Effects of Labeling and Consumer Health Trends on Preferred Ground Beef Color Characteristics, Fat Content and Palatability in Simulated Retail Display

Nutritional concerns have impacted the protein market, decreasing red meat consumption as well as prompting the advent of lean and extra lean ground beef. However, such lean blends of ground beef may suffer in palatability. This study seeks to bridge the gap between perceived health and palatability. Participants were asked to identify the relative importance of characteristics commonly used in purchasing ground beef and select a preferred package of ground beef from labeled and unlabeled sections consisting of 4%, 10%, 20%, and 27% fat content. Instrumental color data and their main drivers were also collected. Participants then completed a blind taste sampling of ground beef with variable fat contents as previously described. Color, fat, and price were found to be significantly more important (P \u3c 0.05) than label, which was significantly more important than company for package preference. No trend towards fatter or leaner blends was found between labeled and unlabeled selections, with 62.64% of participants selecting identical packages between the two sections. Instrumental color data found significant trends in lightness and oxymyoglobin ratio, the proportion of pigment that is bright cherry red, that may be used to identify leaner product without a label. No significant differences were found between the blends for any trait in sensory taste evaluation. These results suggest that while consumers have specific preferences when purchasing ground beef that can be replicated without a label using visual inspection alone, they are less discerning between cooked ground beef of different fat contents. This may explain the continued demand for lean ground beef

Effects of labeling and consumer health trends on preferred ground beef color characteristics, fat content, and palatability in simulated retail display

Nutritional concerns and attempts to limit fat in the diet over the past decades have impacted the protein market, decreasing red meat consumption as well as prompting the advent of lean and extra lean ground beef. Such lean blends of ground beef may suffer in palatability, however, resulting in less satisfied consumers turning to other protein sources. While consumers are demanding lean ground beef, fatter blends may be more palatable. This study seeks to bridge the gap between perceived health and palatability by evaluating preferred fat content and instrumental color characteristics between labeled and unlabeled packages of ground beef in simulated retail display and comparing this data to preferred palatability characteristics in taste sampling. Participants were asked to identify the relative importance of characteristics commonly used in purchasing ground beef (color, label, fat content, company, and price) and select a preferred package of ground beef from labeled and unlabeled sections consisting of 4%, 10%, 20%, and 27% fat content. Instrumental color data (CIE L*, a*, b*, hue, and chroma) and their main drivers (oxymyoglobin proportion) were also collected. Participants then completed a blind taste sampling of ground beef with variable fat contents as previously described and were asked to evaluate samples for juiciness, bind, beef flavor, off flavor, and overall impression. Data were evaluated through the Mixed Model procedure of SAS, version 9.4. Color, fat, and price were found to be significantly more important (P \u3c 0.05) than label, which was significantly more important than company for package preference. No trend towards fatter or leaner blends was found between labeled and unlabeled selections, with 62.64% of participants selecting identical packages between the two sections. The 20% fat treatment was the most frequently selected product in both labeled and unlabeled sections, however the two leaner blends combined garnered more preferred selections than the two fatter blends (56.67% vs. 43.33%, respectively). Instrumental color data showed significant trends towards a lighter product and increasing L* value with increasing fat content as well as decreasing oxymyoglobin proportion with increasing fat content. No significant differences (P\u3e0.05) were found between the blends for any trait in sensory taste evaluation. These results suggest that while consumers have specific preferences when purchasing ground beef that can be replicated without a label using visual inspection alone, they are less discerning between cooked ground beef of different fat contents. This may explain the continued demand for lean ground beef, as consumers in this study found no significant differences in palatability between ground beef differing in fat content from 4% to 27%. Continued research comparing preferred fat content of ground beef in retail display with preferred fat content for palatability is encouraged to expand upon the findings of this study

Estimating the Value of Retail Beef Product Brands and Other Attributes

This paper finds wide variation in brand premiums and discounts across types of branded beef cuts, ranging from -98 cents for a brand of ground beef targeting cost-conscious consumers to $4.15 for a brand of steak produced by a family-operated beef alliance. Other factors affecting beef cut prices include package size, price promotions, store format, ground beef leanness, type of steak cut, and geographic region where the beef was purchased.Livestock Production/Industries, Marketing,

IMPACTS OF THE URUGUAY ROUND TRADE AGREEMENT ON U.S. BEEF AND CATTLE PRICES

The Uruguay Round trade negotiations completed in April 1994 reduced beef trade barriers. Trade barriers for beef products have historically been significant. The Uruguay Round essentially converts many nontariff barriers (quotas) to tariffs (tariffication), includes safeguards for import surges, establishes minimum access commitments, reduces domestic subsidy supports, and provides special tariff allowances for developing countries. These provisions, commensurate with a growing world demand for animal source proteins, will likely increase U.S. fed beef exports and ground beef imports. The United States is a major world producer as well as exporter of beef. In 1996, the United States represented 35 percent of world beef production (ranked first) and 28 percent of world beef exports (ranked second to Australia). U.S. quantity share of the annual world beef export market averaged 5.9 percent between 1980 and 1994 but has increased in recent years. In terms of beef and veal, the United States exports primarily higher-value beef cuts. The United States is the largest single-country beef importer. The U.S. annual quantity share of the world fresh beef import market averaged 16.5 percent between 1980 and 1994. U.S. beef imports primarily consist of lower-quality, manufacturing-grade (ground) beef which is primarily used by the fast-food service industry. The Uruguay Round Agreement will reduce trade restrictions gradually over an implementation period (1995–2000). Specifically, Japan is to reduce its beef tariffs and South Korea will increase its beef import quota by the year 2000. In 2001, South Korean import quotas will be replaced by a tariff. The European Union has agreed to reduce quantities of subsidized exports. In 1995, the United States replaced import quotas with a tariff and a tariff-rate quota. The reduction in trade barriers will increase U.S. beef imports and exports. Because U.S. beef imports are primarily ground beef and exports are primarily table cut beef, beef trade liberalization will have different impacts on producers and consumers of these products. In general, increased imports decrease the price of ground beef and increase per capita ground beef consumption. However, increased beef imports reduce nonfed cattle prices and slaughter. Increased exports cause the prices of table cut beef, fed cattle, and feeder cattle to increase. Per capita consumption of table cut beef declines slightly, and fed cattle slaughter and feeder cattle production both increase. Researchers have estimated that the Uruguay Round Agreement could increase U.S. beef imports by 6–19 percent and U.S. beef exports by 10–75 percent over 1990–1994 average levels. For example, the ground beef price could decline by $0.01–$0.04/lb from average 1990–1994 levels because of increased imports. Thus, the price of nonfed cattle (which generally produce ground beef) could decline by $0.71–$2.55/cwt. Conversely, because the United States exports primarily table cut beef, the table cut beef price in the United States could increase by $0.01–$0.09/lb. Increased foreign demand for table cut beef would cause the price of boxed beef to increase by $0.05–$0.10/lb and the price of fed cattle to increase by $0.62–$5.46/cwt relative to average prices received during the 1990–1994 period. B extension, increased demand for fed cattle would increase feeder cattle price by $0.61–$5.40/cwt over average prices received during the 1990–1994 period.GATT, beef trade, cattle prices, Q0, International Relations/Trade, Demand and Price Analysis,

PRODUCT CHARACTERISTICS AFFECTING CONSUMERS' FRESH BEEF CUT PURCHASING DECISIONS IN THE UNITED STATES, JAPAN, AND AUSTRALIA

The effects of product and economic characteristics on consumers who purchase six cuts of fresh beef (blocks/parts, steak, thinly sliced, diced, chopped, and ground) in urban areas of the United States, Japan, and Australia will be examined in this paper. Certain product characteristics (such as product freshness and display case cleanliness) were important to consumers of beef in all three countries while other product characteristics (such as price considerations for ground beef consumers) were important for consumers of different beef cuts in all three countries. Some product characteristics varied in importance across consumers from different countries and consumers of different beef cuts.Consumer/Household Economics,

Consumer-Preferred Attributes of a Fresh Ground Beef and Turkey Product: A Conjoint Analysis

A random sample of 3,400 Louisiana households was surveyed by mail to determine their ratings for a number of product profiles involving a combined fresh ground beef and turkey product. The attributes and levels of the new product included form (fresh, frozen), identity of the packager (retailer, processor), percentage of beef in product (50,70,90), and price of the combined product as a percentage of ground beef (80,90,100). Based on 2,781 observations, the order of importance of the attributes were, in order of declining importance, content, form, price, and packager. Consumer utility was highly sensitive to the content of beef, with a higher content being preferred.Consumer/Household Economics,

Extent and Characteristics of Retail Fresh Beef Branding

Limited information exists regarding the extent and characteristics of branded fresh beef. Retail package data from a sample of grocery stores in three metropolitan areas enabled determining the extent of branded beef for ground beef, roasts, and steaks. Logit models identified factors affecting the probability of beef products being branded, and the probability of beef products carrying specific types of brands compared with store brands and generic (unbranded) beef. The extent of branded beef and type of brand both varied by store type, specific product, quality designation, package type, and presence of special labeling.Marketing,

Consumer Preferences for Amount and Type of Fat in Ground Beef

Scientists and beef industry participants are investigating ways to improve the healthiness of beef. We report results of a nationwide mail survey developed to determine consumers’ preferences for fat content in ground beef and identify how consumers would most like to improve the healthiness of beef. The results from a choice-based conjoint experiment indicate that consumers place significant value on reducing saturated fat and the Omega 6:3 ratio in ground beef, but were relatively unconcerned about conjugated linoleic acid. The relatively new method of best-worst scaling was used to further identify which methods consumers most preferred producers use to improve fat content in beef. The results indicate consumers preferred feeding cattle a grass-fed diet as opposed to supplementing cattle feed with fishmeal or flaxseed to improve the fatty acid content in beef. Although consumers were receptive to the idea of using genetic testing to breed only those cattle with improved fatty acid content, using cloning to achieve this end, was viewed as very undesirable.beef, best-worst scaling, cloning, conjoint, fat, maximum-difference scaling, omega 3 fatty acid, Agribusiness, Demand and Price Analysis, Food Consumption/Nutrition/Food Safety, Livestock Production/Industries, Marketing, M31, Q13,

ANALYSIS OF CONSUMER PREFERENCES FOR PACKAGE SIZES FOR BEEF AND PORK PRODUCTS AS RELATED TO THEIR DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS

Delaware consumers were surveyed to obtain information about package size preferences for fresh beef and pork products. A chi-square and gamma analysis was made and age was found to be significant and positively correlated to the size of package chosen for various roasts and flank steak. Age and preferred package size was negatively correlated for ground beef, sirloin steak, spareribs, and pork chops. The larger the family the greater the tendency to buy larger packages of ground beef and roasts, as well as spareribs and pork chops. Those with higher incomes tended to purchase larger steaks. Females showed preferences for smaller packages while males preferred larger packages.Consumer/Household Economics,