- Email: [email protected]
Impact of price and thickness on consumer selection of ribeye, sirloin, and top loin steaks
Meat Science 91 (2012) 8–13
Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect
Meat Science journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/meatsci
Impact of price and thickness on consumer selection of ribeye, sirloin, and top loin steaks C.M. Leick a, J.M. Behrends a,⁎, T.B. Schmidt b, M.W. Schilling a a b
Department of Food Science, Nutrition, and Health Promotion, Mississippi State University, Mississippi State, MS, United States Department of Animal and Dairy Science, Mississippi State University, Mississippi State, MS, United States
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history: Received 21 April 2011 Received in revised form 30 June 2011 Accepted 2 November 2011 Keywords: Beef Consumer Retail Steak Thickness Price
a b s t r a c t Consumers (n = 316) were recruited from college football picnickers to select ribeye, sirloin, and top loin steaks from 3 price groups based on thickness (n = 10 steaks per price/type combination). Constant weight steaks were assigned to these groups: P1, thinnest, $19.80/kg ribeye and top loin, $10.99/kg sirloin; P2, average thickness, $22.00/kg ribeye and top loin, $13.19/kg sirloin; P3, thickest, $24.21/kg ribeye and top loin, $15.40/kg sirloin. Consumers selected 3 steaks per type and ranked selection criteria (price, color, marbling, thickness, texture). Percentage of steaks chosen from each price group did not differ (P > 0.05), but consumers tended to select thinner ribeye steaks (P1 and P2) and thicker sirloin steaks (P2 and P3). Across all steak types, a greater number of consumers reported that marbling, color, and thickness were more important than price and visual texture. Data indicate that consumers may select steaks that display their preferred attributes, even if the steaks cost more. © 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction Carcass size and Longissimus muscle area (LMA) are highly variable within the beef industry (Garcia et al., 2008; McKenna et al., 2002). Therefore, it is difficult to fabricate consistently-sized retail cuts, particularly from the rib and loin primals, which are typically the most valuable wholesale cuts. When steaks are cut to a constant weight, subprimals from lighter carcasses may be cut thicker than those from heavy carcasses, leading to visual discrepancies among steaks in a retail setting. Visual characteristics are primary cues for consumers' retail selection of beef. Beef consumers have shown a willingness to pay premiums for steaks that display characteristics they deem valuable. Such characteristics include marbling (Killinger, Calkins, Umberger, Feuz, & Eskridge, 2004; Platter et al., 2005), color (Killinger et al., 2004), and surface area (Sweeter, Wulf, & Maddock, 2005). With the visual appeal of thicker steaks, it may be possible to obtain premium prices for steaks cut from smaller carcasses, since steaks cut to exact portion sizes would be thicker from smaller carcasses. Such information would be useful in sorting and marketing of carcasses for retail fabrication. This research was conducted as a continuation of the research described in Leick, Behrends, Schmidt, and Schilling (2011), in which consumers identified the characteristics that
⁎ Corresponding author at: 945 Stone Blvd., Box 9805, Mississippi State, MS 39759, United States. Tel.: + 1 662 325 3200; fax: + 1 662 325 8728. E-mail address: [email protected] (J.M. Behrends). 0309-1740/$ – see front matter © 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.meatsci.2011.11.021
would most likely impact their selection of ribeye, top loin, and sirloin steaks in a retail setting. It was hypothesized that the potential for obtaining premium prices for thicker steaks may exist. Therefore in the current study, a consumer panel visually evaluated ribeye, top loin, and sirloin steaks of constant weight and varying thicknesses, with premium prices placed on thicker steaks to determine whether consumers were willing to pay premium prices for thicker steaks. The objectives of this research were to determine if increasing the price of thicker ribeye, sirloin, and top loin steaks by $1.00 and $2.00 per 0.45 kg would affect consumers' willingness to select thicker steaks in a retail setting. 2. Materials and methods 2.1. Carcass selection and subprimal collection In order to obtain a broad range of steak sizes and thicknesses, steaks were collected from 25 beef carcasses as described in Leick et al. (2011). Mississippi State University personnel identified beef carcasses (n = 25) at a commercial meat processing facility. All carcasses were A maturity in both lean and skeletal maturity scores, contained Small 00 to Small 100 in marbling score (USDA low Choice), and had a carcass USDA yield grade of 1 or 2 (USDA, 1997). Marbling score, lean maturity score, LMA, and preliminary yield grade measurements were taken at the cut surface of the 12th rib. Carcasses were selected to equally represent the following five carcass weight and LMA groups in order to generate a variety of steak sizes: 226 to 271 kg/70.9–78.1 cm 2; 272 to 316 kg/78.7–85.8 cm 2; 317 to 361 kg/ 86.5–93.5 cm 2; 362 to 407 kg/94.2–101.3 cm 2; 408 to 452 kg/101.9–
C.M. Leick et al. / Meat Science 91 (2012) 8–13
109.3 cm 2. In the current study, these carcass weight groups were used simply to ensure that a variety of LMA sizes were collected. Loin, Boneless (m. longissimuslumborum; IMPS Item No. 180; n = 25), Beef Loin, Top Sirloin Butt, Boneless (m. gluteus medius, IMPS Item No. 184B; n = 25), and Beef Rib, Ribeye Roll (m. longissimus thoracis, IMPS Item No. 112; n = 25) subprimals were collected from each carcass after fabrication at the packing plant (USDA, 2010). Each subprimal was marked with an individual number that corresponded to the carcass from which it came, vacuum packaged, and stored at refrigeration temperature (b4 °C) for 14 d. 2.2. Subprimal processing Subprimals were transported under refrigeration to a facility that cuts steaks for foodservice into constant-weight portions. Each subprimal was trimmed according to standard practices for that plant, then cut on an automated portioning machine (model IPM030X600; Marel Food Systems Inc., Lenexa, KS) into individual steaks weighing 345.9 ± 0.7 g for ribeye and top loin steaks and 286.3 ± 0.5 g each for top sirloin steaks. Steaks were labeled according to individual primal ID, vacuum packaged, and transported at b4 °C to the Mississippi State University Meat Laboratory for further packaging and consumer testing. 2.3. Steak packaging Steaks were removed from the vacuum packages, weighed, placed in an individual Styrofoam tray with a soaker pad. Each steak was measured with a ruler at the thickest point along the outside edge of the steak, then overwrapped with PVC film and labeled with a random 3-digit number. To assign prices, steaks of each type were ranked according to thickness. The 10 thinnest steaks of each type were assigned to Price 1 (P1; $19.80/kg ribeye and top loin, $10.99/ kg sirloin), the 10 thickest steaks were assigned to Price 3 (P3; $24.21/kg ribeye and top loin, $15.40/kg sirloin), and the 10 steaks closest to the mean were assigned to Price 2 (P2; $22.00/kg ribeye and top loin, $13.19/kg sirloin). Prices were based on the average prices for the three steak types available at local supermarkets. Mean price for USDA Choice steaks represented P1 for each steak type; P2 was set as a $1.00 per 0.45 kg price increase above P1, and P3 was a $2.00 per 0.45 price increase above P1. Price groups and steak thicknesses are shown in Table 1. Each steak was labeled with a sticker that stated weight (all packages weighed the same), price per pound, and total price for the package. Labels on the packages expressed weight units in pound in order to represent units that consumers would be familiar with.
Table 1 Price and thicknesses of ribeye, sirloin, and top loin steaks assigned to three price groups for consumer selection. Steak type Ribeye Mean thickness, cm Min. thickness, cm Max. thickness, cm Price per kg, $ Sirloin Mean thickness, cm Min. thickness, cm Max. thickness, cm Price per kg, $ Top loin Mean thickness, cm Min. thickness, cm Max. thickness, cm Price per kg, $
P1
P2
P3
2.1 1.5 2.5 19.80
2.8 2.6 3.1 22.00
3.6 3.2 4.8 24.21
2.1 1.6 2.4 10.99
2.8 2.6 3.1 13.19
3.9 3.3 4.9 15.40
2.1 1.5 2.5 19.80
2.9 2.6 3.1 22.00
3.6 3.2 4.4 24.21
9
2.4. Consumer testing Steaks (n = 30 for each steak type) were randomly placed on tables prior to consumer selection and equally represented each of the three price groups. Consumers (n = 316) were recruited randomly from people picnicking and tailgating prior to college football games on two different days in Starkville, Mississippi. The testing location was outdoors near the tailgating area, and testing was conducted on days when the temperature was in the 4–10 °C range, minimizing color changes that may have been associated with lack of refrigeration. Consumers were invited to participate in the study and were asked to fill out a demographic form prior to testing. Consumers were asked to select 3 steaks of each type (ribeye, strip, top loin) that they would purchase in a retail store if there was a price difference between steaks, but were not told that the price difference was due to steak thickness. After writing down the ID number of each steak they would select, consumers were asked to rank the following criteria: marbling, color, price, thickness, texture, and other, in order of importance (1–6; 1 = most important, 6 = least important) as they affected their selection of each steak. Consumers also had the opportunity to provide comments regarding their selections. 2.5. Statistical analysis Illegible or incomplete consumer data were removed from the data set. The data were analyzed as a completely randomized design, using analysis of variance with GLM procedures of SAS Version 9.2 (SAS Institute, Cary, NC). Significance was determined at an alpha level of 0.05. The model included the fixed effects of price group, both overall for each steak type and within each consumer demographic group for each steak type. The replication was steak (n = 10 per price group). The response measured was the total number of steaks selected by consumers within each replication; the total number of steaks selected for each price group was then converted to percentages for the tables, since this is more meaningful to the reader. Differences among treatments were determined using the Means statement in Proc GLM of SAS Version 9.2 (SAS Institute, Cary, NC) with the Fisher's Protected Least Significant Difference test. Average steak thicknesses, consumer demographic percentages, and percentages of consumers who selected each type of steak were calculated using Microsoft Excel (Microsoft Office 2003). In order to better characterize and describe consumers within demographic groups who selected steaks from a particular group, Microsoft Excel was also used to calculate the percentage of consumers who ranked certain traits as most important when selecting a steak. 3. Results and discussion Percentages of consumers representing each demographic group are shown in Table 2. The greatest percentage of consumers represented either the b$20,000 and $60,000 + income groups. Since consumer evaluations were concurrent with college football games, the majority of consumers were likely college students with a lesser income or young professionals and faculty members with a greater income. Most age groups and frequency of beef consumption groups were evenly represented, except for the “never consume beef” group (Table 2). It was observed by recruiters that males tended to be more willing to participate in consumer testing than females, and this was evident since over two-thirds of the consumers participating in the study were male (Table 2). Overall, there were no differences (P > 0.05) among price groups with respect to percentage of ribeye, sirloin, or top loin steaks selected (Table 3). Also, there was no evident selection pattern among price groups for each steak type; the numerically greatest percentage of ribeye steaks were selected from P1, while the numerically greatest percentage of sirloin steaks were selected from P2 (Table 3).
10
C.M. Leick et al. / Meat Science 91 (2012) 8–13
Table 2 Percentage of total consumers representing each demographic group. Income
Gender
Group b$20,000 $20,000–$29,000 $30,000–$39,000 $40,000–$49,000 $50,000–$59,000 $60,000 +
Percentage 28.2 3.6 4.1 7.6 5.8 50.7
Age
Group Male Female
Percentage 67.7 32.3
Consumer selection percentages will be discussed further within demographic groups for each steak type. 3.1. Ribeye steak selection based on price by demographic groups For ribeye steaks, consumers in the b $20,000 income group selected steaks from P2 most often (P b 0.10; Table 4). Consumers in the $60,000+ income group selected ribeye steaks from P1 and P2 most often (P b 0.10). Interestingly, consumers in the greater income groups selected a greater percentage of the least expensive ribeye steaks (P1) compared to consumers in the lesser income groups (Table 4). This suggests that a factor other than price, such as marbling or color, impacted consumers' selections of ribeye steaks, or that consumers in the greater income groups preferred to not spend as much money on ribeye steaks. Resurreccion (2003) suggested that consumers with greater incomes, particularly dual-income households, would not pay as much for fresh beef due to the time needed for preparation in the home. In the current study, consumers in the greater income groups may have fit this description, and also may have found the thinner ribeye steaks more desirable due to decreased cooking time associated with thinner steaks. For male consumers, ribeye steak selection did not differ (P > 0.10) among price groups, although they selected the greatest percentage of ribeye steaks from P1. Female consumers selected ribeye steaks from P1 nearly twice as frequently as ribeye steaks from P3 (P b 0.05; Table 5). Both males and females who selected ribeye steaks from P1 or P2 ranked marbling and color as their primary selection factors most often (data not shown), despite the fact that carcasses were selected to be similar in marbling and color in order to minimize differences among steaks. However, males who selected ribeye steaks from P3 ranked thickness as their primary selection factor as often as they ranked marbling as their primary selection factor (27.5%), indicating that males were willing to pay more for thicker steaks. Females who selected the most expensive ribeye steaks (P3) also ranked thickness as their primary selection factor second most frequently. Both males and females who chose steaks from P1 ranked price as their primary selection factor more often than those who selected steaks from the higher price groups, indicating that price is more important than visual indicators of quality for some consumers. Consumers in the 40–49 age group selected a greater percentage of ribeye steaks from P1 and P2 compared to P3 (P b 0.05; Table 6). In comparison, consumers in the 50–59 age group tended to select ribeye steaks from P1 more often than from P2 or P3 (P b 0.10), indicating that consumers in this age group preferred the thinnest, least expensive ribeye steaks. However, consumers in the youngest age Table 3 Percentage of steaks chosen from price groups.
Ribeye Sirloin Top loin
P2
P3
SEM
P-value
39.3 27.8 35.0
35.9 38.6 35.0
24.8 33.6 30.0
5.36 5.59 5.03
0.1436 0.4058 0.7112
Steaks (n = 10 per group) were assigned to thickness groups with the following criteria: P1, $19.80/kg ribeye and top loin, $10.99/kg sirloin; P2, $22.00/kg ribeye and top loin, $13.19/kg sirloin; P3, $24.21/kg ribeye and top loin, $15.40/kg sirloin.
Percentage 9.3 34.6 12.7 16.3 17.6 9.5
Group Never 1 time/week 2 times/week 3 times/week 4 times/week 5 + times/week
Percentage 1.0 10.3 22.9 35.0 16.3 14.5
group (b20) tended to select ribeye steaks from P2 more often than ribeye steaks from P1 or P3 (P b 0.10; Table 6). Consumers in the next youngest age group (20–29) also selected a numerically greater percentage of steaks from P2 than from P1 or P3. This suggests that the younger consumers may have been more willing to pay more for ribeye steaks, whereas older consumers in the 40–49 and 50–59 age groups preferred the thinner, less expensive ribeye steaks. In some cases, consumers commented that the steaks looked large enough for 2 portions, possibly contributing to the appeal of the thinner steaks with a larger surface area for older consumers. Frequency of beef consumption did not affect (P > 0.10) consumer selection of ribeye steaks (Table 7). Consumers who ate beef 3 times per week selected the numerically greatest percentage of ribeye steaks from P2, while all other frequency of consumption consumer groups selected ribeye steaks from P1 most often. Overall consumer selections of ribeye steaks were also greatest from P1. Sorting the data according to frequency of beef consumption indicates that even more frequent beef eaters would be willing to select more expensive steaks based on other characteristics that they found desirable, such as marbling, thickness, or color. Overall, consumers in all demographic groups selected the thinnest, least expensive ribeye steaks from P1 most often. Since all steaks were cut to the same weight, the thinnest steaks in P1 would likely correspond to the largest surface area. Previous researchers (Sweeter et al., 2005) showed that consumers preferred steaks that appeared larger, and even showed a willingness to pay up to $1.50/ kg more for large steaks. In the current study, a greater percentage of consumers ranked “thickness” than “price” as the most important factor impacting their ribeye steak selection (Table 8), indicating that consumers actually preferred the thinner ribeye steaks, and were not just selecting them because they were least expensive.
Table 4 Steak selection from price groupsa according to income. Type
Income
Total steaks
P1
P2
P3
SEM
P-value
Ribeye
b$20,000 $20,000–$29,000 $30,000–$39,000 $40,000–$49,000 $50,000–$59,000 $60,000 + b$20,000 $20,000–$29,000 $30,000–$39,000 $40,000–$49,000 $50,000–$59,000 $60,000 + b$20,000 $20,000–$29,000 $30,000–$39,000 $40,000–$49,000 $50,000–$59,000 $60,000 +
245 32 39 62 47 449 228 33 37 65 51 450 246 32 36 70 50 439
37.6 31.3 38.5 45.2 46.8 39.4 39.9 30.3 32.4 35.4 35.3 22.7 35.8 31.3 33.3 42.9 34.0 33.3
40.0 40.6 30.8 35.5 25.5 36.1 31.6 36.4 51.4 36.9 37.3 38.0 36.6 28.1 30.6 38.6 36.0 33.0
22.4 28.1 30.8 19.4 27.7 24.5 28.5 33.3 16.2 27.7 27.4 39.3 27.6 40.6 36.1 18.6 30.0 33.7
5.37 5.84 5.37 6.79 5.18 5.74 5.34 5.34 6.49 5.46 5.47 5.62 4.19 4.93 5.61 9.07 4.37 5.65
0.0735 0.6871 0.3591 0.1889 0.4399 0.0675 0.7888 0.7888 0.4003 0.8560 0.8809 0.1636 0.1123 0.7971 0.9391 0.3439 0.1974 0.9865
Sirloin
Top loin
P1
Frequency of beef consumption
Group b20 20–29 30–39 40–49 50–59 60 +
a Steaks (n = 10 per group) were assigned to thickness groups with the following criteria: P1, thinnest, $19.80/kg ribeye and top loin, $10.99/kg sirloin; P2, medium thickness, $22.00/kg ribeye and top loin, $13.19/kg sirloin; P3, thickest, $24.21/kg ribeye and top loin, $15.40/kg sirloin.
C.M. Leick et al. / Meat Science 91 (2012) 8–13 Table 5 Steak selection from price groupsa according to gender.
Table 7 Steak selection from price groupsa according to frequency of beef consumption.
Type
Gender
Total steaks
P1
P2
P3
SEM
P-value
Ribeye
Male Female Male Female Male Female
589 292 591 289 588 291
45.7 45.5a 28.4 25.3b 31.6 38.8
31.9 31.5ab 34.3 46.7a 34 36.8
22.4 23.0b 37.2 28.0b 34.4 24.4
9.83 5.87 5.69 5.40 5.07 5.82
0.2242 0.0299 0.5416 0.0162 0.9106 0.3201
Sirloin Top loin
Type
Frequency of consumption
Total steaks
P1
P2
P3
SEM
P-value
Ribeye
Never 1 time/week 2 times/week 3 times/week 4 times/week 5 + times/week Never 1 time/week 2 times/week 3 times/week 4 times/week 5 + times/week Never 1 time/week 2 times/week 3 times/week 4 times/week 5 + times/week
9 83 187 288 125 133 9 85 204 281 139 120 9 20 220 334 153 123
44.4 42.2 35.8 30.2 45.6 40.6 11.1 22.4 22.5 23.1 27.3 36.7 55.6 37.8 35.5 37.7 41.2 32.5
33.3 30.1 32.1 38.2 26.4 33.1 55.6 41.2 43.1 43.8 43.2 35.0 11.1 32.2 36.8 35.6 33.3 32.5
22.2 27.7 32.1 31.6 28.0 26.3 33.3 36.5 34.3 33.1 29.5 28.3 33.3 30.0 27.7 26.6 25.4 35.0
6.33 4.73 5.31 5.32 4.36 5.50 – 6.36 6.22 5.43 6.03 6.01 – 5.41 5.83 5.01 6.12 6.46
– 0.3134 0.6071 0.3863 0.9691 0.7857 – 0.8600 0.5126 0.1977 0.3388 0.5879 – 0.5814 0.4233 0.0999 0.1549 0.7900
abc
Percentages in the same row lacking the same superscript are different (P b 0.05). Steaks (n = 10 per group) were assigned to thickness groups with the following criteria: P1, thinnest, $19.80/kg ribeye and top loin, $10.99/kg sirloin; P2, medium thickness, $22.00/kg ribeye and top loin, $13.19/kg sirloin; P3, thickest, $24.21/kg ribeye and top loin, $15.40/kg sirloin. a
Sirloin
Top loin
This shows that consumer preferences are varied; most consumers have a preference for steak thickness and may be willing to pay more for it. Marbling and color also were important characteristics (Table 8) impacting consumers' selections, even though carcass color and marbling scores were similar.
3.2. Sirloin steak selection based on price by demographic group For sirloin steaks, there were no differences (P > 0.05) among income groups with respect to percentage of steaks selected from each price group (Table 4). This indicates that income did not have an impact on consumers' selection of sirloin steaks. Numerically, however, consumers in the b $20,000 income group selected the greatest percentage of steaks from P1 (least expensive), and consumers in the $60,000+ income group selected the greatest percentage of sirloin steaks from P3 (most expensive), while all other income groups selected the greatest percentage of sirloin steaks from P2. This is in contrast to the consumers in the $60,000+ income group who selected the least expensive ribeye steaks from P1- it is unclear whether consumers who selected sirloin steaks from P2 and P3 found these steaks to have desirable characteristics, such as increased thickness, or perceived color and marbling differences. The increased thickness in sirloin steaks in P2 and P3 may have been more appealing for using the steaks in recipes such as kebabs or stir-fry. The b$20,000 income group was probably composed of a large number of college students, who likely spend less time, money, and effort in
Table 6 Steak selection from price groupsa according to age. Type
Age
Total Steaks
P1
P2
P3
SEM
P-value
Ribeye
b20 20–29 30–39 40–49 50–59 60 + b20 20–29 30–39 40–49 50–59 60 + b 20 20–29 30–39 40–49 50–59 60 +
76 303 99 142 168 68 71 296 111 141 546 86 81 305 112 144 148 101
28.9 36.3 36.4 45.8a 50.6 26.5 31.0 25.7 28.0 25.5 27.4 20.9 34.6 34.1 23.2 38.9 41.2 39.6
43.4 42.2 41.4 38.0a 21.4 23.5 29.6 42.2 36.0 41.8 41.8 41.9 24.7 38.0 33.0 38.9 33.1 33.7
27.6 21.5 22.2 16.2b 28.0 50.0 39.4 32.1 36.0 32.6 30.8 37.2 40.7 27.9 43.8 22.2 25.7 26.7
5.54 6.35 5.10 1.15 6.51 4.51 6.04 6.04 4.86 6.47 6.37 6.43 6.43 5.30 5.47 5.72 6.00 6.45
0.0937 0.1089 0.9793 0.0013 0.0507 0.6937 0.3054 0.3054 0.7942 0.7167 0.2321 0.6471 0.6471 0.2937 0.3091 0.1549 0.3011 0.5260
Sirloin
Top loin
11
a Steaks (n = 10 per group) were assigned to thickness groups with the following criteria: P1, thinnest, $19.80/kg ribeye and top loin, $10.99/kg sirloin; P2, medium thickness, $22.00/kg ribeye and top loin, $13.19/kg sirloin; P3, thickest, $24.21/kg ribeye and top loin, $15.40/kg sirloin.
a Steaks (n = 10 per group) were assigned to thickness groups with the following criteria: P1, thinnest, $19.80/kg ribeye and top loin, $10.99/kg sirloin; P2, medium thickness, $22.00/kg ribeye and top loin, $13.19/kg sirloin; P3, thickest, $24.21/kg ribeye and top loin, $15.40/kg sirloin.
preparing meals compared to consumers in the greater income groups. Female consumers selected sirloin steaks from P2 more often (P = 0.0162) than from P1 or P3 (Table 5). For male consumers, though, sirloin steak selection was not different (P > 0.10) among price groups. This suggests that female consumers detected differences among sirloin steaks in different price groups that led to selection of a greater percentage of steaks from P2. Overall, both male and female consumers showed a greater willingness to select sirloin steaks from P2 and P3 compared to ribeye steaks. This may have been because overall prices for sirloin steaks were less than prices for ribeye steaks. Both males and females who selected sirloin steaks from P3 (most expensive) ranked thickness as their primary selection factor most often (data not shown), indicating that there was a demand and willingness to pay for thicker sirloin steaks; the opposite effect, however, was observed for ribeye steaks. Interestingly, males who selected sirloin steaks from P1 (least expensive) also ranked thickness as their primary selection factor most often, indicating that there were also some consumers who preferred thinner sirloin steaks. Also, females who selected sirloin steaks from P3 (most expensive) ranked price as their primary selection factor more often than females who selected sirloin steaks from the lower two price groups. For all age groups, there were no differences (P > 0.05) among price groups with respect to percentages of steaks selected (Table 6). Numerically, consumers in all age groups except the b20 group selected sirloin steaks from P2 most often. Compared to ribeye
Table 8 Percentage of consumers ranking color, marbling, price, texture, thickness, or other characteristics as the most important factor in selection of ribeye, sirloin, and top loin steaksa.
Color Marbling Price Texture Thickness Other
Ribeye
Sirloin
Top loin
23.77 29.58 14.84 7.92 22.21 1.67
24.72 25.84 13.47 7.35 27.17 1.45
22.63 28.56 15.84 7.22 24.78 0.97
a Consumers (n = 316) were presented 30 steaks of each type and asked to select the 3 of each type they would likely select in a retail situation.
12
C.M. Leick et al. / Meat Science 91 (2012) 8–13
steaks, consumers appeared more willing to select sirloin steaks that were more expensive, and did so fairly consistently across all age groups. As with other demographic factors, none of the frequency of beef consumption groups showed differences (P > 0.05) with respect to sirloin steaks selected from P1, P2, or P3 (Table 7). Again, the numerically greatest percentage of consumers in all groups selected sirloin steaks from P2, except the 5 + times per week group, which selected the numerically greatest percentage of steaks from P1 (least expensive). Similar to the patterns observed for ribeye steaks, consumers who ate beef more frequently were willing to select more expensive sirloin steaks from P3 (28.3% of the selections for the 5+ times per week group; Table 7) , indicating that these consumers detected some factor in the P3 steaks that was appealing to them. Across all demographic groups, the greatest percentage of consumers selected sirloin steaks from P2. Thickness was ranked as the most important factor impacting sirloin steak selection for the greatest percentage of consumers, followed closely by marbling and color (Table 8). Similar to ribeye steaks, this suggests that while many consumers felt sirloin steak thickness was important, a portion of consumers preferred thin sirloin steaks, while others preferred thick ones. Some consumers commented that they selected sirloin steaks with kebabs in mind, while others commented that the steak appeared larger (even though consumers were told that all steaks weighed the same). This suggests that some consumers may use sirloin steaks in a variety of recipes and thus may prefer a certain thickness or steak size to suit that purpose. Less than 14% of consumers ranked “price” as the most important factor impacting their sirloin steak selection (Table 8). This is consistent with the notion that consumers are willing to pay more for steaks which display the attributes they prefer, as has been shown by previous researchers (Dransfield, Zamora, & Bayle, 1998; Killinger et al., 2004; Sweeter et al., 2005). Also, since the prices of sirloin steaks were less than the prices of ribeye and top loin steaks, even the higher price groups of sirloin steaks may have been within consumers' budget, while the higher priced ribeye steaks may have seemed too expensive. 3.3. Top loin steak selection based on price by demographic groups When consumers' selections were evaluated in groups based on income, there were no differences (P > 0.05) with respect to percentage of top loin steaks chosen from each price group in any of the income groups (Table 4). There also was no clear pattern to consumers' selections; some income groups selected the greatest percentage of top loin steaks from P1 ($40,000–$49,000 group), while others selected the greatest percentage of top loin steaks from P2 (b$20,000 and $50,000–$59,000 groups) or from P3 ($20,000– $29,000, $30,000–$39,000, and $60,000+ groups). Across all income groups, consumers selected top loin steaks from all price groups with similar frequency. Similar to ribeye and sirloin steaks, other factors such as marbling, color, and thickness were likely more influential on consumers' selections of top loin steaks in this situation. When evaluating consumers' selections in gender groups, there were no differences (P > 0.05) among males or females with respect to percentage of top loin steaks selected from each price group (Table 5). This is in contrast to the selection pattern for ribeye steaks, in which females selected steaks from P1 most often (P b 0.05) and for sirloin steaks, in which females selected steaks from P2 most often (P b 0.05).About the same percentage of male consumers selected top loin steaks from each price group, but females selected a numerically lower percentage of steaks from P3 compared to P1 and P2 (Table 5). Males who selected top loin steaks from P1 and P3 ranked thickness as their most important selection factor most often, indicating that there was a demand for both thin and thick steaks. Also, females who selected steaks from P3 ranked thickness as their most important selection factor second most often (32.9% of selections),
and price as their most important selection factor least often (2.9% of selections; data not shown). Thus appearance factors, including steak thickness, were apparently more important than price in consumers' selections of top loin steaks in this study. Within various age groups, there were no differences (P > 0.05) with respect to consumers' selections from each price group (Table 6). Though there were no clear trends, it appeared that younger consumers (b20, 20–29, 30–39) selected the numerically greatest percentages of top loin steaks from P2 and P3 (thicker, more expensive), while older consumers (40–49, 50–59, 60 +) selected more steaks from P1 and P2 (thinner, less expensive). This may have been driven by price of the steaks, but also by what consumers in these groups were looking for; some consumers commented that the steaks were “big enough for two,” indicating that they preferred top loin steaks with a larger surface area, such as those in P1 or P2. When consumers' selections of top loin steaks were evaluated based on frequency of beef consumption, there were no differences (P > 0.05) in any of the consumer groups with respect to percentage of steaks selected from each price group (Table 7). The numerically greatest percentage of top loin steaks were selected from P1 and P2, except in the 5 + times per week consumption group, in which the numerically greatest percentage of top loin steaks were selected from P3 (Table 7). These consumers may have considered themselves more knowledgeable about or more familiar with beef products and selected the more expensive steaks based on the premium prices or the belief that thicker steaks would have improved eating quality. There were no clear trends in consumers' selection of top loin steaks based on price, although appearance factors (marbling, thickness, and color) were most often ranked as the most important factors impacting consumers' selections, and price was ranked as the most important factor by less than 17% of consumers. This again indicates that consumers are more likely to base their top loin steak selections on characteristics they find desirable than on price. Also, consumers may have detected some differences in marbling that occurred throughout the subprimals, even though all steaks were derived from carcasses that were similar in marbling and color at the 12th rib. Savell et al. (1989) determined that consumers ranked factors such as “how appetizing it looks” and “color” much higher than “price” in evaluation of steaks and roasts. In the current study, it is interesting that with recent economic concerns, consumers are continuing to rank appearance factors more important than price in their selection of beef. Similar to previous researchers (Dransfield et al., 1998; Killinger et al., 2004; Sweeter et al., 2005), consumers in the current study indicated a willingness to pay higher prices for characteristics they preferred, such as thickness, marbling, and color, in ribeye, top loin, and sirloin steaks. Thickness, marbling, and color were ranked higher among selection criteria more often than price for all steak types (Table 8). While consumers selected the thinnest, least expensive ribeye steaks most often (P1), they appeared to be willing to pay premiums for thicker sirloin and top loin steaks in a retail situation. In our study, consumers made selections in a hypothetical situation — they were not required to purchase their selections. It is therefore unclear what the behaviors of consumers would have been if they were in an actual purchasing environment, since often consumers state intentions that are different from how they actually make purchases (Brewer, 2002). It is also important to mention that the majority of consumers who participated in the current research were male, although typically females are the primary household shoppers. During panelist recruiting, males seemed to be more interested in steaks and also more willing to participate in the study. Also, the b$20,000 and $60,000+ income groups were more heavily represented than other groups. Even though our consumer gender demographics were somewhat different from expected, we captured a population that was indeed interested in selecting and purchasing meat products. The beef industry, therefore, could potentially obtain premium
C.M. Leick et al. / Meat Science 91 (2012) 8–13
prices (on a per-weight basis) for thicker-cut steaks, especially top loin and sirloin steaks. By improving sorting of subprimals to target a specific steak thickness, retail cut fabricators could realize increased profitability and marketability of premium beef products. 4. Conclusions The results of the current study indicate that consumers' selections of ribeye, top loin, and sirloin steaks is impacted more by consumers' perception of thickness, marbling, and color than by price. Even with economic concerns, it may be possible to improve sorting and marketing of beef carcasses in order to obtain premium prices for thicker ribeye, top loin, and sirloin steaks cut from lighter weight carcasses. Acknowledgments This project was funded in part by The Beef Checkoff from the National Cattlemen's Beef Association on behalf of the Cattlemen's Beef Board. Approved for publication as Journal Article Number J-11783 of the Mississippi Agricultural and Forestry Experiment Station under project MIS-501131. References Brewer, M. S. (2002). Consumer attitudes: What they say and what they do [Factsheet]. National Pork Board. Retrieved from. http://www.pork.org/filelibrary/Factsheets/ PorkScience/consumerattitudes04621.pdf
13
Dransfield, E., Zamora, F., & Bayle, M. C. (1998). Consumer selection of steaks as influenced by information and price index. Food Quality and Preference, 9, 321–326. Garcia, L. G., Nicholson, K. L., Hoffman, T. W., Lawrence, T. E., Hale, D. S., Griffin, D. B., et al. (2008). National Beef Quality Audit–2005: Survey of targeted cattle and carcass characteristics related to quality, quantity, and value of fed steers and heifers. Journal of Animal Science, 86, 3533–3543. Killinger, K. M., Calkins, C. R., Umberger, W. J., Feuz, D. M., & Eskridge, K. M. (2004). Consumer visual preference and value for beef steaks differing in marbling level and color. Journal of Animal Science, 82, 3288–3293. Leick, C. M., Behrends, J. M., Schmidt, T. B., & Schilling, M. W. (2011). Consumer selection of constant-weight ribeye, top loin, and sirloin steaks. Meat Science, 87, 66–72. McKenna, D. R., Roebert, D. L., Bates, P. K., Schmidt, T. B., Hale, D. S., Griffin, D. B., et al. (2002). National Beef Quality Audit-2000: Survey of targeted cattle and carcass characteristics related to quality, quantity, and value of fed steers and heifers. Journal of Animal Science, 80, 1212–1222. Platter, W. J., Tatum, J. D., Belk, K. E., Koontz, S. R., Chapman, P. L., & Smith, G. C. (2005). Effects of marbling and shear force on consumers' willingness to pay for beef strip loin steaks. Journal of Animal Science, 83, 890–899. Resurreccion, A. V. A. (2003). Sensory aspects of consumer choices for meat and meat products. Meat Science, 66, 11–20. Savell, J. W., Cross, H. R., Francis, J. J., Wise, J. W., Hale, D. S., Wilkes, D. L., et al. (1989). National consumer retail beef study: Interaction of trim level, price, and grade on consumer acceptance of beef steaks and roasts. Journal of Food Quality, 12, 251–274. Sweeter, K. K., Wulf, D. M., & Maddock, R. J. (2005). Determining the optimum beef longissimus muscle size for retail consumers. Journal of Animal Science, 83, 2598–2604. USDA (1997). United States standards for grades of carcass beef. : Agricultural Marketing Service, Livestock and Seed Division January 1997. USDA (2010). Institutional Meat Purchasing Specifications (IMPS). : Agricultural Marketing Service March 2010.
Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect
Meat Science journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/meatsci
Impact of price and thickness on consumer selection of ribeye, sirloin, and top loin steaks C.M. Leick a, J.M. Behrends a,⁎, T.B. Schmidt b, M.W. Schilling a a b
Department of Food Science, Nutrition, and Health Promotion, Mississippi State University, Mississippi State, MS, United States Department of Animal and Dairy Science, Mississippi State University, Mississippi State, MS, United States
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history: Received 21 April 2011 Received in revised form 30 June 2011 Accepted 2 November 2011 Keywords: Beef Consumer Retail Steak Thickness Price
a b s t r a c t Consumers (n = 316) were recruited from college football picnickers to select ribeye, sirloin, and top loin steaks from 3 price groups based on thickness (n = 10 steaks per price/type combination). Constant weight steaks were assigned to these groups: P1, thinnest, $19.80/kg ribeye and top loin, $10.99/kg sirloin; P2, average thickness, $22.00/kg ribeye and top loin, $13.19/kg sirloin; P3, thickest, $24.21/kg ribeye and top loin, $15.40/kg sirloin. Consumers selected 3 steaks per type and ranked selection criteria (price, color, marbling, thickness, texture). Percentage of steaks chosen from each price group did not differ (P > 0.05), but consumers tended to select thinner ribeye steaks (P1 and P2) and thicker sirloin steaks (P2 and P3). Across all steak types, a greater number of consumers reported that marbling, color, and thickness were more important than price and visual texture. Data indicate that consumers may select steaks that display their preferred attributes, even if the steaks cost more. © 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction Carcass size and Longissimus muscle area (LMA) are highly variable within the beef industry (Garcia et al., 2008; McKenna et al., 2002). Therefore, it is difficult to fabricate consistently-sized retail cuts, particularly from the rib and loin primals, which are typically the most valuable wholesale cuts. When steaks are cut to a constant weight, subprimals from lighter carcasses may be cut thicker than those from heavy carcasses, leading to visual discrepancies among steaks in a retail setting. Visual characteristics are primary cues for consumers' retail selection of beef. Beef consumers have shown a willingness to pay premiums for steaks that display characteristics they deem valuable. Such characteristics include marbling (Killinger, Calkins, Umberger, Feuz, & Eskridge, 2004; Platter et al., 2005), color (Killinger et al., 2004), and surface area (Sweeter, Wulf, & Maddock, 2005). With the visual appeal of thicker steaks, it may be possible to obtain premium prices for steaks cut from smaller carcasses, since steaks cut to exact portion sizes would be thicker from smaller carcasses. Such information would be useful in sorting and marketing of carcasses for retail fabrication. This research was conducted as a continuation of the research described in Leick, Behrends, Schmidt, and Schilling (2011), in which consumers identified the characteristics that
⁎ Corresponding author at: 945 Stone Blvd., Box 9805, Mississippi State, MS 39759, United States. Tel.: + 1 662 325 3200; fax: + 1 662 325 8728. E-mail address: [email protected] (J.M. Behrends). 0309-1740/$ – see front matter © 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.meatsci.2011.11.021
would most likely impact their selection of ribeye, top loin, and sirloin steaks in a retail setting. It was hypothesized that the potential for obtaining premium prices for thicker steaks may exist. Therefore in the current study, a consumer panel visually evaluated ribeye, top loin, and sirloin steaks of constant weight and varying thicknesses, with premium prices placed on thicker steaks to determine whether consumers were willing to pay premium prices for thicker steaks. The objectives of this research were to determine if increasing the price of thicker ribeye, sirloin, and top loin steaks by $1.00 and $2.00 per 0.45 kg would affect consumers' willingness to select thicker steaks in a retail setting. 2. Materials and methods 2.1. Carcass selection and subprimal collection In order to obtain a broad range of steak sizes and thicknesses, steaks were collected from 25 beef carcasses as described in Leick et al. (2011). Mississippi State University personnel identified beef carcasses (n = 25) at a commercial meat processing facility. All carcasses were A maturity in both lean and skeletal maturity scores, contained Small 00 to Small 100 in marbling score (USDA low Choice), and had a carcass USDA yield grade of 1 or 2 (USDA, 1997). Marbling score, lean maturity score, LMA, and preliminary yield grade measurements were taken at the cut surface of the 12th rib. Carcasses were selected to equally represent the following five carcass weight and LMA groups in order to generate a variety of steak sizes: 226 to 271 kg/70.9–78.1 cm 2; 272 to 316 kg/78.7–85.8 cm 2; 317 to 361 kg/ 86.5–93.5 cm 2; 362 to 407 kg/94.2–101.3 cm 2; 408 to 452 kg/101.9–
C.M. Leick et al. / Meat Science 91 (2012) 8–13
109.3 cm 2. In the current study, these carcass weight groups were used simply to ensure that a variety of LMA sizes were collected. Loin, Boneless (m. longissimuslumborum; IMPS Item No. 180; n = 25), Beef Loin, Top Sirloin Butt, Boneless (m. gluteus medius, IMPS Item No. 184B; n = 25), and Beef Rib, Ribeye Roll (m. longissimus thoracis, IMPS Item No. 112; n = 25) subprimals were collected from each carcass after fabrication at the packing plant (USDA, 2010). Each subprimal was marked with an individual number that corresponded to the carcass from which it came, vacuum packaged, and stored at refrigeration temperature (b4 °C) for 14 d. 2.2. Subprimal processing Subprimals were transported under refrigeration to a facility that cuts steaks for foodservice into constant-weight portions. Each subprimal was trimmed according to standard practices for that plant, then cut on an automated portioning machine (model IPM030X600; Marel Food Systems Inc., Lenexa, KS) into individual steaks weighing 345.9 ± 0.7 g for ribeye and top loin steaks and 286.3 ± 0.5 g each for top sirloin steaks. Steaks were labeled according to individual primal ID, vacuum packaged, and transported at b4 °C to the Mississippi State University Meat Laboratory for further packaging and consumer testing. 2.3. Steak packaging Steaks were removed from the vacuum packages, weighed, placed in an individual Styrofoam tray with a soaker pad. Each steak was measured with a ruler at the thickest point along the outside edge of the steak, then overwrapped with PVC film and labeled with a random 3-digit number. To assign prices, steaks of each type were ranked according to thickness. The 10 thinnest steaks of each type were assigned to Price 1 (P1; $19.80/kg ribeye and top loin, $10.99/ kg sirloin), the 10 thickest steaks were assigned to Price 3 (P3; $24.21/kg ribeye and top loin, $15.40/kg sirloin), and the 10 steaks closest to the mean were assigned to Price 2 (P2; $22.00/kg ribeye and top loin, $13.19/kg sirloin). Prices were based on the average prices for the three steak types available at local supermarkets. Mean price for USDA Choice steaks represented P1 for each steak type; P2 was set as a $1.00 per 0.45 kg price increase above P1, and P3 was a $2.00 per 0.45 price increase above P1. Price groups and steak thicknesses are shown in Table 1. Each steak was labeled with a sticker that stated weight (all packages weighed the same), price per pound, and total price for the package. Labels on the packages expressed weight units in pound in order to represent units that consumers would be familiar with.
Table 1 Price and thicknesses of ribeye, sirloin, and top loin steaks assigned to three price groups for consumer selection. Steak type Ribeye Mean thickness, cm Min. thickness, cm Max. thickness, cm Price per kg, $ Sirloin Mean thickness, cm Min. thickness, cm Max. thickness, cm Price per kg, $ Top loin Mean thickness, cm Min. thickness, cm Max. thickness, cm Price per kg, $
P1
P2
P3
2.1 1.5 2.5 19.80
2.8 2.6 3.1 22.00
3.6 3.2 4.8 24.21
2.1 1.6 2.4 10.99
2.8 2.6 3.1 13.19
3.9 3.3 4.9 15.40
2.1 1.5 2.5 19.80
2.9 2.6 3.1 22.00
3.6 3.2 4.4 24.21
9
2.4. Consumer testing Steaks (n = 30 for each steak type) were randomly placed on tables prior to consumer selection and equally represented each of the three price groups. Consumers (n = 316) were recruited randomly from people picnicking and tailgating prior to college football games on two different days in Starkville, Mississippi. The testing location was outdoors near the tailgating area, and testing was conducted on days when the temperature was in the 4–10 °C range, minimizing color changes that may have been associated with lack of refrigeration. Consumers were invited to participate in the study and were asked to fill out a demographic form prior to testing. Consumers were asked to select 3 steaks of each type (ribeye, strip, top loin) that they would purchase in a retail store if there was a price difference between steaks, but were not told that the price difference was due to steak thickness. After writing down the ID number of each steak they would select, consumers were asked to rank the following criteria: marbling, color, price, thickness, texture, and other, in order of importance (1–6; 1 = most important, 6 = least important) as they affected their selection of each steak. Consumers also had the opportunity to provide comments regarding their selections. 2.5. Statistical analysis Illegible or incomplete consumer data were removed from the data set. The data were analyzed as a completely randomized design, using analysis of variance with GLM procedures of SAS Version 9.2 (SAS Institute, Cary, NC). Significance was determined at an alpha level of 0.05. The model included the fixed effects of price group, both overall for each steak type and within each consumer demographic group for each steak type. The replication was steak (n = 10 per price group). The response measured was the total number of steaks selected by consumers within each replication; the total number of steaks selected for each price group was then converted to percentages for the tables, since this is more meaningful to the reader. Differences among treatments were determined using the Means statement in Proc GLM of SAS Version 9.2 (SAS Institute, Cary, NC) with the Fisher's Protected Least Significant Difference test. Average steak thicknesses, consumer demographic percentages, and percentages of consumers who selected each type of steak were calculated using Microsoft Excel (Microsoft Office 2003). In order to better characterize and describe consumers within demographic groups who selected steaks from a particular group, Microsoft Excel was also used to calculate the percentage of consumers who ranked certain traits as most important when selecting a steak. 3. Results and discussion Percentages of consumers representing each demographic group are shown in Table 2. The greatest percentage of consumers represented either the b$20,000 and $60,000 + income groups. Since consumer evaluations were concurrent with college football games, the majority of consumers were likely college students with a lesser income or young professionals and faculty members with a greater income. Most age groups and frequency of beef consumption groups were evenly represented, except for the “never consume beef” group (Table 2). It was observed by recruiters that males tended to be more willing to participate in consumer testing than females, and this was evident since over two-thirds of the consumers participating in the study were male (Table 2). Overall, there were no differences (P > 0.05) among price groups with respect to percentage of ribeye, sirloin, or top loin steaks selected (Table 3). Also, there was no evident selection pattern among price groups for each steak type; the numerically greatest percentage of ribeye steaks were selected from P1, while the numerically greatest percentage of sirloin steaks were selected from P2 (Table 3).
10
C.M. Leick et al. / Meat Science 91 (2012) 8–13
Table 2 Percentage of total consumers representing each demographic group. Income
Gender
Group b$20,000 $20,000–$29,000 $30,000–$39,000 $40,000–$49,000 $50,000–$59,000 $60,000 +
Percentage 28.2 3.6 4.1 7.6 5.8 50.7
Age
Group Male Female
Percentage 67.7 32.3
Consumer selection percentages will be discussed further within demographic groups for each steak type. 3.1. Ribeye steak selection based on price by demographic groups For ribeye steaks, consumers in the b $20,000 income group selected steaks from P2 most often (P b 0.10; Table 4). Consumers in the $60,000+ income group selected ribeye steaks from P1 and P2 most often (P b 0.10). Interestingly, consumers in the greater income groups selected a greater percentage of the least expensive ribeye steaks (P1) compared to consumers in the lesser income groups (Table 4). This suggests that a factor other than price, such as marbling or color, impacted consumers' selections of ribeye steaks, or that consumers in the greater income groups preferred to not spend as much money on ribeye steaks. Resurreccion (2003) suggested that consumers with greater incomes, particularly dual-income households, would not pay as much for fresh beef due to the time needed for preparation in the home. In the current study, consumers in the greater income groups may have fit this description, and also may have found the thinner ribeye steaks more desirable due to decreased cooking time associated with thinner steaks. For male consumers, ribeye steak selection did not differ (P > 0.10) among price groups, although they selected the greatest percentage of ribeye steaks from P1. Female consumers selected ribeye steaks from P1 nearly twice as frequently as ribeye steaks from P3 (P b 0.05; Table 5). Both males and females who selected ribeye steaks from P1 or P2 ranked marbling and color as their primary selection factors most often (data not shown), despite the fact that carcasses were selected to be similar in marbling and color in order to minimize differences among steaks. However, males who selected ribeye steaks from P3 ranked thickness as their primary selection factor as often as they ranked marbling as their primary selection factor (27.5%), indicating that males were willing to pay more for thicker steaks. Females who selected the most expensive ribeye steaks (P3) also ranked thickness as their primary selection factor second most frequently. Both males and females who chose steaks from P1 ranked price as their primary selection factor more often than those who selected steaks from the higher price groups, indicating that price is more important than visual indicators of quality for some consumers. Consumers in the 40–49 age group selected a greater percentage of ribeye steaks from P1 and P2 compared to P3 (P b 0.05; Table 6). In comparison, consumers in the 50–59 age group tended to select ribeye steaks from P1 more often than from P2 or P3 (P b 0.10), indicating that consumers in this age group preferred the thinnest, least expensive ribeye steaks. However, consumers in the youngest age Table 3 Percentage of steaks chosen from price groups.
Ribeye Sirloin Top loin
P2
P3
SEM
P-value
39.3 27.8 35.0
35.9 38.6 35.0
24.8 33.6 30.0
5.36 5.59 5.03
0.1436 0.4058 0.7112
Steaks (n = 10 per group) were assigned to thickness groups with the following criteria: P1, $19.80/kg ribeye and top loin, $10.99/kg sirloin; P2, $22.00/kg ribeye and top loin, $13.19/kg sirloin; P3, $24.21/kg ribeye and top loin, $15.40/kg sirloin.
Percentage 9.3 34.6 12.7 16.3 17.6 9.5
Group Never 1 time/week 2 times/week 3 times/week 4 times/week 5 + times/week
Percentage 1.0 10.3 22.9 35.0 16.3 14.5
group (b20) tended to select ribeye steaks from P2 more often than ribeye steaks from P1 or P3 (P b 0.10; Table 6). Consumers in the next youngest age group (20–29) also selected a numerically greater percentage of steaks from P2 than from P1 or P3. This suggests that the younger consumers may have been more willing to pay more for ribeye steaks, whereas older consumers in the 40–49 and 50–59 age groups preferred the thinner, less expensive ribeye steaks. In some cases, consumers commented that the steaks looked large enough for 2 portions, possibly contributing to the appeal of the thinner steaks with a larger surface area for older consumers. Frequency of beef consumption did not affect (P > 0.10) consumer selection of ribeye steaks (Table 7). Consumers who ate beef 3 times per week selected the numerically greatest percentage of ribeye steaks from P2, while all other frequency of consumption consumer groups selected ribeye steaks from P1 most often. Overall consumer selections of ribeye steaks were also greatest from P1. Sorting the data according to frequency of beef consumption indicates that even more frequent beef eaters would be willing to select more expensive steaks based on other characteristics that they found desirable, such as marbling, thickness, or color. Overall, consumers in all demographic groups selected the thinnest, least expensive ribeye steaks from P1 most often. Since all steaks were cut to the same weight, the thinnest steaks in P1 would likely correspond to the largest surface area. Previous researchers (Sweeter et al., 2005) showed that consumers preferred steaks that appeared larger, and even showed a willingness to pay up to $1.50/ kg more for large steaks. In the current study, a greater percentage of consumers ranked “thickness” than “price” as the most important factor impacting their ribeye steak selection (Table 8), indicating that consumers actually preferred the thinner ribeye steaks, and were not just selecting them because they were least expensive.
Table 4 Steak selection from price groupsa according to income. Type
Income
Total steaks
P1
P2
P3
SEM
P-value
Ribeye
b$20,000 $20,000–$29,000 $30,000–$39,000 $40,000–$49,000 $50,000–$59,000 $60,000 + b$20,000 $20,000–$29,000 $30,000–$39,000 $40,000–$49,000 $50,000–$59,000 $60,000 + b$20,000 $20,000–$29,000 $30,000–$39,000 $40,000–$49,000 $50,000–$59,000 $60,000 +
245 32 39 62 47 449 228 33 37 65 51 450 246 32 36 70 50 439
37.6 31.3 38.5 45.2 46.8 39.4 39.9 30.3 32.4 35.4 35.3 22.7 35.8 31.3 33.3 42.9 34.0 33.3
40.0 40.6 30.8 35.5 25.5 36.1 31.6 36.4 51.4 36.9 37.3 38.0 36.6 28.1 30.6 38.6 36.0 33.0
22.4 28.1 30.8 19.4 27.7 24.5 28.5 33.3 16.2 27.7 27.4 39.3 27.6 40.6 36.1 18.6 30.0 33.7
5.37 5.84 5.37 6.79 5.18 5.74 5.34 5.34 6.49 5.46 5.47 5.62 4.19 4.93 5.61 9.07 4.37 5.65
0.0735 0.6871 0.3591 0.1889 0.4399 0.0675 0.7888 0.7888 0.4003 0.8560 0.8809 0.1636 0.1123 0.7971 0.9391 0.3439 0.1974 0.9865
Sirloin
Top loin
P1
Frequency of beef consumption
Group b20 20–29 30–39 40–49 50–59 60 +
a Steaks (n = 10 per group) were assigned to thickness groups with the following criteria: P1, thinnest, $19.80/kg ribeye and top loin, $10.99/kg sirloin; P2, medium thickness, $22.00/kg ribeye and top loin, $13.19/kg sirloin; P3, thickest, $24.21/kg ribeye and top loin, $15.40/kg sirloin.
C.M. Leick et al. / Meat Science 91 (2012) 8–13 Table 5 Steak selection from price groupsa according to gender.
Table 7 Steak selection from price groupsa according to frequency of beef consumption.
Type
Gender
Total steaks
P1
P2
P3
SEM
P-value
Ribeye
Male Female Male Female Male Female
589 292 591 289 588 291
45.7 45.5a 28.4 25.3b 31.6 38.8
31.9 31.5ab 34.3 46.7a 34 36.8
22.4 23.0b 37.2 28.0b 34.4 24.4
9.83 5.87 5.69 5.40 5.07 5.82
0.2242 0.0299 0.5416 0.0162 0.9106 0.3201
Sirloin Top loin
Type
Frequency of consumption
Total steaks
P1
P2
P3
SEM
P-value
Ribeye
Never 1 time/week 2 times/week 3 times/week 4 times/week 5 + times/week Never 1 time/week 2 times/week 3 times/week 4 times/week 5 + times/week Never 1 time/week 2 times/week 3 times/week 4 times/week 5 + times/week
9 83 187 288 125 133 9 85 204 281 139 120 9 20 220 334 153 123
44.4 42.2 35.8 30.2 45.6 40.6 11.1 22.4 22.5 23.1 27.3 36.7 55.6 37.8 35.5 37.7 41.2 32.5
33.3 30.1 32.1 38.2 26.4 33.1 55.6 41.2 43.1 43.8 43.2 35.0 11.1 32.2 36.8 35.6 33.3 32.5
22.2 27.7 32.1 31.6 28.0 26.3 33.3 36.5 34.3 33.1 29.5 28.3 33.3 30.0 27.7 26.6 25.4 35.0
6.33 4.73 5.31 5.32 4.36 5.50 – 6.36 6.22 5.43 6.03 6.01 – 5.41 5.83 5.01 6.12 6.46
– 0.3134 0.6071 0.3863 0.9691 0.7857 – 0.8600 0.5126 0.1977 0.3388 0.5879 – 0.5814 0.4233 0.0999 0.1549 0.7900
abc
Percentages in the same row lacking the same superscript are different (P b 0.05). Steaks (n = 10 per group) were assigned to thickness groups with the following criteria: P1, thinnest, $19.80/kg ribeye and top loin, $10.99/kg sirloin; P2, medium thickness, $22.00/kg ribeye and top loin, $13.19/kg sirloin; P3, thickest, $24.21/kg ribeye and top loin, $15.40/kg sirloin. a
Sirloin
Top loin
This shows that consumer preferences are varied; most consumers have a preference for steak thickness and may be willing to pay more for it. Marbling and color also were important characteristics (Table 8) impacting consumers' selections, even though carcass color and marbling scores were similar.
3.2. Sirloin steak selection based on price by demographic group For sirloin steaks, there were no differences (P > 0.05) among income groups with respect to percentage of steaks selected from each price group (Table 4). This indicates that income did not have an impact on consumers' selection of sirloin steaks. Numerically, however, consumers in the b $20,000 income group selected the greatest percentage of steaks from P1 (least expensive), and consumers in the $60,000+ income group selected the greatest percentage of sirloin steaks from P3 (most expensive), while all other income groups selected the greatest percentage of sirloin steaks from P2. This is in contrast to the consumers in the $60,000+ income group who selected the least expensive ribeye steaks from P1- it is unclear whether consumers who selected sirloin steaks from P2 and P3 found these steaks to have desirable characteristics, such as increased thickness, or perceived color and marbling differences. The increased thickness in sirloin steaks in P2 and P3 may have been more appealing for using the steaks in recipes such as kebabs or stir-fry. The b$20,000 income group was probably composed of a large number of college students, who likely spend less time, money, and effort in
Table 6 Steak selection from price groupsa according to age. Type
Age
Total Steaks
P1
P2
P3
SEM
P-value
Ribeye
b20 20–29 30–39 40–49 50–59 60 + b20 20–29 30–39 40–49 50–59 60 + b 20 20–29 30–39 40–49 50–59 60 +
76 303 99 142 168 68 71 296 111 141 546 86 81 305 112 144 148 101
28.9 36.3 36.4 45.8a 50.6 26.5 31.0 25.7 28.0 25.5 27.4 20.9 34.6 34.1 23.2 38.9 41.2 39.6
43.4 42.2 41.4 38.0a 21.4 23.5 29.6 42.2 36.0 41.8 41.8 41.9 24.7 38.0 33.0 38.9 33.1 33.7
27.6 21.5 22.2 16.2b 28.0 50.0 39.4 32.1 36.0 32.6 30.8 37.2 40.7 27.9 43.8 22.2 25.7 26.7
5.54 6.35 5.10 1.15 6.51 4.51 6.04 6.04 4.86 6.47 6.37 6.43 6.43 5.30 5.47 5.72 6.00 6.45
0.0937 0.1089 0.9793 0.0013 0.0507 0.6937 0.3054 0.3054 0.7942 0.7167 0.2321 0.6471 0.6471 0.2937 0.3091 0.1549 0.3011 0.5260
Sirloin
Top loin
11
a Steaks (n = 10 per group) were assigned to thickness groups with the following criteria: P1, thinnest, $19.80/kg ribeye and top loin, $10.99/kg sirloin; P2, medium thickness, $22.00/kg ribeye and top loin, $13.19/kg sirloin; P3, thickest, $24.21/kg ribeye and top loin, $15.40/kg sirloin.
a Steaks (n = 10 per group) were assigned to thickness groups with the following criteria: P1, thinnest, $19.80/kg ribeye and top loin, $10.99/kg sirloin; P2, medium thickness, $22.00/kg ribeye and top loin, $13.19/kg sirloin; P3, thickest, $24.21/kg ribeye and top loin, $15.40/kg sirloin.
preparing meals compared to consumers in the greater income groups. Female consumers selected sirloin steaks from P2 more often (P = 0.0162) than from P1 or P3 (Table 5). For male consumers, though, sirloin steak selection was not different (P > 0.10) among price groups. This suggests that female consumers detected differences among sirloin steaks in different price groups that led to selection of a greater percentage of steaks from P2. Overall, both male and female consumers showed a greater willingness to select sirloin steaks from P2 and P3 compared to ribeye steaks. This may have been because overall prices for sirloin steaks were less than prices for ribeye steaks. Both males and females who selected sirloin steaks from P3 (most expensive) ranked thickness as their primary selection factor most often (data not shown), indicating that there was a demand and willingness to pay for thicker sirloin steaks; the opposite effect, however, was observed for ribeye steaks. Interestingly, males who selected sirloin steaks from P1 (least expensive) also ranked thickness as their primary selection factor most often, indicating that there were also some consumers who preferred thinner sirloin steaks. Also, females who selected sirloin steaks from P3 (most expensive) ranked price as their primary selection factor more often than females who selected sirloin steaks from the lower two price groups. For all age groups, there were no differences (P > 0.05) among price groups with respect to percentages of steaks selected (Table 6). Numerically, consumers in all age groups except the b20 group selected sirloin steaks from P2 most often. Compared to ribeye
Table 8 Percentage of consumers ranking color, marbling, price, texture, thickness, or other characteristics as the most important factor in selection of ribeye, sirloin, and top loin steaksa.
Color Marbling Price Texture Thickness Other
Ribeye
Sirloin
Top loin
23.77 29.58 14.84 7.92 22.21 1.67
24.72 25.84 13.47 7.35 27.17 1.45
22.63 28.56 15.84 7.22 24.78 0.97
a Consumers (n = 316) were presented 30 steaks of each type and asked to select the 3 of each type they would likely select in a retail situation.
12
C.M. Leick et al. / Meat Science 91 (2012) 8–13
steaks, consumers appeared more willing to select sirloin steaks that were more expensive, and did so fairly consistently across all age groups. As with other demographic factors, none of the frequency of beef consumption groups showed differences (P > 0.05) with respect to sirloin steaks selected from P1, P2, or P3 (Table 7). Again, the numerically greatest percentage of consumers in all groups selected sirloin steaks from P2, except the 5 + times per week group, which selected the numerically greatest percentage of steaks from P1 (least expensive). Similar to the patterns observed for ribeye steaks, consumers who ate beef more frequently were willing to select more expensive sirloin steaks from P3 (28.3% of the selections for the 5+ times per week group; Table 7) , indicating that these consumers detected some factor in the P3 steaks that was appealing to them. Across all demographic groups, the greatest percentage of consumers selected sirloin steaks from P2. Thickness was ranked as the most important factor impacting sirloin steak selection for the greatest percentage of consumers, followed closely by marbling and color (Table 8). Similar to ribeye steaks, this suggests that while many consumers felt sirloin steak thickness was important, a portion of consumers preferred thin sirloin steaks, while others preferred thick ones. Some consumers commented that they selected sirloin steaks with kebabs in mind, while others commented that the steak appeared larger (even though consumers were told that all steaks weighed the same). This suggests that some consumers may use sirloin steaks in a variety of recipes and thus may prefer a certain thickness or steak size to suit that purpose. Less than 14% of consumers ranked “price” as the most important factor impacting their sirloin steak selection (Table 8). This is consistent with the notion that consumers are willing to pay more for steaks which display the attributes they prefer, as has been shown by previous researchers (Dransfield, Zamora, & Bayle, 1998; Killinger et al., 2004; Sweeter et al., 2005). Also, since the prices of sirloin steaks were less than the prices of ribeye and top loin steaks, even the higher price groups of sirloin steaks may have been within consumers' budget, while the higher priced ribeye steaks may have seemed too expensive. 3.3. Top loin steak selection based on price by demographic groups When consumers' selections were evaluated in groups based on income, there were no differences (P > 0.05) with respect to percentage of top loin steaks chosen from each price group in any of the income groups (Table 4). There also was no clear pattern to consumers' selections; some income groups selected the greatest percentage of top loin steaks from P1 ($40,000–$49,000 group), while others selected the greatest percentage of top loin steaks from P2 (b$20,000 and $50,000–$59,000 groups) or from P3 ($20,000– $29,000, $30,000–$39,000, and $60,000+ groups). Across all income groups, consumers selected top loin steaks from all price groups with similar frequency. Similar to ribeye and sirloin steaks, other factors such as marbling, color, and thickness were likely more influential on consumers' selections of top loin steaks in this situation. When evaluating consumers' selections in gender groups, there were no differences (P > 0.05) among males or females with respect to percentage of top loin steaks selected from each price group (Table 5). This is in contrast to the selection pattern for ribeye steaks, in which females selected steaks from P1 most often (P b 0.05) and for sirloin steaks, in which females selected steaks from P2 most often (P b 0.05).About the same percentage of male consumers selected top loin steaks from each price group, but females selected a numerically lower percentage of steaks from P3 compared to P1 and P2 (Table 5). Males who selected top loin steaks from P1 and P3 ranked thickness as their most important selection factor most often, indicating that there was a demand for both thin and thick steaks. Also, females who selected steaks from P3 ranked thickness as their most important selection factor second most often (32.9% of selections),
and price as their most important selection factor least often (2.9% of selections; data not shown). Thus appearance factors, including steak thickness, were apparently more important than price in consumers' selections of top loin steaks in this study. Within various age groups, there were no differences (P > 0.05) with respect to consumers' selections from each price group (Table 6). Though there were no clear trends, it appeared that younger consumers (b20, 20–29, 30–39) selected the numerically greatest percentages of top loin steaks from P2 and P3 (thicker, more expensive), while older consumers (40–49, 50–59, 60 +) selected more steaks from P1 and P2 (thinner, less expensive). This may have been driven by price of the steaks, but also by what consumers in these groups were looking for; some consumers commented that the steaks were “big enough for two,” indicating that they preferred top loin steaks with a larger surface area, such as those in P1 or P2. When consumers' selections of top loin steaks were evaluated based on frequency of beef consumption, there were no differences (P > 0.05) in any of the consumer groups with respect to percentage of steaks selected from each price group (Table 7). The numerically greatest percentage of top loin steaks were selected from P1 and P2, except in the 5 + times per week consumption group, in which the numerically greatest percentage of top loin steaks were selected from P3 (Table 7). These consumers may have considered themselves more knowledgeable about or more familiar with beef products and selected the more expensive steaks based on the premium prices or the belief that thicker steaks would have improved eating quality. There were no clear trends in consumers' selection of top loin steaks based on price, although appearance factors (marbling, thickness, and color) were most often ranked as the most important factors impacting consumers' selections, and price was ranked as the most important factor by less than 17% of consumers. This again indicates that consumers are more likely to base their top loin steak selections on characteristics they find desirable than on price. Also, consumers may have detected some differences in marbling that occurred throughout the subprimals, even though all steaks were derived from carcasses that were similar in marbling and color at the 12th rib. Savell et al. (1989) determined that consumers ranked factors such as “how appetizing it looks” and “color” much higher than “price” in evaluation of steaks and roasts. In the current study, it is interesting that with recent economic concerns, consumers are continuing to rank appearance factors more important than price in their selection of beef. Similar to previous researchers (Dransfield et al., 1998; Killinger et al., 2004; Sweeter et al., 2005), consumers in the current study indicated a willingness to pay higher prices for characteristics they preferred, such as thickness, marbling, and color, in ribeye, top loin, and sirloin steaks. Thickness, marbling, and color were ranked higher among selection criteria more often than price for all steak types (Table 8). While consumers selected the thinnest, least expensive ribeye steaks most often (P1), they appeared to be willing to pay premiums for thicker sirloin and top loin steaks in a retail situation. In our study, consumers made selections in a hypothetical situation — they were not required to purchase their selections. It is therefore unclear what the behaviors of consumers would have been if they were in an actual purchasing environment, since often consumers state intentions that are different from how they actually make purchases (Brewer, 2002). It is also important to mention that the majority of consumers who participated in the current research were male, although typically females are the primary household shoppers. During panelist recruiting, males seemed to be more interested in steaks and also more willing to participate in the study. Also, the b$20,000 and $60,000+ income groups were more heavily represented than other groups. Even though our consumer gender demographics were somewhat different from expected, we captured a population that was indeed interested in selecting and purchasing meat products. The beef industry, therefore, could potentially obtain premium
C.M. Leick et al. / Meat Science 91 (2012) 8–13
prices (on a per-weight basis) for thicker-cut steaks, especially top loin and sirloin steaks. By improving sorting of subprimals to target a specific steak thickness, retail cut fabricators could realize increased profitability and marketability of premium beef products. 4. Conclusions The results of the current study indicate that consumers' selections of ribeye, top loin, and sirloin steaks is impacted more by consumers' perception of thickness, marbling, and color than by price. Even with economic concerns, it may be possible to improve sorting and marketing of beef carcasses in order to obtain premium prices for thicker ribeye, top loin, and sirloin steaks cut from lighter weight carcasses. Acknowledgments This project was funded in part by The Beef Checkoff from the National Cattlemen's Beef Association on behalf of the Cattlemen's Beef Board. Approved for publication as Journal Article Number J-11783 of the Mississippi Agricultural and Forestry Experiment Station under project MIS-501131. References Brewer, M. S. (2002). Consumer attitudes: What they say and what they do [Factsheet]. National Pork Board. Retrieved from. http://www.pork.org/filelibrary/Factsheets/ PorkScience/consumerattitudes04621.pdf
13
Dransfield, E., Zamora, F., & Bayle, M. C. (1998). Consumer selection of steaks as influenced by information and price index. Food Quality and Preference, 9, 321–326. Garcia, L. G., Nicholson, K. L., Hoffman, T. W., Lawrence, T. E., Hale, D. S., Griffin, D. B., et al. (2008). National Beef Quality Audit–2005: Survey of targeted cattle and carcass characteristics related to quality, quantity, and value of fed steers and heifers. Journal of Animal Science, 86, 3533–3543. Killinger, K. M., Calkins, C. R., Umberger, W. J., Feuz, D. M., & Eskridge, K. M. (2004). Consumer visual preference and value for beef steaks differing in marbling level and color. Journal of Animal Science, 82, 3288–3293. Leick, C. M., Behrends, J. M., Schmidt, T. B., & Schilling, M. W. (2011). Consumer selection of constant-weight ribeye, top loin, and sirloin steaks. Meat Science, 87, 66–72. McKenna, D. R., Roebert, D. L., Bates, P. K., Schmidt, T. B., Hale, D. S., Griffin, D. B., et al. (2002). National Beef Quality Audit-2000: Survey of targeted cattle and carcass characteristics related to quality, quantity, and value of fed steers and heifers. Journal of Animal Science, 80, 1212–1222. Platter, W. J., Tatum, J. D., Belk, K. E., Koontz, S. R., Chapman, P. L., & Smith, G. C. (2005). Effects of marbling and shear force on consumers' willingness to pay for beef strip loin steaks. Journal of Animal Science, 83, 890–899. Resurreccion, A. V. A. (2003). Sensory aspects of consumer choices for meat and meat products. Meat Science, 66, 11–20. Savell, J. W., Cross, H. R., Francis, J. J., Wise, J. W., Hale, D. S., Wilkes, D. L., et al. (1989). National consumer retail beef study: Interaction of trim level, price, and grade on consumer acceptance of beef steaks and roasts. Journal of Food Quality, 12, 251–274. Sweeter, K. K., Wulf, D. M., & Maddock, R. J. (2005). Determining the optimum beef longissimus muscle size for retail consumers. Journal of Animal Science, 83, 2598–2604. USDA (1997). United States standards for grades of carcass beef. : Agricultural Marketing Service, Livestock and Seed Division January 1997. USDA (2010). Institutional Meat Purchasing Specifications (IMPS). : Agricultural Marketing Service March 2010.