I _w -r~'——_—_.—_———"__ Fr. ,__, ' 1‘ " ""-."""V “".‘...-"V9°?""V‘OOO~0‘Q‘QO-vvo..oooI 0-OOQ-O—-O-Q-o -... .-.‘..- . u'qoo. ' CONSUMER ATTITUDES AND BEHAWOR TOWARD FROZEN MEATS Thesis for the Degree of M. S. I MICHIGAN STATE u-m’svaasm Glen Wiliis Higgins- 1958 —— THES‘S CONSUMER ATTITUDES AND BEHAVIOR TOWARD FROZEN MEATS By Glen Willie Higgins A THESIS Submitted to the College of Agriculture Michigan State University of Agriculture and Applied Science in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE Department of Agricultural Economics 1958 /"’§»”:>"? :1 7 j; u: ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The writer takes this opportunity to express appreciation to all who assisted in this study. Dr. Lyman Bratzler and his staff at the Michigan State university Meats Laboratory provided technical assistance in securing and processing meat samples used in this study. Dr..Henry Larzelere, Department of Agricultural Economics at Michigan State University, and Mrs. Mary Jane Bostick, Department of Home Economics at'Wayne State University, assisted with the taste panels conducted in Detroit. Special appreciation is expressed to Dr. Harold Riley of the Department of Agricultural Economics for his generous counsel and guidance in this study and the preparation of this report. Apprecia- tion is expressed to other Agricultural Economics Department staff members who provided helpful assistance. The writer owes a special debt of gratitude to his wife, Joyce, for her constant encouragement and understanding. ii CUI‘ISUim ATTITUDES AND BBHAVICR TCl‘JAED FROZEN I'EATS 33’ Glen Willis Higgins AN ABSTRACT Subnitted to the College of Agriculture Michigan State University of Agriculture and Applied Science in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTZR OF SCIENCE Department of Agricultural Economics Year 1958 i7 . _ Approved flfl&( A fiflfil d7 This study was an attempt to determine some of the behavior patterns and attitudes of consumers toward frozen meats. Some persons believe that distribution of frozen meats from the packer to the con— sumer could result in economics in the meat industry and a reduction in the costs of marketing meat. However, consumers have been reluc- tant to accept frozen meats as perfect substitutes for fresh whats. Taste panel relatanility tests indicated no significant difference between fresh and fresh frozen pork loin roasts and hoof rib roasts. However, significant palatability differences 'n favor of the fresh roasts were noted between fresh beef rib roasts a1. nrh.e:;’nii“ frozen beef riblftmfifiwLHQ six months shelf life. Additional taste panel tests were conducted using pork loin roasts and beef rib roasts which had been stored for var};ng periods up LO six mtnths. Half the roasts were stored at O0 F. and the other half were stored in an Open top frozen food display case. There were no significant differences in the palatability ratings because of freezing or by storage periods up to six months either at 0° F. or in the frozen food display case. As another part of this study, a personal interview survey of h36 households in five Detroit suburban cities was made in an effort to determine the purchase experience and home storage habits of consumers with respect to frozen meats. More than 55 percent of the households surveyed shopped for meat only once a week and more than 85 percent purchased meat rnlr on it rujor shopoing trips. This purchase pattern is closely related to the practice of purchasing fresh meat and then storing it in the home refrigerator frozen food storage space. Within two months prior to the survey, 82 percent of the households reported following this practice. Eighty percent of these reported that this meat was s‘ored for less than two weeks. These findings point out that consumers do not object strongly to frozen meats as such when they are purchased fresh and then frozen in the home. This also indicates that the shortage of frozen storage space in the home is not a severely limiting factor in frozen meat sales. Fifty-five percent of the households had never purchased anv frozen steaks, roasts, or chOps. For individual items of the heavier frozen red meats, the proportion of households which had never purchased exceeded 75 Percent. Those consumers who had tried frozen steaks, roasts, or chops were asked to compare these with fresh cuts of comparable quality on four factors: Flavor; tenderness; cost oer serving; and convenience in preparatior. Fresh meat had a relatively higher preference rating on flavor and cost per serving while frozen meats were rated highest on canvenience in preparation. Ratings on tenderness were nearly evenly divided. Convenience was the principal advantage which consumers associ- ated with frozen meats although the inconvenience of thawing was an important disadvantage given by consumers. Cther objections to frozen meats included poor quality, packaging, and price. It seems clear that many consumers have not tried frozen meats because of imagined differences in quality. It is also evident that many Crnsumprs 2:}erlences v r‘. n .L ! (‘Tn ‘ Q Y _; .1 ‘ unsalia1¥xfl‘1“r fro .‘ ‘ .-‘~ Iz\¥! TWJI V718 ’7 f‘ ‘< en meats. TABLE OF COH' I NTSCDUCTIEN ................... Situation ................... Frozen Meats Retail Savings ........... Consumer Reaction ........ Retail Sales of Frozen Bea Objectives of the Study ..... Taste Preferences ........ Consumer Attitudes ....... Purchase Patterns ........ Usefulness of this Study .... II PILUIfhfiflmgimflEL STWDY ........ Panel Procedure Rake-up of Panel ......... When and Where Conducted . Rating Used .............. Preparation for Tasting .. Pork Roasts ................. Samole Design ............ Results Beef Roasts ................. Sample Design ............ Results III DLIRCIT TASTE PAIEL STUDY ...... Purpose ..................... Results of Pilot Study ... Tentative Hypotheses ......... Panel Procedure When and Where Conducted . Classification of Panel .. Rating Used .............. Preparation for Tasting .. Sample Design ............... Results of Palatability Test Pork Roasts Beef Roasts .............. A Concluding Statement ... ... Temperature Variation in Frozen Food Display H aunt? M H 5-4 I‘r) «. "o TABLE CF CCLTJHTS - Continued CEAPTER Iv CULUSIJI’L‘LJIX LC)\J$L‘J;:1. 0 o o o o I O o I o o o ;xxtz"ort1ciziuol . ... ... .. ... Taste Panel Results .. Earlier Studies ...... eciiic Ct ectives .. xu (/3 ..{3 <3, (4. 0 8: I'(C8C:hres ooooooooo ‘::’1T3naire Constructio h‘eteiit‘ .....OIOOIIOIOOO Areas Selected ......... Sample Lesign .......... Recruitment SillfiV'e Pi Ildincg‘s e o o o o o e o o h 0 ‘_ n 0 F? v I . ' "‘ T‘.’ r‘ J n ‘ “’.| f . h - - V UCmUiquiCn i nati 1&8, beef LlL Lca ts Flosu as Cor- ' ‘ '1 r) f“'~.-./"V '. fi 5-. .1 ‘ . ‘ ’34-. T. I "‘ " pure C. 'Wliix F1 U", 611 CC. TL lei IIC'C‘..¢L1,- 12.1. L11 elk r.(r3‘.+,...~ (IV ‘ J T,— _. one-. Li-:’ Sax» .i.wc_r3 r why 7 -o 10 ”nu~ 1: n~ I, L), J (11‘1“ L'J_ -.k,’ ILUIrC‘8PuLVC.) . I o o I a 0 VI Judges' Heat RatiLQs , Reef Pib Rea: t Fresh as Conhared F: 02.3 CumUGTCla “ (uct thn Six Iontts S elf Life, Last I rsinb, “ of 18 lieu sewives ............. VII A-e, Riv ation, Incove an: Sex of Detrrit Taste Pearls, 7 VIII Sq Ear" of Pala.aoili t Ratinhs, Pork Loin Roasts a. 3 ' _, —'.-- ‘. , 1 1.. :"n “6110.2.{1 PAY-.QJ.’ .‘LQ'./‘( 00.0000OOQOCOQOOOOOOOOOOOOIIOOU00000 T" ’V“ -—,..' .-. -«f‘ "7.. ' C-ml- T ' a ”h I «L . a «T , , .LA d1A.k..3.‘-UL(J ( - UCLI at d} 7(‘9 A w. 1 1.10.1-1; LOc‘LS Cb, I'ITC, . (1..“ CK)“- ‘ ..-"J r‘ - 1 a L“. T\.—'.- ' T - I r‘ quiLUHIC oAarocier ?IICb Ci I'I'e De+roi t Sutru an .:ed C ‘ '- 1 ,-— ' ‘ ,‘ .' I‘ ' v V o'L. A w (-../A uCflFOdlUu onmoIe+ L In yet101t ouozroan C1L1»e, 1-9L ... '.‘ 4-,- .D ..., 17.. t,. v, .' ... , I’IL ) '(JI LIL-'1 (.L L.\/'.1({JLLLv.-.-a Lu .' (11’ 1’38? I “L be LL“ V915 : ' f‘ . r I v, " C‘ ' " V .1 L‘( L\‘Jt;r-1b ‘JJ ‘IT‘W 71- 1‘11st L" 11"{3LV’ ~//\ OOOOOIOOOOOOOOOOOOOI. .. "‘ .. "L -' T' J ‘ 41- '3 ...- 1 .r ‘2 _ A 3'1 :‘JLJCI‘ L:- wt”) kl 1. “be \J.‘ p .275‘ D’: th $.k)€4 C1 ‘C '. L‘l. 4-J_l 3-l+ =';' r .-I - p _, (er-Ir. s.) 11“), .‘Jcrf'f‘lt 07-...‘454‘ , -~,.’/\' ooooooooaooootoooo-uco... 3-. q \‘+ I .‘,‘\ H‘ A L k," LII UL(JA& C L. \ 00000-00 .1‘.2L4\' (a 1L1C: r’C" .. . 13.1.,j‘- .r0§01Li::of erator Frozen Survey, 1958 Profu;1L Meats Two Hon NI“ of rm (AILC‘ SIfIUS INS Reporet c Pm 02w 14 ’3 LI‘ Oi UILS Re C ( CA ":1 5" I Satis actory Ima:«:ivcd, Gez'leral Statement of P13: , T. F168;! “flat, of heat Sh.imtz 97 ! ;1.E.VII;‘L, t Suourha: +L,?:c+nrr Frozen .LVBCI, De+rCit Sll“)'ell“, Q8; 1 firea SIITVKID , 10C, Frozen I Detrcit Sue -~. I oefr01t SW WT ya Sizer, u q C F1 m- ['9 ‘ L. .- ‘. ~ .62.. e ILJ e+ront :o2ropn Area u; \‘rv I - - L .. . » .......COOOOOOOOOOOOOOCOOOO.....OOOOOOOOOOO ind, Eo*rCit Sneu1;;n Area 317VH7 I F U Salon}. n; <3“ '. fl , AL AL‘LT-U ’ 4-43 .r]c HOUfeh‘lhu Roving VarLT C18 T“pos Food Storate, Detroit Suourban Area . p (2 J. 0....0............OOOOOOOOOOCOO......0.0... Horvu rlds Em efxnirhh; .JrLlakn.,atf Fre:h equent Frozen Home Siorage withii the Last , Detroit Suburban Area Survef, 19F: ......... o ErocrIonce vi 1 Frozen Me at Iters, ‘ r4 1 Area Surve;, 1998 ..................... n ‘l‘ ‘- c‘.. L' (r ;\ Ueaf Iiems Reworked Ccrxehfs ,, 0000-000... Teai urban Are Items Remorted and Commenis '63:, 1f'58 0000.00.000 1:1 E“\'V1 A e: emcee, nan Area f. (I on Comraret f0 1r:9 oh /'4 I! O? 81'} o Survey, ......... X '11 "J (D ‘4) M t4 f“) to; ""'\ ”x ,4 J- \H w \ \rL \ \jL L) ( ILLAlI XXXIII 'L"'IV r'"-*1i;"‘ ". 4: \ 1 .Lfiwwu) - Lt-Y‘.\J.leleh v. 1' x : ~‘~-.A h-- r-‘ - "- $ ' v" 1 '- -' 0‘ CbgbthuuS to Flbéfln Lea! as ha ;ar ed to Flasn Lndfs, Detrcii:5%fisurban Area Surve:3 1. ..................... 1(‘7 Reascns for Pref ew‘ in Meat, Lctrrif Sub I an A, aSurver, 7”:€ ' / ;*eference Sta CUP} ‘or Fresh Eta? as Cerf: red i0 '1] . fl ~- \ wr- '~"' P.at;;.gs of Frcsn V7. Prrrcn 19d Leafs b Ccnsarezp “no fl dgve Tricd Fxtzsn Meats, Lctrslt Sdburlan Area survey, "rNr’f - -L/)Kl ......OOOOIOOI......OCOOOOOOOO‘......OOOOOOIIOIOCOO Fro zen Neat as Comnared to Fresh file ......IIOOOOOOI 1‘ ‘-',, .~. ,~,. aw. , C“ -7 f)”: :czen u_at., Dcfrrii Sui Tran Alea auzve,, 1,35 ....... CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION The Situation The concept of food retailing was changed drastically with the introduction of the self-service supermarket in the 1930's. The self-service food store has becone more and more a distribution out- let for merchandise that has been processed and packaged at a central location. Grocery items are now almost entirely processed and packaged in centralised plants . kceptions to this retailing pattern are notable in the perish- able comodities . However, the trend to more centralized packaged seems to be continuing. Kore and more dairy products are packaged and ready for sale when they arrive at the retail store. More and more produce items, such as apples and oranges, are being packaged in consumer units before shipment to the retail store. Centralized packaging of cured and processed meats has gained acceptance and is proving very popular with retailers as well as consumers. In most cases, however, experinents in centralised pre- packaging of fresh nests have not been successful. Without a careful control of inventory, the spoilage losses more than offset gains in efficiency. The meat industry has looked to technology to find a solution to this problem. ' Frozen neats.-3evera1 technological processes have been and are being considered as meme of making centralised red meat processing 1 2 and packaging possible. 01‘ these, freezing is considered to have the most potential for counercial application at this tine. Many people claim that frozen meat processing and distribution will have new economic advantages for the retailer as well as the entire meat industry. Toothnan has sumarized the economic advan- tages claimed for frozen meats as follows: 1. Increasing labor productivity in fresh neat preparation through greater mechanization of fabricating and packaging work. 2 . Retaining at the point of slaughter and converting into by-products the excess of fat and bone (about ho percent by weigth of the dressed carcass that now goes to retail stores and house. 3. Realizing the transportation ecmomies resulting from the reduction of shipping weight and bulk. h. Eliminating the cost of providing neat processing equip- ment and space at the retail level. 5. Eliminating the losses sustained from fresh meat shrink- age, downgrading and spoilage . 6. Lowering physical handling costs in distribution activities.1 It should not be inferred that all costs will be reduced. Sons costs, such as packaging materials , may be higher than for marketing fresh meat. The transportation economies mentioned above may be off- set by the added cost of zero degree storage requirements. In addition, there nay be added costs which represent new services to consumers, such as precooking and breeding. Retail swinger-For the retail food store, the meat department represents the largest operating expense item of the store because of the necessity of having a “small“ neat fabricating plant in each T 1James 3. Toothnsn, s of Distribution Practices for Prgackfiged Frozen Heats, REE} Research Eport Ho. 13'? U.E.D.A., 111' ervice, Septenber, 1956, pp. 22-53. 3 store. High wages of the skilled meat department workers contribute to this high expense. For this reason retailers are interested in any possibility for shifting meat packaging to a centralised plant and thus reducing the cost of the retailing operation. By a budgeting procedure, Ezzell estimated a 50 percent saving in total meat retailing costs by shifting completely to frozen meats. As a further breakdown, he estimated that at least 60 percent of the labor costs. of retailing meats and 55 percent of total space costs may be saved. There would be no costs to the retailer of preparation and wrapping supplies and a savings of 90 percent of preparation and storage space costs would result.2 These estimated savings, of course, apply only to the cost of retailing meat. The same functions of fabricating and packaging meats into consumer units which are eliminated from the retail store would have to be performed at a centralized plant with added labor, equipment, space, and materials cost at this point. The net cost as a result of this shifting of functions has not been determined. One intregrated milti-unit retailer who processes and packages all meets at a central location is using the freezing process. 111 red meat is sold in frozen form and frozen meats account for 25 percent of store sales in his large supermarket .3 The meat is processed and frozen with the bone-in and is packaged in a wax coat- ing. This retailer gives these advantages for frozen meat distribu- tion: 2Austin B. Resell, some Economic acts of Frozen Meets on Heats Re , unpublis . . s , c gen to University, a PP. " 0 3Progeesive Grocer, March 1956, pp. 57-59. 1. Lower than normal labor expense. 2. Ho packaging material cost at retail level. 3. Lower labor turnover in the meat department. h. Reduced shrinkage, spoilage, markdowns. 5. Eliminates errors in weighing and.processing. 6. Retail cuts are standardized. 7. Longer shelf life. 8. More cuts on display. 90 Full disphy all "Bake 10. Higher meat sales per customer. ll. Simplified record keeping. 12. Ordering is fecilitated. 13. Stocking and displaying is made easier. 1h. Heat department appears cleaner, more sani . 15. Reduces meat department accidents in stores. This retailer provides a complete line of frozen meat to many small stores who previously did not handle meat. The smaller retail food store would seem to have a special advantage in handling frozen meat by being able to handle and display a complete selection, even though volume and turnover are small. Consumer reaction.-Regardlese of the advantages claimed for frozen meat, there is considerable evidence indicating that most consumers are reluctant to accept frozen red meats as perfect substi- tutes for comparable fresh cuts. In 1955 Riley and Kramer5 found in a study of h,000 households in two Michigan cities that nine out of ten homemakers said that they preferred fresh beef over comparable frozen items. Although the principal disadvantage given for frozen meats was the time required for defrosting before cooking, 37 percent of the consumers listed poor flavor end/or inferior quality as reasons why they disliked frozen meats. This can be contrasted to 3 1‘Ibid, p. 59. 5H. M. Riley and R. C. Kramer, what Consumers are SM ack ed Fresh and Frozen.leats, Specizlffiulletin_h06, Agricul- gurEI Eagsriiint gtation, Hiéhigan State University, East Lansing, December, 1955. 5 percent who gave better flavor or quality as a reason for purchasing frozen meats. There was no attempt in that study to determine whether this preference was based on ”real” or ”imagined" differences between these two commodities. It seems safe to say that some of the reluctance to accept frozen meat as comparable to fresh is the result of 'real” experien- ces with frozen meat of inferior quality. In the 1955 study quoted above, only 17 percent of the home freezer owners expressed a preference for frozen meat over a comparable fresh cut. is will be shown in this thesis, many consumers have had unpleasant experiences with frozen meats and therefore are not frequent purchasers of meat in the frozen form. 'Hore significant is the fact that many consumers have never purchased and tried frozen meat items. Retail sales of frozen meat.--Sales of frozen meats in retail stores have been disappointing to many in the meat industry, prObably as a result of consumer reluctance;y Sales responses have been below even many of the Conservative estimates of three to five years ago. In 1955, industry leaders' predictions for frozen meats were ranging from 12 to 50 percent of total meat sales within five years.6 In l95h frozen meats, including poultry, fish, and red meats, made up only 5 percent of total chain store meat sales.7 This figure has not ins creased appreciably, if any, in the years up to and including 1957.8 Che report based on a survey of 21 food chains shows that the sales of frozen red meats (excluding poultry, seafood and meat pies) 6Ezzell, gp. cit., p.21. 7Riley and Kramer, op. 223,, p. 1h. 8Estinnto derived from information appearing in Chain Store 552) .1958 Frozen Food Hhrchandising,‘ April 1958, p. 125. 6 averaged $h5 per week per store in 1957. This is based on a $15,530 average weekly total store volume, and frozen meats accounted for .289 percent of total store sales. The figures for a year earlier indicate frozen meat accounted fer 8&1 per week per store based on an average weekly total store volume of 813,800.9 Frozen meats then accounted for an average of .297 percent of total sales per store in 1956 for the group of reporting conpanies. Trade sources estimated that the production of quick frozen.meat was 250 million pounds in 1955 and reached 325 million pounds in 1956.10 an equivalent retail weight, the 1955 figure for frozen meats represented only little more than one percent of the total red ‘meat production.11 . Table 1 gives a comparison of frozen red meat production from l9h6 to 1956. These figures represent only red meat and do not include meat that locker plants, freezer provisioners, or super- markets freeze and sell directly to consumers for storage in rented frozen food lockers or home freezers. At the present time, there seems to be much doubt about the future possibilities of frozen red meats. Armour and Company has discontinued production of all consumer sized frozen red meat items and Swift and Company has reduced the number of items in its frozen red meat line.12 9Ibid. 1OFrozsn Food Factbook, 1957-58, National Frozen.Food Distribu- tors Association, HEE’YorE, p. h9. 11The Outlook for Frozen Foods, Agricultural Marketing Service Report 155, U.S.D.I. Washington, 5.5., November 1956, p. 7. 12Supermarket News, July 1h, 1958, p. l. 7 This is taking place at the same time that sales of frozen specialty meat products are increasing. TABLE 1.--Production of frozen red meats in the United States Year Million Pounds 19186 e e e e e e e e e O o 20 19 1‘7 e e e e e e e e e e e 15 19’48 e e e e e e e e e e e 25 19169 e o e e e e e e e e e 27 1950 e e e e e e e e e e e 35 1951 e e e e e e e e e e e 55 1952 e e e e e e e e e e e 80 19 53 e e e e e e e e e e e 125 1951‘ O O O O 0 O C O O O O 175 1955 e e e e e e e e e e e 250 1956 a e e e e e e e e e e 325 Source: Frozen Food Factbook, 1957-58, National Frozen Food Distributors Association. Some ’chain store divisions are discontinuing the sale of frozen red meats and other chain food companies are replacing packers ' brands with their own frozen red meat on an experimental basis .13 Other tests are being conducted with different types of packaging for frozen red meat. let one independent retailer found that his own line of frozen meat gained excellent consumer acceptance as well as enabling his store to carry a more complete line of red meats. Within one year, frozen meats accounted for more than 10 percent of the store's meat volume .11; The uncertainty in the meat industry of the future of frozen red meats makes this study particularly appropriate. 131nm, December 16, 1957, p.1. 1hIbid. August 11, 1958, p. 28. Objectives of the Study There are many prOblems existing in the distribution of frozen meats. It is the objective of this study to investigate some of the prOblems which the author believes are associated with the future expansion of frozen red meat sales. Taste preferences.--Although most consumers express a prefer- ence for fresh meat over comparable cuts of frozen meet, it is not known if this difference exists because of a recognizable palatabil- ity difference. An objective of this study was toidetermine if significant palatability differences exist between fresh and frozen meat. Consumer taste panels were established to get palatability ratings of fresh and frozen pork loin roasts and beef rib roasts. Notable among other variables which are believed to affect palatability of frozen meat at the consumer level are the length of time of frozen storage, condition of the frozen storage, packaging, and the processing itself. It was also the Objective of this study to determine the effect of the two variables concerning the length of time and condition of frozen storage upon the palatability of frozen meats. Purchase patterns.-At the same time that the investigation was done concerning consumer attitudes, further questions were asked to determine the extent to which consumers have had experience with frozen meats. ‘Heat shopping habits were also studied as they relate to frozen food storage in the home. Consumers were also asked to compare frozen red meats with fresh meats with regard to flavor, tenderness, cost, and convenience. In addition, purchase patterns for specific meat items were studied. Usefulness of this Study The study should be of interest to all persons concerned with the frozen meat industry. The palatability tests with beef and pork roasts may be used as guides for further research on palatability of frozen meats with different histories of storage and handling condi- tions . This study combined with findings of the United States Department of Agriculture 's time-temperature tolerance studies should provide educational information for all persons who handle or distri- bute frozen meats from the packer to the ultimate consumer. The purchase patterns for specific frozen meat items will be interesting not only to the packers of these lines but to the retail food store operator who must plan his merchandising activities around fast-moving items . Consumer attitudes toward frozen meats in general should be looked at by all segments of the frozen meat industry. The consumer will make the final decision if the meat industry is ever to realize the economies which may exist in frozen meat distribution. Realizing this, the attitudes, desires, and needs of consumers must be kept continually in mind as frozen meat products, packages, and distribution and merchandising activities are planned, developed, and carried out. CHAPTER II PILOT TASTE PANEL STUDY This chapter describes the initial palatability test and reports the results of that study. This taste panel study was set up to determine if significant palatability differences existed between fresh and fresh frozen pork loin roasts because of freezing. Commercially frozen beef rib roasts were also tested against fresh roasts by this panel. Panel Procedure Make-up of panel.--This taste panel of 18 women was recruited from the Michigan State University married housing area. The women were primarily wives of students and because they were asked to come to a campus location for the test, they were given a small remunera- tion for participation. The panel members were not given any informa- tion about the test until all testing was completed. No attempt was made to get information, such as income level, age, etc. about the members of this panel. Because the emphasis of the test was on ”consumer" acceptance of frozen meats, the consumer or non-expert panel was used instead of a trained or professiona1.pane1. ‘ ‘When and where conducted.--Four different taste panel sessions were conducted with the same members. These sessions were conducted on successive Tuesdays, beginning on April 23, 1957. The preparation and testing of the roasts were done in the Heats Laboratory at 10 11 Michigan State University. The first two sessions were tests of pork loin.roasts and the last two were tests of commercially frozen beef ribroasts and fresh beef rib roasts acquired from a local super- market. Ratigg used.--The panel participants were asked to rate four cooked meat samples, using the Hedonic Scale (see appendix illustra- tion 1). This scale is numbered from 1 (dislike extremely) to 9 (like extremely). The four samples were served on a single plate and were coded. Panel members were asked not to discuss ratings or samples while in the testing room. The codes were varied with each member to prevent comparison. Each panel member was given instruc- tions asking her to taste one sample, rate it, take a drink of water and wait 60 seconds before tasting the next sample. Ratings were to be made independently according to the degree of like or dislike, and no comparison was to be made between samples. Preparation for'testing.--The meat samples were cooked immedia— tely prior to tasting. Cooking thermometers were used to provide uniform cooking as nearly as possible. No seasoning of any kind was used. Before serving the samples, all fat covering was removed, so that the samples consisted entirely of lean meat. Samples were approximately 3/8 inch thick and approximately 1 inch wide by l l/2 inches long. In several cases, only portions of the sample were tasted. Pork Roasts Sample desig§.--Identical sample designs were used for the first two sessions of the panel which tested pork loin roasts. Two hogs were used for each session-hogs A and B for session 1, and 12 hogs C and D for session 2. ‘When the hogs were slaughtered six days prior to the time they were to be tested, two roasts were taken from each hog. One of the roasts from each hog was quick frozen and held at 0°. These roasts were thawed before cooking. The other roast from each hog was refrigerated until it was cooked for the test. The sample design is shown belowr Session.#l Hog A roast cooked from fresh state Hog A - roast frozen, thawed and cooked Hog B - roast cooked from fresh state Meg B - roast frozen, thawed and cooked Session #2 Hog C - roast cooked from fresh state Hog C roast frozen, thawed and cooked hog D - roast cooked from fresh state Hog D - roast frozen, thawed and cooked The hogs used in this study were slaughtered and the roasts were processed and held under laboratory conditions in the Meats Laboratory at Michigan State University; Results.--A summary of the ratings for the two sessions testing pork loin roasts is given in Table 2. For preliminary testing of rating differences, the sign test15 was used. No statistically significant differences between palatability ratings for fresh and for fresh frozen meats were noted either within hogs or in the pooled data for all hogs combined. 15W. J. Dixon and F. J. Massey, Jr., Introduction to Statistical Anal sis, MCGraw-Hill Book Co., New York, 1957, p. 280. The analysis of variance procedure was used to further tarf far rating differences. At the 5 percent level there were no signifi- cant differences in the palatability ratings between fresh and fresh frozen pork loin roasts (see Table 3). A tentative conclusion based upon the results of this test was, that quick freezing of pork loin roasts and very short time storage at 0° does not adversely affect the palatability ratings from a non-professional panel. A note about significance levels to be used in the remainder of this report is appropriate at this point. The 5 percent level is used throughout the report with the exception of one instance in which the one percent level is used. If the differences tested are statistically significant at the 5 percent level, this means that. the statistical odds are only one in twenty that the difference is due to chance alone. Conversely, if the differences are not signifi- cant at the 5 percent level, this indicates that the odds are 19 in 20 that any differences are due to chance alone. Beef Roasts Sample design.--The design for the test of beef rib roasts was considerably different from that for pork roasts. It was felt that a comparison between commercially frozen meat products and the fresh meat products from the same store would approximate the consumer evaluation problem. Two frozen beef rib roasts with identical codes were selected from one supermarket. From the codes on the package and from in- formation given by the packer of this line, it was determined that these roasts had been processed six months prior to the time of pur- chase. The frozen roasts were examined and an attempt was made to 33.8me assuapaou» a gene 05.3. 33.3er K amen seesaw-ha nmom Ema «a m m ... 1m Seen-«ea . . oz «a mu m m a o m m a. e weaken-ad tunes: am.e ma.o -.e as.e «a.o sm.s 44.0 «a.» am.o sm.e manage scam one x- goo . seesaw neomm mono no . I g cabins—on ea no Hosea £553 93 «coach pooh 5a: page as such .330." 56a anon €913: hpwfloeeeaea Ho Santiw H.349 15 select fresh beef rib roasts of the same quality from the same store. In each session, four samples were tested; however, two of the samples were from one frozen beef rib roast and the other two were from the single fresh roast. The design was as follows: Session #3 2 saxqales from roast A; cooked from fresh state, bone in 2 samples from roast C; comrcially frozen boneless roast, six months since packaged Session #1; 2 samples from roast B; cooked from fresh state, bone in 2 samples from roast D; comercially frozen boneless roast, six months since packaged Frozen roast D was purchased at the same time as frozen roast C and was stored at 0° storage until session #1:. Fresh roast B was purchased at the time of session #1:. Both frozen roasts were thawed before cooking. Results.--The meat palatability ratings for each roast are given in Table h. TABLE h.--Summary of palatability ratings, beef rib roasts, fresh as compared with frozen comrcial product with six months shelf life, East Lansing, panel of 18 housewives Session No. 1 Session No. 2 Both sessions es A ozen- es - ozen-D 15.35 Hazen “Can rating 6e97 5e28 6083 5.19 6e90 Sezl‘ Because each panel member was given two samples of each beef roast, the two ratings for each roast of each panel member were averaged to determine the mean rating of that judge (Table 5). Using 16 the sign test, the differences in the Judges' mean palatability rat- ings between fresh and frozen roasts were highly significant at the l.percent level for each session and for the pooled data as well. TABLE 5.-Combination of ratings, beef rib roasts fresh as compared with frozen commercial product with six months shelf life, East Lansing, panel of 18 housewives W Combination of rating Session No. 1 Session No. 2 Both sessions number number number Both fresh above either frozen................ 8 10 18 One fresh above frozen, other flesh tied with one or both frozen.... 5 3 8 me fresh above frozen, other fresh below at least one frosen...... 2 1 3 Fresh and frozen tied for top, but second fresh over frozen..... 1 l 2 Frozen over freshin toprating............ __2__ _2_ _§_ IMOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 18 18 2g Judge mean rating fresh over judge mean rating frozen......... 16 15 31 Judge mean rating frozen over judge mean rating fresh................. 2 3 5 TOMOOOOOCO‘OOOOOOO 18 18 36 A statistical test of the null twpothesis that no differences existed betwaen fresh and frozen roasts was used to further test for variation in the palatability ratings .16 The differences between each judge's mean rating for fresh and her mean rating for frozen were used for each session (Table 6). 16Ibi.d., p. 121; 17 TABLE 6.-Judges' mean ratings, beef rib roasts, fresh as compared with-frozen commercial product with six months shelf life, East Lansing, panel of 18 housewives Session #3_ Session #h Jud mean ratings Dim Jud mean ratin s BM Judge Hoast¥l’ FRoastLC A-C squared HoastQB’ fiRoast- B-D squared (Fresh) (Frozen) (Fresh) (Frozen) 1 6.0 h.0 2.0 h.0 5.0 h.5 0.5 .25 2 7.5 6.5 1.0 1.0 7.5 5.5 2.0 h.0 3 8.0 2.5 5.5 30.25 6.5 h.5 2.0 h.0 h 8.5 h.5 h.0 16.0 7.5 3.5 h.0 16.0 5 8.0 7.0 1.0 1.0 7.5 5.5 2.0 h.0 6 6.5 3.0 3.5 12.25 7.5 5.0 2.5 6.25 7 h.5 3.5 1.0 1.0 5.5 h.5 1.0 1.0 8 5.5 3.5 2.0 h.0 3.5 5.5 -2.o b.0 9 5.5 5.0 0.5 .25 8.0 h.0 h.0 16.0 10 705 500 2es 5e25 has 6es '2 e0 heo 11 9.0 8.0 1.0 1.0 7.5 5.0 2.5 6.25 12 8.0 6.0 2 .0 11.0 8.0 5.5 2.5 6.25 13 6.5 h.5 2.0 h.0 8.0 7.0 1.0 1.0 In 7.5 h.0 3.5 12.25 7.5 6.0 1.5 2.25 15 6.5 7.5 -1.0 1.0 7.5 6.5 1.0 1.0 16 1‘00 705 “'3 as 12e25 700 705 .Oe5 e25 17 7.5 5.5 2.0 h.0 8.5 1.5 7.0 h9.0 18 "" "" "" "" 6e.0 5 e5 0.5 025 19 9.0 7.5 1.5 2.25 ..- ... --- --- o m P . ‘ . O O . i e . . 0 ° a, V. e e For session #3, the mean difference between the judges' mean ratings is 1.69hh. The standard deviation of this mean is o.h611 and the computed t value is 3.67h7. The t value is significant at the 1 percent level. The mean difference between the judges' mean ratings for ses~ sion #h is 1.6389. The standard deviation is 0.5029 and the computed t value is 3.2589. This value is also significant at the 1 percent level. Due to the nature of this test, it is possible that some of the differences in palatability might be associated.with differences between cattle. However, observation of the frozen.product before l8 cooking and tasting of the cooked fat covering indicated that some quality deterioration had taken place. The results of this test indicated that there were significant differences in palatability between the fresh beef rib roasts and the commercially frozen beef rib roasts stored for 6 months. This conclusion must be limited to apply to only one lot of frozen beef rib roasts purchased in one retail outlet. No information on the processing or handling of the frozen.product was available to determine if this sample was typical. CHAPTER III DETROIT TASTE FINEL STUDY Purpose A continuation of the taste panel palatability study was con- ducted with a larger panel made up primarily of persons between 30 and hS years of age, who were high school graduates, and had a family income ranging from $h,000 to $10,000. Such a panel had already been established for other tests in Detroit and it was decided to use this panel for the palatability tests. In this study the palatability effects of frozen meat storage for different lengths of time and under different storage conditions were also studied. Results of pilot study.-From the results of the pilot study described in the previous chapter, it was tentatively concluded that the process of freezing did not adversely affect the palatabil- ity ratings of the pork loin roasts. Observation and palatability ratings of the beef rib roasts would indicate that some quality deterioration had taken place in the commercially frozen beef rib roasts. From these two tests, it was tentatively hypothesized that quality deterioration in frozen meat may'be due to: (l) the length of time in frozen storage and (2) the conditions Lnder which the frozen product is stored. The taste panel palatebility tests with the Detroit panel were designed to study these effects on the palatability of both frozen pork loin roasts and frozen beef rib 19 20 roasts as well as to further check the hypothesis that there is no significant difference in palatability ratings between fresh and fresh frozen beef and pork roasts. Temperature variation in frozen;food display cases.--Townsend has recently completed tests on temperature variations in a frozen food selfbservice display case. Thermocouples were placed in packaged frozen steaks located at various positions in a fully loaded display case. Temperatures were recorded continuously for ten days. The results show that on the bottom of the case tempera- ture is normally .100 to -10 F. Toward the middle of the case, the temperature was normally from -3° F to +170 F, the 17° F reading from a steak about 2/3 distance from the bottom to the top of the case. The steaks at the top of the loaded case, but below the load limit, varied in temperature from +70 F to +2h° F.17 During the twice a day defrost cycles, the temperature of the steaks reached from +1l° F to +lh° F for those steaks on the bottom of the case and from +370 F to +h2° F for those at the top of the case. However, during the second defrost cycle, the temperatures did not rise to the extent that they did during the first eyo1e.18 Tentative hypothese§.--Because of the result of tests of temperature variation in frozen food display cases, the effect of storage in commercial frozen food display cases was given prominence in the experimental design. 17William E. Townsend, Effect of Temperature Storage Condi- tions and Li ht on the color of Pre acka ed:Frozen Heats, unpub- lished PHD. Ehesis, fiichigan State University, 1958, pp. 33-37 and appendix Tables A and B, pp. 85-86. 181bid 21 The tentative hypotheses were as follows: (1) Therezuu no significant differences in the palatabil- ity of meat cooked from the fresh state as compared with comparable meat cuts that have been quick frozen, thawed and cooked without being held in storage over a period of time. (2) The palatability of meat quick frozen, packaged in Cryovac, and held at 0° storage decreases slightly as the length of the storage period is increased. (3) The palatability of meat quick frozen, packaged in Cryovac, and held in a commercial frozen food display case will decrease over time and at a greater rate than meat stored at constant 0° temperatures. Panel Procedure When and where conducted.--The panel used for this series of taste panel sessions had been previously assembled in the Detroit area. The actual testing is carried on in the Home Economics Laboratory at Wayne State University in Detroit. The panel meets monthly from October through June and each panel member is paid to participate. The number of panel participants ordinarily ranges from 120 to 150, with part of the group meeting in the afternoon and the re- mainder in the evening. The afternoon group sampled pork loin roasts and the evening group sampled beef rib roasts. Classification of the panel.-The panel members were original- ly selected from respondents to a mail questionnaire survey in Detroit. The questionnaire was mailed to a random sample of persons selected from the Detroit telephone directory. In the questionnaire 22 respondents were asked to give classifying information such as age, education and income. Table 7 gives the percentage classification for each of these factors for each session.19 TABLE 7.--Age, education, income and sex of Detroit taste panels, June - December, 1957 Afternoon Evening? June Oct. Dec. Pihne Oct} Dec. percent gpercent_gpercent percent percent _percent IE6 group: Under 30 1.5 -- - 2.h - - 31~h5 87.5 86.3 81.3 90.h 92.h 86.3 86-60 10.9 11.8 18.8 7.2 7.6 12.5 Over 60 -- 2.0 -- -- - 1.3 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Education: 0b8 years h.7 3.9 2.1 3.6 3.0 5.0 9.1.]. 1808 19.6 “06 11105 28.8 2103 12-13 65.6 6b.? 60.h 67.5 56.1 56.3 lh-or more 10.9 11.8 22.9 1h.5 12.1 17.5 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Income: Under $2000 -- -- -- -- -- - $2ooo-thooo 8.7 -- -- 12.0 - .- 8h001-35h00 3h.h h5.1 h3.8 31.3 39.h 35.0 35h019$7ooo no.6 37.3 29.2 26.5 no.9 h2.5 $7001-t10,ooo 1h.1 17.6 27.1 19.3 19.7 22.5 Over $10,000 6.3 - - 10.8 - -- '33; Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 8 Females 79.7 7h.5 35.h 51.3 50.0 53.8 Males 20.3 25.5 lb.6 h8.2 50.0 h6.3 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Twenty-five panel members participated in all three pork tasting sessions and 2h members attended twice. The other 72 members attended only one session of the afternoon panel. Eleven of the members participated in all three beef tasting sessions and 37 19For further details regarding the selection of panel members see: Smith Graig and Henry Larzelere, "Consumer Taste Preferences Among Dehydrated mashed Potato Products,"Hichigan Potato Council News, August-September, 1957, p.h. 23 attended two times. Ninety-four attended the evening sessions only one time. Rating used.-The Hedonic Scale was used to rate the samples Just as had been done in the pilot study. Due to the number of other activities to be performed by the panel, only two meat samples were tasted by each participant. Instructions were the same as for the pilot study. The rating form used is shown as appendix illustra- tion 2. The same system of coding was used as was used in the pilot study. . Preparation for tasting.—-As in the pilot study, all frozen meat was thawed before cooking. Heat cooking thermometers were used to achieve the same degree of "doneness" in each roast; however, it was very difficult to achieve this because slight differences in the placement of the thermometers varied the results. Some notice- able differences were detected and this will be pointed out in a discussion of the results. All roasts were processed, frozen and cooked with the bone in. Before serving, the bone and fat covering were removed. Only lean meat was tasted by the panelists. No seasoning of any kind was used. Sample Design The testing was carried out over a period of six months in 1957 according to the following plan: June 3 - fresh and fresh frozen meat Sample a - fresh Sample b - fresh frozen October 8 - meat stored four months 2h Sample c - frozen, stored at 00 Sample d - frozen, stored in frozen food display case December 10 - meat stored six months Sample e - frozen, stored at 00 Sample f - frozen, stored in frozen food display case An identical procedure was followed for both pork loin roasts and beef rib roasts. The description of sample design which follows was applicable to both. All meat samples used in this test were processed, packaged and stored in the Meats Laboratory at Michigan State University. Three animals were selected so as to be reasonable homogeneous, and they were designated as animal 10, animal 20, and animal 30. The beef roasts were selected from cattle which graded U. S. Choice. Three roasts were cut from each loin and each rib. Pork roasts were approximately 2 1/2 pounds each and beef roasts were cut tote 3-h pounds each. These roasts were numbered according to the following plan. Animal 10: left side loin, front to rear-~samples 11, 12, and 13; right side loin, front to rear-~samples 1h, 15, and 16. The sample roasts from animals 20 and 30 were numbered in a similar manner, beginning with 21 and 31, respectively. The samples were paired for the taste tests in the following manner. Roast numbers June Fresh ‘11 22 33* Fresh frozen 13 21 32 October 0° storage 12 23 31 - Frozen food case 1h 25 36 December 0° storage 16 2h 35 Frozen food case 15 26 3h 25 Each pair of roasts was served to approximately 20 persons. In all cases the two samples served each individual were from the same animal. Because the roasts which were stored in the frozen food dis- play case were stored on or near the bottom of a relatively empty case, they were not subjected to the amount of temperature variation which meat normally stored and displayed near the top of the case would be subjected. Townsend's study on temperature variation with a relatively empty frozen food display case showed normal temperature in steaks on the bottom of the case to range from -h° F. to +50 F. The highest temperature recorded during a defrost cycle was +26° F.20 Results of palatability tests Pork roasts.-—A summary of the palatability tests is given in Table 8. The individual ratings are given in.appendix Table 2. Preliminary results were Obtained by using the sign test to test for significant palatability rating differences in each of the two treatments at each session. This test was used for individual hogs as well as the pooled data for each session. At the 5 percent level, the sign test indicated no significant differences in palat- ability ratings between treatments at each session. To further test rating differences, the analysis of variance procedure was used for each individual session. The data for the June session (Table 9) indicated as the pilot study did, that there were no significant differences in the palatability ratings of fresh as compared with fresh frozen pork loin roasts. onmend, 22s Cite, P. 850 26 TABLE 8.--Summary of palatability ratings, pork loin roasts, Detroit panel, 1957 Date Mean ratiggs Number offlpanel Treatment Hog 10 Hggg20 39530 All Hogs, (preferring June Fresh 6.76 6.90 6.h3 6.70 26 Fr. frozen 6.81 6.90 6.57 6.76 2h October 0° - b m0. 6.00 7.70 7.10 6.93 21 FFC - b m0. 6.79 7.65 7.33 7.26 32 December 0° - 6 mo. 7.23 7.00 6.93 7.05 13 FFC - 6 am. 7.08 7.67 7.73 7.h9 26 Although no significant differences in palatability ratings were indicated because of treatments or for individual hogs for the pork roasts stored four months, there was significant interaction between hOgs and treatments (Table 10). TABLE 9.--Analysis of variance, pork loin roasts, fresh as compared with fresh frozen, Detroit, June, 1957 a...” “...-...... 7W... ._ ..i ....___. -... . ource 0 .an tical va ue variation d.f. squares square value F I .05 Total 125 252.83 2.02 Hogs 2 3.63 1.82 0.89 3.07 Treatments 1 0.131 0.13 0.06 3.92 Ho 3 x treatments 2 0.11 0.06 0.03 3.07 or term . . Combined error 122 2h9.06 2.0h TABLE 10.--Analysis of variance, pork loin roasts stored h months, storage at 0° as compared with storage in frozen food display case, Detroit, October 1957 Source of ’Sum.of Pfifiean ‘FT Critical value variation d.f. squares square value F - .05 Total 115 203.72 1.77 Hogs , 2 12.60 6.30 .61. 19.00 Treatments 1 3 .11 3 .11 .31 18 .51 Ho s x treatments 2 19.8h 9.92 6.h9* 3.09 or term no m e I; I 053' ESIgnifIcant at the 5’percent“leve1. 27 In other words, the treatments had different responses in different hogs. However, this might be the result of cooking differences. It was noted throughout the experiment that it was very difficult to achieve the same degree of 'doneness' for each roast. The data in Table 11 for the pork roasts stored for six months indicate a significant difference in the palatability ratings of samples held in 0° storage as compared with samples held in a frozen food display case. The higher'ratings were for the roasts stored in the frozen read display case, although this result is opposite to the original hypothesis. Although the sign test indicated no significant differences at the 5 percent level, the test would be significant at the 5.1. percent level. As seen in Table 11, the analysis of variance test is sig- nificant if the F value is 3.96 or above. The F value obtained in this test was b.05. The results of the two tests do not differ greatly. Logical reasoning would raise doubts as to the validity of the result of the analysis of variance. As mentioned previously, cooking differences resulted in some unmeasurable differences in the palat- ability ratings and the significance of this test may be the result of these differences. No noticeable deterioration was observed in any of the samples which were stored for six months. An analysis of variance procedure was also used to test significant differences in the palatability ratings between various sets of treatments, or in other words to test the differences due to length of storage time. This test, shown in Table 12, indicates no significant differences due to length of storage time. A significant 28 difference is present in the interaction, treatments 3 hogs, for 'various pairs of treatments. This is present as a result of the significant interaction in the June session. TABLE ll.--Analysis of variance, pork loin roasts stored 6 months, storage at 0° as compared with storage in frozen food display case, Detroit, December, 1957 ~W-~m—VW ~. ce 0' um 0' ;an ' h c-‘ v- no variation d.f. squares sguare value F I .05 Tom 85 99 030 1 .17 Hogs 2 0.58 0.29 0.25 3.11 Treatmnta l 1‘065 15065 heosfl‘ 3096 ggge x treatments 2 3.6h 1.82 1.61 3.11 ror term 80 . Combined error 82 9h.07 1.15 *Significant at the 5 percent level. TABLE 12.--Analysis of variance, pork loin roasts, 6 treatments, Detroit, June-December, 1957 ~—.-W_— ._ —-.—. um 0‘ ‘ an ...-.... variation d.f. s uares s uare value F - .05 Titil 327 538.66 l.7? Tim. 2 22.81 ll.hl 2.90 5.1h Treatments within time 3 7.89 2.63 .67 h.76 Fresh vs. fr. frozen 1 .13 .13 .03 5.99 h months: 0° vs. F.F.C. l 3.11 3.11 .79 5.99 6 months: 00 We FeFeCe 1 1‘06; 1‘06; 1018 5099 Hogs i 9.39 he70 1.19 Selh H083 a: tail” 7.113 1.86 eh? heSB Treatment within time x hogs 6 23.59 3.9 2.h2* 2.13 Ear term e 0 Combined error 318 531.13 1.67 *Significant at the 5 percent level. Beef roasts.-qA summary of the palatability tests for the beef rib roasts is shown in Table 13. The individual ratings are given in Appendix Table 3. 29 The Sign test was first used to test these results. As in the data for pork discussed above, the tests were made for individual cattle at each session and for the pooled data for each session. These tests indicated no significant differences in the palatability ratings between treatments at each session at the 5 percent level. The analysis of variance procedure was used to further test differences between treatments at each session. These tests are shown in Tables lb-16. As shown in Table 1b, there were no significant differences because of treatments or for individual carcasses for fresh as compared with fresh frozen beef roasts. There was significant inter- action between treatment and individual carcasses. It was noted at the time of this test that one of the samples tested (Number 21, fresh frozen) was cooked very rare. Critical comments were received on the rareness of this sample. No significant differences were indicated for the beef roasts at four months storage or at six months storage (Tables 15 and 16). The analysis of variance procedure was used to test differences between sets of treatments in the beef roasts (Table 17). As was the case for pork roasts, this combined analysis shows no signifi- cant differenccs except that the interaction, treatments x carcasses, for various sets of treatments are significantly different. A concluding statement.- The results of this test indicate no basis for supporting the latter two of the tentative hypotheses presented at the beginning of this chapter. From the results, the conclusion must be made that the palatability ratings of pork loin roasts and beef rib roasts were not adversely affected by freezing 30 nor by storage at either constant 0° F. or in a commercial frozen fecd display case up to 6 months. However, these results apply to meat products processed, packaged and stored under laboratory conditions at Michigan State University. Storage in the commercial frozen food display case was an imp portant part of the test design. Palatability ratings did not indicate any evidence of quality deterioration with up to 6 months storage in this case. It must be said that the meat samples used in this test were stored on the bottom of the display case used. This case contained only the meat used in this study in addition to not over 6 other pieces of meat and this case was not subject to other temperature variations which might affect frozen food display cases . in normal usage. 31 mm Hm.0 00.5 Nw.0 Hm.0 .QE 0 tomb MN Nh.0 05.0 mn.0 mm.0 .05 0 I 00 Honfiooma mm 50.0 mme0 moew NH.~ .08 4 IOhh NM 0N.» 00.5 mm.~ m:.w .05 a I 00 Hanopoo mm Ha.0 mm.m wm.0 m4.» couonm .am pm N0e0 m0.0 mm.0 Hme0 nmmhm acid Iwnfinwomonm nonmeoneo om essence Ow mesons"... OH mmeoneo Honesz . Hegemony H053 mo {Manges use: 3.3 ...mae Jesse doses Janeen can seen Janene.“ afidofiflcc so gitfl mam: 32 TABLE lh.-Ana1ysis of variance, beef rib roasts, fresh as compared with frozen, Detroit, June, 1957 Source of Sum of Mean F Critical value ‘ variation d.f. sguares sguare value F - .05 Total 163 518.90 3.18 Carcasses- 2 18.52 9.26 .h? 19.00 Treatments 1 1.20 1.20 .06 18.51 Carcasses 1 treatments 2 39.81 19.90 6.85* 3.06 Error term 158 h59.38 2.91 *Significantat the 5 percent level. TABLE lS.--Ana1ysis of variance, beef rib roasts stored h months, storage at 0° as compared with storage in frozen food display case, Detroit, October, 1957 Source of Sumtof Mean F Critical value variation d.f. sguares sguare value F - .05, Total 127 . 2hz.37 1.91 carcasses 2 9 025 16.63 2 051 3007 Treatments 1 b.88 h.88 2.65 3.92 Carcasses x treatments 2 0.82 0.h2 0.22 3.07 Error term. 122 227.h1 1.86 Combination error 12u 228.23 1.8h TABLE l6.--Ana1ysis of variance, beef rib roasts stored 6 months, storage at 0° as compared with storage in frozen food display cases, Detroit, December, 1957 w fi‘j Source of Sum of Mean F Critical value geriation d.f. squares square value F - .05 Total 129 310.03 2.h0 Carcasses 2 L.27 2.13 0.89 3.07 Treatments 1 3.08 3.08 1.28 3.92 Carcasses x treatments 2 2.h2 1921 0.50 3.07 Error term 12h 300.26 2.h2 Combination error 126 302.68 2.h0 TABLE 17--Analysis of variance, beef rib roasts, 6 treatments, Detroit, June-December, 1957 L - 33 _‘— A:- Source of Sum.o£ Mean F Critical value variation d.f. squares square value F - .05 Time 2 22.58 11.29 1.57 5.11: Treatments . within time 3 9.15 3.05 .h3 h.76 Fresh vs. fr. trozen l 1.20 1.20 .17 5.99 11 months: 0° vs. FFC 1 b.88 b.88 .68 5.99 6 months: 0° vs. FFC 1 3.08 3.08 .133 5.99 Carcasses 2 15.26 7.63 1.06 5.1h Carcasses 1: time h 16.79 11.20 .58 b.53 Treatment within time x carcasses 6 h3.05 7.18 2.9h* 2.12 Error term hoh 987.05 2.hh Combination error h10 1030.10 2.51 *Signfficant at the‘Sfipercent"I§veIT CHAPTER IV CONSUMER SURVEY Introduction This chapter summarizes information obtained in a personal inter- view survey of h36 households which was made to determine consumer purchase habits and attitudes toward frozen meat items. This survey was conducted in the suburban residential area surrounding Detroit during the week of April 7, 1958. Taste panel results.--The results of the taste panel study in- dicated that under laboratory conditions the process of freezing or frozen storage up to six months' time, does not adversely affect the palatability of frozen beef or pork roasts. However, the preliminary panel which tasted the commercially frozen'beef rib roasts indicated that the palatability'of this product may have been affected adversely before it reached the consumer. Clearly, the reluctance of consumers to accept frozen red meats as substitutes for comparable fresh meats would indicate that either real differences exist in the two products or that differences in the two products are imagined and exist only in the minds of consumers. It was the purpose of this segment of the study to investigate not only consumer purchase habits and experiences with.frozen meat products, but also to gain some insight into the general attitude of consumers toward frozennmeats. Earlier studies.--In the 1955 study by Riley and Kramer, it was found that young housewives were more favorable toward frozen meats 3h 35 than were older ones. However, there was very little, if any, re- lationship between family income and the frequency of purchasing frozen red meats. The purchases of frozen cooked meat items were more frequent among high income families. This study also found that more than three-fourths of the home freezer owners preferred fresh beef cuts to comparable frozen cuts.21 A University of Missouri study shows only three factors with stat- istically significant differences between purchasers and non-purchasers of frozen meats. The three factors were income, size of family, and number of children under 12 years of age. The results indicate that higher income families, and the larger families with children under 12 years were more inclined to purchase frozen meats than their 0pposites.22 The results of this study were not known at the time of the personal interview survey which this chapter reports. Specific Objectives.--The specific objectives of the personal interview survey were as follows: (1) To determine meat shepping habits as they relate to frozen food storage in the home. (2) To determine the extent to which consumers have had exper- ience with frozen meat items. (3) To determine the degree of satisfaction or dissatisfaction with specific frozen meat items. (h) To find out how consumers rate frozen meats when compared 21Harold Riley, "What Consumers are Saying about Prepackaged Frozen Meats,” Quarterly_Bulletin, Michigan Agricultural Experiment Station, August, 1956, p. 36. 22Richard C. Maxon and Gale C. Hawkins, Knowledge and Consump- tion of Frozen Meats by Selected Kansas City Households, MiSsouri Agriéultural Experiment Station“30urfi§l'SerIE§“N67‘IBE7. 36 with fresh meats with respect to flavor, tenderness, cost per serving, and convenience. (5) To determine the meat purchase patierns of home freezer owners. (6) To gain insight into the attitudes of consumers toward frozen meat products in general. Survey Procedures Questionnaire construction.--After consultation with subject- matter specialists in various departments at Michigan State University, a hepage questionnaire was constructed. The questionnaire was con- structed to accomplish the first four of the objectives listed above. A part of the questionnaire also asked for classification factors of the household such as age, income and size of the family. After a pretest of this questionnaire, the schedule was revised to include a broad general question on the consumers' attitudes toward frozen meat. This question was added upon the recommendation of Dr. Edward Nee of the Department of Sociology and Anthropology, Michigan State university, and he also recommended that this question come prior to more specific questions on frozen meats. Other minor changes were made before the schedule was finalized and duplicated. A copy of the questionnaire used is shown in the appendix. A one-page supplemental questionnaire was also prepared to be answered by those consumers who owned home freezers. The purpose of this schedule was to obtain infermation on the purchase habits of the home freezer owners. A copy of this schedule is shown in the appendix. Protest.--The questionnaire was pretested by the group who were members of the December taste panel participating in the palatability tests described earlier. In this test, the schedules were given to 37 the participants and they were asked to complete the schedules and return them by mail to the author. Of the 116 schedules given out, there were 85 returned. Because the pretest was not a personal interview survey, it was difficult to gauge the reaction to the various questions exactly, but some clarifications were found necessary. The final schedule for the personal interview survey was pretested among several housewives. Areas selected.--Five suburbs in the Detroit metrOpolitan area were selected after studying 1950 census tract data and data assembled by The Detroit News in a 1956 survey. These suburban cities are located in a semicircle about the city of Detroit and are characterized by rapid postAWOrld war II development, (see figure 1). Single family dwellings predominate,'with shopping centers geared to a highly mobile population. The suburban cities selected were Roseville, Royal Oak, Livonia, west Dearborn, and Lincoln Park. These cities are populated by medium to above average income, non-colored families. Economic characteristic data were available for Birmingham, the Grosse Pointes, and East Dearborn, as well as the five selected areas. Economic characteristics for the selected areas are shown in Table 18. In comparison to these figures, the average family income for the Detroit standard metrOpolitan area was 36,300 for 1957. This SMA comprises all of Hacomb, Oakland, and Wayne counties. Sample desiggt-An area probability sampling procedure was used in selecting the households to be surveyed. Detailed maps prepared by the Detroit Edison Company were used in preparing the sample. Each suburb was first divided into approximately 20 equal and 38 OAKLAND CO. 1 I / L. ‘ Detroit I u. Livonia 1|- . ‘1 L West I, r _ Dearborn . l \ I WAYNE CO. MACOMB CO . Roseville LEGEND 7'" Areas Sampled — --- Detroit City Limits Figure 1. Location of five suburban areas sampled. 39 seemingly homogenous residental areas of to to 100 blocks each. By random sampling, 10 of the areas were selected for further sampling. In each of the 10 selected areas a random selection procedure was followed again to select one block where the interviewing would be done. The south-east and north-west corners of the selected blocks were alternated as starting positions for the interviewers. TABLE 18.-Economic characteristics of five Detroit suburban areas Estimated thber TZE' Average ’Hedian Suburb 1957 of houses family home population 1950 1957 income, 1956 value, 1950 dollars dollars Roseville 37,200 h,25? 10,h00 6200 6,980 Royal Oak 71,500 13,281; 21,000 7800 10,761: Livonia 1.6,000 h,832 13,100 6900 8,988 'West Dearborn 58,000 11,396 16,300 8h00 11,815 Lincoln Park h6,500 8,135 13,h00 7h00 8,bhh Each of the selected blocks was personally checked before interviewing began to eliminate any non-residential areas. In a few cases another block had to be randomly selected because the selected block was a commercial area. The interviewers were instructed to obtain schedules from the first 11 households in each of the selected blocks. It was anticipa- ted that this would yield a net sample of 100 completed schedules from each suburb. Although interviewers made up to three call backs including evening calls, only h36 schedules were completed. In two suburbs, an additional cluster of 11 households was added to the sample to increase the total number. The number of schedules obtained from each suburban area are given in Table 19. Recruitment and training of interviewers.--Interviewers were recruited through and with the c00peration of the Home Economics ho Department at Wayne State University. All interviewers selected were junior or senior women students majoring in home economics. These students did the interviewing during their spring vacation. TABLE 19.--Schedu1es completed in Detroit suburban cities, 1958. Suburb Number Roseville ................. 9h Royal Oak ................. 90 Livonia ......QOOCOCCOOO... 93 'West Dearborn ............. 79 Lincoln Puk ......OOOOOOOO 80 W Total ............... h36 A training session was held h days prior to the beginning of the interviewing. Subjects covered in the training session were: The purpose of the study; method and sampling procedure used; instruction on locating households; and detailed instructions on conducting the interview; In addition to the oral training presentation, an inter- vierer's manual was given to each of the interviewers. This contained much of the same detailed information given in the oral training. The interviewerfs manual is shown in the appendix. Survey Findings Heusehold characteristics.--The findings presented in this section are the summarized results of schedules from h36 house- holds. The last six questions in each interview dealt with character- istics of the household. These were the size of the family, number of wage earners in the family, number of'wage earners currently employed, whether the housewife is employed outside the home, bl age of the person doing most of the family meat buying, and the average weekly family income. The results of these questions were used to establish the type of households in the survey and to test whether differences in these characteristics were associated with differences in frozen meat purchase patterns or attitudes. A weighted average figure is reported for each of the house- hold characteristics reported in this section. Because of the differences in the populations of the suburbs and the differences in number of schedules obtained in each suburb, the weighted average was obtained by taking the estimated population for each suburb, as shown in Table 18, and dividing it by the combined population of all five suburbs to get the weighting factor for each suburb. This weighting factor for each suburb was multiplied by the percentage shown for each item in the tables. These resulting figures were added for each item to get the weighted average figure for the combined five suburban areas. The percentage of households in each of five income categories is given for each suburb in Table 20. The income figure reported was the weekly family income after federal income taxes. For households in which some members were unemployed during the survey, the usual weekly wage was reported. As in the economic characteristics of these five suburbs reported by The Detroit News survey, Roseville had the lowest family income and west Dearborn had the highest. On the basis of a Chi-square test it was concluded that the proportion of families in the different income classifications varied significantly among the five suburbs. The Chi-square value was 77.2867 with 20 degrees of freedom. The hz probability of obtaining a Chi-square value of this size from sub- samples from the same pepulation would be less than one in one hundred.23 The Chi-square test is used throughout this report in testing differences in responses to survey questions. TABLE 20.--Proportion of households in various income levels, Detroit suburban area survey, 1958 W Average weekly ’Percent of households £33232: §i23;, Rose- Royal ‘West Lincoln ‘wg%§¥ggg taxes ville . Oak Livonia Dearborn Park Under $60 6.h 10.0 6.5 1.3 10.0 6.91 860 - 89 33.0 17.8 16.1 8.9 25.0 18.97 390 - 119 h6.8 28.9 3h.l; 2h.1 31.3 31.79 3120 - 1&9 9.6 12.2 23.7 26.6 12.5 17.1h 8150 and over 2.1 17.8 15.1 20.3 5.0 13.33 No answer 2.1 13.3 h.3 19.0 16.3 11.91 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.00 The proportion of age groupings of the persons doing most of the family meat shopping is given in Table 21. 0f the suburban areas Roseville had the largest percentage of shappers in the under 30 age group and the fewest in the 50 and over age group. west Dearborn was at the other extreme having the smallest percentage of shoppers in the under 30 group and the highest proportion in the 30 to h9 age classi- fication. However, the Chi-square test indicated no significant difb ferences in the proportion of meat sheppers in different age groups among the five suburban areas . For the five areas combined, 23R0bert Ferber, McGraw-Hill Book Company, ew York, ’r—‘W app.- Statistical Techni ues in.Market Research, h3 the weighted average indicated that 5h percent of the meat shoppers were in the 30 to h9 age category. TABLE 21.--Pr0portion of age groups doing most of the family meat shopping, Detroit survey, 1958 ’ercen o‘ households Age Group ‘Royal West Lincoln Roseville Oak Livonia Dearborn Park ‘W.A. Under 30 30.9 20.0 22.6 12.7 23.8 21.07 30 - h9 h8.9 50.0 50.5 65.8 53.8 Sh.13 50 and over 17.0 28.9 26.9 21.5 21.3 23.81 No answer 3.2 1.1 -- -- 1.2 1.00 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.00 The question was asked, ”How many persons are usually at your family dinner table?” Although in most cases this would be the number of persons in the family, it also included boarders if any were present. The responses to this question are shown in Table 22. TABLE 22.--Proportion of family sizes, Detroit suburban area survey, 1958 W 21‘ Number Royal Lincoln Roseville Oak Livonia Dearborn Park WkA. One 3.2 3.3 ‘ 1.1 2.5 5.0 3.02 Two 16.0 32.2 30.1 19.0 25.0 25.25 Three 19.1 17.8 17.2 2h.1 25.0 20.58 Four 20.2 23.3 19.h 29.1 10.0 21.07 Five 27.7 12.2 19.1. 16.5 17.5 17.61 Six or more 13.8 11.1 12.9 8.9 17.5 12.h6 A his 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.00 The Chi-square test indicated no significant differences among suburbs in the proportion of households of various sizes at the 5 percent level of significance. It can be seen from the table that Roseville had a higher percentage of 5—person households and a lower proportion of 2-person families. Lincoln Park had the highest proportion of households with 6 or more while west Dearborn has the highest proportion of households of any of the areas in the h-person category. By making an assumption that the 6 or more household size con- sisted of only six persons, an average size of household was estimated for each of the areas. In comparing these averages, Roseville had the largest average size of household with 3.95 persons and Royal Oak had the smallest with 3.h2 persons. Royal Oak had the highest percentage of households with only 2 persons. The weighted average for all areas was 3.62 persons per household. It should be remembered that this figure will be biased downward slightly because of the assumption stated above. The number of wage earners in the family was indicated on the schedule. The largest group, 72.5 percent, reported only one wage- earner in the family. Two wage earners were reported by another 17.9 percent of the households and 2.5 percent reported three wage earners. The 5.5 percent who reported no wage earners in the family were primarily retired persons and widows. There was no significant difference at the 5 percent level in the number of wage earners per family among suburbs. A second question concerning wage earners was asked to determine the number of wage earners who were employed at the time the survey 15 was taken. It was impossible to determine accurately the percentage of those wage earners employed because of the increase in the number of non-respondents to the second question. However, by finding the total number of wage earners from the first question and subtracting the total number of currently employed determined from the second question, a figure representing both unemployed and non-respondents was obtained. For the entire survey, this figure amounted to 10.1 percent of the total wage-earners reported. The figure ranged from 16.5 percent in Roseville (including the largest number of non-respondents) to 5.h percent in west Dearborn. The'west Dearborn figure did not include any nonprespondents. The higher figures were for the lower income suburbs in the study. The housewife was employed outside the home in 19.3 percent of the households surveyed. At the 5 percent level, there was no significant difference among suburbs in the percentage of housewives who were employed. The average number of hours worked by the employed housewives ranged from 28.9 hours per week for those in Royal Oak to 39.1 hours per week for those in'west Dearborn. Meat purchase habits.--The frequency of shopping for meats ‘was the first question asked in each interview; The predominate reply was once a week shOpping with 55.90 percent (weighted average) of the households giving this answer (See Table 23). In all suburbs, an equal or larger percentage of households made two or more major shoppings a week than made one major shopping trip with small fill-in shopping trips for meat. USing the weighted average, this would indicate that more than 87 percent of the households did not follow the practice of snapping for meat on a fill-in basis. 'With h6 these purchasers, meat was bought only on major shopping trips. TABLE 23.-Frequency of meat shopping, Detroit suburban area survey, 1958 ' Percent of households Frequency of shopping per week Royal ‘West Lincoln Roseville Oak Livonia Dearborn Park ‘W.A. Irregularly, but less than once 8.5 17.8 16.1 13.9 20.0 15.68 Once a week 66.0 1.11.); 53.8 57.0 66.3 55 .90 One major sh0pping Two or more major shoppings 12.7 18.9 20.h 15.2 12.5 16.30 No answer - 2.2 1.1 -- -- 0.80 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.00 The Chi-square test indicates significant differences among suburbs in meat shopping frequency. The test also indicated signifi- cant differences in proportionate shopping frequencies among income groups. Both tests were significant at the 5 percent level. The highest income group, $150 weekly and above, had the highest proportion of households who made two or more major sh0pping trips per ‘week and had the lowest percentage of households who shopped only once a week for meat. The lowest income group, under $60 weekly, had the largest proportion of households who made less than one meat shopping trip per week and the lowest percentage who made one major shapping trip per week but purchased several items during the week. Generally, the higher the income, the more frequently households sh0pped for meat. h? It is quite probable that the difference among suburbs in meat sh0pping frequency is due to the differences in income levels in the suburbs. The Chi-square test indicated no significant differences in proportions of meat shopping frequency among different family sizes, age levels, income levels, or between households in which the house- wife was employed and those in which the housewife was not employed outside the home. Home meat storagg.--The amount and kind of home frozen food storage space available is closely related to the practice of buying fresh meat and then freezing and storing this meat in the home frozen storage space. All of the households surveyed contained a mechanical refriger- ator and 10.3 percent of the households had home freezers. The percentage of households with home freezers varied considerably among suburbs and the differences among suburbs was significant at the 1 percent level (see Table 2b). Four of the homes surveyed had two refrigerators and three households rented frozen food locker space. The amount of frozen food storage space in the refrigerator ‘Was determined by asking each respondent to classify the home refrigerator into one of three groups: (1) One door with ice cube {compartment only; (2) one door with frozen food storage space across ‘t0p or bottom; or (3) two door refrigerator-freezer combination. 'The results indicated that the majority of households are equipped ‘With a one door refrigerator with frozen storage space across the top or bottom. (See Table 25). The type of refrigerator classified by the amount of frozen food storage space available varied significant- ly at the 1 percent level among suburbs. “West Dearborn, the highest income area, had the highest percentage, 26.6% of homes with a h8 refrigerator-freezer combination. Roseville, the area with the lowest age classification, had the largest percentage of households with the newer-type refrigerators with frozen storage space across the top or bottom. TABLE 2h.--Households having home freezers, Detroit suburban area survey, 1958 W Number of households Percent of households Suburb having freezers having home freezers Roseville 3 3.2 Royal Oak 13 114.1. Livonia 16 17.2 west Dearborn 10 12.7 Lincoln Park 3 3.7 All suburbs weighted average h5 10°99 In addition to this classification of refrigerators, the size of the refrigerator in terms of cubic feet was also asked. The range of averages fer each suburb was from 8.9 cubic feet in Royal Oak to 10.2 cubic feet in Roseville. The average size of all refrig- erators reported was 9.75 cubic feet. To further check differences in home meat storage patterns, all households were divided into two groups. One group consisted of those homes with a refrigerator and home freezer, and the other group consisted of households who had only a refrigerator. Chi-square tests indicated no significant differences among income levels or family sizes in the proportion of households who had a refrigerator only h9 00.00H 0.00H o.ooa o.ooa 0.00H o.OQH Haves «o.m m.~ m.a a.~ m.m an unseen oz mm.MH m.o w.ww H.mH m.m 0.m sodasswnsoo nonconu anopenomwnmou hoovcoaa am.wo m.~o 4.4m 0.5m H.H© m.om no» cuckoo owmaopm coon conouu spa: nopsnomfinmou uoocuoco mm.Hw m.mm 5.5H m.mm w.o~ o.m tho PsoEvHeQEoo . capo so“ spas nopsnowwnuou neoprene .<.3. sued nuonnwon awco>fig xso ..aaabomom nHoosHA anus. Hemom unaccomso: no accoupm. nopauomflhmom mo oaks mmma ahobhsm «one cenhsnsn pfionvon .omenovu boom cosohu seashowwhuow mo mocha mpowas> mswbwn ucaosonsog no soauuomohmuu.mm mgmda and those who had both a refrigerator and home freezer. However, significant differences at the 5 percent level were found among age levels and among households with varying frequencies of meat shopping. While 22 percent of the households without home frc cars were in the SO and above age group, 39 percent of households with home- freezers fell into this age category. Home freezer owners were more likely to Shep less than once a week than those who own refrigerators only. Those with home freezers do not tend to make two or more major meat shOpping trips per week or fill in shopping trips as often as the households with a refrigerator only. The practice of purchasing fresh meat and freezing it in the home frozen food storage space is well established. Within the two months prior to the survey, 82 percent of the households had stored meat in this manner. No significant difference was found among suburbs in the prOportion of households who did and did not freeze meat at home (see Table 26). However, significant differences were apparent among suburbs in the proportion of different types of refrigerator frozen food storage space, and between households with home freezers and those with a refrigerator only. Those households who reported following the practice of pur- chasing fresh and the freezing it in the home contained a larger percentage of households who had one door refrigerators with frozen food storage space across the top or bottom and a larger percentage of households with the two door refrigerator-freezer combination than those households who did not follow this practice. This difference was significant at the 1 percent level. The difference in the percentage following the practice of 51 freezing fresh meat at home was also significant at the 1 percent level between households with and without home freezers. Home freezer owners reported following this practice less than households with a refrigerator only. However, 65 percent of the home freezer owners reported the practice. TABLE 26.--Pr0portion of households reporting purchases of fresh meats and subsequent frozen home storage within the last two months Detroit suburban area survey, 1958 W Percent of households Royal West Lincoln ‘W.A. Item. Roseville Oak Livonia Dearborn. Park Had followed practice 78.7 75.6 87.1 87.3 85.0 82.36 Had not followed practice 19.1 22.2 10.8 12.7 15.0 16.31 NO mr 2e]. 202 201 ‘“"‘ "" . 1028 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.00 Those who purchased fresh meat and stored it in their refriger- ator frozen food storage space tended to shop for meats less frequently than those who did not. This difference was significant at the 5 per- cent level. Chi-square tests with the household characteristics indicated no significant differences in the percentages following this practice. Households who had followed this practice were asked if the meat was stored for less than or more than two weeks. Over three- fourths, 80.6 percent reported the meat was stored for a period of less than two weeks. 52 Frozen meat purchase experience.--All respondents were asked to indicate their purchase experience for seventeen different frozen meat items. The response was in terms of one of the following: Have never purchased; tried, but no longer buy; or tried and buy occasionally. Table 27 summarizes the replies to this series of questions for all suburban areas combined. A tabulation was made of all those households who had purchased any one of these items and it was found that only £5 percent had pur- chased any frozen roasts, steaks, or chops. An additional 27 percent had tried frozen cubed or chopped steaks or ground beef patties and had never purchased the heavier frozen red meat cuts. For individual frozen steaks, roasts, and chops, more than 75 percent had never tried these particular items. All households were grouped into three categories: Those that had tried frozen steaks, roasts, or chops; those that had not tried the heavier frozen cuts, but had tried the frozen steakettes or ground beef patties; and those that had never tried either the heavier cuts or the sandwich steaks. Chi-square tests indicated no significant differences among these three groups with regard to household characteristics, frequency of shopping, amount of frozen storage space in the refriger- ator, the practice of storing fresh meat in the frozen storage space, or home-freezer owners as Opposed to households with a refrigerator only. After the question regarding experience with the various frozen meat items, questions were asked regarding those frozen products which had been most satisfactory and those which had been most unsatisfac- tory. These items are listed in Tables 28 and 29 with the comments and reasons for approval or disapproval. 53 TABLE 27.--Reported purchase experience with frozen meat items, Detroit suburban area survey, 1958 Have Tried but Tried Item never no longer and buy No Total purchased buy occasionally answer percent percent percent percent percent 1. Heat pies ........ 22 2h Sh -- 100 2. Tray dinners ..... S6 19 2h 1 100 Pcultgy: 3. Turkeys .......... 36 1: S9 1 100 h. Chicken, fryers .. S2 6 hl l 100 5. Chickens, roasting 52 6 m 1 100 Beef: 6. Cubed or chopped steaks or steakettes .. h2 13 bk 1 100 70 Steaks eeeeeeeeeee 76 6 15 3 1m 8. Ground beef patties or hamburger ... 63 8 28 l 100 90 R088“ eeeeeeeeeee 81 h 12 3 1m Veal: 10. Cutlets ......O.. 86 3 8 3 1m 11. Breaded cutlets . 86 h 9 1 100 12. Roasts .......... 9O 2 7 l 100 Pork: 13. Chops ......O...‘ 81 h 1h 1 1m 1h. Breaded chops ... 91 2 h 3 100 15. Roasts eeoeeeeeee 89 2 7 2 100 16. Sausage ......... 88 1 10 l 100 17. Frozen fish or seafood ....... 21 h 7h 1 100 Price was a principal reason for dissatisfaction although many housewives gave a specific example of a bad experience with a frozen item. It would appear from the comments from this question that Sh quality had not been the best in many cases. ‘Hany housewives made specific references to the dislikes of their family for individual items. It was evident that housewives were strongly influenced by the likes and dislikes of their husbands and children. On the positive side, bh9 mentions were made of satisfactory items while unsatisfactory items had 321 mentions. Convenience and quick preparation were the comments most frequently made but tender- ness and the availability were mentioned several times. The similarity of the two lists should be noted. The frozen items that received the most mentions as satisfactory also received numerous mentions as unsatisfactory. This is probably due largely to the fact, as seen in Table 27, that these items have been purchased and tried by the largest percentage of households, and thus consumers have had greater experience with these products. Attitude toward frozen meats.--Before questions were asked re- garding specific frozen meat items each respondent was asked the question, 'In general, how would.you describe your feelings toward frozen meats as compared with fresh meat?“ After noting all replies to this question, four classifications were set up to analyze the results. The first category was for those who replied by stating a preference, or by directly comparing the two products. The other three classifications were: (1) Things housewives said they disliked about buying frozen meats; (2) reasons why homemakers liked frozen meat; and (3) why fresh meat was preferred. Most replies were stated so that they were classified into two or more of these categories. 0f the h36 households interviewed, 39h or 90.h percent answered the question by stating a preference in one of the groups in Table 30. 55 TABLE 28.--Unsatisfactory frozen meat items reported and comments received, Detroit suburban area survey, 1958 Heat pies Tray dinners Steakettes Fish or seafood Ground beef’patties Chicken Breaded veal cutlets Beef roasts Beef steaks Pork chops Breaded pork chops 59 28 25. 20 15 10 Comments Too small; meat tough; no taste; family didn't like; don't like without bottom crust; poor seasonp ing; too much gravy; expensive; and too spicy. Poor variety; just awful; too small; expensive; taste too drab; family didn't like. Dry; bad cuts; can't see product; too thin; husband doesn't like; too dry; too much fat; and poor flavor. No taste; loses flavor; tastes like iodine; no variety; rotten; and has strong flavor. No flavor; too much water; poor taste; expensive; was bad; too thin; and too much fat. Got food poisoning; no taste; ex- pensive; bone turns black when cooked; and rotten. Too much breeding; dry; no flavor; tasteless; off odor; and mostly fat. Net available; off odor; expensive; fatty; poor flavor; not enough storage; and they shrink. Get fbod poisoning; flavor bad; expensive; don't like to thaw, needed much seasoning; greasy; and not available. Poor flavor; expensive; tough; can't see product; no taste; too few in package; and quality degener- ates after freezing. Do own breeding; package too large; and not fresh. 56 TABLE 28 .--Continued Number of Item mentions Comments Turkey 7 Poor taste; no storage; expensive; bruised; and poor flavor. Pork roasts 5 Not right out; bad flavor; no texture; poor color; and expensive; Sausage 1 Lamb chops 1 Strong flavor Total 321 TABLE 29.--Satisfactory frozen meat items reported and comments received, Detroit suburban area survey, 1958 Number’of Item. mentions Comments Fish or seafood 125 'Wider variety; flavor good; easy to use; economical; no fresh avail- able; right size; can keep longer; good taste; always available; properly packaged; and looks better. Heat pies 65 Convenient; easy to fix; quick; family likes; time-saver; good taste; complete dinner; and de- pends on brand. Steakettes Sh Easy to prepare; quick meal, children like; good taste; good for sandwiches; reasonable price; good for emergencies; tasty; and attractive. Chicken 52 Good; easy to prepare; tender; more readily available; easy to store; family favorite; well- cleaned; and good taste. TABLE 29 .-- Continued 5? W War of Item mentions Garments Turkey 1;? Good taste; tender; easy to prepare; no fresh available; can store; convenient; and good flavor. Tray dinners 21 Good; easy to fix, variety, no left- overs; children like; quick and Gaye Ground beef patties 20 Tender; quick; easy to prepare; and good flavor Beef steak 1? Like frozen; tender; well trimed; good flavor; and family favorite. Beef roasts l6 Saves time; tender; well out and trimmed; can store; and good taste. Pork chaps 13 Tender; convenient; well-trimmed; and easy to fix. Veal cutlets 7 Tender; and good taste . Breaded pork chops 1; Tender Sausage I; Can store; convenient; and good flavor. Veal roast 3 Convenient form Pork roast 1 Total “:9 The Chi-square test indicated no differences among these pre- ference statements when related to the households characteristics and to the frequency of shopping for meats. At the 1 percent level, significant differences existed in the proportion making these preference statements with respect to the home freezer owners, the 58 practice of freezing fresh meat at home, and the amount of experience with frozen meat items. TABLE 30.--Genera1 statement of preferences, frozen as compared to fresh meat, Detroit suburban area survey, 1958 Statement of preference Percent of households Prefer fresh .............................. h2.9 Prefer fresh but take advantage of frozen specials...................... .7 Prefer to buy fresh, then freeze .......... 6.9 Prefer fresh, haven't tried frozen ........ 2.5 No experience with frozen ................. 13.1 Both the same ............................. 13.5 Buy both, depends on price ................ .9 Prefer frozen ............................. 7.6 Some frozen good, some bad ................ 2.3 No answer ................................. 9.6 Total ............................... 100.0 Fifty-one percent of those households with a refrigerator only made the statement that they preferred fresh meat while only 25 percent nf the home freezer owners made this statement. A larger percentage of home freezer owners than refrigerator owners made the statement that they pre- ferred fresh but took advantage of frozen meat specials and that they preferred to buy fresh and then freeze it. Of the households prefer- ring fresh meat but admitting at the same time that frozen meat had never been tried, none had home freezers. A higher percentage of those who had not purchased fresh meat to store in the home frozen food storage space made the state— ments that fresh meat was preferred.but that frozen meat specials were taken advantage Of a higher preportion of these households reported no experience with frozen meats. All of the households who stated a preference for frozen meat were households which had renorted 59 the practice of purchasing fresh meat and then freezing it at home. The households which had the most experience with frozen meats (those who had tried frozen steaks, roasts or chops) had the highest percentage that preferred fresh meat but did take advantage of frozen meat items on special sales. The respondents who had tried frozen sandwich meat items had the highest proportion of any of the three groups who said they preferred fresh meat. This group had the highest percentage who stated that fresh meat was preferred and frozen meat was purchased to take advantage of specials. As might be expected those households'who had tried neither the heavier cuts nor the frozen sandwich meat items had the highest proportion of respondents who stated that fresh meat was preferred but frozen meat had not been tried. Two hundred seventy-nine Objections to frozen meat were given by 216 households or h9.S percent of those surveyed. This was the second classification of reaponses to the general question about attitudes toward frozen meats. Inferior quality was the most frequently mentioned objection. The fact is worth noting that the second most frequently mentioned objection to frozen meats is the inconvenience of thawing. Many consumers also mention.price and the fact that they cannot see the meat as disadvantages of the frozen product. Twenty-three respondents felt that the frozen product was not fresh or was "old." These statements are summarized in Table 31. Twentyatwo percent of the households replied to the general question with some statement of why frozen meats were preferred or giving an advantage of frozen meats. Of these statements, nearly 60 percent had to do with the convenience of frozen meat products. 60 Another 20 percent referred to quality aspects such as tenderness, flavor, and taste (see Table 32). TABLE 31.--Objections to frozen meat as compared to fresh meats, Detroit suburban area survey, 1958 Statement about frozen meats Number of times mentioned Quality not as good - bad experience 6).; Inconvenient thawing 51 Too emensive ’42 Cannot see meat 31; Not fresh - 'old" 23 Not enough hone storage 21 Not available at store 20 Size of cuts not right 11: Too watery - wasteful 10 TABLE 32.nRsasone for preferring frozen meat as compared to fresh meat, Detroit suburban area survey, 1958 Statement about frozen meats Ember of times mentioned More convenient 58 More tender Better flavor, taste Satisfied with frozen Less expensive No waste Readily available Maw-loose: Ninety-five households or 22 percent of those surveyed gave reasons why flesh meat was preferred. The 101 reasons given are summarized in Table 33. More than one-half of the reasons given were better flavor or taste. Seventeen households reported that the desir- ability of fresh meat depended upon the butcher. Ten persons stated that they preferred fresh meat although there was no difference in fresh and frozen meats. Other comparisons between fresh and frozen masters-Those house- wives who had tried at least one frozen item of heavier red meat cuts, such as chops, roasts, or steaks, were asked to make a comparison of 61 fresh and frozen meat of the same cut and grade on four factors. These were flavor, tenderness, cost per serving, and convenience in preparation. (Ely 145 percent had purchased at least one of these items. The ratings are given in Table 31;. TABLE 33.-Preference statements for fresh meat as compared to frozen meats, Detroit suburban area survey, 1958 Statements about fresh meat Number of times mentioned Better flavor, taste 53 ' Depend on butcher 17 Prefer or buy fresh...no difference in fresh and frozen 10 Less expensive 8 Does not require thawing 7 Readily available, better selection 6 TABLE 3h.--Ratings of fresh vs. frozen red meats by consumers who have tried frozen meats, Detroit suburban area survey, 1958 Comparative Cost per Convenience rating Flavor Tenderness serving in preparation percent percent percent percent No difference 35 150 22 25 Prefer fresh M: 20 36 2O Pr'efer frozen 10 25 19 16 No opinion 5 8 17 1 No answer 6 7 6 ‘ 8 . Total 100 100 100 100 Frozen meats were rated highest on convenience in preparation while fresh meats were preferred on flavor and cost per serving. No great difference was noted in the ratings on tenderness, although 25 percent of the homemakers thought frozen meats were more tender. Purchase Interns of haze freezer owners .«Forty-five of the [:36 households surveyed had hone freezers. However, these were primarily 62 concentrated in three suburbs, Royal Oak, Livonia, and'west Dearborn. The average size home freezer was 13.5 cubic feet. It was found that 16 percent of the home freezer owners do subscribe to some type of a "freezer plan." Almost seventy per- cent reported purchasing prepackaged fresh meat when featured as a special in retail stores and subsequently storing this meat in the home freezer. In the previous six months period, 16 households or 36 percent reported purchasing sides or quarters of'beef for their home freezer. Nine purchased for cash and five made the purchase on credit. Packing houses and frozen food plants were the predominate source of these quantity purchases of meat, but five purchased directly from farmers. In addition to buying prepackaged fresh.meat at retail stores and buying sides or quarters of‘beef, there were very few other pur- chases or sources reported. Three reported small purchases or gifts from relatives and two reported purchases from farmers. Two others reported purchases from a butcher. All home freezer owners were asked if they believed that their home freezer enabled them to reduce their expenditures fer meat. While 62 percent answered yes to this question, 20 percent answered no, and 8 percent thought that it was nearly the same cost, but expressed the opinion that they "ate better." CHAPTER V SIRE-Md AND CONCLUSIONS Summary This study was an attempt to determine some of the behavior patterns and attitudes of consumers toward frozen meats. Some persons believe that distribution of frozen meats from the packer to the con- sumer could result in economies in the meat industry and a reduction in the costs of marketing meat. However, consumers have been reluc— tant to accept frozen meats as perfect substitutes for fresh meats. In a recent study, 9 out of 10 consumers expressed a preference for fresh beef over a comparable frozen out. No attempt was made to determine if this difference was "real" or ”imagined" in that study. This study attempted to determine this by establishing a palatahility taste panel. Fresh frozen pork loin roasts were tested against fresh pork loin roasts from the same animals. There was no signifi- cant difference in the palatability ratings. To more nearly approximate the actual choice which consumers have, commercially frozen beef rib roasts with six months shelf life and fresh beef rib roasts were purchased from a retail store. An attempt was made to select fresh roasts of the same grade as the frozen roasts. The palatability ratings of the taste panel indicated that very real differences existed between the fresh and commercially frozen beef rib roasts. Observation of the frozen product and tasting 63 6h of the cooked fat also indicated that some quality deterioration had taken place. An elaboration of the taste panel test was conducted to deter- mine if frozen storage for different lengths of time and under different storage conditions significantly affected the palatability ratings of pork loin roasts and beef rib roasts. Samples of pork loin roasts and beef rib roasts were processed, packaged and s+ored in the Meats Laboratory at Michigan State University. Part of the samples of the frozen meat were stored at 0° F. and part of the samples were stored for periods up to six months in an open-top retail frozen food display case. There were no significant differ- ences in the palatability ratings because of freezing or by storage periods up to six months either at 0° or in the frozen food display case. However, samples stored in the frozen food display case were stored on the bottom of the case where temperature variations are less than at the top of a loaded case. As another part of this study, a personal interview survey of h36 households in five Detroit suburban cities was made in an effort to determine the purchase experience and home storage habits of consumers with respect to frozen meats. These consumers were also asked questions about their attitude toward frozen meat. Some of the more significant findings can be summarized in the following statements: 1. Mere than 55 percent of the households shopped for meat once a week. Eighty-seven percent of the households purchased meat only on major shepping trips. 2. The higher the weekly family income, the more frequently 65 households shopped for meats. All households surveyed were equipped with mechanical refrigerators and more than 10 percent had home freezers. About 6 out of 10 households had a one-door refrigerator with frozen food storage space across the top or bottom. Heuseholds with persons in the over 50 age category were more likely to have a home freezer than other age groups. The households with home freezers shepped for meat less frequently than households without home freezers. Within two months prior to the survey, 82 percent of the households reported that they had purchased fresh meat and stored it in the refrigerator frozen food storage space. Eighty percent of those reported that this meat was stored for less than two weeks. Fifty-five percent of the households had never purchased any frozen steaks, roasts, or chaps. For individual items of these heavier frozen red meats, the prOportion of households which had never purchased exceeded 75 percent. Prepared meat items, seafood, sandwich meat, and poultry received the most mentions both as satisfactory and unsatis- factory frozen meat items. Quality and price were most frequently given as disadvantages of these frozen meat items while convenience and ease of preparation were mentioned as favorable attributes of these frozen items. In response to a general question on feelings toward frozen meat, nearly h3 percent of the respondents stated that they preferred fresh while only 7.6 percent stated a preference 10. ll. 12. 66 for frozen meat. Others answered that they were both the same, that they had no experience with frozen, and that they preferred to buy fresh meat, then freeze it at home. Cther answers to the general question were in terms of objections to frozen meat, advantages of frozen meat, and advantages of fresh meat. Nearly 50 percent of the house- holds stated disadvantages of frozen meat. The primary objections were related to quality, inconvenience of thawa ing, packaging, and price. Twenty-two percent of the home- makers gave reasons why they liked frozen meat. Convenience was the most frequently mentioned. The majority of preference statements for fresh meat concerned quality. Those consumers who had tried frozen steaks, roasts, or ChOpS were asked to compare these with fresh cuts of com- parable quality on four factors: flavor, tenderness, cost per serving, and convenience in preparation. Fresh meat had a relatively higher preference rating on flavor and cost per serving, while frozen meats were rated highest on convenience in preparation. Ratings on tenderness were nearly evenly divided. Nearly 70 percent of the home freezer owners reported buying quantities of prepackaged fresh meat when featured as a special and storing this meat in the home freezer. Sixty-two percent of the home freezer owners believed the freezer enabled them to reduce the family meat expenditures and another 8 percent felt that the family ate better meat although not saving any money. 67 Conclusions Some of the conclusions which can be made from the results of the study are listed below. 1. In preliminary tests under laboratory conditions, quick freezing did not adversely affect the palatability of pork loin roasts and beef rib roasts. Under laboratory conditions, storage at 0° F or on the bottom of an Open top frozen food display case up to six months did not adversely affect the palatability of pork loin roasts and beef rib roasts. Based upon two samples of commercially frozen beef rib roasts with six months shelf life, it can be said that some frozen meat items are being offered for sale to consumers which have deteriorated in quality to the extent that the palat- ability is affected. Most consumers follow the practice of purchasing fresh meat and subsequently freezing it in their home refrigerators. This procedure makes possible once a week shapping which is typical in the areas studied. This also suggests that homemakers do not have strong objections to "frozen meats" handled in this manner. The point mentioned above would also suggest that frozen food storage space in the home does not appear to be a critical factor limiting present purchases of commercially frozen meats. Over one-half of the consuming households have never pur- chased frozen roasts, steaks or chops. Mere than Ox ('1‘ three-fourths have not purchased specific itens of the frozen red meat cuts. This indicates a reluctance on the *6 part of the consumer to even "give frozen men's a chance." “J . The prepared neat items, seafoods, sandwic“ nests, and poultry have been tried by most consumers. Because of tie consumer's more extensive experience with these products -hey are given both as the most satisfactory and the root unsatisfactory of the frozen meat items. 3 . Convenience is a principal advantage associated with frozen meats; however, the inconvenience of thawing bofore cocking is an inrortant disadvantape. 9. Principal criticisms of commercially frozen meats are: quality not as good, inconvenience of thawing, too exrensive, and cannot see the meat. This study has pointed the need for additional research on frozen meats. Much more should be known regarding the effects of storage tine aid temperature on frozen meats. The United States Department of Agriculture is currently working on a terojsct of this t ye. It would seem that palatability and consumer accentance of the meat after freezing should be a part of the tests concerning the results of time and temperature variations on frozen meats. Verj. little scientific data are availaz-lc about the V’ar:,'ingfi conditions under which frozen meats have been and are being handled, stored, and transported. Because these handling conditions determine to a large exten. the quality of the product that is nrerented to the consumer, the importance of this problem can be easily recognized. A study of frozen neat ha Uiinv practices might identify the factors associated with product deterioration now occuring in distribution (,N \ 4‘) channels. Continuing studies of consnmer attitudes and Opinions toward frozen meats are needed for the meat industrv to meet and overcome objections of consumers and to merchandise frozen meets to advantage. A strong educational propran is needed to carrr the results of these 5 Leested research studies to the meat industry as well as to consumers. Consumer attitudes are of vital concern to frozen meat packers. Distributors should be informed of proper handling condi- tions and temperatures. Consumers should be informed of the proper methods of home storage and preparation of frozen meats. APPENDICES APPENDIX A 72 APPENDIX TABLE l.--Pslatability ratings of pork loin roasts, fresh as compared with fresh frozen, East Lansing panel of 18 housewives April, 1957 SESSION 751 ‘3'“ M1 8 SESSION {2' 1 Hog A Egg B HogSC Hog:D Fresh Fresh Fresh Fresh Fresh Frozen Fresh Frozen Fresh Frozen Fresh Frozen 7 5 h 6 7 6 6 h h 5 7 8 5 6 h 5 7 h 7 2 8 7 3 h 7 7 8 6 7 7 7 7 9 8 h 7 7 7 9 8 8 9 7 2 7 7 6 7 7 8 8 .8 7 7 7 6 8 7 7 6 8 8 7 7 8 8 8 8 S 7 h 7 8 6 8 7 7 7 S 6 8 8 9 7 9 6 9 h h 7 6 8 7 S 8 8 6 h 6 7 8 8 h 5 7 9 9 8 7 8 7 8 6 7 8 h 8 7 7 7 6 6 8 7 h S S 7 7 8 7 7 8 7 7 7 8 8 8 8 6 6 6 5 APPENDIX TABLE 2.-Palstability'ratings for pork loin roasts, Detroit panel, June-December 1957 Roast Numbers and Treatments Indicated December (6 MOnths Storage) 5?: E: #3h 0 O #35 9939 5% O #517 # 73 QNQOQQQNNNQQNNO NQ‘OCDNNF-(ZJCDNNNMWCD QQNNQQONGNQQQQQS) NNQOQNNMQQQNNQQ QQQNQQQNQONQQ NJF—Q? m 0880 H hooaocoxowcoxomxococow \o 005; \OQNQCOCDN—SNQNOQ 9933 £53: QODCDOme-Nwmb-CDNQNQJQOCRI‘WU‘ A H o as 00$ OWNQQNQNMQJNNQQNNNQNQ H o 73 as m E 93-53% QCDOxwl‘MOxOxQNQDNOxNQD‘DN‘O‘Da +3 8 m .. 5: 00% tsunowoooov-chowcooooohhtxhoxoo .3 V 3 o 8 :\O\OU\\O P-QDQ) b—N—‘J’Jt‘mmcw June (Fresh and Fresh Frozen) \oooowxoatsaommoolxhwmxomfipcns. (~00 NC) NJNQQMNMI‘QOJJNQQ‘O QJMQCDCD N13030:) NMNb-Qh-tx-t‘b—cotx mhfiwwt‘m—SNONNQMNOOQCDQIAN b-NNNObe—JJOCDF-mmmhb-mhhco NNQJQ®©®MQNN4NWQ O\——'1'U\COO'\ APPENDIX TABLE 3.-Pa1atability ratings for beef rib roasts, Detroit panel, June-December 1957 78 Roast NUmbers and Treatments Indicated December (6 Mont hs St orage) 9993 33 9890 as #35 #31: ‘39:) fig 73 #15 #28 #26 o o #16 (\OQGJQGOOxb-Nl‘b-Oxmbfiw (soomuuvo GL')\01\© l.\-0\NU\‘J\\OU\U'\CO\O®®CD [\O\[\(D OMNMNwowwaNQNQQJ—‘JQMNN 7 NJJWmQQNNmN—J’NQFNJNQMQW F~Ch;3;30\GDO\%DO\¢)b—b—b—b—fi\b~b—b—b-O\QDO\ NO 5.30 Neapoomooaoaozaooocossmaoaozs October (h Months Storage) 9993 33 9990 JJ :3 O E: #11; #23 #36 #25 #31 o C) #12 ..:tooaooo\o o\\01\t~aom0\t~\o hawxoxooom NQQQDQNQQ Nb—Q—ITCOWMMCOQGD NCO mCOmQJN-QCONNNNF-w NCDCDCDLAN Nfififiowwmmmwmwhmhfib—NN mmfi-Q Nmooxohoooowcomaomtxoooooowoow QQQQQQNNQ NQNNNNCACDQQQONNQ «.7 June (Fresh and Fresh Frozen) “9201 h. #32 as 535 #33 UOZOJ '8 E a. #21 qsazd #22 uszoxg q9°ld H qsarggg #13 JFQQNMC‘OQflF—‘DONHQJJNJNNN \OQONQGNQNQQNNOQIHNNQQQNN O\:3b—GDCALAGDP~QDQDb-VD:3P-b~r1U\aqb-;3o_agag (“\OCDOCDb-NcomCDQQF-NMMWOCACDQNQ CDQQNQ manor-cocoowwaoaoaowoo [\Q I‘m NNNOOCDF-ONJU‘Q Nb—d’Ox—fi—floot‘abo 6 N m m a 6 6 a 6 6 m 6 a 6 N 6 6 6 m a m s w m m h «m* mmfi Hm «Nu mam Haw mm. u and .6 Mn. m 09 9 09 9 09 9 mm» m. ”w m. um. m. u ..u u Anemonm sneak new smonmv oqsw P manospmmhe vmmmhonesz vmmom \L wmma Hensooomnocsw .Hocmm pfionpon .mpmaoz nan 6806 up“ escapes hgaaanmpwflma Aconcaecoov m mqmda XHszmm< APPENDIX B O J S 7 6 5 4 3 I) u 1 Name Code .899 Extremely Like Very much Like Moderately Like Slightly __§Either Like Nor dislike Dislike Slightly Dislike Moderately Dislike Very much Dislike Extremely COMMENTS: chrTGAN STATE UNIVERSITY - Meats Laboratory APPENDIX I East Preference Test Code Like thremely Like ery much Like Moderately ...;Jse Slightly _§§1 th 81‘ Like Nor dislike Dislike Slightly ___P_§. slike hcderately Dislike Very much Dislike Extremely COMMENTS: ---, —. LLUSTRATION 1. Hedoi Lansing, April-May, 7 Division Code ...aake Extremely Like ery much Like Moderately Like Slightly Neither Like r dislike Dislike Slightly Dislike Mbderately Dislike Veny much Dislike Extremely COMMENTS: hie rating scale use 1957. Late __Ccde ...Ixéke Extremely Like Very much Like Mbderately Like Slightly Neither Like Nor dislike Dislike Slightly Dislike Moderately Dislike any much Dislike Extremely COMIFNTS: 7 by test panel, 78 .566. .Lmnemomo-mcse .+.oL+mo ..mcos aemol >6 66m: «.066 mania; u_coum: .m zo_eHZD me¢em z15. mats l6. Sausage 17. Frozen fish or seafood 18“ 19 20___ 21a..- 22___ 23 2h... 25___ 26_____ 27 28 29 30 31 132* 33__,_ 3h 35____ 36____ 37 38 ~39... ho____ h1____ 1‘2... Le___ u___ h5____ h6___ h7______ new u9____ '50“ 51” 52___ 53____ su____ ss____ 56___ 5.7____ 58“ s9___ 60____' 61_____ 62_____ 63; 6h___‘_ 6S_____ 66-..- L m 65 u b .' _.. . , n r. .k . - <-' «.v" ' . . ‘ . ‘ .. .A ., 7‘. r . ‘ v v . . ‘7. 7 . n g . ’ . s. ,. - A‘ \ .‘ I l I I r u , 7 v A . ... . — ‘ . fi \ - . h - , ~ , - . . ,_ I ‘ . .. . u .‘ hw' - I "I . . v-7 I . - y‘. . A _.. . . ...- F" ‘ . I . u 1 '8 . h . I I . . . ‘ . ...A .- l u .- V ‘- 7 .,,--' . . ' '. v . . I ... . I' . "‘ I I ‘ , - ' I . ,. .> , , -. ,r-" . t-A" ‘. 7 ' ' e l ‘. I} re ‘7 . . I '~ ‘. ~ . ,-"‘ . .- 7 . v I .u r . ,. ‘ . , I 8. .' , I ‘. r » -J -. b . 7 1 '.,.. 7 .. I .. 0' - I . \' ’ e .-" 7 - 9. 10. If there are any frozen meats you have tried and no longer buy, please list those items and briefly explain why you discontinued buying them. If there are any frozen meats that you buy frequently, please list those items and briefly explain what you like about them. W If you have tried frozen steaks, roasts, or chops, how do they compare with fresh, unfrozen meat of the same grade and cut? (a) Flavor (b) Tenderness (steaks and roasts) ____ No difference __ No difference ...... Prefer fresh ____ Fresh more tender .... Prefer frozen __ Frozen more tender __ No opinion __ No opinion (c) Cost £93: serving (d) Convenience _i_n_ preparation No difference No differenc e Fresh costs less Fresh is more convenient Frozen costs less No opinion Frozen is more convenient No opinion 81 7O 71 72 69____ 3.2. 13. l6. 17. How many persons are usually at your family dinner table? __ Three Six or more How many wage earners are there in the family? Two __ Three How many of these are currently employed? Two __ Three Is the housewife employed outside the home? Yes __ Number hours per week No ____ No housewife in family What is the age of the person doing most of family meat shopping? __ Under 30 __ 30 to £79 __ 50 or over What is your average weekly family income afte Taxes? ____ Under $60 __ $60 to $89 __ $90 to $119 __ 8120 to $1179 __ $150 and over r Federal Income (If unemployed, get their income level before unemployment.) Then ask, "How long have you been unemployed?" weeks. level of income from unemployment compensation?" 8 "What is your current per week. 73___ 7h 75 76____ 77 78_____ 79____ 80 83 Address: :SCHEDULE B Area: IFQr Home Food Freeger Ogners Interviewer: 1. What is the capacity of your frozen food freezer? cubic ft. 2. What are the year and make of your freezer? ‘we would like to know about your meat buying for storage in your home freezer. 3. Do you subscribe to a freezer plan? Yes No 4. If’yes, whose plan is it? 5. During the past six.months have you.made purchases of any quarters or sides of beef? Yes No 6. If yes, where did you purchase them? 7. was this sale for cash or on credit? 8. Do you buy prepackaged fresh meats when featured as a special in retail stores and place them in.your home freezer? Yes No. Do you have any other source of meat for freezer storage? 9. Do you believe that your home freezer enables you to reduce your expenditures for meat? Yes No Same cost but eat better meat No opinion Take any comment: . . -A .. .. . . ... _ A .. . .. . 7 . .. .. .. . . . ' . . ... , ._ - . , . ‘. . . .. \ . .' ., n. ‘ C ,‘ r _ ‘ '( . o . . , p . I. ‘u. . .r, . .17. V - . ' . . . ‘ , . ", I. e, . .. e - - ...»-.. . . , . A . . V 7 . -7-, 7 _ 7.7 ...... . .. .... 7 1 7 . . , . , . ., . .. . . --" . .7... . .~ ’ V ‘. . .. ,~ . .. . . \ . .7. . . . . .A , . -7, , . . . 7 ‘ .-,-— ». 7- x . .. . . _ . . v . ~ n .‘ -' ‘ 7’ ' v ' t . 7 . . 7 . A I ' - ». .. ‘ , l .7 . . u . . f. - - , I , "u x . ~ ' . . - . .. . ' ~ ' ’ h’w"'.V .‘ ....7 . . a ‘ v ' ‘ , A .‘ A. ‘ . » I . .70. n‘ol .J E. E m T . Tl...- 9-.. vi. 8. v... R— U" Sh R. ll. 77-. FILL \Li U. S. w... 0. C. .1 “v; / u SQ l r-‘.._1. ..--..- .7 7’ “~. '7‘! Ir " U -'J1\~‘ALL" *1 u 1 I .-r,--(\ L. 1 r1 .1 s'v-o ‘ l n‘ s!" ILL. 33: ' v T h? A's ..L / ~ ?.‘.}'J 'E’ H an S 1 . ,5 :1 rm“) ‘ 1". L“ )l‘!‘ .- . ‘« "“ID | \ 19.5%,- —v-‘ '7'4‘ . ...1 . u/x‘..L4'J\l “'1‘ "‘ l? ['.,'\ ' .....7.l .‘ I l C 85 Co "“vmvz C‘I‘DH -( 0“] “flit“: 1"“7'1‘13 WIVIQJIP-nvv- “Vol-M».- Ove-m chino-Wu. 1.1.7 .2710 ...H «Fm-1 12.7310 is Cor. met 13;; t't‘e S such, ? ML This at tudy is part of a research project be 3.119; carried on 13b * the 1.0“"; in out of An grioultura 22:1 ..oonomics at I-‘I:?:.c‘F Fr‘.an State 13‘13101 Clo" The title of the project is, "Economic and To olmical Prob]. ems o3. a ricotz‘mg ”Mm? goo de‘eoh and Frozen Meats“. Dr. Harold Riley is the project?1 ..ea odor. Ifr. Glen titans will prep- are a I-‘a oter' s thesis "'1 sod on inform ion from this survey C.‘ --’- T the s my; mum Q 0 C The puroose of' this surv oy is to obtain .o..-1o out: .‘2.0.. on consmaor acceptance of frozen meats. O O I sis an vciratel that centralized pros o— ‘7 i123 Loon a1 trc‘ibution of m lead to increased economic effic 081 my and gr eats; Sta r “(I of meat p ices and 03. S Q 0 v 3. ty 7 rs s, mark-e ting agan D C d di‘ liv consumption. If thi- should pro are obe Loo, 00113111 7 es, and farmers would oi. are these “oer. ofi to. Over the past 30 yea... rs, there have been numerous 0'; anges in meat processing and distribution, but these changes have not been as re’plutionary as for many other foods. Hit the emerge so of the mode; 11 supermarket as the dominant retail . food outlet, there he s be: -n a shift toward so.!.f- sort-3. so- ling of [:1 0091:? item and, more re Gently, moo to and pzoduco. Tho proc ceasing 3.111161 pa c-~:o..c‘ in? of ~r 0e13,? f 1. items has be so: 1ohiftod 19.121109 mentirel y from 't‘11o."e2.o:F.L ocoz o to cont1":1li.....1 plants. Hon. S2”; or, fresh mats are s '11]. i‘abr; .-cate an 8 p920} we.) into economy units toyithfin thousands of re": oil markets. CAI-3.30.133 7 :rozon mats are still a small bat gro ring parts of the mooxst :old wror'o 131101 ooalo and re tail tra 0 channels. The degree of scoop. ‘mnoo has been sorwoa‘t 5;; so or 311 momma 1t and institutional feedings than in rot. "2.3.3. stores. The specific ob 33501; 3. res of this survey £3.10 as (1) To determiner. at 3110 opp 5.1152; habits as they; “M slots to ”noon “ood storage in the home. (2) To doterrr inc the extent to which shoppe do have h; (1 experience I27i‘th the more com on frozen meet its no. (3‘) To da'tonnine the degree of satisfaction or diooa't' sfa ction vi th Specific frozen most items. (1;) To find out ho: 1' 00115 more id'to frozen neat; "11.71011 confirod with firosh meats witn res ”poet to flu so or, tenderness, cos t, and convenience. Informs (.0715. from this stuoy will be sumnri 1.10618. nd disseminated t}--.o1.gh trade puol. ioati ono, special Fool. otins, on. tho 3 Fohigou State Universal ty Extension Agents Serving consumers and reske'ting S ' 23.. 86 \d‘-w General? fot‘nod of Study ‘— v_ .___ -~O “Ive-IJCI“ Information will be obtzrx nod through a pa -son a1 int rview survey of 500 Infilseholds in the snburos of Detroit. 3 ve surb "b selected for the so vey. he so include : o: C Q ('5 <3 Rosevill Ro 3771.1 05 1: "0115.3 Wot De:3rborn Lincoln Park ScIIeoules will be oota3n ed iron 100 lm m1 sclzolds in each surbnrb. Those Iuyuseholdo were selected randomly by on are a sampling plan. In.s tructions on I2“oins “(“523 Cu— nuns».- Imu-dhth—U ”hut-m an T170 in .er. 107 zero Isill be soon 'gned to each suonrb. EM.03 pair of int33vierors ‘will.have a lisL of 10 ”blocks- to visit. l'our InstrrcLLor will be to go to a ‘Par vicular inLe 3‘soction an to start down one side 01 a parL3 'cular otr oL taking the firs t 11 hous0301.ds. Each dwelling may have more than one boom 10:3.. 30 sure you have all households at each a<7<3rcos before moving on to to next. If Lhele are less 'han 9 c L o t 11 house holds on a block,c 1. clo .ne block Until you 1m .20 tize re q.u1‘eds nunter. If’you circle the blocL and stzlll. have 110t loco ted ll bouoebolm , 03 as too street and complete your quote on 'ho block faciz* .3 tb- oice of the block yO‘ initially started on. Fore exonplm In E unvwo DAM-i. Q’s-uh." Im‘u“! 21¢...)s—cd a... ..d to be home and note this on t11 Osci-2. make callebaol Is in toe ovcm :Lng. nearco" noigoborz 7he n they are 13 sly -dule. In some cases it272.13. be noces wsy to -n CA . on. u.,§ .1 I. no one coon-:o {20 c?co: -m ask tue O - I'. u a o. ‘ ‘0 ...” Jv,- . lNSh?LCtJ ooo on Conrl :ICb no: one l.....-.v m'm-z-nrun '11.! ‘M’M fine-.12....» 29-? not”- “Vat-Uh: MW... ' « .10 ... Jr, t—n . n 7‘ I) . —L ‘7 .7- b: . W\ \ - v 2 u 2‘ ..i n Th2 fLF.rSo stop 3 a Sac.e slnl inoe iot; as to p2.opo:lp 31roo co you.rs ell Q 0 '3 u ' (I‘— - 5 a. u '0- - A ~ ‘ O. . . to Lhe interv1eao o. A good Pr oe2cne 18 to 3n.:oduoe Iotrcelf tell the e1 on ._ _v_'l __ T r _- 1 : .f‘ _ \2 v v 1-_~ _‘ ' .. 3 _‘ Y 30; mtcnlfiao assoc 2n33erS1 1d ask £0310 you are helping to concfimc a 8‘ o a H" L) c.’ O U} '3 {L ( a1 minutes 03' her tjjic. If ”1. . ks forthe? quest Lions or 'ositat s, 3cm 0: =n use the precwd.2ng m.t0--.l f r co.'3vinc n3 her *hsb it is ingortatt that one oattic'pato. « h‘ 1'“ '. ‘ h n -. ‘2‘ 'fl 5 " 130;; .m 12:10 @1105 ulCllll-g 83 $303 88 :2O.-__.S,!,1310u 37.011.031.007 dI HQVQ a sci-53.935119 13532.” (12,? 50 tuflt you 0" 383n as soon as Loss30lo. 32‘”OS 13 the key word ;n ‘rL2‘WFc1;no- .-.;z. '12.. u- wfl-’\DRO '3 h o’- ‘ H . 'o‘s 1 71 ,3 '- ‘u ur .- ... u!‘ . '. u .2 ... . .- f ‘ be sore L0 331 3n toe osoo and soar-cs IHLO‘LmULTJ 2n the upp‘r “LahL-huno Q I 1 C l'. ~2- .. n'a - .v,» Q -: '4 ~‘ V“ 1 .1 v Q'f: v'q- ,‘ corner of pogo 030. Do nee u‘le 1" 3e 3.53.~u3.o co 71.1 on a .y of .“o -aceo. These are for IBM coding. :3. -0\ I .127." «:18 8. Q39. est ion l mu Road the possible answers and let Interviewee ano- selection 0; one of these. 1‘ .- C! O'l.‘ , .n g \A .. ...“ ...1- ..., ‘ , qu- n; Q1359 “"01 2 ...... C-.:01- 3.1.1 1.0-1‘1. dyplj. ..LJ. 0.05. 110..- 0. 113»;- to Sc." [100.0-I0 B. Q'WS .5011 .3. ““' 1* Jew?!" do 11013 1'01 0371302.” “he io .1001'1330, you may be able 5'0 yawn-“~10...“ help 031152.000 5.1:. Cubic £0050 = length x 115.0th 3: depth. 00001250 11 ..... Give only one :21" .01. {'02 . Do not fill 0115; schedule B if fish; have 9. ref; igerator-«i’reezer combination. The 1100111111130 531 ' 1211025511113 0211in 1.110? do have the re I'35-g501's'1231'- freezer 00219011105351.0111. Que ,stion 5.... T115. 3 mun-tar- our—..- UK qu 111‘ (1.07 n is prob .bly the most 1.0025710 0'0. :3 011 on the 501100.131 0. i'Z'. 1:35;. We are inborn-1 shed in hasrc 5 udes and pronm-r-co'... Later questions will 3.]- vi 13h reactions to specific 5:00 ., so try to keep this on a general beer-0.1.7... areper 01011301'7.y 001.."001 1001 02's, as wee-1'00 in th ...e 011235.10 study, With the "rod." 1000530,:1' ch as Shea-11m, r000 03, e 110 Do not. pass 0001' nd 0 .555. 401.101- :«up questions should be used to- 0'2“. "'110 anon-32" '00 J015:3 general ques’oi. n. ”229031-03 of Iolloue-up questions 3.10 as {Co-10.15: "12115-011 do you gel-orally prefer”? "1:12;"? 130 1105'. 00:10:31.5 on their respone 0by aisc nr; nerrzv'oive (51.02 035350113 5"01 as "What are your roas 0119 for 1101;151:5213 froze 11 mos. ts‘ 2 Record the amt-5:01“ accurateky. war-11.5-0113 9.0 .'.~1r‘ Z 0110': question 7 on-g.y 5.1." the 0110110? to question 6 is 5703. Q aestfi on 8 ...... 1757:9101'1'15'1121. you 1111:0000. 1.1310115311’0015-0'0 of Wot/.015 item :3 and you 1.10de 15.1 :0 1101' 1'......:0 I or each in 01'“ 0:“. 0110 03'.‘ the first. 0.1200 003-02211 oedings .... have never .111'01'2000d, have 0:51-th1131; 11o I'M-{.00 buy, and have {305-061 and buy it 000.10.01-11; If they hay it. 00 00101101355 as}: the 1. 001.5". since the last. purchase, 011002.500 2'1ch 10 .... 2112050110 cue . " m an .'.'\ ’u :£_.Q that'i. ”have tried and. no 1021.10" 53111011000 01 paric 1:30 1“"000021015'. 101.50 1101.1 recall” answers if they 0'11“. so 1.11 0’0 13115. :3 list may :31: 022 53-1"1. “0110.50 5.5201113 which they were most; (11......0-LIied 11.1.11 0110111050 satisfied 151.11... Question 11.... Hes-'0 er-gain the Specific” 0170 Witt! gym" MI- re: :00 .31. 00101 1005.0 0110 ":0- 0d" meets --.~ 81100103, 20:15 '03, and chops. Gomez-1" .-. son ..hou.‘!d 130 .9101 the some .c-;:.'« do and out of 1110 01'... Record 001 «3’1101105 on 1.20.0110? these 1.01.0” v-'1v' .35- 13h difmrent cues. C- qu RDA ”W fi-u Queel'hm l?- ~~ Tiff-5.311051 Jelly will mean the number 01‘ people in the I01“ ily but it should 521011100 130316103 03' 01.311020 who 13031.1- 01'151' 005'. with Lhe Isrniiy. (10.00.31.500 13 ...... 1210111010 p:1rb~"0iz.~.e were 021211033 except 3" Luci-0' nts who may deli'mr " o o 111-110021pr or 110.01.: 0:000: s h 01.. Q.1n"r1009 1'11 0::on 35 .... These should he sown-«0325101100015. Wu hm ‘ Que smt50n 16 us- On 13050.11 ”this (51105313021508.2101 Que sly-.5 1117, do not ask for a S}-.-Cj.fic ..ignrefiZIMmo 1....(1 for "0 10 classification into 1-.-' $1,151.11- 0110'4'710; For 020122110, you mio;h"0 ask, "11"00 11115.101 age 010.335.57.103...- n (1003 "'11s person 1:110 does 1.1001303? the family meat. shopoi'. 1g Iib?U11de" 30; 3 "03 119; 5'0 01‘ 000.422? _ “t «m.» “armour-_.' 01.0.0105... '0 5.51 this endibion 02. 'is '00. If 1110153051011, 21' Ques’ai on lZ .... 012.53.95.45 their 1102150]. 5.1001; level 530 the .21 i 1111....030f1e'10 0017 {30113005021 being. received? 5 cl- 3.— O. 7. I. - V -L ‘7‘ - ~ ~‘o ' — t , 0 .c I. 0L H‘ .'. J. - ... I'm-00 (101-315.120 one 1101's 00 0.011 310303.011 as 51011 con-.0 ".0 .Lu. 1.. n 0 0.0;; .0 Mfua.’\»~11‘\3TI an!“ )W‘Or I‘ll-{Oil labcro 88 Check '11:: so (161.130 b11103"; .. 111,101 15:90 31.1%} all q=11.33‘i;i.o11s 2:11-71“: 31111310333131; When ya u h we 331131166. the schedule, '1', 11.: me person “111:11 leave grace 117w: as quickly as pos £113.01 If you have any ques {1310113 or no D1211 he] .p in a11y1z1. r1 311.11 01111 cor-1111110 Farold Riley 01* Glen Higgins ab'I ity 3-«0?911. "tic 1:311 be in 111mm “-17 Building, at 33.0 1 ccozzaxd Avenue1p “‘m C06“ E1 (D O r‘, f.) H {.11 REFERENCES CITED REFPEEI‘ICES CITED , "1958 Frozen Food Merchandising,” Chain Store Age, April, 1958, pp. 122-151. , Frozen Food Factbook, 1957-58, National Frozen Food—Distributors Association, New York, 1958 , The Outlook for Frozen Foods, Agricultural Marketing Service Report 15h, United StatEs Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C., November 1956. , "Fresh-Frozen Meat Account of 25% of Store ~sales in'MCAllister's Unusual Super Market," Progressive Grocer, March 1956, pp. 57-59. , Supermarket News, July lb, 195?. Dixon, W. J. and F. J. Massey, Jr., Introduction to Statistical Anal sis, McGraw-Hill Book 00., New York, 1957. Ezzell, Austin 8., Some Economic Impacts of Frozen Heats on Meats Retailin , Unpublished M.S. Thesis, Hichigan State Univer- sity, 1956. Ferber, Robert, Statistical Technigues in Market Research, McGraw- Hill Book 53., New York, 19h9. Graig, W. 8., and Henry Larzelere, "Consumer Taste Preferences Among Dehydrated Mashed Potato Products," Michigan Potato Council News, August-September, 1957. Maxon, Richard C. and Gale C. Hawkins, Knowled e and Consumption of Frozen Meats by Selected Kansas City Households, Missouri Agricultural Experiment Station Journal Series No. 18h7. (Mimeographed) Riley, H. M. and R. C. Kramer, What Consumers are Saying About Pro-Packed Fresh and Frozen Meats, Special BUIlétin ROE: Agricultural Experiment Station,‘Michigan State University, East Lansing, December 1955. Riley, H. M. "What Consumers are Saying About Prepackaged Frozen Meats," Quarterly Bulletin, Michigan Agricultural Experiment Station,lMiEEigan State University, East Lansing, August 1956. 91 Toothman, James S.,Survey of Distribution Practices for Prepackaged Frozen Meats, Market Research Report No. 137, United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Marketing Service, Washington, D.C., September 1956. Townsend, William E., Effect of Temperature Storage Conditions and Light in the Color of Prepackaged‘Frozen Meats, Unpublished— . esis, Michigan State University 1958. W1 USE an ULH'I_ ; A. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY LIB I l Hill | “MID“ 3015 2333 0 3 1293