CARROT PREFERENCES AND CERTAIN FOOD CONSUMPTION HABITS OF 298 FAMILIES Thesis for the Degree of MS. MICHIGAN STATE COLLEGE Vern AIvIn Vandemark I950 mazs'_‘. .. 0-169 Date * ”IIIIIIZIIIIJIIIIIIIIIII:WW A This is to certifg that the thesis entitled "Carrot Preferences and Certain Food Consumption Habits of 298 Families" presented by Mr . Vern Vandemark has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for M. S. degree in Agricultural Economics Major professor 7.5/0 . u . v u . . Hr! h.l . 1 , . . . I 1..: \ . . I . s I 1 . .. . a VIM .. 1... .. t2 .‘tiflu..~. I . . . .III II}. ,..¢..1.. .121‘LIl. .. rIlll 511’! J MIC...Q..i.4..\.It...65iId.ltvsIc.1\I.II ,anl‘_l.- Isc.uutl'u 1‘...-a.- .!.(I M‘.x....l. (I. .I . o. 1...“-415ll1. I 1.."... H.1I .1 \ p.313 5. / . . r ..I .IN‘ . . . I A ...w. .u . . , . . .I . . ..r 1‘ I I. u . . I. O . . ..ql . . . V . ...V. Iv 1Iv u!‘ b w‘. 5 . ‘11...\ Iv.. 1. . \\ \ «\I .\ I I I .. o. . .0 ... 1 o 0‘ . . 1 \x l Mfi‘JIwI. \HlJ-‘xvo. warwu “hem“? 10w (3&5; . ..w4uISII.‘ .Ifi 1:14,?! 1‘212fur. Mk1 x“..n.;\M‘ n9 ‘14....wa «.1 v w‘h E 1..“-17‘ 7: VJ! 1 ...-01.1» s .1 I Jifl‘uls .\ “.ijauki Jpn... .- ... . . ......u.. .r.. O ..\ I . L... ... ‘erfl 2. ..“I .5. . .. I 4 1‘. . . . . .. . w 7 . . 1.. 1. ‘ I. ( . . I 1 . ..I .F. .1 .Q.M.U§~. ~HI»)NII..\... 01“!»- 'A\\.JQ. f 10. 1A .1‘ .c . .I I 1 . VIII . ~.I .. I p\. .. 1 .I... . . 1 . ..v.. - IIII v .I I I... . -.I . , - .... . . .. 1 . ,. . I I. I I I .. --.- .I . I _. . .... .. . .... . 1..... u )_. c {(10 . .. v . .I... . . .. . . I . I .. I 9i . .... INN...” Ikv ... I. _ '..4w‘..._.1.v1vfin O .\ I...p.“...1.u.. ..U _ ... . ..2..4 .nv. CAz’dCT PREFEREL‘CBS AN.) CERTAIN FOOD CONSUI‘APTIOI‘I HABI TS OF 298 FAMILIES By VERN ALVIN VANDEMRK A THESIS Submitted to the School of Graduate Studies of Michigmi State College of Agriculture and Applied Science in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of msma OF SCIENCE ‘ Department of Agricultural Economics 1950 ACKNOdLEDGIENTS The author wishes to express his gratitude to all who helped in the preparation of this manuscript. The guidance and reading of the manuscript by Dr. N.E. Cravens was gratefu 1y appreciated. Thanks are expressed to members and clerical staff of the Agricul— tural Economics Department for their assistance and to Dr. W. D. Eaten for his advice. Finally, the author is indebted to his wife for her patience and sincere encouragement extended to him throughout. Her assistance in the final typing of the manuscript is gratefully acknowledged. The author, of course, assumes full responsibility for any errors which may be present in this manuscript. Vern Alvin Vandemark I!‘U..F .0. a!" O TABLE 0 P CO II ‘I’LN TS CHAPTER PA GE I INTflODUJTTON ‘Purpose of Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Source of Date. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . History. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Production . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . Availability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Preparation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 03 *3 \fl #7 \N n) +4 l4 IqutrientSO O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O O O 0 II COLISUZ‘ILER REFERENCES III BUYII‘IG CARI-{O ‘I’S . . . 1 \0 Tie filo d. O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O blon“respondents o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o \O\O\O (Si-ZARA?) Tilt IS TI 3 S 11'"le CH TA ET TO '30 II SU 1.233 S . . . . Freshness. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Shape and Size . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Color of Skin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1h Defects I. 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Cleanliness. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Price. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 III CONSUMER PREFERENCES IN EATING-CARROTS . . . . 21 Taste or Flavor. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Tenderness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 TeXt‘Jr e O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 2h TABLE OF COWTB‘I’I‘S COKT'D CHAPTEd COOking :l‘dalityo o o o o o o o o o o o o o 0 Factor Considered Most Important in Carrots. Factor Kost Often lacking in Carrots Purchased. . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV CONSUREH PdaCTTCES AID BELIEFS REGAdDih Purchasing Practices . . . . . . . . Carrots With.and Without Teps. . . . Methods of Serving Carrots . . . . . Utilization and Income . . . . . . . Consumer Beliefs Regarding Carrots . Who L kes Carrots the Most . . . . . V FOOD CONSUMPTION HABITS . . . . . . . . Procedure. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Limitations. . ... . . . . . . . . . Food Consumption: Average of All despondents and by Rental Areas. . ; . . . . . . neekly Family Food Bill and Food Consumption Number in Family and.Food Consumption. G CAdROIS PrOportion of Carrots Cooked and Food Consumption. . . . . . . . . . . . . Carrots Purchased With and Without Tops and Food Consumption . . . . . . . . . . Nationality and Food Consumption; . iv 29 29 53 55 59 59 1+7 1+7 LL? 7 OF CONTENTS CONT'D C1 Fl CHAPTER Occupation and Food Consumption. . . . . . Family Income and Food Consumption . . . . Areas of Similar Rental but Varying Income and.Food Consumption . . . ... . . . . . . VI SUMLARY AND COICLTSIOKS. . . . . . . . . . . Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . APPEKDIX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . BIBLIOCIIiliPR o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 0 PAGE 57 60 60 6h 61+ 66 67 TABLE CI) 'Q C\ U1 4:- \.N N o 9. 10. ll. 12. 15. lit. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. Importance LIST OF IABLES of Freshness in Carrots. . . . . Why Freshness Important in Carrots. . . . . How Freshness of Carrots Tested by Consumers. Importance of Shape in Carrots. . . . . . . Shape Preferred in Carrots. . . . . . . . . Importance of Size in Carrots . . . . . . . Length of Carrots Preferred . . . . . . . . Importance Skin Color Importance Importance Tops . . . Do Carrots Do Carrots Importance of Color of Skin in Carrots. . . Preferred. . . . . . . . . . . . of Defects -- Carrots with Tops. of Defects -- Carrots without without TOps Often have Defects. ‘with TOps Often have Defects . . of Cleanliness in Carrots. . . . Are Carrots Often Dirty . . . . . . . . . . Importance Importance of Price . . . . . . . . . . . . of Taste or Flavor in Carrots. . Description of Taste of Flavor. . . . . . . Is Flavor Usually Satisfactory in Carrots . Importance Is Tenderness Usually Satisfactory in Carrots Importance of Tenderness in Carrots . . . . of Texture in Carrots. . . . . . vi PAGE 10 11 12 15 15 15 15 16 17 TABLE 25. 2h. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 51. 52. 55° 55- 56. 57- LIST OF TfiBLES CONT'D Is Texture Usually Satisfactory in Carrots. . Importance of Cooking Quality in Carrots. . . Is Cooking Quality usually Satisfactory . . . The Most Important Quality Found in Carrots as Listed by Consumers. . . . . . . . . . . . Quality Most Often Lacking in Carrots Pur- chased by Consumers . . . . . . . . . . . . . Are Carrots on Hand Now . . . . . . . . . . . Usual Frequency of Purchase of Carrots. . . . Are Carrots on ShOpping List. . . . . . . . . Response in Buying Habits when, in Consumer's Opinion, Carrots Are High Priced. . . . . . . Food Substituted by Consumers Who Buy Less When They Consider Carrots High Priced. . . . Type of Carrots Usually Purchased by Con- sumers. . . . . .1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Why Consumers Choose Carrots with Tops. . . . Why Consumers Choose Carrots without TOps . . Percentage which Each Number of Servings is of the Total meals (lunches, Dinners, and Both Meals) Served in Previous Week . . . . . Meals at which Cooked and Raw Carrots Served Previous Week by 285 Families.. . . . . . . . vii 25 25 26 27 27 29 29 5o 51 52 55 3h 5h 57 TA BUS 58. LL7- LIST OF TABLES CONT'D methods of Serving Raw Carrots at Lunch mid Dinner Previous Week by 285 Families. . 58 methods of Serving Cooked Carrots at Lunch and Dinner Previous week by 285 Families. . MO Utilization of Carrots by Rental Areas. . . bl Response of the Consumer When Asked Why hi Vitamins Found in Carrots . . . . . . . . . M5 Carrots Are Served. . . . . . . . . . . . What Special Food Values in Carrots . . . . uh Values Found in Carrots other than Special Food Content. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . uh Chat Member of the Family Likes Carrots the Most and the Least. . . . . . . . . . . . . hé Weekly Food Consumption, Food Expenditure, and.Income Per Person as Related to Rental Areas . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A9 Weekly Food Consumption, Food Expenditure, and Income Per Person as Related to Estimated Weekly Food Expenditure Per Family. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 Weekly Food Consumption, Food Expenditure, and Income Per Person as Related to Number of Persons in Family. . . . . . . . . . . . 55 viii 50'. 51. 52. 55- LIST OF TABLES CONT'D PAGE Weekly Food Consumption, Food Expenditure, and Income Per Person As Related to PrOpor- tion of Carrots Cooked. . . . . . . . . . . 5h Weekly Food Consumption, Food Expenditure, and Income Person Person as Related to Type of Carrots Purchased. . . . . . . . . . . . 56 Weekly Food Consumption, Food Expenditure, and Income as delated to Race and National- ity of Consumer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 heekly Food Consumption, Food Expenditure, and Income Per Person as Related to Husband's Occupation. . . . . . . . . . . . 59 Weekly Food Consumption, Food Expenditure, and Income Per Person as Related to Approximate Weekly Family Income. . . . . . 61 Weekly Fbod Consumption, Food Expenditure, and.Income Per Person as Related to Income Grouping within Rental Areas. . . . . . . . 62 ix CHAPTEd I INTRODUCTION Purpose g£_§£3gy:_ The purpose of this study is to determine consumer preferences and practices as they apply to the purchase and use of carrots. It is hOped that a better understanding of these factors will aid in solving the problems faced in marketing Michigan stored carrots. Additional information regarding the consump- tion of some of the common foods was obtained for com- parison with carrot consumption. Source g£_da£a, The material used in this study regarding carrot preferences and use and other food con- sumption habits was obtained by personal interview of 298 family units in the Lansing-East Lansing area in February of l9h8. The sample was set up so as to obtain representa- tion of the various income groups in this area. In order to obtain a representation at the various income levels the city was divided into three areas based upon rental ceilings in effect at that time, as given by the Area Rent Office in Lansing, Michigan. A quota was obtained from.ten blocks in each of the three areas. The average rental used was that for an unfurnished, unheated five-room house. Records were obtained from 92 families in the low rental areas (average rental ceiling $25.00), from 108 families in the medium rental areas (average rental ceiling $57.50), a1d from 98 families in the high rental areas (average rental ceiling $65.00). The sample was intended to show the use and practices regarding carrots in each of the three economic areas. The relationship of the number of records obtained in each area to the total pOpulation and to the income of each area was not determined. It was not considered feasible to sample the pOpulation in prOportion to income as this would have required a greater number of interviews than was felt justified in this pilot study. History. The carrot (Daucus carota), a native of Eastern EurOpe, has been cultivated for about 2,000 years. The familiar weed, wild carrot, is the original ancestor of the cultivated carrot. Liberty Hyde Bailey says that horticultural.improvement of the vegetable probably originated in Holland.1 The carrot was intorduced in England during the reign of Queen Elizabeth (1558-1605) and was brought into this country and grown in Virginia in 1609. The crOp is now grown in almost 1 Liberty Hyde Bailey, The Standard Cyclopedia of Horticulture (New York: The macmillan Company, film. I. 67A. every section of this country as well as throughout the world. Production. Carrots are produced throughout most of this country, but California is by far the largest producer, followed by Arizona and Texas. California's most important production is in the winter, fall and Spring seasons. Michigan's commercial carrot production is principally of fall carrots, more than half of which move into processing channels. These processed carrots reach the consumer in the form of canned carrots, carrots and peas, mixed vegetables, and baby foods. There is a processing area in the Upper Peninsula near Norway, one near Traverse City, and others in the southern part of the lower Peninsula. The principal areas for fresh market production are the Detroit area, especially Macomb County and near Imlay City; another is near Grand Rapids, and the third is in Bay County. Accurate figues on carrot production for the fresh market in Nichigan.as well as for the entire United States are unavailable, as very little of the acreage grown by gardeners, who sell their produce locally, is included in the estimates of commercial acreage for processing and fresh market, as made by the CrOp Reporting Service. A Carrots rank in value anong the ten most important vegetables. The United States production has ranged in value from $50,000,000 to $50,000,000 in recent years while the value of the Michigan cr0p reported has been about $1,000,000 annually. Availability. Fresh carrots are available the year around as they are harvested somewhere each month. In addition, in some areas where the temperature is sufficiently cool, fall carrots which have been in storage are available during the fall and early winter months. Promising experiments aimed at lengthening this storage period are underway at present. Rail ship- ments of carrots, which, in the United States, have increased from 1A,000 cars in 1956 to 27,000 cars in 19h6, indicate the extent to which consumer education, better production methods, and improved transportation have increased flie availability and consumption of carrots. The principal production areas of winter carrots are California, Arizona, Texas, Louisiana, and Florida. Spring carrots come from California and Arizona. Summer carrots come from Ohio, New Jersey, New Yerk, and Colorado. Fall carrots are produced in California, New York, Washington, Michigan, New Mexico, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Oregon, Utah, and Minnesota. 5 Production. There are three principal types of carrots-~the short, thick stubby type like Chantenay and Oxheart, the cylindrical type_like Nantes, and the long, tapering:type like Imperator and horse's Bunching. Red Cored Chantenay, difficult to bunch or package, is the usual variety grown in Kichigan for processing. Nantes, horse's Bunching, and Danver's Half Long are the lead- ing varieties grown in Elohigan for the fresh market. Imperator and horse's Bunching are U18 leading varieties grown in the west and the Southwest for fresh shipment. The grower should consider the soil, the climate, and the market when he selects the variety or varieties of carrots to grow. When selecting the variety to grow the grower should consider the carrot qualities desired which are related to the variety: the desired lengfii, shape, and diameter of roots--length, strength, and abundaice of tops-~texture and color of the skin and flesh. The early or new carrots are usually marketed in bunches, six to eight in a bunch, with the tOps attached, though some are marketed with the t0ps clipped or re- moved. The early carrots are usually harvested before full maturity and have a brighter color and are milder in flavor than the late crop. Good quality in early carrots is indicated by a bright orange color, a firm flesh, and.a clean, smooth fresh appearance. Green, fresh appearing tOps generally indicate freshness of the root, though sometimes the tOps may have been damaged in handling and the roots may still be in good condition. Wilted, soft, flabby, or shriveled carrots are usually not as nutritious or as flavorful as fresh carrots. Those which are excessively pronged or rough or have growth cracks are wasteful to prepare. Excessive greening at the shoulder may indicate slow growth, Which causes a kick of tenderness and a coarse-textured, stronger-flavored carrot. When carrots are harvested they continue to live until their life processes are terminated by freezing, canning or cooking, dehydration, or natural death with accompanying ahriveling and decay. When the carrot is harvested, its food supply from the soil is no longer available, and so it begins to digest itself, thus depleting stored food reserves and vitamins. Through respiration the stored starches and sugars in the carrot are broken down to provide digestible food for the plant. Oxygen is absorbed.and water and carbon dioxide are given off; the plant cells are dehydrated in the process. Still greater loss of water occurs through the pores on the plant surface, the evaporating water cooling the plant. This loss is greatest at high temperatures and low humidity. High humidity and.re- frigeration greatly decrease these losses and prolong the life of the plant. demoving the tops at harvest greatly reduces respiration and transpiration and thus helps to retain the crisp, tender, garden-like quality of the carrots. Taking similar lots of carrots, with and widaout tOps, mid handling them under the same conditions, the carrots without tops remain in satisfactory condition longer. It is quite possible, however, that in actual marketing practice the carrots with tOps receive superior care due to the necessity of retaining the fresh, green appearance of the tOps. Preparation.. Carrots are prepared in numerous and varied ways both raw and cooked. Fresh-raw carrots are cut in strips and used as a relish or salad; they may be shredded or grated for a garnish, or used alone, or mixed with other vegetables, gelatin, fruit, or nuts to make a salad. Boiled or steamed carrots may be served plain, buttered, creamed, or in combination as carrots and peas. Carrots are often used with roasts or in stews. Baked carrots are served alone or with other vegetables; glazed carrots are usually served alone. Carrots are also used in combination in soups. Since carrots are appetizing and colorful, they are often used to make other foods more attractive and palatable. The various types of receipes in which carrots may be used have by no means been exhausted. Nutrients. "In comparison with twenty—eight other vegetables, carrots rank high in vitamin A per pound of roots. Food energy, protein, and iron are about average when compared with other important vegetables. Carrots are low in vitamin C, thiamine, riboflavin, and niacin."2 The table below, as compiled by the Bureau of Human Nutrition and Home Economics, gives the approximate amount of the several nutrients contained in 100 grams of the edible portion of carrots:5 Water 88.2 grams Food energy M5 calories Protein 1.2 grams Fat .5 grams Carbohydrate 9.3 grams Calcium ' 59 milligrams Phosphorus 37 milligrams Iron .8 milligrams Vitamin A value 12,000 international units Vitamin B (thiamine) .0 milligrams Vitamin B2 (riboflavin) .0 milligrams Niacin .5 milligrams Vitamin C (ascorbic acid) 6 milligrams .2 T.w. Whitaker and others, Carrot Production in the West and SouthwestLU.S.D.A., Circular‘No. 750, 1§H6, p010 5 Bureau of Human Nutrition and Home Economics, Table of Food Com osition £2 Terms 93 Eleven Nutrients, U.S.D.KT, his . Publication No. 572, 19E5, p.'12415. CHAPTER II CONSUEER PREFEdENCES IN BUYING CARROTS Method. All the information included in this section was obtained by personal interview. Questions were asked consumers regarding their carrot preferences and the relative importance of certain characteristics of carrots in an attempt to determine what the consumer preferred and why.8 In the analysis of the replies regarding the relative importance of various factors those replies indicating "very important" were considered much more important "marketwise" than those replying "some importance," or "not very important".5 Non-reSpondents. In the following tables those individuals interviewed.who gave no answer were omitted in the percentages in each category. The difference between the number shown and 298 (the number of families interviewed) represents non-respondents. It was thought that this would simplify the comparison of the actual replies. CHARACTERISTICS OF IMPORTANCE TO CONSEMERS h A c0py of the questionnaire used in the inter- views is contained in Appendix A. 5 The method and computations to determine fine relative importance of factors based upon consumer valuations are described in Appendix B. 10 Freshness. The consumer considered freshness to be the most important factor in the purchase of carrots. Of those replying ninety-two percent considered fresh- ness to be "very important" (Table 1). TABLE 1 ImEOKTANSE OF FdESHNESS IN CAddOTS Replies Importance Number Percentage Very 268 92 Some 20 7 Not very 3 1 Total 291 100 The consumers indicated that freshness was important because they associated it with nutrient and vitamin content, tenderness, crispness, flavor, and economy (Table 2) . WHY FRESHNESS IN TABLE 2 CAdRCTS IMPOdTANT ll Replies Factor Number Percentage Health, more vitamins, more nutrition 72 25 Taste of flavor 55 19 Juicy 55 18 Crisp 25 8 Better value 28 9 Does not want withered carrots 25 8 Keep longer and less waste 17 6 Eat raw 15 Don't know 5 2 Total 295 100 - “: _-: The majority of the consumers determined freshness by handling the carrots or by looking at them; h? percent relied upon appearance to determine fremaness while A6 percent handled the carrots (Table 3). 12 * ABLE 3 HOA‘ FRESHNESS OF CAIMO‘IS TESTED BY CONSULEHS Replies Method oftest Number Percentage Feel firm 11h 59 Appearance 75 26 Green teps ' 55 12 Color of carrot 26 9 Bending or snapping l9 7 Other 11 A No method 10 5 Total 290 100 (I J Shape and Size. Shape was considered the next most important factor in the purchase of carrots, though of much less importance than freshness; 57 percent considered this factor "very important" and 55 percent listed it as of "some importance (Table A). 15 TABLE u IMPOdTANCE OD'SHAPE IN CARROTS Replies Importance Number Percentage Very 10A 57 Some 151 55 Not very 27 10 Total 282 100 A picture of the three basic shapes of carrots was shown the consumer.6 Short thick carrots were preferred by only 5 percent, long cylindrical carrots_ by Ah percent, and long tapering carrots by 55 percent (Table 5). TABLE 5 SHAPE PREFERRED IN CARROTS Replies Shape Number Percentage Long tapering 155 55 Long cylindrical with rounded end 125 44 Short and thick 9 5 Total 287 100 6 See Appendix A. The picture is in the question- naire. 11+ Long tapering carrots were the type most readily avail- able in the market at the time of the survey. Size was not considered of grem: importance (Table 6) ; TABIE 6 IJPOHTANCE OF SIZE IN CARROTS Replies Importance Number Percentage Very 99. 55 Some 155 h? Not very 5O 18 Total 282 100 55 percent classed size as "very important" and h? per- cent considered it as of "some importance". The carrots about six inches long ranked first in pOpularity, those about five inches long second (Table 7). The housewife selected these sizes from a scale carried by the enumerator.7 92l2£.2£.§E£E' The consumers considered the color of the skin as the next most important factor in purchas- ing; to percent of those replying considered skin color "very important" and 55 percent considered it of "some importance" (Table 8). 7 See Appendix A. The scale is on the page with the carrot pictures in the questionnaire. TABLE 7 IEN G’I‘H OF CARROT PdEFEn’flED Replies Length in inches Number Percentage Three 7 5 Four 25 10 Five 59 2h Six 112 A6 Seven 55 1h Eight 7 5 Total 2&5 100 TABLE 8 IMPORTANCE or COLOR OF SKIN IN CARROTS Replies Importance Number Percentage Very 116 MO Some 105 55 Not very I} 25 Total 292 ‘100 16 A medium to deep orange color was preferred by 68 percent; lighter shades of orange or yellow were preferred by 21 percent; 11 percent said they had no color preference (Table 9). TABLE 9 SKIN COLOR PdEFEdfiED :2? i::: Replies -I: Color Number Percentage Bright orange 75 26 Deep orange - 65 25 Medium orange 5h 19 Light orange 55 12 Bright yellow 2h 9 No preference 51 11 Total 284 100 Skin color is a measure of the carotene content of the carrot. Carotene is the precursor of vitamin A. The light, pale-colored carrots are usually lacking in flavor and are low in carotene. Defects. The consumers were quite well satisfied with.the freedom from defects in the carrots purchased (Tables 10 and 11). 17 TABLE 10 IMPORTANCE OF DEFECTS -- CARROTS WITH TOPS Replies Importance Nimber Percentage Very 9O 52 Some 120 h2 Not very 75 26 Total ' 285 100 TABLE 11 IkPOfiTANCE OF DEFECTS -- CARROTS WITHOUT TOPS Replies ‘fifi Importance Number Percentage (Very 65 Ml Some 58 56 Not very 57 25 Total 160 100 Defects were considered more important in carrots with- out tOps than in carrots with tOps (Tables 12 and 15). 18 TABLE 12 DO CARROTS WITHOUT TOPS OFTEN HAVE DEFECTS W Replies Defects Number Percentage No 10h 71 Yes 52 29 Sometimes 10 7 Total 1A6 lOO "r... ;—; TABLE 15 DO CARROTS AITT TOPS OFTEN HAVE DETECTS RepIIes __ Defects Number Percentage No 252 88 Yes 17 6 Sometimes 16 p 6 Total 265 100 m: J k _:— Only 6 percent of the buyers of carrots with tOps reported finding defects often; 29 percent of the buyers of carrots without teps reported finding defects often. Cleanliness. Cleanliness was not considered an important factor affecting purchase (Table 1h). 19 TABLE 111 IMPORTANC CF CLEANLINESS IN CARROTS Replies Ipportance Number Percentage Very 88 51 Some lhh 50 Not very 5h 19 Total 286 100 -—--—A — _~-————-— .... ...... ---,_-_..———.——_ 5->‘_.-.~—.——_. w~--./__»__—- ‘_._~____.__‘..____,__,______ Carrots are usually washed when packed and consumers considered them sufficiently clean.(Table l5). TABLB 15 ARE CARROTS OFTEN DIRTY Replies Carrots dirty Number Percentage No 2N5 . 85 Yes 58 15 Sometimes - 6 I 2 Total ' 289‘ 160 Pnge, Carrots are one of the low-priced vegetables and consumers reported price to be unimportant. Price was the only factor for which the number of consumers reporting "not very important" was greater than those reporting "very important" (Table 16). 20 TABLE 16 IAIPORTANSE CF PRICE Replies Importance Number Percentage Very 7h 26 Some 111 59 Not very 102 55 Total 287 100 —._ “* ... CHAPTER III CONSUMER PREFERENCES IN EATING CARROTS Taste pp Flavor. Taste or flavor ranked as the most importmlt eating quality. If eating qualities and buying qualities are considered tOgether, taste or flavor ranks in importance after freshness as a preference factor (Table 17). TABLE 17 INPORTMNCE OF TASTE OR FLAVOR IN CARROTS Replies Importance Number Percentage Very 221 78 Some 5h 19 Not very 9 5 Total 28A 100 Freshness would no doubt have an influence upon taste or flavor because taste is related to freshness in most vegetables. A general descriptive term used by con— sumers to describe carrot taste or flavor was generally some variation of "sweet" (Table 18). 22 TABLE 18 DESCRIPTION OF TASTE OR FLAVOR Replies Description of taste Number Percentage Sweet 185 71 mild sweet 18 7 "carrot taste" 29 11 other 50 11 Total 262 100 The sweet flavor comes from the sugar content of carrots. About 80 percent of the carbohydrate in carrots is in fine form of sugar.8 Consumers were well satisfied with flavor; 9h percent reported that flavor was satisfactory. (Table 19). 8 Charlotte Chatfield and others, Proximate Com- position of American Food Materials Bureau 101 ‘"‘ Economics, U.S?D.A., CircuIar No;”549, l9h0, p 51. 25 TABLE 19 IS ETAVOR USUALLY SATISFACTORY IN CARROTS Replies Satisfactory Number Percentage Yes 272 9h No 8 5 Sometimes 8 ,5 Tot al 288 100 Tenderness. Tenderness was the next most import- ant factor after flavor. Of those replying 56 percent considered tenderness "very important" (Table 20); 98 percent reported that tenderness was "usually satisfactory" in the carrots purchased (Table 21). TABLE 20 IMPORTANCE OF TENDERNESS IN CARROTS Replies Importance Number ‘Percentage Very 158 56 Some 109 59 Not very 15 5 Total 280 100 H TABLE 21 IS TENDERNES USUALLY SATISFACTORY IN CARROTS Replies Satisfactory» Number Percentage Yes 28R 98 No 6 2 ‘_ Total 290 100 Texture. Texture ranked less important as an eat- ing quality than did taste or tenderness (Table 22). Texture was very satisfactory in the Opinion of consumers; 95 percent reported texture as "usually satisfactory" (Table 25). TABLE 22 IMPORTKNCE OF TEXTURE IN CARROTS Replies Ipportance Nufiber ’Percentage Very 105 36 Some lh9 55 Not very 51 11 Total 283 100 25 TABLE 25 IS TEXTURE USUALLY SATISFACTORY IN CARROTS Replies Satisfactory Number Percentage ._ Yes 267 95 No 15 5 Total 282 100 Cooking_qpality. Cooking quality--which includes the three previously mentioned factors, flavor, tender- ness, and texture--was considered as less important than any one of the factors considered individually (Table 2h). TABLE 2h IMPORTANCE OP‘COOKING QUALITY IN CARROTS TFL ReplIes Importance Number Percentage Very 8A 55 Some 12h 88 Not very R8 19 Total 256 100 The relative importance of the cooking quality may result from the reports of those consumers who use most of the carrots purchased in a raw form. It may be that deficien- cies in eating characteristics are less apparent in 26 cooked than in the raw carrots. Another possibility is that the consumer is so well satisfied with the cook- ing quality as found that it is not considered "very important". That the consumers were well satisfied was shown when 97 percent reported cooking quality as "usually satisfactory" (Table 25). TABLE 25 IS COOKING QUALITY USUALLY SATISFAC' R Replies Satisfactory Number Percentage Yes 216 97 No 7 1 Tote; .i i 222..-_ 1.00 m mm t ‘- Factor considered most important in carrots. When asked to name the most important quality in carrots as applied to buying and eating, 5} percent of those replying first nmned freshness, criSpness or firmness, or a combination of these. This emphasises the grea; importance attached to freshness by the consumer. Taste or flavor was named by 26 percent (Table 26). 27 TABLE 26 THE hCST IMPORTANT QUALITY POUND IN CARROTS AS LISTED BY CONSUMERS Replies Qpality Number Percentage Crisp, firm, fresh 150 53 Taste or flavor 75 26 Tenderness 51 11 Color 7 2 Other 2h 8 Total 285 100 W t—W Factor most often lacking 12 carrots purchased. When asked to name fine qualities most often lacking in carrots purchased MB percent replied "none" (Table 27). TABLE 27 QUALITY MOST OFTEN LACKING IN CARROTS PURCHASED BY CONSUMERS Replies Quality Number Percentage None 125 AB Taste or flavor 57 22 Freshness, Crispness 30 12 Tenderness 22 8 Color 8 5 Other 18 7 Total P' 260 ' 166 28 The next most pOpular reply was "taste or flavor", by 22 percent of the consumers reporting. Taste or flavor has previously been reported as "usually satisfactory" by 9h percent of the consumers (Table 19, page 25). This apparent discrepancy may be explained when one considers that tenderness was reported as "usually satisfactory" by 98 percent of those reporting, cook- ing quality was "usually satisfactory" to 97 percent, texture was "usually satisfactory" to 95 percent,and taste or flavor was "usually satisfactory" to 9h percent. As indicated above, fewer consumers were "usually satisfied" with taste and flavor than with tenderness, cooking quality, and texture. When the consumers were asked what quality was "most often lacking" in the carrots purchased, some of those who had previously said that taste or flavor was "usually satisfactory" apparently felt fiaat taste or flavor was the quality "most often lacking". Thus taste or flavor, though "usually satisfactory", was more often lacking in the carrots purcnased than the other qualities. CHAPTER IV CONSUHPH PRACTICES AKD BELIEFS RLGARDING'CARROTS / Purchasing practices. A total of 69 percent of those reporting had carrots on.hand at the time they were interviewed (Table 28). TABLE 28 ARE CARROTS ON HAND NOW Replies On hand Number ‘Percentage Yes 199 69 No 590 _51 Total 289 100 m ‘1“ —‘:=. The uaial frequency of purchasing carrots was given as once a week by 66 percent of those interviewed (Table a). TABLE 29 USUAL PREQUVWSY OF PURCHASE OF CAddOTS -—._:—: r .:7 applies Freqpency of Purchase Number Percentage ‘_ Twice weekly 1h 5 Once weekly 192 66 Twice monthly 5? 19 Every three weeks or less frequently 20 oumr 8 3 Total 5291 100 5O Carrots were put on U13 shOpping list by 79 percent of those replying (Table 50). The majority of those who did not put carrots on their shOpping list said that an "attractive, fresh-appearing" display of carrots in- fluenced their purchase. TAPIE 50 ARE CARROTS OJ STOPPING LIST 1“ 1 .3“- neplies On shOpping list Number Percentage Yes 226 79 No 59 20 Price was relatively unimportant in determining carrot purchases. When the consumers were asked if they decreased the quantity purchased when they considered the price high, 81 percent reported they purchased the same amount, while 19 percent reported.they purchased less (Table 51). 51 TABLE 51 3331903315; IN BUYING HABITS MEN, IN CONSUMERS' OPINION, CARROTS ARE HIGH PRICED W M Replies Response Number Percentagp Buy the same amount 256 81 Buy less 5] 19 Total 295 100 Those who purchased less said they substituted other vegetables such as cabbage, beans, canned vegetables, spinach, and peas. Of those Who reduced purchases when they considered prices high, 17 percent reported that nothing was substituted (Table 52). 52 TABIE 52 FOOD SUBSTITUTED BY ccmsumsss was UY LESS LTEN THEY CONSIDER CARROTS HIGH PRICED T—u’. Replies:"_: Iii Food substituted Nimber , Percentagp Cabbage 15 25 Beans 6 11 Canned vegetable 6 ll Squash h 7 Peas u 7 Celery 5 5 Anything cheaper 7 12 No substitution 10 17 Other k 7 “ML—W 55 Carrots with and without tOps. Of those replying, Sh percent usually selected carrots with tOps (Table 55). TABLE 55 TYPE OF CARKOTS USUALLY PURCHASED BY CONSUMERS 1 W Replies Type of carrots Number Percentage With tops 2A5 8k Without tOps M2 15 Don't care A 1 Total 291 100 The fact that satisfactory tOpped carrots were unavail- able to many consumers at the time of the survey un- doubtedly affected the above figures. Of those preferring carrots with tOps 67 percent reported that "freshness" was the most important reason for their preference (Table 5h). Freshness far outweighed all other reasons combined. Carrots without tOps were preferred by 15 percent of the consumers. This group considered the factors of "cheapness" and"no tOps to mess with" of equal importance as reasons for their choice. These two factors each accounted for 59 percent of the reasons or a total of 78 percent of the replies (Table 55). 5h TABLE 5k WHY CONSURERS CHOOSE CAKKOTS LITE TOPS deplies Reason Number Percentage Fresher 15h 67 Only available with tOps 20 9 Stay fresh longer 16 7 More tender 10 h Use tOps 8 5 Other reasons 22 10 Total 250 100 W“ m Tmms55 WHY COKSLMERS CHOOSE CARROTS WITHOUT TOPS = Replies ===== Reason Number Percentage Cheaper 17 59 No tOps to mess with 17‘ 59 Fresher h 10 Other 5* 12 Total *u5 100 55 Methods of serving carrots. Carrots were reported served at 29 percent of the meals served (other than breakfast) by One 285 families reporting. The lunches at which cooked or.raw carrots were served were equivalent to 21 percent of all lunches; carrot dishes at dinner were equivalent to 57 percent of all dinners (Table 56, col. 6). This means that the average family interviewed had carrots almost four meals per week. About two of these meals included cooked carrots and slightly over two meals included raw carrots. Carrots were served at more meals raw than cooked. flaw carrots were served with 16 percent of the total meals (lunches and dinners) by the 285 families report- ing (Table 56, col. 2) while cooked carrots were served with 15 percent of the meals (Table 56, col. h). More carrots were served raw with dinners than with lunches. Raw carrots were included in 18 percent of the dinner and 15 percent of the lunch menus (Table 56, col. 2). Dinners accounted for 58 percent of the meals at which raw carrots were served (Table 57, col. 2). Salads accounted for hl percent of servings of carrots at dinners (Table 58, col. h) and 55 percent of the lunches at which raw carrots were consumed (Table 58, col 5). TABLE 56 PERCENTAGE'EHICH EACH UUEEEE or EHVINGS Is or :-:E T TIL mans (LUUUEEE, DI NNERS, are BOTH KEALS) SERVED IE PdEVIOUS WEEK.% heals raw I‘meals cooked ‘heals raw or carrots served carrots served cooked carrots served 3) 3; g) m s m p p p a c a e a e m m a ,8 2; H ,_Q 0 3‘3 5 is ’5 :3 S a a z a. a: a. a: m 1 2 5 LL 5 6 Lunch 262' 15 ’16O 8' h22I’ 21 Dinner 559 18 575 19 752 57 All lunches & dinners 621 16 555 15 115k 29 %285 families allowing seven lunches and dinners a week totals 1995 lunches and dinners or 5990 total meals per week. 57 TABLE 57 MEALS AT UEIJE COOKED AND Raw CIanTS SERVED PREVIOUS "..Ehh BY 285 EAIIILIES Heplies___ Meal Raw carrots Cooked carrats Total carrots cooked and rawfi (D (D 0) t1) bi) :60 B S .o a a a a a a CL‘ 0.) Q) (l) 0) (D h o ,o o g a 5 5.; a E a o z a. z a. z m l 2 5 A 5 6 Lunch 262 h2 160 50 h22 57 Dinner 559 58 575 70 752 65 Total 6218 100 555B 100 ll5uc 100 TmnE58 HETEODS CF SLKVIKG RAW CAHROTS AT LUNCH AND DINNER PREVIOUS WEEK BY 285 FAMILIES 58 E i I ! i l n E P L I E S :4 g 0 a E a 5 “H w r! rd p 955 nth .G d o w Ocfi g g) CHE: (Hz: 5: a mg: WA: 3 0 fl 0 +30 m o w c>w P £40 £40 a m a a p at: we: 0) 0 0(1) 0(1) r1 a > > m a 3 a a:« m s w m we) ti o m m Kim 1 2 5 1 Method Meal Number Percentage Percentage Percentage Salads lunch 91 15 55 Dinner 1h? 25 Ml strios Lunch 7h 12 28 Dinner 120 19 55 Raw (misc) Lunch 97 16 57 Dinner 92 15 26 Between meals l5 5 Total 621 100 100 100 ’1 59 Cooked carrots were used in 15 percent of all meals; 19 percent of the dinners and 8 percent of the lunches contained cooked carrots (Table 56, col. h). The most pOpular method of serving cooked carrots was with roasts. Dinners containing carrots with roast accounted for 50 percent of all dinners containing cooked carrots (Table 59, col. h). The next most pOpular method of servingcooked carrots was buttered carrots at dinner. This method of preparing them accounted for 25 percent of the dinners containing cooked carrots (Table 59, col. h). Buttered carrots were served at 25 percent of the lunches containing cooked carrots (Table 59, col. 5). Approximately 70 percent of all cooked carrots were served at dinner (Table 57, col. h). Etilization and income. There was a direct relationship between income and whether or not the carrots were cooked. The low-income groups cooked a larger percentage of the carrots that they consumed than did the high incOme groups.(Table hO). Consumer beliefs regarding carrots. When peOple were asked the reason why they served carrots, "health" was the most pOpular reply, given by 55 percent. The next most pepular reason was "eating enjoyment" which was given by AD percent (Table hl). ho TABLE 59 METHODS or SERVING cocxsf CARROTS AT v - n w - ~' 'T" ' ‘ -'. ' ."‘ ' 'v-'-."'T“‘|"“ - ‘\ -.“. ... . L N3d.afl) DIknnd Pd2VIJDS unhh BY 285 FaMlLIES up *. ~--——.. -_, R E P L I h S £1 CO V) o p p H O O :1 h T3 L ,4 a x. o :1 o m > m a p c; g c o w 15 3 a mi m m - a m r4 ,x o .5 > m o L. o :4 h m o 0) <3 0 w E c) 3 C) m B 1 2 5 Ll- hethod heal Number Percentage Percentage Percentage Lunch Dinner V51 th roast Lunch 18 5 11 Dinner 11h 21 5O Butter- ed; Lunch hl 8 25 Dinner 8h 16 25 Soup Lunch 28 5 18 Dinner 55 10 I 15 Cream- n 2; Lunch 28 5 18 Dinner hl 8 11 Stew Lunch 19 h 12 Dinner L6 9 12 Other Lunch 26 5 16 Dinner 55 6 9 Total 535 100 100 IOU Liv”. . U TI LI ZA TI ON TABLE ho OF CAHROTS BY RENTAL AREAS hl R e n.t a l A r e a Low hedium High 3 epp l i e 3 Percent of Number Number Number carrots cooked 0-55 23 52 #2 59-65 28 55 51 66-100 57 56 21 :— KESPOLES’J 0F TA BLE 1+1 ' HE CONSUIv’ER 11121131] ASKED WHY CARRO‘I‘S ARE SERVED W w R e p 1 i e 3 Why served Number Percentage Health 159 55 Enjoy eating carrots 117 MO Cheap 12 h ‘Easy to serve h 1 Total 292 100 W J ll h2 There was considerable divergence in Opinion when consumers were asked regarding the vitamin content of carrots. The presence of vitmnin A was reported by 27 percent of the consumers who listed A alone and by 17 percent more Who named A in combination with one or more other vitamins. Thus hh percent of the total reported vitamin A content. Only 26 percent said they did not know what vitamins were in carrots while 5 percent replied that there were no vitamins in carrots (Table 142). When asked regarding the special food values contained in carrots there were only 95 replies of which 6 reported carotene (vitamin A) Which is one of the most important values contained in carrots. Minerals and iron accounted for 62 percent of the replies (Table h5). The consumers were asked for values other than special food content; 76 percent of the 100 consumers answering reported that carrots were good for the eyes. This indicates that many consumers know one of the very good reasons for eating carrots even though they did not know the specific factor responsible (Table hh). Who likes carrots the most. The most common reply to the question, "Who in the family (if any) likes carrots the most and the least”, was "no preference". The relative order of preference given fer 115 TABLE (4.2 VI IAIAINS FOUND IN CARROTS — ”- d egp 1 i e s Vitamin Number Percentage A 71 27 C 35 13 A & 3, or A & D 27 10 Other 15 6 A at B 15 5 A, B, c 6 2 D 7 5 A, B, & other (except C) 5 1 C & one or more other than A 6 2 None 1h 5 Don't know 66 26 Total 261 100 m JET—z: TABLE A5 NEAT SPECIAL FOOD VALUES IN CARRCTS R e_p l i e s Food value Number Percentage hinerals MO 85 Iron l8 l9 Roughage 15 16 Carbohydrates 7 8 Carotene 6 6 Other 7 8 Ibtal 95 _1OO TABLE hh VALUE FOUND IN CARdOTS OTHER THAN SPECIAL FOOD CONTENT ~—-—-—-.—-.- .. R e p 1 i e s Value Number Percentage Good for eyes 76 76 Good for teeth 7 7 Balanced diet 5 5 Other 12 12 Total 100 100 LLB individual members of three or more person families where there were differences in preferences of one or more members sugjested that mothers liked carrots the most, followed in order by daughters and sons. Fathers seemed to have the least preference for carrots (Table h5). A6 TABLE L15 wzzAT LBJ-ABBA OF Tm FBI-LILY LIE-ES OAmOTs TIB hos T AND Tm LELS‘ TWO people in family (65 families) R e p III e s Person Most Least No difference Mother 18 17 Father 16 19 All like or equal preference 50 Three or more peOple in family (207 families) Mother Daughter Son Father 5O 26 29 25 27 51+ 51 h5 All like or equal preference 78 CHAP TL‘R V FOOD CORSULPTION HABITS Procedure. The consumption per fanily of carrots and several other foods in the week previous to the interview was recorded. The respondent was asked to estimate the family's weekly food bill and the approximate weekly income of the entire family. This information available from those respond- ing was tabulated on the basis of rental area, estimated weekly fbod bill per family, number in family, prOpor- tion of carrots cooked, carrots purchased with or with- out tOps, nationality and race of respondent, the husband's occupation, the approximate weekly income of the entire family, and by family income groupings with— in.the rental areas. Limitations. There were some limitations in the determination of the food consumption habits. The size of the sample was such that some of the groups had too little representation to give results which could be considered significant. There were non—respondents. Fewer persons replied when asked to give the average weekly family food bill and the approximate total weekly family income than responded to the food consumption questions. Only 86 percent of those who reported food hB consumption responded when asked to give an estimate of their total weekly family income. No information was recorded regarding occasional meals eaten out by the family. The accuracy of some of the returned question- naires was questioned. Food copsumption: avera§e_of all respondepfs and by rental areas. The average size of the family of all of the respondents was 5.51 persons. Family size was approximately the Same in each of the three rental areas. The average weekly carrot consumption of the entire groups was .50 bunch per person. Each person also consumed an average of .17 head of cabbage, .5h bunch of celery, .55 head of lettuce, .56 pound of onions, 2.7 pounds of potatoes and 1.2 pounds of apples. No adjustment was made for size of head Of lettuce of size of bunch of celery. The average weekly food bill was $6.10 per person. The average weekly income was approximately $26.25 per person (Table M6). This information was for February l9h8 when.food prices were higher than at present and.due to the season certain foods were unobtainable or re- latively high-priced. These weekly consumption figures would not be valid if expanded to yearly estimates. 1L9 ll.‘ . ‘. 'f'l‘lil'l’1 I'|. ii It I Il’L " If I‘I‘ J“r‘a§1¢§":ll].'.x"‘f {i‘l‘ ...c J” 9-0 mom ). ; .. u r .-....w.... .... Wu... H I .l\ . Has no a samba 0| 5- O (J <3 n‘ 0 LF. L.’\ o -J’ 5" C [N- ..4 0 C3 m 0 H U\ "N \r\ T ..J ......5... 86 m4 Tm am. mo. mm. on. a. TA T... Li .I.‘ ......m is: .5. mu... (\1 «'J O .1 b \ O .3 r- T . c “'4 . CL) «T 0 ‘4 U \ . m ..-...mw Omoo 1H m3... L. Tim. 3 .3 mm. a... “a. LL-.. 3.. SA a .6... L....7..m.a... Hawu, 5% Lad" mm . 8......” mace. . mo L. . ....LH . wpm “may t5 «mmhofié AmmLanv Ammmofifiv 5. we . o: m. ' l. ) n o“ u' 154. ¢. .1 .4 ‘.- ll II. . l . a V).I.. . r A \I. It“ s 4.. s C‘ ..l wflwOLtH .2H....3¢....r WQL: u man. . .2). « 9:04.. 7 m. ufi+3®3 5H1”? n.) mmtuflwv muOhrflwa .HQILLH~H._~ okOthrn m1?! HQHCQD 8k.l. I ‘J I. 1." trim}! -..-‘1... l ‘l!"l‘.'.‘ “1" a3...” .. .. .59.... r...) ..5.... 5.9.30 miow \ ...”... 3...... II‘ ‘1‘. 8!,“ lull”. Ilrlill‘lll I. '11 ‘II‘I‘I‘HHI‘II' III: I 1 Ill '1 ,8 It -I‘“ H I! H l .0: . .afi . £4 44: 15.14. .14 \1 fi . ‘IJ. .l\ I g I. I. 4.3.... LVN. . .1 mafia. m4<~PL...L.L a. magi}: H ..d 4...... ....muh an. H...» .L...w 00 I an 8.8 .96 1A fin mm. 3. Am. or? a. 3.: an 2% a R I am om.mw ow.m HoH m.m mm. Am. mm. 4H. on. om.m AOH Om.mm .pm mm I Om oc.gm owom H.H ~.m am. 00. mm. mm. 00. mm.m 00H 05.4H .pm ma I OH x «4. )0 . . .) I x. x. .. .k. om.mm A om mm” c.« ~.m ax. oo.A am. Jo. N». 0m.a OH cm.» « .pw m w I o o IIIII II. conhwm, II :14 III. .1 III! I 1.1Ia- Lea mgny hAmem v mpuu Imvcmmxm mfiflsmm mwwammn awn AAAD Mm; 600% .mnd .moa .mo4 acmmnv «mwcoznnv Amfivumw Ammnucsnv CH no .on snow MAxemk weoora hqumg mmaaa< mmo wqu wA 04cc -ospamA humamo minngU maogumo pmpasz .xopgmd cmamgflpmm Ainnhmm 20432.5 .250 fizuncfi 344%.»; AAH.wm mqu AcmeHIHAMAA Doom NAx A; Qwsfiwn:)m .IA mABAJum n¢_AQnfi . mu; mwncsH 92¢ awfiyanux: Q>0m AwUHA..; _;m __. :A<_Ar 2 mafia 52 The food bill per person.for the one person.family was $9.h0 weekly while the per person expenditure for a six person family was only $5.50 weekly (Table AB). Proportion of carrots cooked and food consumption. Where consumers were grouped in relation to the prOpor- tion of carrots cooked fliere was no consistent re- lationship other than size of family. Families serv- ing mostly raw carrots averaged.larger in size than did those families which cooked most of the carrots served. The group cooking 0-59 percent of the carrots served averaged 5.75 persons per family; the next group cook- ing h0-69 percent of the carrots served averaged 5.59 persons per fwnily; and the group cooking 70-100 percent of the carrots served averaged 5.50 persons per family. The group eating approximately two-thirds or more of their carrots raw had a weekly approximate income of $29.10 per person. The group eating about the same proportions of raw and cooked carrots had an income of $22.50 per person. The group cooking most of their carrots served had an income of $27.10 per person (Table A9). Slightly less carrots were consumed per person by those who ate most of the carrots raw. Their weekly 55 i‘ 3-! 3I gin? IZQ."#§§‘ 1‘0...- 'I‘ I; ...a ...V 1A.mA 00.A Hm.« ..I mm. mm. . . MM. 4. a hymn cu rcbmm 0A.-A om.m as. s.. .m. an. A.. «A. 4m r“ as” am.om oc.. mm. m.u mm. as. \. ma. An. .u mafia CMOMN Oman... N. o .._. Wow Mo Nmo . I. 04%. m4. .... .U Harm. em.mm oc.o os.A m.m pm. we. om. NA. am. we mnhnA am.ms a”. on.A .w an. mm. .4. mm. «a. ma can om.Anmw on. m. om.A ~.m am. ~N.A ma. mm. ma. MA ..I I I III cause; I I I lam... ..Iw ....mL 1 a, whom had :2 .w........mI .mi .mnA Amuse: $9353 $335 A.mm._.~.cr=n$ mo .50 PM ......m... awn. maoomH and.“ mmflan. w wwopmpou 9.3an mos pom: 58...”an omwnnwo mAOhHmd .KOHAA3. A...“ awash...“ limmIMMA new no.1 fin! ...A. . ....coo UMNMH a....:...~....m..... III- ii 0 I ,.II itf!‘.“..llsal‘ll‘? 11 1 l 'I‘Ial 'i‘- ‘I It"- ‘£I.! 'yii l... "I’i‘l S'I ‘III- 515’ 1' "Jul III-.-.; ll‘t.‘1.'|‘1t,‘ll‘nvn .I: 'I I.‘ ...—...II‘IHXIH». C. up...” WdIyfi fi.4..F.W..|fi.4 “MAI... a... .)AIu4.wILH\W..1 mg!“ ”NH... J). . Mink—.7 ...... Q... Taiwan.” ..........A H].44A.I..1.H~.. ‘8 :-...L A]: . I. 4 x .....3- A .I..lI Alofuls uxngmE...ivm .-....Om .. .912... A... (u QAI 4054 I‘.‘ '1‘! l I! ll 5h 3.? 25 N4 ...... mm. H. om. 3.. an. 8.... OBI 2. ......k.m... 9....“ m; .....m 3.. 3. an. . 3. mm. $6 an mo I A... n... .... ...... 23...... 31A Tm mm. mm. .....m. 0H. m3. 9.3m 0m mm I o. compad .A. ... .Hmm “......A 443. 4.94.: Two...) 7de $.3er 3235.6.“ Anna}; $955.3 magma mmflHmsh I s '0 "A lyr‘ if} k \ ~ $30.3 dock Wadi)... mumpdpom waning... monogram .m.A......-.Aog 9.533.... 3.0.“.va r3.” Ho .0: fiwxooo 3.0.”.90 hashin. p.362; 1 ”82.-.... .A.wcqic..,..,.nfim§,.m:oo 9.0m 5.390.... gonad: JEEE... ...8 mu...mpq.m..o.u..m E“. III I'll-Q13 1:14)) +).I.1I . .... 1...). ......a )_ ..3 . . ... .... I...) . ....u ......» .... A. A C .L.CC m7. ......) ...AO H........An..A rm. an...” .A J... Am... .. .-....L ...... ,-..:ErH ”ALA. “1.1. 14- ... ...aa 1../.3. .1 “'4.) ... ... 14.4.. .1. \. I 11.. 3.22...‘ 7...” k—QII. Pwmkni '- hH.A...W p”fikf.~.& 5'ththI1‘. Ftp“.&..‘fI. L A .r.ur"~ N kl 9a.. .r. m: I.» mad. 55 consumption was about .hS bunch per person.while those who cooked about half or more of the carrots eaten consumed about 20 percent more. There was little difference in the per capita consumption of fine other foods when related to groups according to the percen- tage of carrots cooked. Carrots purchased.with and without tOps and food consumption. hhen the consumers who purchased carrots with tOps were compared with the consumers who purchased carrots without tops filere were no consistent relation- ships. 1he group purchasing carrots without tops consumed slightly more carrots (.56 bunch as compared with J49 bunch). This group also used slightly more celery and apples and less potatoes. The consumption of cabbage, hattuce and onions was about the same in each group. Each group spent about $6.00 per person a week for food, though file purchasers of carrots with.tops had a higher weekly approximate income per person. Their income was $26.80 per person as compared.with an average income per person of $22.60 received by the purchasers of carrots without tOps (Table 50). Rationality and food consumption. When comparing nationality with food consumption only the American 56 ‘IJI‘HI I v DI a. ll! t‘lvliilllt 1 “I.“ “JULOJV slow... ”.1“. \_.\ o .\.o r\n10 341)., .1. ... 4.. I o. .. c a: nu we .J- 0.0. "fingwfi, .10....J} 0.. ~qo \o LT\o n10 -«1. .. o, J v ... 0. in. I. CU ..Hn hm. r. ..C+ KPH: 41~..».4 ... ....y A“ 1.. . Us. is .- .H “......“ math. 0 ... H \- .. . NW? «rllr HM... ....n fins: Tend Essa: $965.... ...se.s.......£ mm. .....3....H.._.n.. 9.5.3.3 00:...pr 5.34....» o 3.....m3 mucky? .. C .. 1.8.1 .... .v s. ... 1.1.. . J . ..- . . ... 3....- v .. ”30.0.."an .MQHH. CCH +IFN5WCCU ....slr .w o... rlw¢.u.._. ‘ .as. .r 44. ...-A HL.UVVN A gen"; 4 E pOfHOMAm o .HO hwyfiLL... . )1! I111: .D..\I Wnni Infill“ 4..) .4 ‘Y ‘. ailitulni II C 4. .IJ. . .... .i. o n: ...né n: j . .sr. .5 . .fi. . I». v .H- .....k...u \r . . LV— . .. rl. (VII Ia. I. ...I. :I.|l.lk.. \ 3m ..-H J . a E as, as: 3.92.... ......2 .... 4.. .. .. Pea 3....m..... t i C. v? .'f ,v..L I’A‘n“! -.. .u 57 white and the Lorthern EurOpean groups were large enough to yield results which could be considered to be significantly different from the rest of the groups. The Northern EurOpean group in general consumed slightly more food per person than did the American white. The average weekly consumption of carrots was about the sane in each group, .hS and .51 pounds per person respectively. The NOrthern EurOpean group con- sumed slightly less lettuce than did the American White (.51 as compared with .56 head per person). The families averaged slightly larger in file North- ern EurOpean group, 5.91 persons as compared with §.h2 in the American White. The Korthern European group also had a lower weekly income per person, 921.00 as compared with 928.10 in the American white group. From the limited data available the American colored group appeared to use less carrots, celery, lettuce, and potatoes and to consume more onions and cabbage per person than U16 American White and Northern European groups (Table 51). Occupation and food consumption. There was little difference in carrot consumption when related to occupation. The range in average carrot consumption per person was from .h? to .58 bunches per week. The weekly food bill per person ranged from $5.70 to $6.80 (Table 52). 58 ...-......- I “I 1 “unufluulflouunlnfifluuu-fil will! ll ill... ssqcm no.0 m.H m.m we. ms. pm. 0m. mm. om.m m posse am... as.m n.H m.m mm. m. mm. ma. ms. as.m mm essssEss cEsspEsm sJ.uH. 0J.. H.H ~.N mm. om. am. am. Hm. ls.m 0mm span: cs 3 E». .. wt“; 11 II thug “MPHQJWM a .. .... H4 «...-33 «50.3 7.0.3.3 «3335 $305.3 mmol ...-05 $368.th mafia-H mmHHmon winch-H ....JJB mgr-mim- mmoawaom- nae-SO 3:anqu human-Jo amps-.30 33.530 CH mo .0: mush mans-7.. ...on..-J no mam-Hm. hmm Ensure-Emcee poo-H Ems-3.00....- AonJJSz .odpmdd mhfi...mmso._.t+fl awn-mmmmpo mo J. JHJJ. 33.133 2...... ...-DJ. 09. 3.14 .0: zen-1m ...-2m Shanna-H 0h... ...-.t . 1‘). ‘ ..1..-i . ...-J J... 0.... Q8 28%....sz T8 5. .E Hm MA 9.9 Er I14- I’IJ. O/ 5 ’1“: r; 1 Ilii‘il’ ‘i 3.!" 'i‘..§".i....k‘ilii u } l o ‘x C (~. , u I .t 1..... o lulu n5. CO dannrH mun” PM .Mu\H ,...-ra- OCH . I i. . .. L’bJ. L Audll... a. .... 0 I 3|}-1s’ EII‘I O. Iv ‘.l ..O i. .1 .iv’.‘.’ ' .1 gi‘l‘l‘. ‘Il..‘ l . ‘ 1‘ O. ..u. II I 'Oii..’l.!ll.'s'- I ...-'III '1.‘ -‘ll‘ \ ("J 1'? V33 (fl. “'\ .meQOMm oHO mmanHw.ifi. 0 ’15 EmJJEnn '.‘n.0"‘ ‘ .I '\ ,.- L'l.u’nl‘l’ ' ... «mmxofinog :1 0 ...-q 01 W1 +\ .WQOO «50.4. er-.ClJ. 7.5. UUO ..CHth-V hwflfimfl o4 ‘1!"1l 6O Family_income and.food consumption. There was little consistent relationship of consumption of carrots and the other foods and income, ranging from approxi- mately $15.00 perscm.person per week to $65.00 (Table 55). The weekly food bill per person increased from about 66.20 to ©8.h0 weekly. This higher food expenditure per person in the higher income families may be explained by the purchase of foods whose con- sumption varies directly with income and by the higher priced sources of purchase, additional services pur- chased and similar factors. Areas of similar rental but varying_income and food consumption. When consumers of similar rental areas but with varying incomes were compared, there were no consistent differences in the amounts of the various foods consumed by the various consumer groups (Table 5h). There were indications that the total food ex- penditure per person for these consumers might have been more nearly associated with location than in- come. In the low and medium.rental areas there were almost no differences in food expenditure per person even though income per person varied as much as $6.00 weekly in the low and $26.00 weekly in the medium rental area. In the high rental area (East lensing) food 61 i'! Iii II N ‘. ...“... +4 FVK‘ 1.. ..v h: .D ”J I NOH n.m.J..J . m . 0H. . ..-. 3.. a x. o.H . Na om. 1a. 41. A; ...... . o C MN - \ o C . ).-£\ - .. T N N.H . mu ON. . . 0.. u .\ J J... 3...... . . N N N..- o 0 m4. 0m 0 a b .HmCHO (MO H K. r r 8. Cu. o O m o o .w 0.... O: o m. o . NH .3. NH ... n? m... ...I. .\O m” N num‘. 1...... N H5. \.0 Adam. ' 47.4 N. 1A. 0 Hofl N. J 3m. NH. \ 9.. m MH . ......C “T... ...er ....\....0m 41 0-H N. N @340 mm. 0.3 o J U 0 Call: 11 O‘HN .l «WC-M . .. . J . x r .. , 1 3.. N ...... .. .. . m... - 3 .. ... J: m 1.... . 0 n: \o 1. NM m .. ..n n. .....H 7?. Jo. o N ON. Om. . Mr. m4 . m. .. mm. W... mmH l mJHH ; .. m J Jum mm. ...... .m. cm. .... .. .. .... m4 1 a. q. .. a. . H.H .. 1. 0. em. as. .t t. « Am J -- 1... 01....-- .. . . m AZ. 0... . xv. - . on. .1 ..n. w. um. I J... o 1.“ ..u M: New nah-0 ..To "C N4 O .3440 3. \. O. A110 I. )x- .. .35 H... 1... cc 5; on. . .. 2.. ...J. on ... mi... ...I’...3 .\.l Fl r ..." J4] . v . r ma W... C .i O . p ma ' «.er r: .r. 3N ..(F. m. \J 05 o L C41 m N I .....L H H.N J. . m3 3H. . . um ... . N .\ \ C fivm~ .' c I I “.41 .III P. Hg. 1 o .. . mH Q . .LL J 111.. I-.. I111. C: 0m. J.\ o . OH We... I a. . an.mm..w- 1 1 111.-.--111l 11.. NH N NH 31.. . ...m r... mama. a . 11 11- - v.9. newt... - 00 I . . .r OHMJQ AHJTD AomnH’. \0......../ TIM VH3: .\ .4: .I 1x .. 1.r.(.. I. Am a. n ..J. .r den-H mmHJ-.. .. 0...... . ......- .. ...HV Hwfi m. V Swans? 6V 5.4.de . . Nvlwwz ...-2.1.... WHJAJUL: f ..l1.I-1I..I 9.. Q. Ma...:. .. H J..\). ®O1HJJPD1H kh. )I 1 .. f” -. .V AmmHVOHHSnV Edit-.. J n1, ......J. .. . . _ u 1-1.1.. .....111......__.11.91.111I111111 r c «1.. dost) 030 . . .... .r .. .....H hHHdeH JHIv.-. .. .L.I . nunn.. “IL “0n.1.) na4<|l..‘ll.l . J ..5( II.» J. .Mn..m.o a I II ... I Q 0 two ”II--1113 . L .5 .....no J... .- _ 5...... . ...-J. ..c .. .... .Joo 11.113113111U1L..HHN.H!I. - “Milli. 0. . .. -... c .Hmt...J-J....._. .--n -. . H H 5.. Chen... ...} n I "1‘01 1 ..l I. IV .... .. .. L on .MMCI—I .01.}! JiHrkvA. J24 .‘VIA’IIO ,....Id 1 ‘1. ‘Ill .. ..1H NJ H10 min-w... ......Hfi..._.._..oJZ.J. J .- 1 .r. . 0.. 1......149.-J. 3.3.. :1... 1.4.1-0. . . ..P .. J.- .1...-.M..-...1....J.J. J......J_. Ifl‘f “1 11). In.’ .5.... ..nr’1 ..‘1 .‘. ._ g :1. .11.. .. 95h ...4 44.1.60... 3 J..- 4 1- . ..-. .. r. W .. 7... Fl- -.. . .. . t. 1.1-. I'ul' 0!... mm uqq "N1“...nddflut1111 Ihfi1‘I-"Ah .111 11 1111 NH! 1H ll. .1I1|.!.fl.H111..I.1h.II111I1..-111H|11 111 111 o .-1. -o a... 41.40 J... .1\. 1. ...... Tex. .-....4. J. . A. . . . . Av... I .. a - . J- r ... .n. ... m . 1. n. r J N .. up... 5.: -.m t m3 ......OH \ — T1... ...... '0 Z-.. . ON . (‘11 7’) J21 N OJ (\1 ta- _,'+ o (...! ”\ O 11’. NJ? J 0 £1 ‘1? O O r‘ h“. (V 1 1 L! O H 5N0“ . 0 (\IC 0 NMN O . M .\ O .-.? 031.1. (HQ: 0U N... Ix . o~.m mm Jnflg -—4 o O '3‘ 0 main. a..o on. A. mo. m. .J ....N .... 7... O. . .-..H ....J... .... m .H ...J .m H . on . 0N . .mH . a: . m3 . m 3: S...-J...-,....JJJ J.. 3 su.J a. m.m mm. mm. Hm. m4. mg. c:.m 4N 30H .09. . a. J, 3.. 2mm... 9.24.6... .. 21.00. 33...... NJ. mim- zm. cs. mm. m... 03.. .32; JJJJ: 34.0“ am.“ e. m.m 2n. ca. Jm. 34. ms. nu. xn eijci -.J : 2... .. ... m .N mm . 3...... 3.. S. cm . ”6..” p :3 .0...” .3... ...........H.. NJ... 3 I... . P Ear 0H- - C... macaw am .- 33.. Leg ppm Hip... «5an H.onV «.mgHV Ham-mp: $95an «3&ch mmoJJBJHnV 3...?me momemh macucfl vonw mrqmmd mJonfinom man :0 ou¢AJoH mavqon mmwnnmu mJOAamu CH Mo .02 . J I J ....4. .....w... NH... .5: non-......em 27...... so. ....._..J._.,..J.J... memo 1.03.... ...nH-...a.,......... Meagan,“ .w-opomd awn... Hana... - F .1 1 1111 1 1 1.1g 1 ”dorml 111.1! 1.1 " C . . .‘ 1 . tun... .I.) u I . a. ) r 4.‘ . .IuJ . u). . i ‘1. n . I.) 4 I. m-aunu. nil . v.73: .5. H3... ,...J J... HQH PH J.._._..;.._....m._. m1... Ekmum ka ...-....Hn. 2H 2.9. a. . 4 r.‘l 4“} {\I ' ‘ 1 .1 I . . o I.) 4 n l ‘I.... O. _ 3+0? ., J A... Ha... J... _ J a. .. , J. 00 A... ...... Va. .... 'J «151 .. .... 3m 11... ,.... ..z. . E 63 exnenditure per person was directly related to income. It seems likely that some factor other than income, possibly nutritional education, may have accounted for part of the difference in response. On the other hand, with.a given level of income per person, say @17.00, a greater prOportion would appear to have been used fOr food in the low than in the high rental area. It is reCOgnized here that in grouping by rental areas, one also groups by income, education, occupation, ard other factors to some extent. CHAPTER VI SU Maid Y AK D CO 11" C LUS I OHS §gmm§£y. Consumer preferences and practices as they apply to the purchase and use of carrots were determined. It was thought that a knowledge of these factors might aid in solving some of the problems faced in marketing lichigan stored carrots. The material used in the study was obtained by personal interview of 298 family units in the Lansing— East Lansing area in February of l9h8. The factor in carrots found to be considered the most important by conSimers was freshness. The con- sumer, not only listed fredhness as most important, but also gave freShness as the reason for many of fine consumer responses and actions. The consumer gave taste or flavor as second in importance. Flavor was followed by texture and tenderness which were consider- ed of equal importance. Size and color of skin were considered to be somewhat less important. These factors were followed by defects and cleanliness which were given little importance. Defects in carrots Without tOps were riven more importance than defects in czarrots with tOps. Price was given the least considera- ‘bion by the consumers and was considered unimportant. 65 A preference for carrots with tops was expressed by BA percent of the consumers, two-thirds of whom gave freshness as the reason for their Choice. The con- sumers were generally well satisfied with the carrots they purchased. Carrots were more often served raw with meals than cooked. flaw carrots were served with 16 percent of the total meals (lunches and dinners) and cooked carrots wena served with 15 percent of the meals. Uinners represented approximately 58 percent of the meals containing raw carrots and 70 percent of the meals containing cooked carrots. The average family interviewed had either cooked carrots or raw carrots on the menu. about four timep a week . Carrots were reported on hand by 69 percent of those reporting. Carrots were purchased once a week by 66 percent of those responding and were put on the shopping list by 79 percent. Price was relatively un- important in determining carrot purchases; 81 percent reported that they continued to purchase the same amount when.they considered carrots h’gh priced. Many consumers had knowledge of the nutritional values of carrots. when asked why they served carrots 57 percent replied, ”Health". Vitamin A was given by MA percent when asked regarding vitamin content. 66 Carrots appear to be generally used by all groups. ihe average weekly consumption per person at the time of the survey was one-half bunch of carrots. Conclusions. If hichigan carrot producers are to take an increasing share of the market with stoed carrots, they must satisfy the consumers' demands. Some growers selling an attractively-packaged, uniform, high quality, tepped carrot--after develOping outlets through retail food stores--nave created a steady demand for their carrots. The grower needs the cOOperation of the merchant to market high-quality stored carrots which will be considered "fresh" by he consumers. ihe consumer needs to be educated that high-quality stored carrots may be obtained in the fall and early winter months. Promising experiments are underway at present tOward lengthening the possible storage period. Mediods by which increasing quantities of hichigan stored carrots may move into consumption channels need to be studied. 67 APPENDIX A RICH I CAN S TATE C OLLEL GE DEPARTMENT OF ACdICULTUdAL ECONOMICS Interviewer Date Street Block How many carrots have you bought during the past week? bunches How often do you usually buy carrots? What store usually? When you have a choice, do you generally select the carrots with t0ps or without tOps Why ? Where do you keep them? Refrigerator Icebox___ Other Do you have carrots on hand now? Yes No Do the carrots stay fresh after purchase? Yes No Other In what ways do you use carrots? Ways Cooked Last Week Number of times each meal (L-D or between) Creamed ............ Buttered ” . Stew Z2}? Cooked. Candied Soup With roastfl Other Salads Raw Who 16 Raw I Strips Have you ever purchased packaged frozen carrots? Yes No ‘_4 Have you ever purchased packaged fresh carrots? Yes No Type package Remarks: 68 Did you buy canned carrots last month? Cans; Carrot juice? Baby food with carrots? Do you put carrots on your shOpping list? Yes No Other ‘_ What influences you to buy fiaem.if they are not on fine list khen carrots are high-priced in your Opinion, which do you generally do? - - - - Continue to buy the same amounts Buy less If buy less, do you substitute another vegetaEIe? Yes No Which one? I have a list of qualities that carrots possess.I would like to find out how important you think each of these are and why. Importance Buying Characteristics very-I} Some-2; Not vegy-j Why? *“ Freshness How test? Describe ‘*"Color-skin Why? -*-'inside Describe Shape (scale) Why prefer? Size (scale) Describe Why? _ Defects Why? (carrots with Do they often have defects? tOps) ‘ Defects Why? (carrots with-Do they often have defects? out tOps) Are carrots often dirty? Cleanliness Remarks Price A" 1% I“ 93.1.. ThnAa 7O Eating»Characteristics Taste or Describe Flavor Is flavor usuaIIy satisfactory? Texture ‘ Describe Is this satisfactory? Is this satisfactory? Tenderness Describe good quality ggint§ Is this factor satisfactOry? List the most important quality: What qualities are most often lacking in the carrots you buy? In your Opinion, what are the main reasons you serve carrots We are interested in your Opinion of the food and health value of carrots. What vitamins are in carrots? What special food values are in carrots? What other values do you finink they have? Who in your family (if any) likes carrots? host: Father_;MOther__Son__Daugmte£_pther__age__ Le a st: Fa ther__MO the r__Son____Dau ghter___0 ther___Age__ In order to make statistical comparisons Of carrots and other foods we would like some information on a few other foods. Approximately how much did you eat kist week? 71 Potatoes___pk. Onions___lbs. or size (if NQ)_ Oranges___doz.____ Iettuce___heads___:size Celery____stalks-size____ Cabbage___heads -size Carrots_____bunches_____‘ Apples____lbs. or size (if NO.( Please estimate your weekly food bill (including milk) for your household. S About your family: How many eat with the family? Breakfast Total Under 6 yrs. Lunch (Including box) Dinner Husband's Occupation: Race; Nationality: (homeland of father's or huspand's parents) Approximate weekly income in entire family: Under §fi55___; #56-h5___;' $h6-55__; $56-65___; $66-80___; $81-95___; $96-115__; $116-135__; $156-155_;t156- 200___; $201-§OO___; $501 or over____. 72 APPEKDIX B MEIUCJ USED TC.DLTLRLILL RELATIVE IRECEIRNCE OF FACTORS BASE) CH C“N3Uh3d VALUATIONS. The consumers rated each factor in one Of three levels: (1. very important, 2. some importance, and 5. not very important). The relative importance of each of the various factors was determined by assigning numerical values to the replies. The replies were reported in percentages in the tables. Each.percentage signifying "very important" was assigned a value of three; "some importance" was assigned a value of one, and "not very important" was assigned a value of negative one. Let us assume an equal distribution of the three levels of importance to be 55$, 5h$ and 55$ (total 100i). The percentage of esch.answer is then multiplied.by the numerical value assigned above (5 for "very important", 1 for "some importmice", and -l for "not very important") with the result: aax 5 = 9? 94x 1 - m 155 55X-l = Thus an equal distribution of answers is given an importance value of 100. An importance value under 100 indicates that the consumer considers the factor relative- ly unimportant. As the consumers.consider the factor more important the value rises above 100. 73 Importance Very Some Rot Very Very Some Not Very Very Some Not Very Very Some Not Very APPERDIX B CCNT'D Importance Given Various Factors by Consumers Factor Freshness Taste Tenderness 5 Value 3 Value 3 Value 92 276 78 25k 56 168 7 19 1~ ' 59 Q <25 3% at? 1 -1 5 - - - 2C2 25 02 Shape Texture Defects (with- out tOps) 57 11} 56 108 kg 122 54 ' 55 2: 5 1§§' 9 5 11 ll 25 35 50 155 150 Color Of Size Cooking quality skin 40 120 5 105 E5 9 55 id 7 4% o 8 55 ,. 5F 25 :25 IO -ld l9 -1 155 155 12 Cleanliness Defects Price (with tops) 51 95 )5: 96 26 78 50 p0 a2 59 0 n5 5 II?’ 19 -1 26 -26 56 -36 12 112 ‘ 7h BIBLIOGRAPHY Bailey, Liberty Hyde (ed.) 1907 CyplOpedia pf_American Aggiculture. V01. 2, Macmillan CO., New York. 699 pp- Bailey, Liberty Hyde 19k? The Standard ewelgpedi§_of Horticulture. Ol, , {son an CO., Ker York. 1200 pp. Beattie, J. H., and.Beattie, W. R. l9hh Production pf Carrots. U. S. Department of Agriculture. Leaflet 125, Government Printing Office, Washington. h pp. Blount, Gerald R. 1948 A Fruit and Venetable Bu in Guide for -Consumers. U.S. Depar men of KngEElture. EESOEIIaneous Publication NO. 167, Govern- ment Printing Office. Washington. 62 pp. Bodwell, Mary, Love, A. B., and Motts, G. l9h8 Consumer Food Facts, NO. 2-Carrots, Agricul- tural Economics Department, Michigan State College, East Lansing. mimeognglhed pub- lication. 5 pp. Chatfield, Charlotte, and Adams, Georgian ' 19h0 Proximate Composition Of American Food 'Materials. Bureau Of—HOme Economics, U.S. Department Of Agriculture. Circular 5M9, Government Printing Office, Washington. 92 pp. Gaston, H. P. - 1959 Marketing kiddigal Vegetable Crops. Circular Bulletin NO. 169, Michigan State College, East Iansing. 26 pp. Lewis, Willimn E. l9h0 Pgeparation Of Bunched Beets, Carrots, and Thrni s for—Farket. U. S. Department of KgricuIture, Farmer‘s Bulletin No. 1594N Revised, Government Printing Office, Wash- ington. 22 pp. 7S BIBLIOGRAPHY CONT'D Kagruder, Roy, and others 1940 Description of Types of Principal American ..__.- ~- “Variet eswofnbran3§:fleshed*Carrots. Bureau of Plant Industry, U.S. Department of Agriculture. Eiscellaneous Publication No. 561, Government Printing Office, Wash— ington. AB pp. National Association of Ice Industries 19h9 (?) Money Saving Tips on Marketing. National Association of Ice Industries, Washington. 2A pp- Pillar, Ray 19h8 A Guide to Better Handling and More Efficient Merchandising of Fresh Fruits and Vegetables. National League of Wholesale Fresh Fruit and Vegetables. National League of Wholesale Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Distributors, Washington. u8 pp. Plant Breeding and Research Division, Ferry-Morse Seed Co. 1950 Vegetable Varieties, A Selective Compilation of Varietal Characteristics and.Uses. Ferry-Morse Seed Company, Detroit. 96 pp. Reinhart, Marguarette 19u7 Fresh Fruits and Vegetables. Household Finance Corporation, Chicago. MO pp. Research Committee, Folding Paper Box Assoc. of America l9h8 We Didn't Interview any Rabbits but PeOple Like Their Carrots in Packages. Folding Paper Box Assoc. of America, Chicago. A pp. United Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Association l9u9 Fruit and Vegetable Facts and Pointers, United Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Association, Wash- ington. mimeographed publication. 5 pp. U. S. Bureau of Agricultural Economics l9h9 Consumption g; Food_in the United States 1908- 19Q8: U.S. Department of Agriculture. Miscel— laneous Publication No. 691, Government Print- ing Office, Washington. 196 pp. 76 BIBLIOGdAPEY CONT’D U.S. Bureau of Human.Nutrition and Home Economics 1915 Eagles 3; Food Composition in W Eleven Nutrients. U.S. Department of Agriculture. fifiscellaneous Publication No. 572, Government Printing Office, nashington. 12 pp. U. S. Bureau of Agricultural Economics l9h8 Commercial Truck GrOps, l9h8 Annual Summary- Commercial_1ruck CrOps for Fresh Market.- U.S. Department of Agriculture. Government Print— ing Office, nashington. mimeogrmphed pub- lication. 5h pp. Whittaker, T.W., and Others 19h6 Carrot Production in the West and Southwest. FU.S. Department of Agriculture. Circular 750, Government Printing Office, Washington. 52 pp. . -.l .r.‘V .v .. — IV . :11.“ .\ 9.4.4.? 7. Kfi . .13 a I I o HICHIGQN STRTE UNIV. LIBRRRIES 31293101382749