BULLETIN s56 APRIL 1957- VARIATIQNS 1N w‘ COLQR OF FAT IN BEEF ’ J‘ YELLOW CREAMY) ~ v i l i TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION R. D. lewis. Director. College Station, Texas ‘ "a1 or u! v \x s“’ Q0“; u.» c0111“ ERCIAL CONTENTS Summary and Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3 l Acknowledgments . . . . . . . r . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ . . . .. 4 i Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5 i Consumer Preferences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1x . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Consumer Meat Preferences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3 . . . . _ . . . . . . . . 6 Kind of Meat Preferred . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ . . . . . . .. 6-- Family Income and Meat Preferences. . < . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6 i Race and Meat Preferences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 7 Education and Meat Preferences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 7 Significance of Income, Race and Education _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 7 . Favorite Beef Cuts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 8 Steaks and Roasts Preferred . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 8 i‘ Family Characteristics- and Buying Habits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 9 i Meat Preference and Choice of Beef Cuts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..ll] '17 'Beef Grades ....' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10 Knowledge of Beef Grades . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..ll] i Consumer Use of Beef Grades . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..ll " Reliance on Butcher's Advice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , _ _ _ _ _ , _ _ , _ . _ , _ _ _ , , , ..ll j Beef Grade Preferences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ . . . . ..l2 i Grade Preferences of Consumers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..l2 Income and Grade Preferences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..l3 ~ Education and Grade Preferences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..l3 . Reasons for Grade Preferences. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13 Grade Preferences by Race . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ , _ , _ _ _ _ _ _ , , . ..l4 ' Fat and Marbling Preferences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ _ , _ _ _ _ _ _ _ , _ _ ‘ , _ _ _ _ _ __14~. Amount of Fat Desired . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ . . . ..l4 f. Amount of Marbling Preferred . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ _ , _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ , . _ . , . _ . , ..l5 i’ Reasons for Fat Preferences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ . . . . . . . . . . . ..l5 Choice of Fat Color . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ , . . j. . . . . . . . . . . _ . . . .157 Factors Consumers Consider . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ , , , , , _ , , . . , _ . . , . . _ . ,l6 ,_ Shopping and Buying Practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..l6 Where the Buying Decision Is Made . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..l6 I Person Shopping for Meats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..l7 Changing List at the Store . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ , _ , , , , , , , , _ , , , _ . _ , , ..l7 _ Butcher Service or Self-service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , _ _ _ _ _ _ , _ _ _ _ , _ _ _ , _ , _ __17 1 Reasons for Preferring Butcher Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..l8 ; Frequency of Buying Fresh Beef . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..l8 ' Weight of Beef Cuts Preferred . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..l8 1 Freezer Storage Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , , , , . , , _ _ _ _ _ . . _ , , _ , _ ,.l9;' Frozen Storage Available . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19 Quantity Bought for Freezer Storage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ , A _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __20 A Source for Freezer Storage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , _ _ , _ _ _ , _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ > “Z04 r Methods of Preparing and Serving Beef . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ _ _ _ , , _ , , _ _ _ , _ . . . , _ _ ..2l] Cooking Equipment Used . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..2l A Oven Temperature for Roasts . . . . . . . . . . . . _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..2l I. Use of Powdered or Liquid Tenderizers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 22'?" Doneness of Steaks and Roasts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22 a Times Roasts Were Served . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22 Methods of Serving Leftover Roast. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23 ; Use of Leftover Beef Iuice and Fat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .' . . . . . . . . . . _ . . . . . . . ..23 ' Frequency of Use of Beef Cuts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23 I Retail Store Test . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24 Literature References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26 - Appendix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27_ The Sample . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 27 . Field Staff . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..27 i Interview Techniques and Tabulating Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27 Retail Store Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 27 Field Schedules and Questionnaires . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27. PERCENT OF FAMILIES 5O 4O 3O 2O SUMMARY and CONCLUSIONS COMMERCIAL eooo cuolc: Pam: U. S. BEEF GRADES Preferences of Houston families for grades of beef. u .: 1' L ' ‘ ‘I I n p’ bulletin gives the results oi an intensive study made in 1955 to provide Texas cattle raisers and h ers and retailers of beef with specific and objective information regarding the preferences of con- qior the various grades and cuts of beef. ifstudy was conducted in Houston. Texas’ largest city. It is believed that the preferences expressed oneral application to other cities of Texas and the Southwest. Corresponding studies were made i~ nix. Arizona. and Denver. Colorado. t fin: PRODUCERS ‘ospective oi price. beef is the preferred meat oi only about 6O percent oi the Houston families. 'cken is the major competitor oi beef. partly as a result oi the tremendous growth oi the broiler _ ~ in Texas. Azdium and low-income families are inclined to shiit their meat preference away from beef and to- fchicken instead of veal. e ierence for veal is low among both low and high-income families. Veal preference also is low p- Phoenix and Denver families. . S. Good grade beef is preferred by most consumers. even if U. S. Choice and U. S. Prime are offered i same price per pound in the retail store. This was the consumers’ decision after viewing 8 x 10- olored pictures of U. S. Commercial. U. S. Good. U. S. Choice and U. S. Prime beef rib-eye cuts, a S. Prime beef is the least wanted oi all meat grades, even if priced the same per pound as lower " of beef. v beef is not wanted by most of today's weight-conscious consumers. A are is little desire on the part oi consumers for marbling in beef. view of the above facts. cattlemen should bring cattle up to the U. S. Good grade whenever possible marketing them. in the interest of maintaining and increasing consumer satisfaction with beef. ggore S. Choice beef. however, still needs to be produced in Texas to satisfy those desiring this . One-third oi the Houston consumers preferred U. S. Choice or U. S. Prime beef. Most retail stores !. this grade have to import supplies from Mid-west States. --- consumers are not familiar with U. S. beef grades. More educational and promotional programs beef industry are necessary to keep consumers better informed. Well-done steaks are the choice of a large maiority of families. Over-cooking may be more pr than is desirable for best beef eating texture and tastiness. Educational consumer information --. desirable for beef producers. Consumers also are not acquaintedwith many beef cuts. More consumer education and beef pr ~ is needed to stimulate demand for these cuts. ' FOR BEEF RETAILERS Approximately half the housewives in Houston decide on their meat purchases inth; store. Two out of three housewives prefer butcher service, although most are patronizing self-service m Results were similar in Houston, Denver and Phoenix. — It may be advisable to have open-service sections in self-service meat markets to increase --» satisfaction. U. S. beef grades generally are not known by consumers. In Houston, only l person out of 20 name the three grades—U. S. Commercial (now U. S. Standard for carcasses under 4 years old), U. S.' and U. S. Choice—that normally may be found in food stores. ' Most consumers prefer U. S. Good grade beef based on selections after viewing 8 x 10-inch c pictures of U. S. Commercial. U. S. Good. U. S. Choice and U. S. Prime beef. They made the sell on the basis of all four grades being the same price per pound. ~ Only a third of the consumers prefer the U. S. Choice or Prime grades. A retail store test in Houston confirmed consumer's preferences for U. S. Good grade beef. Most consumers do not prefer fat or marbled beef. Stores need to consider seriously handling two or more grades of beef rather than a single grade. wider choice should give better satisfaction to consumers as a whole and thereby increase >5 customer satisfaction. = Bright red color and leanness of meat are the factors most frequently mentioned by house ' selecting beef to buy. Veal is preferred by only a minority of the Houston. Denver or Phoenix families. Therefore. it undesirable to handle veal exclusively in meat markets. ‘ Meat tenderizers have no-t proved satisfactory in the opinion of most housewives. Freezer storage units are owned by a fourth of the Houstonians, most being zero temperature I Ownership of large freezer units is definitely affecting the manner of meat purchasing by the w. amount of wholesale cuts bought and where the meat is purchased. Most families prefer a l-pound package of hamburger meat. About a third of the families prefer either small or large roasts. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This report represents the results of personal efforts and contributions of many individuals. R. E. Seltzer of the Department of Agricultural Economics at the University of Arizona was p responsible for designing the questionnaire used in this survey as well as those in Phoenix. Arizona, Denver, Colorado. Glenn Burrows of the U. S. Department of Agriculture drew the Houston sam households for the survey. Phoenix, Arizona, data, used in this report, are from ProfessoreSeltzefs b _ g “Consumer Preferences for Beef in Phoenix, Arizona." Figures cited for Denver are from the "Co: Preferences for Beef" bulletin of Ira M. Stevens, Frederic O. Sargent. Emma I. Thiessen and Carroll S *_ over published by the University of Wyoming and Colorado A6¢M College Agricultural Experiment Stl The colored pictures of beef grades and fat were furnished by the Arizona Agricultural Experiment St The experimental retail store market test of consumer beef grade preferences in Houston repo l this bulletin, was conducted by O. D. Butler and R. L. Reddish, head and graduate student, respe - of the Department of Animal Husbandry. Thanks are expressed to the Weingarten Stores, Inc., of -~ for their cooperation in the test. ' ' This report contributes toward the coordinated program of the Western Region Livestock Mar i Research Committee. The marketing research was done under the auspices of the U. S. Departm Agriculture and the land-grant colleges of the respective Western States. Further regional research in progress in‘ Arizona. Colorado, Wyoming. Washington and Oregon will be reported in future b l of those states. PRODUCTION is one of the major enter- s in Texas and the Southwest. It repre- jnajor source of farm income for an even ’r0portion of the farms and ranches of than in the days of the “open range.” rch by the Texas Agricultural Experi- tation’ has provided much valuable in- for improving Texas beef cattle pro- ' Heretofore however; this research has f1» directed toward the consumer market products. report is a summary of an intensive i- beef preferences among consumers in , Texas—-one of the largest cities of the lest. Its objective is to provide Texas lroducers and beef wholesalers and re- iwith specific and objective information _'g preferences of consumers comprising fi ket they supply. giadequate understanding of the kind of ‘l; sumers want is basic to establishing goals es for the producer in his breeding and __operations. il food stores frequently build Thuch of “tronage and customer good will on the _of meat they handle. Needless to say, con- Y dissatisfied with the beef available in _-avorite food stores have a lower demand than would otherwise be the case. Con- '_ly, dollar beef sales are lost to the food jnd lower than necessary cattle prices and returns prevail. - J from its importance to beef producers, formation from this survey should be of lar interest to store managers and meat supervisors. Retailers are urged to con- ~- he research findings carefully; in many ‘s, they are believed contrary to the nal, or commonly accepted principles of retailing methods. A question seriously , for example, is whether meat retailing is as directly keyed to consumers’ pref- a as is necessary to produce maximum olume. nation-wide recognition of the need for ; basic and objective knowledge regarding ~- prsferences for beef and other meats p» the Agricultural Experiment Stations of Kiri, Arizona, Colorado, Wyoming, Washing- d Oregon to undertake similar research. ar, consumer surveys have been conducted ,3»: states in St. Louis, Missouri; Phoenix, 27/15 éonsumer Market/or 1365/ Arizona; Denver, Colorado; and Spokane, Wash- ington} Houston was selected as the survey area for the Southwest. Although no two cities in a given geographic region are entirely comparable, many basic similarities frequently. exist. In this in- stance, it is believed that preferences expressed in Houston have general application to other Texas and Southwestern cities. Variations among cities in such factors as racial composition, occupations and consumer incomes, should always be con- sidered before drawing conclusions or making comparisons. For this reason, results of the sur- vey in Houston will be compared from time to time with those in Phoenix, Arizona, and Denver, Colorado. Preference information usually is best” ob- tained directly from consumers themselves. Re- tail store sales data often are unsuitable for a number of reasons. Customers may have no choice but to select grades or cuts of beef display- ed by a particular store. Price differences in and among different stores for various grades and cuts influence meat selections. Purchases, therefore, may not always be relied on to properly reflect shoppers’ perferences. Approximately 1,000 families were interview- ed, in the Houston survey. The sample, designed on a probability cluster sample basis, represented a complete cross-section of the city’s population. The technical design of the survey, interviewing techniques, comparison of the sample with Census data and other information are given in the Appendix. Answers in the survey were sought to questions pertaining to the following general sub- ject areas: What proportion of the consumers prefer beef to any other kind of meat? What are consumers’ favorite beef cuts? How frequently are they used? Are certain grades of beef preferred over others? Why? To what extent? In buying beef, what particular cuts and sizes usually are desired? How frequently are they used? Who usually makes the meat pur- chases? What type of meat department is pre- ferred—self-service or service? Why? 1See Literature References. Since methods of preparation may in- fluence both the grade and cut of meat purchased, what beef cooking practices are normally followed in the home? Numerous other aspects of consumer attitudes and behavior were analyzed. Factors such as variations in the family income, housewives’ education and size of the family were related to various family preferences and shopping habits to learn more about their relationship to con- sumers’ buying behavior regarding beef. This knowledge can assist in guiding more effective educational and promotional programs to in- crease beef consumption—programs developed by either producers, Wholesalers or retailers of beef. CONSUMER PREFERENCES Consumer Meat Preferences Kind of Meat Preferred Only 60 percent of the families interviewed in Houston preferred beef over any other kind of meat, Figure 1. This figure may be surprising to Texas cattlemen. It is considerably lower than the beef preference found in either Phoenix or Denver, where 87 and 77 percent, respectively, took beef as their first choice. Chicken, the second most popular choice in Houston, was preferred by 17 percent of the families. Veal was preferred by only 9 percent of the families? Such a low preference is significant > since many Texas retail food stores feature it rather than beef because of lower veal prices. Furthermore, there has been some tendency in the Southwest during recent years for ranchmen Figure 1. Consumer meat preferences in Houston. Phoe- nix and Denver. 6, and farmers to market cattle at the veal, or ‘f beef,” age rather than holding for greater’ turity. Low as the preference is, more H0 . families selected veal as their first choice , was done in either Denver or Phoenix where about 1 percent chose it. Fresh pork was the first choice of on percent of the families, cured}pork of only 2. cent. Such a low preference for fresh n possibly results in part from the relatively climate in the Southwest. However, even l cooler Denver climate, only 3 percent fav fresh pork. Few families reported lamb, tu fish, luncheon or “other” meats as their p meat preference. None of these latter meats the choice of more than 2 percent of Hous families. None interviewed preferred mu Only 2 percent hadno particular meat prefer Preferences for any commodity obviously i relate to choices within one’s individual? perience or knowledge. Foods, perhaps more 1 any other, necessitate a personal use experi Meat preferences, therefore, must rela { choices among those with which the indiv is personally familiar. The strong effect of; sonal experience will be noticed partic l when individual meat preferences are consii later for different income groups and =i g Widely varied preferences also will be noted individual beef cuts. i Family Income and Meat Preferences The income of a consumer generally , marked relationship to his meat prefere Nearly 4 out of 5 of the families with incomes of $6,000, or above, reported beef as favorite meat, Table 1. In comparison, only], thirds of the middle-income families ($3, $5,999) and half of the low-income group than $3,000) took beef as their first choice. Veal, the economy “beef,” somewhat su q ingly, has no more preference among low“ among high-income eaters. Low-incomers f shift their choice to chicken or fresh pork. helpful, therefore, to consider the prefe Q pattern for these two competitive meats. c d Only 1 Houston high-income family in; reported chicken as their top meat choice? sharp contrast, chicken was the favorite =f low-income family in 4, and of 1 in 6 with me incomes. There is some likelihood that quality beef cuts purchased by some low-in families are a factor giving beef an unfavo p, taste comparison with chicken. i‘ Fresh pork also is predominantly prefe by low-income families. Nearly 1 family a L 10 with low incomes selected it. However, it P low in general consumer preference. For exai 2Veal as used by Houston and other Texas cons j actually refers to heavy calf. For example, the av" weight of calves slaughtered in Texas was 433 l in 1955 compared with the U. S. average of 217_ p”, if top ranking of only 1 family in 60 with Ames. Meat Preferences Iof what appears to be the effect of in- " meat preferences is actually a reflection differences. This is evident in Table 2 cial comparisons are made within the ‘me group. size of the Negro population in Houston, ‘ ted 21 percent of ‘the total, resulted in nough sample of these families to- permit sight into racial differences. Racial , es were not isolated in the Denver and ;~Sl1I'VeyS. fincreased preference for fresh pork flow-income households is found, for j to be the direct result of a substantially w preference among Negro families in income bracket. Twice as large a pro- xof the low-income Negro families—12 i preferred pork as did medium-income ‘amilies. Income apparently had little, if uence on fresh pork preferences of White e from such racial differences within e income level, important over-all differ- ere found. White families show a mark- jter preference for beef than Negroes, L‘, viewed as a total race or within given " levels. fthe other hand, Negro families in Houston _ strong liking for chicken. Regardless of 9e level selected, the proportion prefer- - icken varies from half again to double the ; ge for White consumers. preferences also differ markedly among The 4 percent of the Negro families fifish as their first choice, although small, f ch larger than for White families. j, Mexican nationality in Houston consti- a relatively small percentage of the total ion, only about 5 percent. Consequently, f: ber of Mexican families in the sample was ited to permit conclusions regarding the nship of their preferences to family income “on and Meat Preferences ‘en with as large a sample as that taken in ,n—987 families—it is not possible to iso- early the relationship between education nsumers’ behavior regarding meat pref- 5 Negro families, usually less educated _ ites, fall in greater numbers in the grade education group. Therefore, a racial effect ‘i. within Table 3. Nonetheless, some im- a indications seem evident. ilies of well-educated housewives are _ more likely to prefer beef. They are pondingly less likely to choose veal. This ent from an analysis of the families within TABLE 1. MEAT PREFERENCES ACCORDING TO FAMILY ' INCOME. HOUSTON. 1955 Annual family income Medium High Preference Low All ($3.000- ($6.000 . . (°'$2'999) $5.999) a over) ‘mmhes — — — Percent of families — — — Beef 47 63 79 60 Veal 9 10 8 9 Fresh pork 9 6 l 6 Cured pork 3 2 1 2 Lamb 1 1 1 1 Mutton Luncheon meats 1 1 Chicken 25 16 17 Turkey 1 1 1 1 Fish 2 1 2 No preference 3 l 3 2 rmi 10o 10o 10o 10o Number of families in survey sample 370 407 210 987 ‘Less than 0.5 percent. the medium-income class. Beef ranked first in 72 percent of the homes where the housewife had college education. It was first choice in only 52 percent of the homes where the housewife had a grade school education. Changes in preferences for chicken shown in Table 3 suggest themselves to be underlying racial differences instead of being related to the home- maker’s educational level. Significance of Income. Race and Education Variations in beef preferences among the different income and race groups, previously noted, can have an important influence on the future demand for beef and the ways to market it profitably. Should we have continued increases in the level of general consumer incomes and buying TABLE 2. RACIAL DIFFERENCES IN MEAT PREFERENCES WITHIN SELECTED INCOME GROUPS, HOUSTON. 1955 Annual family income Low Medium All income Meat (0-$2,999) ($3.000-$5.999) groups‘ preference White Negro White Negro White Negro fami- fami- fami- fami- fami- fami- lies lies lies lies lies lies —- — — — — Percent — — — — — Beef 51 44 65 42 66 44 Veal 15 4 10 10 1 1 5 Fresh pork 6 12 6 5 5 l0 Cured pork 4 3 1 5 2 3 Lamb l 2 1 1 2 Chicken 18 29 14 32 12 30 Turkey 2 2 1 Fish 1 4 2 5 2 4 None 2 2 2 1 1 2 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 Number of fami- lies in sur- vey sample 154 189 363 38 718 234 ‘Includes high-income families not shown separately. ’Less than 1 percent. 1 however, conceivably could still spend about the TABLE 3. EDUCATION OF THE HOUSEWIFE AND MEAT PREFERENCES, BY- INCOME GROUPS. HOUSTON. l» Income and education Low Medium High Me” P'°t°"*“°° (0-$2.999) ' (sauna-seem) ($6.000 and over) Grade school 513190121 College Grade school $133321 College Grade school Still-Pratt C — — — — — — — — — —- Percent of families —- — — — — — — — . Beef 44 50 72 52 63 72 72 *1, 76 Veal a 11 12 12 4 21 r} 11 Fresh pork 12 6 8 6 4 t 2 Chicken 24 25 21 18 I6 14 6 Other meats 12 _ 8 7 l0 3 6 7 5 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Number of families in survey sample 213 144 13 66 260 81 14 101 power, such as in the last decade, it likely will probably should be placed on the better A result in a further increase in consumer pref- economy meat cuts. erences for beef. This conclusion assumes no dramatic new processing or production changes that would improve markedly the quality of chicken, pork and other competing meats com- pared with beef. Gains possibly will come from a lowered first preference for chicken among White families and a smaller preference for fresh pork among Negro families. The survey sug- gests, too, that any decreased veal preferences among White families, as a result of higher family real income, may be in part offset by an increased veal preference among Negro consumers as the latter’s income advances. This is based on the survey finding that veal shows a doubling in preference among medium as con- trasted with low-income Negro households. Chain stores, to be successful, must nece be aware of some of the general types 0 sumers’ beef preference changes from low l: income levels. Store policies may, nonet mistakenly take the form of patronizing th "of present customers rather than help' attract additional shoppers. Stores featuri only, or just one grade of beef, may be a themselves potential customers within the ; trading area. Localized analyses of con preferences within the trading area of s stores would be extremely helpful in guidin and other meat marketing practices an, advertising policy for these-products. i . . Favorite Beef Cuts Increased consumer incomes, therefore, Wlll tend to produce the following effects. A shift Steaks dnd Boosts preierred toward increased beef preference likely will cause more dollars to be spent for beef. Pork will have a lower preference. Houston consumers, Aside from the question of consumer. erences as to the kind of meat, it is im that the beef industry know the relative among the various cuts of beef available l! meat markets. Lack of preference for certa, may indicate a need for more educational regarding their uses and advantages—plus ' ing the material to specific consumer grou same dollar amount on pork, although it would represent a smaller proportion of their total food expenditures. Veal expenditures are likely to maintain a reasonably steady position. U. _S. Department of Agriculture statistics Steaks are the favorite forrn of beef in‘ regardms the recent trend 1n Per eaplta meet ton households. Each family contacted wast consumptwn appear to bear out the Survey mdl- to give its three favorite cuts of meat in the cations in Houston. Beef consumption per person of preference Nearly 3 ont of 5 farnih has averaged higher since 1939 while pork and either Tqoone, sirloin or round Steak as» veal consumption have remained fairly constant. first ehoiee among the beet-items These Price changes, however, have amagor effect on erenees were reported by Hoostonians if meat purchases and should always be considered assumption that nriee’ was not a factor ~ in analyliflg Consumption trende- selection. Round steak—the most populal Important, too, is the meaning for the im- the first °h°i9e of 23 hereeht 9f the ‘s mediate marketing situation. Consumer pref- Closety tohowthg as e first eholee were erence variations shown by the survey point to- and sltlolh steaks’ Tatleft The strong pre ward several major areas of weakness in today’s for these steaks Wes lhtheeted further by t consumer beef market. Promotional programs of thet they else hahked hlgh among theseeo the Texas Beef Council, and of wholesaler and thud eholees‘ Therefore’ mehy femlhes e retailer organizations, need to be designed pri- these three steak outs 1h Verymg other to. marily to develop increased beef preferences and tlrst’ seeohd and thud eholees- ‘ consumption among middle and low-income fami- Roasts of various types were the first ch lies. For these groups, considerable emphasis about 1 Houston family in 5. Rump, rib, sli 8 .3 34 pikes peak roasts were the most Qump roast, by far the most liked, was fof 7 percent. In addition, it was the ‘ice of 11 percent and the third choice _' 11 percent of the consumers. j fifth of the consumers did not choose 5- afore-mentioned roasts or steaks. p, llaneous meat cuts found preference . The importance of hamburger meat iproduct cannot be minimized. Although , ent cited it as their first choice, nearly y 5 listed hamburger as their third pref- i, judging by Houstonian’s preferences, mmuch more than residents of Denver ', Table 5. Steaks accounted for 70 i thefirst preferences in Houston, but I60 percent in Phoenix and 40 percent r. Roasts were rated higher in Denver pix. Miscellaneous items, such as ground also were more favored in these es. aracteristics and Buying Habits 5 rst preference for round steak reported uston survey may be somewhat surpris- ~ factors appear to bear on its popularity. considerable proportion of the house- percent—commented that when shop- ' looked for a lean cut of meat with a f» c0l0r—-perhaps more characteristic of i‘ ak than any other beef cut. Secondly, lly lower price of round than of T-bone | steaks meant more people had used and miliar with it; thus, they had more = ity to develop a preference for it. ;"ving their beef cut preferences, con- were asked to consider prices the same (d for all beef cuts. Nonetheless, eating fluenced by family income, unavoidably i-into preference decisions. y hold the view that this influence of per- etary habits on preferences destroys the consumer preference research. To the as it simply underlines the fact that pref- ‘hanges require new experiences by con- ii These new experiences and desires usu- ve to be induced by educational and ,nal programs, such as the beef industry ' n recently in the interest of greater beef tion. A variation in consumers’ experiences is u by the following. Round steak—the pular beef cut reported—was never served it.» 5 of Houston’s low-income families, p. By comparison, only about 1 in 10 high- families had not used this cut. The more ve beef sirloin steak provides an even _ contrast. Practically half of ‘the low- families said they never served it. About lof 10 high-income families had. Know- i these pronounced variations in purchas- f? eating habits constitutes basic knowledge TABLE 4. BEEF CUT PREFERENCES OF CONSUMERS. ’ HOUSTON. 1955 First Second Third Beef cut choice choice choice — — Percent of families —- — Steaks: Round 23 13 8 T-bone 19 17 7 Sirloin 17 12 7 Beef rib steak 2 2 2 Seven steak 2 2 2 Other 7 7 8 Sub-total 7U 53 34 Roasts: Rump 7 11 11 Shoulder 5 8 1U Rib . 4 4 3 Pikes peak roast 2 2 4 Other 3 3 4 Sub-total 21 28 32 Other beef: Hamburger 3 9 18 Miscellaneous 6 8 1O Sub-total 9 17 28 No preference - 2 6 Total 100 100 100 necessary to a proper interpretation of consumer preference patterns. Although the interrelation- ships between use patterns and preferences were not analyzed in the Phoenix and Denver survey reports, similar use-preference patterns appear to be present. Meat cut preferences also were related in part to age and educational level of the home- maker. Housewives younger than 40 years of TABLE 5. COMPARISON OF BEEF CUT PREFERENCES OF CONSUMERS IN HOUSTON, PHOENIX. AND DENVER. 1955 Meat cut Houston Phoenix Denver preference — —- Percent of families — — Steaks: Round 23 12 7 T-bone 19 18 13 Sirloin 17 11 l2 Other 11 19 8 Sub-total 7U 8U 4U Roasts: Rump 7 3 7 Shoulder 5 4 7 Rib 4 4 3 Other 5 14 23 Sub-total p 21 25 40 Other beef: Hamburger 3 3 4 Miscellaneous 8 12 16 Sub-total 9 15 20 Total 100 100 100 Number of families in survey, sample 987 491 500 TABLE 6. PROPORTION OF FAMILIES PREFERRING, COM- PARED WITH PROPORTION NOT BUYING. SELECTED STEAK CUTS. BY FAMILY INCOME, HOUSTON, 1955 Family annual income Low Medium High Steak (0-$2.999) ($3.000 to $5,999) ($5,000 and over) a“ Fami- Fami- Fami- Fami- Fami- Fami- lies pre- lies not lies pre- lies not lies pre- lies not ferring buying ferring buying ferring buying — — — —- — Percent — — — — — Round 27 22 h '25 8 10 10 T-bone 16 38 20 13 23 11 Sirloin 11 47 l6 21 29 9 Number of families in survey sample 370 407 210 age had more preference for steaks than the older ones. Together, T-bone, sirloin and round steak accounted for the first preferences of 63 percent of the housewives under 40, compared with 59 percent of those 40 to 59, and only 47 percent of those 60 years old or over. Roasts, on the other hand, found greater favor among older homemakers, Table 7. The latter also were more inclined toward the generally less’ popular cuts such as rib and porterhouse steaks. Should these differences in preference among age groups continue, there likely will be an increased demand for roasts in the years ahead, since the proportion of the Nation’s population over 60 years of age has been increasing in recent years and is ex- pected to rise further. Meat Preference and Choice of Beef Cuts The comparatively large size of the Houston survey also permits some insight into a family’s choice of beef cuts in relation to their meat pref- erences. Even with the large Houston sample, differences between some percentages in Table 8 do not necessarily indicate true variations in pref- i erence levels because of the possible sampling error in the figures. It is evident that pork choosers gave round steak more favor than those who preferred either TABLE 7. AGE OF HOUSEWIFE IN RELATION TO FAMILY'S BEEF CUT PREFERENCES, HOUSTON, 1955 Age of housewife Beei cut Under 40 40 to 59 60 and over — — — Percent of families — — — Steaks: » a Round 25 19 21 T-bone 20 22 12 Sirloin 18 18 i 14 Total 63 59 47 Roasts: Rump 6 9 8 Chuck _ 5 5 8 Rib 3 4 4 Total 14 18 20 Other: Hamburger 4 2 2 Number of families in survey sample 499 _ 347 141 10 TABLE 8. BEEF CUT PREFERENCE RELATED TO F ' MEAT PREFERENCE. HOUSTON, 1955 l Beef Family's meat preference Q cut Beef Veal Fresh pork C —- — —-l Percent of families — T-bone - 21 20 12 Sirloin 21 18 12 Round 21 25 1 34 Number of fami- u‘ 1 lies in survey sample 595 90 59 beef, veal or chicken as their first meat ~V Sirloin steak is more strongly liked by a»: ferring beef. Here again it is likely that :~ mostly using the less costly pork and chicke had less chance to eat the usually more ex beef sirloin steak. Therefore, they are r comparable position to prefer it. Much of the beef advertising today f, sirloin, filet mignon, porterhouse or other‘ steak cuts. The impression created is L expensive food. Such advertising is not li gain increased beef preference among the if and low-income families. Yet, according ' findings of these surveys, it is among these; families that the greatest potential market In view of this situation, a re-evaluation r advertising merits serious consideration -, strongly recommended. Beef Grades Knowledge of Beef Grades Surprisingly, few Houston consumers _ knowledge of official U. S. Department of.’ culture beef grades. Eighty-two percent unable to name one of the five grades. l person in 20 could designate the three “a grades normally handled by retail meat ma " U. S. Commerical3, U. S. Good and U. S. i; U. S. Prime-the highest grade—is take‘ marily by restaurants and hotels. U. S. Ut the lowest retail grade-is used almost enti-l the manufacture of processed meat items s luncheon loaves and sausages, as are th lower grades, Canner and Cutter. Ignora‘ meat grades was significantly greater in H than in the other survey cities. Only 65 t in Denver and 51 percent in Phoenix fa' name any of the grades. » Causes contributing to consumer ignora meat grades are not particularly hard to g Before World War II, the “service” meat A was predominant. Housewives depended 0 a butchers for the palatability of the mea chased. As a result, little if any effort was" on their part to learn official meat gradesl Rapid development of self-service meat; kets after the war created another obstacle. i‘ designations stamped ' on the exterior y 3Now designated as S. Standard grade in all except for meat from animals over 4 years of ag, mal carcass often are lost in trimming ‘uts for prepackaging. Consumer con- ‘grade designations is in considerable ain. ler, it was encouraging that 22 percent sewives contacted under 40 years of name one or more of the official beef f comparison, only 16 percent between F» 40 and 60, and only 9 percent over 60 named one of the grades. This is in- some progress, but it is certainly far ate. ident from Figures 2 and 3 that college and high-income consumers know de- ,rel about beef grades than other shop- Q from whatever point viewed, the task Q; g better knowledge and understanding jigrades is tremendous. If the retail 1 of beef by grade is desired by our beef consumers must be educated to depend to expect to find it in the retail meat Tand food stores. To do this would A large-scale education program designed f, rating audience coverage. ' Use of Beef Grades resumptuous to expect consumers to buy i". ades when they are not familiar with ince few Houston families know the ‘ . S. Department of Agriculture beef flcsystem, a decided minority made any concern themselves with it. Besides - cent having no knowledge of the official another 5 percent familiar with the ported that they disregarded it. Con- ' =.' only 1 Houston shopper in 8 paid any a to USDA beef grades in making f‘ ,4 most of the support for the grading me from college graduates and higher- esidents. A third of these bought beef w basis. By sharp contrast, just 2 per- I? ose with a grade school education and 5 ‘in low-income families made any effort -- er them. a consumers using grades shopped at out- ire they could be found. All types were ted——chain stores, supermarkets, small ‘,2: meat markets, locker plants, meat ' and wholesale distributors. The latter 'ndicated that some families were buying e cuts, or even larger quantities, for w storage. Even farmers and ranchmen urces for several families making large rchases on a grade basis. Live animal would apply to the latter purchases. 0n Butcher's Advice .'ew of most consumer’s lack of knowledge , of U. S. beef grades, the question of nce on butcher’s advice arises. Forty- rcent of the Houston consumers inter- said they relied on a butcher’s help. Fifty- ‘so. C_OMPLETE_ PARTML_ vAeusi u0u;_ I00. 5b OF FAMILIES GRADE men ALL SCHOOL scnoon. COLLEGE FAMILIES E DUCATION Figure 2. Knowledge oi U.S. beef grades according to education of housewife. one percent did not. The other 2 percent of the families did not use beef or, for other reasons, provided no answer. Since more college-educated and high-income families knew beef grades, one might expect the comrcsrs PARTIAL 100340? FAMILIES VAGUE 9o_ NONE a0. 10. so. so. 40_ 30. 20. |0_ Q_ __'.'.\\‘ uuosn $3,000 TO $6,000 a $3,000 $s,000 oven ANNUAL FAMILY INCOME Figure 3. Knowledge of U.S. beef grades, by housewife, according t0 family income. ll 7_Q_ % OF HOUSEWIVES / DEPENDENT NOT oEPsnoEii? / / AA / / A GRADE HIGH COLLEGE UNDER OVER MEDIUM SCHOOL 4o 40-60 so LOW men EDUCATION AGE INCOME Figure 4. Dependence on butcher's advice in selecting meat according to education and age of housewife and family income. less-educated and lower-income families to be heavy users of a butcher’s advice. Such was not the case. Instead, more of the higher-income and better-educated groups sought his advice, Figure 4. Likely these latter groups, if they did not know beef grades, more readily sought advice from others. 6°-"~ °F FAml-‘Es HOUSTON — 9e? FAMILIES \ PHOENIX Q\\\\ 4s: FAMILIES oenvsn soo FAMILIES 5o_ 9* not mcruoso IN THE SURVEY 4o__ ao_ 2o_ , |o_ #= 9* o . COMMERCIAL GOOD CHOICE PRIME U. S. BEEF GRADES Figure 5. Proportion of families preferring indicated beef grades. Houston. Phoenix and Denver. 12 The mere fact that 47 percent of the ton residents felt a need for advice in i meat indicates the extensive consumer ign, of factors helpful in beef selection. The p0 for better consumer education, as previously tioned, apparently is enormous. Beef Grade Preferences Even if consumers do not {use beef gra making purchases, obviously they make sel‘ based on some general appearance or p characteristic of the meat. Therefore, in th vey it was necessary to show meats of 1» grades to determine the one preferred. i, sumers then could be questioned regardin reasons for their choices. Grade Preferences of Consumers To determine beef grade preferences 0 sumers, 8 x 10-inch colored official grade pi were shown of the rib-eye section of bee casses representing four of the five grades. were used rather than fresh beef cuts. Th grades included were U. S. Commercial, Good, U. S. Choice and U. S. Prime. The three grades normally may be found in food stores. The four pictures used in the surve shown on the front cover. Names of the 1 were not identified in the interviews. The‘ per pound was stated to be the same for grade. Selection, therefore, was based stri the appearance characteristics of the meat. order of showing the pictures was rotated interview to interview to avoid repeatedl». senting the same grade first. This pr normally eliminates order bias in respon answers. a The U. S. Good grade beef was the, popular choice in Houston; 43‘ percent 1a first preference. Eighteen percent selected Commerical. Therefore, about 2 out of 3 f. liked either the Good or Commercial grade lower two of the four grades presented. U. S. Choice was the favorite of 24 p of the householders and U. S. Prime of 1 cent. These two higher grades Were, the the choice of only a third of the Houston‘- sumers. . a Consumers in Houston, Phoenix and l_ reported considerable similarity in their shown to Denver or Phoenix householders sequently, the percentage figures for U. S. b, grade were higher in these localities because; Choice was the nearest alternative they A select, Figure 5. There are, however, some noticeable . erence differences among the three cities, grade beef was slightly more favored as a; choice in Denver than in the other two cities ;‘ ,1 ranked slightly higher in Phoenix. ' s were a little more inclined toward '4 Choice beef. This may in part have m showing the four grades in Houston three. It also was thought that differ- come level among the cities might have e preferences. The proportion of high- Hmilies in each of the three cities, how- not sufficiently different to be a factor. i. 0nd preferences as to beef grades of gin Houston, Denver and Phoenix are Y Figure 6. id Grade Preferences ' ificantly larger proportion of the high _-income families in Houston preferred e beef represented by the U. S. Choice f. grades. The difference (Figure 7) is Q for entirely in the proportion choosing grade. One high-income household in eypreferred the U. S. Prime; this was nly 1 out of 10 in the low-income group. _ little Prime grade meat is available in 4r kets, it would be interesting to learn by 'nt how much would be purchased if it red in the stores. rt-period store test conducted as a check ts in Houston leaves some doubt that the d Choice beef would be as appealing to wives as the household survey indicated. ‘onably the store test was much too small . or length to permit any conclusions. ‘less, the percentage comparisons in .13 possibly are indicative and point to the ; further store experiments. Purchases of 'cial grade steaks were actually a larger '0n of the total than the consumer survey sdicate. This is all the more significant E?- store test was in a medium to high- area. Evaluation of the Houston store 5'»- ore detail will be considered later. i?" Qnd Grade Preferences 'sed education apparently has more e on beef grade preference than high Fifty-two percent of the households with jducated homemakers chose U. S. Prime ice beef. In comparison, only 44 percent 'gh incomes selected these top grades. '10 ly speaking, fewer high-income or college- ‘n housewife families gave the U. S. Good .= their first choice, compared with other ‘a households. Nonetheless, even among amilies, U. S. Good was still the most f single beef grade, Figure 8. the over-all marketing viewpoint, the fact e high-income or college-educated groups, xtwo combined, comprise a relatively small the total consumer market should not be ked. These _high-income families ($6,000 2e per year) represented only a fifth of ston consumers. For the most part, they _re the families with college-trained home- eoj OF FAMMES HOU$TON 9a1 FAMILIES PHOENIX 7//fi 4s: rnmnuss 5°“ oeuvsn 50o mmuss #= uo-rnuctuoeo 40_ - m "m: sunvsv V é é a 2o_ % % % ¢ .. z ¢ _. / % . h- commsnclau. soon CHOICE _ PRIME U. S. BEEF GRADES Figure 6. Second preference of families as to beef grade. Houston, Phoenix and Denver. makers. It obviously would be futile to key-the general meat marketing policy of a chain or group of stores to the desires of this group alone. None- theless, the survey suggests that meat sales can be increased by offering higher grades of meat in stores located in selected high-income areas. Reasons for Grade Preferences Fairly definite reasons were held by house- wives for their beef grade choices. No list of eo_=v. OF FAMILIES FAMILY mucous LOW - sod meow» / uueu ///4 4o_ ? 4 W a ¢<>_ / % % / IO_ / / % o A cormencuit. eooo CHOICE PRIME U. S. BEEF GRADES Figure 7. Beef grade preferences related to family in- come (low income per year, under $3.000; medium income per year. $3.000 to $5,999: high income per year, $6,000 and ' over). O 13 i so__ OF FAMILIES canoe scuoot 5° men SCHOOL COLLEGE 4o_ 5o_ zo_ |o_ o commancm. soon CHOICE PRIME U. S. BEEF GRADES Figure 8. Beef grade preferences in relation to education of housewife. possible reasons was shown or mentioned in the interview that could have influenced their answers, and they were not aware of the name of the grade selected from the colored pictures shown in the interview. The reasons, by grade, present an interesting, though logical, relationship. Usually “best grade” would be considered a poor, if not unacceptable, reply. That this particular reason was cited most for the selections that were U. S. Prime, however, is considered significant, Table 9. The question is whether beef grade terminology has con- J-sciously, or even subconsciously, influenced con- sumer behavior. Do these consumers select Prime simply because the grade terms suggested it to be the best? To a certain degree the same problem TABLE 9. REASONS GIVEN FOR BEEF GRADE PREFER- ENCE, HOUSTON, 1955 Beef grade preferred Reasons U.S. U.S. U.S. ° . ' Good Choice Prime mercial — — Percent of families — — Best grade 2 2 11 31 More tender and iuicy 4 8 19 23 Better flavor 2 4 12 11 Finer texture 5 5 7 2 Right amount of fat 9 15 21 12 Right amount of marbling 7 3 8 11 Prefer lean beef B3 33 1 1 Fat not too rich 1 1 Prefer bright red meat 2 18 3 More appetizing appearance 3 8 13 9 Fresher cut of meat 3 5 Lower price 1 1 Total 100 100 100 100 ‘Less than 1 percent. 14 applies to the term U. S. Choicef‘ The folly analysis of reasons for selection by grade ' available in either the Denver or Phoenix su therefore, comparisons with those studies ' be drawn. ~ Reasons for choices, by grade, are arr in Table 9 to have those dealing with -..' quality together—such as more tender, ju better flavor and finer textures Consumers initely associated these attributes morec, with U. S. Prime and Choice grades than, the Good or Commercial. To what extent i represent a reporting of fact, and to what e_ a belief of advertising remains open to fuf research. The Houston pilot retail store leaves some doubt about the matter. l The degree of marbling and the amou exterior fat liked naturally varies with indi T taste. Those looking for fat were more in, to cite this as a reason for choosing U. S. P_ or Choice. a Major emphasis in buying U. S. Good 0r t mercial beef was on a preference for lean I A third of those selecting the Good grade, two-thirds selecting the Commercial grade so for this reason. Mention of brightness e redfcolor also was a factor in selecting U. S. P bee . a Success in eliminating price as a factor in. grade decisions of Houston householders r most totally achieved. Only‘ 5 consumers i. the nearly 1,000 interviewed made any refei to price as a reason for selecting a parti grade. 5 Grade Preferences by Race U. S. Good grade beef was found to be the " popular choice among White, Negro and Me A. families. The proportion of Negro and " families selecting the top grades——U. S. Che‘ Prime—did not differ significantly, Figu The Prime grade, however, was chosen some more frequently by White consumers. The- Mexican households in the sample gave i ficient data for conclusions regarding mos pects of their preferences. Nonetheless, sta cal tests indicated that Mexican families =' considerably greater preference for U. S. , grade beef than do the other two racess” Fat and Marbling Preferences Amount of Fat Desired Fat is either strongly liked or disliked a most Houston consumers. Fifty-six pe. i * 4 tSome of the recent meat research suggests that thi little relationship between grades and meat tend “The Relationship of Fatness in Yearling Sbee Juiciness and Tenderness of Broiled and Braised S y Sylvia Cover, O. D. Butlerand T. C. Cartwright, J Ifl of Animal Science, Vol. 15, No. 2, May, 1956. i 5The measure of significant differences between ages throughout the report has been determined Q standard t test formula. wanted a small amount of fat. Twenty- rcent were at the other extreme—liked amount. Only about 1 family in 6 pre- ,medium portion of fat on beef cuts. ey had to accept a second choice, most would prefer a medium quantity of fat promise, Figure 10. Any question regard- j ‘ste for fat is removed by the fact that v ree households in four would take a large ) of fat only as a last resort. 70f Marbling Preferred‘ tonians had even less tolerance for g than for fat. Only 1 out of 7 families 1d a large amount of marbling, 2 a med- ount and the remaining 4 of 7 a very ount, if any at all. i»: attitude toward marbling is not unique Houstonians. Families in Phoenix and fjfeel much the same way, Table 10. Atti- "in those cities toward fat and marbling, r, are slightly more favorable than in v_n. Comparisons unfortunately cannot be cor both factors in Denver and Phoenix nly one, of the factors was included in those for Fat Preferences ief that a small amount of fat results in 1 and richer flavored” beef prompted 2 '3 families to select it. A medium-fat ratio, other hand, was associated with “tender- 31nd “better quality.” Most of those choos- vy fat considered it to signify “more — ’”meat, a “better grade” or a “better fed Wever, the answers suggest that there was ion about the implication of fat on beef a-Some consumers had the idea that a large t indicated a fresher cut piece of meat. u a felt that the same freshness was indicated Ysmall amount. A few preferring a small ,_ t of fat believed it indicated properly-aged ‘ured meat. Presumably, the thought was uring caused a marked shrinkage in the fat Such misconceptions again indicate the ‘for considerably more and better consumer i tion concerning beef. c; a m Color i: a final characteristic, housewives were about their fam1ly’s preferences as to color l0. COMPARISON OF FAT AND MARBLING PREFER- OF HOUSTON. PHOENIX AND DENVER FAMILIES, 1955 a Fat Marbling (‘d Hous- Phoe- Den- Hous- Phoe- Den- ; . ton nix ver ton nix ver — 1; — Percent of families — — — — 1 56 1 41 56 59 1 17 1 40 3U 18 1 27 1 l9 14 23 1 tal 100 . 100 100 100 eluded in the survey. 1o_v. or uuuuss wan‘: _ Macao ///A 6°- usxmau so_ 4o- so_ 20.. 10.. o COMMERCIAL eooo cuoncs PRIME U. S. BEEF GRADES Figure 9. Beef grade preferences of consumers related to race. of fat. These answers were based on viewing 8 x 10-inch colored pictures of a steak identical in all respects except for fat color. These pictures SMALL AMOUNT - BO__% OF FAMILIES MEDIUM AMOUNT W” . ? 60-4 é F a a 4O % “ é 30_ % ..__ ; a .. g / . é Figure l0. Consumer preferences as to amount of fat on beef cuts. 15 TABLE ll. COLOR OF BEEF FAT FAMILY PREFERRED AND REASON, HOUSTON. 1955 Reason given c°l°r °i fat for preference White Creamy Yellow — — Percent of families — — Better fed animals 9 . 8 ll Better flavor 18 34 35 Fresher cut meat 48 5 3 Properly aged and cured 1 17 ll Better grade or quality ll l3 14 More tender meat 8 8 9 Richer beef l 9 14 More appetizing appearance 5 6 3 Total 100 100 100 Number of families preferring 551 277 159 Percent of families preferring 56 28 l6 ‘Less than 1 percent. are shown 0n the front cover. White fat was chosen by 56 percent of the families, creamy by 28 percent and yellow by only 16 percent. White fat was associated in housewives’ minds more frequently with meat freshness than any other color, Table 11. Better flavor also was mentioned frequently as a reason for considering white fat superior. The predominant reason for selecting creamy or yellow fat was the belief that it meant better flavor. Some felt that a richer and better grade or properly-aged meat could be identified by yellow fat. Need to separate fact and fiction in consumers’ minds also appears necessary here. Factors Consumers Consider Considering the general lack of information about beef grades, as well as misconceptions regarding the significance of differences in marbling, amount of fat and color of fat, the factors consumers most frequently used in select- ing meat are interesting. Bright red coloring of the lean portion "of beef outranked all others in Houston as a basis for making selections. About 300 of the nearly 1,000 families interviewed said this was the primary characteristic sought. No other factor came near it in general importance. One in 7 made selections primarily on the basis of leanness and just half as many looked mostly for a medium amount of fat. Only 1 percent searched for a large amount of fat, but this was doubtless true also of the 3 percent seeking “heavy, aged beef.” Very few shoppers gave any consideration to marbling in making their selections. The consumer emphasis on bright red coloring of the lean portion of the cuts possibly reflects a conscious effort to get freshly-cut beef. Several other terms were used by some con- sumers. These included such descriptions as “fine texture,” “juiciness,” “tenderness” and “fresh- ness.” Price was mentioned infrequently. The small importance of price was due to the ex- pressed purpose in the survey of leaving price out l6 as a buying consideration. Because of its portance to meat retailers, Table 12 gives th table of first and second factors consider meat selections. ~ I SHOPPING AND BUYING PRACTI As would be anticipated, there are cons able variations in shoppinge-qliwactices a,’ Houston families, as there are elsewhere t,’ United States. Such differences, however,‘ have a material effect on merchandising o, tions in retail stores. Knowledge of both a; tent and the major causes of these differ provides a means of designing retailing pra ' to fit consumer demands more adequately. ' Where the Buying Decision Is Ma, It seems reasonable to expect that a y, proportion of the meat purchase decisions place in the home. In the first place, menu t ning can be made there before shop TABLE 12. FACTORS CONSUMERS nsporrrzn US SELECTING BEEF. HOUSTON, 195s S l t. fa t First factor Second -'_ e ec mg c or considered consid { — — Percent of families Color of meat: » Bright red color 29 23 Dark red color 2 21 ~ “F reshness" 5 e 4 Sub-total as 2a ; Amount of fat: Small amount 8 l2 Medium amount 7 8 ‘ Large amount 1 2 i Lean meat 7 - Sub-total 2a 2e ‘i Amount of bone: f Small amount 3 7 Some bone 1 1 ,_' Sub-total 4 8 ‘ Color of fat: Cream color 2 2 " White fat 2 l Sub-total 4 3 Age of beef: Heavy, aged 3 l Young 1 l Sub-total .4 2 l Marbling 2 2 ii Miscellaneous: A} Lean 7 4 ; Iuiciness 4 3* Fine texture 2 5 Tenderness 8 5 ‘ Way is cut 1 l 1 Grade or quality 5 3." Sub-total '27 21 a Total s i 100 91' 7 ‘Less than l percent. ZSome families did not indicate a second factor. the mass of newspaper advertising by res is beamed toward influencing the A mind before she shops. Advertising influences some homemakers—how f not definitely known. Like some other g practices, a lot is sometimes “assumed” n being supported by factual marketing 1e. 48 percent of the Houston consumers by usually decided on meat purchases oing to the store. ' Three percent were ‘t say; this was probably because they little meat. Most important, from the dising viewpoint, 49 percent said they l in, the store. In Denver and Phoenix, ‘ ly the same percentage of housewives > isions were made in the stores. Con- le, if not major, importance is thereby lon the appearance of the product at the ecision making at the store ties in directly ch comments as “looked for a bright red meat,” and similar statements made by ylders interviewed during the survey. , ation and income level of the family tly were related to the likelihood of a ,_; decision prior to going to the store. F53 percent of the Houston housewives with education and 54 percent of those in come families decided before shopping. rast, somewhat less than half of the grade- ‘ducated and low-income-family home- .~. made these decisions at home. Age of the older seemingly had little, if any, effect selecting method. importance of these findings again is ' t to the fact that practically half of the ns to buy, or not buy, a meat product f~ on its appeal and attractiveness in the Other surveys have reported similar ‘i. regarding general food products; it may rising to some that it also is true of meats. {is unfortunate that reasons for waiting to > in the store were not asked during the p. Such information would shed more mean- insight into consumer behavior than by associating their actions with varioys ‘a characteristics, as has been done here. were made in another survey to get information about this aspect of con- behavior. This was a retail store market i frozen pre-packaged beef which was con- " during the summer and fall of 1956. Person Shopping tor Meats l‘ nearly three-fourths of the families, the iisually shopped for the meat. For the other 'es, itt-Was the husband (12 percent), hus- (and wife (10 percent) or other members family (6 percent). lntrary to what might have been expected, < housewives in high-income families did their shopping than was true among low or middle- .r income groups. A greater number of Working wives among the latter families may have been a factor. This is possibly indicated, in part, by the larger proportion of these families (14 percent) in which the husband and wife shopped together. Working wives also probably have less chance to consider grocery advertisements prior to visiting stores since they often may be forced to shop on the way home from work. Decisions under these circumstances are made in the store; newspaper advertising has less opportunity as an influence. Should the trend toward a greater percentage of working wives continue, even greater im- portance will be assumed by product appearance, store point of purchase display and advertising. Changing List at the Store Housewives changed their meat list, or added to it, mostly because of appearance and price. Appearance apparently is the more important in Houston since half of the shoppers mentioned it. Price was mentioned by slightly less than a third. Price alone, without special consideration of ap- pearance, was. mentioned more frequently by Denver and Phoenix consumers, Table 13. In all three cities, appearance and price together accounted for meat list changes by approximately 2 out of 3 of those interviewed. Among the other miscellaneous reasons for changes in the meat selection were “look for a variety of cuts” and “chickens on special.” Butcher Service or Self-service The shift to self-service meat markets has progressed rapidly for such a major and expen- sive change in merchandising methods. The question has remained, however, as to how many customers are pleased with it. In Houston, only 1 out of 3 preferred the self-service system. The same proportion was reported in Phoenix and Denver. Such a preponderant vote against self- service comes as a real surprise. Analysis in- dicated, too, that this is one aspect of consumer preference where income, age or education did not seem of much influence. The 2 to 1 preference for butcher service was practically constant for all groups. These findings give serious cause to wonder why self-service is not more satisfactory. Perhaps some of the reasons can be found in TABLE l3. MAIOR REASONS HOUSEWIVES GIVE FOR CHANGING OR ADDING TO THEIR MEAT LIST, HOUSTON. PHOENIX AND DENVER. 1955 Reason Houston Phoenix Denver a — — Percent oi housewives — — Appearance oi meat 37 2O 41 Price, sales and specials 17 4U 25 Appearance and price 13 Sub-total 67 60 66 Out of cut wanted 10 l6 1U Follows butcher's advice 3 2 Total 80 76 78 17 answers given by consumers as to why butcher service still is liked most. Reasons for Preferring Butcher Service Two reasons are foremost in Houston food shoppers’ minds in preferring butcher service. Forty-two percent said it was easier to determine the freshness and quality of the meat. Almost another 40 percent reported it was possible to get cuts more suitable to their individual tastes, Table 14. “Preferred butcher’s advice” and “able to buy thicker cuts” were less frequently mention- ed. In view of these criticisms, further assurance to customers about the grade and freshness of meat needs to be developed for self-service markets. A wider variety of cuts, including thickness of steaks, also seems needed. Lack of sufficient meat display cabinets is an obstacle in some stores. But whatever the cause, this much dissatisfaction on the part of consumers merits attention. Surveys directed at customers of in- dividual stores probably are needed as a guide toward improving the self-service merchandising system for meat. The strong points in favor of self-service markets, according to those preferring them, are faster service, wider selection of cuts to choose from and the meat is easier to select. One or more of these reasons were mentioned by nearly 9 out of 10 who like the self-service method. Some contradiction may seem to be present in the statements of supporters of the two merchan- dising methods. All statements were “free answer” replies since no controlled list was used which may have inadvertently influenced the remarks of those interviewed. One in 5 support- ing the self-service system say you can select from a greater variety of cuts. On the other hand, 2'" out of 5 who like butcher service contend it gives cuts better suited to individual tastes. One conceivable difference exists between these two points of view. In a self-service display, one can find a wider variety of cuts than likely would be considered in giving an order to butch- ers. For example, the customer has considerable difficulty visualizing all the different types of TABLE 14. PRINCIPAL REASONS HOUSEWIVES PREFER BUTCHER SERVICE OR SELF-SERVICE, HOUSTON, 1955 Families preferring Reason for preference Seli- Butcher service service — — — Percent — — — Easier to determine quality and_ freshness oi the meat 6 42 Able to get better cuts to suit individual taste 2 39 Faster service 37 Prefer butcher advice 7 Able to select from greater variety of cuts 21 Able to buy thicker steaks 5 Can buy cheaper 5 Meat is easier to select 29 18 cuts possible from a beef hind quarter. g sequently, there is a tendency to settle on a , cuts and alternate purchases among them. On, other hand, when ordering meat at a bu service market, there is doubtless more choic to a steak’s or roast’s thickness, over-all size J fat trim. a The principal message of the customers’ c ments can be summarized thus.‘ streamlinin meat markets for self-service operations has l too much of a barrier between the customer his butcher. Pushing a buzzer button or pee through a small or one-way view window» butchers is not conducive to customer satisfact Some customers likely would appreciate more i portunity to view the wholesale pieces from w q cuts can be made to their liking. In short, s‘ facility designers may have cut down the a sonal element at the meat market to the p, that sales potential has been “choked.” ’ Frequency oi Buying Fresh Beet ,Nearly half of the families interviewedsf Houston reported buying beef once a W About another third normally made two purc a a week. Only 4 percent purchased daily. Bu 4 intervals reported by the remaining fam’ varied 'widely—-from semi-monthly to annu_ i Families in both Denver and Phoenix repo similar purchase frequencies. Access to food freezer space by the fa _ as would be expected, influenced somewhat. o. purchase frequency. Large freezer compartm likely resulted in less frequent buying. Twi =6 week purchases were made by only 30 percen the families with 50 to 100-pound size fre compartments, in contrast with 42 percent bu A twice weekly who had 25 pounds or less freezer storage. Presence of a large freezer c (500 pounds or over capacity) had an e greater effect. At least a third of the fami with these large capacity freezers bought of only four times or less per year, althought doubtless were some additional purchases , special occasions. ' Ownership of large food freezer units is sociated fairly closely with high incomes. naturally contributed to the less frequent f purchases reported by high-income househo Although these factors have their effect, -_ purchase of beef by mostHouston families stil, principally on a semi-weekly or weekly basis. . A more detailed analysis of the extent . ownership of freezer space is discussed in ~; section on Freezer Storage Facilities. ' Weight of Beef Cuts Preferred i Housewives and other homemakers in Hou_ indicated the size of rib, chuck and boneless rot that they usually tried to buy. The percen 5 desiring certain sizes, among those buying, ’ shown in Table 15. f- and 4-pound roasts were the most popu- IQ yet these satisfied only about 2 custo- t of 3. One family out of about 6, on the i’ wanted a heavier roast——one that would bout 41/2 to 6 pounds; about the same K sought a light weight—one of 21%; pounds Therefore, about a third of the consumer for roasts is within these small and large “Failure to supply a sufficient number of 1 d large roasts may lie behind consumers’ ' ts about self-service markets and the f; of finding the right amount of meat. fr investigation of consumers’ desires along hes seems desirable in future research. l. burger meat is used frequently in many ’___Its versatility and convenience in menu V. plus economy, no doubt are factors in ularity. The 1-pound package is the most fr. With 1-pound packages, those wanting s have to buy two packages. The number pumers wanting 2 pounds, however, may ~. preparing both a 1 and 2-pound package ;retai1 meat market, Table 16. f‘; Houston housewives, as well as those in ix, reported that a 1-pound package was ‘le in their food stores. Some said the 2- _"package was not. Observations in several f. arkets, however, indicate that although a 31-pound” package may be found, shoppers filifficulty finding an exact 1-pound unit. ‘clerks servicing the meat counter notice ers digging through packages searching Ai- und packages. smuch as recipes often specify 1-pound er basic units, it would seem smart ndising fora store to cater to this need. w do so does not add to customer good will. i EEZER STORAGE FACILITIES e innovation of zero freezer units for g is now and can be of further importance merchandising and marketing in general. Yences of individual families who own these indicate that in many cases their beef and 1 meat purchasing methods are affected. umber and kinds of cuts used in the home 'ay be affected. To gain some insight into portance of freezer facilities and their effect n. family’s buying habits, consumers sur- 3 were questioned along general lines regard- veir possession and use of such facilities. Frozen Storage Available me measure of the amount of freezer space available in consumers’ homes was ' ined in the Houston, Denver and Phoenix ‘ s. Because home refrigerators without temperature freezer compartments have up . or 80 pounds of storage space in the ice ; mpartment, some caution is necessary in reting the survey replies. Zero storage is "ted in most instances by a capacity of 50 gs or more. TABLE 15. WEIGHTS OF SELECTED BEEF ROAST CUTS PREFERRED BY HOUSEWIVES. HOUSTON, 1955 Boneless Chuck roast roast Roast weight Rib roast — — — Percent preferring — — — 2 pounds or less 8 11 14 2.1 — 2.5 pounds 7 6 6 2.6 — 3.0 pounds 36 38 39 3.1 — 3.5 pounds 8 7 8 3.6 — 4.0 pounds 23 24 20 4.1 — 4.5 pounds 2 2" '2 4.6 — 5.0 pounds 9 8 8 Over 5 pounds 7 4 3 Total 100 100 I00 Chuck roast Boneless roast Rib roast Using this criteria, about a fourth of the households in Houston and Denver have freezer storage space, Figure 11. The larger units (100 pounds and over) were more prevalent in Hous- ton. An average of 1 Houston family in 10 had a unit with a capacity of 400 or more pounds. Comparable data are not directly available from the Phoenix survey because of a difference in the method of reporting answers to this question. However, a fifth of the Phoenix families had freezer units in the home or used frozen food lockers. Although this is a somewhat smaller per- centage than reported in the other two cities, it still is a relatively high level of ownership. Ownership of freezers among Houston fami- lies was analyzed to determine whether it was related to family income or size. It was found that 1 or 2-member families were less likely to possess food freezer equipment—less tharn a fourth reported them compared with nearer a third of the families with 3 or more members. TABLE 16. WEIGHT OF HAMBURGER PACKAGE PREFERRED ACCORDING TO FAMILY SIZE AND INCOME. HOUSTON. 1955 Family size and income 1-2 persons 3-5 persons Weight of L M d. High L M . High P“°““‘-"° (if ($1.55? (‘s-film (lav-v ($115515? “s”? an an $2.999) $5.999) over) $2.999) $5.999) over) - — — — Percent of families — — — — 1 pound 70 75 85 50 60 64 2 pounds 14 10 5 24 17 16 3 pounds 4 3 2 16 1 1 6 Other 12 12 8 10 12 14 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 Number of families‘ 125 106 40 140 229 125 ‘Number of families in the survey indicating a preference as to size of hamburger meat package. 19 HOUSTpN Figure 11. Proportion of families having indicated amounts of food freezer space, Houston and Denver. The indicated decline in ownership among the families of 5 or more members—Table 17—may be only a sample fluctuation in the survey data. Family income had a decided influence on food freezer ownership. About half of the high-income households ($6,000 or more per year) had a frozen food unit, compared with only a third of those with medium incomes and a sixth of the low-income families. Among high-income homes, the ownership rate increased for all sizes of boxes rather than just large size units. The same type of relationship between family income and size and freezer ownership was noted in the Denver survey. In the Denver analysis, higher education of the housewife also was found to be related to the use of more frozen food space. Higher incomes among college-educated families probably was the real underlying factor, as the Denver report suggests. TABLE 17. PERCENT OF FAMILIES HAVING FOOD FREEZ- ERS. RELATED TO'INCOME AND FAMILY’ SIZE, HCUSTON. 1955 P d Family size Annual family income °““ F‘ M . H’ h capacity 1-2 3-5 thgries Low Medium (sslfoo of freezer mem- mem- mem_ (U- ($3,U00- and unit bers 'bers bers $2,999) $5.999) over) U 33 23 31 37 24 17 1-49 44 42 41 47 45 30 50-99 12 15 8 10 13 19 100 and over 11 20 2U 6 18 34 Number of families 340 537 110 370 407 210 20 Quantity Bought for Freezer Stora Presence of large freezer cabinets in the 1, has induced some families to purchase 1n w_ sale or carcass quantities rather than retail ' About 14 percent of the Houston fa _ reported buying wholesale cuts, beef qua sides or whole carcasses for ..fre;wezer storage. _ was nearly the same proportion of families ' 300 or more pounds of frozen food storage y It seems likely, therefore, that most 0f the h‘ holds with large size freezers buy this way Denver, such families Were more likely to, fore or hind quarters. A side of beef was n popular among Phoenix and Houston fam In each of the three cities, these whol quantities generally were purchased by income or large-size families having large fr units. ~ Retail cuts are stored by many famili especially those who have standard refriger, or small-capacity zero cabinets. Approxim 40 percent of the Houston homemakers follo this practice. Somewhat surprisingly, almost ’ of the housewives said they never put bee freezer compartments. This probably res _y from insufficient space or simply no desir‘ follow this practice. 1 Source for Freezer Storage Inasmuch as retail cuts are the predomi form of beef bought for home storage, retail stores are the principal source of supply. I 11 percent of the Houston families obtained? beef from other sources. The wholesale so A and the percentage of families using them W _ locker plants, 1 percent; meat packers, 5 perc meat wholesalers, 2 percent; and farmers; ranchmen, 2 percent. About 1 percent of"; households reported “other” sources, such animals taken from their own farms or ran _ A better picture of the effect of fr" cabinets on beef supply sources is obtaine considering the number of families using W sale sources compared with the number ha sufficient storage space for large quantitiesf noted previously, 17 percent of the families V unit with 100 or more pounds capacity, Whi percent had units with a capacity of 300 or u pounds. Since 11 percent bought from WY salers, it appears that a majority with 11' freezers follow this practice. r~ METHODS or PREPARING AND i, SERVING BEEF The methods of preparing and uses of be, the home can influence preferences and purc habits. Some general aspects of these factors considered in this section. - 5 Cooking Equipment Used eral innovations in cooking equipment have ‘ed in the last decade or so; others have i opportunity to come into wider home use. ens, the old stand by, almost universally {part of the home kitchen equipment. Only _ent of the households lacked one. These 1y Were a few so-called “light-housekeeping” 31 ents, with make-shift kitchens where only tric hot-plate is available. Ninety-two j: of the family kitchens had broilers. f- these two pieces of equipment, the in- , e of ownership drops sharply. sure cookers, which appear to have be- increasingly popular since World War II, : ported in 38 percent of the Houston homes. h of the housewives had electric cookers; rage of about 1 family in 8 had a deep- ker. Unfortunately, information about fhip of dutch ovens was not obtained- ply a fairly popular method of cooking s“ Houston, particularly during the summer. idea of the incidence of use of dutch ovens f obtained in a later survey in another ‘e proportion of families in Houston, ’,'x and Denver having various ' types of pent, and the proportion of owners using lin cooking beef, are summarized in Table ' only was the Houston rate of ownership Uratively low for pressure cookers, electric rs and deep-well cookers, but so was their _r cooking beef. Fifty-seven percent of the _n housewives having pressure cookers do 1.; them to prepare beef. This is sub- ly less than the rate of use in Denver and i X. p-well cookers—a feature of some electric , were more prevalent and more widely {in Phoenix and Denver than in Houston. 'mparatively low natural gas versus electric Houston is unquestionably a factorresult- , less use of electric units. --: thermometers—highly recommended for _ by meat cooking authorities—were used l y 3 percent of the Houston housewives. use in Phoenix was somewhat greater— '1 in 10 families cooked with one. smuch as pressure cookers offer the tage of quicker preparation of meat, and the capacity of tenderizing tougher meat ;homemakers were asked what beef cuts cooked in this utensil. A wide variety of f: and steaks were reported. Yet, as Table 19 ‘r emphasizes, only a small minority of usedpressure cookers for beef. It is that some cooks feel that the flavor or e of the meat deteriorates when cooked in '1 tensil-more than enoughto offset the time- ,;: advantages. There must be reasons for "w rate of usage and they are being sought survey. TABLE 18. PERCENTAGE OF FAMILIES OWNING AND PROPORTION OF OWNERS USING SPECIFIED EQUIPMENT FOR COOKING BEEF, HOUSTON. PHOENIX AND DENVER. 1955 Houston Phoenix Denver Cooking owrb Owners owm Owners Owm Owners equipment in using in using in using g for beef g for beef g for beet Oven 99 85 99 87 99 9U Broiler 92 82 96 81 92 21 Deep-well a cooker 13 48 16 66 31 30 Electric roaster 2O 32 28 72 Pressure cooker 38 43 57 75 72 6U Meat ther- mometer lO 35 I4 67 Oven Temperature for Roasts By far the preferred oven temperature for cooking roasts was in the medium-heat (325- 375°) range. A low temperature was used by only 9 percent of the housewives, although it is recommended by home economists, Figure 12. Six percent cooked beef roast at a high heat ( 37 5° or above). The recommended lower cooking heatmwas followed by a greater percentage of the Denver and Phoenix housewives; but they still remained in the minority within their own cities. Part of the greater use o-f a low cooking heat in the latter cities may be traceable to differences in elevation: Houston—at sea level—is at one extreme while “mile high” Denver—at 5,280 feet -is at the other. Most housewives do not change the oven temperature while cooking roasts. About a third do—usually lowering the heat as the roast cooks. Only a few raise the temperature. Apparently TABLE" 19. BEEF CUTS COOKED IN PRESSURE COOKERS BY FAMILIES OWNING THE EQUIPMENT. HOUSTON. PHOENIX AND DENVER. I955 Percent of owning families using pressure cooker for indicated cuts of beet Houston Phoenix Denver Beef cuts Roasts: Chuck 1 Pot Rump Pikes peak Rib Rolled Shoulder Crown All types of roast cuts Steaks: Round Swiss Sirloin T-bone All types oi steaks ’ 3 5 Other: Stew Short ribs Liver Hr-IIP GII'-""'I—II—I§QQQ@ 939i N a u I-l N N X l‘. u u (n, a wk X "§§ ‘Less than 1 percent. ’Not reported. 21 |oo__-/. o|= noussvnvss oven we PERATURE LOW uuoea aza- so_ ueonuu azr- an ~ ao_ rues ABOVE 315' 1o__ em. 50.. 4o._ ao_ 2o__ |o__ o_ HOUSTON PHOENIX DENVER S U R V E Y C l T Y Figure 12. Proportion of housewives in Houston. Phoenix and Denver using low, medium or high oven temperatures for cooking beef roasts. neither age nor education of the women greatly influenced the temperature used or variations thereof. Use of Powdered or Liquid Tenderizers The proportion of housewives who had tried a meat tenderizer varied widely among different types of families in Houston, and between Hous- ton and the other two cities. Only 1 Houston family in 4 had ever tried tenderizers, but 2 out of’ 5 in Denver and about 3 out 4 in Phoenix had. In Houston and Denver, the better-educated housewives were more inclined to try tenderizers. The opposite was the case in Phoenix. The age of the housewife, except in Houston, seemed to have no particular effect on the likelihood of trying tenderizers. In Houston, the influence of age was not marked, although fewer older women had tried one. Acceptance of meat tenderizers in the three cities also presented a highly varied picture. In Houston, two-thirds trying tenderizers liked them; the percentage was less than half among Denver housewives. Even lower acceptance was reported in Phoenix. Further analysis of figures for the three cities, however, leads to an interesting statistic. The number liking the product in Houston and Phoenix was 17 percent of the housewives and 19 percent in» Denver—a difference well within the range of sampling error. Therefore, the variation among the cities in the number trying tenderizers may have been caused by a difference in the extent of the promotion and merchandising used for the product. The uniform rate of acceptance of tenderizers seems remarkable under these conditions. 22 To the beef producer, the important concerning acceptance of meat tenderizers li the relatively small pro-portion of families wh satisfied with them. Tenderizers have not vided a satisfactory means of making tough ‘ tender, according to a large majority of A housewives. Poor-quality beef is, therefore, l to continue to be purchased only-tat a conside_ discount. Low-quality, tough ~~meat not only a a sale for good-quality meat, but it likely d the time of the consumer’s next purchase. i Doneness oi Steaks and Roasts - Most Houstonians like their steaks and r’ “well done.” Few prefer them “rare.” Only a fourth of the families like their s ‘- “medium,” and only a fifth prefer roasts on “medium-done” side. Since over-cooking l, damaging to the eating quality of steaks, possible that a number are cooking stea a; “well done” that they are, in fact, destroying inherent eating quality the meat possesses. Y .As the family’s income or the educatio the adult members, or both, increases, the inc tion toward “rare” steaks is noticeably gri To a smaller degree, the same tendency pre for roasts. Nonetheless, even among the coll educated housewives in Houston, only about 1_ of 7 reported that their family’s first prefer was for “rare” steaks. Somewhat contrary to .Houstonians’ ' ferences, only about half of the Phoenix fa 1 want “well-done” steaks. In Denver, the i’ ference is almost reversed to that in Houi with 53 percent stating a preference “medium” instead of “well-done” steaks. ‘ In Denver, Phoenix and Houston, the “r, steak eater was more likely to be college edu : As the educational level of the natio-n continu advance, popularity hf the “rare” steak 1' will grow. Demand for beef cuts suitable"- “rare” steaks accordingly will increase. ‘ Differences among the cities in prefere for doneness in roasts was small. The “well-d, roast is by far the most popular one, even u? Denverites, although to a smaller degree tha, the other two cities. r Times Roasts Were {Served By far, the majority of families exp roast to last more than a single meal. A f0 of the Houston housewives With 3 to 5 me families expect roasts to last four or more Use of a single roast for so many meals ‘ not as prevalent among Phoenix or De families, Table 20. In each of the cities, how a single roast was served two to three meal most households. I The differences in length of time a road’ used apparently result from underlying variat in eating habits. This is especially indicated ; _ i . families, using a roast for more meals, ‘ally inclined t0 buy smaller roasts than Phoenix families, Table 21. Climatic l‘; again may play a part in these con- 1H vior variations. A more detailed study gand eating habits would be necessary to 7 ount- for the underlying causations. 1 » motivation studies might be required j-an understanding of the situation. ‘ods of Serving Leftover Roast iches, hash or simply reheating the {g the major uses of leftover roast. Each reported by approximately half the in Houston. This does not infer, however, isame families necessarily followed each .1 For example, the 53 percent that made yes were not necessarily the ones pre- sh. About a fourth of the Houston ffollowed the simple expedient of serving “ t as a method of utilizing the- leftover iration of stew from leftover roast was pular in Denver. More than a fourth of er families served it in this manner. In Q. only 1 family in 7 used stews as a menu .1?’ ith this exception, differences among t. and Denver families were not great in ‘x of roasts. True comparisons on this "th the results of the Phoenix survey are frely possible. A different interpretation J in asking the question. Only the major Qleftover roast was obtained in Phoenix a listing of the two or three principal gmethods. Cold roast and sandwiches were i to be the leading‘ first uses, followed iby hash. Stew, as in Houston, was not rtant use. These reported roast uses the possible need of more varied recipes jewives in menu planning for leftover 'ts. iwof Leftover Beef Iuice and- Fat f: outstanding use of beef juice is for “gravy. This is the report from Houston, i and Denver. Seventy to 90 percent of the depending on the city, used it this way. x fat from cooking beef presents an entire- erent picture. A third of the Houston ives simply throw it away. Another third gravy. Most of the remainder use it for g or as fat in cooking other foods. éDenver, a third of the housewives dis- fat.' Most of the others used it either 'vy or cooking. In Phoenix, fat mostly tout the door” since 2 out of 3 families t away. Barely a fourth used it in cooking ‘oning or making gravy. This, therefore, far one of the most diverse points of fer behavior found amongthe three cities. iurse to consideration of the ages of the fife or educational level revealed little TABLE 20. NUMBER OF MEALS FOR SERVING A LEFT- OVER ROAST. BY FAMILY SIZE, HOUSTON. PHOENIX‘ AND DENVER. 1955 A Family size and city Number 1-2 members 3-5 members Over 5 members of meals ' H P D H P D” H P D’ — — — — Percent of families — — — — 0 3 5 3 7 7 4 16 14 5 1 or 2 51 69 l 61 65 81 84 77 72 86 3 or more 46 26 36 28 12 12 7 14 9 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 ‘The question was asked ‘for chuck roasts only in Phoenix. 2In Denver. the family size was 3-4 members, and 5 members and over. ‘effect on the utilization of these derivatives from cooking beef. The Denver survey did indicate, however, that high-income families are more in- clined to use beef juice and fat for gravy and considerably less for cooking than low-income households. The implication, of course, is clear. Families who can afford it use vegetable or other cooking shortenings much more extensively—as a convenience or for other causes——and rely less on fat from previous cooking. FREQUENCY OF USE OF BEEF CUTS As discussed earlier, an individua1’s favorite or preferred cut of beef is influenced unavoidably by the kind of beef cuts he has eaten. Nonethe- less, it is likely that a favorite cut may be an expensive one; consequently, round steak or ground beef may be eaten more frequently for economy reasons. In this section, therefore, the emphasis is clearly on the popularity of the cuts in terms of their use frequency. This is the only section wherejf the price of the meat cuts is a factor influencing consumer behavior decisions; no effort was made to eliminate it. Round, T-bone and sirloin are the steaks most frequently used in Houston. They are the only steaks an appreciable proportion of the families used weekly. Round steak is served by almost half the families one or more times a week. The relative frequency of use of these and other steaks is summarized in Table 22. The chuck roast and boneless rolled rump roast are the most popular roast cuts. Nearly 40 per- TABLE 21. PREFERENCE AS TO SIZE OF BEEF CHUCK ROAST. ACCORDING TO FAMILY SIZE. HOUSTON. PHOE- NIX. AND DENVER. 1955 _ Family size and city Weight of roast over 5 members H P D H P D H P D 1-2 members 3-5 members — — — Percent of families — — — Under 2 pounds 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 2.0-2.9 pounds 26 20 35 13 15 19 10 5 16 3.0-3.9 pounds 51 47 34 46 41 33 32 31 24 4.0-4.9 pounds I8 24 26 27 30 42 37 38 43 5 pounds 6. over 4 8 3 13 13 6 20 24 17 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 23 C ent of the families“ used chuck roasts one or more times a month. Nearly the same frequency was reported for boneless rolled rump; roast. Weiners, 0r frankfurters, and bologna make up the principal luncheon meats from the rate O f use standpoint. Meat loaves, of which there are many types, are used to a considerably smaller G xtent. Seasonality of weather possibly affects the use of these items more than other types o-f beef and, consequently, influences the answers here. These luncheon meats, too, frequently are meat blends rather than a single kind of meat. TABLE 22. FREQUENCY OF USE OF VARIOUS BEEF CUTS AND BEEF PRODUCTS BY HOUSTON FAMILIES, 1955 Frequency of use , . Intre- Beei cut or product 1 grain 1 or 2 tlmteis quenfly ' per week per mo“ or never -— — Percent oi iamilies — - Steaks: Hound 46 23 31 T-bone 23 27 47 Sirloin 22 25 53 Sirloin tip 4 19 99 Rib 6 14 80 Club 4 13 83 ChuCk 4 9 97 Cube 4 7 99 Filet mignon 2 9 92 Porterhouse 2 5 33 Steakettes 2 5 93 Flank 1 9 99 Roasts: Chuck 1U 29 61 Boned and rolled rump a 8 29 53 Boned and rolled rib 6 17 77 Round bone 3 17 77 Rump 1 12 87 Heel oi round 2 3 33 Brisket pot 1 3 31 Sirloin tip 1 9 93 Luncheon meats: "Weiners or irankiurters 29 33 41 Bologna 27 20 53 Salami 15 15 73 Liverwurst 5 , 13 35 Meat loai 3 13 37 Pressed beet loai '4 4 92 Thuringer sausage 2 3 95 Miscellaneous: Ground beef 42 23 35 Stew meat 17 43 43 Hamburger 33 22 45 Beet liver 13 32 53 Chile con carne 4 21 75 Beef short ribs r 3 17 33 Canned bee! tor babies 7 .2 91 Frozen beet pie 1 3 91 Beet tongue 1 7 -92 Corned beet 1 5 94 Canned beet stew 2 4 94 Bee! kidney 1 4 95 Beef heart 4 95 Canned beef 1 3 96 Dried beet- 1 3 96 Beet brains 1 2 97 Ox tails 3 97 Tripe 2 93 Beef sweetbreads 1 99 Rolled beef plate 100 Breakfast meats: Beet bacon or breakfast beet 2 98 Fresh beef sausage 1 99 24 Ground beef, hamburger and stew mea the standouts among the miscellaneous items. Considering the meat items as a round steak and ground beef rank number [ 2 in frequency of use‘ by the average H’ consumer. These also were the leading i among Phoenix and Denver housewives. ' Since there is a limit towtlife number ii bone steaks or rib roasts thatlcan be cut a single beef carcass, the number consume must necessarily relate closely to the num other types of cuts purchased. There ma’ opportunity, nonetheless, to increase cons acceptance of some of the less popular cuts.“ results would be to increase efforts by bu to get more of these cuts from a carcass a get better prices for the available numb pieces. In areas, or seasons, where stea i more popular than roasts, increased prom, and merchandising emphasis might, for exa be given to such items as rib steaks. Roast‘ unfamiliar to many consumers also coul emphasized. ' ’ Demand for some items which can be cutq different sections of the carcass possibly‘ T further research. For example, the low freq v for serving cube steaks, chip steaks or stea' indicates a need for further consumer edu i. and better promotion of their uses and; vantages. ' RETAIL STORE TEST The major function of household surve’ many instances, is to point up the basic atti of consumers and to delineate problem the products concerned. This has been the; pose of a considerable part of the info l sought ‘in the surveys reported here. When blem areas have been discovered, it of -.~ desirable to go further and conduct “re situation” tests to affirm or disprove the g ings. Although consumer preferences as to 1 of meat were approached from several diff directions in this survey, it appeared desi“ to conduct a limited market test to see if f sumers’ actions conformed to their stated opi regarding the type of meat they preferr purchase. _ Three grades of sirloin and T-bone -:\ Commercial, Good and Choice-were disp equally for consumer selection in a large s market chain store in Houston during one ~T end. A supervisor of the federal meat gr, service selected the meat at the packing 1‘ to assure reasonable uniformity within each s‘ of beef. All three grades were coded as to := on the back of the retail package in a m, that prevented the consumer from being a1 of it in making a selection. After a cus? made a choice, she was interviewed to dete ’ the grade selected and to seek permission to A a household interview following the servi that particular meat cut in the home. 7 ted obtaining information as to the par- eal and the particular day for which the being purchased. Customers were “to cooperate; therefore, the number of was exceedingly small. .’three grades of beef steaks in the store e sold at a uniform price per pound. This Ej~ to the conditions presented to the con- l in the preceding household survey. reas the household survey was comprised ty-wide sample, this store test was con- fin an above-average to high-income section llcity. Consequently, one might expect a inclination to purchase the higher rather Wer grades of meat. This is based, in 31¢ knowledge that in the higher-income amilies are generally better educated and F; know that steaks showing a greater , of fat represent choicer grade meat. If " not familiar with this, they at least are clined to know that better fed animals y» more fat in the meat cuts. Therefore, gthere be any bias in this limited test, they be toward an over-indication of the amount 1- grade meat that would be purchased. ndingly, purchase rates of lower grades _~- expected to be below the average for the l-a whole. _1 proportion of families purchasing the grades of beef in the store test, compared s he proportion in the household survey r 1 the grades, are given in Figure 13. Al- ; the sample in the store test was extremely and it was conducted for only 1 week, the nonetheless, confirm the greater pre- ;- indicated in the household survey, for ;S. Good grade. In both the household sur- j» the store test, 45 percent of the families the U. S. Good grade. .-was expected that more than 25 percent jjshoppers would select U. S. Choice since d seem to be the best alternative for those i 'ng U. S. Prime. Such was not the case. l. ore, even in this above-average to high-in- rea, the incidence of purchase of the top Qwas smaller than expected from the house- irvey. The purchase rate for the U. S. ircial grade was considerably above that yd by the household survey—30 percent families buying it, compared with only ‘cent that indicated this grade as their Vince’ . rther store tests of this nature are being “ted in Phoenix and Denver on a much _ scale than this pilot model. Whether the A; in so limited a test conform to those con- on a-ylarger scale remains to be seen. other ‘major interest in the test was to [vine consumer satisfaction with the meat {permission for interviews was ‘obtained }purchasers 1n the store experiment. Two Q . f. had been prepared and served. For this 60_% OF FAMILIES HOUSEHOLD SURVEY i 972 FAMILIES STORE TEST l8 FAMILIES NOT INCLUDED ¢ m m: suavzv 4o_ w- 2o_ no __ ' , #= o COMMERCIAL GOOD CHOICE PRIME U. S. BEEF GRADES 50_ Figure l3. Consumer bee! grade preferences as indi- cated by the household survey and retail store test. scales of rating were used. First was the verbal scale involving the terms “excellent,” “good,” “satisfactory,” “slightly unsatisfactory” and “un- satisfactory.” Use of a verbal scale providing more possible gradations in the answer was not considered because of the difficulty at times of individuals knowing the fine distinctions between an extensive verbal scale. The type used, there- fore, might be called an abbreviated type of an Hedonic scale. The second scale used was another variation of the Hedonic scale which involved only the use of numbers. In other words, no verbal termi- nology was used. The housewife being inter- viewed was simply asked to consider the rating of the meat in terms of numbers ranging from 1 to 9. Number 1 represented “excellent” and the best quality of meat she had experienced eating. At the other extreme, No. 9 represented meat that was unacceptable and “unsatisfactory.” Thereby, the housewife was free to give the meat she had served any number rank between 1 and 9. _ Results of the two rating scales were com- parable in their major respects. That is, the Commercial grade received somewhat more lower ratings on both scales than did the Choice grade. There was a negligible difference between the percentage of low ratings in the verbal scale given to Good versus the Commercial. Significant was the fact that the U. S. Good grade received more excellent ratings on the verbal than either the U. S. Commercial or the U. S. Choice. With so small a sample, however, it is not possible by the verbal scale ratings to say that there was a significant difference between the number of high ratings given the Good as compared with the Choice ‘grade. 25 TABLE 23. CONSUMER RATINGS, BY VERBAL AND NUMERICAL SCALES. OF STEAKS PURCHASED IN EXPER =1 STORE TEST, HOUSTON. 1955‘ .. 1 Number of . Verbal rating G d i b i i '1' . ' - . m e0 e9 glfiii‘? Excellent Good Satisfactory shgggztgfiat Unsatisfactory —- — — — — — — Percent oi families — — — — — U.S. Commercial 26 27 53 8 4 8 U.S. Good 40 43 38 7 l0 3, 2 U.S. Choice 22 36 55 9 I Numerical rating 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 - - — — — — — — — Percent oi families — -— — — -— — - ' U.S. Commercial 26 23 31 23 8 4 4 4 3 U.S. Good 40 51 20 7 l0 5 5 . 2 U.S. Choice 22 27 50 l8 5 ‘Purchases rated by 88 families. The 9-point numerical scale appears to pro- vide a better measure of the relative strength of consumer preferences for the three grades of beef. The U. S. Good grade received more 10W ratings than the U. S. Choice, but the U. S. Good grade also received more No. 1- ratings than did the ' Choice grade. Under this scale, the difference between the percentage of housewives giving a No. 1 rating for Good or Choice was great enough to be statistically significant, even from the small sample. The two rating system results are given in Table 23. ‘ The store test, in general, confirmed the indication of the household surveys as to con- sumer grade preferences. However, the limited store test does raise the question as to whether the higher proportion of No. 1 ratings for U. S. Good is counteracted to an appreciable degree by it also receiving more lower ratings by some families than the U. S. Choice. The only solution to the question posed here appears to be a more “extended store test, giving the consumers oppor- tunity over a longer time to make repeat purchases. Presumably, after several weeks, con- sumers would arrive at the particular grade which most nearly suited their desires as to taste and lean-fat ratio. This presupposes, however, that a housewife can learn to select meat consistently with the qualities she desires without depending on a grade guide of some type. Some in the meat retailing industry have reservations about the consumers infallibility on this point. Store tests of longer duration may answer this question. Use of an Hedonic or any other type of‘ rating scale by consumers in comparing meats under the conditions of the retail store test still has some inherent problems. To what extent this could have been a factor in ratings is indeterminant. A panel that is given all grades to try over a con- 26 siderable period may provide more stable ra, Such a test is under way by the Texas 1“ tural Experiment Station. The results ' be available for another year. Even a panel, ever, has it own inherent problems. A time, the panel may become conditioned an representative of consumers in general. It .1 sible that all methods of research sinto con‘ meat grade preferences will point towa r same general conclusion. In fact, preli ' evidence from the other type of tests poi L that conclusion—that is, most consumers ~12 the leaner grades of beef. LITERATURE REi-‘ERENCES 1. Seltzer, R. E., “Consumer Preference for Beef,"f cultural Experiment Station Bulletin 26-7, Unive '9 Arizona, October 1955. .1 2. Stevens, Ira M; Frederick O. Sargent; El Thiessen and Carroll Schoonover, “Consumer ' ence for Beef,” University of Wyoming Agri Experiment Station Mimeo Circular No. 60, f 1955. ' 2. “Beef—Consumer Use and Preference,” Unive s Wyoming Bulletin 340, April 1956. 4. Rhodes, V. James; Elmer R. Kiehl and D. E. “Visual Preferences for Grades of Retail Beef ‘ Unigrersity of Missouri Research Bulletin 583 195 . . 5. Lasley, FrediS.; Elmer R. Kiehl and D. E. “Consumer Preference for Beef in Relation to a Igniversity of Missouri Research Bulletin 580, 1 55. a 6. Cover, Sylvia; O. D. Butler and T. C. Cartwrig Relationship of Fatness in Yearling Steers t0 J and Tenderness of Broiled and Braised S {ggrnal of Animal Science, Volume 15, N0. k 6. ,. - '.7. “Beef-—Consumer Use and Preferences,” Colors. ricultural Experiment Station Bulletin 4958, 1956. ormation for other technical research workers, “ng description of the household sample and V. iques used in this survey are presented. The used in Houston conformed to the general plan the members of the Western Region Livestock Research Committee for the regional project. The Sample U olds included in the Houston survey were those l a probability cluster sample drawn by Glenn 10f the U. S. Department of Agriculture, Wash- l. C. The sample was obtained from the 1955 y‘ the Houston City Directory. Since the metro- 5 ea was used, the sample covered residents of y incorporated townships adjacent to the Houston l? s,-except Bellaire and Pasadena, which pur- . ‘re omitted. asic sample comprised 1,495 dwellings plus 330 .. or substitute dwellings. Each cluster in the comprised of five dwelling units—residences ‘fents. Calls were made at each residence in the é‘: least three times before dropping it and re- with an alternate dwelling. Failure to make re- erally results in a sample bias toward larger éwith children since these are more likely to be fithroughout the day. i: of 1,625 households was contacted during the “d summer of 1955. Interviews were completed ximately 63 percent of the residences, and families I ‘be located at 24 percent, in as many as three ills. The remaining 13 percent represented ' incorrect directory listings and other mis- f- causes of ineligibility. Single member house- fre included in the sample, but households with ' y member boarders were excluded. 'entativeness of the survey sample cannot be ed from the 1949 Census data because of the » wth of Houston since that time. Instead, the <= compared with projections of Census data by the A‘ staff of the Houston Chamber of Commerce. “CTED CHARACTERISTICS OF HOUSTON HMILIES COMPARED WITH THOSE IN ‘ ' THE SURVEY SAMPLE, 1955 ‘léltem _ Houstonl Sample ', nationality: i 0 21 23 ~ 'can 5 _ 3 ntal 2 ‘ qr 2 1 ‘ income: ‘ than $3,000 s9 37 ,0-$3,999 15 18 0044999 13 14 4 0-$5,999 s 10 0-$6,999 7 7 H and over 18 14 j children: j. 12 years 643 63 » o 18 years 363 37 - difficulty was encountered in completing inter- i». one of the more exclusive high-income areas. '~ e, the slight under-sampling of high-income house- l expected. The estimates of income prepared by ‘ton Chamber of Commerce represented an adjust- ward lxyg30 percent of the 1949 Census data. jarocedure has inherent shortcomings. Consequent- ‘estimates for the city contain a certain degree of APPENDIX The ages of children shown represent a 1956-57 school census. The distribution, it will be noted, compares closely with that of the survey families. Field Staff Services of an experienced staff of household inter- viewers were used. The local field supervisor was responsible for field editing of the questionnaires. Prior to the survey, a joint training session with the super- visors and the interviewers was held to explain fully the interview techniques required. Test interviews were made by the staff to assure that problems covered in the training session were understood fully and uniformly by all staff members. Work of the supervisor and staff was closely monitored by the project director to assure strict compliance with interview instructions. Interview Techniques and Tabulating Methods The housewife was the person interviewed in each household, except in instances where single individuals resided. In the latter cases, the person responsible for food buying was interrogated. ' Major emphasis was placed on establishing an interest from and cordial relationship with the interviewee since this is basic to obtaining reliable information from‘ the participants. Questions presenting choicesamong a given set of answers and visual material were rotated to counteract answer bias because of the order ofJ-the possible answers. Income questions were answered in code by the interviewee to encourage accuracy in reporting on that question. Interviewers were paid on an hourly basis plus a mile- age rate for driving in connection with interviews. They, thereby, did not feel compelled to rush an interview unduly to the detriment of data obtained. Periodic checks were made by the field staff supervisor to determine the authenticity of interviews reported by the staff members. Information regarding the use of various beef cuts was obtained on mark-sense IBM cards to speed interview time. Such a technique also avoided the necessity of operators having to use IBM key-punch machines to transfer the data to cards. All the questionnaires were re-edited and coded when returned from the field supervisor. All the data were placed on IBM cards and verified by the usual IBM system procedure. Retail Store Test Details of the pilot retail store test of consumer pre- ferences for beef, conducted during the summer of 1955 following the household survey, are outlined in the respec- tive section of the full report. . Field Schedules and Questionnaires Because of their length, the questionnaires and related materials are not duplicated here. Those desiring copies or information concerning them may obtain them by writing the Department of Agricultural Economics and Sociology, Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, College Station, Texas. lEstimates from Houston Chamber of Commerce. 2Less than 1 percent. 3Houston Independent School District scholastic census, 1956-57. 27 a State-wide Researc 5P4? ‘k I The Texas Agricultural Experiment Stati is the public agricultural research agen of the State oi Texas. and is one of t Location oi field research units in Texas main- t'dbthT A'lt1E't ‘ $12351», aid cfopeififiig Zéiiliiii“ ""°""'°“ parts ei the Texas Ae-M College Svet IN THE MAIN STATION, with headquarters at College Station, are 16 subject-matter departments, 2 j departments, 3 regulatory services and the administrative staff. Located out in the major agricultural: of Texas are 21 substations and 9 field laboratories. In addition, there are 14 cooperating stations i; by other agencies. Cooperating agencies include the Texas Forest Service, Game and Fish Commiss Texas, Texas Prison System, U. S. Department of Agriculture, University of Texasgfefexas Technologicj lege, Texas College of Arts and Industries and the King Ranch. Some experiments are conducted 0n.~ and ranches and in rural homes. RESEARCH BY THE TEXAS STATION is organized by programs and projects. A program of research> sents a coordinated effort to solve the many problems relating to a common objective or situation. search project represents the procedures for attacking a specific problem within a program. THE TEXAS STATION is conducting about 400 active research projects, grouped in 25 programs whi, clude all phases of agriculture in Texas. Among these are: conservation and improvement of soil servation and use of water in agriculture; grasses and legumes for ‘pastures, ranges, hay, conservatii improvementof soils; grain crops; cotton and’ other fiber crops; vegetable crops; citrus and other su cal fruits; fruits and nuts; oil seed crops—iothe'r than cotton; ornamental plants——including turf; bru weeds; insects; plant diseases; beef cattle; dairy cattle; sheep and goats; swine; chickens and turkeys mal disease and parasites; fish and game on farms and ranches; farm and ranch engineering; fa ranch business; marketing agricultural products; rural home economics; and rural agricultural econ‘, Two additional programs are maintenance and upkeep, and central services. REsEARcH RESULTS are carried to Texas farm and ranch owners and homemakers by specialists and agents of the Texas Agricultural Extension Service.