FOR RESTAURANTS, HOSPITALS AND SCHOOLS Thesis for flu Degree 0‘ M. S. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY Marjorie Delaine Boyts 1 9.57 AN EVALUATION OF MARKETING INFORMATION FOR RESTAURANTS, HOSPITALS AND SCHOOLS By Marjorie Delaine Boyts A THESIS Submitted to the College of.Agriculture Michigan State University of Agriculture and Applied Sciences in.partial fulfillment of the requirements of MASTER OF SCIENCE Department of.Agricultural Economics 1957 /«r7-5*E‘ a}??? ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The author wishes to acknowledge the assistance received from a great number of people who graciously c00perated in this study. First of all, the author is indebted to the Department of Agri- cultural Economics for financial assistance and valuable training and to Dr. James D. Shaffer for his guidance in the development and presentation of this study. Gratitude is expressed to Mrs. Miriam J. Kelley and Dr. Dale E. Butz of the Marketing Information for Consumers Program for their generous assistance. The writer is also grateful to the consumer marketing agents in Detroit and Flint, Marjorie Gibbs, Forrest Strand and Catherine Love, who gave willingly of their time in supplying the necessary information to complete this study. Special acknowledgment is due Miss Gladys E. Knight, Tourist and Resort Service of the School of Hotel,Restaurant and Institutional Management, Dr. Pearl.Aldrich and Miss Katherine Hart, Institution Administration, Department of the College of Home Economics, for their advice and assistance. ' The author, also, wishes to acknowledge the assistance of the many restaurant, hOSpital and school people who took the time to complete the questionnaire. Without their information the study would not have been possible. . \ \I__\I \I I \ w \I \l H 791-“ .67“? [V’s-3n? .97"? Ins-7s n ii AN EVALUATION OF MARKETING INFORMATION FOR RESTAURANTS, HOSPITALS AND SCHOOLS By Marjorie Delaine Boyts AN ABSTRACT submitted to the College of Agriculture Michigan State University of Agriculture and Applied Sciences in.partial fulfillment of the requirements of MASTER OF SCIENCE Department of Agricultural Economics Year 1957 Approved ABSTRACT The purpose of this study was to evaluate the food information distributed to quantity food users by the Michigan Marketing Information for Consumers (MIC) Program of the Cooperative Extension Service. The 710 restaurants, schools and hospitals (including convalescent and homes for the aged) in.the Detroit and Flint areas which have been receiving "Food 3000p" (a monthly release dealing with quantity food buying). were surveyed by mail or telephone. Replies were received from.65 percent. All of the Lansing restaurants listed in the 1957 telephone directory (132) were surveyed by mail or perSOnal interview to determine the potential usefulness of such information for the general restaurant population. Replies were received from 78 percent. A study of menu planning and food buying practices was made to determine the kinds of information needed by different quantity food users. About one-half of the schools and hOSpitals used cycle menus, but they reported that menus were frequently subject to change. Hospitals reported that seasonal price was a big factor in menu se- lections. Schools reported that the children's preference and surplus commodities affected menu selections more than "good seasonal buys." About two-thirds of the restaurants made daily changes in menus, but they reported that customer demand was of more importance than seasonal price in menu selections. iv All quantity food users were asked to rate "Food Scoop." Eighty- seven.percent of the hospitals, 83 percent of the schools and h2 per- cent of the restaurants reported that "Food Scoop" was very useful. Restaurants, schools and hospitals ranked the usefulness of the dif- ferent kinds of "Food Sc00p" information in the following order: 1) food trends, 2) new ideas and methods, 3) meat and produce prices, and h) recipes. ' Based upon the findings of the study the following recommendations were made for revising the "Food Scoop" publication and its distribution: "Food Scoop" Revisiohs 1. write food trends in chart form and include seasonal supply patterns; add brief items of interest on marketing processes. 2. Include buying tips such as information on produce varieties and buying terminology, primal and portion-cut meat comparisons and news items for meat and produce. 3. Give meat and produce prices regularly for only the standard items purchased; add the prices quoted the previous month. Give prices separately for seasonal specials and price comparisons for canned and frozen fruits and vegetables. h. Direct information on new ideas and methods more specifically to each type of quantity food user. Reduce amount of information. 5. Omit recipes from periodic releases. Preparation of "Food Scogp" 1. Prepare monthly in the state MIC office one page of food trends and one page of buying tips for restaurants, hospitals and schools. 2. Prepare monthly in the Quantity Food Service Laboratory of the College of Home Economics one page of food information for schools and hospitals. 3. Prepare monthly in the TouriSt and Resort Service of the School of Hotel, Restaurant and Institutional Management one page of food information for restaurants. h. Prepare monthly in the Detroit MIC office a price sheet for Detroit restaurants. Distribution of "Food Scoop" 1. Mail the hOSpital release directly or through the Michigan Department of Health. 2. Mail the school release through the office of the State Superintendent of Public Instruction. 3. Distribute the release to restaurants and private schools through the local MIC consumer agents. vi TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER Page I MODUCTIONIOCIfUO0.0.0...OIIICOOCIIOCOOOOOOOOOO000...... l I. Michigan Marketing Information for Consumers Evalua- ation PrejectOOOOOOODOOOO0.0...I.030.000.00.000...‘0 1 II. Objectives of Thesis.......r........................ 2 III. surveyMethOdSllOOOOOOOOOOOIOIOOQOIIOO0.00000000C... ‘uJ IV. Michigan MIC PrOgram Objectives......... ...... .. . V. Michigan MIC Program for Quantity Food Users. .. ..... "From the Big KitChen" O O O O O C I I O D O O I O I O O O O I O O 0 O o 0 I "FOOd SCOOP" in DBtI‘Oit. o o I I I D I o o o ........ o I o o v 0 "Food Scoop"inFlint.. ........ VI. "Quantity Food Purchasing" Circular................. ll \O\OO)O\ VI VII. MIC Programs for Quantity Food Users in Other States ll Kansas City, Missouri............................ ll NewEngland Regional Project..................... l2 New York, Connecticut, New Jersey Regional Project....................................... 12 Ohio, Kentucky, Indiana Regional Project..... . 13 VIII . Ohio MIC Restaurant Evaluation Study. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Do Restaurant Food Buyers Need Marketing Infor- mtion7.00000000.0000000000000000000000000.000 1-14 Will They Use Food Marketing Information?. 114 Are There Any Guides as to How They Want This Information and How Best to Get it to Them?. . . 11; II MARKETDIG INFORMATION FOR RESTAURANTS IN DETROIT AREA, HIM AND IANSJNGOIOOOOOOQOOOICOOOOCOOOOOOOO.0.0.0.0... 16 II ReStaIH‘a-Ilts surveyedOOOOOOOOOOOOOIOOOIO'OOOOOOOCO...016 II. Restaurant Menu Flaming. l9 vii TABLE OF CONTENTS - Continued CHAPTER Page Importance of Customer Demand.................... 23 Individually Owned and Managed Restaurants....... 2h III. Ream-want FOOd Bllying..OOOOIIOOOOOOOIOIOIOOOIOOIOO 26 Meat Bllying.....o.oooo.oo...u...”o.............-27 Produce Buying................................... 33 EggBu-yj-ngOOOOIOOO00.000.000.00...000000000000000 39 IV. Sources of Quantity Food Information............... 39 V. Usefulness of "Food Scoop"... ...... ................ hl Kinds of Information Preferred................... hé Value of Price Information....................... ho Suggested Changes for "Food Scoop"........ ....... 50 VI. "Food Scoop" Format................................ 50 VII. smaryoooocoo00000000000000.0000...000000000000... 55 III MARKETING INFORMATION FOR HOSPITALS IN DETROIT.AND FLINT mMSOC0......0000ODOOOOOOOQOOOOOOCOOOOOOOOOOUOOOOIO0.. 57 I. Hospitals smeyedoooloooo00.900.0.0000000000000000 57 II. Hospital- MemlPmingOOO0.0.000....000000000000000 59 III. HOSpital FOOd BllyingOIOOOOOOOOOOOOIIOOOOOO00.0.9... 62 MeatBllyj-IlgOCCOIDOOIOOOOOOOOOOOIOOOOOOOOOIOIOOOO. 62 PrOduce B‘ly-i—HgOOOOIIOOOOOOIOOOOO00.000.000.000... 66 Egg MmEOOOOOIOOOOOOOOOOOOO0.0IOIOOOIOOOOOIO.I. 68 IV. Sources of Quantity Food Information............... 68 V. Usefulness of "Food Scoop"......................... 7O Kinds of Information Preferred................... 73 Suggested Changes for "Food Scoop"............... 73 VI. "Food Scoop" Format................................ 75 VII. Summary............................................ 78 viii TABLE OF CONTENTS - Continued CHAPTER Page IV MARKETING INFORMATION FOR SCHOOLS IN DETROIT AND FLINT ARMSOOOOOOOOOOOOO.DDOOOOOOOOOOIOIOO0.000.0.00...O.I'll 81 I. Michigan School Lunch Program....................... 81 II. Schools Surveyed.................................... 83 Classification by Buying and Planning Methods.... 8h III. School Lunch Planning and Buying.................... 87 IV. Surplus Commodities in Michigan..................... 92 v. Rhode Island School Lunch Study..................... 9h VI. Sources of Quantity Food Information................ 95 Government Information for School Lunch Program.. 96 VII. Usefulness of "Food Scoop".......................... 98 Kinds of Information Preferred................... 100 Suggested Changes for "Food Scoop"............... 101 VIII. "Food Scoop" Format................................. 101 H. WCIOODOIOOOOOOOOOIOOOO.I.0000......OOOOO0.0000105 V CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS........................... 107 I. Who Can and Does Use "Food Scoop"?.................. 107 Rating of UsefulneSS by Quantity Food Users...... 107 meflbility Of Mm-SOOCOOOOOOOOCOOOOOOOIIOOOO.0..109 Importance of Seasonal Price in Menus............ 109 II. What Kinds of Information are Needed and Useable?... 110 Rating of Kinds of Information by Quantity Food Users.DQOOOIDIOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOIOOOOOOOOO0.... 110 Other Sources of Information..................... 111 Kinds of Information.Needed...................... 112 III. Is "Food Scoop" Meeting the Objectives Outlined by the Michigan MIC Program?........................... 11h Discussion of 0bjectives......................... 111; ix TABLE OF CONTENTS - Continued CHAPTER Page IV. How Can Information Be Most Meaningfully Presented? 116 Suggested Revisions in "Food Scoop".............. 118 V. Do the Benefits of "Food Scoop" Exceed the Costs?... 119 VI. Recommended P1an.................................... 121 Plan for Preparation of "Food Scoop"............. 121 Plan for Distribution of "Food Scoop"............ 122 BELIOWHYOOOOOIOOIOOOOUOQOOOOCOOOOOOIIIOIOO00.00.0000.0.000... 126 A-PPMDHOOOOOO...D.0.0.0.0...0.....OOOOOOIOOOOOOOOOOOD0.0.0.0.... 128 10. ll. 12. 13. 1h. 15. 16. 17. 18. LIST OF TABLES Page Number and Percent of Restaurants Surveyed................. 17 Number and Percent of Restaurant Survey Replies............ 17 Number and Percent of Survey Replies by Restaurant Size.... 18 Frequency of Change of Restaurant Menus.................... 20 Frequency of Change of Menus by Restaurant Size ........ .... 20 Frequency Restaurant Menu Changes.Are Determined by Seasonal Price.0.0.0.0000...COCOOOIOOIQOOOOOO0.00.00loollolo 22 . Frequency Menu Changes Are Determined by Seasonal Price According to Restaurant Size............................... 22 Restaurant Meat Purchases by Cutting Style................. 29 Meat Purchased by Cutting Style According to Restaurant SiZéOOOCCCOII.OOOOIIOOOOOIOOCOOOI0.0.0.000...0.0.0.....0...- 29 Form of Purchasing Meat by Restaurants..................... 30 Type of Meat Supplier for Restaurants...................... 30 Beef Grade Purchased for Steaks, Roasts and Pot Roasts by ResmuraxltSOOOOOCO0.00.00.000.000.000IOOOOOOOOOOO0.00.0.00| 31 Form and Cutting Style of FryerséBroilers Purchased by Resmra-rlts.D0......OOOOOOOOOOOOOIOOOOOOO0......00.00.00... 31 Form of Stewing Chickens Purchased by Restaurants.......... 32 Form of Roasting Chickens Purchased by Restaurants......... 32 Form and Cutting Style of Turkeys Purchased by Restaurants. .33 Number of Fresh Fruits Purchased Regularly by Restaurants.. 35 Number of Fresh Fruits Purchased Regularly by Size of RestaurantoOOOOOOOODOOOOOOOOO00.000.000.000.000.000.0000.0. 35 xi LIST OF TABLES - Continued TABLE Page 19. Kind of Fresh Vegetables Purchased Regularly by Restaurants 36 20. 21. 22. 23. 2h. 25. 26. 27- 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 3h. Kind of Fresh Vegetables Purchased Regularly by Size of Resmura-nt....OOIOOOOOOOOIO.0.....00000000000000IO...00'... Number of Frozen Vegetables Used Regularly by Restaurants.. Number of Frozen Vegetables Used Regularly by Size of RestaurantOIOOOI.IIOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOIOOO0.0.00.0000...I.IO. Use of Prepared Potato Products in Nayne County............ Source of "Late Crop" Potatoes Used in'Wayne County........ Do Relative Price Changes Affect Egg Size Purchased by Resum‘ants?00000000000000000.00.00.0000.000.000.0000.IO... Restaurant Sources of Food Information..................... Is "Food Scoop" An.Additional Source of Information for DetrOit and Flint Restaurants?0000000000000.00.00.0000.0.0. Frequency of Readership of "Food Scoop" for Detroit and Flint ResmrantSOlOOOOOIOOOOOOOOIOOOOOO...0.0.0.000...l... Number of Detroit and Flint Restaurants Who Filed "Food scoop"00......IO.DIOOOOCOOOOOOOOIOOOOOIO...0.00000...I.I... Usefulness of "Food Scoop" for Detroit and Flint Restaurants by Mail and Phone Survey....................... Usefulness of "Food Scoop" by Size of Restaurant in Detroit and FlmtoOOIOOOOOOOOODOD-0.0.0.0...IOODOOIOOOIOOOOOOIIOOI. Potential Usefulness of "Food Scoop" in Lansing by Size of Res‘taurarltOIO0.00.00.000.00.0000000000IOOOOOOOOOOOIO0.0.0.0 Number of Lansing Restaurants Who would want on "Food Scoop" Miljng LiStOOOOOIIIOOOOOOO000......OOIOIOIIOOOOCOOOIOOOOOO Frequency of Use of Each Type of "Food Scoop" Information ‘for DetrOit alld Flint ResmurantSooccoo-0.0000000000000000. 35. Potential Usefulness of Each Type of "Food Scoop" Infor- mation for Lansing Restaurants............................. xii 36 37 37 38 38 39 Lo bl h2 h2 hh hh 15 L15 h7 h8 LIST OF TABLES - Continued TABLE 36. 37. 38. 39. no. hl. h2. h3. nu. us. 146. h7. h8. 149. SO. 51. 52. 53. 5h. 55. 56. Detroit Weekly Wholesale Prices for Pork Loins in 195h..... Method Preferred by Restaurants of Quoting Meat Prices..... Method Preferred by Restaurants of Quoting Produce Prices.. Method Preferred by Restaurants of writing Food Trends..... Rating of Length of "Food Scoop" by Restaurants............ Restaurants'Knowledge of Produce Specifications............ Number and Percent of Hospitals Surveyed................... Number and Percent of Hospital Survey Replies.............. Number and Percent of Survey Replies by Hospital Size...... .Advance Planning of Menus by Hospital Size................. Use of Cycle Menu by Hospital Size......................... Frequency Meat Purchases are Determined by Seasonal Price According to Hospiml— SizeIOOOOOOIIOIOOOOOIODOIIOOOOOOIOIIO Meat Purchased by Cutting Style According to Hospital Size. Type of Meat Supplier by Hospital Size..................... Beef Grade Purchased for Steaks, Roasts and Pot Roasts by HowimlSOI..COOCOOOOOOIIOOOOOCIOOII...0......00.000.00.00. Form and Cutting Style of FryersdBroilers Purchased by HospimlsOOIIOOOOOOOOOOOIOOOOOOIOOOOOOOOOO00.00.000.000.0.0 Form of Stewing and Roasting Chickens Purchased by HospimlSOOOOCOOOOIIOOOOO..0...0......00.......0.GOOD-QI... Form and Cutting Style of Turkeys Purchased by Hospitals... Number of Fresh Fruits Purchased Regularly by Hospital Size Kind of Fresh Vegetable Purchased Regularly by Hospital SizeOOOOQIOODOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOIOO0.0.0....30......DIOIOI Number of Frozen Vegetables Used Regularly by Hospital Size xiii Page 1:8 52 52 53 53 5h 58 58 59 6O 60 61 62 63 63 6h 65 65 66 67 67 LIST OF TABLES - Continued TABLE 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 6h. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 7o. 71. 72 . 73. 7h. 75 . 76. 77. 78. Do Relative Price Changes.Affect Egg Size Purchased by Hospiu1870000000000000000IOOOCOIOOIOIIODOC0.00.90.00.00... Sources of Food Information for Hospitals.................. Is "Food Scoop".An.Additiona1 Source of Information for Hospimls?OOCOOOOOOCIOCOOIODOOIIIOO0.0000000000000IOOOOOOOO Frequency of Readership of "Food Scoop" By Hospitals....... Number of HOspitals Who Filed "Food Scoop"................. Usefulness of "Food Scoop" by Hospital Size................ Frequency of Use of Each Type of "Food Scoop" Information by HospimlSOOOOOQOOOOOIOOOOCOCCIIOOOO0.0.000000COCOIOOIOOO Method Preferred by HOSpitals of Quoting Meat Prices....... Method Preferred by HOspitals of Quoting Produce Prices.... Method Preferred by Hospitals of'Writing Food Trends....... Rating of Length of "Food Scoop" by Hospitals.............. Hospitals' Knowledge of Produce Specifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cost of School Lunch Program in Michigan Public Schools for Fiscal Yw 19566700....QOOOO.CDCOOO...OOOOOIOOOOCCOO.COCC Number and Percent of Schools Surveyed..................... Number and Percent of School Survey Replies................ Survey Replies by School Buying Method..................... Public School Survey Replies by Menu Planner............... Respondents. Position in.Public Schools.................... Participation in National School.Lunch Program............. Advance Menu Planning by School Buying Method.............. Use of Cycle Menu by School Buying Method.................. Source of Protein.Foods Used Most Often in Main Dishes by 56110018000000.0000.000COCOOOOOOCO0..OOOOOOCOOOOOOOIOOIOOIO. xiv Page 68 69 71 71 72 72 7h 76 76 77 77 78 82 83 8h 85 85 86 86 87 88 89 LIST OF TABLES - Continued TABLE Page 79. Reasons for Selecting Main Dishes for School Lunch Menus... 89 80. Number of Fresh.Fruits Purchased Regularly by Schools...... 90 81. Number of Fresh.Vegetables Purchased Regularly by Schools.. 91 82. Number of Frozen Vegetables Used Regularly by Schools...... 91 83. Do Relative Price Changes Affect Egg Size Purchased by SChOOlSOOOOOOOOOCOOOOOODUOOOOID...OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOODOOOOOI.O 92 8h. Estimates by Schools of Surplus Foods Served............... 93 85. Surplus Commodities Distributed to Michigan Public Schools During Fiscal Year July l956-July 1957..................... 93 86. Sources of Food Information for Schools.................... 96 87. Is "Food Scoop" An.Additional Source of Information for SCh001820000.0.0.0..00OOOOOOOOOOOOOCQOOOOOO.IOOIOOOODDOOOIO 99 88. Frequency of Readership of "Food Scoop" by Schools......... 99 89. Number of Schools Who Filed "Food Scoop"................... 100 90. Usefulness of "Food Scoop" for Schools..................... 100 91. Frequency of Use of Each Type of "Food Scoop" Information . by SCm01SOOOOOOOOO00.0.0.0...OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0.00....OI. 101 92. Method Preferred by Schools of Quoting Meat Prices......... 102 93. Method Preferred by Schools of'Quoting Produce Prices...... 103 9h. Method Preferred by Schools of Writing Food Trends....... .. 103 95. Rating of Length of "Food Scoop" by Schools................ 10b 96. Schools' Knowledge of Produce Specifications............... 10h CHAPTER I IN TRODUCTICN I. Michigan Marketing Information for Consumers Evaluation.Project Michigan's marketing program "to strengthen Michigan agriculture through marketing research and education" was made possible by funds appropriated by the State Legislature in 195h. Marketing Information for Consumers' (MIC) projects in eight cities were operating by January 1955. In 1956 projects were added in two more cities.1 In July 1956, after the program had been operating for two and one- half years, an evaluation study of the state program was set up with the Department of.Agricu1tural Economics of Michigan State University and the Cooperative Extension Service. The general objectives of the study 1. To obtain information about consumers which will contribute to the development of a more effective extension.program. 2. To obtain some measure of the effectiveness of particular parts of the consumer information.program. 3. To obtain information which will contribute to our basic under~ standing of the processes involved in consumer buying decisions. h. To develop and/or test evaluation techniques which can be used by individual MIC agents. 1A_n1ma1 Report 1956, AMA Prgfict-Michiggg @254), Marketing Infor- mation for Consumers, (Cooperative Extension Service, Michigan State UhivéfSity, East Lansing, Michigan), p. 6. 2Ibid., p. 22. From the beginning of the program, quantity food users were recog- nized as a large group of consumers needing buying information. By 1955 two cities, Detroit and Flint, were distributing special re- leases for quantity food users called "Food Scoop." Traverse City, Marquette and Lansing began brief releases in 1956.3 Because of the increased use of time and money spent on information for quantity food users, this phase became an important part of the evaluation.project. II. Objectives of Thesis The purpose of this thesis, which is one part of the MIC evaluation project, is to study and make recommendations for the future size and kind of program for quantity food users. To be able to make these recommendations, information from the groups being served was needed on the following: ‘What are some typical buying practices?- HOW'and when are menus planned? What are their sources of buying information? Does "Food Scoop" provide additional information? Is "Food Scoop" useful? 'What kinds of information are useful? How can information be written to be most useful? ‘What are the costs in.distributing "Food ScooP?" Does "Food Sc00p" meet the MIC objectives? 3Ibid., p. 1b. This study attempts to answer these questions to provide a basis for making recommendations. III. Survey Methods Restaurants, industrial feeders, caterers, hotels, country clubs, county and state hospitals, private and city hOSpitals, convalescent and homes for the aged, college dormitories, fraternities, etc. could be classed as institutions serving food. In order to limit this study only restaurants, schools and private or city hospitals (including convalescent-type homes) were analyzed. Detroit and Flint were the main test cities for this study. These projects have been distributing "Food Scoop" for about two years to restaurants, schools, hospitals and other large food buyers. A four page questionnaire with twenty-five questions was prepared with the assistance of the School of Hotel, Restaurant and Institutional Management (Tourist and Resort Service) and the InStitution.Adminis- ~ tration.Department of Michigan State University.4 The questionnaire was in two sections. The first part, which differed for restaurants, schools and hospitals, contained questions on menu planning and buying practices. The second part was the same for all and contained questions on the usefulness of "Food Scoop." A sample of "Food Scoop" accompanied the questionnaire. A total of three mailings of the questionnaireS'was sent during 4See Appendix for sample copy. May, June and July to a 1957 revised mailing list in Detroit and Flint. An.alternate form consisting of one question on.usefu1ness was offered on the third mailing. .A phone survey, consisting of about five questions, was conducted in August for the restaurants failing to respond to the mail questionnaire.5 Since the Detroit and Flint restaurants, hospitals and schools had asked to remain on the "Food Scoop" mailing list, the survey sample was not representative of all quantity food users in the areas. To supple- ment the information received about restaurants a similar questionnaire was sent to all the restaurants listed in the Lansing telephone directory.6 None of these had ever received "Food Scoop." They were questioned as to the potential usefulness of such information for them. Two mailings were made during May and June. During July and.August personal interviews were conducted for the non-respondents. Restaurant Management students were used as interviewers. From these surveys and from information obtained in interviews with wholesalers, state health and school lunch administrators and professional restaurant and institutional management personnel, this study attempts to evaluate marketing information for restaurants, schools and hospitals. 5SeeAppendix for sample copy. PIbid . IV. Michigan MIC Program Objectives .Appropriation of Federal funds for consumer education in c00peration with the states originated with the Research and Marketing.Act of 19h6. Section 203 f of this act reads: To conduct and cooperate in consumer education for the more effective utilization and greater consumption of agricultural products. The Michigan House Bill No. h36 of 195h appropriated funds to strengthen Michigan agriculture through marketing research and education. This included funds for consumer education agents. The Michigan MIC program accepted the objectives set up by'a national marketing committee and a committee representing five states.7 An outline of these objectives is:4 1. To aid in the orderly marketing of agricultural commodities. 2. To assist in the more effective use of agricultural products. 3. To help consumers get maximum satisfaction from their pur- chases of agricultural products. h. To help consumers develop a better understanding of the marketing system, functions and problems. 5. To motivate peOple to adopt improved buying practices. In addition to these general objectives of the total program, the Michigan program has outlined specific Objectives for quantity food 8 users. They are as follows: 7Annual Report 1 , AMA PrgjecteMichiggg;96-l, Marketing Infor- mation for Consumers CooperativeFEEtension Service, Michigan State Uiiversity, East Lansing, Mich.) p. h. 8Unpublished-~received from Michigan MIC office. To provide quantity food users with regular and timely infor- mation on price trends and peak seasons of supply and quality of agricultural food products. To provide information that will assist quantity food users in making wise choices in terms of serving consumers and tak- ing advantage of supply situations so as to ultimately aid orderly movement of products. To assist quantity food users in understanding marketing situations that affect supply, price and quality. . To provide information that will assist quantity food users in making wise use of foods purchased. To open other avenues to reach consumers. V. Michigan MIC Program for Quantity Food Users During 1956 consumer marketing information agents were located in ten cities-AMarquette, Traverse City, Muskegon, Grand Rapids, Saginaw, Flint, Pontiac, Detroit, Lansing and Kalamazoo. Five cities (Detroit, Flint, Traverse City, Lansing and Marquette) distributed a special monthly release, "Food Scoop for Institutions." The Detroit and Flint program was also Operating during 1955. In Traverse City, Lansing and Marquette an abbreviated form of "Food Scoop" was used. These cities have sent the material entitled 9 "From the Big Kitchen." "Food Scoop" distribution in 1956 was: Lansing 22 fraternities and schools Marquette 13 hospitals Traverse City 176 restaurants, schools and hospitals 9Unpublished-ereceived from consumer agents in Lansing, Marquette and Traverse City. In Flint and Detroit more complete buying information was dis- tributed. "Food Scoop" included not only the section entitled "From the Big Kitchen" (or "Headliners") but also food trend information for the coming month, local prices on meat and fresh produce and from time to time other information related to quantity food buying and use. "Food Scoop" distribution in 1955 and 1956 was:10 Detroit 1998 restaurants, schools, hospitals 2&2 wholesalers, professional people 2 7 . Flint 200 restaurants, schools, hospitals, professional people The original receivers of "Food Scoop" in Detroit and Flint were not from complete lists of the quantity food users in the areas. Mailing lists were made from names from the restaurant association, dietetic association, hotel association, County Health Departments and Boards of Education. Each year mailing lists are revised. During the last part of 1956 and early 1957, all recipients were asked if they wished to continue receiving "Food Scoop." The Detroit and Flint lists 11 were revised to include the following distribution: Detroit 738 restaurants, schools, hospitals 11 wholesalers, professional people 3 Flint 150 restaurants, schools, hospitals, professional people 1”Annual Report, 1955, _p, 332,, pp. 18-20. llUnpublished-~received from consumer agents in Detroit and Flint. EFrom the Big Kitchen" This quantity food material, two or three pages in length, was prepared by Dr. Pearl Aldrich, Food Service Laboratory, Michigan State 12 University and distributed in all five cities sending "Food Scoop." In Detroit it was called "Headliners." The following is an outline of the subject material for 1956. All information related to quantity food use. Recipes (50-100 servings) were frequently a part of the information. January February March April May June July August September October November _— ‘Weights and Measures Potatoes Equivalents and Substitutes (mainly dry milk) Frozen Cherries Meat Cookery (lamb) Lenten Ideas Vegetable Cookery (asparagus) Spring Greens Time Economy in.Preparation Sauces with Sparkle Salad Preparation Strawberry Shortcake Fruit Desserts What to Watch in the Kitchen to Safeguard Public Health Garnishes Developing Time Saving Tools for the Kitchen Which Help Control Production and Cost Featuring Blueberries Ideas for Creamed Dishes Cheese on the Menu Meat Pie with Personality (Program ended) 12See Appendix for sample copy. fled Scoop" in Detroit "Food Scoop" (about five sheets or eight pages) was sent out the first of each month. A bluecover sheet identified the bulletin and the second sheet outlined the MIC program. The next three sheets were mimeographed on both sides and contained the following sections: Food Trends in the Detroit Area. This section consisted of about two pages of general descriptive material on a outlook for meat, poultry, fish, dairy, fresh fruits and vegetables and canned goods and staples. The main foods were listed in categories of "plentiful," "moderate" and "light" supplies. "Headliners." During 1956 this material was "From the Big Kitchen." During 1957 quantity food material was taken from published information by Miss Lenore Sullivan, Iowa State College. "Count Your Pennies." This section consisted of one or two pages 01' itemized wholesale prices. They were obtained a few days preceding Pilblication from several wholesalers in the Detroit area who sell meats, fiB-h and fresh fruits and vegetables to quantity food users. During 1956 the meat prices were givenin cost per ounce and in 1957 in cost per Pound. About eighty different meat and fish items were listed. About thirty-five different fruits and vegetables were listed each month . "EEC! Scoop" in Flint "Food Scoop," eight or nine pages, was sent out the middle of the \ l:‘J‘See Appendix for sample copy. 10 month.14 The cover sheet had a permanent "Food Scoop" identification printed in green ink with a mimeographed outline of monthly content and Flint MIC program. The remainder was divided into the following sections: Food Trends in the Flint Area. This consisted of about two or three pages of descriptive material on the outlook for meat, poultry, fish, dairy, fresh fruits and vegetables and canned goods and staples. Frequently, the food trends were written to indicate specifically that certain items were up or down a few cents. "From the Big Kitchen." During 1956 this material was prepared by Dr. Pearl Aldrich. During 1957 some of Dr. Aldrich's material was reprinted and other material was taken from published information by Lenore Sullivan, Iowa. State College. Fresh Fruit and Veggtable Prices. About one or two pages were devoted to itemized wholesale prices of about fifty to sixty different items. Sometimes, prices were listed for several varieties of fruits 01' Vegetables. Meat Prices. About fifty meat and fish items were listed with the ex‘Pe<3't.ed servings per pound and the approximate cost per serving. The prices were obtained from wholesale sources several days before "Food Scoop" was released. \ 14See Appendix for sample copy. 11 VI. "Quantity Food Purchasing" Circular This twenty-five page circular was printed by Michigan State University in November 1956 and several thousand c0pies have been distributed over Michigan.15 It includes the following sections: Food Purchasing Guides. This section contains suggestions on how to buy. It gives charts of months when Michigan fresh fruits and vegetables are available. Containers and Their Equivalent Weights. This contains charts with container sizes and weights for quantity purchasing of fresh, frozen and dried fruits and vegetables and staples. Canned Foods. This section contains charts on can sizes, yields, number of servings, net weights, cans per case and common uses. Pgrtion Servers. ‘ This contains charts on yields with different Siz e servers . Quantities for Fifty. This section contains charts on portion sizes and approximate amount to purchase for fifty people for baked EDOdS, dairy products, fruits, meat, poultry, seafood, staples and Vegetables . VII. MIC Programs for Quantity Food Users in Other States 531138.85 City!L Missouri 16 "Food for Institutions" was a two to four page monthly bulletin. K; (A 15Gladys E. Knight, Quantity good Purchasing, Circular R-soo, gricultural Experiment Station Cooperative Extension Service, East ansfl«IF-1g, Michigan, November 19563 1‘3Food Marketing Program, Rood-for Institutions, (Cooperative Gui: tension Work in Agriculture and Home Economics ,1051 Broadway, Kansas tor 11, Missouri). 12 A List of plentiful foods was featured each month. Each food was then briefly discussed giving suggestions on buying, serving and expected yields. A week's menus and several recipes were attached. This program closed May 31, 1957. New England Regional Projgct "Food Facts Digest" has been a one and one—half page monthly 17 bulletin. A list of about fifty good food buys for the week has been given. About one-half page has been devoted to a brief discussion. on how to buy and serve one food or food group. This selection has not necessarily been on the plentiful list. Supplies of local produce have sometimes been discussed. One menu and one recipe (twenty-five serv- ings) have been given for the featured food which was discussed. N133! York, Connecticut, New Jersey Regional Project 18 "Highlights" has been a two page biweekly bulletin. The first page has been devoted to a brief discussion of supplies and trends of about a half dozen foods. In the copies revier (five) no red meat trends were given. They covered produce, dairy, fish and poultry. Usually one item has been highlighted and two or three recipes (twenty- five and fifty servings) and a menu has been given featuring this food. The bulletin has been prepared with the help of the Department of —‘ 3 17F°°d Marketing Program, Food Facts Di est (New England Extension erVices Marketing Information Office, 508 Atlantic Ave., Boston, 10, Mas 8a ehusetts) . (Cooperative Extension Work in 18Food Marketing Program, Hi hli hts griculture and Home Economics, 11 Park Place, New York, 7, New York). l3 Institution Management, Cornell University. Two quantity-food buying leaflets have been prepared by the Food Marketing Program, "Buying Food 19 so for Your Camp" and "Buying Food for Your Nursing Home." Both are about thirty page leaflets. Information mainly covers menu planning and food marketing tips. Ohiog Kentuckyg Indiana Regional Project "Food Cues and Views for Institutions" has been a two page biweekly 21 bulletin. The first page has been divided into four or five sections-- fruits, vegetables, meats, poultry and eggs and other. A brief descrip- tion (fifty to one hundred words) has been given on supplies and trends for the month for each food group. One food has been selected from this entire group and one page has been devoted to hints on buying and serving, grades, varieties, yields and comparisons of fresh with canned. In the bulletins reviewed no recipes or menus were given. VIII. Ohio MIC Restaurant Evaluation Study 22 In this study an attempt was made to answer three questions. 19Agnes c. Foley, Ming Food for Your 0 Food Marketin Leaflet 2.9.: (Food Marketing Program, New York State Extension Services, Cornell university, Ithaca, New York). . . 2°Dorothy M. Proud, Bu Food for Your Nursing Home, Food Market- Weaflet 12, (Food Marketing Program, New York State Ebctension Service, when University, Ithaca, New York). (C 21Food Marketing Program, Food Cues and Views for Institutions, )4 1:fiolkaratlve Extension Work in Agriculture and Home Economics, 18 E. St Bldg., Cincinnati 2, Ohio). 22Don L. Long, Extension Marketing Information and the Restaurant M (Consumer Food Marketing, Agricultural Extension Service, 111° State University). 11; Do restaurant personnel need food marketing information? Will they use it if it is made available to them? Are there any guides as to how they want this information and how best to get it to them? Below the main answers concluded to these questions are listed. Pg Restaurant Food Bugers Need Marketing Information? Kill The restaurant industry is composed largely of individually owned establishments. . . .Relatively few operators have been trained specifically in the restaurant business.. . .Also, the restaurant industry is relatively unorganized, for the restaurant association will comprise only a relatively small proportion of the total restaurant population. Those outside the organization have few alternative sources of assistance to which they may turn for answers.. ..Also, few restaurant operators have had marketing train- ing or experience....All this indicates that there is a need for food marketing information among restaurant operators. They Use Food Marketing Information? The Cincinnati MIC project has been distributing a food marketing biweekly release, "Food Cues and Views for Institutions" to about 150 restaurant Operators for almost a year.... Twenty-five restaurant operators on the mailing list were interviewed to obtain their reaction to this release.... Almost two-thirds of the restaurant operators interviewed stated that they had found this food marketing information valuable in their restaurant operations. . . . The type of information most frequently listed as valuable was the preview of wholesale market conditions.... Other types of information listed as having been used were quality guides, serv- ing suggestions, quantity guides and possiblities for substituting One food for another. Are There Guides as to How They Want This Information and How Best 13—99313 itto em Here are a few hypotheses which we have developed as we have worked With restaurant operators in Cincinnati.... Any food marketing I“SP—lease should‘be short.. .. To change major practices is difficult but small practices may be changed relatively easily. Slight flavoring, preparation or substitution variations to alleviate the sameness are appreciated but few restaurant operators express a desire for complete recipes, menus or major changes in preparation 15 precedures.... The restaurant operator is primarily interested in profits. So the big appeal to him is how food market information can help him increase his profits.... Cooperation with the local restaurant association is one method by which restaurant operators of "better" restaurants may be reached.... Another possible technique for reaching a considerable number of Operators is by informing the restaurant purveyors or suppliers of food of the possibilities and advantages of more food marketing information. CHAPTER II MARKETING INFORMATION FOR RESTAURANTS IN DETROIT AREA, FLINT AND LANSING I . Restaurants Surveyed In the state of Michigan there are about 7,638 restaurants which do a. total of about $369,236,700 annually in food business. About 1,560 or 20 percent of the restaurants have a sales volume of $50,000 or over annually. The Detroit area has about one-fourth of the restaurants of the state, but does over 5'0 percent of the dollar volume of business-- 1 $203,603,000 annually. This chapter is, mainly, an analysis of the Detroit and Flint restaurants who have asked to remain on the "Food Scoop" mailing list for 1957. They were surveyed with a mail questionnaire or a shortened Phone questionnaire. To obtain information from a more representative sample of all restaurants the entire listing in the 1957 Lansing telephone directory was surveyed. Those not returning the mail question- naire were interviewed. Table 1 summarizes the number and percent of I'es'tia‘urants surveyed. Table 2 summarizes the number and percent of survey replies . M lGeorge Bedell, School of Restaurant, Hotel and Institutional gement, according to telephone conversation. l6 17 TABLE 1 NUMBER AND PERCENT OF RESTAURANTS SURVEYED W“ ' {fw’fi um um er 0 ‘ Restaurants in 1957 Telephone Numb er_v_ Approximate fiercent City Directory Surveyed" Surveyed" " Detroit Area 2,001; 216 ll Flint 239 8b 35 Lansing 132 132 100 Total 2,375 I I 1.32 18:“ “I *Figures for Detroit and Flint represent the actual munber receiving "Food Scoop"; extra names for a restaurant and those out of business were left off. The Detroit 1957 mailing list had about one hundred names which could not be identified as restaurants, schools or .hOSpitals. They were not surveyed. ** . Mailing lists and telephone directory lists in Detroit do not cover exactly the same area. TABLE 2 NUMBER AND PERCENT OF RESTAURANT SURVEY REPLIES Returnedfi$ w Replied to I“: W Complete Questionnaires Phone Total Mail Interview Total Survey Number Per- __ City ' Number Number Number Percent Number Replies cent Detroit Area 57 .. 57 26 12b 181 8b Flint . 17 .. 17 20 S]. 68 81 Lansing 32 71 103 78 - 103 78 T°tal 106 71 177 )11 17 5 352 81 N v *— ‘ v .a. ThOSe not answering could not be reached by phone, manager was out or ey were closed for the summer. 18 Restaurants include drive-ins, cafeterias, table and/or counter service, private clubs, industrial cafeterias, caterers and others. The problems of planning menus, buying food, storing, preparing and serving depend on the type and size of restaurant. Some description of the receivers of "Food Sc00p" is necessary for analysis. In Table 3 the restaurants have been classed by size accord- ing to seating capacity. Since the majority were table and/or counter service type, no separate classes were set up for other types of restaurants. The replies divided about evenly between those with a seating capacity of under 100 and over 100. The few drive-ins have been grouped with the restaurants seating under 100 and the few caterers with.those seating over 100. Generally speaking, restaurants with.under 100 seating capacity can be classed as medium or small and those over 100 as large. TABLE 3 NUMBER AND PERCENT OF SURVEY REPLIES BY RESTAURANT SIZE Seating Bapacity Under 100 Over 100 Total City Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Detroit Area 77 to lot 57 181 100 Flint to S9 28 bl 68 100 Lansing 72 70 31 30 103 100 Total 189 SR 163 h6 352 100 19 Is the sample typical of the average restaurant size in the tested areas? If 20 percent of the restaurants statedwide do an annual business of about $50,000 or more (which most large restaurants do), a conclusion might be that the total sample has a high proportion (N6 percent) of large restaurants. The Lansing sample, which is 78 percent of the population, contains 30 percent large restaurants. Flint and Detroit, probably, have approximately the same percentage of large restaurants. II. Restaurant Menu Planning This menu planning discussion will be limited to table and/or counter service. In order to determine the general flexibility of menus, the question was asked, "How often is your menu or clip-on changed?" Tables h and 5, which summarize the results, indicate how useful price and trend information could be. There is no significant difference between the Lansing sample and the Detroit/Flint sample in the frequency of menu changes.2 Although the Detroit/Flint sample was Specially selected, the permanency of menus would appear to be representative of the total population. Over one-fourth of all restaurants had a permanent menu and made no changes. 2Since this study deals with surveys of complete populations (all restaurants in.Lansing and all schools, ho itals and restaurants receiving "Food Scoop" in Detroit and Flint , statistical tests based upon.samples are neither appropriate or necessary. However, in this case the restaurants surveyed in.Lansing were considered to be a sample of restaurants not receiving "Food Scoop" and those responding in Flint and Detroit to be a sample of those receiving "Food Sc00p." .A Chi Square test was used to determine probability that these were actually dif- ferent. The test indicates the probability that these distributions were from different populations was about 8 out of 10. 20 TABLE h if FREQUENCY OF CHANGE OF RESTAURANT MENUS W i.— er... Detroit Frequency and Flint Lansing Total Number Numb er Number Permanent 52 31 83 (no clip-ons) Daily 1112 SS 19? Weekly and Other 12 o 18 NO Answer 113 11 5’4 Rial 219 103 352 __ a:- Distrib'utions were not Significantly different at .05 level Of confidence based upon Chi Square tests. TABLE 5 FREQUENCY OF CHANGE OF MENUS BY RESTAURANT SIZE —_ _‘ Seating Capacity Frequency Under 1.00 Over 100 Total a Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Permanent 57 37 26 18 83 28 (no clip-ons) Daily 87 ' 57 110 75 197 66 Weekly and Other 8 6 lo 7 18 6 NO Answer 37 17 5h Total 189 100 163 100 352 100 ‘ 21 Almost twice as many small or medium-Sized restaurants had permanent menus as large restaurants. Two-thirds Of all restaurants reported they made daily changes in their menus. In arriving at some insight into menu planning, another important question arises. What determines what these daily changes will be? Assuming that meat would be the major item changed, the following question was asked in the mail and personal interview survey. "Does seasonal price, quality and supply determine the kind or out Of meat you buy?" In the phone survey a more general phrasing was used, "DO you make your menu changes according to seasonal price and supply?" These results have been grouped together and are shown in Tables 6 and 7. There was a significant difference between the Lansing sample and the Detroit/Flint sample in frequency Of menu changes by seasonal price. Seasonal price had much more effect on the Detroit/Flint sample (restaurants receiving "Food Scoop") than the Lansing restaurants. of the total sample 38 percent never considered seasonal price in Selecting menus, while 52 percent of the small and medium-sized restaurants said they never did. There was a difference between the size restaurants and the importance Of seasonal price as shown by Table 7. 22 TABLE 6 FREQUENCY RESTAURANT MENU CHANGES ARE DETERMINED BY SEASONAL PRICE'LL W Frequency Detroit and Flint Lansing Total Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Frequently 91 115 1).; 18 105 37 Occasionally 50 25 21 26 71 2 5 Never 61 3 0 b5 56 106 3 8 No Answer 117 23 70 To ta]. 2).;9 100 103 100 352 100 *Distributions were significantly different at .01 level Of confidence based upon Chi Square test. TABLE 7 FREQUENCY MENU CHANGES ARE DETERMINED BY SEASONAL PRICE ACCORDING TO RESTAURANT SIZE W 4.: Seating Capacity Frequency Under 100 Over 100 Total Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Frequently 3t 2t 71 so 105 37 Occasionally 33 2h 38 26 71 25 Never 72 52 3h 21. 106 38 No Answer 50 20 70 Total 189 100 163 100 3 52 100 ¥ 23 Importance Of Customer Demand The following factors were listed as being more important in menu- making decisions than seasonal price. Number Mentioned Customer Demand 83 "Serve Certain Items NO Matter What the Price" 36 Variety 17 Seasonal or Weather Demands 15 By far the largest reason for menu selection was customer demand. The reason "serve certain items no matter what the price" could fall in this category. One restaurant meat supplier in Detroit said that about 50 percent Of their customers placed their orders without asking price.3 A produce wholesaler said that cafeterias are the only restaurants that will take suggestions on good produce buys. Since a restaurant is in business to make a profit, they must cater to public demands. But according to George L. Wenzel, a recognized authority in the restaurant field, a manager must control his business and not let the customers run it. Here is an example Of how wenzel thinks the average small or medium-sized restaurant should operate:4 When some guest complains that we never serve spaghetti, we would soon feature spaghetti dishes. And some Friday when a few cus- tomers yell because we don‘t serve fish, we'd begin serving first 3If restaurants buy the same meat cuts no matter what the.price, an inelastic demand is implied. 4GeorgefL.‘W'enzel, The Seven Steps tO a Log Food CostJ (Publication Press, Inc., BaltO) p. 50. 2h three or four fish dishes and soon we'd have the whole.Atlantic and Pacific oceans on our menu. Finally we‘d let our customer talk us into serving humming bird wings, nightingale tongues and what not. Isn't that about what happens to you and me when we let our guests tell us how to run the restaurant? For some strange reason Mr. X just doesn't fall into that trap. He serves what he knows how to serve unusually well. He serves what he can control at a reason- able menu price. And the customers come to him two miles from town to enjoy it. ‘Wenzel does not advocate, however, using "good buys" as the main guide for menu planning. He says that a restaurant must study the "best sellers," price these popular items for profit-making and then specialize in them. For most restaurants these "best sellers" amount to about twenty different items. ‘What is considered good restaurant practice and the way the average restaurant Operates may be quite different. This may be an area for education. If a restaurant "serves only what he can control at a reasonable menu price," there may be some seasons when certain "best sellers" should be left Off the menu and others featured. As a restaurant Operator becomes aware Of these seasonal changes, he profits and orderly marketing is stimulated. Individually Owned and Managgg_Restaurants Speciality restaurants seem to be profit makers but the average restaurant does not Operate in this manner. Many Of the restaurants personally interviewed in Lansing have a fairly broad menu and then feature daily one or two luncheons or dinners. Take an example Of a modern, progressive restaurant in the out- Skirts Of Lansing with a seating capacity Of 100 to 125. The business 25 was Operated by a man and his wife in their forties who were alert and hard working. They Operated a busy luncheon and dinner service. The menu was varied with a daily popularlyepriced dinner special. These specials were planned several days to a week in advance. It seemed like a perfect spot for food trend and price information to be Of value. They could certainly have profited by serving items which were in.peak supply, but here were their problems. They had an excellent woman cook who had been with them a number Of years and attracted customers with her food. The man and his wife were untrained but good business people. When asked how the specials were determined, they said that the cook decided. The special had little relation to price, but by what "they hadn't had in sometime." .Another question was asked, "DO you think it would be possible or profitable to select these specials by what is-a good buy for the week?" The woman answered, "Yes, but my husband, I or the cook do not have time to study prices that closely." This may not be an average restaurant in size, physical appearance and quality Of food served, but it is fairly typical Of menu planning for the small and medium-sized restaurant. This would indicate that information must be condensed, highlighted and to the point if restaurants are to use it. This brief summary Of menu planning for table and/or counter service stressed the Operation for the individual owner-manager type Of restaurant. They make up the large percent Of restaurants. Although "Food Scoop" is received by many large restaurants, they may have less need for information because Of big staffs. 26 Cafeteria planning is quite different. They have much more flexi- bility in menus. Drive-ins and caterers would also differ in menus and menu planning. NO study was made on them specifically. III. Restaurant Food Buying Food costs must be controlled if a restaurant is to profit. Little information is available on the actual fOOd costing practices used by restaurants. This study made no attempt to determine what restaurants knOW'about their food costs or if they use portion control. However, Wenzel has published the kind of food costs necessary for a successful 5 restaurant Operation. They are: Food Dollar Volume Dollar Percent Percent Meats Meat 23 9 Poultry 10 h Seafood 9 h Groceries Produce 23 7 Groceries 8 h Coffee and Tea 2 1 Dairy Eggs u . S 2 Butter 6.5 2 Milk and Cream 5 3 Ice Cream h 2 Bakery 2 100 HO If food costs are to be kept at to percent, a restaurant Operator must be able to control meat and produce costs. He must be concerned with 5George L. wenzel, Handbook Of Restaurant Costs, p. 9. 27 planning, buying, storing, preparing and serving. Money can be lost at any one Of these phases. A small amount of study was done in this survey on meat, produce and egg buying. The results are summarized in Tables 8 to 25. Only those returning the complete mail questionnaire answered these questions. Meat Buying There is a definite trend toward the use Of fabricated or portion- cut meat. Table 9 shows that about one-fourth Of all the restaurants bought only primal cuts and about three~fourths bought fabricated or a combination of fabricated and primal cuts. Over one-half Of the small restaurants bought only fabricated or portion—cut meats. There is a difference between the size restaurants and the cutting style purchased. Buying portion-cut meat simplifies meat portion control which is essential to low food costs. Many small and medium-sized restaurants dO not have the staff or training to do an efficient job Of buying, cutting and controlling portion sizes. Table 11 shows that less than 20 percent bought any meat from a retail supermarket. The others purchased from wholesalers. Table 12 shows that almost 50 percent Of the restaurants bought U. S. Choice or Prime beef for steaks, roasts and pot roasts. This Might indicate a large number thigh class restaurants or be an exaggeration. Many Of the Lansing restaurants interviewed said they used Choice beef but their low'menu prices indicated differently. The grade Of beef purchased is hard tO verify with meat suppliers. 28 Suppliers tend to sell to a certain class of trade and do not represent the total picture. According to Wenzel about 10 percent of the restaurants use top quality meat. About one-third (Table 10) bought some frozen meat. These were mainly'portion-cut items such as hamburger patties, cubed steaks and veal cutlets (breaded and unbreaded). Frozen turkey was the only poultry item bought frozen to any extent. About one-third Of the restaurants bought all or some turkey frozen. .An increasingly popular item for restaurants is the frozen whole, boned and rolled turkey. Frozen meats are not so much for the convenience of the restaurant as for the advantage Of the supplier. The wholesaler can freeze these items during periods of loW'prices. These meats are packed for con- venient use Of the short-order restaurant. Wbuld it be good restaurant practice to dO the same thing? Storage, of course, is a limiting factor. Wenzel says:6 The careful restaurant manager trys tO keep his total inventory at less than 20% Of the monthly income. This means that you turn your money over five times every month. You are thus work- ing on other people's money. Some restaurants keep their inventory at 10% Of the total monthly volume. The more fOOd you stuff in refrigerators and storerooms, the more careless employees become with it. As shown in Tables 13 to 16, over three-fourths of the restaurants bought broiler~fryers and Of these about 60 percent bought whole birds. .About to percent bought stewing chickens; about 35 percent bought ‘roasting chickens and about 60 percent bought turkeys. .And Of those who bought turkeys over 9h percent bought only whole birds. —-__ eW'enzel, pp, cit., p. 27. 29 TABLE 8 RESTAURANT MEAT PURCHASES BY CUTTING STYLE fi— Cutting Style Detroit and Flint Lansing Total Number Number Number Primal Cuts 27 111, I11 Fabricated or Portion Cuts 18 L5 63 Combination Primal and Fabricated 26 2h 50 NO Answers 3 20 23 Total 714 103 177 TABLE 9 MEAT PURCHASED BY CUTTING STYLE ACCORDING TO RESTAURANT SIZE Seating Capacity Cutting Style Under 100 Over 100 Total Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent j—r Primal Cuts 25 29 16 2h hl 27 Fabricated or Portion Cuts to St 17 25 63 t1 Combination Primal and Fabricated 15 17 35 51 50 32 NO Answers 20 3 23 ‘ Total 106 100 71 100 177 100 k FORM OF PURCHASING MEAT BY RESTAURANTS TABLE 10 30 Form Detroit and Flint Lansing Total Number Number Number Percent Fresh 53 51 lot 68 Combination Fresh and Frozen 18 32 50 32 NO.Answers 3 20 23 Total 7b 103 177 100 TYPE OF MEAT SUPPLIER FOR RESTAURANTS TABLE 11 Type‘ Detroit and Flint Lansing Total Number Number Number Percent PackerJWhOlesaler 58 68 126 81 Retail Super Market 5 5 10 7 Combination.Above Two 9 10 l9 12 NO Answers 2 2O 22 Total 7h 103 177 100 __ 31 TABLE 12 BEEF GRADE PURCHASED FOR STEAKS, ROASTS AND POT ROASTS BY RESTAURANTS W U. S. Grade Detroit and Flint Lansing Total Number Number Number Percent Prune-Choice 35 3h 69 L7 GOOd 6 15 21 11; Standard or ~ ' Commercial h 3 7 5 Combination 26 2h 50 3).; NO Answers 3 27 30 Total 7h 103 177 100 TABLE 13 FORM AND CUTTING STYLE OF FRYERS-BROILERS PURCHASED BY RESTAURANTS Form Detroit and Flint Lansing Total Number - Number Number Percent Fresh h8 60 108 61 Frozen 9 12 21 12 Combination Fresh 5 2 7 b or Frozen "52’ '71.? 176‘ None or NO Answers 12 29 I11 23 Total 7b 103 177 100 Cutting Style Of Fryers-Broilers Purchased Whole 32 b6 78 63 Parts 15 21 36 29 Combination 7 3 10 8 NO Answer 8 h 12 TOtal 62 7h 136 .100 32 TABLE 1h FORM OF STEWING CHICKENS PURCHASED BY RESTAURANTS Form Detroit and Flint Lansing Total Number Number Number Percent Fresh 36 3h 70 39 Combination Fresh or Frozen h 0 h 2 None or NO Answer 3h 69 103 59 Total 7b 103 177 100 TABLE 15 FORM OF ROASTING CHICKENS PURCHASED BY RESTAURANTS Form Detroit and Flint Lansing Total - Number Number Number Percent Fresh 27 32 59 33 Combination Fresh or Frozen 3 0 ,.3 2 None or NO Answer ht 71 115 65 Total 7b 103 177 100 v 33 TABLE 16 FORM.AND CUTTING STYLE OF TURKEYS PURCHASED BY RESTAURANTS M ..r Form Detroit and Flint Lansing Total Number Number Number Percent Fresh 23 18 bl 23 Frozen 22 2b L6 26 Combination Fresh 9 5 1h 8 or Frozen 51; "717' 101 Ngne or NO Answers 20 g56 76 h3 Total 7h 103 177 100 Cutting Style Of Turkeys Purchased Whole ho to 80 9h Combination.Whole or Parts 5 l 6 6 NO Answer 9 6 15 TotaI. 5h h? 101 100 —— Produce Buying» TO what extent are restaurants using fresh fruits and vegetables? Table 18 shows that almost one-half Of all the restaurants used three or more different fresh fruits regularly. Only about one-third Of the smallcnrmedium-sized restaurants used this many fresh fruits. There is a difference between the size restaurants and the use Of fresh fruits. About 85 percent of all the restaurants (Table 20) used some kind Of fresh vegetables. However, only one-third said they bought any fresh 3h vegetables for cooking. Almost half as many small restaurants as large used some fresh vegetables for cooking. The percentage Of the sample indicating the use Of some fresh vegetables for cooking may be higher than the average for the population. According to one Detroit produce wholesaler, about 10 percent Of all restaurants cook with fresh vegetables. Frozen vegetables are not used at all by 50 percent Of the restaurants (Table 22). Over two~thirds Of the small or medium-sized restaurants do not use frozen.vegetables. ‘Wenzel's food cost budget allows 7 percent for fresh and frozen produce and h percent for groceries (canned goods). He says:7 ‘When your grocery expenses exceed the produce expenses it means that you are using more canned goods than fresh fruit and vege- tables. 'We find that those restaurants that reverse this and spend more for fresh produce than for canned goods usually do a better volume Of business. In this study the purchase and use Of potatoes was eliminated. A recent study, however, has been conducted on the use Of potatoes in Whyne County. Tables 23 and 2h summarize some Of the pertinent infor- mation. .About 19 percent Of the restaurants were using some prepared potato products in some form while 81 percent bought all fresh potatoes. About one-third bought some Michigan.potatoes. Between 60 and 75 per- cent Of the "late crop" potatoes used are from Idaho and Maine. 7Ibid., p. 28. 35 TABLE 17 NUMBER OF FRESH FRUITS PURCHASED REGULARLY BY RESTAURANTS —Number Of Fruits Detroit and Flint Lansing Total Number Number Number 3 or more ht 39 83 Less than 3 1h 15 29 None or NO Answer 16 h9 65 Total 7b 103 177 TABLE 18 NUMBER OF FRESH FRUITS PURCHASED REGULARLY BY SIZE OF RESTAURANT SégtingCapacity Number Of Fruits Under 100 Over 100 Total Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent 3 or more 37 35 h6 6h 83 b7 Less than 3 19 18 10 1h 29 16 None or NO Answer 50 h7 15 22 65 37 Total 106 100 71 100 . 177 100 36 TABLE 19 KIND OF FRESH VEGETABLES PURCHASED REGULARLY BY RESTAURANTS (Excludes Potatoes) Kind Detroit and Flint Lansing Total Number Number Number Salad Type Only 26 63 89 Salad and Cooking Type 39 22 61 None or NO Answer 9 18 27 Total 7b 103 177 TABLE 20 KIND OF FRESH VEGETABLES PURCHASED REGULARLY BY SIZE OF RESTAURANT (Excludes Potatoes) - Seating Capacity Kind Under 100 Over 100 Total Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Salad Type Only 58 Sb 31 h3 89 50 Salad and Cooking Type 28 26 33 h6 61 3h None or NO Answer 20 2O 7 ll 27 16 71 vfi— Total 106 100 71 100 177 100 #7 __ 37 TABLE 21 NUMBER OF FROZEN VEGETABLES USED REGULARLY BY RESTAURANTS m..- Number Detroit and Flint Lansing Total Number Number Number 3 or More 110 19 59 Less than 3 9 10 19 None 23 56 79 NO Answer 2 18 20 Total 7b 103 177 TABLE 22 NUMBER OF FROZEN VEGETABLES USED REGULARLY BY SIZE OF RESTAURANT WW Seating Capacity Number Under 100 Over 100 Total Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent 3 or More 18 19 111 67 59 38 Less than 3 l3 l3 6 10 19 12 None 65 68 1h 23 79 50 NO Answer 10 10 20 Total 106 100 71 100 177 100 THE 9.“ i0. 38 TABLE 23 USE OF PREPARED POTATO PRODUCTS IN WAYNE COUNTY8 (16h Public Eating Establishments) fl Establishments Percent of All Kind Of Potatoes Number Percent Potatoes Used Use Prepared Potato Products (Prepeeled French Fries or Whole, Frozen 31 19 23 French Fries, Dehydrated) Use NO Prepared Potato Products 133 81 77 Total 16h 100 100 *16h establishments are 7 percent Of total in wayne County and 17 per- cent Of total when measured by number Of employes. TABLE 2h 9 SOURCE OF "LATE CROP" POTATOES USED IN WAYNE COUNTY (16h Public Eating Establishments) Establishments Percent Of Total State Of Origin Number Potatoes Used Per week Michigan 38 20 Idaho 79 39 Maine 19 21 California 3 Less than 1/2 Of 1% Michigan and Idaho 16 10 Maine and Michigan 2 2 Idaho and Maine 5 7 0rigin.Unknown 2 Total 16h 100 —h_ _ 8Greig‘W'. Smith, The Restaurant, Hotel and Institutional Market for Eggygrated Mashed Potatoes, (Agricultural Economics Department, COOpera- tive Extension Service, Michigan State University, East Lansing, September 1957) P 21. 9Ibid., p. 20. ~+ .- .m- ,- 1‘. . 39 W Eggs are another important item in food costs. The following question was asked in the survey, "DO relative price changes of small, medium or large eggs determine the size you buy?" Table 25 lists the results. Over three-fourths Of all the restaurants said that relative price changes never affect the egg size purchased. TABLE 25 DO RELATIVE PRICE CHANGES AFFECT EGG SIZE PURCHASED BY RESTAURANTS? i fifig fi— —— Answer Detroit and Flint Lansing Total Number Number Number Percent Yes, for all uses 16 h 20 13 Yes, for some uses 9 6 15 10 N0 h3 72 115 77 NO.Answer 6 21 27 Total 7h 103 177 100 IV. Sources Of Quantity Food Information Table 26 lists the results in response to the question "Check your most important source for each of the following types Of food infor- mation." The percentages are based on the total number answering the complete mail questionnaires. Many did not answer the question and many listed more than one source. The main source, however, for information on prices and future Iih-‘f'i‘m - - Jaime-f . hO supplies was the wholesalers and salesmen. For new ideas and recipes the main source for information was the trade magazines. In Detroit, seven restaurants volunteered that "Food Scoop" was a source for one or more of the four categories. TABLE 26 RESTAURANT SOURCES OF FOOD INFORMATION (Percentages Based on 177) Kind of Information Detroit and Flint Lansing Total and Source Number Number Number Percent Current Prices Trade Magazines 7 9 16 9 Newspaper, Radio, TV 11 11 22 12 'Wholesalers, Salesmen 22 58 8O h5 Government 13 h 17 10 Future Supplies and Quality - Trade Magazines 10 15 25 1h Newspaper, Radio, TV 6 10 16 9 Wholesalers, Salesmen 18 31 N9 27 Government 10 5 15 8 New Ideas and Methods Trade Magazines 29 36 65 36 Newspaper, Radio, TV 7 13 20 ll Wholesalers, Salesmen h 10 1h 8 Government 5 2 7 h Recipes Trade Magazines 21 32 53 30 Newspaper, Radio, TV 5 9 1b 8 Wholesalers, Salesmen 2 5 7 L Government h 1 5 3 hl V. Usefulness of "Food Sc00p" Table 27 summarizes the results for the following question asked in Detroit and Flint. "In.your opinion does "Food Scoop" provide any additional information to the above sources (trade magazines, whole- salers, newspapers and government)?" This question was asked only in the complete mail survey, but of those answering an overwhelming majority (91 percent) said "Food Scoop" was an additional source of information. The following is the infor- mation which they said was additional: Number Mentioned Prices, Current Supplies, Good Buys in Local Area 17 Future Supplies and Market Conditions 11 General Information and Ideas 3 Recipes 1 Condenses and Confirms Other Information, 2 More Detailed and Accurate 1 TABLE 27 IS "FOOD SCOOP" AN ADDITIONAL SOURCE OF INFORMATION FOR DETROIT AND FLINT RESTAURANTS? W ::=== .Answer Detroit and Flint Number Percent Yes 60 91 No 6 9 No Answer 8 Total 7h 100 Tables 28 and 29 summarize the results of two other evaluation questions. They were asked only in Detroit and Flint with answers only from the complete mail survey. Seventy-eight percent said they read "Food Scoop" regularly and 67 percent filed "Food Scoop." TABLE 28 FREQUENCY OF READERSHIP OF "FOOD SCOOP" FOR DETROIT AND FLINT RESTAURANTS m +=: # Frequency Detroit and Flint Number Percent Regularly 57 78 Occasionally 16 22 Never 0 O NO.Answer Total 7b 100 TABLE 29 NUMBER OF DETROIT AND FLINT RESTAURANTS WHO FILED "FOOD SCOOP" :====aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaiaiaiaaaiaiaaaaaall Answer Detroit and Flint Number Percent Yes N6 67 No 23 33 No Answer 5 Total 7h 100 h3 Tables 30 and 31 summarize the answers to the question, "Do you consider "Food Scoop" a useful service?" which was asked not only in the mail survey but also in.the phone survey in Detroit and Flint. .Also, this question was asked in similar form in Lansing. "Wbuld you consider this bulletin "Food Scoop" a useful service?" "If such a ‘bulletin were made available in the Lansing area, would you like to be put on a mailing list? Results are shown in Tables 32 and 33. Table 31 shows that h2 percent in Detroit and Flint said "Food Scoop" was very useful, 26 percent said it was partly useful and 32 percent said it was of no value. About.twice as large a percentage of the small and medium-sized restaurants as the large restaurants found "Food Scoop" of no value. Table 30 shows that hl percent of the restaurants contacted in the phone survey found "Food Scoop" of no value, while only 11 percent of those returning the mail questionnaire. Since most of the questions were answered only in the mail question- naire, the results generally represent those who are favorable toward "Food Scoop." .According to Table 32 about one~third of the Lansing Restaurants thought "Food Scoop" would be of no value. Two-thirds of the restaurants in.Lansing said they would like to be on a mailing list if such a bulletin were started. TABLE 30 USEFULNESS OF "FOOD SCOOP" FOR DETROIT AND FLINT RESTAURANTS BY MAIL AND PHONE SURVEY Detroit and Flint Usefulness Mail Survey Phone Survey Total Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Very Useful 57 81 38 2h 95 N2 Partly Useful 5 8 56 35 61 26 No Value 7 11 66 L1 73 32 No Answer 5 15 20 Total 7h 100 175 100 2h9 100 TABLE 31 USEFULNESS OF "FOOD SCOOP" BY SIZE OF RESTAURANT IN DETROIT AND FLINT . Seating Capacity Usefulness Under 100 Over 100 Total Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent v—fi verY'Useful LB 39 52 hh 95 h? Partly Useful 18 16 NB 36 61 26 No value 50 h5 23 2O 73 32 No.Answer 6 1h 20 Total 117 100 132 1003' 2h9 100 'I wr: =- 16 TABLE 32 POTENTIAL USEFULNESS OF "FOOD SCOOP" IN LANSING BY SIZE OF RESTAURANT U Seating Capacity Usefulness Under 100 Over 100 Total Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent \ r"fiery Useful 28 39 21 68 L9 1;? ‘iPartly Useful 17 2h 6 19 23 22 No Value 27 37 1; 13 31 31 Total 72 100 31 100 103 100 g TABLE 33 NUMBER OF LANSING RESTAURANTS WHO WOULD WANT ON "FOOD SCOG’" MAILING LIST W Answer Lansing Number Percent Yes 66 6h No 35 3h No Answer 2 2 T"PEEL 103 100 116 Kinds of Information Preferrfi The following question was asked in Detroit and Flint, "The follow- ing kinds of information are usually in 'Food Scoop.' Check frequency You have used each kind." Since the Lansing restaurants had not I‘eceived "Food Scoop," they were asked how useful they thought the different types of information would be. Table 314 shows there is some evidence that produce prices and recipes were less useful than other types of information. They were read occasionally while the other information was read more regularly. This question was answered only in the mail survey which represents a large percentage who find "Food Scoop" useful. Table 35 reveals little preference for one type of information over amther. About one-fourth of the Lansing restaurants would not find any of the information useful. [211113 of Price Information With the day to day fluctuation in meat and produce prices, whole- sellers and some restaurants questioned the value of monthly prices. Table 36 gives the week by week fluctuation in the price of pork loins in Detroit in 1951:. There is only a price fluctuation of 27 cents per pound for the whole year of 1951;, while one month had a fluctuation of 17 cents. AlthOugh pork may have a greater fluctuation in price than other meats, ""0 questions arise. How meaningful are monthly meat price quotations? HOW are "Food Sc00p" meat prices used by restaurants? TABLE 31; FREQUENCY OF USE OF EACH TYPE OF "FOOD SCOOP" INFORMATION FOR DETROIT AND FLINT RESTAURANTS H Type of Information Detroit and Flint Number Percent Food Trends Regularly N6 62 Occasionally 1h 19 Never 2 3 No Answer __l_2_ ”16 Total 71. 100 Meat Prices Regularly ‘ 141 55 Occasionally l6 2 2 Never 5 7 No Answer ___l__2_ £6 Total 7b 100 Produce Prices Regiflarly 3b to Occasionally 2h 32 Never 3 b No Answer 2:3. __l_8_ Total 71; 100 "me the Big Kitchen" Regularly U2 57 Occasionally l7 23 Never 2 3 No Answer .12. .11 Total 7b 100 ReCipes Reeuarly 27 36 Occasionally 25 31. Never 6 8 “0 Answer .19 .22. Total 7).. 100 \ 148 TABLE 35 POTENTIAL USEFU'LNESS OF EACH TYPE OF "FOOD SCOOP" INFORMATION FOR LANSING RESTAURANTS H Food Meat Produce "From the Usefulness Trends Prices Prices Big Kitchen" Recipes Number Number Number Number Number Very Useful 16 21 21 16 21 Partly Useful 32 32 36 36 28 Not Useful 33 30 22 27 27 No Answer 22 ' 20 21; 2h 27 To tall 103 103 103 103 103 TABLE 36 DETROIT WEEKLY WHOLESALE PRICES FOR PORK LOINS IN 19514 W Cents Per Pound 4 Variation Month First Second ' Third Fourth Fifth per Month Week Week Week Week Week in Cents Junie-Iv 1:9 57 S2 52 19 8 Fe‘i'nr'uzary 19 53 56 Sh , - 7 March so 51 51 56 SS 6 April Sh 53 57 56 - h "By 55 59 6h 63 S9 9 June 61 SS 52 S7 - 9 July 57 65 61 60 1.8 17 August 50 56 50 1.5 - 11 september 148 56 )4? 146 " 9 October bl 1.3 no 141 h6 6 §°Yember h8 L6 In 141 - 7 ecember 1.0 39 38 no 38 2 \ a. Stanny, Morris and Livingstone (Hotel and Restaurant Meat Suppliers), Detroit, Michigan. THE? 149 The following are a few of the comments related to meats and meat Prices which were written on the questionnaires. "Too broad a price IHuge." "Prices vary so much, don't see how they could be reliable." "Would like advance information of price changes." "Would like cost yields in carcass buying." "Would like more information on portion control and costs." "Would like more specific meat price quotations and variation for grades." "Prices should be U. S. Good or Commercial. What restaurant can afford Choice?" "Give costs for finished servings." "Meat discussions too late to be useful." "Prices only good if weekly or tvzice weekly." "Give prices on wholesale cuts." "Prices fluctuate too Inuch to be worthwhile." The following two comments may give an idea of just how restaurants sure using meat prices. "Helps keep eye on prices." "It reminds me if I'm in line. I check my sanity with 'Food Sc00p.'" Prices in produce seem to fluctuate even more than meat. Because Of Perishability and sudden changes in supply, price and quality have little relationship. Possibly, the produce wholesalers may absorb some or the fluctuation. Most restaurants order by telephone and depend on the Wilolesaler for a fair price and quality.lov The following are some of the comments made on the questionnaires in relation to produce: "Prices are unstable-~1m1st watch daily postings." "Give yields for produce." "Report on quality of canned fruits and V‘s’ge‘liablesd' "Prices have little value—we have to take what they have." "quality is more important than price, but can't show." \ qu. . “Further study is necessary to determine the meaning and value of 0t1mg produce prices. How and where do restaurants buy produce? 5O Eggested Changes for "Food Scoop" The last question in the questionnaire was, "How would you suggest "Food Scoop" be changed to be more helpful to your food service?" Many 01‘ the comments written are listed above. Some of the more general comments were: "Offer information for small restaurants." " Introduce new products." "More recipes and more memls." "Give ideas for preparation of plentiful foods." "Make tables clearer." "Date each sheet." "Discuss procedures and methods." "Give suggestions for counter displays." "Need weekly information." "Are prices retail or wlmlesale?" VI. "Food Scoop" Format Parts of the questionnaire tested the best ways to present infor- mation. Since the format of "Food Scoop" in Detroit and Flint differs Somewhat, examples of information were selected from each and tested. Tables 37, 38 and 39 summarize the results. Table 37 indicates that meat price quotations in cost per pound NULLZLd be most valuable. Although restaurants must do calculations in cos-t; per ounce and in cost per serving, they seemed to prefer to trans- late from cost per pound. This preference may be explained by the fact that "Food ScOOp" prices are only used for comparisons with actual purchases in price per pound. Some mentioned that a combination of cos-t, per pound with cost per serving would be most helpful. In order to obtain some information on the best way to list pro- dues prices, an example of potatoes was used. A price range covering THF’ ' rear—— 51 all gades was given (similar to Detroit's method) and a more detailed pricing by specific gades and sizes was an alternate. This is similar ’00 a method sometimes used in Flint. Table 38 shows the results. Produce prices listed specifically were preferred. Indicating a Specific grade and size was most helpful. Another important part of the information in "Food Scoop" has been food trends. Usually, this information has been written in paragraph descriptive form. Sometimes, the monthly supplies in Flint were listed as being up or down a few cents. These two ways were tested by giving a sample of each. The results are shown in Table 39. The method of writing food trends more specifically seemed to be the more popular. To say that "quality beef supplies are plentiful" was not so helpful as to say "quality beef was down 2 cents per pound from last month." Other comments made on food trends were: "Be briefer." I! To 0 general . " Table 140 indicates that the length of "Food Scoop" has been satis- fac tory. However, from the comments written on the mail questionnaire and from the personal interviews, many restaurants felt unqualified to mSWer this question. There was a feeling, "if it is good information it is too short and if it is poor information it is too long." Some of the comments which were made frequently in various parts of the mail questionnaire were: "Too wordy," "Don't use full sentences," "Eliminate fancy adjectives." METHOD PREFERRED BY RESTAURANTS OF QUOTING MEAT PRICES H TABLE 37 i' 52 Meat Price Detroit and Flint Lansing Number Percent Number Percent Cost per pound 25 ML 25 32 Cost per ounce 8 1h 9 11 Cost per serving 16 29 18 23 Combination 6 ll 10 13 None 1 2 17 21 No Answer 18 21. Total 714 100 103 100 TABLE 38 METHOD PREFERRED BY RESTAURANTS OF QUOTING PRODUCE PRICES W fi :— ‘i- Produce Price. Detroit and Flint Lansing Number Percent Number Percent Price range 11: 25 21 26 Specific price 33 59 31 38 Neither 9 16 3O 36 N0 aJilswer 18 21 Total 71. 100 103 100 THE o a .A ..O u I" 53 TABLE 39 METHOD PREFERRED BY RESTAURANTS OF WRITING FOOD TRENDS W *— l. Method Detroit and Flint Lansing Number Percent Number Percent General description lb, 25 9 12 More specific description 33 59 3O 39 Neither 9 16 37 1:9 No answer 18 27 Total 7b 100 103 100 TABLE 1.0 RATING OF LENGTH OF "FOOD SCOOP" BY RESTAURANTS U Method Detroit and Flint Lansing ' Number Percent Number Percent Just right 50 68 5h 52 Too long 5 7 9 9 Too Short 6 a 2 2 “0 answer 13 17 38 37 ‘— Total 71; 100 103 100 L THE? ‘ACJAL- . - 9 ‘1 n l E I 5h A produce wholesaler in Lansing mentioned that restaurants know little about produce specifications. An attempt was made to survey this knowledge. They were asked to designate the size, quantity and Quality they ordered for grapefruit, lettuce, celery and tomatoes. The best results that could be tabulated were the use of general terms (large or small) or specific terms (211‘s, h6's) in designating the size of lettuce and grapefruit. A large rmmber did not answer this question which may mean they did not understand it. Table 141 shows that more restaurants ordered by asking for large, medium or small than asking for specific size by IIanber per box, etc. This may indicate a lack of knowledge of produce Specifications. One restaurant commented: "We're weak on specifications-- depend on vegetable man to send right merchandise." TABLE ’41 RESTAURANTS' KNOWLEDGE OF PRODUCE SPECIFICATIONS W Terms. Used Detroit and Flint Lansing Total Number Number Number General 11 23 311 (Large, small, etc.) Specific 111 5 19 (214] s, h6's, etc.) "° W 1.9 75 12h Total 71. 103 177 :9.‘ .J 7 —. ”*F‘if'fifi’.‘ .e-u. | “ 55 VII. Summary The total sample of 352 restaurants in Detroit, Flint and Lansing divided about equally between those with a seating capacity under 100 and over 100. The restaurants with a seating capacity over 100 will be considered large. Menus and menu planning vary by the type of food service. Restaurants with table and/or counter service have a relatively fixed menu. Many specialize in certain foods or feature those items found to be "best sellers." Over one-fourth of all restaurants had a perman- ent menu and made no changes. More small or medium-sized restaurants than large had permanent menus. Two-thirds of all restaurants reported they made daily changes in their menus. About to percent of all restaurants said they never considered seasonal price in selecting menus. Large restaurants more often con- sidered seasonal price. Customer demand was the main factor in selecting menus. Meat and produce are the two most important items in restaurant food costs. About one-fourth of all the restaurants bought only primal cuts of meat and about three-fourths bought fabricated or combination of fabricated and primal cuts. Over half of the small and medium-sized restaurants bought only fabricated or portion-cut meats. Almost one-half of all restaurants used three or more different fresh fruits regularly. Large restaurants used more fresh fruits. About 85 percent of all restaurants used some kind of fresh vegetables. However, only one~third said they bought any fresh.vegetables for 56 cooking (the study excludes potatoes). More) large restaurants used some fresh vegetables for cooking. Some frozen vegetables were used by 50 ° percent-of all restaurants. Forty-two percent in Detroit and Flint said "Food Scoop" was very useful, 26 percent said it was partly useful and 32 percent said it was of no value. About one-half in Lansing thought such a bulletin would be‘very useful and about one-third thought it would be of no value. Food trends, meat prices and "From the Big Kitchen" were slightly more useful than produce prices and recipes. With the day to day fluctuation in meat and produce prices, whole- salers and some restaurants questioned the value of monthly prices. Produce prices, especially, are hard to interpret because quality is very difficult to describe. The best indication of how price infor- mation was used by restaurants were the cements: "Helps keep my eye on price-s." "It reminds me if I'm in line." CHAPTER III NMRKETING INFORMATION FOR HOSPITALS IN DETROIT AND FLINT AREAS I. HOSpitals Surveyed In the state of Michigan there are about 219 hospitals which are members of the Michigan Hospital Association and about 600 convalescent homes and homes for the aged. Data for this chapter has been obtained, mainly, by a mail survey to hOSpitals and convalescent-type homes in Detroit and Flint areas who have asked to remain on a 1957 "Food Scoop" mailing list. An‘alter- nate form consisting of one question on the usefulneSS of "Food Scoop" was offered on the third mailing of the questionnaire. Also, a few nondrespondents in Flint were contacted for two questions in a phone survey. Table N2 summarizes the number and percent of hospitals sur- veyed. Table h3 summarizes the number and percent of survey replies. Probably, the main difference in the food operation of hospitals is size except for state and county hospitals, which have a central food purchaser. This chapter is concerned with city or private hospitals and convalescent-Type homes. These two types have been grouped together in Table hh and classed according to the number of people served per 1Michigan Department of Health, Lansing, Michigan, according to a phone conversation. 57 58 meal period. For the purposes of this study the term hospital will cover convalescent-type homes. TABLE E2 NUMBER AND PERCENT OF HOSPITALS SURVEYED Number of . Hospitals Number x Approximate Area by Counties in.Areas Surveyed“ Percent Surveyed Detroit1Area Wayne, Oakland, St. Clair, Macomb 259 212 82 Other - l6 - Flint.Area Genesee 25 27 108 Other - 2 - Total - 257 - *Figures represent the actual number receiving "Food Scoop"; extra names for a hospital are not counted. TABLE 83 NUMBER AND PERCENT OF HOSPITAL SURVEY REPLIES ======================================================================== Complete Short Phone Area Mail Survey Form Survey Total Replies Number Percent Number Number Number Percent ml Detroit 91 to 16 o 107 h7 Flint 1h h8 0 8 22 76 —-.~ Total 105 hl l6 8 129 50 ‘s 59 TABLE NN NUMBER.AND PERCENT OF SURVEY REPLIES BY HOSPITAL SIZE m Number Served Per Meal Number Percent O-ZN 31 2N 25-100 nu 3h Over 100 32 25 Unclassed 22 17 Total 7 129 100 II. Hospital Menu Planning In order to determine the general flexibility of menus, the follow- ing questions were asked. "How far in advance are menus planned?" Do you use a cycle menu?" Tables N5 and N6 summarize the results. Although one-half the hospitals used a cycle menu, many said it was a seasonal eycle. Others said it was frequently subject to change. Small hospitals often said eycle menus were not popular; the patients preferred more variety. About 60 percent of the hospitals planned menus by the week. There was very little difference among the dif- ferent size hospitals in advance planning and the use of cycle menus. To study the factors which affect menu-making decisions, the question was asked, "Does seasonal price, quality and supply affect the meat cut purchased?" Table N7 summarizes the results. A second part 60 TABLE NS ADVANCE PLANNING OF MENUS BY HOSPITAL SIZE Time Number Served Per Meal Period 0-72}; 23-100 Over 100 Unclassed Total No. % No. .% No. % . No. . No. 1 1 Week 19 68 2h 63 15 N9 3 61 60 1 Month N 15 ll 29 7 22 l 23 23 Other 5 17 3 8 9 29 1 18 17 No Answer 0 1 1 l 3 Total 28 100 39 100 32 100 6 105 100 TABLE N6 USE OF CYCLE MENU BY HOSPITAL SIZE W Number Served Per Meal Answer "'0' -211 $1100 Over 100 j—Un'cla' "ss'ed" Total No . % No . % No . x No . No . % Yes 10 N2 1N N2 19 61 2 us so No In 58 19 58 12 39 0 NS 50 No Answer N 6 l N 15 Total 28 100 39 100 32 100 6 105 100 ‘ - we 61 of this question was, "What other factors are more important than the current market situation. Over 90 percent of all hOSpitals considered seasonal price, supply and quality at least occasionally in making meat selections. There was little difference among the hospitals of different size and the con- sideration of seasonal price. The other factors which determine meat selections were: Number Mentioned Patient's Preference 16 Variety 9 Special Diets 7 The use of freezers had some effect on meat purchases. Although there were no specific questions asking for such information, 1N. hospitals or 13 percent volunteered the fact that they bought meat in quantity for freezing. These were mostly the small convalescent-type homes. TABLE N7 FREQUENCY MEAT PURCHASES ARE DETERMINED BY SEASONAL PRICE ACCORDING TO HOSPITAL SIZE Number Served Per Meal Frequency -U:§N 25¥100 *Over—IOO' ’Unclasséd’ Total No. Z No. % No. % No. No. % Frequently 10 39 23 52 1N NN 2 N9 N6 Occasionally 12 N6 18 N1 18 56 2 50 N7 Never N 15 3 7 o o l 8 7 No Answer 5 O l 6 Total 31 100 NN 100 32 100 6 113 100 k THE-3 III. Hospital Food Buying A small amount of study was done in this survey on meat, produce and egg buying. The results are summarized in Tables N8 through 57. Meat Buying ‘Table N8 shows that about one-third of the hospitals bought all primal cuts and about one-third bought all fabricated or portion cuts. The others bought a combination of primal and fabricated. Table N9 shows that about one-third of the hospitals bought some meat from retail super markets; 50 percent of those feeding under twenty-five people bought all their meat from retail stores. Table 50 shows that about one-third of the hOSpitals said they bought all U. 3. Prime or Choice beef for steaks, roasts and pot roasts and about one-third bought U. S. Good. The remainder bought U. S. Standard or Commercial or a combination of grades. TABLE N8 MEAT PURCHASED BY CUTTING STYLE.ACCGRDING TO HOSPITAL SIZE Numberkfierved Per Meal Cutting Style O-2N 255100 Over 100 Unclassed Total No. 1 No. % No. i No. No. % Primal Cuts 10 36~ 13 3N 12 37 2 37 36 Fabricated or Portion Cuts 10 36 16 N2 9 29 1 36 3S Comb. Primal and Fabricated 8 28 9 2N ll 3N 2 3O 29 NO.Answer O l O l 2 Total 28 100 39 100 32 100 6 105 100 _ TH ;: 63 TABLE N9 TYPE OF HEAT SUPPLIER BY HOSPITAL SIZE W 4.: Number Served Per Meal Meat Supplier O-2N 25-100 Over 100 Unclassed Total No. Z No. % No. % No. No. % Packer- Wholesaler 8 31 2N 62 29 9N N 65 6N Retail Super Mkt. 13 so 5 l3 1 3 1 2o 20 Combination 5 19 10 25 x l 3 O 16 16 No Answer 2 O 1 1 N Total 28 100 39 100 32 100 6 105 100 TABLE 50 BEEF GRADE PURCHASED FOR STEAKS, ROASTS AND POT ROASTS BY HOSPITALS W U. S. Grade Total Number Percent Prime-Choice 35 314 Good 36 35 Standard-Commercial ' 12 12 Combination 2O 19 No Answer 2 y Total 10 5 100 W THE! ll 6N Tables 51, 52 and 53 show that 81 percent bought fryersebroilers and of these 69 percent bought whole birds; about two-thirds bought stewing and roasting chickens; 89 percent bought turkey and of these Sfltpercent'bought whole birds. About 10 to 15 percent bought some frozen fryersébroilers, stewing and roasting chickens while about one- half bought some frozen turkeys. TABLE 51 FORM.AND CUTTING STYLE OF FRYERS-BROILERS PURCHASED BY HOSPITALS :=======================: **:;—— -*— Total Of Those Buying Form Number Percent Cutting Style Number Percent Fresh 67 6N Whole SN 69 Frozen 11 10 Parts 17 22 Combination Combination 7 9 Fresh/Frozen g 7 NO.Answer 7 None or Nb Answer 20 19 -_ — Total 105 100 85 100 _‘ 65 TABLE 52 FORM OF STEWING.AND ROASTING CHICKENS PURCHASED BY HOSPITALS Stewing Form Number Percent Roasting Form I a Total Number Percent Total Fresh 66 62 Fresh 57 SN Combination Combination Fresh/Frozen lO 9 Fresh/Frozen 13 13 None or No None of No Answer 29 29 .Answer 35 33 Total 105 100 Total ' 105 100 TABLE 53 FORM AND CUTTING STYLE OF TURKEYS PURCHASED BY HOSPITALS Total Of Those Buying: Form Number Percent Cutting Style Number Percent Fresh N2 N0 Whole 80 9N Frozen 37 35 Combination Whole/Parts 5 6 Combination Fresh/Frozen 1E 1N NO.Answer 9 9 None or No Answer 11 11 Total 105 100 9N 100 M 66 ProducggBuying To what extent do hospitals use fresh fruits and vegetables? According to Table 5N over three-fourths used three or more fresh fruits regularly. As the hospitals increased in size a greater number used fresh fruits. According to Table 55 over 90 percent of all hospitals used some fresh vegetables. Over two-thirds used some fresh vegetables for cooking. Potatoes were not included in this study. As the hospitals increased in size, a greater number used fresh vegetables for cooking. .According to Table 56 about three-fourths used some frozen vege- tables and over 90 percent of the large hospitals used frozen vegetables to a great extent. The small convalescent homes used more frozen vegetables than the hospitals of medium size. Over one-half of the h03pitals serving twenty-five to one hundred did not use any frozen vegetables. TABLE 5N NUMBER OF FRESH FRUITS PURCHASED REGULARLY BY HOSPITAL SIZE -—— Number Served Per Meal Number 042N ‘25-100 Over 100 Unclassed Total No. i No. % No. 2 No. No. % 3 or‘More 19 67 31 79 31 97 2 83 79 Less Than 3 6 22 7 18 1 3 2 16 15 None or No Answer 3 ll 1 3 O O 2 6 6 Total 28 100 39 100 32 100 6 105 loo __ 67 TABLE 55 KIND OF FRESH VEGETABLE PURCHASED REGULARLY BY HOSPITAL SIZE (Excludes Potatoes) Number Served Per Meal Kind O-2N 25-IOO Over 100 Unclassed Total No. Z No. Z No. Z No. No. Z Salad Type Only' 9 32 8 21 6 19 2 25 2N Salad and Cooking Type 16 57 28 71 25 78 2 71 68 None or No .Answer 3 11 3 8 1 3 2 9 8 Total 28 100 39 100 32 100 ' 6 105 100 TABLE 56 NUMBER OF FROZEN VEGETABLES USED REGULARLY BY HOSPITAL SIZE T Number Served Per Meal Number 79:21. 25M er loo undressed Total No. Z No. Z No. Z No. No. Z 3 or More IN 58 1N 36 29 91 N 61 61 Less Than 3 N 17 6 15 1 3 0 11 11 None 6 25 19 N9 2 6 l 28 28 No Answer N O O 1 5 Total 28 100 39 100 32 100 .6 105 100 _ ~hk-n : . 5.. ~ .rd E H T 68 Egg Buying The following question was asked, "Do relative price changes of small, medium or large eggs determine the size you buy?" Table 57 shows that 56 percent of all hospitals did not consider relative prices of eggs of different size. TABLE757 DO RELATIVE PRICE CHANGES.AFFECT EGG SIZE PURCHASED BY HOSPITALS? Number Servenger Meal .Answer O¥2N 25rlOO' Over 100' Unclasséd' Total Number Number Number Number Number Percent Yes, for All Uses 7 8 9 l 25 23 Yes, for Some Uses 6 9 8 O 23 21 No 15 22 15 5 57 56 Total 28 39 32 6 105 100 IV. Sources of Quantity Food Information Table 58 summarizes the results in response to the question, “Check your most important source for each of the following types of food information." The percentages are based on the total number answering the complete mail questionnaire. Very few answered this question; 18 percent was the largest response for any one source of information. Of those answering, newspapers and wholesalers were given TH" 69 as the main sources for current prices; the wholesalers for future supply information; trade magazines for recipes and new ideas or methods. Ten hospitals voluntarily mentioned "Food Scoop" for one or more of the different types of information. TABLE 58 SOURCES OF FOOD INFORMATION FOR HOSPITALS (Percentages Based on 105) Trade Newspaper, Wholesaler, Food Magazines Radio, TV Salesmen Government Information No. Percent No. Percent No. Percent No.. Percent Current Prices 22 22 18 l7 15 IN N N Future_3upplies and Quality 0 o 9 9 11 ll 9 9 New Ideas and Methods 19 18 8 8 3 3 N N Recipes 11 ll 3 ' 3 3 3 N N The Nutrition Service of the Michigan Department of Health has distributed monthly or bimonthly a six page (three sheet) bulletin to 500 hOSpitals in the state of Michigan. This has not automatically gone to all hospitals but only to those who have asked to receive it. The name of the bulletin has been "Food Notes for Institutional Food Service." The national food outlook for the month has been given along with a list of plentiful foods. Different hints have been offered on menu planning, buying, storing or preparing foods in quantity. Several recipes have been contained in each issue. Often there have been suggestions for the use of some of the plentiful foods. THE 6 ‘ ,1 l‘ t g. A i ‘3‘ I g 70 V. Usefulness of "Food Scoop" To help evaluate "Food Scoop," the following questions were inter- spersed throughout the questionnaire. "In your opinion does 'Food Sc00p' provide any additional information to the above sources (government, newspapers, wholesalers, trade magazines?" "Do you read 'Food Scoop'?" "Do you file any of this information?" "Do you consider ‘Food Scoop' a useful service?" The results in Tables 59, 60 and 61 represent the hospitals who returned the complete mail questionnaire. Ninety-three percent said "Food Scoop" was an additional source of information. The following was the information that the hospitals said was additional: Number Mentioned Local Prices 23 Local Food Trends and Market Information 27 New Ideas 8 Recipes 15 About 89 percent said they read "Food Scoop" regularly. No one indicated that they never read it. Eighty-six percent filed all or part of the bulletin. Based on the entire number ofrespondents Table 62 shows that 87 percent found "Food Scoop" very useful, 9 percent partly useful and N percent found it of no value.. As the hospitals increased in size a greater number found "Food Scoop" useful. However, only 10 percent of the small convalescent homes found it of no value. 1H!- , 111.61. . w: 71 TABLE 59 IS "FOOD SCOOP" AN ADDITIONAL SOURCE OF INFORMATION FOR HOSPITALS? Answer . Number Percent Yes 81 93 No 6 7 No Answer 18 Total 105 100 TABLE 60 FREQUENCY OF READERSHIP OF "FOOD SCOOP" BY HOSPITALS Frequency Number Percent Regularly I 93 89 Occasionally 11 11 Never 0 O NO.Answer 1 Total 105 100 TH '1' &. 1.x 72 TABLE 61 NUMBER OF HOSPITALS WHO FILED "FOOD SCOOP" .Answer Number Percent Yes 85 86 - No 13 1N No Answer 7 Total 105 100 TABLE 62 USEFULNESS OF "FOOD SCOOP" BY HOSPITAL SIZE v—w—fi— fl Number Served Per Meal Usefulness 0-21; 25-100 Over 100 Unclassed Total No . Z No . Z No . Z No . No . Z VeTY'USGfU1 23 77 38 93 30 97 5 96 87 Partly Useful N 13 3 7 1 3 2 10 9 No Value 3 10 O O O O 1 N N No Answer 1 3 ' l 1N 19 Total 31 100 NN 100 32 100 22 129 100 THF 73 Kinds of Information.Preferred Table 63 summarizes the results of the following question. "The ibllowing kinds of information are usually in 'Food SOOOp.' Check frequency you have used each kind." All types of information were used regularly or occasionally by over three~fourths Of the hospitals. Little preference was shown for any one type Of information. Comments were made throughout the questionnaires in relation to the usefulness of parts of "Food SOOOp." From these some indication can'be obtained of how the information was used. The comments were: "Use as a guide and reference." "Gives me an idea of what to watch for." "I am more interested in quality than price of foods." "Depend on company I buy from for best buys in produce." "we are a large hospital and have the advantages of a purchasing agent-important prObably for small institutions." "Receive copies too late to be of help on prices." "'From the Big Kitchen' is useable information at all times." "Size of your publication is a great advantage-dupon Opening can quickly scan and mark pertinent information." Sgggested Changes for "Food Scoop" The last question in the questionnaire was: "How would you suggest 'Food Scoop' be changed to be more helpful to your food service?" Some of the general comments were: "Add a section on food hints-techniques to improve quality and looks." "Medium cost menus." "Include more information on grades and cost per portion." "New methods of cookery." "Like new techniques in quantity production." "Recipes for evening meals." "Wbuld like information about foods-~like difference in white TH '- TABLE 63 7N FREQUENCY OF USE OF EACH TYPE OF "FOOD SCOOP" INFORMATION BY HOSPITALS ‘ InfOrmation and Frequency Number Percent Food Trends Regularly 59 56 Occasionally 23 22 Never 2 2 No Answer _J§L _251 Total 105 100 Meat Prices Regularly 53 5O Occasionally 31 30 Never 5 5 No Answer 16 .;E5 Total 105 100 Produce Prices ‘Regularly 55 52 Occasionally 30 29 Never 3 3 No Answer 31 __l_6_ Total 105 100 "From the Big Kitchen" Regularly SN 51 Occasionally 2N 23 Never 2 2 No Answer 25 2N Total 105 100 Recipes Regularly 52 5O Occasionally 31 30 Never 6 5 No Answer ___Z_L_6_ 412 Total 105 100 75 and brown rice, whole wheat and white flour, honey versus sugar, use of fried foods, etc." "Recipes too large for nursing homes." "WOuld like menu suggestions for each day based on food costs and availability of foods." "Add exchange section-dwrite in questions on special prOblems." "Use chart form for food trends." "Recipes for plentiful foods." VI. "Food SOOOp" Format Part of the questionnaire tested the best way to write information. Since the format of "Food Scoop" in Detroit and Flint differs somewhat, examples of information were selected from each. These examples were described in Chapter II. According to Tables 6N, 65 and 66 about one-half the hospitals said they preferred meat prices in cost per pound, produce prices quoted specifically by grade and variety and food trends written.more Specifically by showing that items were up or down.a few cents. .According to Table 67 about three-fourths of the hospitals found "Food Scoop" the right length. Hospitals were tested on their knowledge of produce specifications in the same manner as restaurants. The results are shown in Table 68. This question was described in Chapter II. A large number of the hospitals did not answer this question which mQY'mean.they did not understand it. More hospitals ordered by asking for large, medium or small produce than asking for a specific size by number per box, etc. TABLE 6N METHOD PREFERRED BY HOSPITALS OF QUOTING MEAT PRICES 76 1H Meat Price Form Number Percent Cost per pound 50 53 Cost per ounce O 0 Cost per serving 22 2N Combination 18 19 None N N No answer 11 Total 105 100 TABLE 65 METHOD PREFERRED BY HOSPITALS OF QUOTING PRODUCE PRICES Produce Price Number Percent Price range 31 NO Specific price 38 N9 Neither 8 11 No answer 28 "V Total 105 100 TABLE 66 METHOD PREFERRED BY HOSPITALS OF WRITING FOOD TRENDS 77 Method Number Percent General description 27 35 Mbre specific description N1 53 Neither 10 12 No answer 27 Total 105 100 TABLE 67 RATING OF LENGTH OF "FOOD SCOOP" BY HOSPITALS Rating Number Percent Just right 80 76 Too long ~ 1 1 Too short 3 3 No answer 21 20 Total ' 105 100 TH’ ' ‘- 78 TABLE 68 HOSPITALS' KNOWLEDGE OF PRODUCE SPECIFICATIONS Terms Used Number General 20 (Large, Small, etc.) Specific 1N (2N's, N6's, etc.) No Answer 71 Total 105 VII; Summary The total sample of 129 hOSpitals in Detroit and Flint were classified by size according to the number of people served per meal period. The number divided fairly equally among those serving under twenty-five, those serving between twenty-five and one hundred and those serving over one hundred. About 60 percent of all the hospitals said they planned menus about a week in advance. One-half the hospitals used a cycle menu. Many who used a cycle menu, however, said it was a seasonal cycle and frequently subject to change. Seasonal price, supply and quality influenced 93 percent of the hospitals in selecting meat occasionally or frequently. The patient's preference, variety and special diets were other factors which determined meat selections. 79 About one-third of the hospitals bought all primal meat cuts and about one-third bought all fabricated or portion cuts. The others bought a combination of primal and fabricated. About one-third of the hospitals bought some meat from retail super markets and 50 percent of those feeding under twenty-five people bought all their meat from retail stores. Over three-fourths of the hospitals used three or more fresh fruits regularly. .As the hospitals increased in size a greater number used fresh fruits. Over 90 percent of all the hospitals used some fresh vegetables. Over two-thirds used some fresh.vegetables for cooking. (This study excludes potatoes.) As the hospitals increased in size, a. greater number used fresh vegetables for cooking. About three-fourths of all hospitals used some frozen vegetables and over 90 percent of the large hospitals used frozen vegetables to a great extent. The Michigan Department of Health has distributed a six page monthly or bimonthly bulletin to 500 hospitals in the state. It has contained recipes, the national food outlook, a plentiful food list and quantity food hints. Eighty-seven percent of the hospitals found "Food Scoop" very use- ful, 9 percent partly useful and N percent found it of no value. As the hOSpitals increased in size a greater number found "Food Scoop" useful. However, only 10 percent of the small convalescent homes found it of no value. 80 All types of "Food Scoop" information was used regularly or occasionally by over three-fourths of all hospitals. Little preference Vans shown for one type of information over another. 1H1 CHAPTER IV MARKETING INFORMATION FCR SCHOOLS IN DETROIT AND FLINT AREAS I. Michigan School Lunch Program The National School Lunch Program completed ten years in 1956. During the ten years the number of children participating nationally increased from 6,016,129 in l9N7 to 10, 568,726 in 1956. Presently, about one-third of the total school enrollment participates.l In the state of Michigan there are 1560 public schools participat- ing in the Type A School Lunch PrOgram.2 This number includes all but Six of the eligible schools. Many one~room or small schools are not eligible. Table 69 shows the approximate distribution of cost for the Michigan School Lunch Program. Both public and non-profit private schools are eligible to Participate in the program. An estimated 250 private schools are 3 Participating in the National School Lunch Program in Michigan. * t 1113 It Looks to the Editor, School Lunch Program, National Live- i901: Producer, January 1957, p. 26. w Mi ,2Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction, Lansing, ch-igan, according to a telephone conversation. 3Private schools received $552,736 in value of surplus commodities. the proportions similar to public schools about 61/3 million 8 were served which approximates 250 schools. ”Sing 1.1111311 e 81 82 To receive Federal reimbursement the following Type A lunch requirements must be served per student each day: l. One-half pint whole milk 2. Two ounces of lean meat, poultry, fish or cheese or one egg, or one-half cup of cooked dry beans or peas, or four tablespoons of peanut butter 3. Three-fourths cup of vegetables or fruit N. One or more portions of bread or muffins 5. Two teaSpoons of butter or fortified margarine TABLE 69 COST OF SCHOOL LUNCH PROGRAM IN MICHI%PUBLIC SCHOOLS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1956-57" M fifi -— .—A Source of Money Dollars Percent Federal Reimbursement $2,379,693 21% Value of Surplus Commodities 3,N1h,129 3h Distributed Parents Payments-H 14,256,809 ’42 . Total* $10,050,631 lOO ' 7—. —— v—vfi v—v ———r a:— This figure is an approximation calculated on the basis of 140,202,523 lunches served at an average price of 25 cents per lunch. Parents‘ payments were calculated on the basis of the total cost minus the Federal reimbursement and value of surplus commodities. Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction, Lansing, Mchigan, according to a telephone conversation. 83 II. Schools Surveyed This chapter covers both the public and private schools who have been receiving "Food SCOOp" in the Detroit and Flint areas. The questionnaire was mailed three times. No phone survey was used to follow up the nondrespondents. The mailing list consists mostly of school superintendents. They pass "Food Scoop" on to a central buyer or the individual school lunch manager. Table 70 summarizes the number and percent of schools surveyed. Table 71 summarizes the number and percent of survey replies. TABLE 70 NUMBER AND PERCENT OF SCHOOLS SURVEYED ——-——— V fi w— v—v 7—— fiv Number in National Percent .Area Number Surveyed* Lunch Program Surveyed by Counties Public Private Public " Public Detroit“ 6N 61 295 22 ‘Wayne, Oakland, Livingston, Macomb Flint 27 1 50 SN Genesee Total 91 62 3N5 26 Fv—v—v v—v—vv '— v—v—w ——‘——.— v—v v—fi vv—v f —v— *Includes a few schools outside of Genesee county. **No information available on number of private schools in separate counties. Excludes city of Detroit schools. —7— m Tfi Hal‘— 8N TABLE 71 NUMBER AND PERCENT OF SCHOOL SURVEY REPLIES ——v v v—v v Number Replies Percent Replies Area Public Private ~Total Public Private Total Detroit N1 25 - 66 6N N1 53 Flint 15 1 16 55 100 57 Total _ 56 26 82 62 N2 5N v——' ‘——"" w Classification.by_Buyingand Planninngethods As shown in Table 72 the schools which responded have been classed according to buying method-central or individual school buying. In both the cities of Detroit and Flint, the food has been bought centrally for all schools. Although a few of the individual schools in Detroit received "Food Scoop," these were not included in the total analysis. Detroit uses a city master menu; the individual schools can alter the menu to some degree to fit their particular needs. About two-thirds of the total sample have individual school buying. However, the public School sample was about one-half central buying and one-half individual buying. There are several variations in menu planning. 1) The individual schools operate independently. 2) The schools plan their own menus and the food is bought centrally. 3) The combined schools in the area plan a master menu and the food is bought centrally. N) A central menu is planned by a city supervisor and the food is bought centrally. 5“ “‘er 85 TABLE 72 SURVEY REPLIES BY SCHOOL BUYING METHOD ' ‘— fi —‘ v—v W Method Number Percent Individual Buying Public 26 32 Private 26 32 Central Buying Public 30 36 Total ' 82 100 In Table 73 the schools have been classed according to who plans the menu. Although about half the public Schools who responded have central buying, 9N percent of the individual school lunch managers or cooks plan or help plan the menus. TABLE 73 PUBLIC SCHOOL SURVEY REPLIES BY MENU PLANNER =e=====================================================================s . Individual Central Total Menu Planner Buying Buying Number Percent School Lunch Manager or Cook 27 15 N2 79 City Supervisor 0 3 3 6 Combined Schools in Area 2 6 8 15 No Answer 1 2 3 Total 30 26 56 100 ii ‘4". €- . TH E up“: no. 1 "M1 1...; up. I.» .-‘ I: .‘ [1) 86 Since such a large number of the addresses for "Food SCOOp" were superintendents, it was necessary to know who was actually reading it and who completed the questionnaire. Table 7N shows that 65 to 70 percent of the people filling out the questionnaire were the ones who actually did the buying. From the way the questionnaires were answered, the proper person seems to be receiving "Food Scoop." Table 75 Shows that about 86 percent of the responding schools were participating in the National School Lunch Program. TABLE 7N RESPONDENT'S POSITION IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS — vw —— v—v *— v? Individual Buying Central Buying Position Number Percent Number Percent Superintendent 6 2O 2 8 .City Supervisor or Central Buyer 3 10 17 65 Cook or Manager 21 7O 7 27 Total 30 100 26 100 TABLE 75 PARTICIPATION IN NATIONAL SCHOOL LUNCH PROGRAM v— v—V- v—v— m W w v-r v—vv __ WV.— Y_ —r wv‘ Public Private Total Number Number Number Percent Yes. 5N 17 71 86 No 2 6 8 10 No Answer 0 3 3 N v fi v—v— TOtal 56 26 82 100 TH 87 III. School Lunch Planning and Buying In.regard to menu planning, the following questions were asked, "How far in advance are menus planned?" "Do you use a cycle menu?" Tables 76 and 77 summarize the responses to these questions. About 50 percent of the schools planned their menus a week in advance and NO percent a month in advance. About 60 percent of the schools with central buying planned a month in advance while about 60 percent with individual buying planned weekly. The office of Superintendent of Public Instruc- tion recommends planning monthly. About 50 percent of the schools did not use a cycle menu. There seemed to be little difference in the use of a cycle menu between schools which did central and individual buying. .A cycle menu tends to limit the use of good seasonal buys. If the cycles are set on a seasonal basis, food trends should be given for a longer range than one month. TABLE 76 ADVANCE MENU PLANNING BY SCHOOL BUYING METHOD ::=====================fw 1 Time Individual Buying Central Buying Total Period Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent w w___ One Week 32 6O 6 25 38 N9 One Month 17 32 1N 58 31 NO Other N 8 N 17 8 ll NO.Answer 3 2 5 __‘_A Total 56 100 26 100 82 100 88 TABLE 77 USE OF CYCLE MENU BY SCHOOL BUYING METHOD ======================================================================== Individual Buying Central Buying Total Number Percent ' Number Percent Number Percent Yes 20 38 8 33 28 36 NO 28 53 12 50 NO 52 Somewhat 5 9 N 17 9 12 NO.Answer 3 2 5 Total 56 100 26 100 82 100 To establish what meat and protein items were used, the following question was asked: "What protein foods do you use most often.in.main dishes? Indicate if purchased or from Government surplus during the 'past one to three years." Table 78 summarizes the answers. Cheese, 'ground beef, eggs, poultry and fish were the five protein foods used most frequently. They are listed in order of pOpularity. Hot dogs were next in.pOpularity but were used quite a bit less than the other items. Other miscellaneous fresh and canned beef and pork items were mentioned. The ground beef, cheese and eggs used were mainly from surplus foods, while the poultry, fish and hot dogs were purchased. Table 79 summarizes the answers to the question, "What is the most important reason which determines the choice of a main dish?" About one-third ranked children's preference first and about one-fourth ranked surplus foods first. A "good seasonal buy" ranked very low as 89 a reason for a.main dish choice. However, no percent said they con- sidered a combination of reasons. TABLE 78 SOURCE OF PROTEIN FOODS USED MOST OFTEN IN MAIN DISHES BY SCHOOLS W Usually Usually Comb. Surplus/ Protein Purchased M1118 Purchased Total Item Number Number Number Number Cheese 3 57 34 61: Ground Beef 9 38 6 53 Eggs 13 25 11 149 Poultry 2? h 7 38 Fish 36 0 1 37 Hot Dogs 15 O l 16 Other Beef and Pork Cuts 18 16 2 36 TABLE 79 l REASONS FOR SELECTING MAIN DISHES FOR SCHOOL LUNCH MENUS ’ Reason Number Percent Surplus Food Available 17 23 Childrenis Preference 23 32 Good Seasonal 1311,}r h 5 Combination of All 29 no No Answer 9 Total 82 100 90 Tables 80, 81, and 82 show the use of fresh fruits and vegetables and frozen vegetables. About 50 percent used fresh fruits rather extensively and about 25 percent do not use any; About 8h percent used Salad'vegetables and about one-third used some fresh vegetables for cooking. Potatoes were excluded from this study. 'Canned vegetables are used mainly by schools for only about one-fourth used any frozen vegetables. Table 83 shows the results from the question, "Do relative price changes of small, medium or large eggs determine the size you.buy?" About 67 percent said they considered the relative price of different size eggs in.buying. .About one-third never considered the relative price of eggs of different size. TABLE 80 NUMBER OF FRESH FRUITS PURCHASED REGULARLY BY SCHOOLS Number of Fruits Number Percent 3 or More hl 50 Less than 3 21 26 None or No Answer 20 2h Total 82 100 91 TABLE 81 NUMBER OF FRESH VEGETABLES PURCHASED REGULARLY BY SCHOOLS (Excludes Potatoes) :=================================================::aa _,§========== Kind of Vegetable Number Percent Salad Type Only L3 52 Salad and Cooking Type 26 32 None or No Answer 13 16 Total 82 100 TABLE 82 NUMBER OF FROZEN VEGETABLES USED REGULARLY BY SCHOOLS W Number of Kinds Number Percent 3 or More 9 12 1 Less Than 3 13 17 I None 5h 71 No Answer 6 Total 82 100 92 TABLE 83 DO RELATIVE PRICE CHANGES AFFECT EGG SIZE PURCHASED BY SCHOOLS Number Percent Yes, for.All Uses 28 38 Yes, for Some Uses 21 29 No 2h 33 NO.Answer 9 Total 82 100 IV. Surplus Commodities in Michigan Federal surplus foods have a major effect on school lunches. What are these surplus foods and how do they affect other purchases? The schools were asked to estimate the percentage of eggs, vegetables and meat which they served which came from surplus. The results are summarized in Table 8b. There was a large variation in the percentage of food different schools obtained or a big difference in the ability to estimate. About one-half said they received between 10 and 25 percent of their vegetables as surplus. About one-third said they received about 50 percent of their meat as surplus and 10 to 25 percent of their eggs. Table 85 shows the actual estimated dollar value of surplus com- nmdities distributed to the Michigan.public schools in the past fiscal year. These figures are fairly close to the school estimates. 93 TABLE 8h ESTIMATES BY SCHOOLS OF SURPLUS FOODS SERVED n... Commodity About 75% About 50% 10-25% No Answer Total No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % Eggs w 21 W26 h h 11; 17 26 32“ Elm 2s—fiw 82 100* Vegetables 0 o h S 38 to to L9 82 100 Meat 15 18 27 33 21 26 19 23 82 100 TABLE 85 SURPLUS COMMODITIES DISTRIBUTED TO MICHIGAN PUBLIC SCHOOLS DURING FISCAL YTAR.JULY 1956-JULY 1957* wv—v v 7T7 ~— fi v fifv fiv' Percent;tf Dollar Percent Total Lunch ** A 99mmodity L Value g_ of Total Expenditures Meat, Fish and Poultry Products Hamburger $591,923 11 Eggs 198,150 5 Canned Pork, Ham 672,780 20 Turkey 181 661 _E5. 1 3 1 52 Vegetables 183,519 5 15 (Green Beans, Corn and Tomatoes) Fruits 27h,586 8 h3 (Grapefruit, Orange Juice .Apricots, Plums, Peachess Other 1,311, 510 to ——v Total 33:17:11.,129 100 *State Commodities Distribution Section, Lansing, Michigan, Information received from correspondence. ‘**Percentages are based on a total expenditure of’$l0,050,631 with local purchases of’$6,636,502 as shown in Table 69. The Rhode Island study was used in calculating the percent of local purchases for each food group. (The>$6,636,502 was multiplied by 23 percent for local meat purchases, by 15 percent for local vegetable purchases and by'5 percent for local fruit purchases. The value of the local meat, vegetable and fruit purchases were combined with the corresponding values received in.surplus and the percents of surpluses were calculated.) 9h An estimate can be made that about 52 percent of the total meats used last year by public schools was surplus; about 15 percent of the vegetables and about 113 percent of the fruits. V. Rhode Island School Lunch Study To gain more information about the market created for agricultural commodities by the National School Lunch Program, the Agricultural Marketing Service is conducting a series of studies of local food expenditures by schools. A preliminary report of a study of eighty-four Rhode Island Schools during 1955 and 1956 has been printed.4 According ’00 the study about 23 percent of the school dollars spent locally for food went for meat, fish and poultry products, 15 percent went for vegetables, and 5 percent for fruits. The following are the percentages of dollar expenditures for local purchases of meat, fish and poultry products: Hamburger 111.7% Frankfurters 8.3 Luncheon Meat, Canned 3.9 Corned Beef, Canned 5.5 Turkey 5.11 Eggs 15.0 Frozen Fish and Fish Sticks 9.6 Salmon and Tuna, Canned 5.9 Miscellaneous Items 13.] 100.0% The following are the percentages of dollar expenditures for local purchases of vegetables: A _.4_ Wv ‘_v— 4Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA, Surve of Food Utilization in School Lunch Programs in 83 Rhode Island Sghoois, Preliminary Report, ov er, 6. F F ' Beans, Green and wax, Canned Beets, Canned Cabbage, Green and Red Carrots, Fresh Canned Celery, Fresh Corn, Frozen and Canned Lettuce Mixed Vegetables, Canned Onions Peas, Canned Potatoes, White Spinach, Fresh Frozen Tomatoes, Fresh Canned Miscellaneous 3% m H owomoowmwwomr—Jmmmxo l--’ anhEDRJ~JLJLJc)R>L:Q)E>OIE>b\CJ 1:" 100.0% 95 Cflhe following are the percentages of dollar expenditures for local Purcfuases of fruits: Apples, Fresh Fruit Cocktail, Canned Peaches, Canned Pears, Canned Pineapple, Canned Prunes and Raisins, Dried Grapefruit Sections, Canned Miscellaneous (Six Items) 11.5% 13.0 211.1: 171. 13 .0 5.0 5.3 10.§ 100.0% UDhe purpose of listing these meats, fruits and vegetables purchased localSLy in this group of Rhode Island schools is to show the typical food ]purchases for school lunches. To direct information to schools which will be useful, more consideration must be given to the actual foods used . 'Ibble 86 summarizes the results in response to the question. yanxr most important source for each of the following types of food VI. Sources of Quantity Food Information "Check 96 information." The percentages are based on the total number responding. Wholesalers and newspapers were the main sources of information on current prices. Over one~third depended on the government for infor- mation on future supplies, new ideas or methods and recipes. Eight schools voluntarily mentioned "Food Scoop" as a source for one or more of the types of information. ET 2} TABLE 86 SOURCES OF FOOD INFORMATION FOR SCHOOLS I (Percentages Based on 82) E . 1 Newspapers, 'Wholesalers ‘— Food Government Radio, TV Salesmen Information Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Current Prices 16 20 26 32 35 . h3 Future Supplies 32 39 9 11 23 28 and Quality New Ideas and Methods 30 37 18 22 ll 13 Recipes 27 33 17 21 16 20 w v— F'v—v—v fifi wfi— w figggrnment Information for School Lunch Program The following is a list of the types of bulletins published by the A Federal government for the school lunch program: 1. General Bulletins (Eight) 2. Space and Equipment Bulletins (Nine) 3. Management "Estimating the Cost of Food fer the School Lunch" Gives factors that can affect cost of food fer a school lunch and includes tables for computing and judging adequacy in the type, quantity or quality of foods used. 97 "Preparing a School Lunch" Gives three simple management practices to be followed: work plans, work methods, and use of standardized recipes. "Food Buying Guide for Type A School Lunches" Guidance for planning and buying food for Type A School Lunches--size of serving; approximate number of servings per purchase unit; and approximate number of purchase units to serve 100 are given. "Planning Type A School Lunches" Guidance for planning and buying food for Type A School Lunch Requirement; explains the steps involved in menu planning and provides sample menus. "Suggested Outline for Training School Lunch workers" h. Recipes "Recipes for Quantity Service" "Recipes-Type A School Lunches" A card file-consists of 18h cards, contains mere than hOO recipes. Bulletins with Recipes for Specific Foods Prepared Especially for School Lunches (Twelve) Out of the state office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction the following information goes monthly to the schools participating in the School Lunch Program. "Plentiful Foods Monthly'List" (l sheet-~2 pages) Each month a list of several foods have been given as school lunch specials. They have suggested that the schools use as many of these designated plentiful foods as they possible can. Recipes have often been given. Many times they have used the plentiful foods. Other suggestions have been given on planning, storing and preparing f00ds. "Hot Tips for School Lunches" (l sheet-~2 pages) This too contained news and information about the school lunch program. Often gave the outlook for USDA commodities which may'be received in.the near future. Recipes have occasionally been given. 98 'Hhole and Nonfat DryfiMilk Bulletin. Michigan State University, Agricultural Experiment Station and College of Home Economics, published in October 1956 Circular Bulletin 223, Whole and Nonfat Dry Milk in Quantity Food Preparation. It contains 39 recipes which were developed primarily for the school lunch program. VII. Usefulness of "Food 8000p" To help evaluate "Food ScoOp," the following questions were inter- spersed throughout the questionnaire. "In your Opinion does 'Food Scoopt provide any additional information to the above sources (govern- ment, newspaper, wholesalers)?" "Do you read 'Food Scoop'?" "Do you file any of this information?" "Do you consider 'Food Scoop‘ a useful service?" Tables 87 through 90 summarize the answer to these questions. Eighty-eight percent said "Food Sc00p" was an additional source of information. The following were the parts which were mentioned as additional information: Number Mentioneg_ Local Prices 13 Trends and Market Information 17 Ideas 10 Recipes 18 Eighty percent said they read "Food Scoop" regularly and 6 percent said they never read it. Eighty-three percent said they filed all or parts of "Food Scoop." Penal?“ ‘A"A'IA j.‘ 99 Eighty three percent said "Food Scoop" was very useful, 9 percent said it was partly useful and 8 percent said it was of no value. There was a slight preference for "Food Sc00p" in the public schools. Almost 90 percent of the public schools found it very useful compared with about three-fourths of the private schools. TABLE 87 IS "FOOD SCOOP" AN ADDITIONAL SOURCE OF INFORMATION FOR SCHOOLS? Number Percent Yes 6h 88 No ' 9 12 NO.Answer 9 Total 82 100 TABLE 88 FREQUENCY OF READERSHIP OF "FOOD SCOOP" BY SCHOOLS Frequency Number Percent I Regularly 66 80 Occasionally 11 1h Never 5 6 Total 82 100 100 TABLE 89 NUMBER OF SCHOOLS WHO FILED "FOOD SCOOP" W _:_...__ ' Number Percent Yes 62 83 No 13 17 No Answer 7 Total 82 100 TABLE 90 USEFULNESS OF "FOOD SCOOP" FOR SCHOOLS Public Private Total Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Very Useful h? 89 19 73 66 83 Partly Useful h 8 3 l2 7 9 No Value 2 3 h 15 6 8 No Answer 3 0 3 Total 56 100 26 100 82 100 Kinds of Information Preferred Table 91 summarizes the results to the following question. "The following kinds of information are usually in.'Food Sc00p.' Check frequency you have used each kind." .About 80 percent used food trends, "From the Big Kitchen" and recipes occasionally or regularly while about 72 percent used produce and meat prices occasionally or regularly. 101 TABLE 91 FREQUENCY OF USE OF EACH TYPE OF "FOOD SCOOP" INFORMATION BY SCHOOLS -—— w vi Food Meat Produce "Big Frequency Trends Prices Prices Kitchen" Recipes No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % WV v_~ Regularly 1:8 58 36 LL14 1:5 55 148 58 36 M: Occasionally 17 21 22 27 15 18 19 23 3O 36 Never 5 6 5 6 5 6 2 3 h 5 NO.Answer 12 15 19 23 17 21 l3 l6 12 15 Total 82 100 82 100 82 100 82 100 82 100 Suggested Changes for "Food Scoop" The last question in the questionnaire was: "How would you suggest "Food Scoop" be changed to be more helpful to your food service?" Some of the general comments were: "More recipes and menus." "Mbre short cuts in food preparation." "Suggest low cost meats and produce items." "More ideas for using government surpluses." "Recipes with canned meats and hamburgers." "Give advance information on government surplus foods." VIII. "Food Scoop" Format One of the objectives of the questionnaire was to determine the most meaningful way to present information in "Food Scoop." Since the format of "Food Scoop" in Detroit and Flint differs somewhat, examples of information were selected from each and tested. These examples were 102 described in Chapter II. Tables 92, 93 and 9h summarize the results. The schools liked meat price information in cost per serving or cost per pound with a slight preference for cost per serving. There was little preference between produce prices listed specifically by variety and grade and those listed in a general price range. About one-half preferred that food trends be written.more specifically by indicating that a food item was up or down a few cents per pound from last month. As shown in Table 95 about three-fourths found the length of "Food Scoop" satisfactory. TABLE 92 METHOD PREFERRED.BY SCHOOLS OF QUOTING MEAT PRICES Meat Price Number Percent Cost per pound 29 L2 Cost per ounce I l 1 Cost per serving 33 h? Combination 5 7 None 2 3 NO.Answer 2 12 vi W —— Vi V‘— Total 82 100 103 TABLE 93 METHOD PREFERRED BY SCHOOLS OF QUOTING PRODUCE PRICES E :1 ‘— Produce Price Number Percent Price Range 2 3O LS Specific Price 29 h3 Neither 8 12 No Answer 15 Total 82 100 TABLE 9h METHOD PREFERRED BY SCHOOLS OF WRITING FOOD TRENDS *— Method Number Percent General Description 2h 36 More Specific Description 33 h9 Neither 10 15 No Answer 15 v Total 82 100 108 TABLE 95 RATING 0F LENGTH OF "FOOD SCOOP" BY SCHOOLS ========================:* ;E=E:v Rating Number Percent Just Right 61 7b Too Long h 5 Too Short h 5 NO.Answer 13 16 Total 82 100 Schools were tested on their knowledge of produce specifications in the same manner as restaurants. This queStion was described in Chapter II. The results are shown in Table 96. A large number of the schools did not answer this question which may mean they did not under- stand it. Of those answering more schools ordered by asking forlarge, medium or small produce than asking for Specific size by number per box, etc. TABLE 96 SCHOOLS‘ KNOWLEDGE 0F PRODUCE SPECIFICATIONS Terms Used Number General 18 (Large, Small, etc.) Specific ll (2h's, h6's, etc.) No Answer 53 Total ’ 82 105 IX. Summary Over to million Type A school lunches were served in the public schools in Michigan last year. About two-thirds of this food was purchased locally and the rest was received as surplus commodities. School buying and menu planning are handled differently in each city. Of the public schools responding about one-half bought centrally and the other half bought individually. However, 9h percent of the individual school lunch managers or cooks planned or helped plan the menus. About one-third of the total sample were private schools. Although monthly planning is recommended, about 50 percent of all the schools planned by the week. However, over half the schools with central buying did plan a month in advance. Over half the schools did not use a cycle menu. Cheese, ground beef, eggs, poultry and fish were the five protein foods served most frequently in main dishes. The ground beef, cheese and eggs served were mainly from surplus foods, while the poultry, fish and hot dogs were purchased. Children‘s preference and surplus foods were the main factors determining menus. About one-half used three or more fresh fruits regularly and three~fourths used some fresh fruit. About one-third used some fresh vegetables for cooking and 8h percent used salad-type vegetables. Over 70 percent said they never used any frozen vegetables. The government has published twenty-one bulletins in relation to the operation of the National School Lunch.Program. Four are directly related to planning, buying and preparing school lunches. Over hOO 106 school lunch recipes are available along with twelve bulletins with recipes of specific food groups. The state office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction sends to the public schools a monthly bulletin, which contains a plentiful foods list along with suggestions and recipes for the use of these foods. Other suggestions are given on planning, storing and preparing foods. Eighty-three precent said "Food ScOOp" was very useful, 9 percent said it was partly useful and 8 percent said it was of no value. There was a slight preference for "Food Sc00p" in the public schools. Almost 90 percent of the public schools found it very useful compared with_ about three-fourths of the private schools. Food trends, "From the Big Kitchen" and recipes were used more frequently than meat and produce prices. CHAPTER V CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS In evaluating marketing information for restaurants, hospitals and schools an attempt has been made to arrive at answers to two basic questions. Should the marketing information to quantity food users be expanded or reduced and how? Should the kinds of information and the format remain the same or be changed? To answer these basic questions, the following questions must first be answered. ‘Who can and does use "Food Sc00p"? What kinds of infor- mation.are needed and useable? Is "Food Sc00p" meeting the objectives outlined by the Michigan MIC program? How can the information be most ' meaningfully presented? Do the benefits exceed the costs? I. Who Can and Does Use "Food Sc00p"? Rating of‘Usefulness'ey_Quantity;Food Users "Food Scoop" has been useful to quantity food users in the follow- ing order: VEry Useful, No Value 1. Hospitals 87% h% Large 97% 0 Medium 93% 0 Small 77% 10% 2. Schools _ 83% 8% Public 89% 3% Private 73% 15% 107 108 Vegy_Useful No Value 3. Restaurants h2% 32% Large hh% 20% Small and Medium 39% 15% "Food Scoop" was most useful to hospitals. Since the sample represents one-half of a sample of 9h percent of the hospitals in the Detroit and Flint areas, this type of information would likely be valu- able to hospitals in general. More consideration might be given to the small convalescent home which represents about one-fourth of all hospitals. An.average of 83 percent of public and private schools said "Food Sc00p" was very useful, but more public than private schools said it was useful. The public school sample represents approximately one-eighth of the public schools in the areas studied. (The City of Detroit public schools were not included in this study.) This kind of information may be generally useable for schools with central or individual school buying. Restaurants have found "Food Sc00p" least useful. Less than half of the Detroit and Flint restaurants who have been receiving "Food Scoop" have found it very useful. The sample represents restaurants who have asked to remain on the 1957 mailing list. This might indicate that the bulletin is either not supplying the right kind of information or is not providing it in.a way that it can be used. The results from Lansing tended to verify this. Two-thirds of the large restaurants in Lansing thought the information would be very usefu1, but less than half in Detroit and Flint reported that it has been very useful. 109 THflrty-seven.percent of the small and medium-sized restaurants in Lansing thought such a bulletin would be of no value, while h5 percent in Detroit and Flint of the same size restaurants reported that it has been of no value. Flexibiligy of Menus Further study was done to determine who could potentially use "Food Scoop." One of the limiting factors for hospitals and schools may be the extensive use of cycle menus. 'With a fixed menu they pr0b- ably lose some flexibility in taking advantage of good buys. Although about one-half used cycle menus, they were not rigid and were often seasonal cycles. This might indicate that some information should be given on yearly seasonal patterns. The restaurants (one~fourth) who have permanent menus might find trend and price information of little value. Other kinds of buying information might be more useful. The use of a permanent menu is not necessarily a bad practice if the restaurant profits. However, there may be some relationship between permanent menus and volume for many more small and medium-sized restaurants than large had permanent menus. Importance of Seasonal Price in Menus Another factor in evaluating "Food ScoOp" is to view the importance placed on seasonal price, supply and quality in menu-making decisions. Over 90 percent of the hospitals considered seasonal price occasionally or frequently in planninngurchases while only about 60 percent of the restaurants did. Less than one-half of the small and medium-sized 110 restaurants considered seasonal price. Restaurants must feature "best sellers" on their menus. If seasonal buys fit into their "best seller" list, they could take advantage of them. Although the school lunch program is vitally interested in low food costs, their 25 to 30 cent lunch definitely limits the menu possi- bilities. Their menu selections were mainly determined by the children‘s preferences and the surplus commodities received. A good seasonal buy was of little importance to them. Only a few items fit into their price bracket at any time. About one-fourth of the restaurants, one-half of the hospitals and ,two-thirds of the schools said relative price changes determine the size of eggs bought. .Again restaurants showed a rigidity in food buying by their lack of response to relative price changes and the size of eggS‘purchased. II. What Kinds of Information are Needed and Useable? Rating of Kinds of Information by Quantity Food Users The following types of "Food Scoop" information have been ranked in the order of the greatest use. 1. Food Trends 2. "From the Big Kitchen" . 3. Meat and Produce Prices h. Recipes Restaurants, hospitals and schools all rated food trends at the tsp of the list. "From the Big Kitchen" was a close second for ,s 111 restaurants and schools. Hospitals rated all other information of about equal importance. Restaurants said meat prices were more important than.produce prices. This was reversed for the schools. Recipes were rated low by both restaurants and schools. The useful kinds of "Food Scoop" information are substantiated in menu and buying practices of quantity food users. Restaurants may be less interested in produce prices, because only one-third used any fresh vegetables for cooking. Since schools used very few meat items, meat prices would be of less value. All types of information may be valu- able to hospitals because of the flexible and varied menus. Small hospitals might find wholesale meat prices less useful; about one-half said they bought all their meat from retail grocery stores. There seems to be a conflict with schools. Recipes were rated as the least popular type of "Food Scoop" information. However, 88 per- cent of the schools said "Food Scoop" was an additional source of information for them-~and recipes were the chief addition. Schools have available to them hundreds of government school lunch recipes but the comment made most frequently on the questionnaire was "more recipes." One might conclude that the recipes are not the right kind. Some schools specifically stated that they needed recipes using canned meat and hamburger. Other Sources of Information In order to evaluate the kinds of information needed, other sources must be analyzed. Newspapers and salesmen were important sources for price and trend information for all types of quantity food users. 112 Trade magazines supplied many new ideas and recipes for restaurants and hospitals. The schools looked to government sources for trend information, new ideas and recipes. The fact that very few hospitals answered this question may mean that the amount of information available has'been very limited. .A large number of all types of quantity food users thought "Food Scoop" was an additional source of information. Local price and market information was mentioned most cften as being the additional information supplied by "Food Scoop." Both schools and hospitals have available a monthly bulletin on national food outlook. The newspaper contains local marketing information which was used to some extent. Newspapers were more important than salesmen.as a source of information for hospitals. The fact that many small hospitals buy at retail may account for this. Kinds of Information.Needed More knowledge is now available on the kind of information needed. Meat, the primary item in food cost, is worthy of much attention. Basic information on wholesale meat buying is needed. The present price and trend information supplied by this program assumes knowledge beyond many food service operators. Trends and prices should be supplemented with explanations from time to time. Seasonal patterns could be dis- cussed. Some cost comparisons of primal and portion—cut meats would be very useful. Information on grades is definitely needed. News in meat buying could be featured-~for instance, information on tenderized beef, aged beef or new ready-to-cook meat items. These would not have to be evaluated but only listed as available. Most pertinent information of 113 the types described would have to come from local restaurant meat suppliers. This information should be directed to restaurants and hOSpitals for schools do not use red meat items to any extent. Poultry items were very important to all types of quantity food users. Although schools received some turkey in surplus, poultry was still one of the main protein foods purchased by schools. Over two- thirds of the hospitals bought all types of poultry. Restaurants bought fryersébroilers and turkeys to a large extent but less than half bought stewing and roasting chickens. Although the majority bought whole birds, some cost comparisons might be given between whole and parts. Boned and rolled turkeys are becoming a popular item. Such information might be pertinent. No study was made on the use of fish, but this is an important part of the school lunch program as it is for restaurants and hospitals. Canned fish has been an important item for schools. What kind of produce information should be given? Hospitals have been big users of fresh fruits and all kinds of fresh vegetables. Fewer restaurants and schools than hospitals bought fresh produce. About one-half of the restaurants and schools used three or more fresh fruits regularly and about one-third used some fresh vegetables for cooking. Over two-thirds used some fresh fruits and vegetables. Canned vegetables have been very important to schools and restaurants while frozen.vegetables have been used to a great extent by hospitals. Small hospitals and restaurants used less fresh produce than large institutions. These facts point out an important need for more information concerning llh canned and frozen fruits and vegetables. Any information on cost comparisons or advantages of one form over the other would be useful. There is some indication that there is a general lack of knowledge of produce specifications in restaurants, schools and hospitals. Price information in "Food Scoop" has assumed this knowledge. Much more information is needed in explaining terminology. More detailed infor- mation could be given identifying vegetable and fruit varieties. .Again the most pertinent information of this type can be obtained from local produce wholesalers. III. Is "Food Scoop" Meeting the Objectives Outlined by The Michigan MIC Program? If the objectives have been fulfilled in "Food ScOOp" and then transmitted to quantity food users, the recipients should profit and orderly marketing would be stimulated. As previously mentioned a large percentage of hospitals and schools and some restaurants have been reading and using the material. More thought needs to be given to reach more of the readers who have found "Food Scoop" of little value. Discussion of Objectives The following are the objectives. Each is discussed separately in its relationship to "Food Scoop" and quantity food users. "To provide quantity food users with regular and timelyfiinformation on.price_trends and peak seasons of supply and quality of agricultural foog_products." This information has been incorporated in "Food ScOOp" regularly but is it getting through to the reader? Often the information 115 is buried in description and not highlighted in any manner. Some method needs to be devised to boldly tell the reader the main foods in peak season. Too many foods listed destroys the purpose. Careful selection of a few items might gain more attention. Suggestions would be helpful on how these peak season items could be used. "To_provide information that will assist them in making wise choices in terms of serving_consumers and taking advantage of supply situations so as to ultimately aid orderly_movement of products." PrObably the price listing serves this objective best. Actual price comparisons are available for making wise choices. However, they can only be used as a guide, for prices fluctuate and vary too much to have accurate meaning. There is some indication that the use made of price information has been to compare prices with their wholesaler. This may serve a valuable purpose, but can it be incorporated as one of the objectives of the program? The purpose of price information might be met more satisfactorily if the good seasonal buys were emphasized through an asterisk, underlining or separation from a standard list. To meet this objective more cost or price comparisons could be given- for instance, between fresh, frozen and canned vegetables, different grades of meat or different sizes of eggs. This could not be done in every bulletin but one item might be selected each time. ‘With the indication of seasonal cycle menus and some long range planning, more information could be given on.over-all yearly patterns. "To assist food users in understanding_marketing situations that affect supply,gprice and quality," This objective may be met to some .4‘ 116 extent but often the information assumes too much knowledge or is written too subtly. Here, a chart could be given of the typical peak supplies for the month. Each time one item might be selected and then the production cycle briefly explained or some other item of interest in marketing. ' "To provide information that will assist_guantity_users in making wise use of foods purchased." This objective has been met to a great extent. One suggestion might be to Spread the information over more re- leases. .Also, since the needs differ with quantity food users, some method might be devised to alternate the type of information. From time to time arelease could be directed especially to each size and type of restaurant, school or hospital. "To open other avenues to reach consumers." Quantity food users are consumers although the more accepted definition refers to families. Since about one-fourth of the food dollar is spent for food served out- side the home, consumers can be served by buying information to restaurants, schools and hospitals. These quantity food users probably play an important part in developing food habits. IV. How Can Information Be Most Meaningfully Presented? Although the length of "Food Sc00p" has been satisfactory, there were many suggestions to make it "less wordy" and use fewer "fancy" adjectives. One of the suggestions made was to write incomplete sentences and to use more outlining. More thought should be given to thorough labeling and identifying charts. All pages and prices should be dated. 117 About one-half the schools and hospitals planned by the week. No similar question was asked of restaurants. weekly buying was common with restaurants which might indicate short range planning. However, with the relatively fixed menus much long range planning is necessary too. Since the trend and price information is only a guide, monthly information is probably adequate for most planning. About one-half the restaurants and about one-third the hOSpitals said they used U. S. Prime or Choice beef for all steaks, roasts and pot roasts. This may be slightly high. Should beef prices be quoted in U. 3. Choice or some other grade? Since prices are only a guide, the grade quoted is relatively unimportant. The main thing, probably, would be to select one grade, label it and then stick by it. Relation- ships and comparisons could be made more easily. If some other grade wereaparticularly good buy for that month, a few prices might be high- lighted separately. Since more restaurants and hospitals are using fabricated and portion-cuts than primal cuts, prices given for portion-cuts may be most valuable. Again, the prices must be identified as being wholesale and fabricated. The dates prices were obtained should be listed and the city identified. A few other results can be incorporated in writing information for "Food Scoop." Meat prices quoted in.price per pound seemed most valu- able. Any additional information in cost per serving could also be used. There was some preference that produce prices be quoted as specifically as possible by grade and variety. Obviously, not all 118 grades or varieties can be quoted. Preference was shown for less general description and more specific information in food trends. This is difficult to do, but an attempt might be made to write infor- mation which is easily translated and applicable to meal planning and food buying. Suggested Revisions in "Food Scoop" Examples fellow of some of the revisions which might be made for different sections of "Food Scoop." Food trends might be put in chart form making it easier to scan.‘ This tends to eliminate wordiness. One chart could show seasonal trends for meats and one for produce. One part of the meat chart could explain the seasonal cycle for each type of meat for that month based on.past years. The second part could briefly point out the current supplies. A couple of sentences under- neath the chart might select one meat or cut and briefly tell why the price is high or low'that month. For produce trends only the current items could be reviewed. .Again, one part could show typical seasonal supplies of locally grown and shipped-in produce; the other could tell the actual monthly expectations in supply and quality. These charts could take one page. The back of the sheet could contain buying tips explaining briefly grades, buying specifications, varieties and any other detailed pertinent information. For meat and produce prices fewer items might be listed-apossibly, just the meat and produce found to be standard purchases. The extras could be put in as seasonal specials. One suggestion might be to give the meat price quoted the previous month. This would help with pp. 119 comparisons and show Specific trends. Since prices are only guides, one average price would simplify the reading and use. .Another suggestion-- give the price comparisons for frozen and canned fruits and vegetables when these are featured as fresh produce. (See pages 123, 12h, and 125.) V. Do the Benefits of "Food Scoop" Exceed the Costs? ‘What are the approximate costs of preparing "Food Scoop"? The three main types of costs are professional time in.preparation, supplies and clerical time, and mailing costs. (Thezfollowing are the approximate costs for supplies and clerical time for 2000 copies of the present "Food Scoop" in Detroit:1 Avera e Month Cost Clerical Time 8h6.50 (about 27 hours/month) Cost of Supplies 69.00 (Ink, Paper, Envelopes) Address Plates and Upkeep ‘ 6.00 (Original cost of'82h0. spread over 5 years) "From the Big Kitchen" Supplies 25.00 Clerical .00 Total . $151.50 On the basis of 2,000 copies the unit costs for supplies and clerical time have been.about 7.5 cents. This unit cost would, prObably, remain fairly constant for varying amounts. Mailing costs would vary ..- with the volume. Professional costs would be constant no matter what tReceived from consumer agents in Detroit. 120 the volume. Roughly, on the basis of 2,000 copies the total per unit costs of the present "Food Scoop" might be about 17 cents. (The actual mailing list of quantity food users in Detroit has been about 750. The extra copies have been distributed in quantity lots for additional uses.) A reasonable estimte of the cost of "Food Sc00p" for Detroit has been between $14,000 and $5,000 yearly. The benefits in Detroit may exceed the cost when the dollar volume spent for food by quantity food users is considered. If one-fourth of the consumer food dollar is spent for food served outside the home, possibly one-fourth of the MIC resources should go toward this type of information. Could other cities adopt such a program? Probably not, because the volume of distribution would be too limited. Flint, the second largest city in Michigan, has a present mailing list of 150 which means the unit costs are much higher. From the analysis it appears some program should definitely be adopted for the hospitals throughout the state. Although schools said they used "Food Scoop", it is difficult to see how much of the infor- mation has been of value. The schools should probably remain on the list. They should be given more consideration in future information. Restaurants seemed to need and want information, but "Food Scoop" has not served the purpose. Greater consideration needs to be given restaurant problems . 121 VI . Recommended Plan Here is a suggested plan which might reach more quantity food users and serve each type more specifically. Costs would remain at a minimum. "Food Scoop" could probably be reduced in size. and still serve its purpose adequately. Instead of a five to six sheet (eight or nine pages) "Food Scoop" as presently sent in Detroit, it could be two to three sheets (three to five pages). The unit costs of 7.5 cents for supplies and clerical time might be cut. To make these changes might require more professional time, but with the increased volume the unit costs would be low. Mailing costs could be minimized by using the following plan . Plan for Preparation of "Food Scoop" Detroit could prepare a monthly two-page (one sheet) price guide (similar to the revised example, pages l2h-125) directed to restaurants. The state office could prepare a monthly two-page food trend-buying tip sheet (similar to the revised example, page 123) for restaurants, schools and hospitals. The Tourist and Resort Service of the School of Hotel, Restaurant and Institutional Ivianagement could prepare monthly one page of pertinent information directed to restaurants in Michigan. The Quantity Food Service Laboratory of the College of Home Economics could prepare one page of pertinent information directed to hospitals and/or schools. Recipes could probably be omitted from all. The type and size of recipe needs differ so greatly that they probably have '- limited use. This was the least popular type of information. Several 122 special non-periodic bulletins designed to provide the kind of recipe information needed by specific types of users would serve the need for recipe material much better. Pflan‘for Distribution of "Food Sc00p" Hospitals. The food trend-buying tip sheet and "From the Big Kitchen" could be mailed directly to the 819 hospitals and convalescent homes in the state. A mailing list is readily available. An alterna- tive would be to have it mailed with the Michigan Department of Health's monthly bulletin to a mailing list of 500. Public Schools. The food trend-buying tip sheet and "From the Big Kitchen" could be mailed to all schools on the National School Lunch Program. An arrangement could be worked out to send it with the infor- mation from the office of the State Superintendent of Public Instruction. Private Schools. The food trend-buying tip sheet and "From the Big Kitchen" could be sent in specified quantity lots to the cities with agents and mailedlocally. Restaurants. The Tourist and Resort information and the food trend-buying tip sheet could be sent to Detroit in quantity lots and mailed with a Detroit price sheet. The Tourist and Resort information I and the food trend-buying tip sheet could be sent in Specified quantity lots to the cities with agents and mailed locally to restaurants. 123 (Suggested Format) MICHIGAN FOOD TRENDS for the month of December Meat Trends Typical Trends for Expected Supplies and anallyit ii - i l Decei‘PELuii BEEF I U.S. Choice and Price medium this Prime season-will continue downward . U.S. Good and Commercial season—price starting up. PORK Low price season LAMB I Lowest price season VEAL Near high price peak POULTRY Prices rather constant Price medium this _‘___7 w ~1— late fall. Serve lamb now! Why are Lamb prices low? Sheep are born in spring and marketed in Supplies abundant in late fall and prices lowest. PRODUCE TRENDS mica Trends for December Expected Supplies and Quality v—v shipped-In Florida citrus in prime-wranges, grapefruit, temples, tan'gerines ' California potatoes starting-- Idaho fading. Brocolli, sprouts and spinach in good season. , Yams from Louisiana coming in. Local Apples, potatoes and onions available from storage. I fi—v (Suggested Format) DETROIT MEAT PRICE GUIDE Represents the approximate local wholesale prices that institutions would pay for fabricated or portion-cuts. Dec. 6' Price/ pound ‘Nov. 5 Price/ ound BEEF(U,S. Choice) Steaks TéBone Steak Club Steak ' N.Y. Strip (boneless) Sirloin Butt Stk. Filet Bottom Round CUbed Steak (U.S. Com.) Roasts Rib, (bone in) L Sirloin Butt (boneless) Top Round Miscellaneous Short Ribs Liver Stew'meat (U.S. Com.) Corned Beef PORK .Fresh Ham (bone in* Smoked Ham (bone in.and uncooked Pork Chops, center Bacon, top grade Spareribs Sausage, link bulk LAMB (U.S. Choice) Leg Loin Chops Rib Chops VEAL Liver, calves i Cutlets ! O O C S Fry.-Broilers Stew'Chickens Turkey, Whole Boned and Rolled Eggs Large Medium Small FISH Dec. 5 rice/ ound 12h Nov. 5 Price/ pound MONTHLY SPECIALS (Give price of any other grade or cut which may be in.peak supply. Asterisk any meats in regular columns which are "good buys" and remention them here.) (Suggested Format) DETROIT PRODUCE PRICE GUIDE Represents approximate local wholesale prices December 6, 195'? 125 Price per Expected Erice per Expectedl VEGETABLES Selling Unit Quality FRUITS elling Unit Quality Cabbage, white $0.00/crate Apples ,No.1 I red /crate (List McIntosh 0.00/bu. . (List Carrots ’ /50 lb. good, 'Wealthy ‘u. good, Celery,Pascel /16 stk.t fair, ‘Wolf River /bu. fair ' ’ white H /h doz. or > No. Spy 1 /bu. or Cucumbers /bu. poor) ‘Bananas /35 lb. poor) Green.Peppers u. Grapefruit Tomatoes [ /20 lb. ; I Florida, Salad Greens Ind. River /80‘s I Head Lettuce ‘t ;2h‘s I ) Calif. /80's Leaf 10 lb. Texas Romaine [ /crate Ind . ’River /80v s Bibb I /5 lb. ‘ I Endive ) /crate [ I Escarole /crate Parsley /doz. {Oranges , 1. Florida, , - [Potatoes 1 Ind. River /?OO'S Mich.,No. l E /lOO lb. » Calif. ‘ , Maine,No. l l /50 lb. f r Sunkist ) /113's Idaho,No. l > _ * I 100% Baker, I: /100 lb. ‘ #Lemons /lSO's [ Calif.,No. l . /100 lb. E _ p ’ 1 Spanish / 0 lb. 1 . i L white 50 lb. E f Yellow /50 lb. Green /doz. f i ) Fruit or Vegetable SEASONAL SPECIALS Price/selling unit Expected Quality l tam FROZEN FRUITS &:VEGETABLES 1+ Price/selling'unit i l CANNED FRUITS &:VEGETABLES Item w \ '- Price/selling unit BIBLIOGRAPHY Monthly Releases Food Marketing Program, Food Cues and Views for Institutions, Coopera- Extension Work in Agricfififre and HomefiEconomics, TH E: hth St. Bldg. , Cincinnati 2, Ohio. Food Marketing Program, Food Facts Digest, New England Extension Services Marketing Information Office, 1408 Atlantic Ave., Boston 10, Massachusetts. Food Marketing Program, Fopd for Institutions J C00perative Extension Work in Agriculture and Home EconomicsTLOSl Broadway, Kansas City 11, Missouri. Food Marketing Program, Highlights, Cooperative Extension Work in Agri- ' culture and Home Economics, 1 Park Place, New York ‘7, New York. Michigan Department of'Health, Nutrition Service, F_‘ood Notes for Institutional Food Service, (monthly release),Tansing, Michigan. Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction, Plentiful Foods Monthly List and Hot Tips for School Lunches, (monthly release'ST), Lansing, Michigan. II III I Bulletins Agricultural Experiment Station and College of Home Economics, Whole and Nonfat 1332 Milk in Quantity Food greparation, Ciroular'fi‘fietin 223 , c gan State University, st Lansing, Michigan Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA, Survey of Food Utilization in Schpol Lunch Prog%m's in @LLRhode Islan Schools: Preliminaryfi fifirt, November",— 955CW II I —7 _ Foley, Agnes C., Ming Food for Your 03332, Food Marketing Leaflet 10, Food Marketing rogram, ew Yor State Extension Services, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York. Interagency Committee on Nutrition Education and School Lunch, Selected References on Nutrition and School LunchJ Revised January I933. v—v—vvv—vfi —— fivv 126 l2? Knight, Gladys E., Quantity Food Purchasing Circular R-SOO, Agricultural Emperiment Station, Cooperativef Extension Service, East Lansing, Michigan, November 1956. Proud, Dorothy M., wood for Your NursingHome, Food Marketing Leaflet 12, Food ketingTrogram,v NewfiYIork—State Extension Service, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York Wenzel, George L., Handbook of Restaurant Cgsts. Wenzel, George L., The Seven Steps to a bi Food Cost, Publication Press, Inc. Balto. Miscellaneous Annual Rgort, lggg, AMA Project-Michigan 96-1, Marketing Information for Consumers COOperatlve ension Service, 'c 'gan State University, “fist Lansing, Michigan. Annual Report 1356, AMA Proisct-Michigan h§26-6, Marketing Information for Consumers Cooperative tension Service, Michiganifi State ' University, East Lansing, Michigan. As It Looks to the Editor, School Lunch Program, National Livestock Producer, January 1957. _ Long, Don L., Extension Marketin Information and the Restaurant Ifidustgy, Consumer Food Marfieting, Agrictftural ExtensioKService, 0 10 State University. A. MSU FOOD HANDLERS SURVEY Sample No. 1. Please classify type of food service: Counter service ¢ Cafeteria Table service Drive-In Table-counter serVice # Other( SP9013Y5____ a. What is the seating capacity? 2. What position do you hold? 3. How often is your menu or Clip-on changed? Permanent menu (no clip-one used) Weekly changes Daily changes other (specify) 11. In what form do you usually buy meat? List outs for each group. i BEEF PORK VEAL LAMB I Fresh Frozen Fresh Frozen Fresh Frozen Fresh Frozen,l Primal cut 3 (hotel cuts) . Fabricated (Ready-to- cook roasts 3: large cuts) Portion-cut (Fabricated Per person Servings) 2 J 5. Check type of place where you usually buy meats Meat packer Retail Store or Super Mkt. He at whole 8 aler Other ( spe cify) 6. Check the grade of beef you usually buy for the following: U.S. Prime U.S. U.S. Standard Other or Choice Good or Commercial (specify) Steaks (broil) Pot Roasts Roast Beef A. 7. Check in what form you usually buy poultry items? Fresh Frozen Whole Parts Fryers-Broilers Stewing Chickens Roasting Chickens Turkeys 8. Does seasonal price, quality and supply determine kind or cut of meat you buy? Frequently Occasionally Never a. What other factors may be more important than current market situation? 9. List kinds of fresh fruits and vegetables you buy regularly. YEAR AROUND IN SEASON Fruits Vegetables 10. Do you use frozen vegetables? Yes NO a. List kinds of frozen vegetables you use frequently. 11. Do relative price changes of small, medium or large eggs determine the size you buy? Yes, for all uses Yes, for some uses No 12. Check your most important source for each of the following types of food information. Current Future supplies New ideas Recipes Eric es and quality or methods ‘lride magazines ,flspaper, Radio, TV Wholesalers, Salesmen Government (Fed. , St.) Other (specify) B. MSU FOOD HANDLERS SURVEY Sample No. Please classify your institution: Hospital Rest Home Other (specify) __ a. What is the approximate number of dimers served at one meal period? 2.. What position do you hold? 3. How far in advance are your menus planned? about one week about one month Other (Specify) a. Do you use a cycle menu (repeat pattern): Yes No Comment: 11. In what form do you usually buy meat? List cuts for each group. BEEF PORK VEAL LAMB Fresh FroZen Fresh 4 Frozen Fresh Frozen Fresh Frozen Primal cuts (hotel cut 3) Fabricated (Ready-to... cook roasts a large cuts) ‘ Portion-cut (Fabricated 1391‘ person servings ) “ 5. Check type of place where you usually buy meats Meat packer Retail Store or Super Market Moat wholesaler Other (specify) 5. Check the grade of beef you usually buy for the following: U.S. Prime U. S. U. S. Standard Other or Choice Good or Commercial (specify) Steaks (broil) . A. ..______. Pot Roasts .——-—— —- Roast, Beef s B. 7. Check in what form you usually buy poultry items? Fresh Frozen Whole Parts Fryers-Broilers Stewing Chickens Roasting Chickens Turkexg 8. Does seasonal price, quality and supply determine kind or cut of meat you buy? Frequently Occasionally Never a. What other factors may be more important than current market situation? 9. List kinds of fresh fruits and vegetables you buy regularly. EAR AROUND IN SEASON Fmifi Vegetables 10. Do you use frozen vegetables? Yes No a. List kinds of frozen vegetables you use frequently. 1.1. Do relative price changes of small, medium or large eggs detemine the sine you buy? Yes, for all uses __ Yes, for some uses No 12. Check your most important source for each of the following types of food. Current Future supplies New ideas Recipe 3 Prices 8r. quality or methods l'rade magazines ‘ Newspaper, Radio, TV ‘Iholesalers Salesmen) 3overnment (Fed., St.) )ther (specify) L3. In your opinion does"Food Scoop“ provide any additional information to the above sources? Yes No What? MSU FOOD HATIDILRS SURVEY C. S ample NO 9 1. Please list your school name City County a. Classify type school: Public __ Private 2, What position do you hold? 3. How many complete lunches do you serve daily? h. Do you participate in Federal School Lunch Program? Yes No 5. Check about what part of your schools foods are served from Federal surpluses during the year. 75% 50% 25% None No idea Eggs __ Milk _________ m__._______- __ Vegetables _ _____________- -_-_____. -_....-.._...._.-- __ _ __ Heats _ .._..-..._.. “_ ___________ __ -___...... _ 6. Who plans your school's menus? School lunch manager City supervisor Combined school lunch managers in area Other (specify) __ 1’. How far in advance are your menus planned? about one week about one month Other (Specify?) 4.-.. -g_ a. Do you use a cycle menu (repeat pattern)? Yes No Comment: ‘3. Who buys the food for your school? School lunch manager (buys for one school) Central buyer (buys for number of schools) Other (specify) 9. What protein foods do you use most often in main dishes? Indicate if purchased or from Government surplus during the past 1-3 years. Protein Food (Meat, poultry, fish, eggs, cheese) Purchased Govt. surplus For meats, list specific cut. (usually) (usually) L o___ a Q; $1..._ F” l_\.' C. 10. Check the most important reason which determines your choice of a main dish. Surplus foods Children's prefe-Eence Good seasonal buy A Other (specify) Comment: 11. List kinds of fresh fruits and vegetables you buy regularly. _. Yangmgqurm IN SEASON Fruits Vegetables 12. Do you use frozen vegetables? Yes No a. List kinds of frozen vegetables you use frequently. 13. Do relative price changes of small, medium or large eggs determine the size you buy? Yes, for all uses Yes, for some uses No 11:. Check your most important source for each of the following types of food information. Current ( Future supplies New ideas ' Recipes ' Prices & quality or methods QDVSane nt...( Ead_...__i)_3t . ewSpaper Radio ,___'I_‘V - -.u—ou .—a———v--._o.-« -—— 0"-“‘0‘Q‘hn—‘hr‘ gnu-g...‘ _.-.-~.-—n-.~—o -4p- .hfiféis‘al'ers , alesmen Other (specify) 15. In your opinion does "Food Scoop" provide any additional information to the above sources? Yes No What? '-.0. ~ I m-l I'd 0.1 flu" ("f l. 2. 3. h. D. IBU FOOD HANDLERS SURVEY Do you read "Foodw (monthly bulletin)? Regularly Occasionally Never g Cmentzwv ; M __ # The following kinds of infomati on are usually in Food Scoop. (See attached copy.) Check frequency you have used each kind. Regularly Occasionally Never Monthly supply and quality changes on local market (’TOOdTrendB“).......... # __ Current local meat prices. . . . . . - A _____ Current local fresh fruit and "gamble prices. 0 o o o c o o o o General food information ("From the Big Kimhm“). o o o o o A Recipes............... ............ Commentzfl “ a What is your opinion on the usual length of Food Scoop? Just right Too long g A Too short Comment: ‘ p A i - Do you file any of this information? Yes No Check in which form meat price information would be most helpful to you in menu planning or meat Ewing. a. _ b. __ A ‘ 0. QJM d. Cost per pound Cost per ounce Servings Cost per None 52 - 56¢ 39; - 3&9} per lb. serving 1. 13 - 1M Confluent: i A # Check which of these two types of statements would be more helpful to your menu planning and meat buying. a. b. c 0 Beef: Due to a decline in the Beef: Supply of high quality Neither a normal supply of fancy beef down with average grain-fed cattle, prices prices up 2¢ per lb. are unusually high. from last month. There are plenty lower Average prices of lower grades of gras s-fed grade beef down 19! from cattle available to be last month. prepared by moist cookery. W________ __ __ ___I# .‘J" 7. Check which of these two types of price infomatifirrWT-d'be'mvre helpful in potato buying. C a. A“ ‘ ‘ “ ‘ “- \ Calif. a ssh-5.50 Galif. No. 1 100% A we,“ $5.5d Idahr 100# -6.50 Idaho No. 1 ' 5 iooz'aaker 100# $6.50 Idaho NO. 1 25% Baker 100# $5.50 Maine 100# 3.5.00 :Maine No. 1 "Chef" 100# $5.00 Mich. loo# 3-h.oo Mich. No. 1 100# $h.oo Cwment:__ ‘wii__ i, 8. In ordering the following produce, indicate how you designate size, quantity Size ‘ Quantity Quality Grapefruit Tomatoes Lettuce ___ Celery __-_ 9. Do you consider Food Scoop a useful service? Yes __ No __ Possibly” 10. How would you suggest Food SCOOp be changed to me more helpful to your food service? .o... h I MSU FOOD PM‘JDLERS SURVEY l. The following kinds of information could be in a food buying bulletin. (See atached sample "Food Scoop") Check how useful each kind would be to you. Very Useful Ibnthly supply & Quality changes on local market (Food Trends) . . . . . . . Useful Not useful Current local meat prices . . . . . . . (hrrent local fresh fruit and vegetable priceSOOOoooooooooooooo (mneral food information (From the BigKitChen).............. Rrecipes: . . . . . . Comment: 2. ‘Nhat is your opinion on the length of the sample "Food Scoop"? Just right Too long Too short Comment: 3. Check in which form advance meat prices would be most helpful in menu planning or meat buying. d. 8‘. b. C. Cost per lb. Cost per ounce Servings Cost per 52 - 56¢ 3% - 3%¢ per lb. serving - h 13-Jl;¢ Comment: None h. Check which type of advance information would be more helpful to your menu planning and meat buying. 8.. b. Co Beef: Due to a decline in Beef: Supply of high qual- the normal supply of c' ity'beef down with a fancy grain—fed cattle, average prices up 2¢ prices are unusually per lb. from last month. high. There are plenty Average prices of lower lower grades of grass-fed grade beef down l¢ from cattle available to be last month. . prepared by moist cookery. Con-me! 1+; : *H'M _,._.,.......-~ w a--- MA .. -.--.’>>-._--_.~———‘_— Neither E. 5. Check which of these two types of price information would be more helpful in potato buying. at k be 4 ('0 fl Calif. 100# 3311-550 Calif. No. 1 Neither 1007; A 100# $35.50 Idaho 100%! 5.6.5.0 Idaho No. 1 . 100% Baker 100# $6.50 ( Idaho No. l 25% Baker 100# $5.50 Maine 100# h-5.00 Maine No. l "Chef" 100$ a5.oo Mich. 100%; 3-11.00 Mich. No. 1 we? $114.00 Comment: 6. In ordering the following produce, indicate howgygu designate size, quantity, and quality. Size Quantity Quality Grapefruit Tomatoes lettuce fiery , 7. ”ould you consider this bulletin "Food Scoop" a useful service? | Yes No Possibly 3. If such a bulletin.were made available in the Lansing area, would you like to be put on a mailing list? Yes No 9. What suggestions would you make for such a bulletin to be useful to your food service? "‘Immmnommmmmonmcoomrm generalisation. nommmmooaooonmmnmromva You answer: A FEW QUESTIONS ABOUT m 1. Is Foodsooop very useful partly useful no value to you (If useful) What part do you find helpful? 2. What would you suggest to make Foodscoop more useful to You? NOW, JUST A COUPLE FACTS ABOUT YOUR RESTAURANT: 3. What is the seating capacity of your restaurant? ~ h. How often is your menu or clip-on changed? Permanent (noaclip-cns used) Weekly changes fl Daily changes .. Other m a. Do you make your mom changes according to seasonal price and supply? Frequently Occasionally __, Never b. What else determines what the menu changes will be? COOPERATIVE EXTENSION W’ORK IN AGRICULTURE AND HOME ECONOMICS STATE OF MICHIGAN COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE MARKETING INFORMATION FOR CONSUMERS MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY [15. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE [oedema/o —- FOR INSTITUTIONS ‘ ..“a—m Consumer Marketing Information Agent v F o o D c U T L o 0 K F o R t S 7 iNeat: Large supplies for the year but a little below 1956 supply. Costs will probably be slightly higher. Beef: Top quality beef supplies expected to be larger in first half of.year, a little smaller later. ' Pork: Pork supplies down slightly first six months, but will increase the second half of year. Lamb: Same as 1956. - - Poultry: Another big production year, exceeding record set in 1956. Eggs: High production, favorable prices for consumer. Dairyu Continuation of up trend in supply. Fruits and ‘ legetabigg} supplies expected to be adequate. ”F O O D ~. T R E N D_§ 3E : Good supply of high-quality beef with front quarters moving more rapidly . . . resulting in better prices on hind quarters. A wholesale check on January 7 showed beef prices up an average of l/2 cent, beef liver up 2 l/2 cents. PORK: Less than average supply for this time of year. Report of January 7 shows pork loins up h 1/2 cents, Boston butts down 1 cent, pork liver up 3 1/2 cents, smoked hams up 2 cents.' POULTRY: Turkey market remains about the same. Fowl up 2 cents. §§§§3 Large eggs down 2 to 3 cents a dozen, mediums down 1 cent. 2.4.22. EEQLGCTS: In good supply. Butter down l/h cent. EEQETABLES: 'Fresh vegetables in good supply'icr the season. Shipments coming fifi' in.from Galifornia, Texas, and Florida. Michigan potatoes in good 'Supply and of good quality. Prices lower than those shipped from ‘out of state. Efifllflé: Good supply of Michigan apples and all citrus fruits. Also pineapples, pears, and various other fruits.. U. s. D. a, P L Egggr I F UfiL F o o D s M g_N T H L Y L I s T Features: Eggs, Potatoes, Canned Sweet Corn. Other . - EifintigBle Beef, Pork, Turkey, Broilers & Fryers, Ocean Perch Fillets, Milk '_7& Other Dairy'PrOducts, Onions, Dried Prunes, Dates, Canned Purple Plums. . males _s_2aIEC_T_._To_ cums. .WITEQULNOTICE VEGETABLE SELLING UNIT UNIT PRICE Beans, Green 28 lb. hamper $5.50 Beets Dozen 1,20 Broccoli 28 lb. crate 5.75l. Brussels Sprouts Quart _ .30- Cabbage 50 lb. bag - 3.00 2?— Red Case h.OO lie: Carrots .22: Michigan solbnbaa 3-50 7-;7‘ Texas New 50 lb. bag, h.00 :73 Cauliflower Case 3.50 ~:a Celery. Florida White Dozen SE, 1.90 .3 California Pascal 12'g,‘16's cases 75.50 3;— Chives Pot .20 Cucumbers Bushel (Choice or Fancy) 6.00 Eggplant Case 11.00 Pound 025 Garlic Pound .50 Greens Bibbs Lettuce Basket._15 - 20 heads 2'75 £27 Collard Greens Bushel 2-75 he” escarole Dozen, . . . 2-00 iii Head Lettuce h's dozen. 5'5 dozen ZOSO'ueee ES? --__,;ear Lettuce 10 1b. basket h.2> .53: Mustard Greens Bushel 2'73 fig? Parsley Dozen _*___“,w-_,._ 1020 ;§:; _ - “Bargains: ,_-_,,,_ _-_.____ D<;Z§§J__Q_e}:li°.§>_r§i§_ 150 if Turnip Greens __,H . .395521--1_...._..-.-l -___ .Hi2;Z§_____u___.—_ Eg— 'Peppers, Green,—Caiifornia Basket 5.50 BBQ Horseradish (pure) Dozen 5'02. 2'00 -C;N “Mushrooms- _-_ .__..- _-._.__...._.,--_-..,Pint_- - .. _ - .. .. :35 if QUart .70 3:? Onions §§i .__...§neen-.0nions Dozen 1.;0 3‘5“ Spanish 50 lb. 2-88 \ __M_Yellow so lb. . __\\ White 50 lb. 17.03 \ ' fr~ Parsnips Basket 2.50 QEL Peas 28 1b. hamper Shogo 1‘ Potatoes ' ~$§3 Idaho Long WhitanNoLI 100 lbs. 5.50 is? Idaho Long White, No. 2 100 lbs; 11.5? get-1 ’-.Idaho Bakers 100 lbs. "E 46-507 ii! Maine 50 lbs,, Chef's Special 2.50 §§3 Michigan 100 lbs. 3.25. \ .xlts Radishes Dozen cello 1.00 if: -- -—.—-—_——— ./, ii.- I i / V’r ..-' lq/I' .‘IIA ‘\ /k l; I l (continued) VEGETABLE SELLING UNIT UNIT PRICE Squash Butternut £11.53ch __ $52 . Co Hubbard Bushel 2.50 Sfimmer ._”_;BESheI ___ 3.00 Table Queen Bushel 1.7; Sweet Potatoes (fancy) 50 lbs. 5.50 Tomatoes Box 3.§O Turnips Bushel 3.00 22 ee- e2 e2 92 22 22 FRUIT SELLING UNIT UNIT PRICE Apples ‘- ’.' Cortland Crate .3.SO MCIntosh Crate _ _u__ 3.50 L___jhi§hi§anEDeIICICu§m—.~__”‘~""__ Crate ~_m___ 3;EQ__,,, _«,_1__ - Massacre: ‘7 "7 - __o.a. - - __._:7aoo -__,Romes____wn Crate _g. 0 m_m_mm____-- ___;§Ne§tern Dglicious Box;_E5 - 72’s .75 V Avocados ,Aw¥ Bos,_20fs __mm______3.75 —Bafianas - I Crate——. “'EoSO u___ __ wCSEBahuts ‘“_"""'""'"""“"_"WWD5EéH’"fi'_*"_F_-—~_-m——._‘—.‘ .0' Citrus - .__W__m_.“__,____i-_g_i- ._- ___ Grapefruit _ __._____,_. Box, 70 453's . 5.59.-1----_---__-.._ wmpenloni 126 - 150, Sunkist 6.00 Limes --M Box 5.00 _”____“,_ ‘MuOEang—Ss flfliforfia: Bog: _____ $1M? - . 9 Oranges _ 150 Box , 5.00 Tangerines 176 box 39ZEN._-«~_. mg 1_g§anberries Case, 1 lb. pk. *_ §.QQ_ __Dates ’ Bulk case,_YO lbs,_ 12.50 Grapes, Emperor Case 5.53 Nuts ' Almonds Pound _. :ha ____~_ -___“E£§§ill-..__.i.._-_l Pound " _ ‘_” .oh9_ _m___wm, Chestnuts Pound .20 Filberts _, Pound __ .hém ......._- ....- Peanuts 12 oz. package .29 Pegans Pound ___ .h9 __“_ Walnuts Pound 1:30 I- Mixed Pound .U7 --_. ._Peaches Case 3.2; : Pears,_DIAnjou Case _“. “M__6;T§ ”,m””_*mmmm_ Pineapple 9 cases -__ '3. -1 L;PIums Bushel 8.50 fi THESE PRICESmSU’BJECT 513g CHANGE WITHOUT NOTICE ‘ 1 Q .«n dam-041E .p ‘Tf‘ RI II?“ a... APPROXIMATE COST PER SERVING SUGGESTIONS These foods are listed by approximate cost per serving. One'serving means l/2 cup fruit or cooked vegetables; 3-1/2 to h ounces cooked meat, poultry, or fish; one cup milk; 2 or 3 ounces cheese; and 2 medium eggs. from wholesale and restaurant supply sources. are not included in cost per serving. Most prices are Costs of seasonings and trimmings SERVING PER IEAT POUND Veal Ground Veal Pattie -h- Stew Meat -5- Shoulder Roll ~3- Drumsticks ~h- Boneless Leg ~3- Outlet Chops -h- Daub Lamb Ring -h- Ground.Iemb tucked in shoulder and sliced to look like a chop Rolled Lamb -h- Lamb Shoulder —2%- Lamb Shmnm: -3- Leg of Lamb -3- Beef Hearts ‘ ~5- Patties (2 oz.) -8- Dried, Chipped -8- Stew -5- Liver -h- Short Ribs -2- Corned Beef Brisket -h- Tongue -3- Sirloin Butts (Commercial) -3- Chuck Boneless (Commercial) ~3- Swiss and cube (Commercial) -h- Chuck (Good) -3- Sirloin Butts (Good) -3- Standing Rib (Good) ~2- Pork Liver -5- End Cut Pork Chop -h- Boneless Shoulder Roast -h- Pork Hecks ~3/h# /serving- Boneless Pork Loin - - Fresh Ham -3- Round Boneless Smoked Ham -h- Canned Ham ~h- Center Cut Chops -1... COST PER SERVING 1h¢-16¢ 10¢-13¢ 19¢-22¢ 17¢-2o¢ 18¢-21¢ 20¢-2S¢ 23¢-26¢ 15¢~17¢ 23¢~27¢ 20¢-23¢ 21¢—25¢ 27¢~3o¢ 29¢~33¢ h¢- 7¢ h¢~ S¢ 7¢-10¢ 6¢- 9¢ 9¢-1h¢ lO¢-13¢ 1h¢~l7¢ '1h¢-17¢ 15¢-18¢ 11¢-1h¢ 18¢-21¢ 17¢-20¢ 22¢-26¢ 33¢-36¢ h¢~ 6¢ 8¢-11¢ 12¢-15¢ 15¢-17¢ 16¢-l9¢ lh¢-18¢ 20¢—22¢ 19¢-22¢ 420¢=23¢ FISH Under 202 202-30¢ err ng ake Perch Smelt Buffalo 'White Bass Whitefish Frozen Fillets: Trout COd’ salmon.Steak Haddock Scallops Halibut medium Shrimp Salmon Perch :30'eh0 Nerthern Pike umbo hrimp Yellow Pickerel Red Snapper walleyes 60g-752 Lobe or Tails I 32-6g Fresh.Milk Chocolate Milk Cottage Cheese DAIRY'FOODS 6g-10g JIe .um Eggs Cheese Spreads iMilk‘Cheddar Cheese 2 Large Eggs WINE [XIENSIUN SERVIEE ’ new STATE umvsksm Inns 2| (.0an "WOMMMQN IISTITUTI.NS m Demon . FOOD TRENDS IN THE DETROIT AREA . HEADLINERS Pe' U With Spring Menusl . COUNT YOUR PENNIES COOPERATIVE EXTE‘ISION WORK in Agriculture and Home Economics Cooperative Extension Service Michigan State University Marketing and Consumer Information U.S.Department of Agriculture Cooperating Consumer Marketing Information Program Offers: Monthlz Institutional Letter "Food Scoop for Institutions" Weekly Press Market Report-Thursday Detroit News Market Basket-Thursday Detroit Times Market Tips-Friday Detroit Free Press Food Scoop in neighborhood and suburban papers Listen for "Marketing Tips" on the Jack Harris' show, Thursday, 9:30 A.M. - WJR Call TRinity 3—0151 for daily taped market information. ergWfl/gw (Mrs.Y Marjorie G. Gibbs Consumer Marketing Information Agent ..‘. I (Mrsa) Marjorie G. Gibbs Consumer Marketing Information Agent 318 Boulevard Building 7310 Woodward Avenue Detroit 2, Michigan- June 1, 1957 *FOOD TRENDS IN THE DETROIT AREA - MAY 29,; 1957 TURKEY: June production is estimated larger than ever before, especially in birds over 18 pounds. Mature hen turkeys, over a year old, are plentiful. When cooked by moist heat, they are delicious - for hot or cold slices, salads, casseroles sandwiches, etc. FRYERS: Supplies are abundant. Temporary price inc'reesesare expected to drOp before the middle of the month. f m: Prices are at a low level at this time of the year. Supplies are heavy. Wise institutional buyers will take advantage of new menu possibilities. LAMB: Yearling lamb has about disappeared from the market and more of the; genuine Springlamb, born in 1957, is appearing. As sizes increase, quality will also increase, and prices will drop. Front- quarter cuts are the best values now. BEEF: Marketings of the choice grade cattle are expected to reach a peak and decrease during June. Though there is an abundance of top quality beef, prices are climbing. More grass-fed beef will be available. ‘ ' PORK: As the number of hogs marketed . continues to fall off, prices will in- crease slowly. Such shoulder cuts as the Boston butt are among the better values. More edible meat is supplied per food dollar. Food handlers will also be interested in fresh hams and bacon. VEAL: Little change in supply or price is anticipated. In May prices increased fractionally. . , *SU'PP ES ‘ 'IPRImMAYSI I - "i" AREAS, ETC. EGGS: The market continues to be low, due primarily to farm marketings heavier than a year ago, and large Storage holdings. H owever, production may decrease slight- ly. Large sizes are the best values, but extra large and Jumbo sizes will decrease. DAIRY: Production of more milk is anti- cipated this June than in any single previous month. There is an abundance of all dairy products for Dairy Month. For emergencies, keep a stock of evaporated milk, condensed milk or dry milk on hand. They take little space, need no refrigeration and are nutritious. FISH AND SHELIFISH: With the opening of the northwest Gan adian lakes, a larger catch of whitefish, with improved qual- ity and lower prices, is anticipated. There should be little change in supply or price of lake perch, though pickerel may. advance very slightly. Trout is available. The smelt run is over. There are ample supplies of all oceanfillets and frozen fish. Shrimp is still scarce and high . in price, and no change is expected during the month. VEGETABLES .ASPARAGUS: All late spring yields are above average. The Michigan crop will be abundant all month and prices are low. Buy asparagus that has been kept cold - it toughens fast when warm. 3 GREEN ONIONS: Local production is reach- ing a peak period. For best quality and mild flavor, select only the white ‘- varieties. Ii 1W:- » *o RAINF , E, m GREENS: Nearby supplies of cellard, ' mustard and turnip greens will increase during the month. Romaine and leaf ' lettuce will also be available at lower costs for salads. The simplest way to improve the diet is through the addition of greens. . POTATOES: Supplies will be plentiful. The crop will come mainly from California where growing conditions have been ex- cellent and yields of top quality long white potatoes are record high. Compet- ition betwaen old and new stocks are holding prices low. RADISHES: Local harvests will be plenti- ful In June. Prices are expected to be lower than a year ago. TOMATOES: Favorable cr0p prospects pre- vEII, though cool weather and hard rains retarded growth in some areas. Peak shipments will arrive by the last of the month, to add to local supplies. Prices are dropping. FRUITS BANANAS: Unusually low prices have been prevalent. Though quality will continue to be good, June imports are expected to drop. Prices will return to average. Bananas provide many opportunities for tempting breads, salads or desserts. CHERRIES: June is the peak month for sweet cherries, continuing through July. Though a record crop was expected in California, recent rains destroyed much of the fruit. Quality will improve. by the middle of the month. N “- ‘wn‘ aw.“ w those of 22216”. In Plentiful Supply: Radishes, Collard, Cabbage, 1., stard and Turnip Greens, Green Onions, Potatoes, Strawberries, Eatermelon. In Moderate Supply: Asparagus, Green Beans, Beets, Cucumbers, Honeydews, Green Peppers, Tomato Grapefruit. ‘ In Light Supply: Sorrell Greens, C elery, Eggplant, Apricots. "amen FARMERS' MARKETS AND DETROIT UNION ' peak in 71.1116 0 Ievels due to record high stocks and less: ' _ export trade. , \ Spinach, Bibb Lettuce, leaf Lettuce, Romaine, Cabbage, Cantalcupe’ Carrots, Corn, es, Bananas, Ch’erx‘ies’ Pineapple, Plums, Apples, Broccoli, Dill, Kale, Summer S Turnips, Artichokes, Avocadoes, Cauliflower, , Endive, Escarole, Grapes, Sweet Potatoes, CHANGES: Both Florida and California are shipping excellent quality Valencia Juice oranges. The navel season is drawing to a close. Though the fruit may be greez' it is still sweet, for at the last of the‘ season it often turns back to green. SEAWBERRIES: The total crop reaches a " It is expected to be re- . Shipments; cord high and of fine quality. are arriving from many southern states, , Indiana and California. Recent rains in Z Calfornia may have effected the extra- ’ ordinary large crap. The Michigan (Benton Harbor season will begin on June 1 and reach a peak between June 12 - 18. ~ CANNED, FROZEN AND STAPLES ‘ I — ASPARAGUS: Though the new pack is about 5; the same size as last year, more efficienf‘g - productidn methods are expected to decree: prices. flu ~ N Prices are at rockbottom :E ~ FATS AND OILS: FREESTONE PEACHES: Stocks are 80% larger than they have been in any previous season. Attempts are being made to de- plete the supply by decreased prices - before the new pack begins. OLIVES: All types are showing a healthy decrease in price following indications of a much improved crap this year. [5"... I." $111.11.“? [5‘5 I ._I‘.'." I- ‘_ l, I PECANS AND WALNUTS: Much increased crap yields have caused supplies to be an excellent value. Prices are drastically .- 1r: /~"-r [LI/V " (:3! li.‘ Lettuce, Lmes\0nions, Oranges, ." i/w -'/. .1-/’_‘ ""‘l A n 3 qdlash, Parsley, Rhubarb, "‘-.- \ a NW 11311101030102 9111010 BEES S PER POUND, UNCOOKED . ' CHOICE COST MEAT CHOICE COST 3 » NEAL masseuse $1.75 - 1.78 2.50 Prime Calves Liver t .95 - 1.10 # 1: Steak ‘ Ee—g $9 .60 "' .63 _._ 818m. Steak $1.7 751-1 .8 2 .50 Prime Outlets a. .89 - 1.00 ISirloinSteak $1. 50 - 1.80 2. 70 Prime Lo:i_n Chops 1:? .85 __ i1et - $3.01, 1. 75’ Comm. Rib Chops t .75 _. lub' Steak $1.50 - ILSS 1.70 Prime Stew 8 . _i 15 971181653 9" $2.314 - 2.115 3.15 Prime fibed Outlet 8 .6 i1 Stri Steak Breast S .20 - 42 Sirloin Roast 5 .72 - .80 .82 - .90 W Boneless Butt ___ FISH COST PER POUND Woast $5 .70 - .79 .99 Prime Red Snapper 8.32 - .65 Dressed ellbsd Steak 3:51.15 - 1.251 Yellow Pickerel 8.65 — .8; Filleted :5 med Beef 3 .55 - .58 Kosher-Trimmed $.32 — .115 DressegL zfifleak . .60 - .65 Steer TFEut $.65 - .80 Dressed .: . huck §g .110 Commercial 1.20 Filleted . Round 1} .118 Commercial Salmon Steak 8. 69 -m Stew 3:; .118 Commercial Whitefish t. 50 - .10 Dressed ~HEN. Ribs .1111 - 749i Trimmed - Blue Pickerel h. 55 - .70 Filleted :11ver :1 .39 Lake Perch : .30 - Filleted 031535-19 8 .23 - .2§ __ White Bass .20 - .30 Dressed t.h0 - .50 Filleted Herring $.22 - .30 DressegL Smelt .1». 30 Cleaned ;_ Haddock ".143 - .50 1.. Cod 8.32 - .16 _ FROZEN Ocean Perch $.27 - .36 Fillets Cod $2.26 - .33 Fillets Haddock 39.31 - .110 Fillets Halibut Steaks“ is 53 - .65 *_ Silver Brite Salmon Steaks $.53 - .70 _‘ Silver Salmon Steaks $.59 - .75 SHELFISH LObster Tails $1.30 " 1060 Depending on Size___ iLimbo Shrimp $1. 05 - 1. 20 Madimn Shrimp $.90 - 1.00 Scallops S. 63 - .93 . _a D n 3 ,. Shoulder * ependigigo ize / Boneless .56 OTHER Bone-in .38 .143 ‘ EFF—Le s 1.1.65 - 2.00 '1'..- Shoulder Chops teeter-es _I:_e_ast . ' Iii-var ' SELLING UNIT UNIT PRICE [11% 121 bunch $9 .90 - 1.00 28 1b. hamper 8h. 0 - 5:7 11 bunch crate 83.2 - 3. 0 50 lb. sack 82.7 3-00 VEGETABLES Asparagus,fMichigan Snap Beans Broccoli Cabbage - 50 lb. crate ,4%3;Q%_:_2:§g______ Carrots 50 lb. bag 2.7 - 3. A doz. cello crate' 00 - . O Celery, California Pascal 2-2fi doz. crate . 0 - e7 Corn Sfidoz. crate $3. 0 Cucumber Bushel 81.00' 6.00 '8 Eggplant Bushel j 4&1. 0 - .00 Lettuce 2 doz. crate ' .00 - .7 Onions fidryl 30 1b. sack ~V3.00 - . 0 “2 Romaine,_Micnigan Bushel crate :56 - Leaf Lettuce, Michigan Bushel $2.00 - 2.23 1. Onions; Green, Michigan Doz. bunches $1.00 - 1.10 Parsley; Michigan Doz. bunches .1.00 2 l 10 ' Peppers 131181131 1' COO " 702 Potatoes, California Long White 100 18. 81.00 - h. _ " New Reds 50 lb. '82.00 - 3.00 " Idaho 100 lb. $1.50 - 5.00 " Michigan 50 18. 81.50 - 2.00 Sweet Potatoes 100 lb. 3 .7 - 6.00 Radishes, Michigan 868. bunches w$1.00 - 1.23 f ,fipinach,J§ichigan Bushel 151.7; - 2.00 Squash, Yellow Bushel “'L.§0 - 8.00 1 Tomatoes” 10 lb. repack $3.00 - 3.2; " 8 18. hot house 82.75 -3poo ; FRUITS Apples Northern Spies Bushel 'Winesaps Bushel Bananas _‘:A 13 “lb. Cherries, Tartarian l -16 1b. " Bing lS-l6 lb. Grapefruit Q6 ggfisize Grapes, seedless Crate Oranges, Florida Pineapple 'Watermelons, Florida 2OO - 176 size 9 size 20-30 lb. 411:11‘4115'5 17131317151? 7r".\7-'.7\I'”.\?.\-.-.\ '. : \.~;_ \.I’\" ‘\;.-:.\"~\..:_\° ‘ ‘\-f\‘-’. ‘3’ 3’; f- ); Z, 1,1,fl/6/ (6177/ 1 M/flfj By Dr. Pearl Aldrich Head Food Service Laboratory Michigan State University NEAT PIE WITH PERSONALITY! Many menu makers, especially those who plan for consumers with moderate incomes, place tasty, distinctivelyuseasoned meat pies high on their list of 'best sellers". Even the most able connoisserrs of less plebian meat cookery find them a welcome change from more expensive 'whole meat! entrees. A food service Operator, charged with the reaponsibility of producing popular AND profitable menu items, will do well to ponder the virtues of meat pies in rela- tion to the utilization of whole meat by-products as well as to his meat budget. Purchasing specifically for this type meat item permits a less-tender E59 less- Costly selection and yet meat pies also provide a profitable channel for the disposition of trim and left-over quantities stock-piled from the more expensive cuts. The caption 'meat pie' most commonly denotes those which are made only with beef. Don't, however, overlook the many delightful flavor varieties which can be achieved through combining beef with veal or pork; veal with pork; and ham with chicken or turkey. Remember too that veal, lamb, pork, ham, chicken, turkey, salmon or tunafish pies can lessen your menu repetition for this type Of item. Additional interest can be achieved easily through a change of texture. - Does your cook or chef AIMAYS dice the meat for pies, or do you occasionally i insist that he vary the appearance by using sliced or ground meat? Does your recipe call for the same combination of vegetables for ALL meat flavors? Does your mixture ATMRYS consist only of meat in gravy or cream sauce or do you extend eye and flavor appeal with a variety of appropriate vegetable combinations and seasonings? It surely isn't difficult to see what a little imaginative plarming 1 can do to expand your list of meat pie possibilitiesl 1 Biscuit dough or plain pastry are most frequently used for meat pie topping. Further distinction may be added to your "meat pie hit parade" by varying the flavor or type of topping which you serve. Even biscuit dough or pastry can acquire charm.by the addition of grated cheese, minced onion or chive, or chopped parsley. Pour batter crusts and dumplings also combine well with the seasonings suggested above and can be used to give your pies a 'new1look' with a different texture appeal. Whether the mode of service is from.a multiple serving pan or an individual casserole, operators are constantly faced with the problem of keeping the finished product in step with the number of portions actually needed. You can help to alleviate this problem in your kitchen by introducing a few, simple, preplanned Precedures which save time and confusion in the final preparation stages of meat pies. Some operatOrs are enjoying the security of ready-tO-use pastry or readya mix biscuit dough to accomplish a more effective job of staggered finishing for their pies. In this way they are able to more nearly equalize the supply and demand of this menu item. BEADYBTO-USE PASTRY. Using your own favorite pastry recipe, prepare an ' amnuntnwhich at least equals your greatest anticipated sale of this item. Roll and Shape only the portion which you are certain to sell. Divide the remainder into conveniently sized amounts, wrap them tightly in waxed paper and store in your refrigerator for use as the increased demand presents itself. Any unusued portion will keep well for several dayS. Some operators have found that the practice of making the entire amount of pastry during a slack period of the previous day has an added virtue in lessening the work load of'bakers and cooks when the menu calls for meat pie preparation. \A’ If you have freezer space available, pastry can be successfully rolled.into the desired shapes ready for baking; stacked with gggzy'waxed paper or aluminum foil between the layers and then placed in polyethelene bags for freezing. Since frozen pastry, stOred in this manner, will keep for long periods, you can assure your operation a comforatble reserve of topping with a minimum of effort. READY4MIX BISCUIT DOUGH can be made from an acceptable recipe for biscuit topping as it is merely the product resulting from the blending of the dry'ingred- ients and fat. It can be stored successfully in an air tight container in a Cool place for as long as two or three weeks. ‘When your menu requires biscuit topping, a known amount of mix can be combined with the required amount of liquid and your biscuits are ready in a fraction of the time it would take to start from ‘scratch'. If your Operation is one that encourages the use of dry milk, it can be combined with the other dry ingredients at the first stage of mixing and.the' water added in the final stage of mixing. The following recipe has been included as an illustration of one method by which you can decrease the production tension of handling meat pie items on your menu. Through your own efforts of preplanning and foresight, help your production workers to help themselves: Meat pies can not be served too often to please the average consumer or your cooks if the veriety is interesting and the pro- duction problems are reduced to a minimum. BISCUIT TOPPING(Dry mix only) INGREDIENTS Yield: 10??‘ dry mix. 7 - Weight or Measure.“ PROCEDURE W Cake flour ' ' 621‘ 10 7.02. 6C1fio 2% Cups Use mixer with pastry , , . (sifted) Blendep attachment. Baking powder (double action) 6%- oz. 1 cup 1% T Blend on lst speed 5 min 1101'].th dry milk 9% OZ. 2 cups 2 T-x- . Cream of Tartar 1 T 1 T 381’ 1% oz. 3 1/3 T Hydrogenated fat 2# 13 oz. 5%- cups HAVE PAT CHILLED: Break into by chunks. Using lst speed, out into dry mix until mixture is ’pebbly'. Place in an air-tight container and store in a cool place until used. TOTAL wEICHT 9(- Stire before measuring 19# 8 oz. *-)(-*-)(--X--X-*-X— *%->$-X--X-->€-*%* Portion: 2%" buscuit BISCUIT TOPPING FOR MEAT PIE Oven 1.1000 F. Bake 12-15 min. INGREDIENTS Yield: 21.; biscuits Weight or Measure PROCEDURE Dry biscuit mix 229‘ 1 3/11 qt. Combine on lst speed and mix C until dough barely sticks 01d water 1 2/3 cups 1 2/3 cups together, Shift to 2nd speed and blend % min. Dough will appear sticky. DO NOT ADD EXTRA FLOUR! Let stand 15 min. before handling. Knead 10-12 times on lightly floured board. Roll .1." thick. Cut with 2%" cutter. Place on meat ,“quw ““1”...“ mixture 313-" apart and bake. TOTAL WEIGHT 2# 13 oz. BAKING DIRECTIONS @7787.— VARLWIONS (blend With dry mix before adding water) For 2.7 of dry biscuit mix use 22?. Of the following: (1) Cheddar cheese (grated) %— cup (3) Minced onion or chive l T 2 T (3) CILC'IJIJJ'! 11"11-‘3JOy' E" 5"? " e 5 . r. 1" o 31.! 15am Efiuec Demco-293 4.. \ f 813 ‘31 5 .1. 111111111111 1111111111111111