Beef for Tomorrow: Conference Proceedings (1960)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

FIRST SESSION The Beef We Want E. R. Kiehl, presiding Roland M. Bethke, General Chairman Beef in the American Diet B. S. Schweigert American Meat Institute Foundation BEEF is CONSIDERED by many people in this country to be the preferred food in the diet. Undoubtedly, the high satiety value of beef, the "status aspect" of a hostess serving roast beef, steak, etc., as well as the high nutritional value of beef, are major factors in the strong preference shown for this meat. Per capital beef consumption in the United States has increased in the past few years, as shown in Table 1. It is in- teresting to note, however, that the Aus- tralians and our South American neigh- bors in Argentina consume two to three times as much beef as we do. TABLE 1 Per Capita Consumption of Carcass Beef (Pounds) Period United States Australia* Argentina 1900 1920 66.6 58.6 54.7 80.5 1940 1958 165 144 156 116** 214*** * Beef and Veai. ** 1955-1956. *** 1957. muscle cuts and organ meats. These studies show that beef is an important source of high quality protein, minerals, and vitamins in the diet. The energy value of muscle cuts varies with the fat content, particularly with respect to the amount of the external fat, and fat that is present between the muscles that are consumed. The percentages of the recommended dietary allowances of certain nutrients for adult man that are provided by 100 gram servings of cooked lean beef round and of beef liver are shown in Table 2 (1-4). TABLE 2 Percentages of Recommended Daily Allowances Provided By a 100 g Serving of Cooked Lean Beef Nutrient Beef Round Beef Liver Protein 56% 34% Thiamin 7% 4% Riboflavin 18% 220% Niacin 28% 74% Iron 34% 78% Extensive studies have been carried out to determine the nutrient content of beef These two beef items are selected as ex- amples and additional data on vitamin and mineral composition are shown in Table 3. Several conclusions may be 1

BEEF FOR TOMORROW drawn from these and other data: 1) a serving of lean beef round provides more than half of the recommended allowance for protein; 2) organ meats (liver) are higher than muscle cuts in B vitamins and minerals (thiamin is an exception to this in that both beef muscle and liver contain about the same amount; 3) liver and other organ meats contain significant amounts of vitamins A and C, while muscle cuts contain only traces of these vitamins. TABLE 3 Vitamin and Mineral Content of Cooked Lean Beef (mg. per 100 grams) Nutrient Beef Round Beef Liver Vitamins Vitamin A, I.U. Trace 43,900 Vitamin C Trace 31 Vitamin Bj .54 — Pantothenic Acid .41 9.4 Folk Acid .034 .105 Vitamin BU, micrograms 2.2 85 Minerals Phosphorus Calcium 235 14.5 330 30 Important new data developed by Leverton and Odell (1) have provided a sound basis for the estimation of calorie content of cooked meat cuts that contain varying quantities of fat. Much of the older data was obtained from composite samples of fresh meat cuts with approxi- mately 1/2 inch of external fat included in the sample. It is obvious that knowl- edge of composition of foods as eaten pro- vides more reliable figures on nutrient in- takes than composition data based on foods as purchased or available for con- sumption. Comparative data adapted from the Leverton and Odell study are shown for the protein and calorie content of beef round and beef rib based on the lean portion, lean plus marble, and lean plus marble plus fat portions, in Table 4. In the case of beef rib, the calorie in- take per unit of protein may vary three- fold, depending on the amount of fat TABLE 4 Protein Calorie Ratio in Beef Round and Rib Cuts Protein: Percent Calories Calorie Beef Cut Protein per 100 g. Ratio* Beef Round Lean 36.4 223 6.1 Lean + Marble 35.5 238 6.7 Lean + Marble + 31.3 306 9.8 Fat Beef Rib Lean 28.6 Lean + Marble 25.5 Lean + Marble + 20.4 Fat 169 5.9 262 10.2 391 19.2 * No. of calories per 1 percent protein. consumed with the lean portion. Less variation is noted for beef round. These figures are extremely valuable to physi- cians, dietitians, and nutritionists, as well as to those engaged in the livestock and meat industry, in that the calorie intake from beef and other meat cuts can be readily adjusted by the amount of fat consumed. Thus, a serving of cooked lean beef will provide over one-half of the recommended protein intake per day, with a caloric intake of approximately 200 calories. As shown in Table 5, cooked lean beef, pork and lamb muscle cuts are very similar in protein and calorie con- tent. The protein-calorie ratios are re- markably uniform, and indicate that the protein and fat content within the muscle (the major source of calories) is quite similar for muscle cuts from the three animal species represented. A more detailed evaluation of the amino acid composition of meat protein shows that beef is an excellent source of all of the amino acids required by man. Repre- sentative data of four important amino acids are shown in Table 6 for beef round and several other foods of animal and plant origin (2, 5-7). Lysine, methionine, and tryptophan were selected for empha-

THE BEEF WE WANT sis since they tend to be most limiting in the human diet, while leucine appears to occur in liberal quantities in most food proteins. Proteins of foods of animal origin are quite uniform in amino acid composition, while the cereal and legume foods are limiting in lysine and/or methionine and tryptophan. It is important to point out that the data as expressed reflect the com- pleteness of each food protein source. The amount of each amino acid present in an average serving of each food can be calculated from these figures, the protein content, and the weight of the serving. TABLE 5 Protein and Calorie Values Cooked Lean Meat Cuts of Protein: Percent Calories Calorie Meat Cut Protein per 100 g. Ratio Beef Round 36.4 223 6.1 Beef Rib 28.6 169 5.9 Pork Ham 38.6 223 5.8 (uncured) Pork Chop 34.6 250 7.2 Lamb Leg 28.8 175 6.1 Lamb Chop 28.7 197 6.9 TABLE 6 Amino Acid Composition of Beef and Other Foods (Percent of Total Proteins) Methio- Trypto- Amino Acid Lysine nine phan Leucine Beef Round 9.2 2.5 1.2 7.9 Pork Loin 7.8 2.6 1.2 7.3 Lamb Leg 7.7 2.5 1.3 7.2 Milk 7.6 2.2 1.4 9.2 Eggs 7.8 2.7 1.5 9.2 Corn 2.3 2.1 0.6 10.2 Wheat 2.4 1.3 1.4 5.6 Soybeans 5.7 1.4 1.4 7.1 Other studies show that the amino acids in beef and other meats are not destroyed during cooking. Experiments have also been carried out in our laboratories to de- termine if the amino acids in meats sub- jected to varying heat treatments are utilized completely by the animal (that is, to determine the digestibility and the ability to support growth of the specific amino acid being studied). Results from a study recently completed are shown in Table 7. It is clear from these findings that the lysine from beef cooked in vari- ous ways is completely available for growth of the weanling rat. Only when extensive autoclaving for 16 hours was employed (a procedure far more severe than household or commercial practice) could a reduction in lysine availability be demonstrated. Thus, we may conclude that lysine is well utilized from cooked beef. On the basis of a recent review by Hertz (8) of the amino acid requirements of man, a 100 gram serving of cooked lean beef would provide considerably more lysine than the daily requirement for adult man. TABLE 7 Percentage of Lysine Available In Cooked Beef Round % Lysine Available Heat Treatment Raw 98 Rare, 200°F. 102 Well done, 200°F. 102 Rare, 300°F. 100 Well done, 300°F. 113 Rare, 400°F. 112 Well done, 400°F. 100 Rare, Electronic 106 Well done, Electronic 108 Autoclaved, 4 Hrs., 250°F. 118 Autodaved, 16 Hrs., 250°F. 71 While nutrition experiments are often carried out to evaluate single foods as sources of specific nutrients, the supple- mentary value of foods in a mixed diet is of greater importance in practical nutri- tion. In a recent study (9) the value of beef as compared with a cereal blend or casein (the principal protein of milk) in supplementing a bread diet was deter- mined with growing rats. As indicated in Table 8, cooked beef was superior to the other test materials in supplementing a bread diet. In this case, 30 per cent

BEEF FOR TOMORROW of the total protein present was provided by the beef. TABLE 8 Weight Gains of Rats Fed Various Protein Foods (All diets contain 10% Protein) Weight Gain in Diet 6 Weeks (g.) Bread Bread + Cereal Blend Bread + Beef Bread + Casein 19.8 36.7 159.8 96.7 These studies, therefore, extend our knowledge on the high protein quality of beef when determined by amino acid analysis, availability of amino acids, growth promoting value as a sole source of protein in the diet, or as a supplement to cereal products such as bread. The high esteem for beef as a food in the American diet is justified not only on the basis of taste and related organoleptic quality factors, but also in the significant contribution made to good nutrition. New knowledge on the nutritive value of meat will be of great assistance to the medical and dietetic professions in pro- viding information to utilize this food to an even greater extent in a variety of diets for patients of all ages. References 1. Leverton, R. M., and G. C. Odell. 1958. Okla- 6. homa State Univ. Misc. Pub. MP-49. 2. Schweigert, B. S., and B. Payne. 1956. Am. 7. Meat Inst. Foun. Bui. 30. 3. U.S.D.A. Handbook No. 8. 1950. 8. 4. NAS-NRC Pub. 589. 1958 rev. 5. Block, R. J., and D. Boiling. 1951. The amino 9. acid composition of proteins and foods. Charles C. Thomas, Springfield, 11i. Schweigert, B. S. J. Nut. 33:553; Poul. Sci. 27:233; J. Am. Dietet. Assn. 24:939. Lyman, C. M., K. A. Kuiken, and F. Hale. 1956. J. Agr. and Food Chem. 4:1008. Mertz, E. T. 1959. Proc. llth Res. Conf. Am. Meat Inst. Foun. Hartrnan, R. H., and E. E. Rice. 1959. J. Amer. Dietet. Assn. 35:34.

Changing Patterns in Beef Utilization and Distribution H. B. Arthur Swift and Company PEOPLE LIKE BEEF and it's good for them. Upon this simple statement, which re- quires almost no proof, is built a great industry. Marketing is one phase of this industry. By marketing is meant the commercial transactions between the livestock owner and his customer, his customer's customer, and so on down the line to the ultimate retailer and his sale to the consumer. These transactions are a part of the free market system we have long been familiar with. Entirely different kinds of knowl- edge might be needed if we operated un- der rationing or under a regimented sys- tem in which there was a single owner from the live animal to the ultimate con- sumer. It is the system of markets we have that has served tolerably well in integrating the beef industry over the years. It is through this system of markets, with all of the uncertainties, bargaining, and changes, that consumers have reached out to secure the kind of beef supply which in their opinion best meets their likes and their judgment of what is good for them. If this reaching out by consumers is to be effective, we have to develop not just a system of distributive channels through which the product can flow in an efficient way; we have to provide a system of com- munications which will be sensitive to the wants and preferences of the buyer. This system must enable us to identify the quality of the product which is going to produce the greatest satisfaction, not just at the retail counter, but all the way back to the live animal and even to the breeding-herd. We have to know how to recognize the steak you or I will prefer, even on the hoof. And if anybody knows how to supply our preference, even at a higher cost, we have a right to get what we want if we are willing to pay the required price. After we have identified the wants, and then provided a way of specifying the product that will meet those wants, in- cluding the live animal, our job is still far from complete. The marketing job in- volves finding the most efficient and con- venient means of providing the entire bridge from the farm to the kitchen. Not just for you and me as individuals, but for this integrated nationwide industry of ours as a whole. In order to do this, we must know how big the market is, what its geographical differences are, what the structure of channels of distribution should be, and whether we are finding the straightest line to market with the least waste motion and the fairest treat- ment for all the participants, consumers and producers alike. Consumer Demand and Preference Studies Marketing research in this area is try- ing to isolate and describe the attributes of beef about which consumers need to be informed, and to measure the relation- ship of those attributes to current govern- ment grade standards, or other means of identifying the quality attributes in the product. These researches should be useful (1)

BEEF FOR TOMORROW to the consumer, as a means of making known the kind of beef he wants, and (2) to the producer, as a guide to the type of product which is likely to bring him the greatest gross income. Whether or not net income will be maximized remains to be determined. Demand Education and Advertising Effectiveness Studies Research on the impact of advertising and promotion has been conducted in an exploratory way by the USDA specifically with respect to lamb (Sacramento and Cleveland studies). No such work has been done on beef. Such research would serve an extremely useful purpose if it could be developed beyond the explora- tory stage so that meaningful results emerged. Many producers as well as processors are spending good money for advertising. Measures of Consumer Market Dimensions The work of the Institute of Home Economics and the Agricultural Market- ing Service in 1955, which attempted to measure food consumption by items, regions, income levels, and by urbaniza- tion, typifies the research that has been conducted under this heading. Previous studies of the same type that are partially comparable were conducted earlier at the Bureau of Home Economics and the Bu- reau of Labor Statistics. Research of this type can be used to quantify in crude terms the geography of consumer demand, the impact of income distribution on demand, and the relation- ship of urbanization to demand. These data also carry some inference as to the price-quantity relationships between vari- ous retail cuts. Research of this type may conceivably give some guidance to pro- duction over long periods of time, but gives little guidance in the short run. Studies of Marketing Efficiencies, Margins, etc. For many years, the USDA has engaged in attempts to measure marketing margins for farm products, including beef. Occa- sionally effort has been made to break the marketing margins down into their com- ponent costs by function and by the type of resources employed. Such research, if accurately done, is revealing as to changes in the level of marketing expense. How- ever, it cannot by the very nature of the data make adequate allowance for proc- ess and service changes and for the im- pacts of volume variation. So far as we can judge, such data are descriptive but do little to explain the reasons for what is happening. Perhaps this vagueness is why politicians like them so much. Price Analysis and Forecasting; Factors Affecting Supply and Price Price analysis requires market informa- tion. We must not overlook the vast amount of market news, supply informa- tion, and other forms of market intelli- gence in our industry. I don't know that this information itself comes under the heading of research. Certainly it takes research to plan it and intelligently ap- praise its validity. Therefore, let us say that we have a large volume of market information which is widely used by commercial men as well as researchers and which serves well for many purposes. For some purposes, how- ever, there is much to be desired. Researchers use these data both for basic analyses and for a great deal of what has traditionally been called "outlook work." The basic studies are well repre- sented by Working's "Demand for Meat," and numerous other analyses of factors associated with supply or price. Pork has received more attention than beef in this respect. In fact, there was a period when we used to say that a graduate student in Agricultural Economics had to "cut his teeth" on a hog-corn analysis before he could qualify for his degree. However, there have always been numerous studies, generally using multiple correlation meth- ods, which attempt to measure the factors affecting prices of cattle and beef. The basic studies almost automatically lead to an effort to predict the future for

THE BEEF WE WANT supplies or prices. Such studies are obvi- ously of vital importance to the producer, although most of them leave much to be desired since they are likely to employ annual data and to relate to an average of all grades and classes of product. When findings are narrowed to specific areas, to pinpoint particular types of beef or cattle, or to sharpen the focus in respect to shorter time periods, the errors of the fore- cast multiply and the application of re- sults are likely to be more conjectural than scientific. Research on Transportation and Distribution Facilities, and Costs USDA has long had a division con- ducting research in these fields and much of this research has been productive, both in describing situations that have been highly efficient and in calling atten- tion to areas where performance could be vastly improved. The work has been indirectly of service to producers, and some studies have provided direct help to farmers in improving their shipping and marketing operations. Efficiency Studies Relating to Processing and Distribution This is an area in which a good deal of research is done on a private basis. Gen- erally it is unpublished except as trade journals pick up stories about new meth- ods, or as equipment suppliers undertake to demonstrate the contribution which their product can make to better or more efficient operations. Published research in this area is illustrated by the USDA study of the expense structure at the slaughtering level, specifically in Texas. Since our chief reliance for efficient processing and distribution rests in the competitive market system and the pur- suit of profits by meat packers, whole- salers, and the rest, this kind of research is useful to producers if it helps individual processors to do a better job thus enabling them to pay more for the producers' live- stock. Descriptive Studies of Channels of Flow Over the years, a number of descriptive studies have been made by Knute Bjorka and others measuring the channels of flow of livestock through various marketing institutions from farm to slaughter, and the channels of flow of meat from slaughterer to retailer. In the last two or three years the USDA has also published studies describing in great detail the channels of flow of beef at the wholesale level (Willard Williams' studies of the San Francisco and Los Angeles metropolitan areas). These are descriptive studies of practices currently prevailing in these markets and are edu- cational particularly from the point of view of national policy. They are also useful in guiding those who do economic analysis in the industry. They provide little direct guidance to producers. Explorations of New Methods and New Products One should not overlook substantial experiments and investigations of private firms, not reported as "research," but re- search nevertheless. This embraces a great deal of the marketing research conducted by private firms. Some of these studies include experiments and surveys relating to new products such as frozen consumer cuts, fabricated specialties such as pre- cooked items, new sausage products, canned foods, and the like. It also em- braces a great deal of research in product improvement. One of the great challenges in the beef industry is the matter of tenderization and this has received an enormous amount of attention. It is too early to draw final conclusions but great progress has been made in the area of beef tenderization. Some methods permit quick aging. Another area in which effort has been concentrated is in the enzyme tenderiza- tion field. One of the great challenges in the beef marketing area is the possibility of meat packer processing, packaging, and labeling

BEEF FOR TOMORROW that will assure the consumer of just the kind of fresh meat he wants. To the ex- tent that we can succeed in this area, the meat packer will be enabled to pay a better price to the producer who can turn out the raw materials he requires. Another field that has received a good deal of research is that of operating effi- ciencies or technology. Mechanized live- stock dressing has moved forward as vari- ious operations have been studied, and the power and skill of machines have re- placed human effort in various operations such as hide removal. Other kinds of private research include those in the general field of industrial economics where a great deal of work is done in market analysis and plant loca- tion, primarily seeking the "shortest road to market." There is a strong inclination to assume that research is limited to that which ap- pear in formal, technical reports. I sup- pose that farmers do more research (be- cause there are more of them) than any of the groups I have discussed. They are forever trying something new, comparing it with experience, and then moving on to the next step. This kind of research, which doesn't appear in print, is un- doubtedly the greatest factor in the changing patterns and channels in the processing and distribution of meat. Re- search doesn't have to be dignified by the name "research" in order to be highly effective and useful. Research done in many cases has been too static. It has consisted of compiling and analyzing past experience, using known factors. Some of these factors form patterns which are useful for the producer to know about and to take into account as he adjusts his production plans. On the other hand, most of the dynamic changes that occur are a product of re- search of a very informal sort, but research nevertheless. This research consists of trying something new and measuring it, as carefully as circumstances permit, against the things that will be displaced. This measurement is then tested in the crucible of consumer preferences. Price potentials are compared with expenses and the whole process leads us to adapt ourselves progressively to the fluid changes that occur around us. We have moved into an era of ex- tremely high labor costs, retailers absorb- ing wholesaling and many processing functions, super market merchandising, consumer preferences for convenience rather than personal service, and a gen- eral emphasis upon mass appeals ac- companied by standardized prepackaged, pretrimmed, and prepriced product. Wide-awake, flexible approaches are as necessary in research as in business de- cisions. The industry's job is to find a way to determine the qualities which consumers want, and to see that our products pro- vide those qualities in an identifiable way, so that the greatest possible satisfaction will be reached. We must provide effi- cient means of producing, incorporating, and channeling those qualities so that each of us knows his job and does it at least as effectively as those others who are competing with us. Against this background, the criteria that enter beef grades—whether they are represented by government, retailer, or packer brands—leave us with a number of questions not fully answered. 1. Are the grade criteria appropriate for establishing grades that parallel the degree of excellence in fulfilling wants? (Consider such things as fatness, wasti- ness, tenderness, tastiness. Do beef grades really parallel the consumers' scale of wants?) 2. How adequate are grades for speci- fying all the essential criteria in which consumers should be interested? There are questions here relating to freshness, selection, age of animal and age of the meat, cutting styles, nomenclature of cuts, etc. 3. How objective are grades? The ex- perience with grade discrepancies on re- grade tests leaves much to be desired. These remarks are not presented as argu-

THE BEEF WE WANT ments against grading. They do sug- gest two things to me. First, the state of the arts as revealed is immature and un- settled. Second, the effective operation of markets could well be impaired if such grading were compulsory, or if its limita- tions are not fully understood and recog- nized by all concerned. In this context, a great deal is left to be desired. We don't know with a high degree of accuracy how to fit our products to what the consumer will most desire because research shows that the consumer often doesn't know what he wants. We must try to relate this research—as one of the studies in Florida has undertaken to do—to the analysis of breeding and feed- ing practices in relation to consumer satis- factions. If I were to try to name the major areas where the questionmarks loom largest from a marketing viewpoint, I would cer- tainly include the following questions: 1. What are the attributes consumers really want in beef? 2. How can we identify these attributes and relate them to the cattle we produce so that everything we do from breeding forward contributes to the meeting of those wants? 3. How can we keep ourselves in the forefront in providing all the services involved on a basis of maximum effi- ciency? I am convinced that the person who can answer these three questions correctly, and carry out his answers, will be op- erating a highly profitable business whether he is on a ranch, in a packing plant, or in a retail store. References STUDIES IN THE FIELD OF CONSUMPTION 1. Rhodes, James V., and Elmer R. Kiehl, et al. Missouri Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. 580, 583, 612, 651, 652, 676, and 677. 2. Seltzer, R. E. October 1955. Consumer pref- erences for beef. Arizona Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. 267. 3. Food consumption of households in the U. S. December 1956. Household Food Consump- tion Survey 1955, ARS, AMS, USDA. Rept. 1. 4. Stevens, Ira M., F. O. Sargent, Emma J. Thies- sen, Carroll Schoonover, and Irene Payne. April 1956. Beef . . . consumer use and preferences. Wyoming Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. 340. 5. Branson, Robert E. April 1957. The con- sumer market for beef. Texas Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. 856. 6. Campbell, George W. December 1956. Con- sumer acceptance of beef. (A controlled retail store experiment). Arizona Agr. Exp. Sta. Rept. 145. 7. Gardner, Kelsey B., and Lawrence A. Adams. November 1926. Consumer habits and pref- erences in the purchase and consumption of meat. U.S.D.A. Bui. 1443. 8. Shaffer, James D. August 1958. Consumers do shop around for meat. Michigan Agr. Exp. Sta. 41 (1): 62-73. 9. Shaffer, James D. August 1958. Frequency of purchase of particular items of meat, poul- try, and fish. Consumer Panel 1956. Michi- gan Agr. Exp. Sta. Quart. Bui. 41 (1): 45-51. 10. Beik, Leland L. April 1959. Consumer de- mand for meat. Pennsylvania Agr. Exp. Sta. A. E. & R. S. 19. 11. Grubbs, V. Davis, W. E. Clement, and J. Scott Hunter. Results of a promotional campaign for lamb in Sacramento, Cali- fornia. U.S.D.A. Res. Rept. 200. 12. Hunter, J. Scott, W. E. Clement, and Nick Gavas. December 1958. Promotion of lamb —results of campaign in Cleveland, Ohio. U.S.D.A. Res. Rept. 292. IS. Cartwright, T. C. March 1958. Influence of sires on tenderness of beef. Proc. 10th Res. Con. Am. Meat Inst. Foun. 14. Alsmeyer, R. H., and A. Z. Palmer. March 1959. Relative significance of factors influ- encing and/or associated with beef tender- ness. Proc. llth Res. Con. Am. Meat Inst. Foun. STUDIES RELATING TO ECONOMIC AND COMMERCIAL DECISIONS 1. Working Elmer J. 1954. Demand for meat. Inst. of Meat Packing. 2. Hassler, James B. May 1957. Forecasting prices of slaughter cattle and hogs. Cali- fornia Agr. Exp. Sta. Mini. Rept. 195.

10 BEEF FOR TOMORROW 3. Franzmann, J. R., and L. E. Walters. July 1959. An experimental approach to the estimation of short-run price-consumption relationships for graded beef. Oklahoma Agr. Exp. Sta. Tech. Bui. T-77. 4. Williams, Willard F., E. K. Bowen, and F. C. Genovese. January 1959. Economic effects of U. S. grades for beef. U.S.D.A. Res. Rept. 298. 5. Breimeyer, Harold F. February 1959. Out- look for meat—poultry supplies. Statement to Management Clinic, Nat. Ass'n. of Food Chains, Chic., 11i. PHYSICAL FACILITIES AND CHANNELS OF PRODUCT FLOW 1. Bjorka, Knute. January 1947. Marketing margins and costs for livestock and meat. U.S.D.A. Tech. Bui. 932. 2. Abel, Harold et al. 1950. Shifts in the trade in western slaughter livestock. U.S.D.A. AIB 14. 3. DeGraff, Herrell. January 1959. Change in cattle and beef marketing. Address to the 62nd Annual Convention, Am. Nad. Cattle- men's Ass'n. 4. Dietrich, Raymond A., and W. F. Williams. July 1959. Meat distribution in the Los Angeles area. U.S.D.A. Res. Rept. 347. 5. Beef marketing margins and costs. February 1956. U.SJD.A. Misc. Pub. 710. 6. Williams, Willard F. April 1957. Wholesale meat distribution in the San Francisco Bay area. U.S.D.A. Res. Rept. 165. 7. Miller, Jarvis E., and D. R. Hammons. Sep- tember 1958. Independent meat packing plants in Texas. Texas Agr. Exp. Sta. MP- 306. INNOVATION STUDIES 1. Sloop, Frieda A., E. R. Kiehl, and D. E. Brady. November 1952. Preferences for self- service meat among household consumers in metropolitan St. Louis, Mo. U.S.D.A. Res. Bui. 512. 2. Riley, H. M., and R. C. Kramer. December 1955. What consumers are saying about prepackaged fresh and frozen meats. Michi- gan Agr. Exp. Sta. Spec. Bui. 406.

Evaluation of Consumer Acceptance Studies on Beef George F. Stewart and Emil M. Mrak University of California, Davis THERE HAS BEEN a tremendous upsurge of interest in consumer acceptance re- search in the past few years, and especially since World War II. A good deal of this, no doubt, was stimulated by the passage of the Research and Marketing Act in 1946. The basic stimulus, however, was probably the growing realization that consumers are coming to insist on pur- chasing what they want instead of what is offered them. A review of the literature on consumer acceptance research as well as direct ob- servations reveal some interesting facts about changing attitudes toward con- sumers. Before World War II there seemed to be little concern about these important people, especially in the food industry. Only a scattering of research reports concerning work done during this period are to be found, and seemingly these attracted little attention by those most concerned. It would appear that the "experts" were in the saddle. In the food industry these consisted largely of production, marketing, government, and university people. These experts estab- lished quality criteria, standards, and offi- cial grades for a variety of foods, including beef. It was assumed, but generally never substantiated, that these criteria, stand- ards, and grades were in line with con- sumer needs and desires. On the whole, things weren't too bad for the consumers, but certainly something less than perfec- tion was achieved in meeting their actual needs and wants. The present authors received their first shock about the "sad state of affairs" in the field of food acceptance early in World War II when we began to work with the food research and development group in the Quartermaster Corps. A tremendous effort was being made at that time to produce military rations which were highly nutritious, wholesome, com- pact, and stable. To the surprise of most of us, when they were served to our men, many had very poor acceptability. Some were thrown away and some were even used as dunnage! The situation became so bad that our fighting men at times went under-nourished in the midst of an abundance of food. The meat items, nor- mally the backbone of the American diet, did not escape criticism and canned meats to this day do not enjoy much repute, although a great deal of progress has since been made to improve consumer ac- ceptance. Gradually, we have learned a great deal about consumer acceptance, and now a majority of people engaged in food mar- keting realize that they cannot take it for granted. Further, most realize that no one of us can accurately speak for con- sumers without first finding out what he wants. Accordingly, we must contact the consumer and thus determine directly his needs, desires, taboos, habits, etc. Only in this way can we safely predict what type and quality foods he will buy and what will regularly satisfy his needs and desires. Consumer Acceptance Testing There do not appear to be any uni- versally accepted methods for evaluating consumer acceptance. Many different ap- 11

12 BEEF FOR TOMORROW preaches have been tried, some obviously very imperfect. Except when gross differ- ences in quality are under study, workers generally agree that the test situation should be as normal and natural as pos- sible. Furthermore, the economic fac- tors involved in normal decision-making should be brought into play, if at all possible. Thus, consumer reactions to the appearance factors in beef can best be evaluated in a meat counter or kitchen situation, or at least in an environment simulating one of these locations. Ad- mittedly, such test conditions are difficult and costly to arrange. On the other hand, if this is the only way valid information can be obtained, we will have to accept the difficulties involved. Perhaps short- cut, cheaper methods can be found. How- ever, before accepting such methods, we should be sure they have been validated. Some valuable information on con- sumer likes and dislikes can be obtained by less rigorous methods of testing. For example, reactions to gross differences in quality attributes may be obtained by ap- pearance and eating quality tests carried out in stores and fairs, during conducted tours, educational meetings, etc. Such tests can be quite helpful in establishing the lower limits of acceptability, serious quality defects, and others. Quality Attributes of Beef Before going to the consumer to deter- mine his reactions to food items, one should have a reasonably good under- standing of the quality characteristics of the product most likely to influence his decision to buy and use them. In the case of beef, it seems to us that the following quality attributes are important: 1. Appearance factors (raw meat) a. Color, amount, and distribution of fat b. Color of lean c. Amount of bone d. Shape and contour of cut 2. Palatability factors (cooked meat) a. Aroma and flavor b. Tenderness c. Juiciness 3. Convenience 4. Wholesomeness 5. Nutritive value The first three of these attributes are probably the only ones of which con- sumers are aware to the point of expecting to exercise some preference. The first two are of prime importance, although con- venience is of growing importance as homemakers strive for most freedom from the drudgery of housekeeping. Objective means for measuring impor- tant quality attributes are essential if a precise evaluation of consumer reaction to them is to be obtained. Of the appear- ance factors, color is perhaps the only attribute that is difficult to measure ac- curately. Even here, the availability of special instruments to measure tri-stimu- lus values greatly reduces the problem. All of the palatability factors are difficult to measure accurately, although the shear force measurement of tenderness is reason- ably satisfactory when carefully carried out. Properly conducted sensory tests are the only valid methods available for meas- uring juiciness, odor, and flavor. Present Status of Consumer Tests on Beef Having reviewed the need for consumer acceptance tests as well as the methodology involved, let us take a look at the present status of such tests for fresh beef. A num- ber of publications have appeared in re- cent years and apparently more are on the way. In studying the available litera- ture, one is impressed by the fact that most workers have attempted merely to correlate U.S. grades of beef with con- sumer reactions. To us, this reflects a serious lack of appreciation of the basic problems involved in determining the im- portant factors controlling consumer ac- ceptance of beef of different characteris- tics. Even with the short-comings of these tests, there appears to be evidence that consumers object to an excessive amount of fat. On the other hand, it would ap- pear that they prefer the eating quality

THE BEEF WE WANT 13 of such beef over that with less fat. This is a contradiction which, if really true, will have to be corrected by an educa- tional program with consumers. It also appears clear that there is a serious, ad- verse reaction to toughness in beef. Because of the nature of the tests, we are not sure of the degree of consumer re- actions to beef quality since, in practically all of the surveys made, the results are confounded due to the fact that two or more variables were generally in opera- tion during the tests. Perhaps a word of explanation about this problem is in order. Differences in acceptance between carcasses of different grades may not only be due to amount and distributions of fat or color of lean, etc., but also may be re- lated to other quality attributes controlled by breed, strain or cross, age at slaughter, hormone treatment, aging treatment, nu- trition, disease, and history. In order to sort out these effects, the meat used for consumer acceptance tests should be from animals which are fully comparable, ex- cept for the attribute under study. Thus, if we are interested in the relative ac- ceptance of "tender" vs. "tough" beef, the cuts under test should be from animals uniform in all respects except those caus- ing major differences in tenderness (e.g., age at slaughter or aging conditions after slaughter). Another deficiency noted among the consumer studies conducted so far on beef Is the frequent use of paired comparisons. It has been the experience of many in the field of consumer acceptance that the re- sults from such tests are very difficult to interpret. While consumers undoubtedly will express a preference between two such samples, this is not a normal situation, and the results obtained do not accurately express the relative acceptability of the two samples under study. It is generally agreed, therefore, that it is better to judge acceptance by presenting test subjects with one sample at a time. Hedonic values of relative like and dislike attained in this way seem fairly accurately to re- flect differences in acceptability. Still another deficiency noted in the consumer acceptance studies carried on thus far is a lack of data on which to analy/e variability, especially that due to chance. The use of replicate, coded samples permit accurate calculation of the repeatability of acceptance results. A minimum of duplicate samples for each variable is of course essential for esti- mating such errors. Another poor practice in the conduct of consumer tests is in the use of photo- graphs rather than actual cuts of beef. There is serious doubt whether acceptance results so obtained are valid. Then too, researchers frequently try to establish overall acceptance by using visual tests only. As already indicated, while many consumers object to the amount of fat cover in choice beef, they actually prefer its eating quality. Needed Research We believe that there are a number of additional consumer acceptance studies on beef that should be undertaken. The following would seem to be especially worthwhile: 1. Establish acceptability of various cuts of beef from carcasses of different levels of finish (in the absence of differences in other quality attributes). a. As an appearance factor b. In relation to eating quality 2. Establish acceptability of various levels of tenderness (in the absence of differ- ences in other quality attributes). a. As affected by genetic factors b. As affected by age at slaughter c. As affected by aging time after slaughter d. As affected by the cut of beef used e. As affected by position of sample within the cut 3. Establish acceptability of color of lean variations (in absence of differences in other quality attributes). a. As influenced by age at slaughter b. As influenced by post slaughter treat- ment

14 BEEF FOR TOMORROW In addition, much more needs to be dividuals, by test areas, etc. Also, a done on methodology. Particular atten- greater attempt should be made to intro- tion needs to be devoted to improving duce the economic factor into the test the reproducibility of results by test in- situation. References 1. Seltzer, R. E. 1955. Consumer preferences for 4. Losely, F. G., E. R. Kiehl, and D. E. Brady. beef. Arizona Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. 267. 1955. Consumer preference for beef in rela- 2. Rhodes, V. J., E. R. Kiehl, D. E. Brady, and tion to finish. Missouri Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. H. D. Neumann. 1958. Predicting consumer 580. acceptance of beef loin steaks. Missouri Agr. 5. Williams, W. F. 1959. Economic effects of Exp. Sta. Res. Bui. 651. U. S. grades for beef. A.M.S.-U.S.DA. Res. 3. Rhodes, F. J., E. R. Kiehl, N. B. Wilson, D. Rept. 298. E. Brady, and E. B. Birmingham. 1956. Con- 6. Brady, D. E. 1957. Results of consumer pref- sumer preferences for beef. Missouri Agr. erence studies. J. Am. Sci. 16:233. Exp. Sta. Res. Bui. 612.

Beef for Family Use Hazel K. Stiebeling United States Department of Agriculture THE COUNTRY OVER, families buy more beef than any other kind of meat. Only in the South—if findings of the U. S. Department of Agriculture survey of household food consumption made in the spring of 1955 (73) still apply—does beef take second place. Pork outranks beef in quantity consumed in this area. Of all the meat used by families at home, 41 per cent was beef, according to this survey. Of the beef, 31 per cent was reported as steak, 28 per cent as roasts, and 30 per cent as ground meat. Stewing, dried, and canned beef made up the re- maining 11 per cent. In addition, the survey families consumed some beef in products not identified by specific kind of meat. About 12 per cent of the total meat was reported as luncheon meats of various kinds—a broad group that in- cludes frankfurters, Vienna sausage, bologna, canned luncheon meats, and other products likely to contain a mixture of meats. Another 3 per cent consisted of variety meats, such as liver, heart, and tongue. City and farm families, the survey showed, eat about the same amount of meat per person in all regions except the South, where city families eat more meat than those on farms. City families buy almost all of the meat they use. Farmers, on the other hand, produce about half of the meat for their tables. In 1955 they reported having pro- duced about 60 per cent of their beef during the previous year. Availability of freezer facilities has contributed to a marked shift from pork to beef in farm production of meat for home use. Satis- factory home storage for beef had pre- viously been lacking, whereas storage of pork has long been possible through curing. As a share of all meat eaten on farms, beef increased from 30 to 42 per cent between 1942 and 1955. In 1955, beef, veal, pork, and lamb to- gether claimed an average of 25 cents of each food dollar of the survey families. The proportion was a little larger in cities than on farms, and in the North and West than in the South. Differences in the place of meat in the food budget are largely explained by differences in in- come. Because of lower average incomes, the South as a region used less meat than other regions, but at comparable income levels, families there ate as much or more meat than did families in the North and West. The larger the income of a family, the more money it spent for meat. The quantity eaten per person by high income groups was not as much greater than others as might have been expected. In- stead of buying a great deal more meat the higher income groups used their larger buying power for more expensive kinds and cuts of meat. For example, they bought less pork and more beef, which is generally a little more expensive than pork. They bought more steaks and roasts, about the same amount of ground beef, and less of the cheaper stewing and boiling beef. Thus the expenditures for meats by the higher income groups are higher, both total and per person, due in large part to the higher priced products they buy. 15

16 BEEF FOR TOMORROW On the average, for each 10 per cent in- crease in income, city families included in the 1955 survey tended to spend about 2.8 per cent more for beef (10). This income-expenditure ratio for beef was especially high in the South and West, and lowest in the North Central region. The 1955 figures reflect consumer be- havior in a year when meat was abundant and low in price in relation to high em- ployment and rising incomes. The effect of income on consumption of meat by city families as shown by the 1955 study has been compared (10) with that found in two similar surveys—one made in 1948, and one in 1942. The years themselves are not entirely comparable. The greatest difference was the big in- crease in the general price level and in consumer incomes—first from 1942 to 1948, and then further by 1955. While it is possible partially to correct for the income-price difference by converting all income and expenditure data into con- stant dollars, other differences are not so easily resolved. 1942 was a war year. In 1948 meat prices were relatively high and meat supplies, especially of beef, small. In 1955 beef supplies were much larger and meat prices lower than in 1948. The rate of change in amounts pur- chased from one income class to another was found to be slightly less in 1955 than in 1942 or 1948. The chief difference be- tween 1955 and the earlier periods was the higher level of meat consumption at all income levels in 1955. What Do Consumers Want in Beef Most people who buy beef are in- terested both in a palatable and in an economical product. They want flavor- ful, tender, juicy meat on the table. They want a high yield of edible meat for their money, with a large proportion of lean in relation to fat. When they want fat they can buy it more cheaply in other forms. The guide to quality most widely used by consumers seems to be its general ap- pearance, including the amount of fat- both the separable fat and that seen in the marbled lean. A number of studies have been reported since 1952 on con- sumer buying practices, preferences, or ac- ceptances that were made in several Cen- tral and Western States. Some of these studies show that many consumers want beef that is lean with little or no marbling (9, 11, 45, 54, 66). Others want a fatter meat because they associate fatness with juiciness, flavor, and tenderness (16, 46, 64, 75). They recognize, however, that large amounts of separable fat may mean considerable household waste (75). Consumer choice of meat appears to be influenced by what people are accustomed to buying. In a market test in one city (75) three qualities of beef were sold at the same price but without grade identi- fication. The lowest quality in the test cuts offered was bought most frequently in those stores where the customary prac- tice was to handle beef of low market grade. In general, buyers were satisfied with the cuts they bought and gave as reasons for satisfaction, tenderness and flavor; for dissatisfaction, toughness. How dependable are judgments of con- sumers in selecting meat of high cooking and table quality when these judgments are based chiefly on the amount of char- acter of the fat seen on the meat? Research reports on the influence of fat on palatability of beef cuts are con- flicting. Increased juiciness with increased fatness has been reported by many work- ers (3, 8, 21, 30, 33, 43, 76). Dawson and her co-workers have summarized the ex- tensive research sponsored by the U. S. Department of Agriculture on the effect of method of cooking beef or different market grades and produced under differ- ent conditions (29), and results indicate that cooking methods that minimize cook- ing losses may contribute more to juiciness than fatness per se. More pronounced and more desirable flavor of the lean meat with progressive fattening has been reported by several investigators (3, 38, 39, 43, 76). But others point out that the character of the fat from different animals varies to such

THE BEEF WE WANT 17 a degree that the flavor of meat may be affected more by the quality rather than by the quantity of fat (29). Little or no relationship between fat- ness and tenderness of cooked beef has been reported by some investigators (24, 32, 35, 62, 76) but others have found that with increased fat content, meat tends to be more tender (6, 29, 30, 38, 42, 48, 50, 58). Palatability scores seem to be more closely related to intramuscular fat than to separable fat (21, 24, 67). The seemingly contradictory results of these investigations reflect the fact that the physical and chemical structure of the product we call beef is very heterogenous. This heterogeneity may be found within the same cut and certainly in different cuts from the same carcass as well as in the same cut from different animals within a grade classification. Palatability is influenced by many interrelated fac- tors. These include the breed, feeding management, and age of animal; the period and conditions of aging of raw meat (ripening); the amount and nature of connective tissue, both collagen and elastin; the size of muscle fibers; the fat- ness, including finish and intramuscular fat; and the method of cooking. The comparative influence on palatability of these many factors, alone and in combina- tion, are not well understood. Food store operators try to have the trim of cuts, quality, and variety of beef that attract and hold customers. A survey of 82 member companies of the National Association of Food Chains, operating over 9,000 stores located in nearly every part of the country, showed that 80 per cent of these companies use USDA grades to advertise and sell beef. The remaining 20 per cent use their own brands, packer brands, or a combination of these methods for selling beef. About half of those using USDA grades handle more than one grade as a usual practice in their mer- chandising, and all grades of beef pro- duced find markets in some section of the country. (John A. Logan, February 5, 1959, "A Frank Look at Tomorrow's Beef Business.") Studies made in a number of locations as to consumer preference for the different grades of beef that appear in present markets show that a substantial percent- age of persons will state a preference for steaks graded Commercial to those graded Good, Choice, or Prime, when they judge quality from color photographs or from the appearance of the raw cuts of meat (9, 16, 17, 45, 46, 54, 66, 69). These choices probably are highly influenced by leanness and the relatively low amounts of fat. In consumer tests involving cook- ing and eating paired graded steaks, on the other hand, higher grades are pre- ferred as a rule over the lower (31, 44, 63, 65). Some consumers state a prefer- ence for low amounts of external fat such as often characterizes the Commercial grade of beef but want the degree of marbling associated with Prime grade (79). Interest of consumers in the fatness or leanness of meat is probably of complex origin. Experience holds that some de- gree of marbling is essential to tender- ness, juiciness, and flavor. But as men- tioned earlier, homemakers are concerned about the reduced amount of lean that comes from each pound of meat as amounts of separable fat and marbling increase, and about the high per-pound cost of fat when it is bought as part of beef. In addition, health reasons are given by some for their current interest in diets higher in protein and lower in fat that once were acceptable. Some Recent Research on Methods of Cooking Beef Regardless of the market grade or the degree of fatness of meat, the method of cooking greatly affects the acceptability of the product that comes to the table. In recent years several state agricultural experiment stations and universities un- dertook an exploratory series of meat in- vestigations sponsored by the U. S. De- partment of Agriculture, which were designed to broaden our base of knowl-

18 BEEF FOR TOMORROW edge about household preparation meth- ods for some of the lower market grades of beef. Paired cuts of beef from car- casses of different market grades were cooked both by commonly used dry meth- ods—roasting and boiling—and by moist methods—stewing or braising on top of the range, in an oven, and in the pressure cooker. The cuts were from steers and cows of various ages, some grass-fed and some finished with dry-lot feeding. The raw meat differed in fat content and other components that generally are considered to affect the palatability and nutritive value of cooked meat. While the cuts chiefly represented carcasses corresponding to Good, Standard, or Commercial market grades, some meat of Prime or Choice grades was also included. Results ob- tained at the various locations have been or are being published by the respective investigators or institutions—Cover of the Texas Agricultural Experiment Station (26, 27), Fenton of Cornell University (32), Griswold of the University of Chi- cago (34), Harrison of Kansas State Col- lege (36), Hood of the University of Georgia (41), Lowe of Iowa State Uni- versity (48), and Paul of Michigan State University (59). The results have been collated by Dawson and co-workers in a U. S. Department of Agriculture publi- cation now in press (29). Unquestionably, method of cooking can contribute a great deal to the eating quality of beef. We know that cooking develops flavor, especially when the meat is browned in the fry-pan, in the oven, or under the broiler. The flavors developed by the conventional dry cooking methods of broiling or roasting have come to be highly prized. These flavors have become associated with steaks and roasts of rib and loin cuts—cuts that comprise only a small proportion of the beef from each carcass. Other cuts have usually been considered not tender enough to give ac- ceptable products when subjected to dry cooking methods. Cuts from the shoulder or round, for example, have ordinarily been prepared by moist cooking methods. The use of moist cooking methods to tenderize beef, especially cuts from car- casses of low market grade, has been recommended on the premise that these cuts contain large percentages of con- nective tissue (40, 50, 56, 57), and that by converting the collagen to gelatin by the application of heat in the presence of water, a tender product will result (47). The rate of conversion of collagen to gela- tin is believed to be influenced by tem- perature and time of cooking, size of pieces of meat, acidity of the cooking solution, and denseness or kind of col- lagen. The relationships between collagen content and tenderness differ with the muscle (20, 28), and it has been pointed out that the nature of the connective tis- sue (the proportions of collagen and elastin) rather than its quantity may be the determining factor of tenderness (55). Tenderness in beef may not increase consistently with increased cooking time (29). In cuts cooked to the rare stage, the connective tissue is altered only slightly or not at all, and the muscle fiber proteins may be only slightly coagulated. In cuts cooked to a more well done stage, the effect of cooking on tenderizing beef depends on a balance between the soften- ing of connective tissues and the firming of muscle proteins (48). End-point temperatures The end-point temperature to which meat is cooked is an important considera- tion in achieving palatability. Generally, meats cooked to relatively low internal temperatures are more tender, juicy, and flavorful than those cooked to high in- ternal temperatures. The USDA-spon- sored research has shown that broiled or roasted cuts of loin, rib, and round were generally more tender, juicy, and flavor- ful when cooked to an end-point tempera- ture of 160° F. (medium) rather than to 176° F. or 194° F. (well done). It also has shown that braised meat cooked to the lower end-point temperature is preferable. In paired cuts of round from steer beef, the meat cooked to the lower internal

THE BEEF WE WANT 19 temperature tended to be the juicier, and about equally tender and flavorful (20, 29, 48). Increasing the internal tempera- ture to which a roast or steak is cooked (well done vs. rare) tends to decrease the yield because of shrinkage, especially that due to losses through evaporation (47, 51, 60). Oven temperatures of 300° to 325° F. usually are recommended for dry cooking of beef, but still lower temperatures, e.g., 250° F., have been suggested (1, 18, 68). Griswold (34) reported that round of beef roasted at 250° F. scored high in flavor and was more tender but less juicy than that roasted at 300° F. Roasting beef at an oven temperature of 300° F. to 350° F. results in less weight loss than roasting either at a high temperature (47) or at a temperature so low that the cook- ing time is greatly prolonged (49). Dry versus moist cooking methods Paired cuts of round of beef, cooked to the same end-point temperature, generally scored higher in tenderness, juiciness, and flavor when prepared by dry than by moist methods (15, 19, 29, 41, 59). And when lower end-point temperatures were used for oven roasts than for braised cuts, palatability generally was better for those cuts cooked by dry than by moist methods (14, 26, 29, 59). The method used for braising seems to have less influence on palatability of beef than the internal temperature to which the meat is cooked (13). No differences in palatability scores were noted in braised beef round (semitendinosus muscle) whether cooked in the oven or on the range, even though the latter required a longer time to reach the internal tempera- ture of 176° F. (41). However, pressure- braised beef cooked to the internal tem- perature of 176° F. was less juicy and flavorful than oven-braised beef but more tender (29). Pressure braising beef to an internal temperature of 216° F. re- sulted in a more palatable product but greater weight losses than oven braising to 209° F. (29, 32, 34). Yield of meat cooked by roasting or braising varies with the thickness of the cut and conditions of cooking time and temperature. Roasting at 300° F. gave a little higher yield, 3 percentage points, than braising at 300° F., with either H/fc- inch or 3-inch thick cuts. Thin cuts of beef cooked at higher temperatures for a short time give better yield; the thinner the cut the higher should be the tempera- ture and the faster the cooking (59). Un- der other cooking conditions slightly higher yields were obtained with braised than with roasted cuts (29), probably be- cause of higher moisture content. Nutritive value also must be considered in evaluating cooking procedures. Beef makes its special contributions to nutri- tion chiefly through the high-quality pro- tein, iron, and B-vitamins it provides. To whatever extent these nutrients are water soluble or affected by heat, the factors that affect nutritive value are cooking time and temperature, size and shape of cuts, and amount of water used in cook- ing. In the USDA-sponsored studies (29), retention of the B-vitamins in the lean meat was found to be higher when dry methods rather than moist methods were used (27, 41), but a considerable propor- tion of thiamine, riboflavin, niacin, and pantothenic acid occurred in the drip- pings (2, 22, 23, 53). The difference due to method of cooking would be small if all of the drippings were utilized. Thick cuts generally retained slightly more of the B-vitamins studied than did the thin cuts (27, 29). Thiamine was more affected by both braising and roasting than were the other nutrients (27, 39). It has been suggested that a short cook- ing time even at a high temperature fa- vors thiamine retention in beef. Higher thiamine retentions have been reported in fried steaks than in broiled or braised steaks (72), in rare than in well done roasts (25), and in broiled steaks than in oven roasts (27). However, in roasts, thiamine retention has been reported to be higher when the meat was cooked a longer time in a 300° F. oven than when

20 BEEF FOR TOMORROW cooked a shorter time in a 450° F. oven (22, 52). This result was found also for retention of pantothenic acid, niacin, and riboflavin (22). Since much beef is purchased by market grade, I shall mention some results of the USDA-sponsored studies that relate to grade. When braised, cuts of beef of Good and Commercial grades were almost as satisfactory in eating quality as those from carcasses of Prime or Choice grade. When roasted, beef graded Good and Commercial generally scored lower in tenderness than that of Prime or Choice grade, but the scores received by the meat of lower grades indicated very acceptable products—average or above in flavor, juici- ness, and tenderness. Thus meat of very satisfactory eating quality can be obtained from animals less well-fattened than those achieving the Prime grade (29, 34, 48). In general, yields of the cooked edible portion from beef cuts of Prime and Choice grades were higher than from lower grades of beef (29, 32, 34, 48). Yield could not be consistently associated with fat content, however, (29) because of wide variations in the amount and the location of fat found within each grade classification. Economy in use of meat Since a large share of the family's food money goes for meat, many homemakers must stress choosing wisely and shopping carefully as well as cooking properly. They often compare relative economy on the basis of the cost of a serving of lean meat, inasmuch as meats as purchased generally include parts that cannot be eaten, such as bones and gristle, and in- clude more or less fat, part of which may be discarded in the kitchen or at the table. A given serving of lean of beef from chuck roast provides about the same amounts of nutrients, for instance, and is likely to be quite a bit less expensive than that from a rib roast. But inexpensive cuts may be no bargain if they contain such large amounts of bone, fat, and gristle that there is relatively little lean meat present. Homemakers often take advantage of different techniques for tenderizing meat in efforts to use the lower priced and so- called less tender cuts of meat. Mechani- cal techniques include grinding, cubing, slicing, and pounding to break up the muscle and connective tissue. Grinding is the most widely used. Other proce- dures vary in effectiveness. For instance, Griswold (34) found that pounding in- creased tenderness of beef, but scoring did not. Household use of commercial enzyme- containing preparations for softening con- nective tissue and muscle protein has be- come popular. The satisfaction from the use of a tenderizer depends greatly on the concentration used, the uniformity with which it is distributed throughout the muscle, and on the temperature of the meat (37, 47, 58, 70, 77). While the ap- plication of enzymes can increase the tenderness of meat, it can have a deleteri- ous effect on juiciness and flavor unless it is well controlled (29, 58). The preoccupation of today's busy homemakers in saving time as well as money has accented interest in cuts of meat that are ready for cooking without much preparation and cuts that can be cooked quickly. Thin tender cuts, ground meat, and frozen precooked products have become increasingly popular. Research has given some information about factors that affect the eating quality of the frozen precooked meat products and the prob- lems encountered in producing high quality items. Roast beef, Swiss steak, hamburger, and meat loaf have been the main beef items featured in precooked "television" dinners (71, 74). The most successful frozen cooked meat dishes are those prepared with a sauce or gravy which gives the meat considerable protec- tion from oxidation and moisture loss dur- ing frozen storage. Other cooked meats —roasts, loaves, patties, broiled steaks- have been frozen with only moderate suc- cess. One unsolved problem is how to avoid the "warmed over" flavor of pre- cooked meat, particularly of roasts and

THE BEEF WE WANT 21 steaks. Another need is for better home methods of reheating meat. Some hos- pitals find the use of the electronic oven advantageous for reheating foods (4, 78). The time required for cooking meat is considerably less when the electronic oven rather than conventional methods is used, but the shrinkage in meat is much greater (5, 7, 12, 61), and the cooked meat is less juicy (7). Unless the meat is pre-browned by other means, the flavor is less well-developed. When roasts are cooked to the rare stage by microwaves, distinct areas of well done, medium, and rare appear from outside to inside (5, 7). Some Concluding Remarks Beef is a very popular meat with Ameri- can families. If relatively inexpensive and of good table quality, more would probably be eaten, especially by families in low-income brackets. The kind of beef that tomorrow's fami- lies will prefer would seem to be a lean product that will be tender, flavorful, and juicy whether cooked by dry or by moist methods. Perhaps more of the beef now on the market can be cooked by dry methods than the public commonly realizes. Falling into this category is much of the beef marketed at relatively young age and with less finish than the Prime grade calls for—perhaps even less finish than is represented by the Choice grade. The beef of tomorrow that will come from animals produced under conditions that might result in tough products if handled by usual methods should be spe- cially tenderized under controlled com- mercial conditions so that it can readily be made into juicy, tender, flavorful products when it reaches the Nation's kitchens. It is unlikely that visual inspection by the household buyer can ever be as good a guide to potential table quality as the judgment of the meat expert. He can be knowledgeable both about the appearance of high-quality beef and about the effect of different treatments to which beef may be subjected during production, proc- essing, and in channels of distribution. The beef of tomorrow should be fully labelled as to probable tenderness and to suitability for different cooking methods. Information on age of animal and other facts that may prove to be significant for cooking and eating quality of meat might be indicated. Research has given us much informa- tion to help the homemaker use fresh and frozen raw meats in ways that make for palatable, nutritious, economical prod- ucts. But much of the research has been with experimental beef animals of known history and often on only one muscle, cut as the rib or loin. Results so obtained may not always be applicable to all of the many different qualities of beef found on the market, nor to the many cuts or forms in which the meat from any carcass may appear. Many problems relating to the home preparation of frozen prepared meat-con- taining products remain to be solved— how best to reheat them and conditions under which meat cooked to rare, me- dium, or well done stages can be frozen and reheated. There also are problems in planning nutritionally balanced meals using the highly processed and ready-to-use foods now available. And before newer pres- ervation techniques such as dehydrofreez- ing, dehydrocanning, or treating with antibiotics or irradiation come into wide use, the influence of these treatments on the palatability and nutritive value of beef should be thoroughly investigated. The more services that are added to food while in market channels, and the more processing to which foods are sub- jected between the site of production and the site of consumption, the greater are both the opportunities and the responsi- bilities of industry for maintaining or improving the qualities of concern to con- sumers. This applies also to the produc- tion of the "Beef for Tomorrow."

22 BEEF FOR TOMORROW References 1. Alexander, L. M., and N. G. Clark. 1939. Shrinkage and cooking time of rib roasts of beef of different grades as influenced by style of cutting and method of roasting. U.SDA. Bui. 676, 36 pp. 2. Andros, M. Effect of cooking on meat. 1949. British J. Nutr. Proc. 3 (4) :396-403. 3. Barbella, N. G., B. Tannor, and T. G. John- son. 1939. Relationships of flavor and juiciness of beef to fatness and other fac- tors. Proc. of Am. Soc. of Animal Prod. 32:320-325. 4. Bechtel, J. 1959. Electronic oven speeds serv- ice of tasty hospital food. J. Am. Diet. Assoc. 35 (3): 257-258. 5. Berger, L. R. 1958. An experiment in the electronic cookery of meat. Food News and Views Bui. 147:3, 5. 6. Black, W. H., K. F. Warner, and C. V. Wil- son. 1931. Beef production and quality as affected by grade of steer and feeding grain supplement on grass. U.S.D.A. Tech. Bui. 217:1-44. 7. Bollman, M. C., S. Brenner, L. E. Gordon, and M. E. Lambert, 1948. Application of electronic cooking to large-scale feeding. J. Am. Diet. Assoc. 24:1041-1048. 8. Branaman, G. A., O. G. Hankins, and L. M. Alexander. 1936. The relation of degree of finish in cattle to production and meat factors. Proc. of Am. Soc. of Animal Prod. 29:295-300. 9. Branson, R. E. 1957. Consumer market for beef. Texas Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. 856. 10. Breimeyer, H. F., and Kause, C. A. 1958. Consumption patterns for meat as reported in the 1955 household food consumption survey. U.S.D.A. AMS 249, 37 pp. illus. 11. Campbell, G. W. 1956. Consumer acceptance of beef. Arizona Agr. Exp. Sta. Rep. 145. 12. Causey, K., M. E. Hausrath, P. E. Ramstad, and F. Fenton. 1950. Effect of thawing and cooking methods on palatability and nu- tritive value of frozen ground meat. II. Beef. Food Research 15 (3) :249-255. 13. Clark, H. E., M. C. Wilmeth, D. L. Harrison, and G. E. Vail. 1955. The effect of braising and pressure saucepan cookery on the cook- ing losses, palatability, and nutritive value of the proteins of round steaks. Food Re- search 20(1) :35-41. 14. Clark, R. K., and F. O. Van Duyne. 1949. Cooking losses, tenderness, palatability and thiamine and riboflavin content of beef as affected by roasting, pressure saucepan cook- ing, and broiling. Food Research 14:221- 230. 15. Cline, J. A., E. A. Trowbridge, M. T. Foster, and H. E. Fry. 1930. How certain methods of cooking affect the quality and palata- bility of beef. Missouri Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. 293. 16. Clow, B. 1958. Meet your meats. Montana Agr. Sta. Bui. 541. 17. Coles, J. V. 1956. Household buyers choose beef. Calif. Agr. 10(5):3, 10. 18. Cover, S. 1936. A new subjective method of testing tenderness in meat—the paired- eating method. Food Research 1:287-295. 19. Cover, S. 1941. Comparative cooking time and tenderness of meat cooked in water and in an oven of the same temperature. J. Home Econ. 33(8):596. 20. Cover, S., J. A. Bannister, and E. Kehlenbrink. 1957. Effect of four conditions of cooking on the eating quality of two cuts of beef. Food Research 22 (6):635-647. 21. Cover, S., O. D. Butler, and T. C. Cartwright. 1956. The relationship of fatness in year- ling steers to juiciness and tenderness of broiled and braised steaks. J. An. Sci. 15: 464-472. 22. Cover, S., E. M. Dilsaver, R. M. Hays, and W. H. Smith. 1949. Retention of B-vita- mins after large scale cooking of meat. II. Roasting by two methods. J. Am. Diet. Assoc. 25:949-951. 23. Cover, S., E. M. Dilsaver, and R. M. Hays. 1947. Retention of the B-vitamins in beef and lamb after stewing. J. Am. Diet. Assoc. 23:501. 24. Cover, S., G. T. King, and O. D. Butler. 1958. Effect of carcass grades and fatness on ten- derness of meat from steers of known his- tory. Texas Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. 889. 25. Cover, S., B. A. McLaren, and P. B. Pearson. 1944. Retention of the B-vitamins in rare and well-done beef. J. Nutr. 27:363-375. 26. Cover, S., and M. C. Shrode. 1955. The effect of moist and dry heat cooking on palata- blity scores and shear force values of beef from animals of different levels of fleshing. J. Home Econ. 47:681-685. 27. Cover, S., and W. H. Smith, Jr. 1956. Effect of moist and dry-heat cooking on vitamin retention in meat from beef animals of different levels of fleshing. Food Research 21 (2) :209-216. 28. Cover, S., and W. H. Smith, Jr. 1956. The effect of two methods of cooking on palata- bility scores, shear force values and collagen content of two cuts of beef. Food Research 21(3):312-321. 29. Dawson, E. H., G. S. Linton, A. M. Harkin, and C. Miller. 1959. Factors influencing the palatability, vitamin content and yield of cooked beef. V.SDA. Home Econ. Res. Rep. (In Press) . 30. Doty, D. M. Laboratory characteristics of graded beef carcasses. 1956. Proc. Recipro- cal Meat Conf. 9:10-18.

THE BEEF WE WANT 23 31. Dunsing, M. 1959. l'i.\unl and eating prefer- ences of consumer household panel for beef of different grades. Food Research 24 (4) : 434-444. 32. Fenton, F., et al. 1956. Study of 3 cuts of lower and higher grade beef, unfrozen and frozen, using two methods of thawing and two methods of braising. New York Agr. Exp. Sta. Memoir 341. 33. Gaddis, A. M., O. G. Hankins, and R. L. Hiner. 1950. Relationships between the amount and composition of press fluid, palatability and other factors of meat. Food Technol. 4:498-503. 34. Griswold, R. M. 1955. Effect of different methods of cooking beef round of Com- mercial and Prime grades. Food Research 20:160-179. 35. Hankins, O. G., and N. R. Ellis. 1939. Fat in relation to quantity and quality factors of meat carcasses. Proc. Am. Soc. Animal Prod. 32:314. 36. Harrison, D. L., G. E. Vail, J. L. Hall, and L. B. Mackintosh. 1960. Household cook- ing methods for Commercial grade beef produced in Kansas. Kansas State Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. 37. Hay, P. P., D. L. Harrison, and G. E. Vail. 1953. Effects of a meat tenderizer on less tender cuts of beef cooked by four methods. Food Technol. 5:217-220. 38. Helser, M. D., P. M. Nelson, and B. Lowe. 1930. Influence of the animal's age upon the quality and palatability of beef. Iowa Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. 272. 39. Hiner, R. L. 1956. Visual evidence of beef quality as associated with eating desirabil- ity. Proc. Reciprocal Meat Conf. 9:20-22. 40. Hiner, R. L., E. E. Anderson, and C. R. Fel- lers. 1955. Amount and character of con- nective tissue as it relates to tenderness in beef muscle. Food Technol. 9:80-86. 41. Hood, M. P., D. W. Thompson, and L. Mirone. 1955. Effects of cooking methods on low-grade beef. Georgia Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. N.S. 4. 42. Husaini, S. A., F. E. Deatherage, L. E. Kan- kle, and H. N. Draudt. 1950. Studies on meat. I. The biochemistry of beef as re- lated to tenderness. Food Technol. 4(8): 313316. 43. Husaini, S. A., F. E. Deatherage, and L. E. Kunkle. 1950. Studies on meat. II. Obser- vations on relation of biochemistry factors to changes in tenderness. Food Technol. 4(9):366-369. 44. Kiehl, E. R., V. J. Rhodes, D. E. Bradly, and H. D. Naumann. 1958. St. Louis con- sumers' eating preferences for beef loin steaks. Missouri Agr. Exp. Sta. Res. Bui. 652. 45. King, G. T. and O. D. Butler. 1956. Meth- odology and results of consumer preference studies of steaks and roasts from cattle of known history in Texas. Proc. Reciprocal Meat Conf. 9:72-74. 46. Lasley, F. G., E. R. Kiehl, and D. E. Brady. 1955. Consumer preference for beef in re lation to finish. Missouri Agr. Exp. Sta. Res. Bui. 580. 47. Lowe, B. 1955. Experimental cookery from the chemical and physical standpoint. 4th Ed. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, N. Y. 48. Lowe, B., and J. Kastelic. 1959. Relationships among the age of the animal, carcass grade, and extent of cooking with certain or- ganoleptic, chemical, physical and micro- scopic characteristics of beef muscles. Iowa Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. (In Press). 49. Lowe, B., et al. 1952. Defrosting and cook- ing frozen meat. Iowa Agr. Exp. Sta. Res. Bui. 385:513-632. 50. Mackintosh, D. L., J. L. Hall, and G. E. Vail. 1936. Some observations pertaining to tenderness of meat. Proc. Am. Soc. of Animal Prod. 29:285-289. 51. Marshall, N., L. Wood, and M. B. Patton. 1959. Cooking Choice grade, top round beef roasts. Effect of size and internal tem- perature. J. Am. Diet. Assoc. 35 (6) :569-573. 52. Mayfield, H. L., and M. T. Hedrick. 1949. Thiamine and riboflavin retention in beef during roasting, canning, and corning. J. Am. Diet. Assoc. 25:1024-1027. 53. Meyer, B. H., W. F. Hinman, and E. G. Hal- liday. 1947. Retention of some vitamins of the B-complex in beef during cooking. Food Research 12 (3) :203-211. 54. Meyer, T. O., and M. E. Ensminger. 1952. Consumer preference and knowledge of quality in retail beef cuts. Washington Agr. Exp. Sta. Circular 168 (Rev.). 55. Miller, M., and J. Kastelic. 1956. Meat ten- derness factors, chemical responses of con- nective tissue of bovine skeletal muscle. J. Agr. and Food Chem. 4 (6) :537-542. 56. Mitchell, H. H., and T. S. Hamilton. 1933. Effect of long-continued muscular exercise upon the chemical composition of the mus- cles and other tissue of beef cattle. J. Agr. Research 46:917-941. 57. Mitchell, H. H., T. S. Hamilton, and W. T. Haines. 1928. Some factors influencing the collagen content of beef. J. Nutr. 1:165-178. 58. Paul, P. Tenderness of beef. 1957. J. Am. Diet. Assoc. 44 (9): 890-894. 59. Paul, P., M. Bean, and L. J. Bratzler. 1956. Effect of cold storage and method of cook- ing on Commercial grade cow beef. Michi- gan Agr. Exp. Sta. Tech. Bui. 256. 60. Pecot, R. K., and B. K. Watt. 1956. Food yields—summarized by different stages of preparation. U.S.D.A., Agr. Handbook 102.

24 BEEF FOR TOMORROW 61. Ramsbottom, J. N. 1946. Factors affecting the quality of frozen meat. Food News and Views Bui. 32:1-3. 62. Ramsbottom, J. M., E. J., Strandine, and C. H. Koonz. 1945. Comparative tenderness of representative beef muscles. Food Re- search 10 (6):497-509. 63. Rhodes, V. J., E. R. Kiehl, D. E. Brady, and H. D. Naumann. 1958. Predicting con- sumer acceptance of beef loin steaks. Mis- souri Agr. Exp. Sta. Res. Bui. 651. 64. Rhodes, V. J., E. R. Kiehl, and D. E. Brady. 1955. Visual preferences for grades of re- tail beef cuts. Missouri Agr. Exp. Sta. Res. Bui. 583. 65. Rhodes, V. J., E. R. Kiehl, and others. 1956. Consumer preferences and beef grades. Mis- souri Agr. Exp. Sta. Res. Bui. 612. 66. Seltzer, R. 1955. Consumer preferences for beef in Phoenix, Arizona. Arizona Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. 267. 67. Simone, M., F. Carroll, and M. T. Clegg. 1958. Effect of degree of finish on differ- ences in quality factors of beef. Food Research 23 (1) :32-40. 68. Stech, O. D., and G. M. West. 1954. Roast- ing meat at 250° F. J. Am. Diet. Assoc. 30:160. 69. Stevens, I. M., F. O. Sargent, E. J. Thiessen, C. Schoonover, and I. Payne. 1956. Beef- consumer use and preferences. Wyoming Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. 340 and Colorado Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. 495S. 70. Tappel, A. L., D. S. Miyada, C. Sterling, and V. P. Maier. 1956. Meat Tenderization. II. Factors affecting the tenderization of beef by papain. Food Research 21:375-383. 71. Tressler, D. K:, and C. F. Evers. 1957. The freezing preservation of foods. II. Freezing of precooked and prepared foods. 34d ed. Avi Publishing Co., Inc., Westport, Conn. 72. Tucker, R. E., W. F. Hinman, and E. G. Hal- liday. 1946. Retention of thiamine and riboflavin in beef cuts during braising, fry- ing, and broiling. J. Am. Diet. Assoc. 22: 877-881. 73. United States Department of Agriculture. De- cember, 1956. Food consumption of house- holds in the United States, Report No. J, Household Food Consumption Survey 1955; in the Northeast, Report No. 2; in the North Central region, Report No. 3; in the South, Report No. 4; it the West, Report No. 5. 74. Vail, G. E. 1955. Precooked frozen meat products. Precooked frozen foods, a sym- posium. National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D. C. 75. Van Syckle, C., and O. L. Brough, Jr. 1958. Customer acceptance of fat characteristics of beef—a study of household buying in Spokane, Washington, 1955. Washington Agr. Exp. Sta. Tech. Bui. 27. 76. Wanderstock, J. J., and J. I. Miller. 1948. Quality and palatability of beef as affected by method of feeding and carcass grade. Food Research 13 (4) :291-303. 77. Wang, H., C. E. Weir, M. Birkner, and B. Ginger. 1957. Influence of enzyme tender- izers on the structure and tenderness of beef. Proc. Research Conf. Council on Re- search, American Meat Inst. 9:69-82. 78. Willett, R. 1959. Electronic cooking with paper service saves cost. ]. Am. Diet. Asssoc. 35 (3) :260, 262, 264. 79. Williams, W. F., E. K. Bowen, and F. C. Geno- vese. 1959. Econon.ic effects of U.S. grades for beef. U.S.D.A. Marketing Research Rep. 298.

Discussion Session I The Beef We Want GEORGE SCARSETH: Is there a parallelism between the problem of con- sumer acceptance in marketing in the meat industry and in the automobile in- dustry? DR. G. F. STEWART: 1 think it is pretty obvious that there are parallelisms because we are dealing with the same per- son. I think there is something to be said on both sides about it. It is very difficult to get information you want. There is something sacred about telling people what you are going to do and not going to do, as those who didn't vote for Truman will remember. You don't always tell people what you are going to do, although you may give them answers to questions. I think there is also a very grave danger in the desire to give people what they ought to have. You sense this in a good many places where people decide this is really what people want but not what they say they want. I think this was perhaps exemplified by the lack of interest on the part of the American automobile manu- facturers to give people a compact car. But we just decided in spite of all of the evidence that they got that we really needed a compact car. Of course, this is all conjecture because I am not connected with any research along these lines. R. E. RUST: To what extent do we know how a consumer develops specific tastes or wants? Is it something instinc- tive, or is it something cultivated and de- veloped? If it is the latter, is there a possibility we might supply this consumer demand with a development of cultivated tastes according to the type of product we can offer them, or most economically pro- duce? DR. STEWART: I think there is no doubt that tastes can be changed. This is, I think, even a tougher problem than es- tablishing what the current tastes are and how to meet them. I think it is one that you have to face, particularly as we enter into the area of consumer convenience foods, because obviously here you have to make certain kinds of compromises to prepare these products. I know of very little work along this line, but I think it is something that ought to be encouraged, particularly from the basic standpoint of psychology and sociology and so on. It is so evident in this field that we are undergoing changes in tastes. We see some of these convenience items which we technologists were sure were no good, but some how or other consumers are eating them. I think today this has been largely a trial and error proposition and those lucky enough to succeed are in business. DR. STIEBELING: I think we start out liking what we are used to, and we learn to like other things very largely because of what people who occupy prestige posi- tions in relation to us like. We also change our minds about things because we find there are other considerations than palatability that are important to us. There are many of us who sacrifice cer- tain attributes of palatability because of time saving or convenience or cost fac- tors. Acceptability of a new product depends upon whether it can serve a variety of values that people want from a 25

26 BEEF FOR TOMORROW product. Palatability, convenience, cost, all of these things are important. H. H. COLE: I am wondering to what extent the housewife does at the present time select the meat. We are talking about the housewife being reached through this consumer reaction. Does she select the butcher or the meat? DR. STIEBELING: Perhaps that dif- fers in different parts of the country. Where I am at the moment, the meat is all cut, and you go in and look at it. Men are doing a good deal of the food shopping these days. Men are also help- ing to select the food that comes to the table. DR. STEWART: I think the degree of selection is very small because stores these days don't usually bring in more than one kind of meat and if it is in a supermarket, they have very detailed ideas about the kind of meat they will let come into the store. The consumer has probably no selection of meat except between cuts that are already there. I think this is dangerous because somebody else is de- ciding what they want. I would like to see at least an opportunity for the con- sumer to decide what kind of meat she wants and to express that decision into the market channel. T. C. BYERLY: Many of us eat in restaurants. What kind of beef are we served by choice? Soldiers eat beef. What kind of beef are they provided and why? DR. STEWART: I presume there are some choices available. I think they are relatively restricted. Certainly in the Army they are restricted, except on leave time. I am not speaking as though the Army didn't do a good job in preparing beef. I think they have done a pretty fair job. I presume you have choices in the stores you go to. Sometimes there are very few alternatives that you can live with. The same is true with restaurants. There are limitations in time, distance, and dollars, and so sometimes we make unhappy de- cisions. We aren't going to stop eating meat, but I expect we are not necessarily satisfied with what we are doing, and if we had the opportunity to make those de- cisions they might be quite different than those who are forced to make them. DR. STIEBELING: Even when you have an opportunity to go to different stores that handle different grades of meat there are very few criteria by which you can decide whether it is going to be a good or poor piece of meat. When I was talking about further labeling, I didn't mean only a grade mark. I think a label can do a good deal more than just be a grade mark which has only taken certain characteristics into consideration. Unless you are provided with more information than now, you have to depend on either the integrity of the store to which you go or by whatever visual inspection you can make. The labeling, to my mind, isn't sufficient. GERALD ENGLEMAN: Dr. Stewart seemed to imply at one point that meat is pre-selected, and this is a rather poor method. Suppose this meat were not pre- selected and the entire array were put in a package, from utility up to prime, rather indiscriminantly. How would the demand for beef be answered? DR. STEWART: I think in the poultry field we feel that standardization has been a big factor in the increased consumption of this commodity. I am coming back in support of the chain stores who are taking a beating here. It seems to me this is what they are attempting to do. They are trying to standardize with all of the devices they have before them. This is the reason they pre-select because they assume that consumers will buy more beef from their counters if they do. I agree that the real problem of merchandising any product is standardiza- tion. DR. ARTHUR: We learned a lot of things, some of those in a painful way, on this choice matter. We can get into all kinds of troubles with limitations of choice in the free market. A few years back when Swift and Company was offer-

THE BEEF WE WANT 27 ing some very excellent roasts in frozen form that had been molded into a nice square shape, we could prove without a question this sliced more economically and was highly acceptable, but the con- sumer wanted a standing rib roast with a rib in it. This block of beef roast is not now on the market. The homemaker had her choice. She showed us what it was, without any question. F. E. DEATHERAGE: Appliance peo- ple feel that we haven't done a very good job of teaching the consumer how to handle frozen meat from the standpoint of kitchen cookery. Maybe this has some concern for the frozen ribless rib roast. DR. STIEBELING: I am not aware of any particular problems in food prepara- tion of frozen meat, excepting that you must be aware of the time factor. The literature seems to be a bit controversial on whether things are more tender if they are cooked after thawing or before thaw- ing. I don't believe this is as much of a problem as the matter of handling foods properly prior to coming into the kitchen. DR. ARTHUR: We would all agree there is to be a considerable job of con- sumer education. This is an area that represents a definitely continuing chal- lenge. There is a question of how far one should go towards educating the con- sumer. R. S. TEMPLE: From a geneticist's point of view, do we at present have clear-cut goals and targets at which to aim in producing the beef for tomorrow, or is it still in the research stage? Or, is this a problem of using the beef of today and merchandising it in a different light than we are at the present? DR. SCHWEIGERT: I think a long range goal for heredity, inheritance, and genetics studies is to be able to select an animal with improved quality attributes and grading for characteristics. We should endeavor to minimize certain charac- teristics that may not show themselves on the table. In the meantime, we've got some very fine beef we are producing, and we can do a better job of improving pres- ent attributes. DR. ARTHUR: The only reason cattle growers raise cattle as they do today is because people like beef and it is good for them. This is a good base from which to start any efforts of improvement.

An Evaluation of Consumer Acceptance Studies of Beef With Reference to Paper of Stewart & Mrak V. James Rhodes University of Missouri CONSUMER acceptance research must be evaluated in terms of the market con- text of the institutions, ideas, and prob- lems existing concurrently. It cannot be viewed as solely a laboratory science ex- panded from the laboratory panel into a consumer panel, although acceptance re- searchers do have an experimental ap- proach. Contributions of consumer acceptance research in beef: 1. Called to the attention of producers the consumer dislike of wastiness in retail cuts—retailers already knew this. 2. Helped to develop the concept of lean, tender, tasty beef as the "beef for tomorrow." This concept was heresy four short years ago but is now solidly en- trenched in the thinking of meats and animal researchers and of many industry leaders. 3. Have demonstrated a. the absence of the traditionally as- sumed excellent relation between grades (and/or finish) and acceptability. b. the presence already of much beef of excellent eating quality in the Good grade. These demonstrations have helped to break a set pattern of thought which im- peded satisfaction of consumers prefer- ences by merchandisers, packers, pro- ducers, graders, and educators. These demonstrations have promoted for investigation a whole series of ques- tions which were not even asked seriously four years ago. Questions recently posed by Stewart and Mrak are good examples of this type. 4. Have studied the effect of individual variables to a considerably greater extent than Steward and Mrak realize (See ap- pendix for a bibliography on various sub- jects). However, the exploratory work on individual variables can be done most economically by laboratory scientists. Ac- ceptance research is too cumbersome, ex- pensive, and imprecise in comparison. For example, the relative accuracy of a new grading scheme and the present system might well be evaluated by a consumer panel, after clues have been discovered by technologists which show promise of su- perior grading. 5. Have indicated that variations in consumer eating preferences are not a major problem in the market-place. Four years ago it was generally assumed that quality variations (as indicated by grade) were associated with groups of consumers of different basic preferences as to quali- ties. The assumed problem was to de- termine how well the market mechanism matched different qualities with different preference groups. How wrong we werel In any appraisal of contributions of a research effort, there is danger that the effects of concurrent events will be con- fused. Too much may have been claimed as contributions of preference research. What can acceptance research be ex- pected to accomplish in the future? Such a question cannot be answered with accuracy, of course. It appears that 28

THE BEEF WE WANT 29 the main tasks will be the rather prosaic ones of testing the impact of various fac- tors, such as enzymes, upon acceptability and the accuracy of new sorting systems. Such research should be preceded gen- erally by laboratory tests. It appears that the controversial era of beef acceptance research is past, although research always has some possibility of surprising results. A more exciting—and perhaps profitable —phase of research may be in developing a better understanding of the "product image" of various beef cuts. What improvements are needed in the methodology of acceptance research? Stewart and Mrak's criticism of failure to isolate variables is not well taken. This "failure" was not due to ignorance of sci- entific method but rather to interest in more general problems. In point of fact, four years ago, we took products as given and were forced by our own results to recognize that "product design" was a more pressing problem than variations in eating or visual preferences of consumers. Our approach has often involved study of more specific variables since then, al- though the most important problem has been the general one of acceptability as related to grades, because of the crucial importance of grades in our marketing system. Proper isolation of variables is likely to be aided much more by statistical tech- niques and much less by purely physical separation of the type implied by Stewart and Mrak. Single variations of one fac- tor alone are often much more difficult and expensive to obtain and/or identify than might appear at first glance. For example, a study of the effect of age at slaughter, all other variables constant, appears to be a relatively simple and useful experiment to the non-initi- ated. However, the problems of obtain- ing a reasonable number of cattle from the same sire which at slaughter are en- tirely alike in marbling, size, and shape of loin eye, etc., are astronomical. If one argues that somewhat different marbling, size, and shape of loin eye is characteristic of different age cattle, then the researcher must either use all the variations in those characteristics which accompany cattle of different ages or he must delimit the par- ticular nature of those characteristics which he will allow. There are argu- ments for any of these approaches—the only point of this discussion is to question just what is meant by isolation of explana- tory variables in a biological product with much partially concurrent variation of variables. It is to be hoped that acceptance re- searchers may have some beneficial effect upon the methodology of livestock and meats researchers. With a few shining ex- ceptions, these men have been statistically naive. Small sample studies with ma- terials of as great a biological variation as meats must inevitably lead to conflict- ing results. These researchers need to be- come much more sophisticated in their understanding of the meaning of data and of its adequacy. Really new developments in the methodology of acceptance research are likely to come from the psychologists and sociologists rather than from other disci- plines. This likelihood will be higher to the degree that beef promotion and ad- vertising become more important. Partial Bibliography of Recent Consumer Acceptance Research While more research is always "needed" in some sense in most areas, it seems rele- vant to note research already accom- plished in areas listed as "needed" by Stewart and Mrak. 1. Establish acceptability of various cuts of beef from carcasses of different levels of finish (in the absence of differences in other quality attributes). a. As an appearance factor Major publications: (1) V. James Rhodes, Elmer R. Kiehl, and D. E. Brady. 1955. Visual Preferences for Grades of Retail Beef Cuts. Missouri Res. Bui. 583.

30 BEEF FOR TOMORROW (2) George W. Campbell. 1955. Consumer Acceptance of Beef, Arizona Rep. 145. (3) C. Van Syckle, and O. L. Brough. 1958. Customer Ac- ceptance of Fat Characteristics of Beef, Washington Agr. Exp. Sta. Tech. Bui. 27. (4) R. E. Branson. The Consumer Market for Beef. Texas Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. 856. (5) F. G. Lasley et al. 1955. Con- sumer Preference for Beef in Relation to Finish. Mo. Res. Bui. 580. b. In relation to eating quality Major publications: (1) V. James Rhodes, Elmer R. Kiehl, D. E. Brady, and H. D. Naumann. 1958. Predicting Consumer Acceptance of Beef Loin Steaks. Missouri Res. Bui. 651. (2) Elmer R. Kiehl, V. James Rhodes, D. E. Brady, and H. D. Naumann. 1958. St. Louis Consumers' Eating Preferences for Loin Steaks. Missouri Res. Bui. 652. (3) V. James Rhodes, et al. 1958. The Effect of Continued Test- ing Upon Consumer Evalua- tion of Beef Loin Steaks. Mis- souri Res. Bui. 676. (4) V. James Rhodes, et al. 1958. A New Approach to Measuring Consumer Acceptability of Beef. Missouri Res. Bui. 677. (5) G. T. King, and O. D. Butler. "Methodology and Results of Consumer Preference Studies of Steaks and Roasts from Cattle of Known History in Texas." Proc. Recip. Meat Conf. 9:72-74. 2. Establish acceptability of various levels of tenderness (in the absence of differences in other quality attributes). a. As affected by genetic factors Work has been underway for more than two years at the Florida and Texas Agricultural Experiment Stations. b. As affected by age at slaughter Work is reported to be underway at Oklahoma State University. c. As affected by aging time after slaughter Harry Sullivan. 1958. "Aging of Beef and Consumer Acceptance," M.S. thesis, University of Missouri. d. As affected by the cut of beef used (1) V. James Rhodes, et al. 1958. A New Approach to Measuring Consumer Acceptability of Beef. Missouri Res. Bui. 677. Those of us who have been working full time in this area for several years would be the first to insist that problems remain unsolved in each of the areas reviewed above. However, those who attack those problems need to be aware of the founda- tion already laid.

Committee Recommendations If efforts to discover what people want are to be reasonably success- ful, the design of the projects must be much broader than those under- taken to date, the methodology must be more thoroughly thought through before beginning work, and the work must be better con- trolled during the research period. At the present time the demand for processed and other con- venienced beef products, hamburger and sausage, has been increasing. More research is needed with respect to nutritional and physical quality of beef used in ground beef, sausage, and other processed beef in relationship to quality of the end product. In addition, some attention should be given to the effects of the changing beef require- ments of the meat industry. Because agreement is lacking among research workers on the defini- tion of "quality" and the relative importance of the component fac- tors that determine "quality" it is recommended that research be accelerated to ascertain the components of "quality" in beef, to develop methods for its measurements in the laboratory and market place, and to determine its importance in consumer acceptance. 31

Cows and Catalysts Earl L. Butz Dean of Agriculture, Purdue University A CATALYST is defined as a substance which accelerates a reaction but is itself unaffected by the reaction. Many kinds of catalysts are used constantly in chemical manufacturing processes to speed up desirable reactions. If some catalyst could be compounded which would markedly increase the total effective demand for beef, and at the same time reduce production costs, the cattle industry would be in the "Promised Land." Fortunately, some such catalysts are available, and are working in the interest of the beef industry. They're not spec- tacular, but they're nonetheless real. Two of these catalysts operate largely inde- pendently of beef producers, and two others are at least partly under the direc- tion of beef producers. Total Demand for Beef Will Rise The total effective demand for beef in the years ahead will depend on two fac- tors: (1) size of the population and (2) changes in the amount of beef consumed per capita. The latter factor in turn is dependent upon three things: (1) the amount of in- crease which may be expected in per capita real income (taking into account the relatively low income elasticity for food), (2) the impact on per capita con- sumption of an aggressive promotional and merchandising campaign, and (3) the impact on per capital consumption from lower relative selling prices and improved quality in the retail counter as a result of a stepped-up research program in the whole beef industry. The first two "catalysts" listed above op- erate largely independently of anything the beef industry can do. The second two are largely under control of the lead- ers in the beef industry. Our exploding population means a sub- stantial increase in our consumption po- tential, even assuming for the moment a static per capita consumption. Our popu- lation now surpasses 177 million. It's growing by nearly 3 million per year. A recent Census Bureau projection estimates that by 1975, just 16 years from now, the population of the United States is likely to exceed 240 million. Extend this figure 4 more years, to a time 20 years from now, and the prospect is for better than 255 million people, or up nearly 80 million from present levels. A population in- crease of that magnitude is greater than our population growth during the entire nineteenth century. A 78 million increase in population represents a 44 per cent in- crease from the present base. Therefore, assuming no change in per capita con- sumption of beef, we could expect a 44 per cent increase in the total outlet for beef in the next 20 years. Let's look now at the second "catalyst" —the rising purchasing power of our people. In the last 20 years the per capita real income of our people (after taxes and inflation) has increased by some 50 per cent. Reliable predictions are that it will increase by another 50 per cent in the next 20 years. Many economists think it won't take that long to go up 50 per cent. While we don't increase our food con- sumption proportionately as income in- 32

THE BEEF WE WANT 33 creases, we do eat some better. We im- prove the quality of our diet. We do this by shifting to a protein diet and other more expensive protective foods. It's common knowledge that beef is a relatively desirable item in our national diet. It has sometimes been called a "luxury meat." If our per capita real incomes go up by 50 per cent in the next couple of decades, we can be almost certain that the demand for meats, including beef, will rise some, although not by a like amount. And it's probable that the effective demand for beef, as a result of this income rise, will go up a little more than that for other competing meats. If we can assume that the income elasticity for beef is 0.20, and it's my feeling that this assumption is on the con- servative side, then we conclude that a 50 per cent increase in per capita income would result in a 10 per cent increase in the relative amount that would be spent for beef and beef products. This of course is at the retail level. It is likely, however, that as incomes rise, consumers will purchase more services with their food. Therefore, not all of this increase in expenditures for beef would be re- flected back to producers. Hence, just to be conservative, if we cut the estimated income elasticity from 0.20 back to 0.10, this would then give us an estimated 5 per cent increase in the amount of money spent for beef and beef products (at the farm level) resulting from a 50 per cent increase in real income per capita. Promotional Possibilities Are Often Overrated We turn now to the third "catalyst," promotion. Some enthusiastic supporters of a greatly stepped-up promotional cam- paign for beef consumption expect results which it probably would be difficult to at- tain. We should be relentless in our efforts to acquaint the consuming public with the advantages of a high protein diet based upon a growing animal agri- culture. Our efforts should be to expand the consumption of all meats. If we dissi- pate our resources in attempting to per- suade consumers that they should eat more beef—perhaps at the expense of pork or lamb or poultry—about all we accom- plish is to induce the pork, lamb, and poultry industries to spend an equivalent amount of money in "offset promotion," and the whole industry ends up about where it started except with a big promo- tional bill on its hands. This is clearly an area that calls for a well-coordinated effort by all of animal agriculture. There's Great Promise in Research Research—the fourth "catalyst"—is un- der our control. It offers real promise on both the production and the marketing side. Research on the production side can be cost-reducing, and research on the marketing side can be consumption-ex- panding. Indeed, reduction in produc- tion costs themselves can be consumption- expanding, if such cost reductions are at least partly translated into lower selling prices in the retail counter. We have stepped up our efficiency of beef production in recent years, but not enough. Over the past 30 years, evening out cyclical fluctuations in cattle market- ings, growing cattle numbers have just about kept pace with our growing popu- lation. Each has increased about 43 per cent in the last 30 years. However, if beef marketing were geared to beef num- bers alone, consumers would be getting no more beef per capita now than they did 30 years ago. But the production of beef per head has also increased by about 44 per cent, so that consumers now eat substantially more beef per capita than three decades ago. Our people in 1959 are eating about 80 pounds of beef per capita, contrasted with 55 pounds per capita in 1935-39. This is an increase of 44 per cent from 1935-39, and an increase of 22 per cent from 1947-49. This per capita consumption figure is down from the 85 pounds consumed in 1956 and 1957, because of reduced marketings in

34 BEEF FOR TOMORROW 1959. However, again making allowance for cyclical variations, the increase in the last 3 decades has been approximately 44 per cent. Since this is based on approxi- mately the same number of cattle on farms per capita as 30 years earlier, the entire increase in consumption may be attributed to increased beef output per animal, which in turn is based largely on research in the beef industry. However, before we rest on our research laurels in the beef industry, we must take a look at our cousins in the poultry in- dustry. Per capita consumption of chicken meat in this country has more than doubled since 1935-39, being 219 per cent of the earlier figure in 1959. A simi- lar figure for turkey meat is 268 per cent. American consumers have not flocked to increased poultry and turkey consumption in such record proportions because they suddenly preferred drumsticks over T- bones. They did it because poultry and turkey meat have been placed in the retail counters of America at such attractive prices that Mrs. Housewife just couldn't resist picking up an extra package or two. And those attractive prices were made possible because the modern poultry industry is based almost entirely on re- cent research. Today's poultry industry would have been impossible 20 years ago, without the research applications that have gone into it since the war. Research in the poultry industry has advanced on the multiple fronts of genetics, physiology, nutrition, and management. No sector of the industry has been left unexamined, from the feed bag to the dressing plant. Costs have been cut everywhere. Effi- ciency has been stepped up wherever pos- sible. Even the time-honored breeds yielded before the more efficient produc- tion records of hybrid strains. An ag- gressive program of research enabled the poultry industry to build a great new market in this country where only a small one existed before. Your competition is not resting. Al- though per capita consumption of pork has not increased as much as per capita consumption of beef, in recent years sci- ence has been moving rapidly into the hog lot. The stage has now been set there for revolutionary changes in production and marketing. Thirty years ago it took 5.1 pounds of feed to produce a pound of gain for all hog producers in the United States. In 1950-54 this was reduced to 4.5 pounds, or an improvement of 12 per cent. The advances since 1954 have been marked. We now know how to make a pound of gain for 3.2 pounds of feed, or 37 per cent better than 3 decades ago. Good producers are doing this consistently. Some really good ones achieve a feed conversion ratio of 3.0. The work in litter testing and certifica- tion is moving forward rapidly. There is some evidence that we are on the verge of a major breakthrough in pigs per litter, as we learn more about pre-natal lethal factors in brood sows. The race for cost- reducing efficiency in pork production is currently being propelled with high- octane fuel. We need to step up our total research program in the U.S. beef industry. If we are going to meet the anticipated more than 50 per cent increase in effective de- mand for beef in the next 20 years, we'll probably do about half of this with in- creased cattle numbers and about half with increased production per animal. It now appears that cattle numbers on farms January 1, 1960 will probably be around 102-103 million head. They may pass 105 million head before they start down again. This will compare with the previous peak of 96.8 million head in 1956. The cattle cycle will continue in the foreseeable fu- ture, with ups and downs in numbers about as in the past. However, each peak will be higher than the previous peak, and each trough higher than the previous trough. In 20 years we'll need at least 125 million head of cattle in this country to feed our growing population, assuming that we can in the same time increase our beef output per animal by one-fourth. This is the job cut out for research. We must not let current agricultural

THE BEEF WE WANT 35 surpluses, nor the prospect of increased cyclical marketings of beef two or three years hence, dissuade us from our long- time campaign to achieve better living for all of us through research. The application of science to American agriculture forms the very cornerstone of the high standard of life that all of our people enjoy. American agriculture is now feeding our growing population on science and research. This enables us to release such a large share of our popula- tion and our production resources to pro- duce non-food items and services that the American standard of living has become the envy of the world. Research is the expandable term in the beef equation for tomorrow. The people will be here by the mil- lions, their incomes will be high, and their appetite for beef will be whetted. What a fertile reactor into which to pour a generous quantity of our most effective catalyst—Research.