353. CONSUMER ACCEPTANCE OF GROUND B E E F R. S. GLOVER AUBURN U N I V E R S l TY & U N I V E R S I T Y OF G E O R G I A Any d i s c u s s i o n of ground beef probably should be prefaced by placing ernp'hasis on t h e wide consumer acceptance of t h e product. The population of t h e United S t a t e s can be s t r a t i f i e d by v i r t u a l l y any socioeconomic c l a s s i f i c a t i o n and t h e r e s u l t i n g group w i l l most l i k e l y be frequent u s e r s of ground b e e f. Thus, a l l income groups, r a c e s, age groups, family s i z e groups, e t c. f r e q u e n t l y buy ground beef. This p o p u l a r i t y shows up i n published d a t a on ground beef consumption. For example t h e United S t a t e s Department of A g r i c u l t u r e ' s 196566 Survey of Household Food Consumption r e p o r t e d t h e average weekly purchase of ground beef w a s 1. 2 4 pounds p e r household. T h i s w a s l e s s t h a n t h e average weekly purchase of all t y p e s of s t e a k and all t y p e s of r o a s t, but g r e a t e r t h a n t h e average weekly purchase of any other beef c u t s or products. Ground beef accounted f o r about 25 percent of t h e t o t a l pounds of beef purchased. Other research supports t h e s e f i n d i n g s. A survey of households i n Phoenix, Arizona reported t h a t ground beef w a s used more f r e q u e n t l y t h a n any o t h e r beef product. S i x t y f i v e percent of t h e housewives interviewed s t a t e d t h e y used ground beef a t least once a week. A s i m i l a r study i n Houston, Texas i n d i c a t e d t h a t ground beef w a s purchased more o f t e n t h a n any o t h e r beef product except round s t e a k. An Alabama sample of 529 households i n f i v e c i t i e s found t h a t ground beef w a s t h e beef product purchased most o f t e n by 36 percent of t h e households. Steak w a s most f r e q u e n t l y purchased by 35 percent of t h e households and r o a s t w a s t h e most f r e q u e n t l y purchased by 20 percent. A Michigan S t a t e University consumer panel comprised of approximately 275 families reported t h a t during t h e y e a r s 1 9 5 2 through 1958, t h e average weekly percentage of families buying ground beef w a s considerably l a r g e r t h a n t h a t buying any o t h e r beef product or c u t. During t h i s period panel members p e r c a p i t a expenditure f o r ground beef ranged from about 26 t o 35 percent of t h e i r per c a p i t a expenditure f o r all t y p e s of b e e f. Any product t h a t has been so widely accepted by consumers obviously has product or market c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s t h a t appeal t o a l a r g e segment of t h e population. Though cognizant of t h e r i s k s inherent i n g e n e r a i z i n g, I t h i n k t h e following c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of ground beef are most important i n e x p l a i n i n g i t s acceptance: (1) t h e product i s r e l a t i v e l y inexpensive, ( 2 ) it i s easy t o prepare, and (3) perhaps most importantly, people old and young like t h e product. While it i s recognized t h a t ground beef ' i s popular with consumers it i s nonetheless important t o conduct r e s e a r c h concerning t h e t y p e s of formulations t h a t are most p r e f e r r e d by consumers as ground beef i s by no means i n s u l a t e d from competition from v a r i o u s o t h e r red meats, f i s h, and p o u l t r y. The competitive p o s i t i o n of ground beef v i s a v i s t h e s e meats has i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r t h e e n t i r e beef industry. The c o n t r i b u t i o n ground beef consumption makes t o t h e economic w e l l being of t h e beef i n d u s t r y i s probably not widely recognized. Ground beef i s not only a s i g n i f i c a n t component of t o t a l beef s a l e s, b u t i s a l s o important as an end product through which c e r t a i n t y p e s of beef animals can be sold as an acceptable consumer good.
354. For exrtmple, Ground beef is the form in which possibly as much as twothirds of the cow beef is sold to the ultimate consumer. Cow beef is estimated to compose about 30 percent of the total beef supply across the whole of the beef cycle. This beef would be especially difficult to market if it could not be sold as ground product. For most of the past half dozen years I have been engaged in research on consumer preference for ground beef. Some of this experience was as a graduate student at Texas A & M and for almost three years I worked in this research area at Auburn University. The research at the two universities had two somewhat separate objectives even though at both institutions it contributed to the same regional project, Southern Marketing Project 19 (SM19). The work at Texas was primarily concerned with consumer preference for ground beef of varying fatlean compositions while the Alabama research focused primarily on preferences for ground beef containing varying levels of protein extender, specifically soy bits and soy flour. The SM19 research has been predicated on the assumption that the demand for ground beef could be increased if the fatlean ratios (or the beef extender combinations) most preferred by consumers could be ascertained and subsequently used as guides for quality control in the fabrication of the product. The methodology of the studies at Texas and Alabama was quite similar and if use of "broad brush" is permissible, can be quickly outlined. A preliminary procedure consisted of having laboratory taste panels test various formulations of ground beef. These were duotrio discrimination tests and the results were used in ascertaining the formulations to be used in subsequent consumer panel test s. A multistage area probability sampling process was used in selecting participants for the consumer panels. Initial contact with households selected in the sampling process was made by professional interviewers. In these interviews, housewives were asked about their reasons for purchasing ground beef, uses made of it and the frequency of purchase. Families that prepared and served ground beef in the home at least once during the 12 month period previous to the interview were deemed eligible for the panel and upon completion of the interviews were invited to participate in the panels. The number of households participating in the panels varied somewhat as the Texas study had 150 families in Dallas and 150 in Houston while the Alabama panel was comprised of 250 Birmingham families. Ground beef used in the Texas study was prepared by a commercial meat company that services a large number of conveniencetype stores. The meat laboratory at Auburn fabricated ground beef for the Alabama panel. The ground beef was frozen and one formulation delivered to each participating household per week for the duration of the panel. The meat was given to the households. A nine point hedonic scale was used to record the panel's evaluation of the ground beef. Housewives only rated the samples for raw color, cooking axoma, shrinkage, cooked color, and general cooking qualities. All members of the family aged 14 or more were asked to rate the ground beef for palatability or taste characteristics. Characteristics rated were flavor, tenderness, fatty taste, juiciness, and general liking.
355. The Texas panel tested ground beef composed of.1ea.n cow beef blended with high quality fat from fed beef. Four leanfat mixtures were tested. According to the ether extract process the mixes contained 16, 20, 25, and 30 percent fat, respectively. The tests were conducted during a five week period. Ground beef having 20 percent fat was tested by all households in the first week and replicated with approximately twothirds of the households in the fifth or final week. The formulation having 20 percent fat generally received the highest ratings for raw product and cooking characteristics. In general, differences between the ratings of the 20 percent and 16 percent mixtures were less than differences between mean ratings of the 20 percent and fatter types. The 30 percent mixture was rated the poorest for each characteristic except cooking aroma. Although the 30 percent type was generally rated lowest, the 25 percent mixture was rated about as poorly. No significant differences were found between mean ratings of the 20 percent mixtures tested in different weeks. Mean ratings of palatability characteristics followed the same general pattern as that of cooking characteristics. The 20 percent types tended to get the highest ratings. The 16 percent type rated lowest for tenderness and juiciness. When the five characteristics were averaged the 16 percent rated lowest, but not significantly lower than the 20 percent type for any characteristic. Again, mean ratings of the two 20 percent samples did not differ significantly in any instance. The Alabama panel tested three formulations of ground beef. The basic beef stock was cow beef and one formulation was 100 percent beef. Another formulation was a mixture of one pound soy flour and three pounds ice water per 100 pounds beef. A third formulation contained three pounds of soy flour and nine pounds of ice water per 100 pounds of beef. Laboratory analysis of the formulations is shown in the accompanying table. Table 1. Laboratory Analysis of Four Samples of Each Test Formulation of Ground Beef, Alabama Tests. Type of Ground Beef : Moisture ' Fat : Protein ' Ash No SOT Range of 4 samples 62.8763.42 17.2318.13 16.7018.78.761.60 Average 63.19 17.65 17.75 1.11 One percent sox Range of 4 samples 62.6514.32 17.2318.13 17.4219.00.841.40 Average 63.73 17.65 18.41 1.07 Three percent soy Range of 4 samples 59.4560.51 19.7021.15 16.6619.40.761.00 Average 59.98 20.53 17.93.85
Housewives rated all raw product and cooking characteristics of the one percent soy formulation significantly higher than ground beef containing no soy. The one percent mixture was also rated higher than the three percent of all raw product and cooking characteristics. These differences were statistically significant for all characteristics except shrinkage and cooked color. The three percent mixture received somewhat higher ratings than the no soy ground beef, but the only significant difference was in cooked color. Table 11. Housewives Average Hedonic Scale Ratings of Five Raw Product,;rid Cooking Characteristics of Test Ground Beef, Alabama Tests. Raw Product or Cooking Characteristic Gem r a1 : Cooking : : Cooked : Cooking Form&at ion :Raw Color : Aroma : Shrinkage : Color : Characteristics No soy 2.69 2.85 4.65 2.56 2.84 xxx One percent soy 2.08 2.20 4.92 2.05 2.13 Three percent soy 2.67 2.67 4.85 2.24 xxx 2.55 Averages for a particular characteristic underscored with the same type line are significantly different at the.05 level. Rating of 1.0 is highest possible for all characteristics except Shrinkage. Rating of 5.0 is highest possible for Shrinkage. When rated for palatability characteristics, both the one percent and the three percent soy formulations were generally rated higher than the no soy formulation. The one percent soy was rated higher than the three percent soy formulation for all characteristics except fatty taste, however these differences were statistically significant for general liking only. Table 111. Average Hedonic Scale Rating of Five Palatability Characteristics of Test Ground Beef, Alabama Tests. : Fatty : : General F or mul at i on : Flavor : Tenderness : Taste :Juiciness : Liking No soy 2.58 2.90 4.86 3.25 2.98 One percent soy 2.24 4.65 2.85 2.49 xxx xxx Three percent soy 2.32 2.36 4.86 2.94 2.70 x x x xxx Averages for a particular characteristic underscored with the same type line are significantly different at the.05 level. Rating of 1.0 is highest possible for all characteristics except Shrinkage. Rating of 5.0 is highest possible for Shrinkage.
357. After testing the ground beef Alabama housewives were asked if they would buy each formulation if it were available in he stores where they usually shop. The results are shown in the table below. Table IV. Housewives Response to question "Would You Buy This Ground Beef if it Were Available in Your Store?", Alabama Tests. Response F ormulat ion Yes No : No Answer No soy 74.0 17.4 8.6 Another phase of SM19 ground beef research is currently underway. This is a truly regional effort with the experiment stations of Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas participating. The sampling procedures and rating devices were virtually identical with those in the studies previously discussed and each state conducted a panel of 140 households. Thus data were obtained from approximately 700 households. Ground beef for this study was prepared under the supervision of a meat scientist at a packing plant in Texas and after being frozen was sent to the participating experiment stations. The formulations were ground beef fatlean mixtures of 15, 25, and 35 percent fat respectively. Each fat level was tested by panel households as a 100 percent ground beef formulation and again as a two percent soy bit formulation. The consumer panel portion of this work has been completed and the data are being analyzed. Much of the SM19 ground beef research is incomplete, thus any conclusions that might be drawn are rather tentative. However, in closing, I think it can be said that consumer preferences for the product can be reseasched with currently known techniques and some evidence of the fatlean ratios preferred by consumers has been provided. In addition, while some individuals in the meat industry appear to hold to the viewpoint that ground beef composed of 100 percent beef is superior to any type of beefextender formulation, tentative SM19 findings suggest that ground beef containing a small percentage of soy flour is preferred over 100 percent beef. If these findings are correct, the meat industry representatives clinging to the viewpoint mentioned above may eventually find themselves in the unenviable position held by various butter advocates about 30 years ago when the butteroleo controversy developed. RFFERFNCES Branson, Robert E., The Consumer Market for Beef, Experiment Station Bulletin 856, April 1957. Texas Agricultural
358. Glover, Robert S., Consumer Preferences for Ground Bee and Implications for Cattle Producers and Beef Distributors, (Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation) Texas A & M University, 1964. Hudson, A. C. and M. J. Danner, Decision Making in Meat Buylrg, Mabarn2 Agricultural Experiment Station Circular 139, June 1961. Seltzer, Raymond E., Consumer Preference for Beef, Arizona Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin 267, October 1955. Shaffer, James D., Consumer Purchase Patterns for Individual Dairy Products, Beverages, Fats and Oils, Meats, Fish, Poultry and Eggs, Michigan State Consumer Panel, 195258, Michigan State University Consumer Panel Bulletin 7, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, 1962. United States Department of Agriculture, Food Consumption of Households in the United States, Spring 1965, Household Food Consumption Survey 196566, Report No. 1.