Export Apple and Peer Act. 73rd Congress, lst Session, Volume 77. Part 2, April 10. 1933. . Statement py Representative Willig Robertson 9; Virginia pp Export Apple and Pear Act. 73rd Congress, lst Session, Volume 77. Part 2, April 10, 1933; Volume 77, Part 4, May 25, 1933. 75 U. 8. Congressional Record. Commodity Exchange Act. 7ch Congress, 2d Session, Volume 79, Part 8, June 3, 1935; Volume 79, Part 11, July 25, 1935. . Commodity,Exchang_fAct. 74th Congress, 2d Session, Volume 80, Part 6, May 29,1936. . Peanut Stock§_and Standards Act. 74th Con- gress, 2d Session, Volume 80, Part 10, June 19, 1936. Government Publicationg Ehlcer, Merrit. "Grades and Grading,“ Aggicultup§_Yearbook. Washington: Government Printing Office, 193b, Gallahue, deard. "Price is a Nexus and a Symbol, " Agriculture Yearbook. Washington: Government Print— ing Office, 1954. (Rude of Federal Regulations. Agriculture Marketing Act. Title 7. Agriculture, Parts 1-209, 19h9. 1952 Cumulative Pocket Supplement for Use During 1953. Washington: Government Printing Office, 1953. Spangler, Raymond. Standardization and Inspection o___f_ Fresh Fruits and Veg_tables. U. S. Dept. of Agriculture, Production and Marketing Administration, Miscellane- ous Publication, No. 60#. Washington: Government Printing Office, October, l9h6. TaYlor, George. Burtes, Edgar, and Waugh, Frederick. Barriers 32 Internal Trade $3 Farm Products. U. 3. Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Agriculture Economics, Special Report. Washington: Government Printing Office, March, 1939. U-S- Department of Agriculture. U. SL Grades for Beef. Leaflet No. 310. Washington: Government Printing Office, 1955. U.S. Department of Agriculture. ‘Pork-Facts for Consumer Education. Agriculture Information Bulletin No. 109. Washington: Government Printing Office, January, 1954. “'3- Statutes at Large. Arg riculture ro riations Bill. Public Laws, Volume 39, Part 1,1915—1917. Washing- ton: Government Printing Office. ViehInan, Catherine. _A Consumer's Guide _t__o U, S. Standards for Farm Products. U. S. Department of Agriculture, Motts, 76 Miscellaneous Publication No. 553. Washington: Government Printing Office, 19u7. Unpublished Material George. “Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Grading." Bulletin being prepared for distribution by Michigan State University, Agriculture Extension Department, East Lansing, Michigan, 1956. APPENDIX II. III. 78 PORK CHOP CODE, FEBRUARY 27. 1956 Marbling, Color, Firmness, and Size p£_Eye A HUGO) 0-3 muons» 0 corn» Top-in all Top-except TOp-except Top-except Top-except Tep-no fat Top-l/B in Tap-l/h in Tap-3/8 in TOp-l/Z in Center cut- Center cut- Sirloin Blade four categories marbling size of eye color firmness fat cover fat cover fat cover fat cover loin rib PORK CHOP TALLY, FEBRUARY 27, 1956 79 I. A B c D E ‘_ T 19 59 19 2a 7 2 39 26 28 32 9 3 34 20 31 28 18 u 26 10 36 21 23 5 5 9 9 18 67 II.. A B C D E 1 22 72 In 21 3 2 32 25 28 38 5 ‘ 3 3b 18 34 31 17 a 22 6 A1 28 23 5 13 3 7 6 75 III. A B c D 1 58 24 AI 2 2 95 35 39 8 3 In 48 A2 20 4 6 16 5 9o 5 1 2 a II. III. IV. Quay-mm. A -- Good color - 1/8" B —- Poor color - 1/8" C -- Good color — 3/8" D -— Poor color — 3/8" All 118" Trim A -- F] U 0 ['11 I I (I! 0 :3 (b A B C _- D E Center cut loin - Center cut loin - Blade - good color Blade - good color Blade — poor color Center cut ribs Center cut ribs Round bone sirloin chop trim trim trim trim good poor 80 PORK CHOP CODE, MARCH 26, 1956 color color Double bone sirloin chop Hip bone sirloin chap Uniform Chop but Vary Thicknegg A _- B c - D 1" thick 3/4" thick 1/2" thick l/u” thick PORK CHOP TALLY, MARCH 26, 1956 I. A B c D 1 7‘ A9 76 10 23 2 A6 29 39 #2 3 ’45 28 33 37 1+ 8 15 64 1+5 5 o o 1 1 II. A s c D E l 25 116 o o o 2 81+ 27 10 2 26 3 19 1 39 18 72 4 12 3 81 28 22 5 u o 17 95 1a In - A B c D E ~\ _ 1 55 56 34 15 o 2 50 47 21 28 1 3 21 26 55 35 9 ‘* 7o 15 33 58 21 T:\ o 3 3 11 116 l‘-\ A B c D 1 36 81 23 19 2 46 115 32 22 3 26 10 63 1.9 1‘ 36 9 27 55 5 o o 81 PORK CHOP TALLY, APRIL 23, 1956 I. A s c D l 122 20 12 3 2 22 53 7o 8 3 8 66 52 21 u 3 In 19 119 5 1 o 1 II. A 8w 1 D E 1 5171 93 L» 2 8a 52 9 o 12 3 5 7 62 13 77 u 10 0 56 22 ' A6 5 u 2 10 116 10 III. A B c D 1 22 12a 2 u 2 86 20 29 23 3 32 10 78 31 4 12 0 an 93 5 1 o o 1 IV. A B c D _ 1 116 12 16 13 2 25 63 51 26 3 7 an 70 30 A 5 3o 16 82 5 1 1 1 2 II. III. IV. 83 PORK CHOPS, APRIL 23, 1956 99121-41111 A -- Good color - 1/8" trim B -— Poor color - 1/8" trim C -~ Good color - 3/8" trim D -- Poor color - 3/8“ trim All 1/8” Trim A -- Center cut loin - good color B —- Center cut loin - poor color C -- Blade - good color D -- Blade - poor color E -- Blade - good color mum-3122 A -- Good color - 1/8" trim - 69¢ —— Poor color - 1/8“ trim - 65¢ 3/8" trim - 68¢ B C - Good color D -— Poor color - 3/8“ trim — 66¢ Uniform ghppflpgg Vagy Thickness A -— 1" thick -~ 3/4” thick l/2" thick B C _ D -- 1/4' thick II. III. 'IV. 84 APPLE CODE, FEBRUARY 27. 1956 General Grade Characteristics A -- U. 8. Extra Fancy B -— U. S. Fancy C -- U. S. No. 1 D -- U. S. Utility Color Varigfiions [All U.S.Extra Fancy 2—1/2" to 2-3/9"J A -- U.S. Extra Fancy - maximum color. 95-1005 red B -- U.S. Extra Fancy - 50% maximum, 85-90% red C —- U.S. Extra Fancy - 25% maximum. 75% red D -- U.S. Extra Fancy - minimum for grade, 66% red Bruising A -~ U. S. No. 1 - no brusing B -— U. S. No. 1 — minimum bruising c -- U. s. No. 1 - 50% of maximum D -; U. S. No. 1 - maximum bruising Defects A -— U. S. Fancy B -« U. S. Fancy - stems missing C -- U. S. Fancy - mishapen, lop sided D -~ U. S Fancy — spots, russeting 8126 [A11 Same Grade] A __ 2_3/L1n _ 3n _ B -- 2-1/2" - 2-3/9" C -- 2-1/4" - 2e1/h“ APPLE TALLY, FEBRUARY 27, 1956 85 mg“ I. A B C D 1 87 37 1 2 2 32 78 8 4 3 3 5 80 42 u 2 4 3a 75 5 o o 1 1 11. A B C D l 73 18 34 6 2 27 A6 A2 20 3 17 93 A2 22 u 7 17 6 76 5 o o o o 7111 A B C D 1 37 37 11 53 2 31 32 #1 33 3 31 32 39 17 u 25 23 33 21 5 o o o 0 IV. A B c D 1 68 51 7 7 L. 2 us 60 9 12 3 7 7 98 7 9 3 5 bl 6o 5 1 1 0 0 v A B c 1 86 31 9 2 27 77 19 3 10 15 9b a 1 o 2 5 O 0 1 86 APPLE CODE [JONATHAN VARIETY], MARCH 26, 1956 I. II. 111. IV. General Grade Characteristigg A _- U. S. Fancy B -- U S. Fancy C -- U. S. No. 1 D -’ Us 80 NO. 1 E -- U. S. Utility Color A -- U. S. Extra Fancy - 90% red color B -- U. S. Extra Fancy - 66% red color C -— U. S. Fancy - 33% red color D -- U. s. No. 1 — 25% red color Bruising [All U. s. Fancy 2-1/2" - 2—3/unj A -— Minimum bruising due to handling B -- Practically none [bare minimum] C -- 50% of maximum bruising allowed D -- Maximum amount of brusing and enough to disqualify from the grade E -- Very severe bruising --otherwise within grade and equal in color to other Defects [All U. S. Fancy] -- No defects Stems missing -- Mis-shapen, lop sided -— Spots and russetting UOmtb 0 0 [A11 Fruit Re-selected to of Color within Grade] (D H- N (D 0 03mm Fancy - 2- 3/4" - 3' . S. Fancy - 2—1/2" - UOCD3> I I ll CCCC'. Give Uniformity Extra Fancy - 2-3/4" - 3' . Extra Fancy - 2-1/4“ - 2-3/9" 2-3/4" APPLE TALLY, MARCH 26, 1956 I A B c D E 1 63 72 18 2 5 2 67 51 21 10 5 3 lo 19 76 27 18 A 3 A 23 75 A6 5 3 1 10 33 73 II. A B c D 1 113 A2 5 1 2 23 90 2A 16 3 6 10 86 A8 A 6 6 33 83 5 o o o 0 III. A B c D E 1 - 78 5A 18 15 5 2 39 6o 30 20 10 3 19 19 53 32 23 4 9 8 29 57 38 5 2 7 15 23 67 IV. A B c D ——1 69 75 16 6 2 52 51 A1 9 3 20 17 81 2A 4 7 5 9 O9 5 o o o o v. A B c D 1 115 26 11 8 2 25 59 35 32 3 7 A3 5A 45 A 1 20 A6 63 II. III. IV. 88 APPLE CODE, APRIL 30, 1956 General Grade Characteristics [Jonathon Apples] A -- U. S. Fancy Graded for defects, B -- U. S. No. 1 slight over maturity C -" U. So NO. 1 D -— U. 8. Utility E -- U. 8. Utility Color [McIntosh Apples] A -— U. S. Fancy 50% Color difference be- B -- U. S. Fancy 33% tween 29% and 33% C ~~ U. S. No. 1 29% not marked. D -- U. s. No. 1 25% E -- U. 8. Utility 20% Defects [Jonathon Apples] A -- U. S. Fancy B -- U. S. Fancy, utility in bruising C —— U. S. Fancy, utility in russetting D -- U. S. Fancy, utility in shape E -- U. S. Fancy, stems missing Size [McIntosh Apples] A -- U. S. Fancy, 2-3/4” - " B "" U. S. Fancy, 2‘1/2" - 2-3/4“ C -- U. S. Fancy, 2-1/b" — 2-1/2" D -— U. 3. No. 1. 2-3/4“ - 3“ E -— U. S. No. 1, 2-1/2" - 2-3/9” Bruising, [McIntosh.App1es] A -- U. S. No. 1, Minimum bruising highly suscepitable B -- U. S. No. 1, six bruises 1/2" to bruising diameter C -- U. S. No. 1, one large bruise, 1" diameter D -« U. S. No. 1, two large bruises, 1/2" diameter E —- U. S. No. 1, twelve bruises, 1/2' diameter APPLE TALLY, APRIL 23, 1956 B c D E 32 8 2 l 85 27 17 2 31 88 27 5 7 29 83 37 0 2 25 108 B c D E 18 A1 27 19 26 63 25 13 37 23 AA 31 Al 20 39 27 32 8 19 6A B 0 D E u 1 1 #0 2 l 5 50 7 7 22 58 0 2A 108 6 0 120 17 1 B c D E 1 2A 16 A5 A 2 A3 13 A9 15 3 58 23 AA 17 A 23 5A 11 A9 5 6 A7 6 68 v. B c D E 1 21 23 2 66 2 A9 28 6 32 3 50 35 3 35 A 30 65 1A 19 5 A 3 128 3 9O EGG CODE, FEBRUARY 27, 1956 I. Shell Texture -- A -- A A - B shell tex -- A ~ B shell tex -— A - C shell tex II. Shell Stains —- A — minor stain adhering dirt B stain localized B stain scattered - C stain MUOm> I I OUOw> II II >>>> I II 111. Tech Breakout A - A B - A - yolk - B albumen C — A - yolk - C albumen D - B E - C IV. Panel Breakout UOw> om»; V. Tech. Breakout AA A A with meatspot smaller than 1/8' - white A with meatspot smaller than 1/8" — brown A with bloodspot smaller than 1/8" macm» llll VI. Fried - Easy pp (Tech.) A - A - A yolk - B albumen - A yolk - C albumen MUCH? Cw EGG TALLY, FEBRUARY 27. 1956 91 1 A B c D E 1 3A 5A 5 AA 1 2 A5 35 11 29 3 3 31 18 3A 3A 9 A 12 10 69 l6 l6 5 2 7 5 1 95 II. A B c D E 1 38 15 A9 28 17 2 AA 9 2A 31 29 3 21 1A 28 36 26 A 11 30 18 17 38 5 10 56 5 12 1A SE11 A s c D E _7' _— 1 63 25 10 17 15 2 27 55 12 15 18 3 10 2A 23 50 25 A 10 17 39 29 28 5 13 2 39 12 37 Iv A B c D 1 56 3A 22 1A 2 3A A7 29 17 3 20 27 A8 28 A 13 15 22 61 5 o 0 2 2 v. A B c D E g. I t 92 EGG CODE, MARCH 26, 1956 1. Shell A - A - normal B - A - B body check C - A - B rough shell D — A - C body check E — A - C rough shell 11. Dirt and Stain A - A - minor stain B — A - adhering dirt C - A - B stain localized D - A — B stain BCattered E - A - C stain III. Shell Color --[1/2 Dozen Each Sample] A - white B - uniform brown C - 3 white, 3 brown D - shaded brown E - tint IV. Tech. Breakout - A - A - B air cell A yolk — B albumen A - C air cell A meatspot (br) less than 1/8" meow» I V. Tech. Breakout - with meatspot (white) less than 1/8“ yolk - C albumen AA - A A A B maom> I VI. Fried — Easy pp (tech.) A yolk,B - albumen A yolk,C — albumen A with bloodspot less than 1/8“ B C HUGE)? EGG TALLY, MARCH 26, 1956 1H 1. A B c D E —’ 1 111 3A 0 13 2 2 25 93 10 15 8 3 6 13 73 53 15 A 3 6 56 50 26 5 3 2 9 17 97 11. A B c D E 1 92 7 38 15 10 2 30 A 6A 39 17 3 18 19 30 A7 A0 A 2 A3 12 29 59 5 6 75 A 17 22 III. A B c D E _7 1 76 52 7 11 18 2 36 50 32 1A 29 3 22 19 63 19 2A A 10 18 27 5A 29 5 A 8 17 50 A7 Iv A B c D E 93 ,, -. I-.- - 4 II. III. IV. 9A EGG CODE, APRIL 23, 1956 Break Out A —— A 58¢ a dozen B -- B 5A¢ a dozen C -- C 50¢ a dozen Shell Texture - One-half Dozen A normal -- A but B body check A but B rough shell -- A but C body check -- A but C rough shell muons» I I Stain - One-half Dozen --A normal --A but B stain localized 1/32 --A but B stain scattered 1/16 -—A but stain localized l/l6 --A but stain scattered 1/8 HUme Shell Color -- white uniform brown 3 white, 3 brown shaded brown -- tint C‘JUOUHP Broken Out -- A with B aircell -- A yolk with B albumen -- A with C aircell -~ A yolk with C albumen -- C but not spots HUOCD? I C VI, VII. Fried A -- A yolk - B albumen B —- A yolk - C albumen C -- A with 1/8 bloodspot D -- B E -- C Price Selections [1/2 Dozen] 25:5 276 29¢ 95 EGG TALLY, APRIL 23, 1956 I. A B C 1 72 63+ 20 2 5A 61 39 3 "6 20 95+ L". O O 1 5 0 0 0 I I. A B C L‘ E 1 29 16 0 1.. 0 2 19 115 6 17 c .3 4 15 39 :1: .. 4 l 5 102 28 5 5 O 2 6 6 131 III. A B C D E 1 9? 37+ 15 1'9 1 2 O 51 21 21 23 3 11 28 “1 39 1’9 1. 11 IA 5‘5 26 3o 5 7 5 21 67 As IV. A B C D E l 08 34 8 10 1? 2 16 Al 92 16 92 3 15 42 1+0 15 39 1+ 9 2': “4 3“ 32 5 A 10 19 77 22 V. A B C D E 1 68 A3 17 2 l“ 2 25 29 26 26 38 3 21 A5 32 38 2'; 1+ 25 23 31 “'8 2'3 ¥ 5 13 1A 1&7 lb 55 VI - A B C D E 1 A9 13 3 22 7O 2 511 22 11+ 32 3’4 3 25 A9 13 1+7 23 5+ 21 ~24 32 3? 16 5 5 24 9O 1:: 11 _EII . 25.! 272 29¢ 31 A3 78 ‘0 II. III. IV. 97 POTATO CODE, FEBRUARY 27, 1956 Size Variatxgg A -- under 1-7/8“ B -- 1-7/8" to 2—1/4" C —— 2-1/4" to 2—3/4" D -- 2-3/4" to 3—1/4" E —— 3—1/“" and over Skin‘ggoracteristics A -« U.S No. 1 ~ smooth white B —- U.S No. l - smooth red C -- U.S. No. 1 - russet D —— U.S No. 2 - white E -— U.S No. 2 - russet Cleanlinesg A -- U.S. No. 1 - washed, very clean [scrubbed] B -— U.S. No. 1 - washed, slightly clean C -- U.S. No. 1 - unwashed, slightly dirty [brushed] Brugggg and Cuts U0w3> I I No cuts and bruises 2% cute and bruises 5% cute and bruises 10% cuts and bruises POTATO TALLY , v—w— ' —_—v ' FEBRUARY 27. 1956 98 I. A B C D E 1 1 1 38 no 41 2 1 6 #3 47 33 3 3 23 38 29 31 u 17 85 4 6 11 5 101 28 o o 7 II. A B 3' . c D E ‘— 1 33 65 36 3 1 2 53 33 29 5 6 3 28 19 no 12 28 u 7 u 9 #5 58 5 2 2 9 58 30 III. A B C D F 1 no "— "26 57' 6 mm“ 2 35 #1 u2 21 3 29 34 19 36 u 16 no 5 59 5 2 1 o 1 IV. A B c D II __1 __ ‘1" 56 ' 25 28 $16 2 27 36 35 12 3 27 42 43 17 a 10 1a 13 21 a 2 u 3 5 _IJI1 I 1) ‘7}vso.|) c.11ld II. III. IV. 99 POTATO CODE, MARCH 26, 1956 Size Variation A -- 2-1/4" to 2-3/81 B -- 2-3/9" to 3—1/9" C -- 3—1/4" and over D -— hair (2-1/u«-_2-3/un), half (2-3/u"-3-1/u") E —- half (2—3/u"——3-1/mn), half (3-1/4" and over) mucous» Characteristics white (Katahdin) russet red white (Sebago) white (Katahdin) No. No. No. No. No. NHHHH Cleanliness MUCH!» Washed clean, Sample A Washed clean, Sample B Brushed clean, Sample A Brushed clean - Sample B Washed partly clear Bruises and Cute t3C3uH> No cuts and bruises 2% outs and bruises 5% outs and bruises 10% cuts and bruises ‘2 .0 POTATO TALLY, MARCH 26, 1956 100 I! I. A B c D E 1 7 86 31 22 2 _ 2 19 31» 23 62 16 3 37 21 29 39 27 L1 L16 2 39 20 “5 5 39 1+ 25 5 58 II: A B c D E n. 1 69 9 51 21 5 w 2 39 19 34 1+1 22 3 22 30 31+ no 27 1+ 15 1+5 18 32 29 5 2 L13 11 15 61+ III. A B c D s 1 1+0 18 58 4 33 2 33 2L» 56 10 no 3 25 35 26 32 31 1+ 26 1+9 15 21+ 32 5 23 21 3 79 10 Iv. A B c D :L 76 22 23 6 ' 2 25 35 1+7 10 3 19 52 37 15 1+ 16 24 26 101 5 11 11 in 15 ‘M III. III. I‘I, VTI. POTATO CODE, APRIL 23, 1956 Size Classification -- U.S. No. . No. No. No. No. muowb II II CFC: mpmm Shriveling No. No. No. No. No. mtjcnnu> I O CZCQZCZC 99299 Sprouting -- U.S. No. No. No. Nm No. muowb I l CZGCZC P??? A -- no cuts and B -- 2% cuts and Bruise and Cut 1-7/8" — Size A 1-1/2" to 2" - Size B 1-1/2" up 2" 60% - 2-1/0" 101 1-7/8" but not less that 30% 2-3/0" and lot less than 60“ 2—1/4" but no shriveling but slight shriveling but medium shriveling but maximum shriveling but No. 2 shriveling no sprouting slight sprout medium sprout maximum sprout No. 2 for sprouting bruises bruises C -- 5% cuts and bruises D -- 10% cuts and bruises -- none -- 5% sunburn Edam» I I Sunburn gr Greening 5% light burn -- 10% sunburn -- 10% light burn Defects . No. No. No. No. Nt3010> ! C3C53GC2 {11035an no defects with cuts and bruises cuts and bruises maximum bruises acct. sunburn .. 1| POTATO TALLY, APRIL 23, 1956 102 I. A B C D E l 23 9 1 92 28 2 #2 6 1# 3# 51 3 59 1# 23 19 #2 # 26 25 77 7 19 5 3 98 37 1 # I I . A B c D E 1 77 57 2 8 4 2 31 79 5 22 1# 3 15 9 63 52 21 1+ 18 6 #2 #6 21 5 11 1 38 22 90 I I I . A B C D E 1 60 12 11 15 #3 2 23 38 21 #6 15 3 35 28 #6 19 18 1+ 15 27 #9 35 22 5 18 #5 32 3# 51 Iv . A B c D 1 90 32 30 11 2 . 29 39 52 8 3 20 #3 36 22 1+ 10 23 2# #0 5 # 19 10 72 v . A B c D E 1 70 11 33 21 8 2 18 '12 38 #1 39 3 18 21 26 ## 39 1+ 28 32 3# 26 32 5 16 73 20 19 32 VI . A B c D E 1 20 53 10 6# 5 2 23 52 12 #3 23 3 5# 25 21 22 33 1+ 35 20 37 23 39 5 21 3 73 2 52 // 103 , POULTRY CODE, FEBRUARY 27, 1956‘ [Chicken Fryers-~2-l/2 to 3 lbs. Eviscerated] I. Fleshing A -- A B —— A C -- A - B fleshing D -- A - B fleshing E -- A - C fleshing II. Finish A B C -- A finish, B flesh D -- A - B finish E _- A - B finish III. Defect A -- A B —- A - maximum tear on back C -- A - B breast tear D -- A -'B pins dark E -— Hunchback I‘f. Defect - minimum dislocated wing broken wing and low A flesh broken leg and dislocated wing HUOwb I I >>3>3>I> I ‘7. Tears A -- A B -— A C -- A - maximum tear, breast D -- A - B tear, back E -- A - B tear, breast VI . Tears A with minimum C tear, breast VII. VIII. Bniises -- A -~ A A —- A - B bruise on leg - A - B bruise on breast MUCH)» I I Bruises and Tears A -— A B -- A C -- A - B breast tear D -- A - C bruise on breast E -- A — C bruise on leg 10# POULTRY TALLY, FEBRUARY 27, 1956 105 I. A s C D E 1 9# 19 3 9 2 2 20 76 5 17 7 3 3 1# 31 73 1# # # 11 #6 20 37 5 2 3 38 # 63 II. A B c D E 1 58 55 5 11 3 2 #5 #8 8 22 5 3 12 18 25 60 13 A # 5 35 26 53 5 1 1 50 # #9 III. A B c D E 1 39 #5 21 15 15 2 23 3# 20 17 32 3 22 29 21 22 3# u 2# 9 31 24 29 .5 15 5 3o #5 13 Iv. A B c D E 1 32 12— 50 8 27 1:. 2 16 33 #2 6 37 3 28 36 22 23 23 # 33 36 7 21 19 5 1# 6 2 65 17 v. A s c D E 1 22 25 8 25 52 2 29 16 11 #8 22 3 33 #5 13 21 17 h 25 29 23 7 24 5 1# 8 68 22 8 POULTRY TALLY, FEBRUARY 27. 1956 [Continued] 106 VI A B c D E 1 13 25 18 33 ## 2 19 33 20 39 17 3 3# 22 28 31 20 # 3# 17 28 10 2# 5 23 26 29 10 18 VII. A s 0 D E 1 23 13 58 12 33 2 34 19 29 22 30 3 27 25 1# 28 28 # 2# 27 15 39 l7 5 15 39 7 27 15 VIII. A B c D E 1 33 #0 32 22 11 2 33 37 30 1# 11 3 32 26 27 1# 25 # 19 13 17 36 32 5 6 7 17 3? 2# 107 POULTRY CODE, MARCH 26, 1956 1. 2.6.1.2213 A -- A B -- A - with blood in bag C -- A - red hooks D -- A - white pine, reddish breast area B -- A - B fleshing, reddish II. 9.91.632 A -— A B -- A - maximum B tear or break [large meaty breast skin] C -- A - B fleshing, red in bag D -- A - B finish and flesh E -- A - B flesh, browning, protruding bone III. Defects -- A —- A dislocated wing B skin tear on breast [rear] -- B - breast tear, odd shape —- B - bruise on leg mu0w> I I IV. Defects A -- A B-m- red in bag, small bruise on leg 0 -- 'red in bag, B skin tear breast [rear] D -- hunchback E -- C - f1eshing,:finish red V. Defects A -- A B -— A dislocated wing, red back oints C -— A dislocated wing, red hock oints D -- B breast tear, front E -- B bruise on breast VI. Defects A -- A B -- A C —— A, dark back D —— B small curved breast E -— C tear breast, large bird, good otherwise 1'." . 108 VII. Packed in Ice small bird back tear, rear - C breast tear breast tears breast tear, rear MUCH)» I I mw>a>z> VIII. Fresh—pins, Unpacked, Placed 22.l££ A -- minimum A pins B -- minimum A pins, large bird C -- B pins D -- C pins E -~ C pins and feathers _. hull/ .34 POULTRY TALLY, MARCH 26, 1956 109 I. A B c D E 1 69 60 15 18 2 2 #8 53 3# 18 2 3 21 2# 65 30 9 # 7 8 30 6# 29 5 2 3 2 17 105 II A B c D E 1 60 86 5 3 2 2 6# #3 10 9 20 3 7 13 58 29 52 # 9 1 5o 33 51 5 8 5 22 73 20 III. A s c D E 1 2# #5 53 18 2# 2 31 #5 35 29 20 3 32 36 3o 26 26 # ## 15 16 39 21 5 16 7 1# 36 56 IV. A B c D E 1 58 21 12 59 6 2 23 #3 28 50 3 3 2# 52 #5 27 6 # 31 32 56 6 15 5 11 0 # 5 ‘ 117 _1_v A s c D E 1 50 3# 6 2# #0 2 #8 36 18 25 26 3 36 32 18 33 27 # 10 33 #7 30 25 5 3 10 58 3# 29 POULTRY TALLY, MARCH 26, 1956--[Cont1nued] 110 VI. A B C D E 1 31 5# 19 3 #8 2 #7 #9 33 1# 16 3 #5 2# 39 13 28 # 21 11 #1 3# 29 5 3 8 1# 82 26 3—7II A B c D E 1 15 28 7 23 77 2 31 31 12 #2 32 3 39 #9 1# 29 17 # #o 28 19 38 13 5 22 11 96 16 8 VIII A B c D E 1 13 87 3# 1o 10 2 #3 20 33 25 26 3 35 19 36 16 #2 # 30 1# 29 17 #2 5 26 7 1# 79 27 II. III. IV. VI. POULTRY CODE, APRIL 23, 1956 Defects A -- A B -- A - B C -- A - B D -- A - C E —- A - C Defects A —- A B —- A but C -- A but D -- A but E —- A but Defects A -— A B -- A but C -- A but D —- A but E —- A but Defects A -— A B -- A but C -- A but D —— A but E -- A but Pins conformation flesh bruise blister Bbruise on leg toward hock Joint B pins C conformation C broken bone B finish C pins B tears C fleshing B broken bone C finish B blister C tear and Feathers minimum A pins minimum A pins, larger of 2 A but A but A but B pins C pins C pins and feathers 216.911.921.92 HUGH!» A - white flesh trump» l I I yellow flesh yellow flesh white flesh yellow flesh 111 112 POULTRY TALLI, APRIL ' 1956 I. B c D E 1 8 18 21 2 2 5# 5# 19 12 3 53 #2 #1 5 # 30 2# 56 37 5 9 1# 17 96 II. 8 c D - E 1 39 23 5# 3 2 58 9 38 12 3 33 23 33 28 # 17 34 20 55 5 6 63 9 5# III. B c D E 1 13 0 29 # 2 35 8 85 4 3 72 15 29 29 # 29 39 9 69 5 3 90 2 #8 IV. 8 0 D I E l # 77 # 16 2 12 #8 6 27 3 31 17 16 70 # 78 12 19 27 5 20 1 109 15 V. s 0 D E 1 36 69 2# 31 2 29 31 37 #9 3 #6 26 28 28 4 . 32 9 38 21 5 10 19 26 25 VI B C D_—' E 1 1 106 9 8 fl 2 59 22 12 26 3 #5 6 26 32 # 21 11 36 #0 5 12 6 68 ## Date Due . .g ‘1' .1 T 3 1;} L ‘4 ‘1 11b 11 71;. 133E 5:5!“ JUN Demco-293