A UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE PUBLICATION V U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE REGIONAL AND OTHER RELATED ASPECTS OF SHELLFISH CONSUMPTION Some Preliminary Findings From the 1969 Consumer Panel Survey Marine Biological Laboratory LIBRARY AUG 9 1971 WOODS HOLE, MASS. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Maurice H. Stans, Secretary NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION Dr. Robert M. White, Adminisiralor NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE Philip M. Roedel, Diredor Regional and Other Related Aspects of Shellfish Consumption -- Some Preliminary Findings From the 1969 Consumer Panel Survey By MORTON M. MILLER and BARREL A. NASH Circular 361 Seattle, Washington June 1971 CONTENTS Page Introduction 1 Scope of the analysis 2 Geographic concentration and distribution patterns 2 Oysters 3 Clams 4 Crabs 5 Lobsters 6 Shrimp 7 Scallops 7 Lobster tails 8 Recap 8 Seasonality factors 9 Consumption at home and away from home 10 Relationship between income and consumption 11 Effects of age on consumer preference 13 Acknowledgment 13 Technical note 13 Literature cited 14 Appendices 15 1. Geographic divisions of the United States and distribution of survey sample 15 2. Estimated at-home consumption of shellfish, finfish, and canned fish by region. Population data from Bureau of the Census .... 16 3. Regional supplies and distribution of oysters 17 4. Regional supplies and distribution of clams 17 5. Regional supplies and distribution of crabs 17 6. Survey panel consumption and monthly index of consumption of shrimp, oysters, crabs, clams, and scallops 17 7. Consumer panel consumption of fresh and frozen clams, crabs, and oysters at home and away from home 18 8. Consumption at home and away from home, by survey panel: shrimp, lobster, halibut, haddock, and flounder 18 9. Consumption per household by household income group for se- lected species 18 10. Per capita consumption by household income group for selected species 18 ui FIGURES Page 1. Reg-ional distribution of total shellfish consumption (at home) and population. 1969. Source: Appendix 2 2 2. Regional distribution of total finfish consumption (at home) and population, 1969. Source: Appendix 2 3 3. Distribution of total shellfish and finfish consumption (at home) and population, 1969. Source: Appendix 2 3 4. Regional distribution of oyster consumption (at home) and popu- lation, 1969. Source: Appendix 2 3 5. Regional supplies and distribution of oysters. Source: Appendix 3 . 4 6. Regional distribution of clam consumption (at home) and popula- tion, 1969. Source: Appendix 2 4 7. Regional supplies and distribution of clams. Source: Appendix 4 . . 5 8. Regional distribution of crab consumption (at home) and popu- lation, 1969. Source: Appendix 2 6 9. Regional sui^plies and distribution of crabs. Source: Appendix 5 . . . 6 10. Regional distribution of lobster consumption (at home) and popula- tion, 1969 6 11. Regional distribution of shrimp consumption (at home) and popula- tion, 1969 V 12. Regional distribution of scallop consumption (at home) and popula- tion, 1969 8 13. Regional distribution of lobster tail consumption (at home) and population, 1969 8 14. Monthly index of survey panel consumption of oysters, crabs, and clams 9 1.5. Monthly index of survey panel consumption of shrimp and scallops 10 16. Consumption at home and away, by survey panel: clams, crabs, and oysters 10 17. Consumption at home and away, by survey panel: shrimp, lobster, halibut, haddock, and flounder 11 18. Per capita consumj^tion by household income group: crabs, clams, oysters, and shrimp. Source: Appendix 9 12 19. Consumption per household by household income group: crabs, clams, oysters, and shrimp. Source: Appendix 10 12 20. Per capita consumption by household income group: scallops, ocean perch, and light tuna. Source: Appendix 9 12 21. Consumption per household by household income group: scallops, ocean perch, and light tuna. Source: Appendix 10 12 TABLES Page 1. Regional ranking in at-home consumption of fishery products, and in population 9 2. Percent of total U.S. seafood consumption by household income, 1969 11 3. Percentage distribution of seafood consumption at home by age of household head 13 IV Regional and Other Related Aspects of Shellfish Consumption- Some Preliminary Findings From the 1969 Consumer Panel Survey By MORTON M. MILLER and BARREL A. NASH, Economists National Marine Fisheries Service, Division of Economic Research College Park, Md. 20740 ABSTRACT A consumer survey panel, consisting of representative households through- out the United States, recorded their fishery product purchases for a 12-month period, beginning in February 1969. They were participants in a study conducted under the aegis of the National Marine Fisheries Service, Division of Economic Research. This paper deals mainly with study findings respecting the consump- tion of major species of shellfish, at home and away from home. Findings of the study indicate marked regional preferences for individual shellfish items. For example, oysters are consumed in South Atlantic States at nearly double the national per capita rate. Similarly, clams enjoy a high rate of consumption in Middle Atlantic and New England areas. All of which sug- gests an important correlation between consumption and tradition as well as a per- sistent tendency for seafood varieties, particularly those consumed in a "fresh" form, to be consumed in the area of catch. The study also indicated an association between high income households and shellfish consumption, with oysters a single notable exception. Age of consumer, too, has an apparent bearing on shellfish consumption as it was found that older consumers are the more disposed toward consumption of these products. With respect to consumption away from home, it appears that half or more of the crabs and lobsters are consumed in meals outside the home, but the major- ity consumed of other products was at home. INTRODUCTION This paper reviews several key areas of in- formation yielded in an extensive survey of consumer purchases of fishery products during 1969. The survey was conducted under the auspices of the National Marine Fisheries Service and represents a major effort by Ser- vice economists to resolve, at least partially, previously unanswered questions regarding the consumption of fish and shellfish. The results of the survey can be developed into useful guidelines for industry decisions, especially in marketing. Also the results can greatly en- hance the accuracy of forecasting future eco- nomic events in the fishing industry. It is difficult to overstate the importance of building on our knowledge of consumer be- havior. Consumers in a market economy are the inevitable arbiters of what and how much will be produced. Meticulous production sched- ules and faultless distribution mechanics can become expensive exercises in the face of con- sumer aloofness. In Marshallian terms, the consumer is the regulator of all demands, his yeas and nays expressed convincingly in his mode of allocating limited funds. Marketing problems represent, in large part, an encounter with "consumerism," i.e. the de- cision-making process undertaken by consu- mers in their acts of purchasing. Consumer actions (or reactions) characteristically defy prediction, however, and render the best of marketing strategies uncertain. New products introduced by food companies, for example, have less than a one in four chance of success. Nonetheless there are discernible patterns in consumer behavior. Studies have established reasonable inferences that prices, size of in- come, ethnic origin, age, and other demographic variables influence consumption of food prod- ucts. The present survey was designed to test the applicability of these inferences to fish product consumption. The survey's approach was direct. Members of a representative consumer panel, consisting of 1,500 households throughout the United States, logged the details of their fish product purchases for a 12-month period, February 1969 to January 1970. Essential character- istics of each household were known — income, ages, etc. — making it possible to arrange the data for intergroup comparisons and for ex- amination for evidence of relationships be- tween various demographic characteristics and fish consumiition. The Service recognizes that knowledge of these relationshii)s is a prereq- uisite to the formulation of successful market- ing strategies and accurate forecasting. SCOPE OF THE ANALYSIS The focus of this paper is on certain char- acteristics of shellfish consumption. Major shellfish species are covered in the analysis as well as other seafood varieties where compar- isons are relevant. Five aspects of consumption are examined: (1) geographic concentration and distribution patterns, (2) seasonality fact- ors, (3) comparisons between volumes con- sumed at home and away from home, (4) re- lationships between size of income and volume consumed, and (5) effects of age on consumer preferences. The analysis touches only highlights of the survey. Nonetheless, these reveal several im- portant characteristics of fishery product con- sumption in the United States. These are dis- cussed under the five above-noted topic headings. GEOGRAPHIC CONCENTRATION AND DISTRIBUTION PATTERNS' The survey revealed marked regional differ- ences in apparent consumer preferences for fishery products. Shellfish varieties, for ex- amijle, are highly popular in New England where per capita at-home consumption is more than double the U.S. average. The per capita rate of finfish consumption in New England, however, is not much above the national aver- age (Appendix 2) . In the West South Central States the reverse is true. ' While the area's per capita rate of finfish consumption tops the national average by 15'^f, the shellfish con- sumption rate is below average. The picture in the North Central States is again different. There, per capita consumption of both fish and shellfish are well below national averages. The above examples are indicative of the re- gional contrasts in aggregate fish and shellfish consumption in the United States. These con- trasts are illustrated in Figures 1, 2, and 3, which relate consumption to regional popula- See Appendix 1 for geographic divisions. j U.S. coMiaptloa $ §: § □ Soft U.S., ^ ."p.glBnd AlUnllC 0«oir«l Crntral Ati»rHlc i>n!r»>l Cer.tml ltl.t.1 lB.MfK Figure 1. — Regional distribution of total shellfish con- sumption (at home) and population, 1969. Source: Appendix 2. * of Wt«l U.S. coniuoptloa D i or wtBi '-■.S. jicpulattoi i I U.S. «on*uBptloci D i of total U.S. popuiMtlOD i I i § ^ i t^ I t^ I K3 _h£<; LJisl I H^ l_tii Central Mountoln P«ctflc Figure 2. — Regional distribution of total finfish con- sumption (at home) and population, 1969. Source: Appendix 2. Figure 4. — Regional distribution of oyster consumption (at home) and population, 1969. Source: Appendix 2. I 1 * Qf total j U.S. <;onBUBptlon 1 1 D « of total U.S. populatlM r r i i I 1 A-.:a^.;!r >n-r5l Figure 3. — Distribution of total shellfish and finfish con- sumption (at home) and population, 1969. Source: Appendix 2. tion. (Where the bars indicate a higher per- centage of consumption than of population, per capita consumption would be above the national average and vice versa.) A clearer picture of regional consumption patterns, however, is pro- vided in similar examinations of individual species, which are discussed below. Oysters The survey found oysters to be heavily fa- vored in Southern States, particularly the South Atlantic area which stretches from Maryland south, along the Atlantic Coast (Figure 4) . The South Atlantic region ranks fourth in popu- lation, but is the leader in at-home oyster con- sumption with 29% of the total. Per capita consumption of oysters in the South Atlantic is nearly double the national average. The South Central and Mountain States comprise the only other regions that exceed national averages in per capita oyster consumption. In total oyster consumption, the populous East North Central region ranked second in the survey. The area, which encompasses just under 20% of the U.S. population, consumed 14% of the oyster total during the survey per- iod. Pacific States ranked third in total oyster consumption, just as they do in population. Results from the Middle Atlantic States were somewhat surprising. The area ranks a close second in population and accounts for 18.5% of the Nation's total. In oyster consumption, however, the area's rank appears to be fifth among the nine U.S. regions. Middle Atlantic residents consumed 10.2% of the total meas- ured in the survey, which puts their per capita consumption of oysters only slightly above half the U.S. average. The regional pattern of oyster consumption shows that, generally, areas with the highest rates of per capita consumption are also the major oyster producing areas. In aggregate, these areas account for over 60% of the total oysters consumed at home. Moreover, these areas consume about 84 '^< of their total pro- duction. This pattern likely has evolved from a combination of cultural and technological influences. Tradition obviously is an important factor in the high localized rates of oyster con- sumption. Technological factors, however, may be even more important. Oysters are i^referred in a "fresh" form, but their perishability re- duces incentive to market output at distant points. Aside from the high risk of spoilage, producers and distributors in many instances face the obstacle of being inaccessible to de- pendable shipping channels. Oysters, are, nonetheless, consumed in all regions in the United States. As noted in Fig- ure 5, only two regions — the South Atlantic and West South Central — are completely self- sufficient in the product. The surplus from these regions thus moves in trade to the sev- eral other regions which rely on inshipments of oysters to satisfy demand. The shaded areas of the left scale of Figure 5 denote the quantity of inshipments, by region, including foreign imports, and the unshaded areas indicate the quantity produced within the region. On the right-hand scale of Figure 5, shaded areas in- DISTRIBUTION IKSHIPMQITS H Oin-SHIPMENTS Q LAKDINCS □ CONSUMPTION* * Total contuiDptLon - at hutne and away Figure 5. — Regional supplies and distribution of oysters. Source: Appendix 3. dicate outshipments of the product within the region; the light areas show regional con- sumption. There is, it appears, a national market for oysters. However, regions outside the produc- ing areas consume less than their proportional share of output (based on population) and can be categorized as underdeveloped markets. The existence of underdeveloped market areas for oysters implies fertile ground for future market expansion, assuming, of course, adequate resource availability. The fact that consumption rates are already high in the pro- ducing areas further implies that successful expansion of the industry will be linked closely with the development of the distant markets. The price effects of placing substantially in- creased supplies in local markets could be disastrously adverse. It is not unlikely that aggressive marketing development in the underdeveloped market areas would produce advantages under the present scales of oyster production. These markets are in the high income, densely pop- ulated regions of the United States, which in- dicates a potential for marketing large quanti- ties of oysters at prices more favorable than those received in local markets. There are, moreover, additional advantages to the regional economy that would come about through a shift in oyster marketing efforts toward more in- terregional trade. These include the value of such services as long-haul transportation per- formed by regional firms in the export activity for the local oyster industry. Clams It is apparent that clam markets are highly concentrated in three regions — New England, Middle Atlantic, and Pacific — where, in ag- gregate, STf of the U.S. population consumes about 85 Sc of the national total. n: s M ■J I -I i .^ ^ Hrw Kiaalf C.ir. W.H. SouUi B.C. w.s. fntlfDi All»ntlc C*ntr>l 0»nlr«l AlIwUc C»ntr«l Oer.tr«l Howitatn Pacific Figure 6. — Regional distribution of clam consumption (at home) and population, 1969. Source: Appendix 2. Clams exemplify the influence of tradition in fishery product consumption. Per capita con- sumption of clams in New Enn*.™l C*-:' Figfure 12.- — Regional distribution of scallop consump- tion (at home) and population, 1969. States account for nearly half of the scallops consumed at home, but include only about one- fourth of the U.S. population. Consumption in the South Atlantic States is less than pro- portional to the area's population, and the same is true for the North Central region, although in total quantity consumed, the North Central region ranks in third place behind the Middle Atlantic and New England. The South Central regions (East and West) along with the West North Central area consume less than Z^'c of total scallops purchased for use at home, al- though the areas have about one-fourth of the U.S. population. Most of the U.S. catch of scallops is landed at New England ports, and there is an active local market for what is produced. Local marketings likely consist in large part of fresh (that is not frozen) scallops which have be- come a traditional favorite in New England. The proximity of the Middle Atlantic States to the major producing areas helps to explain the l)opularity of scallops in the area. The easy adaptability of scallops to process- ing as a frozen product is born out especially by the high rate of consumption in the Mountain area States, where the per capita rate is over two and a half times the U.S. average. Sig- nificant quantities of scallops are also con- sumed in the Pacific area, which ranks fourth in total consumption. Lobster Tails Frozen lobster tails, which are mostly foreign imports, are consumed most heavily in the Mid- dle Atlantic region. Per capita consumption of lobster tails in the Middle Atlantic is 1.6 times the U.S. average for at-home consump- tion, and the area accounts for 29 ^'f of the total consumed in the United States. The East North Central States consumed 27 ':r of the U.S. total, and their per capita rate is about 1.4 times the national average. The East South Central re- gion also is a major market for lobster tails and accounts for Wr of the total consumed at home (Figure 13). I ( of total I U.S. ccosiaptlOB § M D t of total U.S. popuLttla M ^ m Itov Kiddie l^.K. V.n. oc^lh E.S. W.S. Sanland AUontlc Ontrol Crntml Atlifitlo Cvatral >iitr*L Mc^iau P»;inc Figure 13. — Regional distribution of lobster tail con- sumption (at home) and population, 1969. Not surprisingly, consumption of frozen lob- ster tails is low in New England, what with the availability of local supplies of northern lobsters. Consumption also is low (almost in- significant) in the West Central States, both North and South. Beyond this belt, however, lobster tail consumjjtion picks up considerably, and in the Mountain areas the per capita rate is 1.5 times the national average. There are also significant quantities consumed in the Pa- cific States which account for 8^'f of the U.S. total although the per capita rate in that area is only 61 "Tr of the national average. Recap To recapitulate some of the findings regard- ing geographic distribution of fishery product consumption, it is useful to compare regional rankings. These comjjarisons are shown in Table 1. — Regional ranking in at-home consumption of fishery products, and in population. New England Middle Atlantic E. North Central W c North entral South Atlantic E. C South entral W C South entral Mountain Pacific 8 2 1 6 3 7 s 9 6 9 6 1 7 1 2 6 3 3 2 1 3 2 8 S 2 5 3 9 8 9 9 8 9 8 2 1 2 2 4 4 6 7 4 4 4 3 6 9 4 5 S 8 9 8 7 8 7 7 7 6 7 S Crabs Lobsters Qams Scallops Total shellfish' 3 7 7 1 1 1 4 4 4 9 8 8 2 3 2 7 6 6 6 2 3 8 9 9 Total finfish and shellfish .. ' Includes varieties not listed. Table 1, where it can be seen that the Middle Atlantic area, which ranks second in popula- tion, is apparently the Nation's leading fish and shellfish market. The area achieved first or second ranking in consumption of four out of seven individual species examined in this analysis, which indicates diversity in tastes. The area's lowest rank — sixth — was in oyster consumption. The South Atlantic region ranked just behind the Middle Atlantic in fish and shellfish con- sumption which was consistent with its popu- lation rank. Also, the area ranked first or second in four of the seven species examined. Consumption of oysters in the South Atlantic was especially high relative to other regions. The West South Central region, which ranks fifth in population, ranked third in total fish and shellfish consumption. This ranking was influenced by heavy consumption of finfish, which were not specified in the analysis. The East North Central region is the Nation's most populous, but ranked only fourth in both finfish and shellfish consumption. The area's rank is especially low in consumption of crabs, lobsters, and clams. However, the area con- stitutes one of the leading markets for oysters and lobster tails. The New England area is eighth in popula- tion among the nine U.S. regions. Its rank in finfish and shellfish consumption in the survey was seventh. The area consumed more lobsters than any other single region and was second in total scallop consumption, third in total shellfish consumption, but seventh in total con- sumption of finfish and ninth in oyster con- sumption. Among the other four regions, the Pacific ranked highest in overall shellfish and finfish consumption. The area was especially strong in crabs, where it ranked first, and in oysters and clams, ranking third in these categories. The South Atlantic States ranked fairly high in consumption of oysters and crabs, but were among the lowest in scallops. The West North Central region and the Mountain region ranked at, or near, the bottom in most categories. The Mountain States comprise the least populous region of the United States and actually con- sume more than their propoi-tional share of seafood products. The West North Central States, however, rank sixth in population, but were ranked eighth or ninth in all categories of consumption covered in the analysis. SEASONALITY FACTORS Figures 14 and 15 indicate the seasonal changes in consumption for five leading shell- fish species. Not surprisingly, the consumption of oysters closely follows the patterns of the r l^-wsotb iverage Figure 14. — Monthly index of survey panel consump- tion of oysters, crabs, and clams. Figure 15. — Monthly index of survey panel consump- tion of shrimp and scallops. "R" months, when most of the catch is landed. This reflects the fact that oysters are consumed chiefly in the "fresh" form. Consumption of clams also shows wide seasonal swings, which complement to a degree the changes in oyster consumption. This suggests the probability of substitution between products. For example, consumption of both oysters and clams drops sharply from March to April. At this point clam consumption rises while oyster consump- tion continues to fall. Clam consumption is steady through the early summer months (al- though below winter levels), but rises sharply during August. From September onward clam consumption drops as oyster consumption climbs sharply. Crab consumption varies from month to month, but not to the degree exhibited by oys- ters and clams. Crab consumption apparently has a summer peak in July and a winter peak in January-February. Month-to-month variations in both scallop and shrimp consumption appear slight in con- trast to the wide seasonal swings in crabs, clams, and oysters. The picture here for scal- lops and shrimp is a winter i)eak with a steady tapering off beginning in March and lasting through November. The relatively smooth seasonality of consumption of scallops and shrimp reflects the availability of year-round supplies from both current catch and inven- tories. CONSUMPTION AT HOME AND AWAY FROM HOME The survey covered the question of the quantities of seafood consumed away from home. Although the answers were not as pre- cise as would be desired, they did give some in- dication of the proportions of fishery i)roducts distributed through retail stores and through institutional outlets — restaurants, etc." (Fig- ures 16 and 17). (Pounds) 1 .000 750 500 250 I 1 1 r (Psundt) 250 500 750 1 ,000 ^m Figure 16. — Consumption at home and away, by survey panel: clams, crabs, and oysters. Wide variations were found among the spe- cies examined in the breakdown between at- home and away-from-home consumption. It appeared, however, that proportionally more shellfish meals are consumed outside the home than finfish. Lobsters and clams, for example, appeared more likely to be consumed away from home than other varieties examined. The sur- vey indicated that 59 ''r of lobster consumption and 48 'r of clam consumption occur away from home. Consumption of shrimp and oysters out- side the home accounts, respectively, for 21% and 19 "^Y of the total consumption of each. Fewer crabs proportionally — 9''r — are eaten away from home than other species. Among * The question regarding consumption away from home was cast in terms of number of meals. It was thus necessary to transform the number of meals eaten away from home into pounds, which was done by assuming average cooked portions in the neighborhood of .'! oz. This figure was obtained from the U.S. De- partment of .\griculture study of portion sizes served in institutional outlets (Peterkin and Evans, 1965). 10 (Pounds) t.,.inri l.niw ? .nnn I ,;mi) (Founds) 1,000 2,000 3.000 4,000 5,000 Figure 17. — Consumption at home and away, by survey panel: shrimp, lobster, halibut, haddock, and flounder. the finfish examined, it was found that the pro- portion of halibut and flounder consumed away from home was 11 '^r in each case, while 7% of haddock was consumed outside the home. The above estimates are the result of pre- liminary considerations of the data in the sur- vey. Further study in this direction is in- tended. It should be noted, however, that the finding's are not inconsistent with the results of a 1965 survey of food consumption conducted by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (Le- Bovit, 1970) . In that survey it was found that, overall, about 20% of fish product consump- tion occurred away from home. The aver- age from the present survey appears to be slightly lower. Possibly these estimates will evoke surprise from domestic producers of certain seafood products who are accustomed to marketing 40% or more of their output to the institutional trade, which appears to be the case for shrimp and finfish portions. With this in mind, and assuming a fair degree of accuracy in the survey, it would appear that imports are predominant in retail sales. For example, if it is true that about 80% of shrimp are consumed at home and also that 40% of the domestic output of shrimp is distributed through institutions, then 3 out of every 5 lb. of shrimp purchased in retail stores are im- ports. In any event, the important point is that the larger volume of total distribution of seafood products flows through the retail mar- kets and these outlets warrant attention in mass marketing strategies. Competition from im- ports in the retail markets is likely to be keener than experienced in the institutional trade. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN INCOME AND CONSUMPTION The survey indicated a clear tendency for households with higher incomes to consume greater quantities of most shellfish products. Consumer panel households in the $10,000 plus income bracket, for example, consumed 38% of the shrimp tallied in the survey although the group comprised only 31% of the total num- ber of households. Similarly, the upper income group consumed well above their proportional share of other shellfish with the exception of oysters (Table 2). Apparently the income- Table 2. — Percent of total U.S. seafood consumption by household income, 1969. Household income Under $5,000 « 5,000- S6,999 87,000- 29,999 210,000 and over Percent of total survey househol is. 29 15 -'5 31 Percent of total consumption: Shrimp .... Oysters .... Crabs Clams Scallops . . ■ Ocean perch Light tuna . 17 32 18 14 19 29 20 14 16 14 4 12 16 15 31 25 24 40 32 30 38 27 44 42 37 25 37 consumption relationship for oysters is the re- verse of what was observed for other shell- fish. About 48% of oysters were consumed in survey households with incomes under $7,000; this group made up 44 Sf of the total number of households. The deviation exhibited by oys- ters is likely influenced by the geographic dis- tribution of oyster consumption. As noted pre- viously, oysters are heavily consumed in areas where they are produced. Family incomes in these areas generally are below national aver- ages. Two varieties of finfish were examined — ocean perch (frozen) and tuna (canned). It was found that consumption of ocean perch tapered oflT in the top income g-roups whereas 11 Pounds Hr Capita C«pii Undvr 5.000-7 ,yuu- lO.UiJO tt $5,000 6.9%9 9.999 Over Pound ■ Per Caplt« n Under 5, GOD- 7, 000-10. 000 & 55,000 6,?V9 9,999 Over Pound! Par Cjplts Under 5,000-7.000- lu,000 & 55,000 6.999 9,999 Over OCEAK PLttCH Poisida Per Capita o.95r L'nder 5,000- 7,000- lO.OOO i 55,000 6.999 9,999 Over Pounds Per Capita 0.30 Under 5,000- 7,000- 10,000 & $5,000 6.999 9,999 Over Pounds Per Capita i.oor Under 5.000- 7,000- 10,000 & $5,000 6,999 9,999 Over LIGHT TUNA Pounds Per Capita 2.oN- I'J^der S.UJlT- V.UUU-'IU.WU & SS.OOO 6,999 9,999 Over Figure 18. — Per capita consumption by household in- come group: crabs, clams, oysters, and shrimp. Source: Appendix 9. Figure 20. — Per capita consumption by household in- come group: scallops, ocean perch, and light tuna. Source: Appendix 9. Pounds Per Household o.eop Under 5.000- 7,000- lO.OuO & $5,000 6,999 9,999 Over Founds Per Household 0.4(>- n Under 5.000- 7.000- 10,000 & 55,000 6.999 9,999 Over Pounds Per Household o.4or Under 5,000- 7,000- 10.000 & 55,000 6,999 9,999 Over OCEAN PERCH Pounds Per Household 2.50 r Under 5,000- 7,000- 10,000 & $5 ,000 6 ,999 9 .999 Over Pounds Per Household 0. so- under 5,000- 7.000- 10,000 i. 55.000 6,999 9,999 Over Pounds Per Hgugehold Under 5.000- 7,000- 10,000 t, 55,000 6,999 9,999 Over LIGHT TUNA Pounds Per Household 6.00 r Under 5,000- 7,000- 10. 000 & 55,000 6,999 9,999 Over Figure 19. — Consumption per household by household income group: crabs, clams, oysters, and shrimp. Source: Appendix 10. Figure 21. — Consumption per household by household income group: scallops, ocean perch, and light tuna. Source: Appendix 10. 12 canned tuna consumption showed a tendency to increase with income. In evaluating the association between income group and consumption, it is necessary to view consumption on a per capita basis as well as per household. Families in the survey tended to be larger in the upper income brackets, and this fact would account, at least in part, for greater consumption. As may be seen in Fig- ures 18 through 21, however, the income-con- sumption relationships for shellfish products are similar on both household and per capita bases, which supports the contention that high- er incomes influence greater consumption of shellfish products. It should be pointed out that the reverse indication for oysters does not ne- cessarily brand this species as a unique ex- ception. Supplies of oysters, it appears, are more available to lower income areas, and tech- nological barriers sustain this situation. Given the experience of other shellfish, there appears little reason to disbelieve that per capita con- sumption of oysters among higher income groups in urban areas could be increased con- siderably provided consistent supplies are made available. Interestingly, the income distribution of canned tuna consumption flattened out when per capita rates were considered. This indi- cates that income level per se has little in- fluence on demand for tuna. EFFECTS OF AGE ON CONSUMER PREFERENCE There were positive indications in the sur- vey that older consumers are the more disposed toward consumption of fishery products. About 50% of households in the United States are headed by persons 45 years and older, yet this group, according to the survey, accounts for 72% of the oyster consumption, 68% of the clam consumption, and 70% of the scallop con- sumption, to cite several examples. On the other hand, the 28% of U.S. households headed by persons under 35 appear to consume only 20 %o of the oysters, 14% of the clams, and 13% of the scallops. Shrimp alone, among seven categories of seafood examined, exhibited an even distribution with respect to age of house- hold head (Table 3). Table 3. — Percentage distribution of seafood consump- tion at home by age of household head.' Age ol household head Under 35 35-4+ 45 and over U.S. population . . . 28% 22% 50% Percent of total consumption; Shrimp . . . . Oysters . . . . Crabs Lobsters . . . Clams Scallops . . . Finfish . . . . Canned 5sh 31 20 22 20 14 U 23 22 IS 8 19 21 18 17 18 20 51 72 59 59 68 70 59 58 1 Projected U.S. distribution based on per household consumption re- vealed in survey sample. Income may be a factor in the tendency for "older" households to consume more fishery products, assuming that higher incomes are associated with older household heads. None- theless, the apparent even distribution of shrimp would seem to discount this contention. The simple conclusion thus is that young house- holds are not consuming their proportional share of seafood products. Consequently, there is a generation of consumers growing up who are not developing the preferences for seafood products exhibited by persons in the older age brackets. In brief, the lines of tradition in seafood consumption are being broken. Pro- ducers would do well, therefore, to pay heed to this apparent trend and dii-ect their market- ing efforts accordingly. ACKNOWLEDGMENT The authors wish to express their apprecia- tion to Francis M. Schuler, research assistant, for his valuable contribution to the statistical and graphic presentations in this report. TECHNICAL NOTE Characteristics of the Sample of Survey Households The participating households in the survey are members of Market Facts, Inc., Consumer Mail Panel which consists of 25,000 households across the United States. The Panel is consti- tuted on the basis of a "balanced sample" and 13 is designed to parallel census data for the Unit- ed States with respect to geographic divisions, household income, population density and de- gree of urbanization, and age of Panel members. A sample of 1,500 households was selected from the full Panel by stratified random samp- ling. The smaller sample maintains corres- pondence with the above mentioned census data and provides a reasonable cross section of other demographic characteristics, e.g. education, occupation, race, religion, family size, and age and sex composition of the children. The survey Panel may be considered closely representative of the population of U.S. house- holds with respect to the significant demograph- ic variables. Household surveys, however, are particularly vulnerable to nonsampling errors arising from unavoidable biases in the question- naire and in the memories of the respondents. To minimize the nonsampling errors, completed questionnaires were monitored for obvious re- porting errors. LITERATURE CITED LeBOVIT, C. 1970. Foods eaten away from home. National food situation. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Wash- ington, D.C. 25-31. PETERKIN, B., and B. EVANS. 1965. Food purchasing guide for group feeding. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C. 54 p. 14 APPENDICES #PAanc ( 2626 HOUSEHOLDS 13.1 EAST NORTH CENTRAL 3974 HOUSEHOLDS 19.9 NEW ENGLAND 1154 HOUSEHOLDS'^ 5.8"»- MIDDLE ATLANTIC 3848 HOUSEHOLDS 19.2 '^5 EAST SOUTH CENTRAL 1218 HOUSEHOLDS 6.1 SOUTH ATUNTIC \2812 HOUSEHOLDS 14.1% Appendix 1. — Geographic divisions of the United States and distribution of survey sample. 15 Appendix 2. — Estimated at-home consumption of shellfish, finfish, and canned fish by region. Population data from Bureau of the Census, New England Middle Ailantic E. North Cenlral W- North Central South Atlantic E. South Cenual \V. South Central Mountain Pacific Total POPULATION: (Thousands) CONSUMPTION* : Shrimp: Per capita Total ... % Oyitert: Per capita Total ... % Crabs: Per capita Total . . . Lobster : Per capita Total ... Lobster tails: Per capita . - Total Qams: Per capita Total . . . % Scallops : Per capita Total . . . % Other shellftsh: Per capita Total . . . Total sheltlisli: Per capita Total . . . % Total finfish: Per capita Total . . . Total shellRih and finfish: Per capita Total . . . % Total canned fish: Per ctpita . . Total 11,466 5.67 0.998 11,443 5.82 0.125 1,433 3.38 0.161 1,846 5.50 1,895 21,728 64.78 0.052 596 2.21 0.649 7,441 50.08 0.275 3.153 18.37 0.009 103 6.70 4.164 47,744 13.03 5.802 66,526 6.71 9.966 114,270 8.41 5.677 65,092 6.07 37,242 18.49 1.257 46,813 23.82 0.116 4,320 10.21 0 126 4,692 14.00 0.114 4,246 1265 0.211 7,858 29.20 0.073 2.719 18.30 0.131 4,879 28.43 0.003 112 7.29 2.031 75.639 20.64 4.648 173,101 17.46 6.679 248,739 18.32 5.657 210,678 19.66 39,759 19.74 .726 28,865 14.68 0.149 5.924 14.00 0.018 716 2.13 0.021 835 2.48 0.181 7,196 26.74 0.021 835 5.62 0.069 2,743 15.98 0.008 318 20.70 1. 193 47,432 12.94 3.506 139,395 14.06 4.699 186.828 13.76 4.168 165,716 15.47 16,206 8.04 .466 7,552 3.84 0121 1.961 4.63 0.006 97 0.28 0.004 65 0.19 0.025 405 1.50 0 0 0 0.009 146 0.85 0 0 0 0,631 10.226 2.79 2.454 39.770 4.01 3.085 49.996 3.68 4.159 67.401 6.29 30.145 14.96 1.253 37.772 19.22 0.403 12.148 28.71 0.213 6.421 19.16 0.141 4.250 12.67 0.087 2.623 9.74 0.035 1.055 7.10 0.056 1.688 9.83 0.009 271 17.64 2.197 66.229 18.07 5.375 162.029 16.35 7.572 228.258 16.81 5.293 159.557 14.89 Total theII6sh, finfish and canned fish (Includes specialty items not shown): Per capita . . , 17.609 14.294 10.044 7.882 14.220 Total 201.905 532.337 399.229 127.736 428,662 % 7.43 19.60 14.71 4.70 15.79 13.054 6.48 .863 11.266 5.73 0.360 4.699 11.10 0.203 2,650 7.90 0.122 1,593 4.74 0.336 4,386 16.29 0.016 209 1.40 0.007 91 0.53 0.004 52 3.38 1.911 24,946 6.80 7.491 97,788 9.87 9.402 122,734 9.04 6.778 88,480 8.25 17.237 225,012 8.28 19,337 9.60 1.265 24.461 12.44 0.227 4.389 10.37 0.097 1.876 5.59 0.005 97 0.28 0.004 77 0.28 0.003 58 0.39 0.014 271 1.57 0.019 367 23.89 1.634 31,597 8.62 8.630 166.878 16.84 10.264 198.475 14.61 5.513 106.605 9.95 16.555 320.124 11.79 8.102 4.02 1.287 10.427 5.30 0.296 2.398 5.66 0.151 1.223 3.64 0.022 178 0.53 0.201 1,629 6.05 0.017 138 0.92 0.227 1,839 10.71 0 0 0 2.201 17.833 4.86 3.712 30.075 3.03 5.913 47,907 3.52 6.545 53,028 4.95 14.239 115,364 4.24 26.095 I2.9S 0.686 17.901 9.10 0193 5.036 11.90 0.536 13.987 41.74 0.021 548 1.63 0.082 2.140 7.95 0.092 2.401 16.16 0.090 2.349 13.68 0.012 313 20.37 1. 712 44.675 12.19 4.433 115.679 11.67 6.145 160.354 11.81 5.926 154.639 14.43 13.958 364.234 13.41 201.406 100.0 0.976 196.500 1000 0.210 42.308 100.0 0.166 33,508 100.0 0.167 33,540 100.0 0.134 26,910 100.0 0074 14,856 100.0 0085 17.159 lOO.O 0.008 1.536 100.0 1.819 366.321 100.0 4.922 991.240 100.0 6.740 1.357,560 100.0 5 318 1,071.196 100 0 13.479 2,714,713 1000 t Per capita consumption in pounds, total in thousands of pounds. 16 Appendix 3. — Regional supplies and distribution of oysters. Supplies In- shipment^ Distribution Landings Consumption Out- shipment New England 2.024 Middle Atlantic East Nonh Central . . West North Central . . South Atlantic East South Central . . West South Central . . Mountain Pacific Total 26,473 Thousand pounds Thousand pounds 2.024 300 2.324 __ 6.004 1.000 7,004 __ 9,605 9,605 _. 3.180 3,180 ._ 24,912 19,697 5,215 1.603 6.014 7,619 11.674 7,116 4,558 3,889 __ 3.889 __ 166 8.000 8,166 6,473 51,900 68,600 9,773 ^ Includes 16,700 thousand pounds in foreign imports. Appendix 4. — Regional supplies and distribution of clams. Appendix 5. — Regional supplies and distribution of crabs. Supplies Distribution In- shipment Landings Consumption Out- shipment Supplies Distribution In- shipment^ Landings Consumption Out- shipment Thousand pounds New England 31.423 6,392 Middle Atlantic .. 57.248 East North Central .... 4.242 West North Central .... South Atlantic .. 11,860 East South Genua] .... 1.061 West South Central .... 298 Mountain 703 Pacific 12,202 Total 49,929 75,000 Thousand pounds 37,815 __ 13,817 43,431 4.242 - 5.362 6,498 1.061 298 _, 703 __ 12.202 __ 75.500 49,929 New England 2,456 Middle Atlantic East North Central . . West North Central . . South Atlantic East South Central . . West South Central . . Mountain 1.694 Pacific Total 14.896 Thousand pounds Thousand pounds 2,456 100 2,556 6,414 83 6,497 992 992 135 135 14,941 8,891 6,050 2.903 766 3,669 302 2,296 2,598 1,694 1.694 25,176 19.367 5.809 43,362 46.399 11.859 ^ Includes 3,035 thousand pounds in foreign imports. Appendix 6. — Survey panel consumption and monthly index of consumption of shrimp, oysters, crabs, clams, and scallops. Species Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept Oct. Nov. Jan. Avg. Shximp: Consumption . (pounds) Index Oysters: Consumption . (pounds) Index Crabs : Consumption 86.6 (pounds) Index Ctams: Consumption ... (pounds) Index Scallops : Consumption . (pounds) Index 520.1 418.5 431.1 416.5 386.3 356.2 363.5 371.6 325.2 299.5 455.7 354.5 391.6 133 107 110 106 99 91 93 95 83 76 116 91 100 162.3 124.5 65.2 20.6 5.0 14.9 8.1 16.2 81.0 158.2 193.6 141.0 82.S 197 151 79 25 6 18 10 20 98 192 235 171 100 86.6 76.9 59.2 62.6 43.5 81.3 55.6 50.1 62.6 42.3 62.5 88.6 64.3 135 120 92 97 68 126 86 78 97 66 97 138 100 35.5 53.6 21.2 28.7 28.0 29.5 7.9 56.2 32.3 23.9 24.1 26.8 30.6 116 175 69 94 92 96 26 184 106 78 79 88 100 45.9 53.6 37.2 36.2 29.3 32.3 33.7 30.4 27.5 21.9 29.5 40.3 34.8 132 154 107 104 84 93 97 87 79 63 85 116 100 ^ The base for each index is the 12-month avciage consumption for each species. 17 Appendix 7. — Consumer panel consumption of fresh and frozen clams, crabs, and oysters at home and away from home. Appendix 8. — Consumption at home and away from home, by surs'ey panel: shrimp, lobster, halibut, haddock, and flounder. hem Ac bom« Away from home Item At home Away from home aana . Crabs . . Oysterf — — — — Pounds ' — — 368 339 (52%) (48%) 772 139 (91%) (9%) 991 235 (81%) (19%) Shrimp . . Lobster Halibut . Haddock Flounder ■ Pounds ■ 4,699 1.263 (74%) (21%) 835 1.224 (41%) (59%) 1.528 187 (89%) (11%) 2.901 206 (93%) (7%) 2.670 315 (81%) (11%) Appendix 9. — Consumption per household by household income group for selected species. Appendix 10. — Per capita consumption by household income group for selected species. Shrimp Oysters Crabs Clams Scallops Ocean perch Light tuna Shrimp Oysters Crabs Cla Scallops Ocean perch Light luna _ _ __ _ Pounds _ Pounds Under $5,000 . . 1.73 0.709 0.302 0.115 0.170 1.914 3.60 Under S5,000 . . 0.749 0 307 0.131 0.050 0.073 0.829 1.56 »5,000-86,999 . . 2.86 .675 .451 .055 .206 2.037 5.33 «5,000-«6,999 . . 0.909 .214 .143 .017 .066 .647 1.69 57,000-89,999 . . 3.56 .607 .461 .370 .335 2.31 5.69 $7.000-«9,999 . . 1.04 .178 .135 .107 .099 .674 1.66 ; 10,000 and over 3. 65 .536 .692 .312 .315 1.55 6.09 $10,000 and over 1.06 .156 .202 .091 .092 .453 1.78 Total 2.96 .625 .487 .232 .263 1.92 5.16 Total 0.966 .204 .159 .076 .086 .626 1.68 SPO 998-6 72 18 Regional and Other Related Aspects of Shellfish Consumption; Some Pre- liminary Findings from the 1969 Consumer Panel Survey, by Morton M. Miller and Barrel A. Nash, Circular 361 ERRATA Page 13, right column. In the Technical Note, the reference to the con- sumer mail panel should read "consists of 20,000 households," rather than "consists of 25,000 households." Page 15. The Appendix title should read "Geographic divisions of the United States and distribution of full consumer panel." ■OSFH 1971 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COAAMERCE NATIONAL OCEANIC & ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE SCIENTIFIC PUBLICATIONS STAFF BLDG. 67, NAVAL SUPPORT ACTIVITY SEAHLE, WASHINGTON 98115 POSTAGE AND FEES PAID U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE OFFICIAL BUSINESS PER iOD ICAL^. L ( liHMi i /iM MARINE BiOLOGlCAL LABORATORY LIBRARY WOODS HOLE, KA 02^43