AN EVALUATION OF MANDATORY GRADE AND §EX LABELING Gig TURKEY‘S Them {or {'50 Dogma cf M. 5. MCBIGM STATE UNWERSITY James Clarence Make-1.13 1960 M — .- 3‘. fl. LIBRARY Michigan State University ‘3'? A gn“ in AN EVALUATION OF MANDATORY GRADE AND SEX LABELING 0F TURKEYS By James Clarence Makens AN ABSTRACT 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 Poultry Science 1960 Approved by: (f g BM James Clarence Makens ABSTRACT - Turkeys are presently graded and labeled by official graders of the United States Department of Agriculture from the Grading Branch, Poultry Division. This work is carried on in approved processing plants on a voluntary basis after being requested by the management of the firms. A mandatory program, if feasible, should be initiated at the request of the turkey industry, with subsequent approval by legis- lative action. h A study was designed to evaluate the feasability of recommending a program of mandatory grade and sex label- ing of turkeys. Producers, processors, retailers and con- sumers in Michigan were surveyed by use of questionnaires. Answers were received from 33 producer-members of the Michi- gan Turkey Growers Association, It processors, 5A1 inde- pendent food store retailers, 5 food chains, and 1050 con- sumers. ' Results from the surveys indicated that mandatory grade and sex labeling proposals were opposed by the majority of producers and processors, however, proposals were sup- ported by independent food retailers and consumers. Ninety- seven per cent of the consumers wanted all turkeys labeled for grade and 86 per cent preferred an official U.S.D.A. -1- -2- James Clarence Makens grade label. Chain store representatives who answered the questionnaires were of divided opinions regarding both programs. The use of letter grades to designate quality was preferred to name grades by consumers and both groups of retailers. Grade label preferences of producers and pro- cessors were about equally divided. Mandatory age labeling was also supported by con- sumers and independent retailers, however, preferences by chain store officials were mixed. Consumers and independent retailers believed that mandatory grade labeling would improve the quality of birds merchandised. Producers and processors believed that quality would not be influenced with mandatory grade or sex labeling and thought their own operating costs would increase with grade labeling. Producers also indicated that their costs would be increased by sex labeling but the majority of processors reported that their costs would not change. Consumers indicated that when purchasing turkeys, they depended for quality assurance upon brand names, store reputation, Federal grade label and personal inspection. These four factors were rated about equally by the consumers surveyed. Independent retailers believed their customers depended for quality assurance primarily on store personnel recommendations and secondarily on personal inspection, brand names and grade labels, respectively. Personal -3- James Clarence Makens inspection and brand names, respectively, were the only factors of quality assurance given by representatives of the chain stores. A majority of consumers said they would pay extra. for birds officially identified by age and Federal grade as to quality, but not for those officially labeled by sex. Consumer preference panels in Detroit, composed of men and women selected according, to age, income, and edu- cation, were used to evaluate the influence of labels on consumer preferences. Personal inspection was found to be a most important determinant in the selection of turkeys. Name grade labels were generally preferred to letter labels and the word "Prime” was most preferred. Birds marked "hens" were pre- ferred to those identified as "toms", and those labeled as "Young" generally rated higher than those marked "Yearling" but a yearling bird was preferred if it was of apparent superior quality to other birds in a series. AN EVALUATION OF MANDATORY GRADE AND SEX LABELING OF TURKEYS by JAMES CLARENCE MAKENS 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 Poultry Science 1960 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The author owes a special debt of gratitude to Dr. L. E. Dawson, Associate Professor of Poultry Science under whose direction this study was conducted. His interest and_ assistance in this study and the author's entire Master of Science program were greatly appreciated. Appreciation is also acknowledged to Dr. H. E. Larzelere, Associate Professor of Agricultural Economics, who directed the panel meetings, and to Mrs. M. J. Bostick of Wayne State University and Mrs. D. Place of Detroit Michigan for their help in the panel meetings. An expression of gratitude is also extended to the National Turkey Federation, Mount Merrie, Illinois, fer supplying partial funds and direction to the study, and to the Michigan State University, Poultry Science Department for furnishing supplies necessary for the study. An expression of gratitude is also extended to Mrs. M. A. Gibbs and Miss Lysle F. Hutton Consumer Information Agents in Detroit and Flint metropolitan areas and to Mr. F. A. Smith, Agricultural Counsel for the Michigan Chain Store Bureau and Mr. W. R. Keasey, Secretary Manager of the Michi- gan Food Dealers Association for their assistance. The author is also grateful to his wife Kay, who did much of the clerical work and to his parents for their en- couragement in pursuing the Master of Science Degree. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 REVIEW OF LITERATURE . . . . . . . . . . . . . .-. . . 3 PROCEDURE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ll PRODUCER AND PROCESSOR SURVEY . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Processor Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 CONSUMER SURVEY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 FOOD RETAILER SURVEY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Independent Retailer Survey . . 3A Chain Retailer Survey 0 e e e e e e e e e e e e e 39 COIJSIJMER PREFERENCE PANELS O O O O O O O O O O O O O O hh Junepaneleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee uh OCtOberPaneleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee [+6 DISCUSSION 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 51+ APPENDIX 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 60 BI BLI OGRAPHY O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 73 iii Table l. 2. 3. h. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 15. 16. I7. TURKEYS, NUMBER OF POUNDS OF LIVE, READY-TO- COOK, AND FEDERALLY GRADED PRODUCED IN THE LIST OF TABLES UNITED STATES BY YEARS 1955-1958 . . . . . . REPLIES REPLIES ‘REPLIES REPLIES REPLIES REPLIES REPLIES REPLIES REPLIES REPLIES REPLIES REPLIES REPLIES REPLIES OF OF OF OF OF 0F OF OF OF OF OF OF OF OF 1, 3 AND REPLIES REPLIES OF OF PRODUCERS T0 QUESTIONS 1, 3, AND 5 PRODUCERS TO QUESTION h . .'. . . . PRODUCERS TO QUESTIONS 6 THROUGH 9 PROCESSORS TO QUESTIONS 1, 3 AND 5 PROCESSORS TO QUESTION 2 PROCESSORS TO QUESTIONS 6 THROUGH 9 Consumer Survey CONSUMERS T0 QUESTIONS 1, 2, AND 3 CONSUMERS TO QUESTION 5 . . . . . . CONSUMERS TO QUESTION 4 . . . . CONSUMERS TO QUESTION 6 . . . . CONSUMERS TO QUESTIONS 7 AND 9 CONSUMERS T0 QUESTIONS 8 AND 10 CONSUMERS TO QUESTION 11 Food Retailer Survey INDEPENDENT RETAILERS TO QUESTIONS A O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 INDEPENDENT RETAILERS TO QUESTION 2 INDEPENDENT RETAILERS TO QUESTION 5 iv Page 19 20 23 2A 25 27 28 28 29 30 32 33 35 37 Enufipiwn. .f! LIST OF TABLES Table Page 18. REPLIES OF INDEPENDENT RETAILERS T0 QUESTIONS 6AND7eeoeeooeeoeeooo'oeee38 l9. REPLIES OF INDEPENDENT RETAILERS TO QUESTIONS BANDgeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee38 20. REPLIES OF CHAIN RETAILERS TO QUESTIONS 1, 3 AND a O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 no 21. REPLIES 0F CHAIN RETAILERS T0 QUESTION 2 . . . A1 22. REPLIES OF CHAIN RETAILERS T0 QUESTION 5 . . . A1 23. REPLIES OF CHAIN RETAILERS To QUESTIONS 6 AND 7 42 24. REPLIES OF CHAIN RETAILERS T0 QUESTIONS 8 AND 9 A3 Consumer Preference Panels- 25. COMPARISON OF PREFERENCES FOR BROAD BREASTED BRONZE TURKEYS WITH-DIFFERENT LABELS IN JUNE, 1959 CONSUMER PREFERENCE PANEL STUDY . #7 26. COMPARISON OF PREFERENCES FOR BROAD BREASTED BRONZE TURKEYS WITH DIFFERENT LABLES IN OCTOBER, 1959 CONSUMER PREFERENCE PANEL STUDY 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O C C O O O O O 51 27. COMPARISON OF PREFERENCES FOR BROAD BREASTED BRONZE AND BELTSVILLE WHITE TURKEYS WITH DIFFERENT LABELS IN OCTOBER, 1959 CONSUMER PREFERENCE PANEL STUDY . . . . . . . . . . . 52 28. COMPARISON OF PREFERENCES FOR BROAD BREASTED BRONZE TURKEYS WITH DIFFERENT LABELS IN OCTOBER, 1959 CONSUMER PREFERENCE PANEL STUDY 53 LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page I. TURKEYS, NUMBER OF POUNDS LIVE, READY-T0- COOK, AND FEDERALLY GRADED PRODUCED IN THE UNITED STATES BY YEARS 1955-1958 . . . 5 II. PANEL MEMBERS BEING BRIEFED PRIOR TO THEIR PARTICIPATION IN A CONSUMER PREFERENCE PANEL STUDY 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 15 III. CONSUMER PREFERENCE PANEL MEMBERS SELECTING TURKEYS FROM BRIDS ON DISPLAY . . . . . . 16 IV. TURKEYS DISPLAYED DURING THE JUNE, 1959 DETROIT CONSUMER PREFERENCE PANEL, SERIES B; TURKEYS LABELED AS: U. S. PRIME, U. S. CHOICE AND U. S. COMMERCIAL . . . . . . 48 v. TURKEYS DISPLAYED DURING THE OCTOBER, 1959 DETROIT CONSUMER PREFERENCE PANEL, SERIES A; TURKEYS LABELED AS: U. S. PRIME, U. S. CHOICE AND U. S. GRADE A, AND U. S. GRADE B O O O O O O O O O C O O O O O O O 50 vi INTRODUCTION The United States turkey industry is continually faced with many marketing problems, among which is the sub- ject of grade, sex and age labeling for dressed turkeys. Turkeys are presently graded by official graders of the United States Department of Agriculture on a voluntary basis by participating firms. Federal grading is now available only to those firms who qualify and participate in the Fed- eral inspection fer wholesomeness program, which became mandatory January 1, 1959 for all firms engaging in inter- state commerce for all poultry and poultry products. This action set the stage for possible Federal grade and sex labeling on a mandatory basis. A mandatory program, to become effective, should be initiated by the turkey in- dustry. All segments of the industry should evaante and approve the program before Federal action is recommended. The absence of past experience necessitates study of a primary nature to evaluate the opinions of turkey pro- ducers, processors, retailers, and consumers concerning such a program. This study was designed to discover what opinions turkey producers, processors, retailers and consumers have regarding mandatory Federal grade, and sex labeling of turkeys -1- -2- processed for retail distribution and to evaluate consumer preferences for turkeys labeled according to grade, sex and age. Additional objectives were to determine whether turkey producers, processors, retailers and consumers prefer name or letter grades fer turkeys; to determine what criteria consumers use in their selection of turkeys; and to deter- mine if consumers would be willing to pay a premium fer turkeys labeled according to grade, sex and age. REVIEW OF LITERATURE The Federal grading program for turkeys is con- ducted by the United States Department of Agriculture, Grad— ing Branch, Poultry Division, commonly called the Federal Grading Service. This service is presently perfbrmed on a voluntary basis and only upon request. The cost of this service is paid for by the reCipient. During the years 1955-1958 inclusive, the percentage of turkeys graded by official grademsof the United States Department of Agriculture increased relative to the total number of turkeys processed. In 1955, approximately 40 per cent of all turkeys processed in the United States were Federally graded, and by 1958 nearly 72 per cent were graded. (Figure I). The total pounds of turkey, live weight, processed (read-to-cook), and Federally graded during the period 1955 to 1958 inclusive are shown in Table 1. Federal inspection for wholesomeness is a necessary prerequisite to Federal grading in turkey processing plants. Compulsory Federal inspection of all poultry and poultry products shipped in interstate commerce became effective January 1, 1959. This law, which requires that poultry packaged for consumers be labeled as to age by the apprOpriate -3- Se mam cam oao.H mama . am am“ one as~.H Emma In. . as see soo.a «sm.a Emma we won ems sam.H mama mow>nom mauvmno .mna coaaaaz .mna moaaaaz .mpa nowaaflz new» amneemm an moa>nem wcHumnu “.93 m>wH Rmnv vaom mhmxnse mo eenmnw maoxa:a amneeem he voemno naom mmmxnsa mamas: e>wq Hmpoa xooQIOpahemom mxmxnse emmmmoonm xOOQTOpnmomem «0 ammo new mo pnmfimz Hence no unwaeg Hence . mmmalmmmfi mmHA ho mnzsom ho mmmzsz mMMMMDB H m4m 327 83 B. No 47 12 C. Don't Care 19 5 Do you feel that mandatory (Federal) grade labeling would influence quality of birds merchandised? A. Increase 283 78 B. Decrease 5 l C. Leave Unchanged 74 21 Do you think you could sell more or less birds if they were all Federally labeled for quality? A. More 282 94 Be Less 19 6 The results listed in Table 16>indicate that the use of letter grades was preferred to name grades by a majority of independent retailers, since 64 per cent preferred letter -36- grades and 36 per cent desired name grades. TABLE 16 RESULTS OF INDEPENDENT RETAILER QUESTION 2 Number Per cent From a merchandisers standpoint, would you prefer that turkeys be labeled as: A. Letter Grades 266 64 B. Name Grades 150 36 Independent merchants expressed opinions that per- sonal observation and the recommendations of store personnel were the two most important factors used by the consumer to select a turkey in their stores. The third most important factor was considered to be brand name, and grade labels were considered as the least important factor used by con- sumers in selecting their turkeys. The answers, as shown in Table 17 may reflect the method of selling employed by independent retailers and the size of the stores they Operate. The survey included food stores varying in size from the corner grocery store to the most modern supermarket. The smaller grocers Operate with less volume and on a more personal basis with the consumer than do large Supermarkets. The results, therefore, appear to be consistent with merchandising methods employed by many independent grocers. -37- TABLE 17 REPLIES OF INDEPENDENT RETAILERS TO QUESTION 3 Number Per cent How do your customers appear to select turkeys on the basis of quality? A. Personal Observation 126 22 B. Brand Name 96 17 C. Grade Label 77 14 D. Store Personnel Recommendations 266 47 Mandatory sex and age labeling programs were also favored by independent food merchants. Identical numbers of independent retailers indicated they would like to see the two programs in effect. Nine per cent of the consumers (Table 18) were opposed to mandatory sex labeling and 10 per cent were Opposed to mandatory age labeling. Those who were indifferent concerning sex labeling totaled 11 per cent and 10 per cent showed indifference to age labeling. A majority of the respondents indicated that they thought both mandatory age and sex labeling programs would help them to increase the sales of turkey. Sixty-two per cent believed that sex labeling would aid in selling a larger quantity of turkeys and sixty-seven per cent had similar opinions regarding age labeling (Table 19). -33- TABLE 18 REPLIES OF INDEPENDENT RETAILERS TO QUESTIONS 6 AND 7 1 L r Number Per cent Are you in favor of having all your turkeys identified as to sex (hen or tom)? A. Yes 304 80 B. No 35 9 0. Don't Care 43 11 Are you in favor of having all your turkeys identified as to age (young or old)? A. Yes 30,4. 80 B. No 37 10 C. Don't Care 37 10 TABLE 19 REPLIES OF INDEPENDENT RETAILERS TO QUESTION 8 AND 9 Number Per cent Do you think compulsory (Federal) sex labeling would help you sell more turkeys? A. Yes 221 62 B. No 133 38 Do you think that compulsory (Federal) age labeling would help you sell more turkeys? A. Yes 241 67 B. No 118 33 -39- Chain Retailer Survey Five questionnaires were returned by chain store executives. Individual store managers did not fill in the questionnaires, instead the information was supplied by head offices thereby accounting for the small number of replies. It should be remembered that each questionnaire represents a concern which annually markets a large volume of turkeys. Officials from one chain returned two separate questionnaires from different offices. Results from these questionnaires often conflicted. The results from the four chains are expressed as a percentage of the total number of persons answering a ques- tion, however, not all respondents answered each question. Respondents for the chain stores were of varied opinions regarding mandatory grade labeling. Two respondents were in favor of the program and two were Opposed while one was indifferent. One representative did not answer the question per- taining to quality improvement. Two respondents indicated they believed Federal grade labeling would help to increase the quality of turkeys sold by the stores in their chain and two believed it would decrease quality. One official was of the opinion that the chain he represented could sell more turkeys if they were labeled for quality and one believed sales would decrease. The remaining -40- three officials did not answer this question for reasons un- known (Table 20). TABLE 20 REPLIES OF CHAIN RETAILERS TO QUESTIONS 1, 3, AND 4 Number Per cent Would you be in favor of requiring all turkeys for retail distribution to be Federally labeled for quality or grade? A. Yes 2 1+0 B. No 2 40 C. Don't Care 1 20 Do you feel that mandatory (Federal) grade labeling would influence quality of birds merchandised? A. Increase 2 50 B. Decrease 2 50 C. Leave Unchanged . 0 Do you think you could sell more or less birds if they were all Federally labeled for quality? A. More 1 50 B. Less 1 50 The data in Table 21 indicates that name grade label- ing was preferred by all of the chain store officials answer- ing the question pertaining to a preference for name or letter grade labeling. The only factors the respondents felt were used by consumers to select turkeys on the basis of quality were personal observations and brand names. The replies listed ~41- TABLE 21 REPLIES OF CHAIN RETAILERS TO QUESTION 2 Number Per cent From a merchandiser's standpoint would you prefer that turkeys be labeled as: A. Letter grades 100 B. Name Grades 01> in Table 22 also showed that four individuals believed per- sonal observations were used by consumers and two officials believed brand names were used. The high rating of per- sonal observations is no doubt attributable to the fact that self-service and brand names are integral parts of modern chain store merchandising. TABLE 22 REPLIES OF CHAIN RETAILERS TO QUESTION 5 A‘ A Number Per cent How do your customers appear to select turkeys on the basis on quality? A. Personal Observations 5 71 B. Brand Name 2 29 C. Grade Label D. Store Personnel Recommendations Three respondents indicated they were not in favor of having all turkeys in their stores labeled as to sex, -42- (Table 23) however, two officials were in favor of sex labeling of all turkeys. In contrast, three officials in- dicated approval of age labeling and two were opposed. TABLE 23 REPLIES OF CHAIN RETAILERS TO QUESTIONS 6 AND 7 Number Per cent Are you in favor of having all your turkeys identified as to sex (hen or tom)? A. Yes 2 [4.0 B. No 3 60 C. Don't care 0 0 Are you in favor of having all your turkeys identified as to age (young or old)? A. Yes 3 60 B. No 2 40 C. Don't care 0 O ——_r The majority of chain store executives indicated they did not think compulsory sex or age labeling programs . would help them sell more turkeys. One individual believed both programs would aid his firm in selling more birds but four disagreed with this concerning sex labeling and three disagreed concerning age labeling (Table 24). -43- TABLE 24 REPLIES OF CHAIN RETAILERS TO QUESTIONS 8 AND 9 Number Per cent Do you think that compulsory (Federal) sex labeling would help you sell more turkeys? A. Yes 1 20 B. No 4 80 Do you think that compulsory (Federal) age labeling would help you sell more turkeys? A. Yes 1 25 B. No 3 75 CONSUMER PREFERENCE PANELS Consumer preference panels were used to study the effects of grade, sex, and age labeling on consumer prefer- ence for turkey. The results are expressed as an average of the percentages of panel members of both afternoon and evening groups who ranked a particular bird first. June Panel The June panel, both afternoon and evening sessions, evaluated four separate series of turkeys. These turkeys were selected to represent the characteristics described on the attached labels. Results from Series A indicated that consumers pre- ferred turkeys labeled as U.S. Grade A, U.S. Grade B and U. S. Grade C in decending order respectively. Fifty-two per cent of the consumers preferred turkey labeled as U.S. Grade A, 46 per cent selected U.S. Grade B and only 2 per cent preferred the U.S. Grade C turkey. It is interesting to observe that approximately 50 per cent of the consumers selected birds other than the one identified as U.S. Grade A, since the letters B and C are generally used to indicate lesser degrees of perfection. -Ah- -45- The birds were plainly identified by U.S. Grade but were not priced. The selection of turkeys labeled as B and C grades could indicate that panel members detected apparent quality differences or were negligent in reading labels. Since the letters A, B, and C are generally considered as denoting varying degrees of perfection, the possibility that con- sumers interpreted labels differently was slight. Elimina- tion of this factor seems to indicate that grade labels were not the criteria used by panel members who selected B and C grade birds. This seems to indicate that personal quality evaluation of the turkeys was the most important factor used in selecting these turkeys. Series B was used to study consumer preferences for different words commonly used as standards of quality. The turkey labeled U.S. Prime was preferred by 57 per cent of the panel members, the U.S. Choice by 38 per cent, and the U.S. Commercial by 5 per cent. Series C incorporated both name and letter grade labels. The results indicated that the bird identified as U.S. Prime was again preferred by the greatest number of panel members (45 per cent). The afternoon and evening groups did not agree in their placing of this bird. A Chi Square (X2) analysis showed a significant difference in ranking between the two groups (Appendix, Page 61). This disagree- ment indicates that panel members were not entirely influenced by labeling. The birds may have changed in appearance in "v -46- the time between the afternoon and evening sessions, thereby influencing the consumers' personal preferences. The bird preferred by the second largest number of consumers (39 per cent) was marked U.S. Grade A. Nine per cent selected the bird labeled U. S. Grade B and 7 per cent selected the one labeled U.S. Choice. The influence of sex labeling on consumer preferences was studied in Series D and results are listed in Table 25. The words Hen and Tom were added to U.S. Prime and U.S. Grade A labels. The birds identified as hens were the most fre- quently selected. The Prime Hen was preferred by 48 per cent of the participants and the Grade A Hen by 22 per cent. Both were comparable birds which again indicates that the word Prime was more influential than the term Grade A in the consumer preference rating. The Prime Tom was selected by 18 per cent of the members and the Grade A Tom by 12 per cent. These results indicate a preference for hens over toms and the label Prime over Grade A. October Panel The October Panel, both afternoon and evening sessions, evaluated six separate series of turkeys. Variables con- sidered to affect consumer decisions were reduced but not eliminated by selecting birds of similar quality for use in this study. The turkeys were identified by different grade, sex, and age labels. -47- TABLE 25 COMPARISON OF PREFERENCES FOR BROAD BREASTED BRONZE TURKEYS WITH DIFFERENT LABELS IN JUNE, 1959 CONSUMER PREFERENCE PANEL STUDY Per cent of Series Symbol Label First Place A % U. 3. Grade A 52 & U. S. Grade B 46 () U. 3. Grade C 2 B % U. S. Prime 57 & U. 3. Choice 38 () U. 3. Commercial 5 C % U. S. Grade A 39 () 00 Se Prime 1+5 & U. S. Choice 7 * U. S. Grade B 9 D % U. S. Grade A Hen 22 () U. S. Prime Ben 48 & U. 8. Prime Tom 18 * U. S. Grade A Tom 12 Series A in Table 26 corresponded to Series C in June, as shown in Table 25. The bird labeled U. S. Prime was again preferred by the largest number of panel members. The turkey which ranked second was U. S. Grade A, third was U. S. Choice and the least preferred turkey was labeled U. S. Grade B. This constituted a switch between the results of the two panels in regard to the turkey which ranked low. This change may be attributed to a bruise on the Grade B d 7". .m enema .m .2 mad .a m .m .2 .msza .m .3 ”we amqmmeq mememse -e Immmmmm mmzbmzoo HHomHmQ mmma .mzse may oszsa .4 .5 F) C a m a mm H u m M .m .n .moHomo mm .qmzam mozm enamHa mememae .>H mchHm -49- bird. The bruise was not detected by those conducting the study until after the birds were on display. The apparent influence of the bruise on preference indicates that con- sumers placed particular emphasis on such defects. A Chi Square (X2) analysis showed a significant dif- ference in preference between the birds evaluated in June and October. (Appendix, Page 62). Series B in October (Table 26) corresponded to Series D in June (Table 25). The U. 8. Grade A Hen and U. S. Prime Hen were similarly rated by these two panels. The U. S. Prime Hen was preferred by 47 per cent of the members and the U. 8. Grade A Hen was preferred by 23 per cent. The U. S. Grade A Tom ranked third and U. S. Prime was least pre- ferred. This constituted a change from results of the June panel but the difference was not statistically significant. (Appendix, Page 62). In October, two series of four birds each were used to study the influence of age labeling on consumer preference. Series C contained Broad Breasted Bronze turkeys and Series D contained Beltsville Whites as indicated in Table 27. Fifty per cent of the panel members preferred the young hen in Series C, 23 per cent preferred the young tom, 12 per cent selected the yearling hen and 7 per cent selected the yearling tom. These results indicate discrimination against the word yearling and a preference for hens over toms. This rating seems to indicate that panel members .A4Hummzzoo .m .D Q24 .mOHomo .m .: .msHmm .m .a “ma amnmm q mememse “m mmHmmm .qmzem mozm -mmmmma easemzoo BHomemo omoa .mmmo 4 H 00 axe OZHmDQ omw mumowm -51- TABLE 26 COMPARISON OF PREFERENCES FOR BROAD BREASTED BRONZE TURKEYS WITH DIFFERENT LABELS IN OCTOBER, 1959 CONSUMER PREFERENCE PANEL STUDY W Per cent of Series Symbol Label First Place A () U. S. Prime 64 * U. S. Grade A 22 % U. 80 Grade B 3 & U. S. Choice 11 B () U. S. Grade A Hen 23 * U. S. Prime Hen 47 % U. Se Grade A Tom 22 & U. S. Prime Tom 8 considered the labels when evaluating turkeys. The partici- pants may have been unable to distinguish observable differ- ences in quality of the turkeys and therefore put more emphasis on labels. The results from Series D do not appear to agree with those from Series C. bThe birds identified as U. S. Grade A Yearling Hen and U. S. Grade A Young Hen were pre- ferred by the same percentage of panel members. This adds assurance to the premise that panel members did not entirely rely on labels to select birds. It also indicates that a turkey identified as "Yearling" could be sold as easily as a bird marked "Young". The Grade A Young Tom was ranked first by 18 per cent of the panel members and the Yearling Tom by -52- 10 per cent. As was the case in previous series, hens were preferred to toms. TABLE 27 COMPARISON OF PREFERENCES FOR BROAD BREASTED BRONZE AND BELTSVILLE WHITE TURKEYS WITH DIFFERENT LABELS IN OCTOBER 1959, CONSUMER PREFERENCE PANEL STUDY Per cent of Series Symbol Label First Place C () U.S. Grade A Young Hen 50 Broad Breasted * U.S. Grade A YOung Tom 23 Bronze % U.S. Grade A Yearling Hen ll & U.S. Grade A Yearling Tom 6 D () U.S. Grade A Young Hen 36 Beltsville * U.S. Grade A Young Tom 18 White % U.S. Grade A Yearling Hen 36 & U.S. Grade A Yearling Tom 10 Each of the final two series contained an unmarked turkey. The unmarked birds were included to evaluate the influence of personal inspection on consumer preference. In Series E the unidentified turkey was preferred to the tur- keys marked U. S. Grade A Hen and U. S. Grade A Tom. Panel members evidently placed primary importance on personal in- spection in selecting birds. These results indicate that panel members relied on appearance of the turkeys even though other birds offered in a selection were identified by quality and sex. This seems to indicate that unmarked turkeys could sell as well as sex labeled turkeys if they -53- were of equal or better quality. These findings were not fully supported by the re- sults of Series F (Table 28), in which the unmarked bird ranked second while the Grade A bird ranked first. The turkey labeled U. S. Grade A was preferred by 48 per cent of the panel members, 40 per cent selected the unidentified bird and 12 per cent selected the U. S. Grade B turkey. TABLE 28 COMPARISON OF PREFERENCES FOR BROAD BREASTED BRONZE TURKEYS WITH DIFFERENT LABELS IN OCTOBER 1959. CONSUMER PREFERENCE PANEL STUDY W Per cent of Series Symbol Label First Place E () U. S. Grade A Tom 25 & U. S. Grade A Hen 35 % Unmarked 40 F () U. 8. Grade A 48 * U. S. Grade B 12 % Unmarked 4O DISCUSSION The results of this study provide a basis for dis- cussion regarding some of the economic and social implications which mandatory grade and sex labeling could have for turkey producers, processors, retailers and consumers. Consumers stated they want grade labeling on all turkeys but seemed to primarily depend upon personal obser- vations in selecting turkeys. This suggests that consumers would purchase non-labeled turkeys as readily as those bear- ing grade labels if non-labeled birds were of apparent better quality. However, if no observable quality differences exist between labeled and non-labeled birds, consumers might then rely on labels to select turkeys. . Since visual observations are of such importance to consumers in quality selection, the incentive for pro- ducers and processors to provide high quality birds would not be reduced by mandatory grade labeling. It could in fact be increased. The use of brand names might also become more important since the need to establish product differ- entiation and brand preference would be increased. Several persons affiliated with the turkey industry have stated they believe that quality of turkeys would not be improved with mandatory grading. WOllney (1960) stated, -54- -55- "Any kind of grading of products by arbitrary standards has a tendency to reduce each grade to its lowest common denomina- tor and further it discourages incentive fer product improve- ment." The results from the consumer survey and the panel studies sometimes conflicted. Consumers may have inter-' preted the survey questions in a manner unanticipated by those designing the questionnaires. The use of the word "prefer" in questions 3, 7, and 9 could have been misunder- stood. Respondents might have interpreted the questions to mean, would you prefer one of the forms of labeling such as age labeling to another such as sex labeling? The questions were used to determine if a particular form of labeling would be preferred to no labeling. Preference panels were used in artificial buying situations similar in many respects to actual market con- ditions; whereas, questionnaire type surveys were conducted in homes. It is further possible that the questions were correctly interpreted but the rationale used by consumers in answering questions, unintentionally differed from that used in making purchase decisions. Question 2 may have been misinterpreted since 63 consumers indicated they desired both name and letter grades even though the question asked for only one choice. Although the majority of consumers stated they preferred letter grad- ing in the questionnaires the panel study indicated that name -56- grading was preferred. The results indicating a preference for name grades were supported by Mills (1960). , It therefore appears that the adoption of name grade labeling by a firm could strengthen its competitive position over companies using letter grade labels. No indication is given that the total demand for turkeys would increase if all firms were to adopt name grade labeling. Discrimination against Grade B turkeys might be reduced by using letter grades such as "Choice" thereby resulting in increased revenue from the sale of these birds. A danger could exist in the use of name grades if consumers do not know what degree of quality each name represents. Consumers might purchase birds labeled as "Choice" believing that this label represents the highest quality turkey available for purchase. If a disqualifying defect was later discovered, the consumer might easily be dissatis- fied and reduce turkey purchases in the future. If birds are labeled as Grade B,less chance for consumer dissatis- faction exists. Mandatory sex labeling would prove to be detrimental to the turkey industry. This premise is based on the fact that consumers consistently preferred birds labeled as hens to those marked toms during panel studies. Mandatory sex labeling could result in a decreased demand for toms sold through retail stores to the consumer. This decreased demand might be followed by lower marketing margins and an unnecessary -57- economic loss to the turkey industry. Results of recent studies concerning research sponsored by the National Turkey Federation were reported by Wilhelm (1959). The findings of these studies indicate there are no differences in juiciness, tenderness or flavor between turkey hens and toms. It there- fore appears that no valid social or economic basis exists for establishing compulsory sex labeling. Spokesmen for the United States lamb industry recently complained that Federal grade specifications for lamb were no longer adequate to meet the demands of today's consumer. The possibility of a similar future situation in regard to turkeys needs to be considered in analyzing mandatory Federal grading. In our society the tastes and preferences of consumers are continually changing. Therefore grade specifications established today might not be in accordance with the tastes and preferences of consumers at a later date. If grade standards did not change to meet the desires of consumers, the demand for turkeys could be reduced. Furthermore, rigid grade standards might conflict with maximum efficiency in the production and marketing of turkeys. It appears as though the firms which presently use the services of the Federal Grading Service, represent the segment of the industry which stands to gain the most from a program of mandatory Federal grade labeling. These firms would be relieved of paying fer grade labeling and therefbre . -53- their costs of processing would be reduced. Payment fer this service would then be the responsibility of the Federal Government and ultimately the consumer. The consumer might be forced to pay for this service several times. The Federal Government would pay for grading with tax receipts obtained from the consumers. In addition, it is doubtful that the price of turkeys would decrease to compensate fer the pay- ment from Federal funds, after private firms no longer paid for the service. Consumers would therefOre pay twice for the service. It should also be remembered that the majority of turkeys processed for retail sale are presently grade labeled under the existing voluntary program. The general disagreement between independent and chain food stores concerning mandatory grade, age and sex labeling may be the result of different marketing practices followed by these groups. It does not seem likely that mandatory labeling of any type could greatly improve the competitive position of either independent or chain store merchandisers. No reliable evidence was fOund to support a claim that either group sells lower quality turkeys than the other, thereby resulting in an unfair competitive advantage. Competitive advantages by chains seem to be primarily the result of large quantity purchasing and low margin, high volume merchandising practices. It seems logical to assume that these factors would change very little if mandatory grade or sex labeling programs were initiated. These programs -59- therefore would not seriously affect the relative competitive positions of chain and independent stores. Based on results of this study it appears as though the turkey industry as a whole, could gain little from the adoption of a program of mandatory Federal grade labeling of all turkeys. Initiating a program of mandatory sex labeling would be an error. The turkey industry could stand to gain by eliminating all sex labeling and strive to eliminate the stigma of a quality association with sex in the consumer's mind. APPENDIX APPENDIX CHI SQUARE RESULTS, JUNE 1959. AFTERNOON VS. EVENING CONSUMER PREFERENCE PANEL J. T I Series Labeling on Bird ' Square (X2) A % U0 Se Grade A 3.08 & Ue 80 Grade B 2039 () U0 Se Grade C 08h B 76 Ue Se Prime 065 & U. S. Choice 1.44 () U. S. Commercial .61 C o U. 3. Grade A 7.11a ( U. 8. Prime 3.79 & U. S. Choice .94 * U. S. Grade B .16 D % U. 8. Grade A Hen 0 () U. 3. Prime Hen .98 a U. S. Prime Tom 1.35 * U. S. Grade A Tom 1.63 aSignificant at 5 per cent level. -61.. -62.. APPENDIX CHI SQUARE RESULTS, OCTOBER 1959. AFTERNOON vs. EVENING CONSUMER PREFERENCE PANELS Series Labeling on Bird Chi Square (X2) A () U. 3. Prime 2.03 * U. 3. Grade A 3.26 % U. S. Grade B O & U. S. Choice .47 B () U0 Se Grade A Tom .72 & U. S. Grade A Hen .09 % Unmarked 1.27 C () U. 3. Grade A Young Hen 1.80 * U. 80 Grade A Young Tom 4082a % U. 3. Grade A Yearling Hen . .63 & U. S. Grade A Yearling Tom 0 D () U. 8. Grade A Young Tom 1.81 * U. S. Grade A YOung Hen 1.65 % U. S. Grade A Yearling Tom 1.81 & U. S. Grade A Yearling Hen 1.32 E () U0 Se Grade A Hen I .019 * Ue Se Prime Hen e85 % U. S. Grade A Tom 2.85 & U. S. Prime Tom .49 F () U. 8. Grade A O * U. 3. Grade B O % Unmarked 0 8Significant at 5 per cent level. -63- APPENDIX CHI SQUARE RESULTS JUNE, 1959 TOTAL VS. OCTOBER, 1959 TOTAL CONSUMER PREFERENCE PANEL Labeling on Bird Chi Square (X2) June Series C, October Series A U. U. U. U. 3. Prime 3. Grade A S. Choice 3. Grade B June Series D, October Series B U. U. U. U. S. Prime Hen 8. Grade A Hen S. Prime Tom S. Grade A Tom 8.78a 6.46a .89 2.87 .18 .02 3.76 2.53 aSignificant at 5 per cent level. -64- MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY EAST LANSING COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE 0 DEPARTMENT OF POULTRY SCIENCE September 15, 1959 Michigan Turkey Grower Dear Sir: Certain segments of the turkey industry appear to favor mandatory federal grade labeling and mandatory sex labeling of all processed turkeys for retail distribution. Before such a change in our marketing is warranted, additional information is needed from individuals like yourself throughout the entire turkey industry. Results of this and other surveys from segments of the industry Will be mailed to you if you will print your name and address on the questionnaire. Your cooperation in filling out and promptly returning the enclosed questionnaire will be appreciated. Sincerely, L. E. Dawson Associate Professor Enos. LEDzmr -55- CONFIDENIIAL TURKEY MARKETING SURVEY Mandatory Grade Labeling; l. 2. 3. 4. 5. Are you in favor of mandatory grade labeling of all pro- cessed turkeys destined for retail distribution? a. Yes b. No If mandatory grade labeling becomes effective, which would you prefer? a. Letter grades such as A, B, C, , or b. Name grades such as Prime, Choice, Premium Do you feel that mandatory grade labeling would influence quality of birds merchandised? a. Increase b. Decrease c. Leave unchanged Do you feel that mandatory grade labeling would influence quality of birds merchandised? a. Increase b. Decrease c. Leave unchanged Assuming the Federal Government bears the cost of a mandatory grade labeling program, would your cost of processing: a. Increase b. Decrease c. Leave unchanged Use remaining space to write any comments regarding this problem. ~66- CONFIDENTIAL TURKEY MARKETING SURVEY Sex Labeling: 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Name: Optional - Are you in favor of mandatory sex labeling of all pro- cessed turkeys destined fer retail distribution? a. Yes b. No Do you feel that mandatory sex labeling would influence cost to consumer? a. Increase b. Decrease c. Leave unchanged Do ou feel that mandatory sex labeling would influence qua ity of birds merchandised? ‘a. Increase b. Decrease c. Leave unchanged Assuming the Federal Government bears the cost of a man- datory sex labeling program, would your cost of process- ing: a. Increase b. Decrease c. Remain unchanged Use remaining space to write any comments regarding this problem. Address: LED:mr 9/14/59 -2- -67- MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY om msmo COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE 0 DEPARTMENT OF POULTRY SCIENCE October 16, 1959 Dear Consumer: In recent years turkeys have become available throughout the year in different sizes and often in different cut-up forms. In order to more fully satisfy you, the turkey consumer, we are attempting to find out more about how you would like the turkeys identified or labeled where you shop. ‘wo would very much appreciate your assistance by answering the few questions on the attached form. A postage-paid return envelope is enclosed for your convenience. Sincerely, . ,_5j/' /, -n,x)/’ /\C14AVL(457L/ ‘ L. E. Dawson (Miss) Lysle F. Hutton Associate Professor Consumer Marketing Information Agent Enos. LED:mr ~68- CONFIDENTIAL TURKEY MARKETING SURVEY estions about identif n the grade or quality of turkeyg; %2______jr_____1r_____Jfla£L rade and or qua ity, as used here, mean the same thing-~a relative degree of excellence fer eating purposes. 1. 2. 3. h. 5. 6. Would you like to see all turkeys labeled for quality or grade where you shop. a. Yes b. No c. Indifferent WOuld you prefer an official Federal U.S.D.A. grade label? a. Yes b. No c. Indifferent Which would you prefer: a. Letter grades such as Grade A, Grade B Yes No b. Name grades such as: Prime, Choice Yes No Which of the following do you depend on for quality assurance? a. Reputation of store b. Brand name c. Federal grade d. Personal inspection e. Other (write in) Do you think the quality of turkeys in stores would be more uniform if all turkeys were grade labeled? a. Yes b. No‘ Are turkeys where you shop now labeled as to grade? a. Yes b. No D. Don't know ~69- Questions about sex and a e of turke s: Turkeys are classified by sex as hen or tom. Turkeys are classified by age as old: Over 12 months of age. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. young: Less than 12 months of age. Would you prefer to have all turkeys identified by sex (hen or tom)? 3. Yes be NO Co Don't care WOuld you prefer to have all turkeys identified by age (young or old)? a. Yes b. No c. Don't care Was the turkey you purchased last labeled for sex? a. Yes b. No 0. Don't care Was the turkey you purchased last labeled for age? a. Yes b. No c. Don't care Would you be willing to pay more for your turkey if it was: a. Federally graded as to quality Yes No Vb. Officially labeled as to sex Yes No c. Officially identified by age Yes No Additional comments: (Optional) Name: Address: LED:mr 10/1h/59 MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY EAST LANSING COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE 0 DEPARTMENT OF POULTRY SCIENCE December 28, 1959 Dear Food Merchandiser: The Turkey Industry is interested in supplying you, each year, with more desirable turkeys which have been packaged and labeled to satisfy you and your customers. Some people in the industry are interested in promoting a bill to require that all turkeys be labeled as to sex and grade, under the supervision of U.S.D.A. Officials. laseling would naturally be done When the birds were packaged in the processing plants. ‘We are interested in finding out exactly how a majority of our Michigan retailers feel regarding such a proposed mandatory grading and labeling requirement. The information received from.you and other retailers Will be sumnasized, and compared to that from other parts of the Industry. After a thorough study, we will be in a better position to make recommend- ations regarding this proposal. You can help by answering the few questions on the enclosed form. A postage-paid envelope is enclosed for'your convenience. Sincerely, I. 5 BW q/C” 7ww L. E. Dawson J. C. Makens Associate Professor Graduate Research Assistant Encs. LED:mr -71- CONFIDENTIAL TURKEY MARKETING SURVEY Grade or qualitygidentification and labeling: 1. 2. 3. A. 5. Would you be in favor of requiring all turkeys for retail distribution to be Federally labeled for quality or grade? a. Yes b. No c. Don't care From a merchandisers standpoint, would you prefer that turkeys be labeled as: a. Letter grades such as A or B Yes No b. Name grades such as Prime or Choice Yes No Do you feel that mandatory (Federal) grade labeling would influence quality of birds merchandised? a. Increase b. Decrease Leave unchanged Do you think you could sell more or less birds if they were all Federally labeled for quality? How do your customers appear to select turkeys on the basis of quality? a. Personal observations b. Brand name c. Grade label d. Store personnel recommenda- tions gex and age of turkeys: 6. 7. 8. 9. Are you in favor of having all your turkeys identified as to sex (hen or tom)? a. Yes b. No 0. Don't care Are you in favor of having all your turkeys identified as to age (young or old)? a. Yes b. No c. Don't care Do you think that compulsory (Federal) sex labeling would help you sell more turkeys? a. Yes b. No Do you think that compulsory (Federal) age labeling would help you sell more turkeys? a. Yes ’ b. No Additional comments: (Optional) Name: LED:mr Address: mZOHmmmm Amadm mozmmmmmmm mmfibmzoo mmmH .mmmoeoo UZHmDQ mmmmzmz qmz