BULLETIN 92.5 FEBRUARY 195-9 5/17 = E54 ' Consumer Hiriturles and Handling Practices ‘er Retailers fer Lamb, fflurrenand Bear a» ‘s5: <~W§ I, . I \_ v 6%» ._ r ") 9% g ";"a'“ 4.7 A i ‘I 6 ‘W ‘,v\0 ‘e TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION R. o. LEHWIS. ooooooo R, c LLLL as s TTTTT u. TExAs SUMMARY Information regarding families. their consump- tion of and attitudes toward lamb. mutton and goat was obtained through personal interviews with 966 householders in San Antonio and 1.721 in Waco. Information on general availability. retailers’ mer- chandizing practices and attitudes toward lamb. mutton and goat was obtained through personal interviews with 116 fresh meat retailers in San Antonio. The survey of Waco families was con- ducted during the fall and winter of 1956 and the surveys of retail stores and homemakers in San Antonio were conducted during the summer and fall of 1957. Only 53 percent of the 116 fresh meat retailers interviewed in San Antonio had handled lamb. mutton or goat anytime during the l2 months previous to date of interview. Most nonhandlers are small. independent stores that sell limited quantities of beef. pork and other fresh meat. Four in 5 nonhandlers gave lack of demand as the reason for not handling lamb and l in 7 stated that the price was too high for their customers. Other reasons given include too much waste in the carcass and insufficient capital to handle all kinds of meat. During the month previous to interview. 37 store owners sold an average of 386 pounds of lamb per store. 20 retailers sold an average of 237 pounds of mutton and ll sold an average of 259 pounds of goat meat. Most mutton and goat handlers are local independent meat retailers while meat retailers in chain stores reported selling about six times more lamb on the average than local independent retailers. Most San Antonio retailers obtain their lamb and mutton from local slaughter houses or local meat packing plants. Good grade of lamb carcasses is the preferred grade of three-fifths of the independent retailers. and Choice grade is the preference of 55 percent of the retailers in chain stores. Prime grade of lamb and mutton is disliked because it contains too much fat and the price usually is too high. Most retailers prefer lamb carcasses weighing about 40 pounds and mutton carcasses weighing 45 pounds. Fifty percent of the retailers reported that they advertise lamb in newspapers an average of three or four times per year. while 24 percent reported advertising lamb through radio. and 27 percent of the retailers in chain stores reported using television to advertise lamb. Almost half of the respondents stated that the cost of advertising lamb on radio and television was too high and one in five reported that previous advertising had failed to result in sufficiently increased sales to merit further attem Most smaller handlers feel that their stock ---g volume of sale are too small to warrant advertis' lamb. Only l in 3 handlershilizd lamb or mutton display at the time of interview. although 4 in v reported having special displays of lamb du 'g the winter and spring. seasons of higher th average sales. Most handlers using promotio efforts reported some increase in their lamb“ "f mutton sales. Meat retailers sold only about one-twelfth »~ much lamb. mutton and goat as they did beef w‘ about one-seventh as much pork. Thirty-five percent of the 966 San Anto_ housewives reported using lamb an average once every 12 days and 16 percent of the 1.7 ~ Waco housewives used lamb an average of o’ every 24 days during the 12 months before -A interview. Consumption of lamb, mutton and goat is hig: among Latin-Americans than it is among Ang Americans. Persons who had lamb served to a in their parents’ homes at an early age are twi as likely to use lamb as are those who did not - _ _ lamb as a child. Irrespective of nationality. housewives in older age group. those with higher education ---‘ those whose husbands have higher incomes, ~- more likely to eat lamb. a The characteristics of lamb most appealing ' housewives who stated that they like it are its flav-_ texture. ease of preparation, distinctive aroma. sm amount of waste. variety of preparation and A healthfulness. While only one in three lamb users reportf any dislikes for lamb. the dislikes mentioned m frequently were disagreeable odor, too much y dislike for taste and too expensive. I Efforts to promote increased consumption p lamb and mutton should be directed tow (l) getting a larger percentage of meat retail to stock more lamb and mutton. (2) giving gre store display space to lamb and mutton. (3) reduf the price of the better cuts to bring them more line with comparable cuts of beef. veal and r, (4) obtaining more frequent advertising and put n more emphasis on general promotion and (5) sh“ ing housewives how to prepare lamb which I result in a better flavor and a more agreeable 0d; ._ I IS A PROLIFIC PRODUCER, but a poor con- ;sumer, of lamb and mutton. iThe 5.2 million sheep and lambs 0n Texas j; and ranches in January 1957, constituted rcent of the 31 million in the United States ‘were almost twice that of California, the "largest producer. The 2.8 million lambs _ ced annually in Texas represent 14 percent total U. S. lamb crop. sgflowever, only about 1.6 percent of the _U. S. mption of lamb and mutton is consumed in , which ranks thirty-second among the in consumption per person. The average i consumes less than one-third as much lamb mutton as the average consumer in the States. The consumption per person in ;: was 1.4 pounds compared with 4.5 pounds T; ‘e nation in 1954. {The 2% million sheep and lambs marketed ‘exas sheep growers during 1957 represented i, l dressed weight of about 125 million 311s. About 11 million pounds, or less than 9 i; t of this total, were consumed in Texas. ']maining 91 percent was shipped out of the ieither to the northeastern part of the coun- a. the form of dressed lamb (54 percent) or . '_lots for finishing »(46 percent). _. S. consumption of sheep and lamb de- 11-» from 6.4 pounds per person in 1930‘ to unds in 1956, compared with an increase in onsumption from 48.2 pounds per person .0 pounds for the same period. Poultry con- "ion also increased from 16.9 pounds per fr, in 1930 to 28.9 pounds in 1956. a nsumption of lamb and mutton usually is f- in areas where there is a concentration ite-collar or professional workers, people Y ing Kosher foods and people from eastern , rranean countries. Consequently, use of ‘Iis greatest in the New England, Middle At- f and Pacific Coast sections of the country, ;" in the East South-Central and West Central States. ' (he six New England States—Maine, New Massachusetts,Rhode Island and Con- .t--composing 6 percent of the population jUnited States, consume 12.5 percent of the ?nd mutton, produce only .2 percent of ep and lamb. This indicates that residents i; states obtain about 98 percent of their 1nd mutton from other states. i nt professor, Department of Agricultural Eco- s; and Sociology. 1 iiensumer Httitudes and Handling Praetiees at Retailers ter lamb, lilutten and Beat RANDALL STELLY* The three Middle Atlantic States of New York, New Jersey and Pennsylvania have 19.5 percent of the population but consume 36 percent of the lamb and mutton eaten annually in the United States. Since these states produce only 1.1 percent of the sheep and lamb, about 97 per- cent of the sheep and lamb consumed in those states is brought in from other states. Along the Pacific Coast, California, Oregon and Washington contain 10.4 percent of the pop- ulation and consume 21.3 percent of the lamb and mutton. However, these three states produce only 13 percent of the sheep and lamb and bring in from other states about 34 percent of their annual consumption. The 12 states in the New England, Middle Atlantic and Pacific Coast areas have 36 percent CONTENTS Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Z Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3 Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4 Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4 Retail Store Practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _. 4 Types of Retail Stores . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4 Meats Handled . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5 Purchase oi Carcasses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6 Grade and Weight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6 Wholesale Cuts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6 Preferred Cuts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6 Seasonality of Sales . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6 Special Days . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 8 Retailer Promotion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Displays . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 8 Special Marketing Practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6 Cuts Difficult to Sell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Volumes Sold and Prices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 9 Attitudes oi Housewives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Characteristics of Lamb Users and Nonusers . . 9 Factors Affecting Lamb Consumption . . . . . . .. 9 ' Likes and Dislikes about Lamb . . . . . . . . . . . . ..10 Objections of Nonusers to Lamb . . . . . . . . . . . ..ll! Influence of Promotional Efforts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..10 Seasonality of Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..10 Availability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10 Opinions of Price . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10 Grade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11 Other Factors Relating to Acceptability . . . . . . ..ll Flavor and Texture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ . . . . . . . ..ll Food Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ; . . . . . . . . .11 Knowledge and Ease of Preparation . . . . . . ..ll Reasons ior Not Serving More Lamb. . . . . . ..12 Cuts Used and Weights Preferred. . . . . . . . . ..12 Importance of Military Purchases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12 Possibilities for Increasing and Expanding Demand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..12 Demand in Relation to Advertising and Promotion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13 Other Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13 Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13 of the U. S. population and consume 70 percent of the lamb and mutton eaten annually in the United States. They produce only 13.4 percent of the sheep and lamb in the United States and obtain about 81 percent of their lamb and mutton from other states. This indicates a need for expanding con- sumer demand for lamb and mutton in other re- gions of the country to reduce the dependence on the New York and California markets. PROCEDURE Information regarding the characteristics of families, their consumption of and attitudes to- ward lamb, mutton and goat was obtained through personal interviews with 966 household- ers in San Antonio and 1,721 in Waco. Infor- mation on general availability, retailers’ mer- chandizing practices and attitudes toward lamb, mutton and goat was obtained through personal interviews with 116 fresh meat retailers in San Antonio. The survey of Waco families was con- ducted during the fall and winter of 1956 and the surveys of retail stores and homemakers in San Antonio were conducted during the summer and fall of 1957. OBJECTIVES The National Wool Act of 1954 was enacted to encourage the production 0f shorn wool through an incentive price program. It also pro- vides that part of the incentive payments to growers be set aside to establish an advertising and sales-promotion program designed to in- crease the demand for lamb and wool products. Producers approved this proposal and, through the American Sheep Producers Council, Inc., are TABLE I. TYPE OF STORE HANDLING LAMB AND MUTTON AND MEAT RETAILING FACILITIES. SAN ANTONIO Type of store. number A“ stores. Item Inde' Chain Total percent pendent Lamb handlers‘ Self-service facilities only U 4 4 6.6 Service facilities only 28 6 34 55.7 Both facilities 1 7 8 13.1 Total lamb handlers 29 I7 46 75.4 Mutton handlers Self-service facilities only I U I 1.6 Service facilities only 11 U 11 18.1 Both facilities 1 U 1 1.6 Type of service not indicated 2 0 2 3.3 Total mutton handlers 15 U 15 24.6 All lamb and mutton handlers Self-service facilities only 1 4 5 8.2 Service facilities only 39 6 45 73.8 Both facilities 2 7 9 14-7 Type facilities not indicated 2 U 2 3.3 Total 44 17 61 IUU.U ‘Of the lamb handlers. 3 handled lamb. mutton and goat: 5 handled goat and lamb. and 12 handled mutton and lamb during the I2 months previous to interview. 4 actively engaged in a campaign to spread the I mand for lamb. Past attitudes of Texas housewives agai lamb may be changing because of an influx, population from other areas with different m eating habits. Changes in handling and pre ration methods may eliminate existing prejudi if enough people are given the opportunity to . lamb. Many meat retailers "accept the prejud- toward lamb and make little or no effort to p mote or test its sale potential. ' This study was undertaken for the followi purposes: f 1. To determine the general nature of o.’ sumer demand for lamb and mutton in two, _ lected Texas cities, San Antonio and Waco. g . 2. To measure the effect of family ba ground, racial and ethnic extraction, age, inco and other factors and family characteristics .- lamb and mutton consumption. 3. To determine the effect of relative pri general availability and homemakers’ knowle of preparing lamb as factors relating to lamb c' sumption. . 4. To ascertain the general attitudes ‘ housewives toward lamb, mutton and goat a the extent of prejudices, if any. - 5. To obtain information on practices a“ attitudes of meat retailers toward lamb, mu Z and goat, extent of promotion, price and gene” availability of these meats as factors affecti sales. RETAIL STORE PRACTICES The study of retail store practices in _ Antonio was analyzed to determine differen, in (1) types of stores handling lamb, mutton 1. goat meat, (2) type of meat handled, (3) p chasing practices and preferences with resp. to carcass and wholesale cuts and grade J weight of cuts, (4) seasonality of sales and ( promotion policies and practices in selling l»! mutton and goat meat. Types of Retail Stores Retail meat stores included in this st were classified according to (1) type of s (whether independently owned or chain stor (2) meat retailing facilities offered custo l? (whether self-service, butcher service or co nation of facilities) ; (3) whether they . handlers or nonhandlers of lamb, mutton or during the previous 12 months; (4) accordin - whether they were primarily lamb or mu handlers (depending upon relative volume _ dled of each). The stores handling lamb or t» ton are classified according to these categof in Table 1. A f‘ i Of the 116 fresh meat retailers intervie in San Antonio, 61, or about half, handled eit lamb, mutton or goat during the 12 months p it 2. NUMBER OF WEEKS LAMB AND MUTTON wAs HANDLED BY MEAT RETAILERS. SAN ANTONIO, JUNE 195s To IUNE 1957 1Q weeks m- less 11 1Q 25 weeks Z6 to 51 weeks Every week oi the year Total‘ e oi meat and A - = oi store Number 232:2: Number fizfggg: Number 11:35:25 Number firjfiggf Number 2:12:23 f. stores weeks Sim-es weeks stores weeks stores weeks stores weeks ependentsi s s 4 1s 1 42 1s s2 29 as ains 3 5 1 30 13 52 17 43 stores 8 6 4 16 8 41 26 52 46 38 . on ‘Mependents 1 s a 1s a s4 1s s2 2s as 1 4 1 4 stores 8 5 3 19 3 34 13 52 27 32 retailers gave information on both lamb and mutton. v a to‘ date of interview, and 55, 0r 47 percent, Of the 47 meat retailers handlinglamb, 26, or y not handle this type of meat. 55 percent, handled only lamb, 17, 0r 36 percent, handled mutton and lamb and 4 retailers handled lamb, mutton and goat. Seven of the 34 mutton retailers handled mutton only, 6 sold mutton and goat, while 17 sold lamb and mutton and 4 sold all three meats. Of the 11 stores selling goat, 1 handled only goat, 6 handled mutton and goat, and 4 handled lamb and mutton in addition to . goat. Twenty-seven, or 44 percent, of the 61 re- About 4 out of 5 nonhandlers of lamb, mut- tailers interviewed handled two or more meats. or goat stated that insufficient customer de- . . s, was the reason for hot etookihg these Information concern1ng the number of weeks ta About 1 in 7 Stated that the price of during the year that lamb and mutton were han- r is too high for their euetomere Other rea_ dled, was obta1ned from 46 lamb handlers and 27 r~ given included too much Waste ih the oar_ mutton handlers. Lamb handlers reported they ‘ and insufficient capital to handle all kinds had handled lamb an average of 38 Weeks Whlle 5,, eate Most retailers gave more than one rea_ mutton handlers stated they had handled mutton ~ for not hahdhhe either lamb or mottorr an average of 32_ Weeks durlng the year previous , to date of 1nterv1eW, Table 2. , Of the 61 handlers, 44, or 72 percent, were lf= independent meat retailers and 17, or 28 i» ent, were chain stores. All 55 retail meat res classified as “nonhandlers” were independ- _-_ stores With butcher service meat markets. 3t nonhandlers are relatively small stores that ‘e limited total meat sales. Meats Handled Information on volume handled was obtained ‘Slightly more than half of the handlers inter- from 37 lamb handlers: 2O mutton handle.“ and reported handling only one of the three .11 gm‘? handlers‘ Durmg the month prevlous. to _. While only 1 in 15 reported handling an 1nterv1eW, these meat retailers reported selling 14,270 pounds of lamb or an average of 386 pounds per store, 4,748 pounds of mutton or an average of 237 pounds per store and 2,844 pounds -e. Mutton and goat meats are handled main- independent retailers. ; Lamb _was handled in 47, or 77 percent, of of goat meat or an average of 259 pounds per stores 1n the sample, mutton in 34 stores, or store, Table 3. Most mutton and goat handlers rercent and goat 1n 11 stores, or 18 percent. are local independent meat retailers. Only one ' a. VOLUME or SALES PER MONTH or LAMB. MUTTON AND GOAT AND OTHER MEATs. RETAIL STORES. ‘s SAN ANTONIO‘ Independents Chains All stores a — — — — — — — Volume in pounds per month — — -- — — — — o. °f meal Number Average Number Average Number Average ’ stores Volume volume stores ' Volume volume stores Volume volume reporting per store reporting per store reporting per store 14 36.500 2.610 15 136.875 9.125 29 173.375 5.980 24 50.500 2.105 9 98.520 8.867 33 149.020 3.950 24 88.692 3.696 6 45.350 7.725 30 134.042 4.468 37 28.450 767 15 119.250 7.950 52 147.700 2.840 36 43.720 1.214 15 74.250 4.950 51 117.970 2.319 15f 8.460 445 13 30.030 2.310 32 38.490 1.203 22 2.820 128 15 11.450 763 ' 37 14.270 386 ,- 19 4.723 249 1 25 25 20 4.748 237 l‘ 11 2.844 259 11 2.844 259 j~ mutton and goat’ 35 10.387 297 15 11.475 765 50 21.862 437 l~ oi “other meats" includes average monthly sales tor the 12 months previous to interview; volume oi lamb. mutton and gales includes volume sold during the month previous to interview. independent handlers and two in chain stores did not furnish intormation on volume oi sales. TABLE 4. CARCASS GRADE OF LAMB AND MUTTON PREFERRED BY MEAT RETAILERS, SAN ANTONIO Type of retailer Carcass grade Independent Chain Lamb Mutton Lamb Mutton — — — Number retailers — — — Prime 1 1 Choice 3 1 9 Good 15 8 6 1 Utility 5 4 Cull 1 1 Total 25 » 14 16 1 Total handlers 29 26 17 1 chain store meat retailer reported handling a small volume of mutton. However, meat retail- ers in chain stores reported selling about six times more lamb on the average than local in- dependent retailers. They also reported selling more of all other meats. Lamb, mutton and goat accounted for only about 3 percent of total meat sales of independent retailers and 2 percent of total sales by chain stores. Purchase of Carcasses Twenty-two of the 29 independent lamb re- tailers and 25 of the 26 independent mutton re- tailers, plus all 17 retailers in chain stores, stated they usually purchased whole carcasses. Of the 37 independent store owners who gave the source of their lamb and mutton supply, 20 stated that they obtained their supply from local slaughter houses, 11 from local meat packers or packing plants, 5 from cold storage plants and 1 obtained his supply from a meat wholesaler operating from the stockyards building. Fourteen of the 16 chain store owners obtained their lamb and mut- ton carcasses from local slaughter houses and 2 from local meat packers or packing plants. Grade and Weight Concerning carcass grade of meat purchased, only one independent and one chain store own- er gave Prime as either their first or second choice of grade. Three out of 5 independent re- tailers stated Good as their first or second choice of either lamb or mutton carcasses and 1 out of 5 preferred Utility grade. Only 3 out of 25 independents who stated grade preferences indicated Choice as their first TABLE 5. WEIGHT OF LAMB AND MUTTON CARCASSES PURCHASED BY MEAT RETAILERS. SAN ANTONIO weight of Independents Chains All stores carcasses Lamb Mutton Lamb Mutton Lamb Mutton Pounds — — — Number of stores purchasing — — — 30 and less 6 4 1 7 4 31 to 40 9 8 6 15 8 41 to 50 5 9 7 1 12 1D 51 to 60 2 5 1 3 5 Total 22 26 15 1 37 27 Average weight of all carcasses. pounds 37 44 42 45 39 44 6 preference. This survey indicates that meat r tailers in chain stores prefer slightly hig grades of lamb than retailers in the independe stores. Nine‘ out of 16 chain store owners stat, they usually purchase Choice grade of lamb a 6 usually purchase Good grade, Table 4. Rf sons given most frequently by store owners y‘ not handling Prime grade are that lamb and mu_ ton carcasses of this gradexcéntain more fat th‘ their customers like and the price of the Pri t grade is too high for their customers. Most meat retailers interviewed appear r prefer purchasing lamb carcasses weighing abo 40 pounds and mutton carcasses weighing abo 45 pounds, Table 5. Chain store owners appa». ently prefer slightly heavier carcasses. Veg few lamb and mutton handlers like carcass, weighing less than 30 pounds or more than pounds. Wholesale Cuts c About 50 percent of the independent retailers and 2 out of 3 retailers in chain stor stated that they purchase wholesale cuts of lam Wholesale cuts purchased most often by ind pendent retailers are leg, rack or rib chops an; shank of lamb while chain store meat retaile f reported buying mostly leg of lamb and lamb pa ties (ground) in wholesale cuts or volume. 1 purchases of wholesale cuts of lamb and mutto both independent and chain retailers indicated 1 tendency to buy higher grades than when th buy Whole carcasses. This reflects a tenden among lamb and mutton wholesale dealers to c Y up a larger proportion of the better grade ca k casses for disposition as wholesale cuts. * However, the grades indicated in carcass pu chases appear to conform closely with the choi of retailers as reflected in “consumers” prefe ences concerning grade. The question was ask “Which grade of lamb would you handle you had an unlimited supply of all grades?” Tw out of 3 independent retailers stated they wou, handle Good grade and 4 out of 7 retailers chain stores stated they would handle Choi grade, while 3 out of 7 would handle Good grad Preferred Cuts . Concerning rating of different cuts acco ~ ing to the amount they normally sell, respon given by handlers indicate that leg of lamb, l0 chops and shoulder roasts are higher in demaf than other cuts. This factor is reflected in kin of wholesale cuts usually purchased by t; handlers purchasing them. Wholesale and re = cuts of lamb are shown in Figure 1. i The following cuts were given a Low to Ve Low demand rating by 3 in 4 retailers who ga ratings of the different cuts: breast of lam neck, shank, stew meat and patties. Seasonality oi Sales Most meat market supervisors in chain stor“ stated that they have almost uniform sales é lamb and mutton throughout the year. Only . Retail Cuts Wholesale Cuts Retail Cuts aa . F“ "rm. . ‘i, Boneless Sirloin Roast leg ol Lamb (Three cuts from one leg) Frenched Leg l Roost . .7 ~. MW Frenc Rib Chops - O—.—Broil, Panbroil, Panfry-— Loin English Chop Chop —— Broil, Panbroil, Puanfry- Q Square Cut Shoulder Patties 4 Loaf Broil, Panbroil, Punfry- I —Roost (Bake)—'-— Arm _Chop Blade Chop Broil, Panbroil, Roost Broil, Penbroil, Pantry, Breise\____.____ Pantry, Breise__ Riblets Stew Meat Breise or Cook in liquid Cushion Saratoga Shoulder Chops Roast I -_—Broil, Panbroil,—- Pantry, Bruise Rolled Breast Breast Bruise or Roast Boneless Q Shoulder Shoulder Chops l, Qpest, Bruiser". - 5'°llr'—"—"" i "" Penbroil, Pantry, Bruise is V a 4 Mock Duck Roast Neely Slides Bruise, Ceejk in liquid Bruise or Cool: in liquid Courtesy of the National Livestock and Meat Board and Swift and Company. Figure 1. Wholesale and retail cuts of lamb and suggested ways of preparing them. third of the chain stores sold as much as 40 per- cent of their yearly volume during either the spring or the Winter. However, independent handlers reported a rather high degree of season- ality in both lamb and mutton sales. Sixty per- cent of the independent retailers sold more than 40 percent of their lamb and mutton during the winter; about 10 percent sold 40 percent of their yearly sales during the spring. Many retailers indicating seasonality in lamb and mutton sales could not give definite reasons for such variation. Of those that did offer rea- sons, 50 percent stated that their customers cook more meat during the winter or cool months and less during the summer or warm months. Another reason frequently given for above aver- age sales during the spring was that younger, and thus smaller lambs, which are more suitable to the consumer, are available during that season. Special Days Larger than average demand for lamb and mutton during special days or certain holiday seasons also affects seasonality in sales. More than a third of the retailers mentioned Easter as one of those days. One-fourth of the retailers stated that sales usually increased during Christ- mas and New Year holidays. Other special days or occasions mentioned were Thanksgiving Day, Labor Day, Independence Day and “long” week- ends during which their customers generally do more barbecuing than usual. Retailer Promotion Attempts were made to determine the extent that handlers endeavor to promote increased lamb and mutton sales. Of the retailers who gave re- plies on this subject, 40 percent of the independ- ents and 70 percent of the retailers in chain stores stated that they used newspaper advertising, and 19 percent of the independents and 33 percent of the chains stated that they used radio advertis- ing. In addition, 27 percent of the retailers in chain stores reported advertising lamb on tele- vision. Of the retailers advertising lamb and mutton, independents used newspapers about once per month and chains three or four times per year. Retailers in chain stores who adver- tised through radio and television did so once every 2 or 3 months. The reason for not advertising lamb and mutton more, according to approximately one- half of the respondents, was that advertising on radio or television was too expensive. One out of five stated that previous advertisements had failed to increase sales enough to merit further attempts. Most of the smaller handlers felt that their volume of lamb and mutton sales is too small (and they do not carry sufficient stock) to warrant advertising. ‘ The special promotion given to lamb and mutton by stores at the time of interview includ- ed leg of lamb on special, patties wrapped in 8 bacon on display, prepackaged lamb cuts, ass ed fresh and frozen lamb cuts on display, la signs inside and in front of the store advertis lamb cuts, price reductions on Fridays and urdays and special features advertising ba‘ cued lamb and mutton. Some retailers used _ or more of these practices. ' Displays -2 l,’ On the date interviewed, only one-third‘ the lamb and mutton handlers had fresh lam mutton on display in their meat counters. w‘ ever, two-thirds of the handlers were kee lamb in frozen meat lockers. The reason 1-1” by most of these handlers was that lamb mo? too slowly to be kept on display with other m Consequently, these cuts are-taken out of fre lockers only when customers ask for them. S. a practice is not conducive to maintaining orf creasing demand for lamb and mutton. Sixty percent of the independent han and 80 percent of the retailers in chain st‘ that handled lamb and mutton reported pu *1 them on display sometime during the year. out of 10 retailers in both groups reported l, ing special displays during the winter and spr‘ Others reported utilizing special displays at ~ ‘ ious times during the year but during no ~ ticular season. i About 30 percent of the independent =3 lers utilizing special displays have them on month or less while another 30 percent have t every week. Retailers in chain stores empl this practice less frequently. Leg of lamb or mutton, loin chops, sho ; roasts and rack or rib chops are the cuts us y displayed. A few handlers in chain stores ’_ reported putting lamb patties on display. i Most handlers using special displays or, vertising reported some increases in sales a i utable to these practices. Some reported V such practices almost double their lamb and. ton sales but most reported less than a 50 " cent sales increase. l Special Marketing Practices Only one out of 10 independent story ported utilizing special marketing practices . as promoting boneless rolledshoulder, lamb p lets, mock duck, lamb shoulder chops, lam steaks and stuffed lamb breast. However, : of 1O chain stores reported utilizing one or j of these special practices. Boneless rolled sh er, lamb shoulder chops or lamb leg steaks promoted most frequently by retailers uti special marketing practices. Cuts Diiiicult to Sell Most retailers reported one or more c V lamb and mutton which were difficult to. Forty-two percent reported that the neck the most troublesome cut to sell. About 12 cent mentioned the brisket or breast, ribs, ‘i iTTABLE 6. VOLUME SOLD AND SALE PRICE OF COMPAR- ABLE CUTS OF LAMB, BEEF AND PORK, MEAT RETAIL a STORES, SAN ANTONIO, SUMMER 1957 Total A volume verage Average . Stores sold durin volume sale Retail cut report- week g sold price =~ 13.12:; pm interview Number Pounds Pounds Cents Leg of lamb 25 450 18 67 ‘Beef rump roast 31 2,789 9U 57 Cured ham 29 6,412 221 68 Lamb loin chops 24 504 21 91 T-bone or porterhouse 35 4,436 127 82 Porl: chops (center cut) 38 3,985 105 81 Lamb rack roast 11 176 16 80 Beef rib roast 29 3.122 108 63 , Pork rib loin roast 24 1,514 63 63 , Breast of lamb 21 420 20 30 r Beef brisket 33 3,842 116 32 ' Shank of lamb 10 140 14 38 f Beef stew meat 31 2,138 69 36 ” Lamb shoulder roast 29 1,595 55 50 Beef blade and/or £5 crown roast 21 994 47 49 Pork boston butt and/or picnic 28 5,111 182 55 I Lamb patties (ground) 27 1,593 59 50 v eef (ground) 11 488 44 51 EPorlr (fresh sausage) 43 16,045 373 51 amb stew meat 35 1,645 47 49 eef short ribs 14 467 33 38 ‘Weighted average prices prevailing in the stores surveyed at time of interview. oulder and stew meat. Most meat retailers re- fported that they usually reduced the price of hese cuts drastically below cost, 0r ground the eat into lamb 0r mutton patties along with re- ucing the price to dispose of these slow-moving uts. Volumes Sold and Prices A large percentage of housewives interviewed g ted that they did not purchase lamb because n retail price is too high compared with other eats. During the retail store survey an at- zmpt was made to compare the volume sold by . tailors during the week previous to interview "t the retail price prevailing in those stores for 'mparable cuts of lamb, beef and pork, Table 6. ith the exception of lamb loin chops, lamb rack ast and stew meat, the average price of lamb _' ts in the stores included in the survey appeared be in line with prices of comparable cuts of lefflfand pork at the time of interview. ATTITUDES OF HOUSEWIVES . Information concerning consumption of lamb, utton or goat Wasaobtained from 1,721 house- 'ves in Waco and (-959 housewives in San An- io. Thirty-five percent of the housewives in- ‘rviewed in San Antonio and 16 percent of those " Waco had used lamb, mutton or goat sometime ring the 12 months before date of interview. e average user interviewed in San Antonio lamb, mutton or goat about once every 12 days and those in Waco used it about once every 24 days. Housewives in both cities who reported they had not used lamb, mutton or goat at least once during the 12 months previous to date of in- terview were classified as “nonusers,” and those who had served it one or more times were classi- fied as “users.” ' Characteristics of Lamb Users e and Nonusers Attempts were made to determine the influ- ence of family background, national and racial extraction, age, income and environment or in- dividual consumption and attitudes toward lamb. Factors Affecting Lamb Consumption’ The survey indicated that consumption of lamb, mutton or goat is slightly higher among persons born in Mexico or who are otherwise Latin-Americans than it is among Anglo-Ameri- cans. Although 6 out of 10 housewives inter- viewed in San Antonio were Anglo-Americans, only 3 in 1O of these were classified as users. However, while only 25 percent of the housewives were of Latin-American origin, 4 in 10 of these were classified as users. Eating habits acquired during childhood ap- pear to be more closely associated with lamb and mutton consumption than does national or racial extraction. Of the housewives interviewed in both cities, only 3 in 10 nonusers stated that lamb was used in the homes of their parents while 7 in 10 stated that it was not used. Among users, more than three-fourths said it was used in the homes of their parents. San Antonio and Waco housewives in the older age group, those with a higher education and those whose husbands have higher incomes are more likely to eat lamb than are the younger housewives and those having lower incomes and education, Table 7. This was true of Anglo- Americans as well as Latin-Americans. TABLE 7. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN USE OF LAMB AND CHARACTERISTICS OF RESPONDENTS‘ Lamb Lamb users nonusers Total Characteristics Num- Per- Num- Per- Num- Per- ber cent ber cent ber cent Age, years Under 50 143 31 318 69 461 100 50 and more 195 41 276 59 471 100 Total 338 36 594 64 932 100 Income level Low 184 19 ' 779 81 963 100 Medium 262 21 973 79 1.235 100 High 141 33 288 67 429 100 Total 587 23 2,040 77 2,627 100 Education Grammar school 1'71 19 719 81 890 100 High school 248 21 951 79 1,190 100 College 174 34 341 66 515 100 Total 593 23 2,011 77 2,604 100 ‘Information regarding income and education include all re- spondents in San Antonio and Waco. Information on age was obtained only from respondents in San Antonio, 9 While 4 in 1O housewives over 50 years old were classified as users, only 3 in 10 of those un- der 50 were so classified. Twice as large a pro- portion of housewives with a college education reported using lamb as did those with either high school or grade school education. The study also indicated that 20 percent more of the families in the higher income bracket were lamb users than were those having medium and low incomes. Likes and Dislikes about Lamb Housewives wereasked questions concern- ing the characteristics of lamb which they liked and disliked. Sixty-nine percent of the housewives classi- fied as users stated that members of their fam- ilies like lamb. The characteristics of lamb most appealing to users were its flavor, mentioned by 6 in 10 users; its healthfulness, mentioned by 4 in 10 users; and its texture, mentioned by slight- ly more than 10 percent of the users. Another 20 percent of the users gave a number of general reasons for liking lamb, such as ease of prepara- tion, the variety it adds to meals, its distinctive aroma and the small amount of waste in lamb cuts. Most housewives gave more than one rea- son for liking lamb. In describing the flavor characteristic of lamb, housewives used such adjectives as “distinc- tive,” “pleasant,” “good,” “full or rich,” “deli- cate,” “strong” and “sweet.” Concerning tex- ture, the terms used most frequently were “ten- der,” “juicy,” “lean” and “not greasy.” Lamb users also were asked what dislikes, if any, they or members of their family had toward lamb. Only one housewife in three reported any dislike. Mentioned most frequently were “dis- agreeable odor,” “too expensive,” “too much fat” and “do not like the taste.” Objections oi Nonusers to Lamb Three in 10 nonusers interviewed in Waco and about 4 in 1O of those in San Antonio stated that they had used lamb or mutton previously. As to the reasons for not having used them at least once during the 12 months previous to date of interview, 4 in 10 of those former users in Waco and 2 in 1O in San Antonio stated that one or more members of the family disliked the taste. About 1 in 10 in both cities gave one of the fol- lowing reasons for having discontinued using lamb: the product usually is priced too high, some members of the family do not like the odor and the stores in which they purchase their meats do not handle it. Although only about 50 percent of former lamb consumers gave specific reasons for not us- ing lamb, their answers indicated a possible course of action to increase consumption. Such action should include the following: (1) have a larger percentage of meat retailers stocking more lamb, (2) give greater store display space to lamb and mutton, (3) obtain more frequent advertising 10 . pared with the price of beef. Forty-six pe q and put more emphasis on general promotion, V reduce the price of the better cuts to bring i, more in line with comparable cuts of beef, and pork and (5) inform housewives as to pro ways of preparing lamb that will result in be flavor and a more agreeable odor. » Influence ot Promotional Efforts During the interviewilof" San A-ntonio ho wives, an attempt was made to determine the tent that lamb and mutton users may be in enced to buy through promotional efforts by tailers. Lamb users in San Antonio were a, if they sometimes buy lamb and mutton be := of advertisements on radio, TV or in newspap displays in retail meat stores, or through sug tions by a clerk or butcher. Of the 339 ho wives classified as lamb users, 1 in 4 stated ‘ newspaper advertising sometimes brought t attention to lamb; 1 in 5 recalled that store Q plays influenced their decision to buy lamb; 1 about 1 in 10 referred to radio or TV adverti and to suggestions by the butcher as reasons l their decisions to buy lamb. - It is significant that more than 6 in 101' users interviewed in San Antonio stated that t sometimes decided to buy lamb because of onl more of the four promotional efforts used meat retailers. This suggests that greater y‘ motional activities by retailers may result in , ger sales volumes. Seasonality of Use About 15 percent of the housewives in ‘l Antonio and 8 percent of those in Waco se lamb to their families during certain seasons» the year. Most housewives expressing sea ality in their use of lamb stated that they usu, purchase lamb during the spring and winter. i reasons given most frequently were that lam cheaper and has a better flavor during the . winter and early spring. This relates closely! the information obtained from meat retailers - cerning seasonal variations in their lamb r mutton sales. 1 Availability About one in four lambusers in each city " ported that lamb is not available throughout = year in the stores where they purchase their supplies. These housewives indicated that l generally was not available during the fall j winter. L Opinions of Price Housewives in both cities were asked to s: their opinion regarding the price of lamb v. , of lamb users in San Antonio and 54 percen those in Waco stated that lamb generally " priced higher than beef in the meat storest .~ 8. COMPARISON OF FLAVOR AND TEXTURE OF ‘ LAMB WITH BEEF AND PORK, SAN ANTONIO Texture Flavor Beef , Pork _ Beet Pork Num- Per- Num- Per- Num- Per- Num- Per- ber cent ber cent ber cent ber cent , er um; 10s so 10s s1 112 ss 11o s2 g good as 1s4 s4 1s2 4s 11s s1 14s 4s rerthan s9 12 s1 1s 44 1s s7 11 ‘not know and answer l3 4 31 9 l0 3 26 8 339 100 339 180 339 100 339 100 tronized. However, 27 percent of the house- ves in Waco reported that lamb and beef prices ire about equal, and 7 percent stated that lamb ally is priced lower than beef. In San An- io 23 percent of the housewives interviewed ted that generally the price of these two meats f about the same and 12 percent stated that 11 generally was priced lower than beef. Nine- ‘ percent of lamb users in Waco and 12 per- t’ of those in San Antonio did not give their g1 on the relative prices of beef and lamb. N0 relationship was apparent between levels ‘ come and the proportion of housewives who '1 rted lamb prices higher, about equal or lower i beef. Grade ‘i; The question was asked, “Is the lamb you ysold on a graded basis?” Ninety-four per- ‘_ of San Antonio housewives and 95 percent ose in Waco who gave a definite reply an- led, “yes.” These comprised 43 percent of A housewives and 45 percent of those in San nio. However, about 52 percent of all lamb 4~ in each city could not answer this question ‘itely. Of those who gave “yes” as their def- ’ answer, 10 percent of the San Antonio users 51 percent of those in Waco stated that the - of lamb was Prime, 59 percent of the San pnio and 28 percent of the Waco housewives = ed Choice as the grade; and 31 percent of an Antonio and 21 percent of the Waco ‘wives stated that they usually purchase grade of lamb. This reflects the preference San Antonio meat retailers for Choice ‘< of lamb and mutton carcasses. Factors Relating to Acceptability o obtain information from lamb users that 3 indicate the relative acceptability of lamb mpared to bee», San Antonio housewives tasked to state their opinion of the texture avor of lamb compared to beef and pork, » opinion of the relative food values and and their knowledge of and confidence in skill in preparing lamb compared to beef ‘rk. '7 Flavor and Texture The information obtained indicated that San Antonio lamb consumers compare lamb favorably with beef and pork in both texture and flavor, Table 8. In these two categories lamb was re- ported as good or better than beef by 84 percent of the users and as good or better than pork by ‘ 75 percent of the users. Food Value A housewife’s opinion of the relative food value of several items in the grocery basket some- times affects her decision to substitute one item for another. In the case of meat, other factors being equal, opinion of relative food value may be a factor in a housewife purchasing one type of meat in preference to another. Information obtained from lamb users indi- cates that 57 percent of the housewives inter- viewed in San Antonio and Waco think that lamb has as much or more food value than beef, 55 percent expressed the opinion that lamb has as much or more food value than veal and 56 per- cent of the lamb users interviewed in San An- tonio believe that lamb has as much or more food value than pork, Table 9. Knowledge and Ease of Preparation A housewife’s knowledge of preparing a par- ticular type of meat or the difficulty in prepar- ing it often may affect her decision to serve it to her family. Of the 339 lamb users interviewed in San Antonio, 65 or 19 percent, stated that lamb was more difficult to prepare than either beef or pork and 270, or 80 percent, stated that lamb was not more difficult to prepare. Four housewives did not give an answer on this sub- ject. Eight out of 10 users also stated that lamb TABLE 9. OPINION OF FOOD VALUE OF LAMB COMPARED WITH BEEF, VEAL AND PORK Waco users San Antonio users Meat and opinion Number Percent Number Percent Beef More 49 l8 93 27 Same 92 34 122 36 Less 62 23 5U 15 Do not know 66 25 74 22 Total 269 100 339 100 Veal More 49 l8 l 18 35 Same 79 30 91 27 Less 51 19 34 1U Do not know 9U 33 96 28 Total , 269 100 339 100 I Pork More 120 35 Same 35 l0 Less 73 21 Do not know - ll 1 33 Total 339 100 ll is not more time consuming to prepare than either beef or pork. Seventy-three percent of the lamb users in- terviewed in Waco and 78 percent of those in San Antonio reported that they know how to prepare lamb as Well as 0r better than they do beef. How- ever, one-fourth of the Waco users and one-fifth of the San Antonio users stated that they did not know how to prepare lamb as well as they did beef. The proportion of housewives who report- ed their knowledge of preparing lamb was either better, as good, or not as good as their knowlege of preparing beef did not vary greatly with re- spect to education, nationality and racial extrac- tion. Reasons for not Serving More Lamb Sixty percent of the 339 users interviewed in San Antonio stated that they would like to serve more lamb to their families. Of those who gave reasons for not serving lamb more often than they do, 52 percent reported that they con- sidered lamb too expensive to serve more often. One-fourth stated that they cannot always find it in the meat stores Where they shop, and 16 percent reported that one or more members of the family did not like it. Among other reasons given were that good quality lamb is not avail- able, dislike the cuts available in the stores, do not know how to cook it, have no time to cook it, and have to buy too much at one time—cuts are too large. Cuts Used and Weights Preferred Six in 10 lamb users interviewed in San An- tonio reported that they used leg of lamb an aver- age of twice during the 12 months previous to date of interview. Another 28 percent stated they used loin chops an average of three times. A _ smaller number of housewives reported using breast of lamb an average of four times, shoulder roast five times and lamb patties an average of four times. The average weights of lamb cuts that these consumers reportedly prefer are: leg, 2.5 pounds; chops, 10.5 ounces; breast, 2 pounds; and patties, 6.4 ounces. Purchasing lamb and mutton carcasses of the grade and size in greatest demand and cut- ting those carcasses into the preferred cut-size and weight may be a step forward in promoting increased lamb and mutton consumption. IMPORTANCE OF MILITARY PURCHASES Since the San Antonio area is a relatively important military center, information was ob- tained on lamb and mutton consumption by mili- tary personnel eating at military posts or other- wise patronizing military commissaries. Information obtained indicates that military personnel stationed in and around San Antonio are very low lamb consumers. Officials concerned with meats procurement indicated that mili- 12 tary families who purchase at military c0 saries in the area consume less than 3 poun lamb per family per year. Indications als that military personnel eating at mess halls such a universal dislike for lamb that when placed on military menus by military head ters, local officials make substitutions for it» Military officials attribute the dislik military personnel for lamb=tb the fact that I troops spent several months or years in En and other heavy lamb and mutton-eating ~ tries during World War II. The reasoning isi they were given so much lamb and mutton inany of them developed a psychological d or it. . Military officials report no problem i‘ taining an unlimited quantity of lamb throng; Armed Forces Quartermaster Market Cente from local purchases which they are allow make, should a requisition for a shipment of - not be filled. ? POSSIBILITIES FOR INCREASING Y, EXPANDING DEMAND Lamb and mutton apparently have v» ceived their due share of advertising and, motion by meats retailers. The American * Producers Council, Inc. is actively engaged advertising and sales promotion campai” signed to spread and increase the deman lamb. During the summer of 1956 that 0 ization, with the assistance of private adv ing agencies and food editors, conducted a __ advertising and promotion campaign in a ; fornia city to test consumer reaction to lamb-i motion. The basic results of that study We 1. The retail store analysis suggests-a‘ terconnection between display space, poi sale advertising and overall promotion. factors are so interrelated that adequate : and point-of-sale advertising must accom the general promotional campaign for the A motional effort to be successful. 2. Lamb has three characteristics ~ are outstanding in their appeal to users. in 10 liked it because of its flavor; 4 in 10 i, tioned its healthfulness; and 3 in 10 ment its tenderness. About 1 in 4, however, exp i some dislike for its flavor; 1 in 5 said the , was too high and a similar proportion felt- lamb was too fat and greasy. As reasons .1 using lamb, about 4 nonusers in 10 said the . sidered the flavor unpleasant, 2 in 10 refe p the odor as disagreeable and another 2 in 1* that some other member of the family obj to eating lamb. ; Thus,’ there is close correlation betwee? findings of this California study and resul the San Antonio and "Waco consumer survey The California study further indicated: lamb sales increased during the promotion f p in those retail stores Where increased dis- j: space was given to lamb, in stores where b promotional material was used and in those es which used newspaper advertising and re- lamb prices. A 1-percent change in the portion of display space allocated to lamb was in iated with .9-percent change in sales. ifDemand in Relation to Advertising ‘ and Promotion ' ' ~In any effort through promotion or adver- ng designed to increase the demand for lamb, * the characteristics of consumers and the na- " a of demand for lamb must be considered. aimoof all advertising or other promotional vities is to influence demand for the product iuch a manner that an increased amount will gold at the same price or the same amount will _ ld at higher prices. If, through promotional ther efforts, greater demand can be created 3a product, the result will be that more will be “ at any given price. The objective with lamb mutton should be to spread and increase the and, and to make the demand less sensitive rice changes. i The consumption of products for which the p» icity of demand is relatively large has great- ssibility of being increased through adver- ‘g and promotion provided the consumers’ concept of the commodity can be changed, they are made aware of the value of the prod- l 0 them. A number of studies indicate that klemand for lamb ranges from moderately to fly responsive with respect to price changes. analysis indicates that when prices fluctuate 'n the middle range a 1-percent increase in price of lamb results in a decrease in con.- tion of about 2 percent, and when prices are very high or low, a 1-percent increase in A would result in a decrease in consumption in 4 percent. More recent analysis, which des extremes in price fluctuations, indicates a 1-percent increase in price results in a 2- ;- decrease in lamb consumption. :The demand for lamb appears relatively elas- Therefore, increased purchases of this meat be influenced through promotional efforts designed primarily to increase its utility so that consumers will be willing to pay more for it. Ad- vertising and promotion of lamb also should em- ' phasize those favorable characteristics of lamb concerning consumer opinion, attitudes and im- pressions while attempting to dispel consumers’ misconception about lamb. Other Considerations Meat retailers and others in the livestock in- dustry may be concerned with whether an in- crease in lamb and mutton consumption due to promotional efforts will result in increased total consumption of meat, or if it will result in a shift in consumption from other meat to lamb and mutton. The answer is not available, but probably some of both would result. However, the United States per capita consumption of lamb and mutton is so small compared with the con- sumption of all other meat that, assuming no in- crease in total meat consumption, increasing per capita consumption of lamb and mutton 100 per- cent would not decrease total consumption of other meat by more than 1.4 percent. The availability of lamb in the retail stores included in the survey is such that if demand is to be increased a greater proportion of meat re- tailers should handle it and they should handle the quality desired by consumers. Any promo- tional campaign should have the support and co- operation of retailers and should be broader than single cities. Since many retailers have not pushed lamb sales, the industry should lead in promoting that product. Greater success might be forthcoming if promotion campaigns first are started intensively in the heavy consuming areas and moved into lighter consuming areas later. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Appreciation is expressed to the manage- ment of the 116 fresh meat retailing establish- ments interviewed in San Antonio, Texas, for furnishing information on their meat handling practices and to consumers interviewed in Waco, Texas, and San Antonio, for their cooperation in furnishing information on their lamb and mutton consumption habits. l3 [Blank Page in Original Bulletin] [Blank Page in Original Bulletin] 999450.16! 11111041010105 v6‘ 79.109093, y‘ fiviaog 'su191q01d 9910.193 1101:1191 999111 o1 9u011n1os p111; o1 511119511111 2199s 11011015 WWII-led’!!! 1912111191151! SW91 9111 1° 51W" PI°H 9'11 P“ -xg 10111111191131! 911x911 9111 f0 s1s11v199ds pun 11011013 010W 9111 1o 91911101111 -91n11n:>1150 511111199 1o uo fiuqauadap s9111snpu1 11110111 9111 p110 ‘991191101 p110 911110110 9101019010 1110111109 1191111111 su191qo1d 1o spezpunq 3° SMOH 9'11 Pm’ SHHHHM 9'11 ‘SNHHM 9'11 ‘SAHM 9111 ‘glylqm 9111 921999 113111135311 qygn 11113111911 ‘SJQUIJDI 911x911 01 P911109 91D 9111289.! 110109898 9111930 161111109 1€q s19s1znu9u10q p110 119w119un1 1111.199 12111199 p112 ‘d99>1dn p112 9911211911112111 912 91112130111 12u0111pp2 OM l s9s29s1p 1u21c1 s91u1011099 121n11n91132 121011 §£1su1 _ s911110u099 9111011 12mg SPQQM p112 119mg w» p01d 121n11n91132 31111931121111 91112111 12111911121110 3 ss9111snq 1191121 p112 u112_1 sdo19 p999 110 31111991113119 1191121 p112 11112 d s1n11 p112 s11n.1_.1 911123 pu2 1191 d 911011 1291d011qns 191110 pu2 9111111) s911s212d p112 s9s2991p 1211111111 sd019 91112193911 9A9 1n1 112 9119 91 sdo19 19 1 19 10 112 u0110 )1 P (H q 95019 111213 N O I ‘L V H H d O 91203 pu2 (199115 s9111n391 p112 9999219 911129 1(112(1 1912M 10 9911 pu2 uo1121119s11oQ 911129 199g 110s 10 111911191101111111 p112 11011211199003 ; :912 999111 ‘... 92x91 111 91n11n91132 10 s9s211d 112 9pn19111 1191111» ‘s11121301d g3 111 1' 013 ‘s199101d 119129991 9111192 Q01; 1n0q2 311119np1109 s1 1,101,111.15 svxsu, 3H1, 's9u1011 121n1 111 pu2 99119021 p112 9111.121 uo p919np11o9 912 s1u9111119dx9 11911211 31113 9111 pu2 991119npu1 p112 911V 1o 9391103 92x91 ‘9391103 11101111991 92x91 ‘921191 10 K119190011 ‘91n11n9113V 10 1119111112d9q ‘S '1] ~ s S 110911(1 92x91 ‘s2x9_1_ 10 u01ss11111110D 1191A p112 911121) ‘99111193 199101 . ‘~11’ 9111 9pn19111 99190932 311112.19do0:) "991911932 191110 A11 p911M0 911011219 N Q I z I a H 6 - 1- 1911009 171 912 919111 ‘u0111pp2 n1 9911012101121 p191} 6 p112 s1101121sqns [Z , ‘ 92x91 10 92912 1211111n91132 1012111 9111 111 1n0 p91290'-1 '1121s 9A11211s1111111p2 3 pu2 999111199 1(10121n391 g ‘s1119111112d9p 99111199 Z ‘91119111112d9p 19112111 ~_[qns 91 912 ‘1101121S 9391103 12 919112nbp2911 1111M ‘nouvls mvw Ell-LL m 991911950 5111101911009 p110 uo1101s uxempadxg 10111111191151; 90x9; 9111 1o 911mm 119109991 p191; 1o 110110901 v 1 1.1191953 9591103 W191i 90x9 _1_ 9111 1o s110d '" u91 1o 9u0 91 p110 90x91 1o 9101s 9111 10 §9u950 119109991 10111111191150 911qnd 9111 91 V ‘P1101103 1119111119dx3 101n11n9115y 90x91 911 _1_ *4 ¥ 1 119129993 91111111-91215