Slide 1

Pork Quality National Retail Benchmarking Study Dr. David Newman World Pork Expo 2015 Slide 2 Objectives -Gather pork quality attributes nationwide -Provide benchmarking data to producers, processors, and retailers Provide a baseline for current quality variation Identify areas of improvement Benchmark future industry improvement Slide 3 Slide 4 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 43 37 31 61 55 49 Minolta L*-Value COLOR STANDARDS Slide 5 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 10.0 MARBLING STANDARDS Slide 6 In Store Data Collection Full and self-serve cases Pork Blade Steaks Pork Center-Cut-Loin Chops (En & Non-En) Pork Sirloin Chops Location 117 Retail Supermarkets 15 Club Stores 67 Cities 25 States 32 Markets 51 Store Brands Slide 7 Pork Loin Chop Assessment Ten packages of each brand assessed in store Ten packages of each brand purchased Color-Marbling-Defects-Package Info-Tenderness- pH-cook loss Slide 8 Results 65 Brands of Pork (L S B) 117 stores carried center-cut-loin chops 5 temp recommendations ranging from 145- 165F Meat Cut Total Number of Pkg Percent of Pkg Bone- in Percent of Packages Enhanced Percent of Packages Over- wrapped Percent of Packages MAP Percent of Packages Vacuumed Blades86395.2540.4480.070.3519.58 Sirloins70622.1059.2188.952.418.64 Loins623747.4950.8791.074.953.98 Slide 9 Figure 1. Frequency distribution of subjective color scores for enhanced and non-enhanced center-cut loin chops. Slide 10 Frequency distribution of Minolta L* Slide 11 Figure 3. Frequency distribution of subjective marbling scores for enhanced and non-enhanced center-cut loin chops. Slide 12 Figure 4. Shear force frequency distribution of enhanced and non-enhanced center-cut loin chops. 24.5 Slide 13 Implications A significant amount of US pork fails to meet standards associated with good eating quality Any attempt to use quality measures to develop grading or certification standards will depend on benchmarking the mean and SD Slide 14 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. Slide 15 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) Slide 16 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. Slide 17 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