James, Barbara H.

James, Randall E.

English

Research Papers in Economics

Consumer Preferences
For Maple Syrup Grade Names
Randall E. James and Barbara H. James
Introduction
One hundred percent maple syrup is a gourmet product
and should not be confused with blended pancake
symps or toppings such as Mrs. Butterworth, Aunt
Jemima or Log Cabin brands. This study deals with
100 percent pure maple syrup,
The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s system
for grading maple syrup for table use is Grade A Light
Amber, Grade A Medium Amber and Grade A Dark
Amber. Color is the principal USDA grade determin-
ing factor of syrup which meets the other requirements
of density, lack of “off flavor” or cloudiness. When
these factors are met there is no difference in “quality”
between grades of table syrup (Sendak, 1982). All are
considered fit, and all are enjoyed by consumers based
on personal preference.
Syrup color specifications have characteristic
flavors peculiar to each grade and are dramatically
different from grade to grade. They have been
described as follows: Grade A Light Amber, the light-
est in color, is very volatile and aromatic. It has a
delicate, yet “smokey” taste. The characteristic
“maple” flavor, which most consumers know, is the
flavor identified with Grade A Medium Amber syrup.
This medium colored syrup is a blend of caramel flavor
and the aromatic flavor of the Light Amber syrup. The
strong caramel flavor, attributed to the browning of the
invert sugars in maple syrup, gives Grade A Dark
Amber its predominant flavor (Sendak and Jennings,
1982).
Laws regarding maple syrup grading differ from
state to state and Canadian province, Some states such
as Vermont, have very elaborate grading laws and
other states have none. Some states voluntarily adopt
the USDA grade names. Other states use grade names
which they feel are more appropriate
their syrup. For example, Vermont
“Fancy” for its lightest color grade,
recommends Grade A Light Amber.
for marketing
uses the term
while USDA
RandallJamesandBarbaraJamesare Associate Professors at
the Ohio State UniversityExtensionin Burton, OH.
February 94/page 64
Consumers knowpmctically nothing about syrup
grades (Sendak, 1982) (Drake and James, 1991). This
lack of understanding of the grading system can cause
loyal repeat customers to be disappointed in the product
simply because they purchased an unfamiliar grade,
(Drake and James, 1991). The result is a dissatisfied
customer and a potential loss of future sales, The
maple syrup industry has been concerned about the
possible effects of consumer misunderstanding of maple
grades on sales.
In 1992 focus group interviews were conducted
to determine characteristics which customers could use
to differentiate between grades and to suggest a more
understandable set of maple syrup grade names (James
and Drake, 1992). Maple symp customers felt that
grade names should reflect the flavor of the syrup as
well as the color. They suggested alternative grade
names of delicate, standard and hearty.
The study discussed in this paper quantified and
compared various maple syrup grading systems for
consumer understandability. These grade names will
be referred to as “focus group suggested” for the
remainder of this paper.
Methodology
A mail survey was conducted of 100 percent pure
maple syrup customers across the United States.
Names were provided by North American Maple Syrup
Council members from their mailing lists. An original
questiomaire was reviewed and modified by a panel of
Ohio State Univesity agricultural and consumer
researchers. The instrument was field tested by eleven
customem of 100 percent pure maple syrup not
included in this survey. Five hundred sixty-five maple
syrup customers were surveyed with 349 questionnaires
returned (62 % rate). Questionnaires were mailed three
times.
Four sets of maple symp grade names were
tested. The systems tested appear in Figure 1. The
Vermont system was included because, as the leading
maple syrup producing state in the United States, it has
a long history of effective maple syrup marketing.
Journal of Food Distribution ResearchFigure 1. Maple Syrup Grade Names Tested
Set 1 Set 2 Set 3 Set 4
Current USDA Focus Group Bogus Vermont
Lightest Grade Grade A Light Amber Delicate Prime Fancy
Medium Grade Grade A Medium Amber Standard Choice Grade A Medium Amber
Darkeat Grade Grade A Dark Amber Hearty Good Grade A Dark Amber
An original questionnaire was developed testing
respondent’s ability to match descriptions of maple
syrup flavor and color with grade names. The correct
answers were as follows:
“A pale golden symp with a mild flavor” for the
lightest grade.
“A golden symp with the customary maple flavor” for
the medium grade.
“A deep golden syrup with a strong flavor” for the
darkest grade.
Incorrect descriptions were as follows:
“A golden symp with a strong flavor. ”
“A pale golden symp with the customary maple
flavor. ”
“A deep golden syrup with a mild flavor. ”
Resdta and Conclusions
Reliability was determined on each of the grading name
sets using a Kuder Richardson Reliability test. Reli-
ability for each set was as follows: Set 1 (USDA)
0.2308; Set 2 (focus group suggested) 0.5011; Set 3
(bogus) 0.4777 and Set 4 (Vermont system)
0.2531, The focus group suggested name set was the
most accurate, dependable and consistent.
A one-sample chi-square analysis was conducted
on the four sets of grade names. The expected distri-
bution frequency relative to the observed distribution
was so small for the “bogus” system that it was
dropped from further analysis.
The ‘focus group suggested” grade name system
was clearly the most understandable by maple syrup
customers. Forty-four percent of the respondents cor-
rectly matched all three grade names with the appropri-
ate characteristics. Twenty-five percent matched the
USDA system and 12 percent matched the Vermont
system (Figure 2).
Individual names for grades in each system were
compared. The correct response for “Grade A Light
Amber,” “Delicate, ” and “Fancy” was “a pale golden
syrup with a mild flavor. ” The name “delicate” from
the focus group system was far more understandable
than the other names for this grade. “Fancyw was the
least understandable (Figure 3).
The correct response for “Grade A Medium
Amber” (USDA system), “Grade A medium Amber”
(Vermont system) and “Standard” (focus group sug-
gested) was “a golden symp with the customary maple
flavor.’ The name “Standard” from the focus group
suggested system was the most understandable (Figure
4).
The correct response for ‘Grade A Dark
Amber” (USDA System), “Grade A Dark Amber”
(Vermont System) and “Hearty” (focus group system)
was ‘a deep golden symp with a strong flavor. ”
“Grade A Dark Amber” used in the USDA system was
as understandable as “Hearty” in the Focus Group
system (Figure 5).
Since Vermont was the state system tested, the
surveys completed by Vermont residents were further
analyzed. It is important to note that only 6 percent of
the respondents (N=20) were Vermont residents.
Vermonters were better able to match “Fancy” to its
correct descriptors (45 % correct ss OppOSd to 30%
correct in the total population). However, 80 percent
of the Vermont respondents were able to correctly
match ‘Delicate” to the correct descriptors.
Journal of Food Distribution Research February 941page 6550
40
30
20
10
0
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Figure 2. Percent of Respondents Matching All Grade Names in a System
With Appropriate Color and Flavor Characteristics
Grade A
(Light, hkxtium,
Dark ) Amber
2S9.
USDA
Dclicalc
Standard
Hearty
44%
FOCUS GROUP VERMONT
MAPLE SYRUP GRADING SYSTEMS
Figure 3. Percent of Respondents Matching Grade Names for the Lightest Syrup
With Appropriate Color and Flavor Characteristics
Grade A
Light Amber
52$10
USDA
Dclicatc
71V0
FOCUS GROUP
GRADE NAMES
Fancy
30%
VERMONT
February 941page 66 Journal of Food DistributionResearchFigure 4. Percent of Respondents Matching Grade Names for Medium Syrup
With Appropriate Color and Flavor Characteristics
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
SIandard
~d%
Grade A
r
Medium Amber
Grade A
62%
Medium Amber
S8%
USDA FOCUS GROUP VERMONT
GRADE NAMES
Figure 5. Percent of Respondents Matching Grade Names for the Darkest Syrup
With Appropriate Color and Flavor Characteristics
Grade A I1earty
Dark Amber
66%
66%
Grade A
Dark Amber
46$70
USDA FOCUS GROUP VERMONT
GRADE NAMES
Journal of Food Distribution Research IWruary 941page67Implications
Gne of the principle reasons for having a maple syrup
grading system is to differentiate the characteristics of
maple syrups for the convenience of customers; thereby
allowing them to consistently buy a maple product that
meets their personal taste. Any marketing tool that can
be employed to reduce customer confusion and possible
disappointment with the product is of real benefit. The
industry should work toward adoption of one system all
customers can understand.
The data overwhelmingly shows that, of the
systems tested, the focus group suggested system was
the most understandable. Therefore, it is recom-
mended that the U.S. maple syrup industry work with
the Canadian industry to agree upon one system and
strongly consider the inclusion of the terms “Delicate, ”
“Standard” and “Hearty” in the grade names.
Drake, Barbara H. and Randall E. James. “Impacts of
Maple Syrup Grading Laws on the Maple Pro-
ducing Regions of the United States and
Canada. ” Research paper presented at the
annual meeting of the Food Distribution
Research Society Meeting, Kalamazoo,
Michigan, Gctober 16, 1991.
James, Randall E. and Barbara H. Drake. “Consumer
Perceptions of Maple Syrup Grades, ” Paper pre-
sented at the annual meeting of the Food Distri-
bution Research Society, Danvers, Massachu-
setts, November 4, 1992.
Sendak, Paul E. and W. Lyman Jenkins, “Market
Stmcture of the Maple Industry and Syrup
Grading Standards, U.S.D.A.,” Forest Service
Technical Report, NE-72, 1982.
Sendak, Paul E., “Consumer Attitudes About Pure
Maple Symp, ” U. S.D.A. Forest Service Tech-
nical Report, NE-79, 1982.
February 941page 68 Journal of Food Distribution Research

CONSUMER PREFERENCES FOR MAPLE SYRUP GRADE NAMES

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Research Papers in Economics