Criner, George K.

True, Ruth H.

Work, Therese M.

English

Research Papers in Economics

Adult Preferences of Solids-Enriched Milk*
Maine Agricultural Experiment Station Publications # 1071
by
George K. Criner, Assistant Professor
Dept. of Agricultural and Resource Economics
University of Maine at Orono
Therese M. Work, Assistant Food Scientist
Dept. of Food Science
University of Maine at Orono
Ruth H. True, Food Scientist
Dept. of Food Science
University of Maine at Orono
Introduction
Recently there has been an effort in
the United States to increase the component
standards of fluid milk. This movement is
based partially on the belief, held by many,
that larger quantities of milk would be con-
sumed if the component standards for milk
were higher. The objective of this study
is to test the hypothesis that adults prefer
the proposed higher standards milk over the
current FDA standards, for whole and 2-percent
milk. In addition to presenting the results
of the taste tests an additional purpose of
the paper is to provide some background
material on the milk component issue.
Background
The U.S. government indirectly supports
the price of milk paid to farmers through
supply removals. Although the government
does not remove fluid milk from the market
it does purchase and store the processed milk
products such as butter, cheese, and powdered
milk. The cost of acquiring the processed
milk stockpile is substantial. In 1983 the
government purchased 2.7 billion dollars worth
of dairy products (Economic Report to the
President, 1984). These holdings of processed
milk products are to be released whenever
market prices rise to certain levels. Al-
though there have been some minor market re-
leases of these government holdings the bulk
of the surplus goes to foreign sales and
donations, domestic donations to the needy,
and for use in school lunch and other insti-
tutional programs.
A factor contributing to the surplus
of U.S. manufactured dairy products is the
continuing decline in the U.S. per capita
consumption of fluid milk. Between 1970 and
1982 the U.S. per capita consumption of fluid
milk and cream, on a fluid milk equivalent
basis, declined from 263.5 pounds to 216.9
*The research reported was funded by the Maine Dairy promotion Board and the Maine Agricul-
tural Experiment Station.
Journal of Food Distribution Research September 85/page 47pounds. This decline is a result of two fac-
tors, first, individuals in almost all age
groups are drinking less milk, and secondly,
the age composition of the U.S. population
is changing to a higher proportion of indi-
viduals who drink less milk (Bunch, 1985).
On a per person basis individuals of 6
to 18 years of age consume more fluid milk
than any other age group (Milk Industry
Foundation, 1982). As Table 1 reveals, both
the absolute and the relative size of this
age group have declined.[ 1] While the 5 to
17 age group is projected to make some modest
absolute gains in numbers by the year 2000,
the group of individuals 18 and older is pro-
jected to more than double by the year 2000
(from the “Middle Series” of: U.S. Department
of Commerce).
Table 1.
U.S. Population of Individuals
5 to 17 Years in Age
% of Us.
Total
Year Number Pomlation
1970 52,596 26.7
1975 51,047 24.7
1980 47,224 21.7
1983 44,749 20.0
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, “Sta-
tistical Abstract 1985,” page 27.
If the dairy industry desires to stabil-
ize or even increase the per capita consump-
tion of fluid milk, future attention must
be given to adult consumers. Adult consumers,
as a whole, may have a somewhat unfavorable
attitude towards fluid milk. In a 1955 Utah
study based on a survey of 1,200 adults,
Christensen found that as “people grow older
fewer continue to drink milk, and those who
do consume less” (Christensen, 1958). Of
the 1,200 adults surveyed 272 or 23 percent
stated that they did not drink milk. Thirty-
six percent of this non-milk drinking group
listed the following reasons for not drinking
milk: medical reasons, being overweight,
high in calories, or adults do not need milk
(Christensen, 1958). In 1972) New York State
adults were questioned concerning their atti-
tudes towards milk (Eiler and Forker, 1972).
Although a majority of the adults felt that
milk was necessary for good adult health,
the adults as a whole felt milk was high in
fats, cholesterol and calories.
The non-water components of milk are
generally considered to consist of butterfat
(BF) and solids-not-fat (SNF). Nationally
the Food and Drug Administration sets stand-
ards for these milk components for whole,
low fat, and skim milk. These standards are
either component ranges orminimums depending
on type of milk and component. The California
milk component standards are higher than the
national standards, and during the past sev-
eral years there have been attempts to
increase the national standards to levels
at or near the California levels. The FDA
and the California milk component standards
are presented in Table 2.
One argument for increasing the national
standards to the California levels is that
adults, and particularly adult women who need
more calcium, may directly or indirectly con-
sume more milk components. A recent
U,S.D.A. study stated that “It is reported
that more than 75 percent of U.S. women over
age 35 have calcium intake below the Recom-
mendedDietaryAllowance( RDA)of800mg.” and
that “. . . other age-sex groups also have
inadequate calcium consumption” (U.S.D.A.,
1984). In many cases the increases in the
SNF component of milk can only be brought
about by adding either non-fat dry milk or
a similar “condensed” form of milk. Under
such a situation an adult whose volume con-
sumption of milk remains constant would be
consuming more milk components as the stand-
ards were raised from the current national
standards to the California standards.
Several studies support the hypothesis
that milk with increased component standards
are preferred over the lower standards milk
(Corley, Janzen, and Kerr, 1965; Hillman,
Stun, and Angus, 1963; and Devero, 1973).
Unfortunately, most of these and similar
studies are over twenty years old, and as
September 85/page 48 Journal of Food Distribution Researchthe U.S.D.A. points out, since these works
have been completed “. . . research and casual
observations suggest that tastes and prefer-
ences of American consumers have changed sig-
nificantly” and that “New consumer preference
work is needed which examines the preferred
composition of fluid milk products by differ-
ent groups of consumers” (U.S.D.A., 1984).
Methodology
A local milk processor was contracted .
to produce four milks: 2-percent, whole,
enhances 2-percent and enhanced whole. The
actual components of the enhanced and non-
enhanced 2-percent and whole milk are pre-
sented in Table 3. By comparing Tables 2
and 3 it may be seen that the milk formulated
for the preference sensory tests closely
approximated the FDA and California standards
with the exception of the solids-not-fat com-
ponent of the 2-percent milk.
Table 2
Food and Drug Administration and California
Butterfat (BF) and Solids-Not-Fat (SNF) Standards
Fluid Milk Food and Dru~ Administration Standards California Standards
Products BF SNF BF SNF
Whole milk 3.25% 8.25°h 3.5Yoti 8.7%W
Lowfat milks 0.5-2.0% 8.25% 1.9-2.1°h 10.00/0
Skim milk <0.5% 8.25% <or= 0.25°h 9.OVO
ti Allowed to equal 3.4 provided total solids are 12.2.
M Allowed to equal 8.6 provided total solids are 12.2.
Source: U.S,D.A., ERS, NED “Nationwide Adoption of the California Solids Standards for Fluid
Milk Products: Issues and Impacts.”
The whole milk and the 2-percent formu- each pair of samples (A 1 A2: B1 B2) the
Iations were evaluated in separate studies. panelists were instructed to identify which
The enhanced and non-enhanced samples were sample they preferred for flavor and to indi-
coded and presented, two pairs at a time, cate the degree of difference (large, moderate
in a complete block design with eight repli- er slight) between the two. Two ounces of
cations (Cochran and Cox, 1957), randomized each milk formulation were served in opaque
with the restriction that each sample be pre- plastic cups.
sented first and equal number of times. For
Journal of Food Distribution Research September 85/page 49Table 3
Composition of the Milk Used in the Preference Tests
Fluid Milk Product Standards BF~ SNF TS
Whole Non-Enhanced 3.26 8.47 11.73
Whole Enhanced 3.40 8.73 12.13
2-percent Non-Enhanced 2.20 9.67 11.87
2-percent Enhanced 1.97 8.58 10.55
1Analyzed using the Reese-Gottlieb method modified by Mojonnier and Troy (Mojonnier and Troy,
1925).
The data for flavor preference (+1 =
preferred, -1 = not preferred) were analyzed
by the variance method (Snedecor and Cochran)
using the GLM procedures in the SAS software
package (SAS). The treatment x judge inter-
action was used as the error term to test
for a significant treatment F ratio. For
degree of difference between the paired sam-
ples, scores of 5 = large, 3 = moderate, and
1 = slight were assigned to the preferred
sample. Scheffe’s procedure was followed
for analyses (Scheffe).
five chose the enhanced whole milk as being
preferable.
Thirty-one adults participated in the
preference test of the 2-percent and the
enhanced 2-percent milk. Overall there was
no preference for either 2-percent milk.
In this comparison a much higher portion of
adults were consistent in identifying a pre-
ferred milk. Twenty-two adults could con-
sistently detect a difference in the milk
with 12 preferring the enhanced 2-percent
and 10 preferring the non-enhanced 2-percent.
Results
Conclusions
Thirty-seven adults participated in the
whole milk test. For both tests it was de-
cided to use no less than 30 judges since
the minimum is generally thought to be 24
to 30 (see for example: ASTM P. 6). Overall
there was no statistically significant pre-
ference for either whole milk. However,
examination of the data revealed that some
adults were consistent in their preference
while others were not. Of the 37 adults,
only 12 were consistent in their preferences.
Of those 12 who could detect a difference
in the milks eight chose the whole milk and
In the sensory tests of this study many
adults were unable to consistently detect a
preferred milk between the two milk samples.
For both the whole and the 2-percent milk
there was no overall preference for the en-
hanced or the FDA (non-enhanced) milk. Thus,
the tests do not support the hypothesis that
adults prefer the proposed higher standards
milk over the current FDA standards for whole
and 2-percent milk. While this by itself
is not encouraging for proponents of increased
milk standards, another factor needs to be
September 85/page 50 Journal of Food Distribution Researchconsidered. The authors believe that the
adult consumers have trained themselves in
some cases to prefer a thinner milk. It is
believed that many adults equate a rich taste
with a fattening milk. If adult consumers
could be educated that a rich taste could
be obtained from additional solids and not
butterfat, then perhaps they would prefer
solids-enhanced milk.
Implications
This study provides evidence against
the hypothesis that adults prefer thicker,
richer milk over milk with lower component
levels. Unfortunately these findings may
pose more questions than they answer. For
instance, have some adults over time taught
themselves to prefer a thinner milk over a
richer milk due to their association of butter
fat intake with health problems? If this
is so, then adults might actually prefer the
enhanced, richer milk over the thinner milk
if they were told that the richness was due
to added solids-not-fat instead of butter
fat. If adults have conditioned themselves
for a thinner milk, are they likely to recon-
dition themselves to a thicker milk? A final
and perhaps more disturbing question for the
food industry is whether the milk enhancement
push has been primarily an attempt to dispose
of burdensome milk surpluses or is based on
adult health and taste preferences.
Endnote
[1] A complete alignment of the age cate-
gories was not possible given the dif-
ferent data sources. It was felt, how-
ever, that the age brackets (5 to 17
and 6 to 18) were close enough for dis-
cussion purposes.
References
American Society for Testing and Materials
(ASTM). 1968. “Manual of Sensory Testing
Methods.” American Society for Testing
and Materials. Special Technical Publi-
cation No. 434, Philadelphia, PA.
Bliss, C. I. 1960. “Some Statistical Aspects
of Preference and Related Tests,” Atml.
~ IX(l), pp. 8-19.
Bunch, Karen. 1985. “Whole Milk is No Longer
the Beverage of Choice,” National Food
Review, U.S. Department of Agriculture,
ERS, NFR-29, pp. 21-24.
Christensen, Rondo A. 1958. “Consumer Pre-
ferences for Milk,” appears in Farm and
Home Science, Utah State University, Agri-
cultural Experiment Station, Logan, Utah,
Vol. 2, No. 2, June 1958.
Cochran W. G. and G. M. Cox. 1957. Experi-
mental Designs. John Wiley and Sons, New
York, New York.
Corley, E. M., J. J. Janzen, and H. W. Kerr,
Jr. 1965. “Consumer Preference for Modi-
fied Whole Beverage Milks in South Caro-
lina,” South Carolina Agricultural Experi-
ment Station Bulletin 522, Clemson Uni-
versity.
Devero, J. E. 1973. “Effects of Varying
Nonfat Solids and Fat on Consumer Accep-
tance of Milk Beverages,” Journal of Dairy
S&w& 56:2, Feb. 1973, PP. 286-91.
Economic Report to the President (1984),
“Economic Report to the President,”
Washington, D.C.: U.S. GovernmentPrinting
Office.
Eiler, Doyle A. and Olan D. Forker. 1972.
“Testing for Differences in Consumer Atti-
tudes Toward Milk in New York State.”
Contributed Paper at Northeast Agricultural
Economics Council Meeting, Morgantown,
West Virginia, June 25-27, 1973.
Hillman, J. S., J. W. Stun, and R. C. Angus.
1963. “Consumer Pref erenceand Acceptance
for Milk Varying in Fat and Solids-Not-
Fat,” Technical Bulletin 153, Agricultural
Experiment Station, University of Arizona,
May 1963.
Milk Industry Foundation. 1982. “1982 Milk
Facts,” Annual publication of the Milk
Industry Foundation, Washington, D.C.
Mojonnier, Timothy and Hugh Charles Troy.
1925. Instruction Manual for Setting up
and operating the Moionnier milk tester,
Journal of Food Distribution Research September 85/page 51Mojonnier Bros. Co., 4601 West Ohio St.,
Chicago, IL.
SAS Institute, Inc. SAS User’s Guide. 1979
Edition. Statistical Analysis System,
SAS Institute, Inc., Box 8000, Cary, NC
27511.
Scheffe, Henry, 1952. An Analysis of Vari-
ance for Paired Comparisons.
J. Amer. Stat. Assoc. 47:381-400.
Snedecor, G. W. and W. G. Cochran. 1967.
Statistical Methods. Sixth ed. The Iowa
State University Press, Ames, Iowa.
593 pp.
September 85/page 52
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic
Research Service. 1984. “Nationwide
Adoption of the California Solids Standards
for Fluid Milk Products: Issues and Im-
pacts.” Washington, D.C.
U.S. Department of Commerce. 1985. “Sta-
tistical Abstract of the United States,”
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of
Census, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government
Printing Office.
Journal of Food Distribution Research

An Analysis of Variance for Paired Comparisons.

Consumer Preference for Modified Whole Beverage Milks in South Carolina,” South Carolina Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin 522,

Consumer Preferences for Milk,” appears in Farm and Home Science,

Economic Report to the President

Edition. Statistical Analysis System,

Effects of Varying Nonfat Solids and Fat on Consumer Acceptance of Milk Beverages,”

Experimental Designs.

Milk Facts,” Annual publication of the Milk Industry Foundation,

Printing Office.

Testing for Differences in Consumer Attitudes Toward Milk in New York State.” Contributed Paper at Northeast Agricultural Economics Council Meeting,

ADULT PREFERENCES OF SOLIDS-ENRICHED MILK

ADULT PREFERENCES OF SOLIDS-ENRICHED MILK

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Research Papers in Economics