Pork Quality 2012 National Retail Benchmarking Study

Dr. David Newman

Table of Contents

2

• Objectives

• Methodology

• Results

• Discussion

• Questions

Investigators

• North Dakota State University

• University of Florida

• The Ohio State University

• Texas A&M

• Pennsylvania State

• California Polytechnic Institute

• National Pork Board

• Paragon Economics

Study Objectives

• Use a novel method for sampling and determining retail locations nationwide

• Gather price, package, and pork quality baseline values on fresh pork in the retail case

• Information utilized by retailers, processors, and other industry stakeholders to benchmark and identify areas of needed improvement

• Support existing and continued research

4

Methodology

5

Step

1

-Address RFP

-Investigators

-Timeline

-Data Collection Specifics

Step

2

-Retailer ID

-U.S. Store Distribution

-Quick Data Collection

Step

3

-Analysis

• Pork Quality

• Data

-Dissemination

-NPB

-Industry

-Research

-Publication

-Further Benchmarking

Methodology – Retailers • Goal: to represent major supermarket chains evenly with

distribution centers in major metropolitan markets

• Stores from which samples were obtained were identified so that the geographic population distribution and major retailers, both national and regional, were well represented

• The data used for identification of market regions, distribution Centers, and Supermarkets included Progressive Grocer’s 2011 Marketing Guidebook (Stagnito Media, 2011)

6

Methodology – cont’d

• Further information collected included the list of the top 366 Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSA) in the United States

• The population of the MSAs was combined with the Retail Share for each of the top five Supermarkets in each Market to provide an estimate of the Population Served by each Supermarket in a Market

• Specific store locations within each market region were chosen to represent middle class retail locations

• Club stores included in the model

In Store Data Collection Full and self-serve cases

– Pork Blade Steaks – Pork Center-Cut-Loin Chops – Pork Sirloin Chops

Location – 117 Retail Supermarkets – 15 Club Stores – 67 Cities – 25 States – 32 Markets – 51 Store Brands

Date - Between February 15 and April 5, 2012.

Full-Serve Case Assessment • For each store, brand, and meat cut we collected

the following data:

– Bone-in or Boneless

– Chop or Roast

– # Pieces Available

– Product thickness

– Price per pound,

– Product Label Claims

– Enhanced and %

Self-Serve Case Assessment

• For each package of center-cut-loin chops, blade steaks, and sirloin chops, the following information was recorded: – Brand - Establishment #

– Bone-in/boneless - Product Thickness

– Chop/roast - Price/lb.

– # pieces available/package - Product Label Claims

– # packages available - Cooking guidelines

– Packaging type - Recipe

– Enhanced and % enhanced - Sell by date

– Recommended cooking temp

Center-Cut Loin Chops-Subjective Assessment

Ten packages of each brand were assessed for the following:

– Bone-in (Y/N)

– Sell by date

– Color (NPPC 1-6)

– Marbling (NPPC 1-10)

– Firmness (NPPC 1-3)

– Product Defects

• Blood splash, bruised, bone dust

RESULTS

Results: Self-Serve • 65 Brands of Pork (L S B)

• 117 stores carried center-cut-loin chops

• 69 stores carried blade steaks

• 59 stores carried sirloin chops

• 5 temp recommendations ranging from 145-165⁰F

Self-Serve Case Results

Meat Cut Avg. #

Pieces/ Package

Avg. # Packages

/Store

Avg. $/lb w/shopper

card or offer

Avg. Original $/lb

Total Number of packages observed

Blades 2.79 6.39 $2.49 $2.89 863

Sirloins 4.50 5.52 $2.90 $3.60 706

Loins 5.05 7.99 $3.77 $4.53 6,237

Self-Serve Case Results

Meat Cut

Total Number of Packages

Percent of Packages Bone-in

Percent of Packages Enhanced

Percent of Packages

Over-wrapped

Percent of Packages

MAP

Percent of Packages

Vacuumed

Blades 863 95.25 40.44 80.07 0.35 19.58

Sirloins 706 22.10 59.21 88.95 2.41 8.64

Loins 6237 47.49 50.87 91.07 4.95 3.98

Center-Cut Loin Chops-Color

n=2778

Enhanced vs. Non-Enhanced Nationally

Enhanced 3.12

Non-Enhanced 3.11

National 3.12

1.0 2.0 3.0

4.0 5.0 6.0 43 37 31

61 55 49 Minolta L*-Value

COLOR STANDARDS

Center-Cut Loin Chops- Marbling

n=2750

Enhanced vs. Non-Enhanced Nationally

Enhanced 2.41

Non-Enhanced 2.53

National 2.48

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0

5.0 6.0 10.0

MARBLING STANDARDS

Center-Cut Loin Chops-Firmness

n=2208

Enhanced vs. Non-Enhanced Nationally

Enhanced 2.26

Non-Enhanced 2.26

National 2.26

Center-Cut Loin Chops-Objective Color

Enhanced vs. Non-Enhanced Nationally

Enhanced Non-Enhanced

National

L* 54.54 56.15 55.39

a* 5.33 4.44 4.86

b* 3.68 3.97 3.84

L*55=NPPC 2.0

n=1820

Center-Cut Loin Chops-pH

Enhanced vs. Non-Enhanced Nationally

Enhanced 5.99

Non-Enhanced 5.80

National 5.87

n=1819

Center-Cut Loin Chops-Warner Bratzler Shear Force (Tenderness)

Center-cut loin chops, reported in kg

n=892 Enhanced n=1022 Non-enhanced

Region Enhanced Non-Enhanced

Overall

East Central 22.65 25.01 23.54

Mid Atlantic 19.81 24.12 23.05

New England 21.87 24.42 23.93

Pacific 20.30 26.18 23.83

South East 21.67 24.52 22.65

South West 17.55 25.69 21.77

West Central 22.06 26.58 24.42

National 21.18 25.30 23.34

Center-Cut Loin Chop Package Variation

Variable P –value

Ultimate pH P < 0.0001

Minolta L* P < 0.0001

Minolta a* P = 0.04

Minolta b* P = 0.12

WBSF P < 0.0001

NPPC Color P < 0.0001

NPPC Marbling P < 0.0001

Sirloin Chops-pH

Enhanced vs. Non-Enhanced Nationally

Enhanced 5.98

Non-Enhanced 5.72

National 5.89

n=1071

Sirloin Chops-Objective Color

National Average

L* 51.88

a* 19.48

b* 10.11

n=937

Sirloin Chops-WBSF

n=1019

Enhanced vs. Non-Enhanced Nationally

Enhanced 1.69

Non-Enhanced 2.34

National 1.91

Blade Steaks-pH

Enhanced vs. Non-Enhanced Nationally

Enhanced 6.24

Non-Enhanced 6.20

National 6.22

n=853

Blade Steaks-Minolta Color

n=833

National Average

L* 45.27

a* 19.71

b* 8.13

Blade Steaks-WBSF

n=749

Enhanced vs. Non-Enhanced Nationally

Enhanced 1.65

Non-Enhanced 1.84

National 1.75

Cut Thickness

Thin (≤ 1/2”)

Medium (˃1/2” & ˂1.00”)

Thick (≥ 1.00 inch)

Not Reported

Total # Packages

Loin % 34.01 45.50 19.99 0.50 6237

Sirloin % 2.47 48.30 19.97 9.92 706

Blade % 2.44 49.48 10.43 22.48 863

This table refers to # of packages from the self serve data collection Data not reported represents roasts

Temperature Recommendations

n=7806 packages

Temperature Recommendation (⁰F)

Number of Packages Observed

Percent of Total Number of Packages

145 1,252 16.04

150 322 4.13

155 604 7.74

160 1910 24.47

165 3 0.04

145 & 160 176 2.25

None 3,539 45.34

Two Tone Color Analysis

Discussion

• Benchmarking is needed. No consistent dataset to compare against. However:

• Subjective color in store over the past 7 years is fairly consistent (NPPC 3.12 – 3.52)

• Objective color has decreased (L* 48.07 – 55.39) over the same time period

L. I. Wright et. al. 2005. Benchmarking value in the pork supply chain: Characterization of US pork in the retail marketplace. S. J. Moeller et. al. 2009. Consumer perceptions of pork eating quality as affected by pork quality attributes and end-point cooked temperature.

Discussion

• Some research suggests that pork is bought on visual acceptance (R. C. Person et. al; M. S. Brewer et. al) and prior eating satisfaction (M. S. Brewer et. al)

• Intercept data

• Research also suggests that pork with greater pH and higher marbling equates to a better eating experience (S. J. Moeller et. al)

Discussion

• Marbling has remained fairly consistent (NPPC 2.37 – 2.52) since 2005.

• Goal = consumer acceptance of higher marbled pork ?

• Research suggests consumers eating experience is better when pork is higher in marbling (S. J. Moeller et. al)

• Education of consumers and meat case managers

L. I. Wright et. al. 2005. Benchmarking value in the pork supply chain: Characterization of US pork in the retail marketplace. S. J. Moeller et. al. 2009. Consumer perceptions of pork eating quality as affected by pork quality attributes and end-point cooked temperature.

Take Home Message

• Cooking temperature recommendation are not consistent between cuts, brands, and sometimes within package

• Goal = Provide consistent temperature recommendations to consumers

How do we achieve our goals?

• Employee education

• Seminars

• Pork quality demos

• The person at the meat case needs to know more about meat and meat quality before they can educate consumers and other employees

Conclusions • Good Distribution of data collection

• Large dataset – further analysis ongoing

• Provides solid benchmarking values for future improvement

• Nationwide

• Regional

• Processor

• Retailer

• Package specifics (both product & package)

Conclusions

• Comparison to existing data

• Taste of Preference Study (Moeller et al., 2010)

• Consumer responses favor pork with:

• Lower WBS

• Greater pH

• Higher IMF

• Pork cooked to a lower temperature

Contact Information

Dr. David Newman

North Dakota State University

Fargo, ND

David.newman@ndsu.edu

7012317366-office

7017990327-cell