Historic, archived document

Do not assume content reflects current scientific knowledge, policies, or practices.

ig “UNTED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRIULTURE ;

eS SOS

v : November, 1926

a

CONSUMER HABITS AND PREFERENCES IN THE PURCHASE AND CONSUMPTION OF MEAT

By

KELSEY B. GARDNER, Associate Economic Analyst, and LAWRENCE A. ADAMS formerly Associate Economic Analyst, Bureau of Agricultural Economics

CONTENTS 5; Page Relation of Consumer to Preduction and Consumption. ......:22.:.22.>5 1 Seppe Netureat Sale => So es Se Se Se eee ewe 2 Cities Covered . ..... peice iat al ab w Spike Saeed Population Groups ....... Ren es Soe ha oe 3 Nnutber- of Questionnakes<. 3. 0. Si ew oe te 4 wee Commuter Ouiestsonmmire =<. 5. 5. 5 5 oa ee es ewe 5 ee a ee ee rs ee eee 5 aa OF Sia ae oe 5S ea ow we ae eh BE eC 6 iit ah puree Mine fo io as are Sos a 5 Se oS Se 6 _ Replies te Questions. ........- Sera aie a Sow ee ea ay Se hae ee oe eee pemnenre Oi MremBOt Se ek eee ook sg tg ae oe ne 34 oe i ae rer ae 37 TG Set ee BS ee a a ae eae ree 39 WASHINGTON GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1926

Wi doligne yh a2 ere

Ve age ai TS Ve Bg ee

SURVEY of the retail marketing of meat was provided

for by Congress in the act making appropriations for the United States Department of Agriculture for the fiscal year 1924-25. Further appropriation for this work was provided for the year 1925-26. The survey was divided’ into three parts: (1) Methods and practices; (2) margins, expenses, and profits; and (3) consumer habits and prefer- ences in the purchase and consumption of meat. A study of these factors and of their influence upon the market for meat constituted the general plan as a whole. The first part of the study is reported in Department Bulletin No. 1441, and the second part in Department Bulletin No. 1442. _ The third part, relating to consumer habits and _ preferences in the purchase and consumption of meat, is covered in this

bulletin.

Washington, D. C. S | | : : November, 1926

C0 SUMER HABITS AND PREFERENCES IN THE PURCHASE AND CON- “SUMPTION OF MEAT’

By Ketsry B. Garpner, Associate Economic Analyst, and LAWRENCE A. ADAMS, ormerly Assogate Economic Analyst, Bureau of Agricultural Economics

t

™ Wau 22>. a ae CONTENTS Page j Page Relation of consumer to production and con- Summary. Of TeSutShee ee ee ee cea 34 SULT Ore ae eee ee ree 1 WECAT ICONS ITA GION = see eee tn ae 34 Scope and nature of study --2.-.---- 2.1242, 2 Wieatipurchasin gies sors reese 35 Cities Cow eres: ae ee ee 2 Mieatradvertising ses 2 saa Toe 36 Populationagroups << ee ee 3 Consumer knowledge of meat quality and Number of questionnaires._______.--_---- 4 CEL Fis oe ah, See |W se A ees eee! Ee ae The consumer questionnaire_____-_-_______ 5 Questicum aire at es ee See ee 37 Collection of information.._---__.---_-__-- 5 abl esge fxr cesta Ps aes oe reer iss eee kOe 39 RESuMtStor the; SURVEY <5 = = sass ee ee ee aes 6 Method of presentation-_-__--_-_--_------ 6

Repliesstonquestions === -3 = 2 7

RELATION GF CONSUMER TO PRODUCTION AND DISTRIBUTION

Producer, distributor, and consumer are concerned in varying degree with production and distribution problems. Of these three | groups, the consumer is recognized as the one wielding the strongest | influence not only because it is in this group that consumption of | products takes place but because of the effect of consumer preferences and demands in the determination of production and distribution methods and practices.

The importance of consumer demand in the production and mar- keting of meat is unquestioned. Consumer preferences for the vari- ous kinds and cuts of meat are influences of the highest importance to producers of meat animals and to distributors of meat and meat products. More definite knowledge of these consumer preferences and buying habits in the purchasing and consumption of meat should be of aid in adjusting production and distribution methods to meet consumer demand and in developing programs of education designed to eliminate some of the lack of consumer knowledge which now renders consumers peculiarly susceptible to unwitting purchase of meats and meat products of inferior quality.

1 This survey was planned and organized by J. Clyde Marquis, agricultural economist; the field work of gathering the materials was supervised by Lawrence A. Adams; the data were analyzed and the manu- script was prepared by Kelsey B. Gardner. Mayme C, Parker assisted in compiling the data and in making the computations.

15287°—26——1

2 BULLETIN 1443, U. 8. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

The retailing agency, which comes in closest contact with the con-

sumer, first feels the effect of these preferences of the consumer and recognizes them as consumer likes and dislikes. The contact is direct and any adjustments which the retailer makes in answer to the demand are accomplished in response to definite consumer wishes.

Adjustments to changes in consumer demand by producers and distributors who do not come directly in contact with the consumer are brought about in less direct manner than in the case of the retailer. The producer to whom the change in demand is finally transmitted through successive agencies may receive it in the form of price vari- ation which, in all probability he does not recognize as a result of a change in consumer preferences.

Consumer demand for a commodity may be expressed in several forms. The quantity taken by the consumer group may vary with changesin quality or price. Theremay be an actual shift to some other commodity, if quality or price is not in agreement with consumer preference and a substitute is available. Or consumer demand may be expressed in the form of complaints against price or quality with- out any consequent variation in the quantity of the commodity taken. Further, consumer demand may be related not so much to the commodity itself as to the services rendered in connection with its distribution. The preference for packaged goods instead of the same goods in bulk is a familiar example. Again, the retailer may be asked to extend further delivery or charge service, all of which are phases of consumer demand.

The retailing of meat is subject to the conditions imposed by con- sumer demand, but study of this phase of meat distribution has been given little attention heretofore. Accordingly, when appropriation was made by Congress for a study of the retailing of meat in 1924-25 and again for a continuation of the study in 1925-26, a portion of the study thus provided for was devoted to meat-consumer habits and preferences.

It should be made clear at the outset that this study was not di- rected toward the determination of the relation of variation in quan- tity demand to price changes. On the contrary, the aim of the study was to obtain information which might make clearer some of the purchasing habits of housewives; their knowledge concerning grades, quality, and cuts of meat; and their preferences for various kinds and cuts of meat and use of meat in the household. All of these are of effect in bringing about some of our present methods of retail meat distribution.

SCOPE AND NATURE OF STUDY

CITIES COVERED

Personal fees ‘with housewives by. bee of the

United States Department of Agriculture were the means adopted for obtaining statements of meat consumer practices and_ opinions. This work was carried out in 16 representative cities, which were chosen to bring out regional differences and some of the racial or nationality distinctions which might exist in the purchasing and con- sumption. of meat... These .cities were: Baltimore, Md., Bingham- ton, N. Y., Birmingham, Ala., Denver, Colo., Fargo and Grand Forks;

vee

CONSUMER PREFERENCES IN PURCHASE OF MEAT 3.

N. D., Jacksonville, Fla., Lincoln, Nebr., Minneapolis, Minn., New Haven, Conn., New Orleans, La., Oklahoma City, Okla., Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, Pa., San Francisco, Calif., and Washington, D. C.

POPULATION GROUPS

Variations in meat-consumer practices arise through such differ- ences asrace, nationality, and income. In order that these variations might be disclosed, it was necessary to interview families of different population groups and to analyze the questionnaires from these groups separately.

The population groups and group subdivisions of importance in the 16 cities were as follows:

American white group: Foreign groups: Poor class. English. Middle class. Finnish. Well-to-do class. French. Wealthy class. German.

Colored group: ltalian.

Poor class. Jewish

Middle class. Polish. Russian. Scandinavian.

Foreign families which had retained to marked extent the habits and customs of other countries were chosen. This was the primary distinction between the American white group and the foreign groups.

As the standard of living varies according to income and social position, the four subdivisions were made within the American white group.

POOR CLASS

The poor class consisted of families? living in the poorest white sections of the cities and whose family incomes were very limited.

MIDDLE CLASS

_ The middle class was the artisan group. Families oi this class lived in modest homes in the poorer white residential sections of the

cities.

WELL=TO-DO CLASS

Salaried and professional workers and their families made up the larger portion of the well-to-do group. Such families had fair incomes and found it possible to maintain some social position.

WEALTHY CLASS

Wealthy families were those with incomes sufficiently large to live in the most exclusive sections of the cities and to employ servants.

It is worth while to emphasize that the distinction on which these four classes was based was one of standard of living rather than abso-

2 Two people or more living together were taken as the family anit. The word “family” is not used here in the sense of the natural family, but rather as a group of persons living together and constituting the membership of the household. For the purposes of this survey the words “‘family ”’ and ‘‘ household ”’ may be regarded as interchangeable, unless the context indicates otherwise. No boarding houses were included under this classification. Families with one or two persons boarding with them were classed as families and not as boarding houses, 5 . ; ae

4. _ BULLETIN 1443, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

lute income. It was understood that some members of the middle class had incomes larger than some members of the well-to-do class. In establishing the classification of the family the interviewer was guided by the housewife’s statement of the occupation of the hus- band or wage earner of the family and by other observable factors, such as the residential area in which the home was located and the general characteristics and appearance of the home itself. The housewives interviewed were selected at random.

In the negro or colored group only the poor and middle classes were interviewed. ‘These classifications corresponded to those defined for the American white group.

In the foreign group, division was made by nationality only. No attempt was made to set up income or standard of living groups. Effort was made, however, to obtain for each group questionnaires from families representative of the entire group.

NUMBER OF QUESTIONNAIRES

Four thousand four hundred and sixty-six housewives were inter- viewed in the 16 cities. ‘The members of the households which these housewives represented totaled 20,744 persons. (Table 1.)

The distribution of the questionnaires by city and by group and —

class is shown in Table 2. It will be noted in this table that for the most part the questionnaires for any one class totaled about 50 for each city, although there was some variation from this number. It has been found in previous surveys of somewhat similar character that a group of about 50 replies gathered at random was sufficiently representative of one population class in a single city. This basis of collecting questionnaires resulted in obtaining about 200 in each city when all the four classes of the American white group were inter- viewed. If any colored or foreign groups were surveyed, the total number of questionnaires for the city was increased correspondingly.

Housewives in 2,912 American white households were interviewed. Of this total, 751 were of the poor class, 782 of the middle class, 796 of the well-to-do class, and 583 of the wealthy class. In the colored group, 203 housewives of the poor class and 197 of the middle class

were interviewed, a total of 400. In the foreign group, there were —

interviewed 100 English housewives, 45 Finnish, 50 French, 175

German, 276 Italian, 113 Jewish, 195 Polish, 50 Russian, and 150 ©

Scandinavian, a total of 1,154 housewives for the entire group.

Particular attention is called to the fact that all 16 cities were not ©

represented in all population groups or group subdivisions. However,

in each table in which are presented the results of this investigation, — it should be understood that, unless otherwise stated in the heading — or footnotes of the table, the cities included in the data were those |

listed in Table 2.

The number of replies for several questions sometimes varied from |

that indicated in Table 2. These differences were partly accounted

for by the fact that some oi the questions were not answered because | of inability of the interviewers to obtain satisfactory replies from all — housewives for ail questions. Other factors which contributed to || the variation in the number of replies were the changes made in the © questionnaire after the survey had been completed in Baltimore, —

Binghamton, New Haven, Philadelphia, and Pittsburgh, and partially

; | x

|

) r (f i) i

i He |

i

|

CONSUMER PREFERENCES IN PURCHASE OF MEAT 5

finished in Washington, which were the first cities in which the study was conducted. Certain of the questions asked in these cities were eliminated from the final form and other questions which were not in the first form were added to the final form of the questionnaire.

THE CONSUMER QUESTIONNAIRE

The questions forming the questionnaire were developed after tests of several questionnaires in six cities. In its final form the questionnaire included those questions for which it was believed satis- factory and reliable answers could be obtained. ‘The questions were so framed as to include not only those relating to actual practices in the purchase and consumption but also others indicating housewives’ opinions and viewpoints in the purchasing and consumption of meat.

For the purposes of the survey, fish and poultry were not regarded as meat and were classed as other foods. Particular emphasis was placed on fresh meat as distinguished from smoked and cured meats.

The nature and extent of the information gathered through the questionnaire will be more readily grasped by a statement of its general content. A summary *of the questions follows:

Value of meat consumed weekly by families or households.

Number of family members.

Age and sex of family members.

Number of servants in the household.

Family and other household members eating and not eating meat.

Reasons why adults do not eat meat.

Kind of meat preferred.

Reasons for buying steaks, chops, roasts, and boiling meat.

Number of times per week meat was served at breakfast, lunch, and dinner.

Reasons for serving meat in preference to other foods.

Foods served in place of meat and reasous for their use. P

Relative importance of various foods in the household.

Housewife’s opinion as to whether the family eats too much meat, just enough, or not enough, and reasons for stating too much or too little meat.

Type of market patronized, reasons for buying at a particular market and for changing markets.

Familiarity of housewives with local advertising.

Purchasing habits of housewives.

Housewives’ knowledge of various cuts of meat.

It is apparent in collecting information concerning consumer pref- erences and opinions by several observers that arbitrary and rigid restrictions must be placed onthe meaning of the question, in order that all interviewers may place the same interpretation on each question. These definitions and limitations will be indicated whenever necessary in the discussion of each of the various questions.

COLLECTION OF INFORMATION

The nature of the questions to be asked at the personal interviews required the use of trained interviewers, who would be able to rephrase or to explain a question sufficiently to set satisfactory replies with- out actually suggesting the answer. These interviewers were accord- ingly instructed and their work directed so that the results obtained by the various workers might be properly compared and combined.

3A list of the questions for which results are presented in this publication is given in the questionnaire, | pages 37 and 38. Some variation will be noted between the wording of certain of the questions and that used in the tables and in the discussion of the questions. A restatement of the questions seemed nec- esssary in order that the questions might clearly indicate their meanings when removed from the other questions with which they were associated in the questionnaire.

6 BULLETIN 1443, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

The same questionnaire was used for all groups, so that variations noted among the groups in the replies to the same question were indicative of the differences arising through race, nationality, or dif- ferences in standards of living.

In the conduct of this survey only those families that consumed meat were interviewed. Strict vegetarian families were not inter- viewed. Families using meat in small quantities were included.

RESULTS OF THE SURVEY

METHOD OF PRESENTATION

The principal form of presentation of housewives’ replies to the questionnaires is the summary table in which results for a single ques- tion from various cities were combined by population groups and group subdivisions. In compiling these summary tables no attempt was made to bring out the differences in consumer demand among cities, but to disclose these differences the replies to certain questions were arranged by cities.. In the city tables there has not been com- plete presentation of all data for all groups and classes for each city. Only the combined total number of replies from housewives of the middle and well-to-do classes of the American white group has been shown. It was believed that the two classes would more truly indi- cate the differences among cities in consumer preferences and buying habits, as they seemed to constitute the most representative portion of each city’s population, when judged from the standpoints of race, nationality, and standard of living.

The usual unit in the tables is the family or household. In nearly all of the tables the number of replies was based on the family or household, since most of the questions related to the household and not to the individual members. The few exceptions will be noted as the questions and tables are discussed.

In presenting the analysis, the number of housewives giving the same answer to a question was expressed as a percentage of the total number of housewives replying to the question. This use of percent- ages permits direct comparisons among different population groups for which the number of replies varied greatly. Reference to the total number of replies to any question for any population group or class will indicate the extent of the data on which the conclusions were based.

It should be made clear that the percentages were calculated to the first decimal place, not because the data justified such accuracy but because of the mathematical necessity of having the various per- centages relating to the several answers to a question total 100 per cent. Since some of the answers occurred in small numbers and con- stituted at times less than 1 per cent of the total replies, the use of tenths of 1 per cent was desirable in indicating the relative impor- tance of these answers. i

No relations were apparent among many of the phases of this study of consumer demand, and at this stage of investigations of this char- | acter it was necessary to present the results for many questions © separately without relating them to other questions. Each of the © questions is therefore presented as a separate unit; but where rela- — tions were thought to exist between various questions, they have

been pointed out.

CONSUMER PREFERENCES IN PURCHASE OF MEAT 1.

REPLIES TO QUESTIONS

Ie 1.—(a) How many persons in your family (other than servants)? (6) How many servants eating two or more meals daily? (Table1.)

In compiling the replies to this question, no distinction was made between members of natural families and any servants who might be employed in the household, since it was the experience of the house- hold which was of first interest. The portions of the meat consump- tion attributable to the natural family members and to the servants could not be determined, and it was necessary to include the total number of persons composing the household.

The total number of persons reached by the survey is shown in Table 1 by group and class divisions. <A total of 20,744 persons comprised the 4,466 households whose housewives were ‘interviewed. Of this total, 13,369 were of the American white group. Within this group, 3,654 persons were in the 751 households of the poor class, 3,177 in the 782 middle-class households, 3,354 in the 796 well-to-do households, and 3,184 in the 583 wealthy households.

In the colored group, 805 persons composed the 203 households of the poor class, and 818 persons made up the membership of the 197 middle-class households. A total of 1 ,623 persons were in the 400 households of this group.

One thousand one hundred and fifty-four households of the foreign eroup were visited. The number of persons composing these house- holds was 5,752. The size of the foreign groups varied considerably. In order of total number of persons in each group the array of the eroup was as follows: Italian, 1,583 persons in 276 households; Polish, 1,057 persons in 195 households; German, 768 persons in 175 house- holds; Scandinavian, 625 persons in 150 households; Jewish, 534 persons in 113 households; English, 413 persons in 100 households; Russian, 308 persons in 50 households; French, 256 persons in 50 households; Finnish, 208 persons in 45 households.

f ee distribution by cities of the households visited is indicated in

able 2

Considerable variation among the groups and classes was observed in the size of household. The average number of persons per house- hold for the American white group was 4.6. Of this group the wealthy class households had an average membership of 5.5 persons, the largest average in the four classes composing the group. The large number of persons found for the wealthy group was occasioned by the number of servants. In the middle and well-to-do classes the difference in the average number per household was slight, the middle class averaging 4.1 and the well-to-do class 4.2.

For the colored group the average size of household was 4.1 persons. The poor class averaged 4 persons to the household, while the average middle-class household consisted of 4.2 people. The average number of persons in the middle-class household of the colored group thus closely approximated the average size of household in the same class in the American white group, which averaged 4.1 persons. The poor class of the colored group averaged 0.9 person less than the corre- sponding class in the American white group.

In the foreign group the general average was 5 persons to the household. Considerable variation was found among the averages of the nine nationalities composing this group. When the several

8 BULLETIN 1443, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

ee

nationalities were arrayed in order by size of household, the Russians

were found to be first, with an average of 6.2 persons.

Question 2.—What is the cost of the meat consumed per week in your household? (Table 3.)

The average cost of the meat used per week in 2,479 American white homes was $3.49. For the poor-class households of this group the cost averaged $2.73. The middle-class household’s average of $3.13 was somewhat higher. The well-to-do class household aver- aged $3.50 and the average cost in the wealthy group of households was $5.03.

The cost of the meat consumed per week per household in American white homes showed a definite relation to the standard-of-living groups established since the cost per week increased as the standard of living increased...

In the colored group the poor class averaged $0.32 less than the poor-class household of the American white group, but the middle class of the colored group had an average cost per household which was $0.25 per week greater than the corresponding class of households in the American white group.

In the foreign group, meat consumption when measured by house- hold expenditures per week varied greatly. ‘The Russian families spent a weekly average per family of $3.96 for meat. The Polish and German group averages were practically the same, $3.25 for the Pol- ish and $3.24 forthe German. The Finnish group expenditure aver- aged $2.40, the Scandinavian $2.31, and the Italian $2.16.

The cost figures presented in Table 3 were secured as estimates from the housewives interviewed. Since most of the housewives were unable to answer this question immediately, it was necessary to use some method by which this information could be determined. The week preceding the time of the interview was selected as a basis. The housewife was asked to give the quantities and cost of the vari- ous kinds of meat used during this period of time. Thus there were secured the quantities of beefsteaks and other cuts of beef, lamb chops and other cuts of lamb, pork, veal, smoked and cured meats, and other kinds of meat not previously included. Each interviewer was instructed to be sufficiently familiar with local prices to check the housewife’s statement of the cost based on the quantities consumed.

Question 3.—(a) Do you think your family eats too much meat? Just enough?

Not enough? (b) If too much or not enough, why?

The questions relating to the housewife’s opinion regarding whether the family or household as a unit consumed too much, just enough, or not enough meat were asked in an effort to secure direct state- ments indicative of the housewife’s attitude toward the quantities of — meat consumed by the household. Variations among the groups were © slight. Accordingly the data are not presented in table form.

The majority of all housewives answering the question stated that © they thought their families ate just enough meat. In the American white group, 85.4 per cent of the housewives thought that just enough meat was consumed in their households, 13 per cent thought too much meat was consumed, and 1.6 per cent were of the opinion that too little meat was used. The percentage distribution of the

q

ia} ~ ] 2 ia

CONSUMER PREFERENCES IN PURCHASE OF MEAT 9

replies of the colored housewives was similar to that of the American

white group, 83.5 per cent stating that they believed just enough meat was consumed. In the foreign groups, 95.4 per cent of the Fin- nish housewives, 94 per cent of the French, 90.4 per cent of the German, 87.5 per cent of the Italian, 94 per cent of the Russian, and 89.2 per cent of the Scandinavian housewives said that they believed just enough meat was consumed.

Of those replying that too much meat was consumed in their house- holds, and assigning reasons for their replies with the exception of one group, 80-91 per cent of the total number gave reasons indicating that they believed that the quantities consumed were too large to be healthful. The exception noted was the Scandinavian group, in which 67 per cent of the total replies indicated that too much meat was consumed to be healthful.

The number of those replying that they believed that too little meat was consumed in their households was small and the number of those assigning reasons for this answer was still smaller. But, there seemed to be evident a tendency for the proportion of those replying ‘‘not enough’’ to decrease as the income or standard of living of the group became better. The few replies in which reasons were stated were indicative of the opinion that the cost of meat was beyond the means of the family. These reasons were given primarily by housewives of the poor classes of the American white and colored groups, and by those of the Italian group.

Question 4.—(a) How many men eat meat? How many do not? (b) How many women eat meat? How many do not? (c) How many children 15 to 19 eat meat? How many do not? (d) How many children 10 to 14 eat meat? How many do not? (e) How many children 5 to 9 eat meat? How many do not? (f) How many children under 5 eat meat? How many do not?

(g) How many servants eat meat? How many do not? (Table 4).

The replies to the seven parts of the question relative to persons not eating meat are presented in Table 4. This table was based on the meat-eating habits of 16,347 persons, of whom 10,575 were of the American white group, 1,620 of the colored group, 3,278 of the foreign group, and 874 servants. The total number of persons was smaller than that in Table 1, where a total of 20,744 was indicated. The smaller figures thus shown in Table 4 were due to two principal

factors: (1) Philadelphia and Pittsburgh were not included in these.

figures, since the questionnaire used in these two cities did not provide for the securing of this information, and (2) in some few instances it was not possible to secure a satisfactory answer to this question from the housewives. But, the extent of the group of individuals on which this table was based was for the most part sufficiently comprehensive to be of significance.

The number of people actually eating meat has not been indicated in the table, but the relative number eating meat may be readily inferred from the percentage figures indicative of those not eating meat.

In the American white group, the number of persons not eating meat averaged 5.5 per cent of the total. In the various classes of this group the percentages indicating the numbers not eating meat decreased as the standard of living increased. For the poor class

15287°—26——-2

“f al re | maa | iat | ee | | ia 1 ay

10 BULLETIN 1448, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

6.8 per cent of the total number of persons in the households did not eat meat; in the middle class, 6.3 per cent; in the well-to-do class, 4.7 per cent; and in the wealthy class, 3.4 ‘per cent. These differ- ences appeared to be explained for the most part by the larger pro- portion of children in the poor, middle, and well-to-do classes.

Children under 5 years of age were the largest group of household members not eating meat, so that as the percentage of children of this age increased the percentage of the people not eating meat increased also. In the poor class, about 14.5 per cent of the total membership of the class was composed of children under 5 years of age. In the middle, weil-to-do, and wealthy classes, the similar values were about 8, 6, and 8 per cent. Another factor contributing to the decrease noted for the wealthy class was the fact that of the children under 5 years of age in this class only 20.9 per cent did not eat meat, whereas in each of the other three classes the percentage of children under 5 years not eating meat was over 34 per cent of the total number of children in each group.

Within the American white group, the larger relative numbers not eating meat were found to be in the group of children 9 years of age and under and in the group of adult women. Of the total number of children under 5 years in the group, 34.1 per cent did not eat meat. About 3.9 per cent of the children between the ages of 5 and 9 did not eat meat and 3.4 per cent of the women over 19 years of age did not eat meat. The other age groups showed but little vari- ation, 1.6 per cent of the men over 19 years did not eat meat, and a similar per cent of the children between 15 and 19 years of age did not eat meat. Of the group of children between 10 and 14 years of age, 1.2 per cent did not eat meat.

A slight increase in the tendency to eat meat was noted in the eroup of adult men of the American white class as the standard of living increased, but an opposite tendency was observed in the group of women over 19 years of age.

In all age divisions of both the poor and middle classes of the col- ored group the percentages of those not eating meat, were less than the corresponding percentages of the American white group.

In eight foreign groups, the order of array of the total number of persons not eating meat, when expressed as percentages of the total number of persons in the households visited, was as follows: French,

8.9 per cent; Polish, 8.4 percent; Jewish, 7.1 percent; Italian, 4.9 per

cent; Scandinavian, 4.2 per cent; German, 3.4 per cent; Russian, 1.9 per cent; and Finnish, 0.5 per cent. With the exception of the Jewish group, the higher percentages were to be attributed largely to the proportionately larger numbers of children of the younger ages who did not eat meat. The number of men who did not eat meat in the Russian, Polish, and German households was less in proportion to the total number of men in each of these groups than in the other nationality groups.

Question 5.—If there are any adults who do not eat meat, what are the reasons

why they do not? (Table 5.)

Replies to this question were few in number, because the scope of the question was limited to adults. For the American white group, the reason most frequently assigned by those not eating meat was that they excluded it from their diet, either because of doctors’ orders

CONSUMER PREFERENCES IN PURCHASE OF MEAT 11

or because of personal opinions regarding its healthfulness. Of the 196 adults answering the question, 73.4 per cent gave dietary reasons. The next most important reason numerically was that of not caring formeat. This reply group included the vegetarians who were found in the households visited.

In the poor class, 5.4 per cent of those replying stated that they did not eat meat because of its high cost.

Replies to this question by the Jewish, German, Italian, and Scan- dinavian members of the foreign group were the only ones in which the number of replies was sufficent to justify consideration. Of the four, the Jewish, German, and Scandinavian replies were in agree- ment with the results obtained from housewives of the American white group. The Italian housewives indicated a decided tendency toward emphasizing vegetarian habits. | Question Eee ae of meat is preferred in your household? (Tables 6,7;

an 3

In Table 6 a summary of the meat preferences of the various groups based on the household as a unit is shown. In Table 7, pref- erences of households in 12 cities are shown by cities. In Table 8, preferences of the individual members of a limited number of house- holds are presented for Baltimore, Binghamton, Jacksonville, and New Haven.

Beef was the preferred meat in 66.4 per cent of the 2,270 house- holds of the American white group. Preferences for pork totaled 16.8 per cent of the total number of replies. The number of house- holds preferring lamb was 9.9 per cent of the total while the indi- cated preference for veal was but 6.9 per cent of the total number of replies.

When the classes of the American white group were taken sep- arately,it was found that there was a gradual increase in the preference for beef as the standard of living increased. At the same time the preference for pork decreased materially. The preference for pork _ in the poor class, when measured as a percentage of the total number of replies, was 35.2 per cent, for the middle class, 18.7 per cent, for the well-to-do class, 7.9 per cent, and for the wealthy class, 5.2 per cent.

The preference for lamb in the American white group became more pronounced as the standard of living increased. This increase, together with the decrease in the preference for pork indicated previously, was attributed largely to the effect of price variation between the two commodities. Pork found favor among the house- holds of the poor class because of its lower price. Lamb found: favor in the wealthy households because preference outweighed price considerations.

Veal was preferred in about the same relative amounts by all classes of the American white group.

In the colored group, decided increases in the preferences for pork and veal were found. ‘The number in the poor class preferring pork was 61.4 per cent of the total number of replies, while the correspond- ing percentage in the American white poor class was but 35.2. The effects of these increased preferences for pork and veal were appar- ent in material decreases in the preferences for beef. Only 23.3 per cent of the colored poor-class housewives stated that they preferred

12 BULLETIN 1443, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

beef, while 55.3 per cent of the American white poor-class housewives indicated beef as the first choice of their households.

Among the various foreign groups some important variations from the preferences found in the American white group were noted. The Finnish, Russian, and Scandinavian groups showed important pref- erences for pork. ‘Twenty-four and four-tenths per cent of the total replies in the group of Finns, 28 per cent of the Russians, and 37.8 per cent of the Scandinavians indicated preference for pork.

The preference for veal was notably greater in some of the foreign groups than in the American white or colored groups. Finns indi- cated a preference for veal of 24.5 per cent of the total replies, French 42 per cent, Italians 43.5 per cent, and Russians 20 per cent.

The figures shown in Table 7 are the combined total of replies of housewives of the middle and well-to-do classes of the American white eroup. ‘The replies of these two subdivisions of the American white eroup were selected as the most representative portion of the data secured from each city and were used to indicate differences among the various cities. Replies representative of 12 cities are thus shown in Table 7.

Of the 1,155 replies for the 12 cities, 69.5 per cent indicated beef as first choice. Pork was second with 13.2 per cent. Preferences for lamb averaged 9.8 per cent and for veal 7.5 per cent of the total replies. Variations from these averages were marked; that is, of the replies from Denver, 84.2 per cent showed beef as first choice, while only 45 of the 100 housewives of New Orleans replying to the ques- tion stated that beef was preferred in their households.

Preferences for pork as indicated by the replies also varied widely. In Grand Forks, 28.3 per cent of the housewives gave pork as the preferred meat in their households. In Oklahoma City, the corre- sponding percentage was 21.3, in Fargo, 20.2. Pork was preferred least in the households of San Francisco, where only 4.1 per cent of the 97 housewives stated that pork was preferred.

In San Francisco and Philadelphia households, lamb was preferred to a larger extent than in the remaining 10 cities. Thirty-three per cent of the 97 housewives in San Francisco gave lamb as the pre- ferred meat in their households while 25 per cent of the 92 replies from Philadelphia indicated lamb as first choice.

Veal was preferred by the members of 45 per cent of the house- holds in New Orleans, which was the outstanding city in its prefer- ence for veal. The next highest indicated preference was in Fargo where 8.5 per cent of the housewives stated that veal was preferred

in their households. —

The data presented in Table 8 were to a large extent corrobora- tive of the replies previously shown in Table 6. In Table 8 prefer- ences are expressed for the individual members of the households.

At the outset of the survey the question relating to preference for . |

beef, pork, lamb, or veal was asked regarding each member of the household. It is these replies from Baltimore, Binghamton, Jack- sonville, and New Haven which are presented in Table 8. These replies were found to be to a very marked degree in agreement with those determined for 12 cities in which the household was used as the unit of preference rather than the preferences of the individual members of the households.

CONSU-MER PREFERENCES IN PURCHASE OF MEAT 13

The tendency toward a decreasing preference for pork and an in- -ereasing preference for lamb with increases in the standard of living was noted in the three classes of the American white group. In the colored group, which was located in Jacksonville (Table 8), some variations from the results presented in Table 6 were found. In the poor class of this group the preference for beef was higher and that for pork somewhat lower than was shown for the colored group lo- cated in Birmingham, New Orleans, and Washington. (Table6.) In the middle class of the colored group the preferences for both pork and lamb were larger in Jacksonville than in the other three cities. In the colored households of Birmingham, New Orleans, and Wash- ington, 10.7 per cent of the poor-class housewives preferred veal and 17 per cent of those in the middle class stated a similar preference for their households. In Jacksonville, however, no preferences were stated for veal in either the poor or middle class of the colored roup. 3 The Italian groups in Baltimore and Binghamton (Table 8) and in Denver, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, and San Francisco (Table 6) indicated about the same relative preferences for beef and veal. The principal variation of the Italian from the American white group was the high percentage of the total number of replies indicating veal as first choice in the Italian households.

The primary differences between the Polish group in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh (Table 6) and that in Baltimore and Binghamton (Table 8) were the decreased preference for beef and the increase in the preference for pork in Baltimore and Binghamton. In neither of the groups was any preference stated for lamb.

Question 7.—Why do you buy—(a) steaks and chops, (6) roasts, and (c) boiling meat? (Tables 9, 10, and 11.)

The variations in demand for different cuts of meat and particu- jarly those of the beef carcass have resulted in rather wide price differentials between the more favored and the less favored cuts. These differenaes have been the subject of much discussion and some investigation, but the consumer reasons prompting the purchase and use of the different cuts have been given little attention. Accordingly questions directed toward determining these reasons were incorpo-

- rated in the questionnaire used in Baltimore, Binghamton, Jacksonville, ~ New Haven, and Washington. ‘Tables 9,10, and 11 were based on these replies.

Housewives of the American white group in answering the three parts of this question gave as the principal answer for each section of the question that they liked the particular cut of meat to which the question related. The significance of this reply common to all parts of the question rested in the decreasing relation which the number of housewives giving this as the reason bore to the total number of replies, when the replies to the three parts of the question were considered together.

In the American white group the total number of housewives of the three classes—poor, middle, and well-to-do—replying to the first part of the question was 625, 62 per cent of whom stated that they purchased steaks and chops because they liked them. Of the 517, housewives who answered the part of the question relating to the reasons for buying roasts, 40 per cent gave as their reason that they

14 BULLETIN 1448, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

bought roasts because they liked them. Of the 333 housewives an- swering the third part of the question only 29.4 per cent stated that they bought boiling beef because they liked it.

Roasts and boiling meat were bought more frequently to provide variety in the menu than were steaksandchops. Expressed in percent- age of total replies in each case, 17.1 per cent of the housewives stated that they bought steaks and chops for variety, while 27 per cent gave variety as the reason for purchasing roasts and 25.2 per cent gave the same reason for the purchase of boiling meat.

Convenience of preparation was an important factor in the choice of steaks and chops, 12.6 per cent of the housewives of the American white group giving this as their reason for buying steaks and chops. But 5.4 per cent stated that they bought roasts for this reason, while only 1.2 per cent gave this as the reason for buying boiling meat.

Food value, health, and habit were reasons assigned by some of the housewives, but the differences between the percentages of replies to the three parts of the question were slight.

Economy was stressed as the reason for the purchase of roasts and boiling meat. Of the housewives replying, 12 per cent gave this as their reason for using roasts, 7.5 per cent gave the same reason for serving boiling meat and only 1.3 per cent stated that they bought steaks and chops for reasons of economy.

Large families and the necessity of providing meat for more than one meal economically were reasons assigned by 1.6 and 7.2 per cent of the housewives who stated these reasons for buying roasts. Nei- ther of these reasons was given for purchasing steaks and chops although an answer related to size of family was stated when 2.2 per cent of the housewives said that they bought steaks and chops because of the small size of their households.

Of the housewives replying, 29.5 per cent gave as their reason for buying boiling meat, that they combined these cuts with other foods.

Replies from the colored group in Jacksonville and the Polish group in Baltimore and Binghamton are also presented. The number of replies from these groups was small and the variations from the replies indicated for the American white group were of little 1mportance.

In general, the replies from the American white groups in Baltimore, Jacksonville, New Haven, and Washington were in fair agreement.

The few Washington replies showed considerable variation from those

of the four other cities at times, properly attributed, in all proba-

bility, to the small number of replies.

Question 8.—How many times a week is meat served at the following meals: Breakfast, lunch or supper, and dinner? (Tables 12 and 13.)

For the purposes of this question dinner was understood to be the most important meal of the day, regardless of whether it occurred at noon or evening. The use of bacon, ham, salt meat, etc., was regarded as the serving of meat.

In the American white group replies from 2,862 housewives were secured. In these households the average number of times meat was served at breakfast and at lunch or supper was 2.1 times per week per household for each of these meals and for dinner 5.6 times. Some variations were found in the number of times per week meat was served by the classes within this group. The poor class served meat for breakfast 1.8 times per week per houschold on the average; the

CONSUMER PREFERENCES IN PUROHASE OF MEAT 15

middle class, 1.9 times; the well-to-do class, 2.1 times, and the wealthy class, 2.6 times.

A situation almost the reverse of this was found to exist with rela- tion to the serving of meat at lunch or supper. The poor class aver- aged 2.1 times per week; the middle class, 2.5 times; while the well- to-do and wealthy classes’ averages were 1.8 times.

The use of meat at dinner was greatest in well-to-do and wealthy households where it was served an average of 5.8 times per week, al- though the middle class average was approximately the same.

In the colored group the important variations from the averages in the poor and middle classes of the American white group were found in the use of meat for breakfast. In the foreign group use of meat at breakfast varied widely. The Jewish group averaged 0.1 time per week; Finnish and Scandinavian groups, 0.5 time; Italian, 0.6 time; German, 0.7 time; Russian, 0.8 time; Polish, 1.0; French, 1.1, and the Engtish, 1.7 times.

At lunch the Jewish average per week was lowest, 0.6 time, and the Russian group was highest with an average of 3.2 times per week. * At dinner, the English average for serving meat, 6.4 times per week per household, was the highest and the Italian average of 4.2 and the Jewish average of 4.3 were the lowest. In addition to the English group, the French, German, Russian, and Scandinavian groups were all above the average of 5.6 times noted for the Ameri- can white group.

Considerable variation was found in the number of times meat was served in the households of the middle and well-to-do classes of the American white group when the replies were arranged by cities. The replies from housewives in 16 cities are presented in Table 13. The replies seemed to indicate a tendency on the part of cities in the southeastern section of the country to serve meat more frequently for breakfast. The average for all cities was twice a week. In Baltimore the average was 3.4 times; in Birmingham, 4.6; Jackson- ville, 3.6 times; Oklahoma City, 3.3 times and in Washington, 3.5 times.

Question 9.—Why do you serve meat in preference to other foods? (Table 14.)

This question was directed toward the determination of the reasons - prompting the use of meat. ‘The principal reason stated by the 2,183 housewives of the American white group who answered this question was related to the palatability, 51.1 per cent of the total number of housewives stating that they served it because they liked it in preference to other foods. In this same group of housewives, 29.5 per cent said that they served meat because of its food value. These two reasons included over 80 per cent of the replies. The re- maining replies were distributed in order among the following reasons: Habit or custom, main dish of the meal, balanced meal, ease of prep- aration, variety, and protein content. It was recognized that the replies relative to the main dish of the meal, balanced meal, and pro- tein content were closely related to the more general expression, “Food value.”

No marked variation was found between the different classes within the American white group, as the distribution of replies was similar for the four classes.

16 BULLETIN 1443, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

In the colored group of housewives the relative number answering that they served meat because they liked it was materially larger than in the American white group. Therepliesindicative of food value were less in relation to total replies than was the casein the Ameri- can white group, a larger portion of the colored housewives failing to recognize the food value of meat.

In the foreign groups there was exhibited a tendency away from answers implying palatability toward answers indicative of food value or habit and custom. The French and German groups particularly stressed the habit or custom of serving meat.

Question 10.—When you do not serve meat for dinner, what is your first choice of a food to take its place? (Tables 15 and 16.)

Fish was the food most frequently stated in answer to this ques- tion by housewives of the American white group. Of 2,469 house- wives, 30.1 per cent gave this article of food as their first choice of a food when they did not serve meat at dinner. Vegetables were named by 21.1 per cent of the same group, while eggs were third in rank with a percentage of 20.2. The food next in importance was spaghetti, 7.6 per cent of the housewives stating that this was their first choice of a food to take the place of meat at dinner. Dairy products, poultry, soup, baked beans, cereals, bread, and salads were named by small percentages of the group.

A study of preferences by standard-of-living groups indicated rather important differences in the relative positions of various articles of food. Preference for fish became more pronounced in the American white group as the standard of living became better. Vegetables were more popular in the poor class as food when meat was not served. Eges were more favored to take the place of meat in the homes of the middle and well-to-do classes than in either the poor or wealthy homes. Poultry was of greater importance as the standard of living became better.

In the colored group, the percentage of the total number of house- wives who stated that fish was their first choice of a meat substitute at dinner, was materially greater in both the poor and middle classes than in the same classes of the American white group and even greater than the percentage of first choice in the well-to-do and wealthy classes of the latter group. The same to a slightly less extent was true of vegetables. The percentages indicative of the use of eggs show that this article of food was much less favored in the colored than in the American white group.

Among the more interesting differences noted between the American white group and the various foreign groups were those relating to the Italian and Jewish groups. Of the total number of Italian house- wives replying to the question, 42 per cent stated that spaghetti was their first choice of a food to take the place of meat at dinner. An additional 10.6 per cent stated that soup was their first choice. In the Jewish group 14.2 per cent of the housewives stated that they used some of the dairy products in the place of meat. An additional 16 per cent of the Jewish group gave poultry as their first choice

Preferences for different foods varied widely among the 16 cities when comparison was made on the basis of the combined replies of the middle and well-to-do classes of housewives of the American white group for each city. (Table 16.)

oS iy fee

p Ad od

CONSUMER PREFERENCES IN PURCHASE OF MEAT 17

The preference for fish was most marked in New Orleans, in Wash- ington, andin Baltimore. The preference for fish was least marked in Lincoln, where not one housewife stated that her household preferred fish when meat was not served for dinner. In Birmingham only 9.2 per cent of the housewives said that fish was preferred in their households when meat was not served.

Question 11.—Why do you use other foods instead of meat? (Table 17.)

One and frequently two answers were given to this question. In compiling the results all answers have been combined. ‘This proce- dure accounted for the 4,222 replies of the American white group, which was larger than. the total of 2 ,912 questionnaires shown in Table 2. In answer to the question, 36.1 per cent of the 4,222 replies were variety, 22.1 per cent were palatability, 11.3 per cent related to food value, 10.8 per cent to health, 6.5 per cent to econ- omy, 4.9 per cent to religious reasons, and the remaining 8.3 per cent of the replies were divided among the following reasons: Convenience of preparation, dislike of too much meat, balanced diet, custom and habit, and children’s health.

Economy was the reason which showed the greatest variation with differences in class in the American white group. In the poor class, economy constituted 15.5 per cent of the total number of replies. In the middle class, the corresponding figure was 6.6 per cent. In the well-to-do class, it was 2.5 per cent, and in the wealthy class the reason was given by only 0.5 per cent of the total number of house- wives replying.

In the foreign groups as in the American white group, the princi- pal reasons assigned for the use of other foods instead of meat were variety and palatability. Religion and economy as reasons were more frequent among the foreign groups than in either the American white or colored groups. Price was indicated as an important factor in the choice of food in the Finnish, Polish, Italian, English, and German groups. Religious reasons were important in the Polish, Russian, Italian, German, and English groups, and hea!th reasons in the Jewish group.

Question 12.—(a) Type of market patronized? (Tables 18 and 19.)

The individual or unit combination meat and grocery store was the type most frequently patronized by housewives of the American white group. Of the total number replying, more than half stated that they patronized this type of meat market. Next in order of importance were the individual or unit straight meat market, stalls in public markets, chain stores of the combination meat and grocery type, and chain stores of the straight meat-market type. The house- wives patronizing wholesale markets, department store meat markets, farmers’ markets, and cooperative or commissary markets were very small in number, when expressed as percentages of the total number of 2,692 housewives answering the question.

There was a rather pronounced tendency for housewives of the poor class to patronize the unit combination market, 57.2 per cent of housewives of this class replying that they did so, while 52.6 per cent of the middle class, 50.4 per cent of the well- to-do class, and 45.6 per cent of the wealthy class of housewives traded at the unit com-

15287°—-26——3

18 BULLETIN 1443, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

_ bination type of market. Some tendency was noted for housewives of the wealthy class to patronize straight meat markets and stalls in public markets to a larger extent than housewives of the other groups.

In the colored group there was found a larger percentage of house- wives who patronized stalls in public markets than was the case in the American white group. This was explainable by the fact that in at least two of the four cities from which the questionnaires from colored persons were secured, the public market was a very important factor in retail meat distribution. This situation was not general in all 16 cities where the American white questionnaires were secured, so so that the tendency toward the public market noted in the colored group may be properly attributed to the fact that public markets were more available to the colored group than to the American white group asa whole. (Table 19.)

In the foreign groups, the straight market was the type most often patronized. Hight of the 9 foreign groups—English, Finnish, French, German, Italian, Jewish, Russian, and Scandinavian—patronized the straight meat market to the largest extent. Characteristics of nation- ality, religion, and local meat distributing methods were all combined to produce the observed results. For example, local restrictions in the methods of distribution have resulted in the distribution of meat in New Orleans taking place largely through straight meat markets and public markets. The high percentages noted for the French group may be attributed to these factors, since the 49 housewives of this class interviewed were located in New Orleans. In the Jewish group religious custom was largely responsible for 77.4 per cent of the housewives stating that they traded at straight meat markets.

The extent to which the various types of markets were patronized by the middle and well-to-do classes of the American white group in the 16 cities is shown in Table 19. Over 50 per cent of the house- wives of these classes in Birmingham, Denver, Grand Forks, Lincoln, New Haven, Oklahoma City, San Francisco, and Washington traded at the unit combination grocery and meat store. In Binghamton, Fargo, Jacksonville, and Minneapolis over 50 per cent of the house- wives of these two classes purchased meat at unit straight meat markets. In Baltimore, New Orleans, and Washington the stalls in pubhe markets were patronized to a considerable extent, while in

irmingham, Jacksonville, and Philadelphia the store of the combin- ation meat and grocery chain was patronized by between 11 and 16 per cent of the housewives of the middle and well-to-do classes of the American white group. :

Question 12.—(b) How many blocks is your meat dealer’s store from you? (Table 20.)

This question was directed toward the determination of the extent to which housewives patronized stores at varying distances from their homes. The tendency to get out of the immediate neighborhood in which the household lives might well indicate the effort of searching out dealers. The near-by dealer has the advantage of location, but this factor from the standpoint of the consumer is not the most important in the choice of a meat shop.

A definite disposition to trade with the dealers near-by was indi- cated in the replies of the poor and middle classes in the American

* SM nr De eC a Ne

CONSUMER PREFERENCES IN PURCHASE OF MEAT 19

white group, but in the well-to-do and wealthy classes a very large proportion of each group traveled six blocks and more to the meat markets which they patronized. These differences were more pro- nounced when the percentages indicative of replies were grouped on the basis of those trading at markets within a distance of two blocks or less and those patronizing markets at distance of six blocks and over. It was then found that 54.5 per cent of the housewives of the poor class of the American white group patronized a meat shop two blocks or less from where they lived. In the middle class, 47.8 per

cent of the housewives, 30.4 per cent of the well-to-do class, and 10.6 |

per cent of the wealthy class traded at shops within two blocks of their homes. In the poor class 22.7 per cent of the housewives trad- ed at markets six blocks and more distant, while 31.9 per cent of the middle class, 48.3 per cent of the well-to-do class, and 69.1 per cent of the wealthy class traveled similar distances.

At least three factors contributed to the results noted: (1) The use of the automobile by the well-to-do classes made easier the travel- ing of greater distances to markets, (2) the occurrence of markets in the residential areas in which the well-to-do and wealthy classes lived was not so general as in the poorer areas of the cities, as in these better residential areas there is observed a tendency toward a greater restriction of markets to relatively limited business areas, and (3) the employment of delivery services of dealers.

In the colored group, 62.5 per cent of the housewives of the poor class stated that they patronized meat markets within a two-block distance of their homes, but in the middle class only 46.3 per cent of the housewives went a similar distance. It was also found that 33.1 per cent of the middle class went distances of six blocks and over which was in close agreement with the similar percentage of 31.9 per cent for the middle-class groups of the American white class.

The housewives of the foreign groups for the most part traded at stores within two biocks of their homes. The exceptions were the French and Scandinavian groups.

Question 12.—(c) How many meat dealers are nearer than your dealer’s shop? (Table 21.)

The replies to this question indicated that while housewives did “not always trade at the meat market nearest their homes, yet very definite tendencies to do so were exhibited in most groups.

In the American white group, nearly one-half of the housewives of the poor class replying to the question patronized the nearest dealer. More than one-third of the housewives of the middle and well-to-do classes, and about one-fourth of the housewives of the wealthy group traded at the market closest at hand. The tendency on the part of the well-to-do and wealthy classes to trade at markets at some dis- tance from their homes was again indicated by the larger numbers of the housewives of these groups who passed five or more markets in going to their dealers’ markets.

In the colored and foreign groups, 50 per cent and over of the housewives stated that they did not pass more than one meat market in going to their dealers’ shops, the one exception being the Scandi- navian group im which the percentage of housewives passing not more than one shop was 49.6 per cent.

20 BULLETIN 1443, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Question 12.—(d) Does your meat dealer extend a charge service? (e) Do you ordinarily have your meat charged? (Table 22.)

In compiling the replies to these questions only those questionnaires on which both questions were answered were used. Comparison was thus made possible between both questions for the same group of housewives.

In the American white group, 66 per cent of the 374 housewives of the poor class stated that they traded at shops where credit was granted to customers, but only 29.4 per cent of the group had their purchases charged. Of the 383 housewives of the middle class, 66.3 per cent stated that their meat dealers extended credit service, but only 27.7 per cent of the group had their meat charged. In the well- to-do class, 74.8 per cent of the 413 housewives said that their dealers offered credit service, and 54.5 per cent of the group availed them- selves of this service. In the wealthy group, 84.5 per cent of the 440 housewives stated that their dealers extended credit, and 73.4 per cent of the group had their meat charged.

Credit was not so commonly offered in the markets patronized by the colored group, according to the replies of the 238 housewives of this group. In the poor class, 41.2 per cent of the housewives traded at stores where credit was offered and 15.1 per cent had their meat charged. The results in the middle class were similar, 48.7 per cent of the replies indicating that trading was done at stores extending credit, and only 21 per cent of the housewives having meat charged.

In the foreign group, 61.5 per cent of the English housewives traded at credit stores and 23.1 per cent charged their purchases. About 83.3 per cent of the French patronized the credit store and 63.3 per cent had meat charged ordinarily, 86.4 per cent of the German group went to credit stores but only 33.9 per cent had an account, 76.4 per cent of the Italian group traded at stores where credit was offered and 45.5 per cent availed themselves of this service, 97.8 per cent of the Russians traded at credit stores and 65.2 per cent had a charge account, and 70.6 per cent of the Scandinavian group purchased meat at credit stores but only 23.5 per cent had their purchases charged.

The results of this question are not to be taken as indicative of the preferences of the various groups for credit or for cash stores. Neither are the extents to which various groups availed themselves of credit service to be taken as measures of their desires for the service. The desirability of certain groups or portions of groups as credit risks varies greatly, and it is this factor which was probably of greatest influ- ence in bringing about the differences noted among the groups in the use of credit service.

Question 12.—(f) What quality of meat does your dealer handle? (Table 23.)

In the American white group, 1,748 housewives living in 10 cities answered this question. Their answers were found to be grouped. in six major classes. These answers and the percentage of the total — number of housewives whose answers fell in each each class were: — Best, 34.6 per cent; very good, 13.9 per cent; good, 43.1 per cent; fair, 7.3 per cent; ordinary, 0.9 per cent; and poor, 0.2 per cent. It was observed that housewives’ knowledge of grades of meat. was usually very slight. This conclusion was based on a comparison of © the percentages indicative of the replies of the housewives with the —

CONSUMER PREFERENCES IN PURCHASE OF MEAT pe

percentage composition by grades of the beef animals received on the Chicago market during the year 1924. Grading of these animals according to United States grades indicated that the proportions in which the various grades occurred were about as follows:

Per cent ean) 365 SS eet ay SE Yoh ep ars Fyn EN Cart ey el eed! Paes a be) cy cy 0. 5 GNC Gy is seet ok Ayer oes Set IAS mre Se gs yee ieee oy Rede re ek ES 8. 5 BOG ER has ge a as i eg aa Nag St ie eer eee a 23. 0 Jy He BO UUW 6) eee cl a ah eh ee heal ol tl ate ont et ea aa Ria hl cette Mle eee 46. 0 Comm ons. «6 eek a er a Lik Bi ia ib R 251 t Boe aE SER ee eee hohe he ae B 18. 5 Gutueranaucanner Wi wees. Ware sa er po a Oe eh ey 3313

100. 0

Direct comparison of these grades with the qualities indicated by the housewives was not possible, because of the lack of knowledge of grades on the part of the housewives; but there was some basis of comparison. Of the housewives of the American white group, 48.5 per cent answered that their dealers carried best and very good qual- ities of meat. If the Chicago receipts may be regarded as fairly typical of the animals marketed through the country, this housewife opinion was manifestly wrong, since the two highest grades, prime and choice, together constituted only 9 per cent of the total Chicago receipts.

Lack of knowledge of quality in meat was further demonstrated by housewives of the colored and foreign groups in much the same manner as that shown by the American white group.

The necessity for standard grades of meat and for sale by grade was apparent from the results of this question. Means should be at hand whereby housewives may learn to buy meat by grade and to know whether they are receiving the grade for which they have asked. Question 12.—(g) How long have you bought meat from your present dealer?

. ( Tables 24 and 25.)

The tendency of the well-to-do and wealthy classes of the Amer- ican white group to trade a greater length of time with one dealer was brought out by the replies to this question. In the poor class, 19.4 per cent of the housewives answering the question stated that they had traded with their present dealers over 5 years (5 to 10 years

| and over 10 years percentages combined). Similar figures for the mid-

dle, well-to-do, and wealthy classes were 19.8, 23.0, and 35.3. When the percentages for the various periods two years and under were combined, it was found that 57.6 per cent of the poor-class house- wives had traded with their present dealers for two years or less. Fifty-six per cent of the housewives of the middle class, 46.1 per cent of those of the well-to-do class, and 32 per cent of the wealthy-class housewives stated that they had traded with their meat dealers for a period not to exceed two years.

In the colored group, 51.6 per cent of the housewives of the poor class and 47.8 per cent of the housewives of the middle class replied that they had not traded with their present dealers over two years.

In the foreign groups the percentages of the total number of house- Wives in each group replying that they had traded with their dealers two years or less were as follows: English, 45.4 per cent; Finnish, 27.9 per cent; French, 38 per cent; German, 32.1 per cent; Italian, 42.2 per cent; Jewish, 54 per cent; Polish, 38.8 per cent; Russian, 55.1 per cent; Scandinavian, 49.3 per cent. The foreign groups in

22 BULLETIN 1443, U. 8S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

which the tendency to trade with meat dealers over five years was most pronounced were the Finnish group in which 37.2 per cent of the housewives replied that this was the case, the French group with a percentage of 30, the German group with 44.1 per cent, and the Polish with 30.6 per cent.

The combined replies by cities of the middle and well-to-do classes of the American white group indicated that approximately 40 per cent of the housewives in Birmingham, Grand Forks, Jacksonville, and New Orleans had traded with their present meat dealers 12 months or less. (Table 25.) About 40 per cent of the housewives of the same group and classes in Baltimore and Binghamton had bought meat from the same dealers for over five years.

Question 12.—(h) wie dei he from your meat dealer in preference to Aha 26

Of special interest to retailers are the factors which influence cus- tomers to trade with them. Forty-four and two-tenths per cent of the 2,709 housewives of the American white group stressed the fact that preference for the quality of meat handled by their dealers was the principal reason for trading with them, while 25.5 per cent stated that convenience of location was a reason of first importance in their choosing to trade with their present dealers. These two factors alone included almost 70 per cent of the total number of replies.

Housewives of the poor class emphasized convenience of location and economical prices to greater extent than was found in the other three classes of this group. Both of these factors lost importance as the standard of living of the groups increased. Housewives of the wealthy class emphasized quality of meat and good service more than the housewives of the other three classes. The increases in the demand for quality of meat and for more satisfactory service with improved standards of living were also evident.

In the colored group, housewives of both the poor and the middle classes stressed convenience of location and economical prices to a greater extent than was found in the replies of the housewives of the same classes in the American white group. Quality was also of importance, but not to the extent present in the poor and middle classes of the American white group.

In the foreign groups, English, Finnish, German, and Jewish house- wives placed particular emphasis on the quality of meat handled as the reason for trading with their present dealers. Convenience of location was of importance to Finnish, French, German, Italian, Pol- ish, Russian, and Scandinavian housewives. Economical prices were pointed out as the most important reason for trading with their pres- ent dealers by 15 per cent of the Polish housewives. Good service seemed to appeal particularly to the English, Italian, and Jewish housewives. Business and social connections were of most impor- tance in the French and Russian groups of housewives. Habit or cus- tom was the strongest among the Jewish housewives in determining choice of meat dealers.

Question 12.—(i) Have you ever stopped trading with a meat dealer because of dissatisfaction? (j) If so, what was the reason? (Table 27.)

Of the housewives in the American white group, 74 per cent stated

that they had never stopped trading with a meat dealer because of

CONSUMER PREFERENCES IN PURCHASE OF MEAT 23

dissatisfaction. Similar percentages with minor variations were found in the colored and foreign groups.

In those cases in the American white group where it was stated that trading had been stopped because of dissatisfaction, more than half the housewives replied that they had stopped patronizing the markets because of poor quality of meats.

In the poor class of the American white group, two-thirds of the housewives gave poor quality of meats as the principal reason for dissatisfaction. This reason was not quite so frequently stated by the housewives of the other classes.

Dishonesty as a reason for stopping trade with a meat dealer was the reason given by more of the housewives, of the well-to-do and wealthy classes than of the other two classes.

High prices were given as a reason for transfer of patronage because of dissatisfaction somewhat more frequently by the housewives of the poor class, although the difference in the other classes was so slight as to be of small importance.

Poor service was definitely indicated as a reason for discontinuance of trading with a meat dealer by 15.1 per cent of the wealthy class housewives who stated that they had stopped trading with a dealer because of dissatisfaction. This was almost two and one-half times the importance assigned to this reason by the housewives of any of the other three classes.

Housewives of the well-to-do class were first in their statements nat they stopped trading with meat dealers because of insanitary shops. :

In the colored group, quality and prices were the main reasons pied by housewives for changing meat dealers because of dissatis-

action.

In the foreign groups, the numbers replying that they had stopped trading with dealers because of dissatisfaction were so small, that the percentage distributions of these replies by reasons may not have been representative. Accordingly no great emphasis should be placed on the differences observed.

The importance of quality in meats was indicated by the results in Tables 26 and 27. In the first table the predominating reason for trading with present dealers in preference to others was that the - quality of meat was satisfactory. The quality factor was again stressed in Table 27 where the replies showed that poor quality of meat was the principal reason assigned by housewives for discontin- uance of trading with dealers because of dissatisfaction.

The reasons stated by housewives in‘ answer to the question of dissatisfaction should be of particular interest to retailers of meat. Poor quality of meat, dishonesty, poor service, insanitary shop con- ditions, and variety of stock are the responsibilities of the dealer. Avoidance of personal differences with customers lies very largely within the power of the retailer, and to some extent the question of high prices may be satisfactorily met by efficient operation of the shop and by educational efforts designed to acquaint customers with the various qualities of meats and the general levels of meat prices. Question 12.—(k) Why did you stop buying from your last meat dealer?

(Table 28.)

A total of 1,650 housewives of the American white group answered

this question, which was the final one of four directed toward deter-

24 BULLETIN 1443, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

mining the factors which draw trade to certain meat dealers, in pref- erence to other dealers. Sixty-nine and four-tenths per cent of the replies stated that these housewives had stopped trading with their last meat dealers because the families had moved away from the area served by these dealers, or that the dealers had closed their businesses. These two reasons were classed as unavoidable causes for transfer of patronage. The remaining 30.6 per cent of the replies were divided among a number of reasons: Poor quality meats, shop inconven- iently located for the customer, high prices, poor service, business connections, opening of a new shop which seemed to offer such advantages as quality of meat or convenience of location, insanitary shop, no credit service, and new dealer recommended. :

In general, the replies made by the housewives of the American white group to the question of why they had stopped trading with dealers because of dissatisfaction and those received to the question of why trading with the last dealer was discontinued agreed in so far as the order of importance was concerned, although the relative impor- tances among them were changed in degree. Poor quality, high prices, poor service, and insanitary shop conditions occurred in the same order in the answers to both of these questions. Limiting the question to reasons for discontinuance of trading with the last dealer eliminated the element of choice present in the previous question, where a statement of the reason for ceasing to patronize a dealer be- cause of dissatisfaction was desired. This difference in all probability accounted for the introduction of several reasons which would not ordinarily be regarded as arising from dissatisfaction: Inconvenience of location, business connections, new shop, no credit service and the recommendation of a new dealer by friends. This last reason would appear to have an element of dissatisfaction in it since the housewife was in the proper frame of mind to make a change to the new dealer.

Question 13.—(a) Where have you seen fresh meat advertised by local stores? (Tables 29 and 30.)

A total number of 1,143 housewives of the American white group re- plied to this question. Of this number, 73.1 per cent mentioned post- ers in meat shops, 20 per cent remembered newspapers, 6.1 per cent recalled handbills and circulars, and 0.8 per cent thought of advertising in street-car posters and motion-picture shows. But little variation was noted in the replies of the different classes. Any variations ob- served were so slight that the differences were of no practical signifi- cance.

In the colored group the principal variations from the replies of the American white group of housewives were found in the recollection of handbills and circulars. Posters in shops were not so generally recalled by the housewives of the colored group as they were by the housewives of the poor and middle classes of the American white

roup. ; In the foreign groups the number of replies was small, so that little importance can be attached to the results, with the exception of the Scandinavian group in which 81.7 per cent of the 82 housewives recalled posters in shops; 11 per cent, newspapers; and 7.3 per cent, handbills and circulars.

Differences among cities were found according to the results set forth in Table 30. When judged from the standpoint of frequency

CONSUMER PREFERENCES IN PURCHASE OF MEAT Me

of recollection by housewives, posters in shops were the most promi- nent method of local meat advertising in Birmingham, Fargo, Grand Forks, Lincoln, New Orleans, and Oklahoma City. Newspapers were remembered most often in Denver, Minneapolis, Oklahoma City, San Francisco, and Washington. MHandbills and circulars were remem- bered to the greatest extent in Denver, Minneapolis, and Washington. Question 13.—(b) What do you remember about meat advertising by local stores? (Table 31.)

In the American white group, 836 housewives answered this ques- tion. Reasonable prices were remembered by 47.4 per cent of the housewives, special prices by 25.2 per cent, listing of prices without any recollection as to whether they were reasonable or otherwise by 16 per cent, quality by 4.7 per cent, attractive meat displays within the store by 2.4 per cent, cheap cuts and prices by 1.9 per cent, charts of various cuts of meat by 1.9 per cent, and the handling of government inspected meat by 0.5 per cent. The price element was the predominant feature in 90.5 per cent of the advertising recalled by this group of housewives. Quality and other good-will advertising were recalled by relatively few housewives.

Ail of the advertising recalled by the poor class of the colored group pertained to price. With the exception of minor numbers this was also true of the middle class of this same group.

In the foreign groups this same strong tendency toward recollection of price advertising was apparent. ‘The persons in the foreign groups replying to this question were few in number, so that the results presented were probably of slight importance as indications of the tendencies of the various nationality groups, with the possible exception of the Scandinavian group in which 48.2 per cent of the 56 housewives recalled reasonable price advertising; 33.9 per cent, special price; 8.9 per cent, list of prices.

It was plainly apparent from the replies to this question that the price appeal was the one thing in meat advertising which was most persistent in the minds of the housewives. This tendency was due to one of two reasons: (1) The meat-advertising policies of local stores were almost entirely directed along the line of price appeal, or (2) the dominant infiuence in the housewife’s purchasing of meat was price. That the latter was not the case has been amply demon- strated by the previous discussion of questions in which the price appeal was found to be of less importance than the quality appeal. It is also a matter of almost common knowledge that advertising by meat markets is directed largely along price lines with but little attention to quality and good-will advertising which will draw trade through other means than that of price.

Question 14.—If you owned a market, what would you advertise about your meat? (Tables 32 and 33.) _ In an effort to determine the factors which the housewife regard- ed as of most importance in advertising, there was included a ques- tion in answer to which the housewife was asked to state her ideas ot what she would advertise if she were the owner of a meat mar- et.

It was important to find that the advertising factors which house- wives stressed were evidently those to which retailers of meat had given but little attention. The type of advertising which appealed

15287°—28 4

26 BULLETIN 1443, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

to the housewives was institutional in character, and was directed toward the development of good will for the market. Quality and sanitary handling of meats were the two factors which were indica- ted most strongly, 53.7 per cent of the 1,615 housewives of the American white group naming quality and 27.3 per cent of the same group mentioning sanitary handling, while only 8.3 per cent indica- ted economical prices. Other factors were named by small numbers: Government inspected meats, 4.5 per cent; food value, 1.7 per cent; variety of choice, 1.6 per cent; good service, 1.3 per cent; reliability, 1.2 per cent; special prices, 0.4 per cent.

But little variation was found in the extent to which housewives of each of the four classes of the American white group would stress

‘quality in their advertising if they were the owners of meat shops,

approximately 50 per cent of the replies in each class being quality. Variations in standard of living and the differences arising therefrom were evident in some of the answers to this question. Only 17.1 per cent of the housewives of the poor class would stress sanitary hand- ling, while 26.1 per cent of those of the middle class, 31.4 per cent of those of the well-to-do class, and 33.1 per cent of those of ae wealthy class thought this phase of retailing should be given first importance in advertising.

The effect of variation in income was observed in the differences in the relative numbers replying that they would emphasize economical prices. Housewives of the poor class of the American white group led in the number indicating this factor, 15.1 per cent of the class stating this answer, the middle class housewives were second with 13.9 per cent, while 2.6 per cent of the housewives of the well-to-do and 2.4 per cent of those of the wealthy class would emphasize economy of price. .

In the classes of the colored group the principal advertising appeals were those of quality and sanitary handling.

Housewives oi the Finnish, French, and Italian groups would stress quality much more than the housewives of other groups, over 70 per cent of the replies in the three groups indicating quality.

Some variations were found in the points which would be empha- sized by the housewives of different cities. (Table 33.) Housewives of Fargo and New Orleans would stress economical prices more than the housewives of eight other cities. 'The housewives of San Fran- cisco would stress Government-inspected meats. With the exception of a few instances noted, the housewives of the 10 cities were in close ageement on the factors which they would advertise.

The answers of the housewives to this question would appear to be of special significance. Meat, in so far as the housewife is aware of it, is an unbranded and ungraded product. The knowledge of meat grades possessed by the housewives reached by this survey was found

to be slight and inadequate for the intelligent purchasing of meat by |

grade. ‘The nature of the product and the lack of knowledge of quality and grades on the part of the housewives have resulted in reliance to a large degree on the integrity and dependability of the meat dealer. It is his proficiency in choosing the grades of meat adaptable to the needs of his trade on which most customers rely. Purchasers desire the highest quality of meats consistent with the prices which they are able to pay, and when they believe that quality has not been main- tained or that prices and quality are not in proper relation to one

ai eee

OO Ee OE ona

=

CONSUMER PREFERENCES IN PURCHASE OF MEAT 27

another, the dealer loses customers. Under this system of distri- bution the meat dealer should find it advisable to develop confidence in his reliability and in his knowledge of the meat business. It was thus not surprising to find that housewives were interested in adver- tising which would build up good will for the dealer. Creation of good will and efforts“ to sell the store itself” to the housewife by building on a foundation of well-directed institutional advertising should be of the greatest value to the meat dealer who wishes his business to show progress.

Question 15.—How do you purchase meat? (Tables 34 and 35.)

According to the housewives of the American white group who answered this question, the housewife usually purchased the meat for the household, more than half of the number stating that they did so personally. An additional one-fourth of the number purchased by telephone order. In 9 per cent of the households the husband did the meat buying, in 4.5 per cent of the homes the children were sent to the store to buy meat, in 1.1 per cent the servants bought the supply of meat.

The use of these methods of purchase varied with the classes. In the American white group, the range for personal purchase of the meat used in their households was between 68.8 per cent for the poor and 37.1 per cent for the wealthy-class housewives. An even greater variation was shown in the replies relating to the use of the telephone by the housewife in purchasing meat. ‘The class making the least use of the telephone was the poor class, in which 4.4 per cent of the housewives replying to the question stated that they used this method. Sixteen per cent of the housewives of the middle-class group, 34.1 per cent of those of the well-to-do class, and 52.7 per cent of those of the wealthy class used the telephone in purchasing meat.

Conditions were somewhat the reverse in the matter of meat pur- chasing by the husband or by the children of the family. The wealthy class was the only one of the classes of the American white group which purchased meat to any extent through servants.

In the colored group the percentage of housewives personally buy- ing meat was a little larger than in the American white group, being over 70 per cent in both classes of the group. Use of the telephone was almost negligible by both classes, only 1 per cent of the housewives purehseine by this method. It was somewhat more usual for the

usbands to purchase meat in the colored classes than in the poor and middle classes of the American white group.

In the foreign group also the relative number of housewives who purchased meat personally was higher than that indicated for the American white group. In the English, Finnish, German, Italian, Jewish, and Polish groups, 70 per cent or more of the housewives of each of these groups stated that they purchased meat personally. Use of the telephone was especially important among the French, Russian, and Scandinavian groups. Meat buying was done by hus- bands in 11.7 per cent of the households of the Italian group and in 22.8 per cent of those of the Scandinavian group. In the German and Russian groups, children were sent to purchase meat more fre- quently than in any other of the foreign groups, the colored, or the American white classes. Twelve per cent of the French housewives

28 BULLETIN 1443, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

replied that other adults in the family did the meat purchasing or that meat dealers solicited in person. 3

Variations between cities in the extent to which the different methods of purchasing were employed were of interest, although explanation of the reasons for these variations was not at hand. (Table 35.) In Baltimore, Birmingham, Denver, Jacksonville, Lin- coln, Minneapolis, New Haven, Oklahoma City, Pittsburgh, San Francisco, and Washington over half of the housewives of the com- bined middle and well-to-do classes of the American white group stated that they personally purchased meat for family use. The use of the telephone was relatively highest in Fargo, Grand Forks, and New Orleans, where approximately 40 per cent of the housewives stated that they used this method of purchasing meat. Baltimore, Pittsburgh, and Washington housewives made the least use of the telephone, less than 15 per cent of the housewives of the two groups from these three cities stating that they ordered meat by telephone.

In Binghamton, Birmingham, Denver, Fargo, Grand Forks, and Lincoln the percentages of the total numbers of housewives replying that the meat for the family was customarily purchased by the husband varied from 13.4 per cent for Denver to 21.3 per cent for Binghamton. The remaining citiesshowed relatively low percentages in comparison with those of the six cities.

Question 16.—(a) When you purchase meat, is your mind made up to buy beef, pork, etc., before you go to the store? (Tables 36 and 37.)

In answer to this question, nearly three-fourths of the housewives of the American white group replied that they had their minds made up regarding the kind of meat they wished to purchase before going to the store. ;

There was a slightly greater tendency for the housewives of the poor and middle classes of the American white group to state that they either had their minds only partly made up or did not know the kind of meat they desired before they went to the store than was the case in the well to do and wealthy classes.

The housewives of both classes in the colored group indicated by their answers that they were not so inclined to decide the kind of meat to be purchased before going to the store as the housewives of the poor and middle classes of the American white group.

The tendency to wait to decide on the kind of meat to be pur- chased until reaching the market was apparent to a considerable extent in some of the foreign groups. About 22.2 per cent of the Finnish housewives, 26 per cent of the French housewives, 31.6 per cent of the Italian housewives, and 31.2 per cent of the Jewish housewives stated that they did not decide upon the kind of meat they were going to buy until they had reached the store. The an- swers of the housewives of the remaining foreign groups were dis- tributed similarly to those of the American white group.

According to the replies of the housewives of the middle and well- to-do classes of the American white group in the 16 cities, an average of nearly 70 per cent of the group had their minds made up in regard to the kind of meat which they wished to purchase, before they went to the store. (Table 37.)

Variations between cities were somewhat marked, as 90.9 per cent of the Washington housewives in the two classes and 85.9 per cent

CONSUMER PREFERENCES IN PURCHASE OF MEAT 29

of those in Fargo stated that they made up their minds before they

went to the store, while in Pittsburgh only 54.3 per cent of the house-

wives said that they had made up their minds regarding the kind of

meat they wished to purchase before they went to market.

Question 16.—(b) When you purchase meat, is your mind made up to buy boiling meat, roast, fry, ete:, before you go to the store? (Tables 38 and 39.)

This question though not intended as a check on the replies to 16 (a) might very well serve as such. The distribution of the replies of the various groups and classes agree very well with the answers received to the previous question. This was to be expected, since the housewife who had made up her mind to buy beef in all proba- bility had also gone so far as to decide on the particular cut she was to buy.

Of the 2,869 housewives replying to this question, 75 per cent stated that when they purchased meat their minds were made up regarding the cut that they wished to buy before they went to the store. Housewives answering that their minds were only partly made up constituted 12.9 per cent of the total and those answering “No’’ were 12.1 per cent of the group. There was a tendency for the relative number of those stating that they had made up their minds before going to the store to increase as the standard of living of the groups became better. |

In the colored group there was a shift in the proportionate number of replies indicating that decision had been only partly or not at all made before the housewife went to market. ‘These two replies totaled over 40 per cent in each of the classes of the colored group and slightly less than 30 per cent in the American white group.

In the foreign groups, the percentage of the housewives in each group replying that they had mace up their minds as to the kind of meat they wished to purchase before they went to the store was similiar to the 75 per cent average for the American white group, with the exceptions of the French, Italian, and Jewish groups, in which the corresponding percentages were 56, 49.3, and 38.5.

Some variations were found between the cities when comparisons were made on the basis of the combined replies of the middle and - well-to-do classes. (Table 39.) It was found that the percentage in Washington was 93, in Jacksonville 85.8 per cent, in Fargo 83.6 per cent, and in Birmingham 82 per cent, ail of which were materially ereaterthan the average for the 16 cities. The New Orleans group of housewives indicated the lowest percentage of these cities, as only 59 per cent of the housewives stated that they had made up their minds in regard to the kind of meat to be purchased before they went to the store.

Question 16.—(c) When you purchase meat, do you buy at specially advertised prices? (Tables 40 and 41.)

More than three-fourths of the housewives of the American white group who replied to this question stated that they never bought meat at specially advertised prices, but there was about an 18 per cent difference between the percentage of the housewives of the Amer- ican poor class replying “‘ Never”’ to the question and the percentage of the wealthy class housewives who stated that they did not buy at specially advertised prices.

30 BULLETIN 1443, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

The answers of the housewives of the colored class did not differ materially from those received from the poor and middle classes of the American white group.

In the foreign group some variations of seeming importance were found. Ranging from 100 per cent of the French, 80 per cent of the Russian, 75.6 per cent of the Finnish, 73.2 per cent of the Jewish, 71.7 per cent of the Italian, 67.4 per cent of the German, 63.4 per cent of the Polish, 63.2 per cent of the English, to 59.3 per cent of the Scandinavian housewives, replies stated that such housewives of this group never bought meat at specially advertised prices. About 11.6 per cent of the housewives of the Hnelish group, 15.4 per cent of the Italian, and 16.9 per cent of the Polish housewives stated that they often bought meat at specially advertised prices.

When the middle class and well-to-do class replies of American white housewives were combined and arranged by cities, it was found that over 30 per cent of the housewives in Fargo, Grand Forks, Lin- coln, Oklahoma City, and Philadelphia stated that they bought meat at special prices occasionally. In New Haven, New Orleans, San Francisco, and Washington the tendency to purchase at special prices was slight, the percentage of the housewives stating that they bought meat either occasionally or often at special prices not exceeding 6.1 per cent of the replies from each of these cities. Other variations between cities were found in accordance with the results shown in Table 41.

Question 16.—(d) When you purchase meat, are you influenced by meat displays? (Tables 42 and 43.)

The attention given the proper display of meat in some of the more efficiently operated markets was justified, when the answers to this question were considered, as 33.5 per cent of 2,869 housewives of the American white group stated ‘‘ Yes,’”’ and 17.1 per cent stated “Partly.”’ In all the groups the relative numbers of housewives replying that they were influenced by meat displays in their meat purchases were large.

In the American white group, 57.6 per cent of the housewives of the poor class and 52.7 per cent of those of the middle class stated that they were influenced in their meat purchasing by the store dis- play. ‘The influence of meat displays was admitted by 67.8 per cent of the poor class and 64 per cent of the middle class housewives of the colored group, by 73.3 per cent of the housewives of the Finnish eroup, by 52 per cent of those in the French group, by 63.6 per cent of those in the Italian group, by 52 per cent of those in the Russian group, and by 58.7 per cent of those in the Scandinavian group.

The replies of the middle-class and well-to-do class housewives of the American white group for 16 cities are presented in Table 43. In 9 of these cities over 50 per cent of the housewives of these two classes stated that they were influenced by meat displays in their purchasing of meat.

Housewives in Jacksonville and Washington indicated by their replies that they were least influenced by meat displays, only 21.2 per cent of the housewives of the combined middle and well-to-do classes in Jacksonville and 24.5 per cent of those of the same classes in Washington stated either ‘‘ Yes” or ‘‘ Partly”’ in answer to the ~ question. |

CONSUMER PREFERENCES IN PURCHASE OF MEAT 31

Question 16.—(e) When you purchase meat, are you influenced by salesmen? (Tables 44 and 45.)

A total of 2,870 housewives of the American white group answered the question of whether in purchasing meat they were influenced by salesmen. Of this number, 73.8 per cent stated that they were not influenced, 16.3 per cent that they were, and 9.9 per cent that they were influenced sometimes.

The replies of the housewives of Fargo, New Orleans, and Wash- ington indicated that they believed they were influenced by salesmen to greater extent in purchasing of meat than were the housewives of the remaining 13 cities, 57.6 per cent of the housewives of Fargo, 39 per cent of those in New Orleans, and 35.7 per cent of the Washington housewives of the middle and well-to-do classes stating ‘‘Yes”’ or ‘“‘Sometimes”’ in answer to the question. (Table 45.)

Question 16.—(f) When you purchase meat, are you influenced by price? (Tables 46 and 47.)

The influence of price in the purchasing of meat by consumers is an important one to producers and distributors. Housewives’ esti- mates of the extent to which they were influenced by price in the

purchasing of meat were obtained through this question. Over half

of the number in the American white group who answered the ques- tion stated that they were not influenced by price in purchasing of meat, 26.3 per cent of the number said they were influenced by price, while 16.5 per cent answered that they were only partly influenced. Thus 42.8 per cent of the group replied that they were influenced to various extents by price in their meat purchasing.

Rather important variations were noted in the replies of the house- _

wives of the four classes in the American white group, as 40.7 per cent of the housewives of the poor class, 53.4 per cent of those of the middle class, 61.9 per cent of those of the well-to-do class, and 77.3 per cent of those of the wealthy class said that they were not influenced by price. Stated in another way the replies indicated that of the total number of housewives in the poor, middle, well-to- do, and wealthy classes, 59.3, 46.6, 38.1, and 22.7 per cent, respectively, said that they were influenced by price.

In the colored group the relative numbers of housewives influenced _ and not influenced by price in both the middle and poor classes did not vary much from those of the housewives of these two classes in the American white group.

In order of rank as indicated by the percentage of the total num- ber of housewives stating that price had an influence in their pur- chasing of meat, the nine foreign groups were arrayed as follows: Scan- dinavian, English, Italian, German, Russian, Finnish, Polish, Jewish, and French.

Rather wide variations were found when the answers to this ques- tion were grouped by cities. (Table 47.) Fargo was the city in which there was the largest percentage of housewives of the com- bined middle and well-to-do classes who stated that they were entirely or only partly influenced by price in their meat purchasing, 68.5 per cent of the housewives of this city answering either “ Yes” or “Partly”’ to the question. The city with the lowest correspond- ing percentage was New Orleans, with a percentage of 29. ‘There

32 BULLETIN 1443, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

was thus indicated a range between these two percentages of almost 40 per cent.

The rank of the 16 cities in order of the percentage of housewives replying that they were influenced by price was as follows: Fargo, Grand Forks, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Washington, Lincoln, Bing- hamton, Oklahoma City, Denver, Minneapolis, “Birmingham, Balti- more, San Francisco, New Haven, Jacksonville, and New Orleans. Question 16.—(g) When you purchase meat, do you shop between stores?

(Tables 48 and 49.)

A total of 2,860 housewives of the American white group replied to this question. Of this number, 56.9 per cent stated that they never shopped between stores in purchasing meat, 31.2 per cent said that they shopped between stores sometimes and 11.9 per cent said that they shopped much between stores in buying meat.

The poor, middle, and well-to-do classes of this group showed little variation in the distribution of their answers to this question among the three classifications,—‘‘ None,” ‘““Some,”’ and ‘‘ Much.” In the wealthy group, however, the percentage of total replies in- dicative of no shopping among stores in the purchasing of meat was 70.6, which was materially larger than the 51.4 per cent of the poor class, the 51.3 per cent of the middle class, and the 57.3 per cent of the well-to-do class.

In the colored group the relative numbers of housewives who shopped between stores were larger in both the poor and middle classes than in the same classes of the American white group.

When the foreign groups were arranged in order, the variation of the relative numbers of housewives replying that they did some or much shopping between stores in purchasing meat, the order was: Italian, English, Polish, Jewish, German, Scandinavan, Russian, Finnish, and French.

In Table 49,the variations among the cities were rather wide, the percentage of the total number of housewives replying that they did not shop among stores ranging from 84.71n Washington to 37.9 in Pitts- burgh. The order of the cities was as follows: Washington, Grand Forks, Jacksonville, New Haven, Baltimore, Binghamton, San Fran- cisco, New Orleans, Philadelphia, Fargo, Minneapolis, Denver, Okla- homa City, Lincoln, Birmingham, and Pittsburgh.

Question 16.—(h) When you purchase meat, do you buy by pound or portion? (Tables 50 and 51.)

A total of 566 housewives of the poor, middle, and well-to-do classes of the American white group in Baltimore, Binghamton, Jackson- ville, and New Haven replied to this question. Of these housewives, 83 per cent stated that they purchased by the pound and the remain- ing 17 per cent said that they bought meat by the portion. As here used ‘portion’? implies the designation of a quantity by means other than weight, that is, a cut of steak, or a two-rib roast, as distinguisned. from requests for definite quantities of the same cuts by weight. The differences among the classes seemed to be of importance, 92.3 per cent of the housewives of the poor class, 83.7 per cent of the middle class, 73.9 per cent of the well-to-do, saying that they pur- chased by the pound.

ping alate raed as

CONSUMER PREFERENCES IN PURCHASE OF MEAT 33

The same method of purchase was used to a large extent by the housewives of the poor and middle classes of the colored group.

In the foreign groups, 91.9 per cent of the Italian housewives saip that they purchased meat by the pound. A slightly larger percent- age, 94.8, of the Polish housewives bought meat by the pound rather than by the portion.

Differences among the cities were slight and probably of relatively slight importance. When the replies oi housewives of the middle and well-to-do classes of the American white group were combined for four cities, it was found that the lowest percentage reporting that they purchased by the pound, 70.5, was in Binghamton. In Jack- sonville, 84.8 per cent of the housewives stated that they bought by the pound. Between these extremes were the percentages of Balti- more and New Haven. (Table 51.)

Question 17.—Name the kinds of beef steaks and beef roasts you can recognize, if cut. (Table 52.)

In getting answers to this question interviewers were instructed to ask the housewife to name the various kinds of beef steaks and beef roasts which she could recognize if they were cut and separated from the carcass.

In the American white group, 2,787 housewives answered the part of the question relating to steaks. The average number of steaks recognized was 3.1. There was a definite tendency for the average number recognized to increase with the increase in the standard of living. The average numbers of steaks recognized by the housewives of the poor, middle, well-to-do and wealthy classes were 2.4, 3, 3.5, and 3.4, respectively.

The average number of steaks recognized by the housewives of the poor and middle classes of the colored group was somewhat smalier than the number of those recognized by the housewives of the same classes in the American white group.

In the English, Finnish, French, and German groups the average number of steaks recognized was relatively high. In the remaining five groups the average number of steaks recognized was rather low.

Somewhat similar results were obtained from the tabulation of the answer to the part of the question relating to the number of beef _ roasts recognized by the housewife. For the 2,618 housewives of the American white group replying to the question, the average was 2.3. Knowledge of roasts was highest in the wealthy group and lowest in the poor class. ‘The average numbers recognized by the housewives of each of the four classes were: Poor, 1.5; middle, 2.1; weil-to-do, 2.5; and wealthy, 3.3.

The average number of roasts recognized by the housewives of the two colored classes was lower for both than the averages of the poor and middle classes of the American white group.

The English group of housewives, which was first in the number of steaks recognized, was also first in the number of roasts recognized, and the German group, which was second in the average number of steaks recognized, was also second in the number of roasts recognized. The Scandinavian group, however, which was fifth in the average number of steaks recognized, was third in the number of roasts recog-

34 BULLETIN 1443, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

nized, and the French group, which ' was third in the average number of steaks recognized, was fifth in the number of roasts recognized. The remaining foreign groups followed essentially the same order in recognition of roasts as they presented in the knowledge of steaks.

SUMMARY OF RESULTS

The principal results of the study of meat consumer preferences and habits are summarized under four groupings: (1) Meat consump- tion, (2) meat purchasing, (3) meat advertising, and (4) consumer knowledge of meat quality and cuts. In thissummary are presented only the more outstanding results of the analysis of replies from 4,466 housewives representing meat-eating households whose members num- bered 20,744 persons in 16 representative cities of the United States.

MEAT CONSUMPTION

1. In the American white group, over 5 per cent of the total num- ber of persons did not eat meat. Almost 2 per cent of the men and over 3 per cent of the women did not eat meat. ‘There was noted a tendency for more men and fewer women to eat meat as the standard of living of the households became higher. In the colored and for- eign groups the relative numbers of persons not eating meat. were less than in the American white group.

2. Health and diet reasons were stated by almost three-fourths of the adults of the American white group who said that they did not eat meat.

3. Four-fifths or over of the housewives lisse that their families were eating a proper amount of meat.

4. Beef was the preferred meat in two-thirds of the households of the American white group. Pork, lamb, and, veal were preferred in the order named. Preference for pork decreased and preference for lamb increased as the standard of living increased.

5. Sixty-two per cent of the housewives of the American white group indicated that steaks and chops were bought because of their palatability, 40 per cent stated this as the reason for buying roasts, and 29.4 per cent assigned this reason for using boiling meat. Con- venience of prepavation was of more importance in the use of steaks and chops than in the use of roasts and boiling meat. Economy was given greater weight by the housewives as a reason for using roasts and boiling meat than for using steaks and chops.

6. Meat was served in the households of the American white group an average of 2.1 times per week for each of the meals break- fast and lunch and 5.6 times per week at dinner. Meat was served most frequently in the homes of the poor and middle class colored families, and least frequently in the homes of Italian and Jewish families.

7. Palatability was emphasized by about 50 per cent of the house- wives, with the exception of a few foreign groups, as the reason for serving meat in preference to other foods.

8. Fish was the food named by the largest number of women of the American white group as the first choice of a food to take the place of meat when meat was not served. Vegetables were

CONSUMER PREFERENCES IN PURCHASE OF MEAT 35

second and eggs third, according to the number of women indi- eating each of them as first choice of a food when meat was not served. As the standard of living increased, the popularity of fish and poultry increased, with a decrease in the preference for vegetables, dairy products, soup, baked beans, cereals, and bread as food to be served in place of meat.

9. Variety was emphasized most frequently by the housewives of the American white group as the reason for using other foods instead of meat. Economy was stated more frequently as a reason for serving other foods by the housewives of the poor class of the American white group and of the English, Finnish, German, Italian, and Polish groups. Religious reasons were also important in the English, German, Italian, Polish, and Russian groups.

MEAT PURCHASING

10. Over 50 per cent of the housewives of the American white group and of the colored group bought meat at unit combination grocery and meat markets. In the foreign groups, however, the decided prefer- ence, with slight exception, was for straight meat markets.

11. The near-by meat dealer had the advantage, since in most of the groups and classes about one-half of the housewives bought their meat at markets within two blocks of their homes. The principal exceptions were found in the well-to-do and wealthy classes of the American white group and in the Scandinavian group. There was also indicated a definite and pronounced tendency to trade with the nearest or the next to the nearest dealer.

12. As the standard of living increased, increase in the tendency to charge meat purchases was more rapid than that of trading at markets where charge service was available. |

13. Housewives of the poor and middle classes of the American white group had patronized their present meat dealers a shorter length of time than had those of the well-to-do and wealthy classes.

14. Quality of meat was most frequently stated as the reason for trading with present meat dealers. The relative importance of qual- ity of meat and good service as reasons for trading with present meat dealers increased and the significance of the factors of convenience _ of location and economical prices decreased as the standard of living became better. 7

15. Nearly three-fourths of the housewives of the American white group stated they had never stopped trading with a dealer because of dissatisfaction. Of the remaining one-fourth, over one-half stated that they had discontinued trading because of dissatisfaction with the quality of meat. Dishonesty of the dealer and high prices were each named by about one-tenth of the American white housewives.

16. About 70 per cent of the housewives of the American white group discontinued trading with their last dealers because they had moved away from the area served by the dealers or the dealer had left the business. The remaining 30 per cent of the replies were divided among the following reasons: Poor quality of meats, incon- venience of location, high prices, poor service, business connections with new shop opening up, insanitary shop, no credit service, and changing dealers on the recommendation of other dealers by friends.

i

i

Eee

LET SG SE a

eee

Een wba

hale ee age SS Re EN PaaS NS SEE

Saree —-

POE

‘ aa)

i F 3

;

i

36 BULLETIN 1443, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

17. About 60 per cent of the housewives of the American white group personally purchased the meat used by the families, and the telephone was used by an additional 25 per cent.

18. About three-fourths of the housewives of the American white eroup stated that they had made up their minds regarding the kind of meat and cut of meat which they wished to buy before they went to the store.

19. About three-fourths of the housewives of the American white group stated that they did not buy meat at specially advertised prices and that they were not influenced by salesmen in their pur- chasing of meat.

20. One-half of the American white group of housewives said that they were influenced in their purchasing of meat by store displays.

21. The lower the standard of living the greater the price appeal admitted by housewives of the American white group.

22. Two out of each five housewives of the American white group said that they sometimes or often shopped between stores in pur- chasing meat. The tendency to shop between stores was more pro- nounced in the colored group and in some of the foreign groups than in the American white group.

23. Over four-fifths of the total number of housewives in the American white group stated that they bought meat by the pound rather than by the portion.

MEAT ADVERTISING

24. The shop poster was most frequently recalled as the form of local meat advertising, about three-fourths of the housewives of the American white group stating that they remembered posters. Rus- sian and colored groups recalled handbills and circulars to a greater extent than the other groups.

25. Over 90 per cent of the housewives of the American white group recalled some phase of price advertising when asked what they remembered about meat advertising by local stores.

26. Quality of meat was the factor which more than half of the housewives of the American white group said that they would adver- tise if they were operating meat shops. An additional one-fourth said that they would stress sanitary handling of meat, and less than one-tenth said that they would use price as an advertising appeal.

CONSUMER KNOWLEDGE OF MEAT QUALITY AND CUTS

27. According to almost 50 per cent of the housewives of the American white group, their dealers handled either the best or a very good quality of meat. As only approximately 9 per cent of the cattle slaughtered were probably of these qualities, the lack of consu- mer knowledge of meat grades and quality was evident.

28. Three kinds of steaks and 2.3 cuts of roasts were named on the average by housewives of the American white group as the entire number of cuts which they could recognize. The smail numbers of

- these cuts recognized did not denote familiarity with the number of

steaks and roasts made available by the cutting up of a beef carcass.

Wein Geck.

CONSUMER PREFERENCES IN PURCHASE OF M#AT 37

QUESTIONNAIRE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE BUREAU OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS

WASHINGTON

1924-25 MEAT QUESTIONNAIRE!

1. (a) How many persons in your family (other than Baggs. oy Table L

2. What is your average weekly meat consumption?

Kind of meat Pounds Cost Bee fisted kisi ee ca is ga kee a ae ie ) 1 e034 Se OBL OVS Be Sim ce A eae OY Aa ip Ne ay gta patra CHOPS Stes tueew en maw cece oe oN eal UNO OREN Lamb, other ----------------------- ------ ------ Total cost or - Baa acct a Te SOR ac sag ela es Sd ale mee BOR TR shown in Smoked-and cured meats... = 224 re Say mame ne aie Table 3. Other-(exclude poultry and sea: food) [2-2-2 IDO kaolin tee eames clr agi ley ap ee tate EN eRe RaR FOE ee, 3. (a) Do you think your family eats too much meat ?______-_- Just enough? ~~~ INotrenoush? 2 222 Oath Loo much or moienoughawhy goss. er ee koe 4. (a2) How many men eat meat?_._ How many do not?___.._- (b) How many women eat meat? How many do not?_____- VW 11d 5 ©) How many ehidren 19 t0.19 tow many donot... (d) How many children 10 to 14 eat meat a fang ay ama kee f How many do not?__-___ Table 4. (e) How many children 5 to 9 eat Howdmanyado not 7enetor TTL EYE BR ae Ni a a

(f) How many children under 5 Catunedti went oe Srna

6. What: kind of meat is preferred in your household ?________-_ Tables 6, 7, Veale lant. Denk Deei (es sree are ee eg EO Se and 8 7. Why do you buy— i@ppiteaks ahnduchopsiis 20522 Seley Be ee ee Table 9 Ce Roasts? Sewanee Sino lx Starks ab whale ig cho Sgn Table 10 CO} Bowing mea Gis aca ee pee ee A Shoe Sere Table 11. &. cow many times a week is meat served at the following meals: LBC NED EG TES SBS a 1 RE fig PE ec 8 Sa gh ak ear Tables 12 [Ri CVO SUNOe Te cs eer a cece ae ia aa 3 and 13. JD Sa axes Bla ies ci AE Ue SRE im, ON eee CME MDP EAM CANES eo ON ean 9. Why do you serve meat in preference to other foods? _______ Table 14. 10. When you do not serve meat for dinner, what usually takes 1 bles. 15 ENC NG epee cu et a rant ga cur N rrr e eUa eRe e and 16

\Table ie

4The questions listed here are those for which results are shown in this publication. The order of the questions as they appeared in the questionnaire has been changed but the wording and arrangement of each question is the same as that used in the questionnaire. Changes have been made in some of the questions, when used in the headings of tables and in the text in order to secure clearness of meaning when separated from the accompanying questions in the questionnaire,

38 BULLETIN 1448, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

12. From whom do you buy your meat?

(a) “Type Ol Market tes eee so eras pie ie ee peer Tables 18-19. (b) How many blocks is he from you?____---_--------- Table 20. (c) How many dealers are nearer? ______________--_--- Table 21. a Does he extend a charge service?__________-_------ Table 22 eé) Do you ordinarily have your meat charged? ________ a ae (f) What grade of meat does your butcher handle?_____ Table 23. (g) How long have you bought from him?________-__-- Tables 24-25.

(h) Why do you buy from him in preference to others?__._ Table 26. (7) Have you ever stopped trading with a butcher because of -dissabisiactiony 22 oe ee Be Table 27. (7) -Whatsvas the reasomy is eter en ee ee ee (k) Why did you stop buying from your last meat dealer? Table 28. 13. (a) Where have you seen fresh meat advertised by local stores? Tables 29-30.

(b) What do you remember about the advertising?_________ Table 31. pe Jou gepen evuarit enecna yon adres abl 1 eae 15. How do you purchase? (a) NOM Che Seth See See a oe ee ee (0) Cid rerio re is ee ae ee fae re ae ep (oe) Persomally:, orc ater ee eal elas (2) ServeaniGes | See ree eee Br ss a Tables 34 ce) Slipisbam Ge ies Se re os Sie oe See ee eee and 35. (f) Othersadults: 2225 ek ae a See (g) Does butcher solicit you______- pe pg ert rep ar 052 CL). SB yO ie ee ee ee (2) | PETS OM ee os ace in a coeee ee ge ae 16. How do you purchase your meat when you go to the store? (a) at eee as beef, pork, etc.? ES reagent caake ables 36-37. (b) ee ue up as to boil, roast, fry? Yee cor taaean ll ables 38-39. (c) Do you buy meat at specially advertised se te i ee Doe 5a Th : Tables 40-41. (d) Purchase influenced by meat display Yes. 2 ie mt : PNonnePartiyee ae : \Tables 42-43. e) Purchase influenced by salesman es_ 22 Not poncenege 3 \Tables 44-45. (f) Pe iafivenoed by price? P Sinan con aiMTable 3 46-47. | (g) Byer shop between stores? MGlrg ree OAD ables 48-49.

(h) Do you buy by pound or portion? Yes____No____ Tables 50-51. 17. Name the kinds of beef steaks you can recognize if cut_____- a able 51 Name thesbeet tOnsts— = sen ee f

CONSUMER PREFERENCES IN PURCHASE OF MEAT 39 TABLES

TasBLe 1.—Total number of households and persons and the average number of per- sons per household !

Average Total num-/Total num- Group ber of per- | __ ber of esas sons household Household American white: EPO OTC ASS ee se NS Neca tS ety Sie nea da ne Span fe 3, 654 761 4.9 VET A CICLO aSS eae aes at oe oe ee ee ee oa heen mee ug 3, 177 782 4,1 IVWOLIETO- GO; CASS yeaa aes Se alee ea es US anh eats Rolla Bes 3, 354 796 4,2 BWV Ga Tt Tye CLASS ices ape ee ee es De 2 ayy eee 3, 184 583 5.5 LotaleAmoricanswiill LO= sess Soe oe see ee wae 18, 369 2,912 4.6 Colored: J AOL OY CS FANS fas aa at et US PE is EE ine ie Pee SEC Recs Se Se a ee 805 203 4,0 SIVETCR HTK CSS re ee ae Sas a pores thas eas My ee eae a 818 197 4.2 “Oba zCOlONG Ceaser eee errr ee ee ene oes ont 1, 628 400 4.1 Foreign: ST GaLiSL gee Bre OE NS BS ee 413 100 4.1 IBY TALS Fees re ee es oe re te ee ee eae 208 45 4.6 TO ey AY) 6 aS a a ea Se case a pee ee oh I cael rate 256 50 5.1 Gonmianes soe bree eee eon epina wen remnue Peseta 2a 768 175 4,4 BA ES ta SS SC SS A Cc a ap es ro 1, 583 276 5.7 CO WUiAS Hae see ee oes od Mae Sr NON. Ceram en 534 113 4.7 BRS COU AS Sitter ag eget 1, 057 195 5. 4 RUSSIAN Es 2 Be Be nh ati AN Aerie Cah WNDE Janel aS Ee 308 50 6. 2 SCAN GMA VAA TN oe Oy sean piste ee Wie aN ese ee 625 150 4.2 ME OGA ef OTA IG Tet eta eee ne eee MR re ee 5, 752 1, 154 5.0 es a mf ‘Totalialleoroups so seo se a es | 20, 744 | 4,466 4.6

1Servants eating two or more meals daily have been included in the total number of persons and in the average number of persons per household.

TaBLeE 2.—Number of questionnaires by city and class of family

Bing- | Bir- Jack- : Balti- : - | Den- | Far- | Grand ~ | Lin- Group more eae ana ver go | Forks Silo coln American white: Poor—elass-—=======-- == -----.- 50 40 50 51 50 50 51 50 Middletclass = Fs eee 45 39 50 AT 50 51 60 50 Wiell-to-dorelass 2 ees 49 50 50 50 50 50 49 50 Wealthy 2elasss 225-5. Sas eS ec 6 50 50 | 50 50 e|se- ates 60 Total American white__------- | 444 135 | 200 198 | 200] . 201 150 200 Colored: | | | IPOOT. ClaSssee sete se e. Dae eaeh ee ee ah Os al fe | [ee et eee Middle: class= 20 co ects ae oe eg See eetee CE Je see Soe eaere a RE ee 0 A ee TROCATESCOLOTC Ge as eas ee | eee |-------- SO eee | | Sa a 1005) 22S Foreign: : Wretishs ssh sa iae Se Gee Sh ee TY Oe SE. Deye oats Sere Pe | eerie sept oe BSE Srna) rics SEES | bern) oatase SSS in S Was eee ee Bs ee ee eee et hes ac aE ee eral Cs Sere 7) 2 eo pore A Ue ear rie ett rence hy tsiess eet erst ays eee ine hs okt Alby Leto) ss oo dale sol tia od teri) ati set Su Gerri a Tie ere ea es etm ie ds SI |S Er Se os | |e os |e Ss eee Tialigniysse. 3s ee ee See ee 61 OO) aaeeee rs S50 Do INS UE JOwASH ea cee eee 4 65 lee SN SR ee ef ema Sng | a A (RS apes) ae Polis his es ies 5 ene eee 3 49 ARI Re ais toe |p ees | Sona et a ele CPL 2 chy deere GUIS Lek ra eae See ea ey | dae Ne Re | Oe ents a ole awe soleaweteee Sper i ayo Dhats i CY Yee se Ee oe ed [Ae es [ee eS Ee eee 50 SOMES eee Totaliforeign se eee eee Le eee 104 106022 eee 50 50 50} e222 e32 Se eee Totalall groups ........--------| 248| 241| 300| 248| 250| 261/ 250 200

40 BULLETIN 1443, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

TABLE 2.—Number of questionnaires by city and class of family—Continued

Min New | New | OKla-} Phil- | piys. | San- | Wash- Group neap- | faven Or- homa | adel- Birch Fran- | ing- | Total olis- leans | City phia 84 | cisco ton | 5 American white: Poonelass= ee sass es 50 44 50 50 50 50 15 50 751 Middle class____________- 50 52 50 50 48 50 50 50 782 Well-to-do class__-_______ 50 51 50 50 49 49 50 49 796 Wiealthy-class== seems 50 |-------- 50 50 50 50 50 27 583

Total American white.| 200 147 200 | 200 197 199 1165.) > yaaa | 2, 912

Colored: eee | isa press | me IROOM ClOSS see ee ao ee ee bidet etn Operate Sane i ee | eel ee eee eae 59 203 TANG EGG VSR (op EG Sg a Os ela eee ree igen BOF bas sect role Sar | are ene ener ee 50 197 Totals coloreds=- 4225s jee te eee ee TOO esses Ps |S eee Se aan 100 be 400 SS | | SS LSS ee SS SS SSS SS

Foreign: | QOS 2) BAS) a a So os A al cr abt es [ig ny res ge 50 £5) 0 (ea lV SiGe 100 AIT IS Neg eee ee ee | 2 yal eae ari al bn cabernet ech aeet aaa eNn Ir Selman | Ia lcein ve dae teceTe ly lk Poe 2 45 TEN EV OVE) OVE GR ONE = OE A | SOARS) HS (re Sea 55 0a |e ere |e eets eee nee) (pe ey etal fem HALE Ay 2 NE 50 Germaneassaa eee DORI Resterr a hee cots elt reece 50 50 201 eens 175 NUE TERT oh soe eae eat pe | pn NL a eh HO are Ro alg ben a 50 50 7 Ayo ae et 1A 276 LICSiysA Sy as See ea pe Be eevee Ds Cece nt a yf) (mest O AE Kaan a Pee oe 50 Ei) Lap epee Seat tl a Se RI 113 T BON DEI AWS eaters Pata Vo ER PUT, ac iia peach Nae 48 es yur brs es fs ats “Te 195 UUSSIANE ae ee ee caer 50 | seater [eae nutes oH Nagpal pale Bae | eae = Boe learn 12 elise 50 Scandinavian _---__2 AO gees eee [Se ee el ee ead eer Pears clne a a S255 552555552552 < 150 Motaliforeign= 22-2" Tay leet see st HOU seo ees 248 251 Ls} Qala | 1,154 Total all groups___--__- aukegoe Seana ale ja 260 ie FE Gta oiner (auc ll emer hl ces

TABLE 3.—Replies to the question: What ts the cost of the meat consumed per week in your household?

Total Average number of | cost per

Group house- week per holds household American white: oor: class! wae) at oa Sas ee fe Bah CIS t MB atte teeta 0.2 S as colar Re Aho he 644 $2. 73 | Vii ddlerclass eget 280 <a Ui) Aa Eee on a eee he SRB 5a eS). ee 670 3.13 iWielIEtO=Go "Glass bo: 0 ek De Ras he eee a SU Ae ES Ie ey Oe Se 685 3. 50 BVOC Tay OLS S 2 a2 og ae hc oN eR age ee 480 5. 03 TotalzAmerican wihiters 2c 2s 5 2 eae ce CS ee Cee WN ee Se oe eee 2,479 3. 49 Colored: TPOOTHElASS tes 26 Se a EE Salen ie OR 4 A Reno Pte hac ne Ba ta 202 2. 41 Miiddle-class ¥Gen = 2 5G) ie ah Ge rs Es Be ee el i en ses ee 196 3. 38 Foreign: TER 0 0 & G65) ere le a Fa ea pe aa ip ge a RO 45 2. 40 (GRes ra 00 FEI gaan | aap: ONO Shep ler ee OS RCIA D DLR \aakal es < Aoi CORR ine mele ee al as 76 3. 24 MGallian: 2 dee tees a hp e a RR erate aig wees aa fg ee am 156 2.16 1 De DRS) a tego UL oF NNR, MTR tp See CESS ee Ug Se Se AURA eas renee ee ee 91 3325 ARUUISS LAT Ss Sena nee ee es Ren a oe ee ae ee IN Ea ee UU Oe 50 3. 96 | Scan@ina viene 2228s healers sa ose ee ie reel ey Sa A 150 2.31 |

1 Replies from Baltimore, Binghamton, Birmingham, Denver, Fargo, Grand Forks, Jacksonville, Lin- coln, Minneapolis, New Haven, New Orleans, Oklahoma City, San Francisco, and Washington. 7 Replies from the cities listed in footnote! with the exceptions of Baltimore, Jacksonville, and New aven.

CONSUMER PREFERENCES IN PURCHASE OF MEAT Al

TaBLE 4.—Replies to questions relative to number of persons not eating meat

[Philadelphia and Pittsburgh not included]

Family members | Servants | j citer S en ae Women | Chil- | Chil- Children Children | a —35" 149 venir / ovyer19 dreni15- dren 10-| - 9vears| Under 5 = he Ss | y | years (19years 14 years |? y | years ae eC Group 2 |s2| | | | | ee | | S bo | | = ae os | = | — a AS Sere sel Sle eo eet Se es ee oe eee eee 2 |g2\2 (8/213 oe ee Brie wales lige ee | sal eh ef chee dee heats Oa) a 2 fs i= =a ~ a | Al ta oe BZA S| 2/812 )8) 2 ale |e = Z } | | | } end American white: amet Geaiele! aehen (casei beaks il Ace iPeor class” 2-3 = 3,138} 6.8) 804) 1.4 865) 3.0, 214) 2.3) 363) 0.3) 436) 3.2} 456/342 1 0 Middle class_-_----- 2, 736 6.3} 876} 1.71, 001) 4.1) 195 3.1) 211) 2.4) 233) 6.0] 22041.8 21 0 Well-to-do class ----| 2,764, 47] 870) 1.51, 151) 3.6) 172; 0 | 197| 2.5) 203) 5.4) 171/35.9, 162 {22 Wealthy class — 1, 937| 3.4 614) 2.1, 742) 2. 7 1130 | 156) 0 159) 6} 153 20. ©} 662 -3 Total American | | po | iecboesl f= besa White == t=. 110,575) 5. 5.3, 164; 1.63, 759; 3.4 694 1.6 927) 1. 2}1, 031; 3. 9/1, 000'34. 1 846: -3 Colored: ER | ‘Poor class= | 803 3.5) 224; .4| 275) 2.5) 64) 0 75! 0 86: 0 79/25. 3 2 0 Middle class_______ 817) 4.0| 265) .8) 2932.4) 64.0 | 61!0 61| 3.3| - 73130.1; 1} 0 Foreign: — | 2a eal aa Lek) | ee eee 208 -5) 631.6 610 | 150 | 22,0 | 21 0 26). 0. :|2=2)2 eee Prec ee ae LP 2Shln Sool 69) L4 88 3.44 22,0 | 20) 0 | 18:16.6|" 20)70. 0}. 191-=- Germar = <7. 296] 3.4] 115} .9 110/36) 15'0 | 23) 43 1O | 13/308} 3] © rani 2 ; 1,017 4.9) Zid) 2.3 251; 3.6; 99) 4.0) 132) 4.5, 143) 4.2) 133}14.3/____/______ He washes es oe (fh I regen 33) ek D7 15, 6.7; 7, 0 | 2 0 2'50. 0 1M On TiBeSO Poste 547, 8.4) 130] .8 117) .9} 4510 | 69| 7.2! -96| 5.2! — 90/37. 8|_-___|----__ eussian= 2-22 308; 19 80) 0 78; 2.6| 37 0 54! 0 39| 0 20/205 0|= = 42S Scandinavian ______| 623, 4.2) 194 1.0 195, 3.1, 60 0 62 0 65| 3.1) 47/34.0} 2) 50.0 | i

1 Percentage in each case is based on the number to the left of the indicated percentage. For example, 1.4 me cent of the 804 men over 19 years of age in the poor class of the American white group did not eat meat.

2 Replies from Binghamton, Birmingham. Denver, Fargo, Grand Forks, Lincoln, Minneapolis, New Orleans, Oklahoma City, San Francisco, and Washington.

TABLE 5.—Replies to the question: If there are any adults who do not eat meat, what are the reasons why they do not?

| Percentage replying—

Total : number | ; Group _ of adults : ; High replying Diet Distaste | act | American white: POOL Class rs ie Peer ek ONL Se Se ee eg Se 37 62. 2 32. 4 | 5.4 IMidd@le@class 2b 28 ak a et AD Re es 61 78.7 19S Ze 1.6 iWielEto-doelass = sr. ha) Sse a Oe 2 er 61 75.4 23.0 | 1.6 WW eZIG Tyee Liss fee ere een aaa ee ee Ss ter 37 73. 0 2 Patsy Amicrivanigmes © pe Ee! a 196 | 73.4 | 94.5 | 25

1Replies from 14 cities, Fargo and New Orleans not included.

?Replies from 14 cities, Fargo and Lincoln not included.

3 Replies from 15 cities, Jacksonville not included.

4 Replies from 11 cities, Baltimore, Fargo, Jacksonviile, New Haven, and San Francisco not included.

42 BULLETIN 1443, U. 8S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

TaBt£ 6.—Replies to the quesiton: What kind of meat is preferred in your

household? 1 Total Percentage replying— Group errees = Dlies Beef Pork Lamb Veal

American white: ?

IPOOF ClaSS&.2= 2. 90 er aS ee ea a ae 561 55.3 35. 2 2.5 7.0

Midd@le'classsa22 25, fn te be ee ee 584 65. 4 18.7 se 8.2

Weell-to-dolelass #2225208 _ Paes Seas 571 73. 5 a9 12.0 6.6

Wiealthy:clasSi 252 eo see Le ee Be 554 71.3 5.2 17.5 6.0

Total American white ___._--__----_--...____-_ 2, 270 66. 4 16.8 9.9 6.9

Colored: @ Seg

IPOOriclassstes tse ae ee ee Se a a ee 150 23. 3 61. 4 4.6 10.7

NG dle:clasS=222 es Gane ee ae, Bn ae ete | 147 49. 6 26. 6 6.8 17.0 Foreign:

Mn glishho sos vsse ea ae eee ke 86 79. 1 8.1 11.6 1.2

NTS ie ee ee ee ae ae re 45 51.1 OY SE. (RE era Oy 24.5

OH of 2) VG) a Yona ge actos ed Reinga he LY ace ber 50 52.0 650222 42.0

(ECG as 0 PRM: Fp eT eas ee ee ee 164 65. 2 18.3 12.8 By 7

Gali ee ee eee ee 161 43. 5 5. 6 7.4 43.5

AER AS) 6st UB a pe pune 95 G74 ee 15.8 16.8

PPOVIS aie Ae Rea ees Renee aes eee eae 94 80. 9 Co Ya ee eee 10. 6

MR TESS1 QTR sa sie Cel ee ec Se pepe ani a 50 52. 0 285 Oi) ae oe 20. 0

Scandinavian: 2282552 ee ee eee 143 53.8 37.8 1.4 7.0

1Replies from Baltimore, Binghamton, Jacksonville, and New Haven are shown in Table 8, where teplies indicating the preferences of individual members of the family are tabulated.

2 Replies from 12 cities, Birmingham, Denver, Fargo, Grand Forks, Lincoln, Minneapolis, New Orleans, Oklahoma City, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, San Francisco, and Washington.

3 Replies from Birmingham, New Orleans, and Washington.

TaBLE 7.—Replies by cities to the question: What kind of meat is preferred in your household?

[Middle class and well-to-do class American white replies combined]

Total Percentage replying—

City Der plies Beef Pork Lamb Veal -

IBinmine nantes ene) ees ee ee oe eres, 100 72.0 16. 0 11.0 1.0 ID en Ver eaee ose erie MS ot age Soe OL Se ee 95 84. 2 4.2 5.3 6.3 BEAT Oye ek aS ee ae rer ome Fen ae er el 94 Tiles 20) 25 8.5 Groanqdvhorks ee eee nee 99 66. 7 2RODo arenes 5.0 1 DS ba LEY) | Oe RC ees A pee De SRN dices at geen Bre pee te cr! 100 78. 0 15.0 3.0 4.0 AV UTR TN EP OES eee TS 2 OE ee 100 82.0 12.0 6.0) eerie ING@WaOTlGanS 2 esas 2 oe OE ee ee ae 100 45.0 6.0 4.0 45.0 ORJANO MAIO ty soe coach ee 94 73.4 21.3 4,2 1 iment vole) oleh esses eles Se Dee Dea dee eee ee ae 92 64.1 8.7 25.0 242 PiGtSDUTSD © eS eee Se bee ne Je eS 90 66. 7 13. 3 14. 4 5.6 Sanvbiranciscopee 24 aty Siig eee Ye ee a 97 GT 4,1 33.0 5.2 Washing tonics ee asa 2 een ie ee ee oe 94 (PES 10.6 12.8 4.3

WAU CltleS 2 ei tae Se oe 1 ie ae se ee 1155 69.5 13. 2 9.8 7.5

CONSUMER PREFERENCES IN PURCHASE OF MEAT 43

TABLE 8.—Replies to the question: What kinds of meat are preferred by the individ- ual members of your household? }

Total Percentage replying— number Group of re- plies Beef Pork Lamb Veal American white:? IPe0r class ees a a oe See ee ce 181 59.7 28. 2 4.4 Tet! Middle eliss sa ee eee 206 60. 7 19.4 12. 6 7.3 Weell-to-do class =. 2 La 218 57.8 9.6 | 29. 4 3.2 Total American white_--------.-------------. Vas) some ins), 162) 6.0

———— eS aOD™ETS LSS Ca ee ee aL

Colored: 3 |

1¥For other replies indicative of preference for kinds of meat see Table 6. 2 Replies from Baltimore, Binghamton, Jacksonville, and New Haven. ¢ Replies from Jacksonvike.

4 Replies from Baltimore and Binghamton.

TABLE 9.—Replies to the question: Why do you buy steaks and chops?

an | = Percentage replying— 2 | . S| | 2. |. ited 2) | > | og | ey Group = = = 2 = AA} FS) 2 g |= — = = Pp Eo o= g Si Seo at eee ey ee a) =§/25| Slee. | -B-p-s-tae | ao eB | es ee yaaa Bg a ° S | g 3 S a | a] 96 = Ble) >} O};me | a| Hh} aA] A |aejo = operas fer res ba ae pe eee hae American white: ! | | Poor class__------------ 169 | 65.1 | 20.7} 10.1] 1.7 |_-____ L.G/p B2 0.6 | 2 eee Middle class____---.--- 294) 0: 3-618. 6 NES es. 4 | 29 26 I=. 2b | | ees ee Well-to-do class_______- 252 | 61.0 | 13.5|15.1| 16| 3.2] 16 20 | 20). SS eee Total American white| 625 | 62.0|17.1|126| 22| 2.2] 16] 13] 10 |_| ee Coloredtas = eo 86 | 81.4 B81) 12) 23) 12) 84) 12 ee SS r= Bali es ets TSE 6le9 81-26 jo Serre vt ene aa j,4afeeoae [7 te el ee 68 | 80.9| 132} 2.9 |W | Pe: 5 eee 15 | es | | | - Baltimore, white__.____---- 123 | 70.6 | 15.5 | 4.1| PANS set fae ey a ee eae [ests eee Binghamton, white________ PGi Lolo | os imal 41s (obo Pe fe 3208). | See Jacksonville, white_______. | 136 723) -7.4 107 |) 22) LS). 77 29) Le |---| Beeess New Haven, white._.__.--- Lt 1s81-6o | cea Lleol icone FT A eee oe | eee ees Washington, white--..---- | 67 | 19.4 | 49.3 | 283 | Ls 18 | ieee eee ewes a Bees I | {

1 Replies from Baltimore, Binghamton, Jacksonville, New Haven, and Washington. 2 Replies from Jacksonvilie. 8 Replies from Baltimore and Binghamton.

44 BULLETIN 1443, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

TABLE 10.—Replies to the question: Why do you buy roasts?

oOo

ace) Se

Spey eece: >

| Sales

& D> om 8g

= Fe leelicadhigacs o

2 a) ect

fas} gs am

oaqa|o°o a

AKA I

n = Percentage replying— 2 ~ S 5 ro) > Group 2 is = PS = = ty ee el =| b Sie eae ta ea P| S| a Spa ee a) 3 = E be) = = =| = Silda Ngee | Sasol. oe eee i AY > @) fy MD eo) es) so) American white:! | IPOOn class=. eee Si | ea Oe Ole tla meyredd eat ne) sr7in | eee ee | ees OF aae Middle class__________- 1EON SOL OF ESOLON mab SON melon eee B70 G1 GO45 Pt} Well-to-do class____-___ 220) 40205 e2Ze30 ln oe eran ann vA Nes ile G9 | al ie Pee | | ————— Total American white} 517 | 40.0 | 27.0] 5.4]| 1.7 |______ O48) WAV F0 ee O55 OOOO aaa ae SS Oe Eom OES SS Colored? 22 ee GO SH.) SON es 1 Ey fol (tenis Seas weisas (zene tA ane aa Sse Sees OF 62208 RS 2eOe| = see : ‘Polishes see eS ee 41 {5398 123452) a2 Se 7 at. es ee DA Wir iD eArgl es enbeR CITY Baltimore, white___..__-___ 122 | 40.2 | 34.4 8 SOUS RRR Silels ale whe Binghamton, white_______- 149 | 42.3 | 20.1 2.0 2208 Ses ood te 14 4.0 Jacksonville, while__-_..__ 112 | 35.7 | 40.2 EO veiSe Gr leeee = 455) al Obg ps New Haven, white____-___ 108 | 48.2 | 18.5 | 20.4 ito i (rae re Suyle|= oD sOe |e Washington, white.-__-_-- PA ay (0) Ua stave | fed i Dayal fet ce) eel ES On (P| eee

1Replies from Baltimore, Binghamton, Jacksonville, New Haven, and Washington.

2 Replies from Jacksonville.

3 Replies from Baltimore and Binghamton.

Tas_e 11.—Replies to the question: Why do you buy boiling meat?

3

r=)

2

S

4 2

rou

e g

3

q

3

ic)

&

American white: !

Poor Classaeoeee ee 121 Middle class___-_____-_- 104 Well-to-do class____--__ 108

Total American white| 333

Percentage replying—

bs 8 <>) Z g| 2 Bales alate we ac ty =| S fan} [as] i>) °o Ay > Oo fom SR Ll | Pay 94 1.6 0.8 26.0 | 24.0 1.0 3.8 28.7 | 28.7 #9, 1.9

Wolored:2s2 sve Seas Et ee G6u| 9342/8) PIO! 7a )e eet 3.0 Ga lignans See eee ec (VA |S aA pa UE usye | lee eles Ee PoOlSh3 23+ 3 ee GIS p29 soe el Oe laa See CITY | Baltimore, white __________ 96 | 27.1 | 24.0} 1.0] 1.0 Binghamton, white____-__- 100 | 36.0 | 25.0] 1.0] 3.0 Jacksonville, white ________ TON PC PARCE NN EZ ibe! New Haven, white ________ GS ACO Ee | IEG ls BH Washington, white -_______ Cs eo tees (Eee es | oO ibe ek

ac a

E Ag |/eS| &

5 —_—

é B2\25/ 8

= a 2 o =o — |S oP Beers at

8 S 3 Bio SC io Sales

oe eG: © fe aed = fae | a 85 |e ete stag fe) 4 base 3.3) 6262-5) 6) 20) Bel eee peer: 5/8.) 458) (2S 2) ogo meee wis 1.9} 111 | 0.9} 25,9) eee ieee 3:6): 725°). Salle) 20, yee Ree 3: Oel 6.1 oe" 33s aaa fall ed 4590) ees Ss ea oea ee Sates 1.6 |—-8.2 | cse2 [aces [410-4 ssa. CW ie. Se Ja eee ge Ya el 2} Satya Ms ee cee es 3.0 | 13.0 1.0 |------ 13; 0) |eeoee Bee BT Ne Feld | aoe eet | ANG 9 ae Reeste 3. etai7 toa) |) tg: Ipa7e0h eee noses | Ss |S SS Saran See ea) | sos Ie Sess

1 Replies from Baltimore, Binghamton, Jacksonville, New Haven, and Washington.

2 Replies from Jacksonville.

3 Replies from Baltimore and Binghaimton.

CONSUMER PREFERENCES IN PURCHASE OF MEAT 45

TABLE 12.—Replies to the question: How many times a week is meat served at break- fast, lunch, and dinner?

Average times per week per

Total household at— Group neriber | replies») B pee Lunch | Dinner | American white:

Poonelass) esse ee ee eee oe 701 1.8 743: 5.3 WVMaiddle. classi-6 asa ae ee ee ee ee 782 1.9 2. 5 5.7 Wiell-to-d 1c laSss= a re See re a ee ee ee ee 796 2.1 1.8 5.8 VVC DEER y= CASS oie se = Pee Sage eee ON Le Le 583 2.6 1.8 5.8

Rota Amencanswhiters. 5-02 _ 2b oe eo 2k 8 2-2 2,862 | 2.1 | 2. | 5.6

_ Colored: | GOT? CLASS aces as oe re arse) eee eee ea eee | 203 | 4,0 1.6 5.6 MVE le sel aS ice ke Ee as Be oe 197 | 4.1 23 5.6 Foreign:

IB SH at ot ST Se ae eww ee eee 100 ; 7 2. 2 6.4 GET EE 0 60) Bye Re a a ee en oe eee i eee a 45 <5 P4 5.3 RGR OT CT) een ren tee were See es Pee eae eee ee 50 yet 2,8 5.9 Genmants sso Ses ae ee Se ee eee Se 175 3 1.6 6.0 LGR rie OA ae og es ae Se ok Re ee ee aS 2 ee et 227 .6 1.9 4.2 Fe Was 1 tan hae retaeer 81 Mine L os Seer ea eS eee 112 =a | 6 4.3 BETTS Baa ean ee i rs rn Seed i ae ee oe ee 198 1.0 2.8 ae PERE SS 1a Ms rs ea eae I Se er ae 50 .8 3.2 5.9 STONING REINA Ci (epee ate epee ee epe ee eee ee oe SS Ss 150 35 222, 5.9

1Replies from 15 cities, Philadelphia not included. 2 Replies from 13 cities, Baitimore, Jacksonville, and New Haven not included.

SEE 13. eas by cities to the question: How many times a week is meat served at breakfast, lunch, and dinner?

[Middle class and well-to-do class American white replies combined]

|

Average times per week per household

| ab— | Total | < City nin bet | | AG

of replies | :

| | Brees Lunch | Dinner | Bes x combine eee oe ey a PE i a a | a ee | | ' |

IBA IMORE eee aes ae ee ee Fe a ee ed | 94 | 3.4 2.4 | 6.0 | 11.9 Pn IHLOIN 22508 to es Brant SET eae 89 | 1.3 | Ferg | 5. 5 | 8.9 Brine ham)s: oot) et BE ee St | 100 | 4.6) mri rete a 5.2 11.8 Wen VCS ss 0 ee eee ee A et 97 | 4 1.0 | 5.6 7.0 Beevol a Dee) a) 5 ede alee A ee 4ci00E| 1 oon tg = Sores 8.2 eeimdeRorks Sp) s esi a: leg eT ae 3 | 101 | 6 3. 5 | 6.0 | 10.0 Nek soriw ic eae el es 2 ie ae Se ec 99 | 3.6 | 3.1 | Booal 11.9 HI Gp bane ee ee eee oe dE ee ee ee ete | 100 | 1.9 | 1.6 | 6.6 10.1 AVIA POLS) 02h seg eS See ee ee PS | 100 | cha ey 1.7; | 6.5 | 9.3 New Havens a 5) 35 8 56 sein ae) te eh 103 | 9 | 2.9 | 5.9 | 9. 4 PSP CO rd Pe | CSREES SES BRIS oe ee, ES am 100 | 1.9 2.6 | 5.9 | 10. 4 Diishpmaait yest tees totais ls oe 61" 100 | 3.3 | 1.3 | 5. 5 10.0 Ee hiladelghia; =e 2 = se ap oe Ey Se es OS 9%) ig ea 3.6 | 4.8 | 9.4 Pibtspuset ss 24 el TS ee la cise eee a El 99 BTA 2.1 | 5.6 | 9.9 SAT ena HCISCOM se ee a ee ee eh eye fede i 100 | 2.2 Tey sa 5.8 | 9.2 Washiisten! = 58. 2 obo 8 ay 5 yg i 99 | 3.5 | 1.7 | 5.9 | 11.2 TSE a ae ea Pg” Pete ake hg Ste | 1,578 2.0 2.2 5.8 | 10.0

46 BULLETIN 1443, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

TABLE 14.—Replies to the question: Why do you serve meat in preference to other foods? Percentage replying— Total Group ean ets Main of re- Habit Bal- | Easy : a Palata-| Food dish P Protein plies : or anced | prepa- | Variety bility value custom Or meal | ration convent American white: ! E Poorclasss.22 se ees 532 58. 8 28.0 Del 4.9 0.8 1.5 CO Fd Pos ae Middle class__.__._------ 554 50. 5 29. 6 12.5 3.8 "9 1.6 .9 0. 2 Well-to-doclass 559 47.8 30. 4 olga 5.9 252 1.3 .9 4 Wealthy class__..___----- 538 47.3 30. 1 9.9 5.8 3.0 TESS 2.0 4 Total American white_| 2,183 51.1 29.5 9.7 Os i, 1. i ae | Colored: 2 eA ae | IPoorclass: 2 ee 146 74.5 16.5 2.7 Ditieles oa eel 1.4 2620 oneness Middle class_....------.. 148 64, 2 25. 0 BaZa a 2.7 IY (es aah ce Foreign: Bn glishie 22525 ee ee 80 55. 0 27.5 10.0 4 BA RS NG (ARR. oa) Cas a eae eS Minn ish pees: a Sees 45 35. 6 33. 3 17.8 4 Dalene eee 2.2 4.4 22 French ewer sc eae ae 40 45.0 15.0 2145 LOSO Weston oe 200 [ekee 2a eal aaa Germano e aes Se eS 160 35. 6 28. 1 30. 0 -6 9 If Je bs Hats [epee Li | Pt aliankep: ses 2 a hee 84 34.5 46. 4 10.7 PASC Fy eer ee 2.4 pe eile yn ea ae Ve wishtte se ae 88 42.0 44.4 ces es ea ele ee ial ig al 7} Ie Ween. IR OliSh 43) sea er 71 83. 1 12.7 2.8 BC. i ina Pants hab (tes Dry eee RUssian ee Fes 44 36. 4 40. 9 9.1 ES at ps | Rig tl pty ieee al peace ES Scandinavian --__---___- 138 50. 7 26. 8 13.0 2.2 2.2 Oily eee ees eee

1 Replies from 12 cities: Birmingham, Denver, Fargo, Grand Forks, Lincoln, Minneapolis, New Orleans, Oklahoma City, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, San Francisco, and Washington.

3 Replies from Birmingham, New Orleans, and Washington.

3 Replies from Denver, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, and San Francisco.

4 Replies from Philadelphia and Pittsburgh.

TaBLE 15.—Replies to the question: When you do not serve meat for dinner, what | is your first choice of a food to take its place? |

eM 3S f Percentage indicating first choice of— 2 BS 3S 3B hn oO Group ? fe a) =) fas) p> Oe | se ae 8 wn a «5 a Q, da oS Me} yo} 2o|/ 4 D 0 % | ss 3 =) 32 te a 8 ° +4 a0 0 & £ iS) 5 a ® i ra = Bl] 2} a] & |AB| & | a |e Olam! a American white: Poor class#=2 22 2a 622 | 22.2 | 31.1/ 188); 48] 66] 18) 42) 29) 3.7) 3.4 0.5 Middle class___-----.-- 658 | 27.7 | 23.0 | 23.21). 6.4) 64) 41 )--3.0 |- 2.24--2.1 9 I; Well-to-do class...-.._- 684 | 32.0} 17.4] 22.2} 9.6] 5.4) 67) 1.8} 13) 1.2 -6 1.9 Wealthy class!____-_..- 505) "40.7 1. 6 15: Soho Qa Sat) 1 2se7, Se hi. 4 1.0 1.4 Total American Whites. 2252 ook 2, 469| 30.2 | 21.2 20.3! 7.2] 6.0 6.0! 2.5 2.0 1.9 1.5 1.2 | Colored: : | IPooriclass® = 222 eee 28 ESTO NOicon Oona acmon 47. -8| 2.3) 4-7) 5.5 Po afi [es ee | Middle class____..--... 133 | 45.9 | 80.1 So OR pr ee Or 85) 2/2 esses 3.0 1.5 8 2. 2 Foreign: Mnglish seo ee 89 | 36.0 | 30/3 | 19.1-}- 2.1 )--3:4|--5.6 (2-2. }-2ese- 2.3} 11 Ll ANTISH e- See eee a GEN AS 2) | AO nOs | CLSs ted pet May Sordicl Mer: Mew aero earl mbes Sia ees | eee Mrench*2 22a. ea eee AQ S650 Deiat acim | cea ee ne TO |0 = 25. | be xed cose Bee es Germans sues 2b. 8 IRS yA MPO REINS EC UCR eA ps Achat le aul er aod) ele IP ceweyy yuk italian sce soe 264 | 14.0} 19.7 | 7.6] 42.0] 1.5] 3.0} 10.6 ErOol| ee | -8 Jewish’s lee reas LOG S350 18S OLS o Te sO | ee 4552 | el Oye |e a cs | ater | 1.9 9 | Polish te 82 see eee 191 | 25.7 | 14.7 | 17.8) 3.7] 9.4 S104) end TET Peabe@el best) jena : RUSSIAN a eee aera 47 WQS 2182) |) 238s Gese\s Se Ole 4.2. OSS a AU Qe oar 2h |e | Scandinavian _____----- 142 | 48.0} 4.9 | 27.5] 21] 9.9 j---- 21} 21) 3.5) 4.2 7 a

1 Replies from 13 cities; Baltimore, Jacksonville, and New Haven not included.

Ses Bree 4, 5 '

r eae Gt 4 Ali tel ate

CONSUMER PREFERENCES IN PURCHASE OF MEAT 47

TABLE 16.—Replies by cities to the question: When you do not serve meat for dinner, what is your first choice of a food to take its place?

[Middle class and well-to-do class American white replies combined]

Percentage replying—

Total City BeeGE Veg- r

replies| Fish eta: Eggs ghetti prod youl Soup Baked cere Bread | Salads

Baltimore:—__---—_ = AQNIRO250) | kdalbno'5 0) aaa ee 250) (ee 2nOe | 70).O)|S2ee ease 2.5 2.5 Binghamton -22--=--—_ = 86 | 25.6 | 25.6 | 25.6 | 5.8 528 |-3.5'} 3.5 1.2 Ne De ade es 22 Birmingham =o e222 = 99 | 9.2 | 57.6) 13.2 | 6.0) 50) 5.0} 2.0 LOR eS 1.0 1.0 Henvewe2s-2-— se te 85 | 27214) 16. 86|522..4 )519'9 | 835°) 9: 44> 407-12. 74 2 1.2 Mares ts aes 96 | 34.4 8.3 | 34.4 | 10.5 Sis Bes Fe Doles. 2 ee 1.0 NE QWES2 2-8 Grand=Horks=2=<-22=24= 95 | 21-0 | 10.5 | 40.0 | 14.8} 4.2 |_--__- La pe ees ee ees es Ee oe Jacksonville ~..-...---- 622) 16 SIe | 82528 14555) 130) (4 6:0 |2 OF lias LGE 16 1.6 3.2 Winco nese eee 98) | 2455 IV SesApaybtoistshes | u¥enye lees 1.0 (ease dela|a=snes. |= eas Minneapolis -__-------- 941228; 7=|" 20: 2-19 3300|-e2ak 458 251 |= 2: es Fo bate baat 2 SS ING Wana Ven e 2223252 foe GOR SGse ole Ss| 1859) 6567|— 8.902 3.3 Sai be aie 2 Beis eae 4.5 New Orleans_-_-------- 735) 64-00 L253) 6.95 |F138 | = 4s | > OF Gre ee Leia 52 se [Sere | ea Oklahoma City. _._---- 81 | 12.4 | 40.7 | 12.4] 7.4|12.4| 4.9] 4.9 Sila pees Bei pee sae Philadelphia______.---- SOM SSece al Sade 1 ONL a eos dep ls |el2 eS eeee eee eee ee Cie | ee 3.4 Pittsburgh =e $4. 28550) VS9Fe25. OF} 10:7. | 2 356 | 10; 7 | —-2..4 |--- 2.4 1.2 3.6 San Francisco_____----- S15 455 Oo Ss cal DOs | Sri e 255) | Asa 602 ge re Le Wee 1.2 Washington=--2.--o-<— | 89 | 57.4] 9.0| 13.5 | 5.6] 1.1] 68} 2.2 die a pe sal 2.2 All-citiese22-2=222 1,342 | 29.9 | 20.1 | 22.7) 7.9 | 5.9) 5.4) 2.5 Ville l x6 8 1.5

TABLE 17.—Replies to the question: Why do you use other foods instead of meat? !

3 Percentage replying— Q z : aa o ° = dq a S Q “3 > 3 =| Group a es 2 5 |8e] 3 »|om E ae ee b cGy lpi = Pale Seas er ee Aiceolveie> ia | 2 |) 2 | 8 |e4\ 8 (esi se 3 2 3 3 3 qa a2 2 ss 3 n ot ere Pace ee Sera | cee ere are = (plete ele Sie pe keeles | oS be i oO 1A m | O fo American white: Poor class ._---.------- 1,051 |. 31-0 25.06. 1-1-8. 4 115.bs|) 424, 3.54, 20| 11) 1647 14 Middle class__-.._-____ 1,188 | 35..2.} 21.6°| 11.5 | 10.9) 66| 6.7] 3.5) 2.4 8] 1.0 8 Well-to-do class______ -_ 1,141 | 38.4 | 20.0 | 13.1 | 12.4 |. 2.5 4,4 Oli oau 2.9 1.4 3 Wealthy class?_.___.-_- 842 | 40.3 | 21.6 | 15.6 | 11.6 Obl LO Sele Obl 251 u 5 Total American white|4, 222 | 36.1 | 22.1 | 11.3 | 10.8 6.5 | 4.9 2565 | 2: 1 1 / 12 7 Colored: POOTIC ASSte= see ae 21 BEl Bote On eOOnte|"=OsOrlee Was \aOoe: | sonst i 4eple! eee 25 Sn |eSeee 9 Middle class__.-------- 229 | 31.9 | 32.8 | 10.5 | 13.1 | aise wind | ele yu eesiees 137g ees Foreign: English Hoe F piietges Sa Ramec et erie 203 | 41.4 | 11.3 255 5F4-) Te 3 | LES 1.5 3.5 7.9 Sah) bees Minnishie 2s yee eee 59 | 55.9 17 wal Ole 2os da eee 3.4 1.7 haw fag pens 1.7 TINTS OT Megas wa pape ea bo 61 | 29.5 | 41.0 a3 1.6 4.9 ibs 7/ SAIS TBS zeae 0 beter as 49. | oe German pp eae 246 | 54.5 ood -8 | 9.3 | 11.0 | 11.0 1.2 2.0 4.5 1.6 4 Italian iy es om ee salah ot ae 396 | 21.7 | 36.4 2.0 6.8 | 14.9 | 13.6 1.8 2 a) 2.3 8 JO Wis his eras ae er 154 | 38.3 | 26.0 Te Or w2088: WA: Gules 3.9 - 6 |\one By (| ees Polish Eph Ea carhare yea eepenetnien arene 354 | 34.2 | 19.2 |______ 2.8 | 15.8 | 24.6 5 [ene ee Pa ip See Russian --__--.---=----- Big | Oa a |acoe feo 7.0) 7.0/19.3) 3.5] 3.5 |--.-_-[--___. 5.3 Scandinavian -.....:__- 204) 441 (025 S11 SoS ie te Oly ae feo 15} 49] LO; LO 5

1 All reasons given in answer to this question have been combined. The number of replies indicated is therefore larger than the number of questionnaires procured in the various cities, ? Replies from 13 cities; Baltimore, Jacksonville, and New Haven not included,

COE ESE 8 Ye. Deer Sl ee Cm y

1 Less than 0.1 per cent.

1 : 48 BULLETIN 1443, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE TABLE 18.—Replies to the question as to type of market patronized | Percentage replying— i) | og || | i | Hofal eink ane Depart- | | Group Borer poner Unit |Stallin nation| Chain |Whole-| ment | p,..,_ |Cooper- iS replies! meat straight! public| meat |straight| sale store , lative or | | and |meat | mar- | and | meat | meat | meat | °° ..| com- al gro market} ket gro- ;market | market | market missary a cery oer. I! store American white: 686 | 57.2 30. 6 9.9 1.9 (UES i ae ae ee es Oxdicetse IPooWclassse===- =. 721 | 52.6 34.0 9.5 2.9 Sf (Ue) tel fs eee 1 0.1 el | Middle class ____-.-- 728 | 50.4 33.5 | 10.6 3.8 1.3 3 On ulecosee | aa ees | oe! Well-to-do class - -.-- 557 | 45.6 36-1 | 13.1 3. 6 ot) a) iy easier in ers) 2 ai | Wealthy class!__-__- =| |_| —_ — |—__—__|_—__—__ |_____ | Total American | fh | whites. f22..5 82 2,692 | 51.9 33.4 | 10.5 3.0 -8 =2, 1 pn ene GUT ears ll Colored: fe i Ger class= 222 5-= 189 | 53.4 16.4 | 19.6 CAG ls Sah eS S| Pee ee ote 3.2 | iH | Middle class --__---- TSile- 5oak 19.6 | 19.1 QO eee SS St | ees ee eee eee 2.3 | i Foreign: i | a | Rngushi eo. se. ko G7 3972s] 4 4gs4 | > BUT | 10.88! soso se 1 eae | | innishes asso hee 43. (A 9535| 2 0007 oS 22 ee tle leah | fer 3) 02a eee eee | a | Wrenches ses nose 49 | 26.5 ATO} 2625) |e S| Se 6 Be SAS ee eae eee | ‘gi Genmani 35222 169 | 36.7 52.1 4.7 CS soared es ae | Tipaliane. 2 seals. oe 240 35. 4 52.9 A 3: 1k S| ey ee 4 fleece all eet eRe EA i Mewish 4002220122" LOG | 286 |e PTA t ew cE a OE Oe | ee ee al) bce ce he ee a | Polishes ee 166 | 59.6 20. 5 LOE Oi | ees | Se ee | ate |e | re ap RUISSIANe es aoe 49 |} 16.3 pops Si Mie pee eer = Pere eee | eee pa eee eer ene eel oe ee | ial Scandinavian_ -___-- 148 | 34.5 64,8) |eke a See sity | Sones peel Gl 2S eae ie -

i 1 Replies from 13 cities; Baltimore, Jacksonville, and New Haven not included. a TaBLE 19.—Replies by cities to the question as to type of market patronized | at [Middle class and well-to-do class American white replies combined]

Mt Feel | aa Percentage replying— ie feat | 2 | | Total | Unit. Chain . rae | Gel combi- Depart- | i. City ber | nation} Unit | Stall | potion | Chain | Whole- aenae Farm- | Cooper- at | of meat |straight; in eee straight| sale Seas Baee ative or a | replies |market|} meat | public aad meat | meat eat) lanarket Woe ie) | and |market|market _|market | market ee missary | ' fl erOcery Broeety mar | ae store Sie a | aH Baltimore_-_-_..----- 84| 45.2] 16.6] 35.8 12 Te2 fase eo |e oo ale oe ee ee | ot | Binghamton -_-____- “2 29.1 66. 7 25645 tea oa| aces See eee eee iy: Be ene Ree | ee i Birmingham__ —._-- Go"! 68260) “18-2 7 ech fall yh ed fr fags perce 1.0 ee Denvers 2. sso Fs 93 51.5 Bee |ase eas | ee ee eee Shor | on So ale tee eee eerste ie | Wareos teed eee OTF. MELEE | Se (esac See ee oe | ae epee eee | nee 150) eee alee: * Grand Forks...___- : Goer ab Sh bo 20h ee Sue eee | SA0f [sec ee ae es eee eee | ape Jacksonville-_.__---- SiN PONE bs. G0 ie. bes B25] Sos see st Reh it | a Hincolne==: 4-25 100 86.0 W250) Ease Bee CPA) 1 le ee) So at (ey ae a a IN A Minneapolis .______- 94 2525 Goud: tae Bose eas oe USD eZ rs | ae ae ee aah New Haven-_-----_- 85 83.5 15.3 12) ese Sessltoeieae|peno nen | oa. oe lone ene fees ete | i New Orleans_-.---_- 97 OF3s |) 238: k oe4855 3.1 TOR Seco Se he eae a eee et Oklahoma City ----- 83 89.2 SoG |ooer sane 3.6 BeOtlessece—. sect ee alee ee eee : fF Philadelphia ---=--.- 96 26.1 47.9 10.4 WOO) (soso n aan econ ok | eee ee esata eee i if Pittsburgh =2_2=-2.: 89 34.9 46.0 Tali a Se 586. |.esesese |p eee i i, San Francisco_--_--.- 86 68. 7 13.8 15.0 FIA eee [ood Somes leeiah sco lte see ea ie eee . | Washington.-___-.2. 97 67.0 Seal 27.8 2, WAlse actos seat ceGe| ets elt oe eee i | All cities__.___ 1, 449 51.6 33.6 10.2 | 3.4 1.0 2 | (4) (4) (1) | eae | |

‘CONSUMER PREFERENCES IN PURCHASE OF MEAT

49

TABLE 20.—Replies to the question: How many blocks is your meat dealer’s store

Total num- Group ber of replies American white: IROGIIC ASS ee eee 671 Middileclasse=s- = 719 Well-to-do class _____- os 706 Wiealt hilt sn = se 543 Total American white__| 2, 639 Colored: (POO CIASS Pee ee 187 Middieclass= 2. 175 Foreign: ng lish= 22 sees soe ee se 89 MinmMi Shes ae ee 43 HEN Css ssa ee uh es 50 German ao See ie 157 Ga ants ee eee 239 JOWiSh) 222 e Sen eke ae 81 IPOMSHE saa ee 153 RUSSO him cten eee 49 Scandinavian —-.._-.-—_- 148

Same block

ee ' ro C8 Ee OUT bo Poe ee, a)

— NIWNHDOOOMDH OS

ht ROR OCl OOF TINO rs

from you?

Percentage replying—

1 2 3 block | blocks |} blocks

Ont st bo

= vo w

|

ere ee [elents : felenee

Es OO

OoNnNr OW 00 om a

DD Co GC) CO GO eR CO OD a

DMN POS OON OHRWARDOONOSD NOR S90 Orb BOOS TIS ENNHNIWOON TE

RSS bo Ore =

4 5 blocks | blocks 6.1 4.5 6.8 4.9 Tea 6.8 5.7 7.0 Gl ee 8.6 5.9 6.3 4.6 2.3 2.3 70 7.0 | 18.0 8.0 | 10.8 3.2 | 12.1 | 5.4 | OF Ori aaaere | 14.4 | 6 10. 2 | 6.1 11.5 9.4

1 Replies from 13 cities; Baltimore, Jacksonville, and New Haven not included.

ee

EPIC NO OU Or Cob HM ownmnoroor ~ W080

wre

Over

10 blocks

NOADrOOON H> OO

TABLE 21.—Replies to the question: How many dealers nearer than your dealer’s

Group

American white: POORICIASS= ees See ee ates

Seo SA SSS S65 5 SS SS EE SS

replies

Percentage replying—

shop?

None 1 2 48.7 18.8 7.0 38. 7 16. 6 9.8 36. 2 12.9 7.6 27.0 7. 5 5. 6 38. 3 14.4 Wot! 44.8 21.8 if 41.8 14.1 8.2 40. 5 25. 0 2.4 40. 5 42.9 Well 63. 6 10.8 10.9 47.1 26. 8 11.1 46. 2 23. 6 8.9 26. 3 25. 0 Bott): 37.8 18. 6 | 26. 6 old 212 19.1 29.9 19.7 14.3

3 4 eA 2.2 Lea eeaet 5.8 4.3 5.8 2.3 RiGvA ero 4.4 3.3 yoslel| BEG Bt BEG PROMS epee | 4.45 eer et a as Ou Deaee Be. |-) ana 22.4| 6.6 5.9| 2.2 Ziel SOLO) 9.5 | 12.2 |

|

1 Replies from 13 cities; Baltimore, Jacksonville, and New Haven not included,

5 to 10 | Over 10

—

—" WW O19? BOOMS NNWOTH

tS bo

50 BULLETIN 1448, U. 8. DEPARTMENT .OF AGRICULTURE

TABLE 22.—Replies to the questions: Does your meat dealer extend a charge service? and do you ordinarily have your meat charged? Does eu uveat dealer | Do you ordinarily have extend a charge service?| your meat charged? Total num- Group oes Percentage replying— | Percentage replying— Yes No Yes No American white:! IPGOTICLASS ot ea a SE eae ea cae 374 66. 0 34. 0 29. 4 70.6 MViiddlejclass: sien pele teas eee ane 383 66. 3 33. 7 27.7 WEB) Well-to-doclass2.2 224552 hn ae eee 413 74. 8 25. 2 54.5 46.5 Wiealthyclassts enc Sats eae 440 84. 5 15.5 73. 4 26. 6 Total American white __._.-...______ 1, 610 73. 4 26. 6 47.5 52.5 | Colored: 2 POOriclassiait see pee Ass Se aa ce 119 41.2 58. 8 15.1 84.9 Wil ddileclass: = 222eu. Phe eeE yo ee ee ee 119 48.7 51.3 21.0 79. 0 Foreign IRVIN LS eee Se a pe ee 39 61.5 38. 5 23.1 76.9 SO) Ey O) yet oan baa CBN ea pa en ea eC ees 30 83. 3 16.7 63. 3 36. 7 Germans ee ee ae See ee ee ae 59 86. 4 13. 6 33.9 66. 1 Gaia miso ew eins 2 EAs See ete we 55 76. 4 23.6 45.5 54.5 PR ISSLAT Ueto ee Set RE a ee ee 46 97.8 2.2 65. 2 34.8 Scandinavian ees esee eee wee ar ee ae 136 70. 6 29. 4 23.5 76. 5

1 Replies from 10 cities: Birmingham, Denver, Fargo, Grand Forks, Lincoln, Minneapolis, New Or- leans, Oklahoma City, San Francisco, and Washington.

2 Replies from Birmingham, New Orleans, and Washington.

3 Replies from Minneapolis and San Francisco.

4 Replies from Denver and San Francisco.

TABLE 23.—Replies to the question: What quality of meat does your dealer handle?

Pe tage replying— al reentage replying Group nun pe: replies | Best ee Good Fair |Ordinary| Poor

American white: ! :

IPOOTICLASS ee mena ean ie re 406 21. 4 5.2 53. 7 17.0 2.2 0.5

Mid dleclass =e ees 445 32.6 8.5 49. 7 8.1 7 .4

Well-to-do class___--__------ 447 37.8 19.9 38.0 3. 6 iia Peis See Se

Wealthy class) 2252222222222 450 | 45.1 21.1 32.0 1.6 2) |2aces eee

Total American white-_--| 1,748 | 34.6 13. 9 43.1 7.3 9 “2

Colored: ? I}

IROOTICLAaSS ee een el 140 | 15.7 Dal 70.7 Ws Be 2S 7 ee

Middile'class_2-2_. ---7=22--- 143 14.0 9.1 69. 1 (Q0)(s3 52 eee Foreign:

Binnish)) 2.2 t6 ee 2a we 42 | 38. 1 19.0 Bay 4.2) \|soecaa so ee

rench = 2 ko ee a 40 | 30. 0 35.0 25.0 Taya (ae pete 2.5

G@ernian 32 ete ae ae 8 66 54.5 9.1 31.8 456. |i. 2555 20 Sa a eee

tallies Bae Soh eee 60 25.0 15.0 56. 7 3.3: || Soe ee

UUSSTAT 2 ee 47 29.8 10.6 55.3 4. 34 eee

Seandinavian —=-_----~-__-- 135 28.1 17.8 48.9 Sys Df OE ae

1Replies from 10 cities: Birmingham, Denver, Fargo, Grand Forks, Lincoln, Minneapolis, New Orleans, Oklahoma City, San Francisco, and Washington.

2 Replies from 3 cities: Birmingham, New Orleans, and Washington.

3 Replies from Minneapolis and San Francisco.

4 Replies from Denver and San Francisco.

CONSUMER PREFERENCES IN PURCHASE OF MEAT 51

TaBLE 24.—Replies to the question: How long have you bought meat from your present dealer?

Percentage replying— Total | Group paaber 25 replies 6months| 7 to 12 | 13 to 24 | months | 5 to 10 | Over 10 Pp or less | months | months to 5 years years years American white: IPoonelasseen ata eee 696 14.5 21.4 PG Y/ 23. 0 2 8.2 Wirdclevelassms ees a ewan 726 16. 7 16.7 22. 6 24.2 10. 9 8.9 Well-to-do class _-..-..._--_- 714 11.8 14.0 20. 3 30. 9 10. 5 12. 5 Wealthy class! 222 =: 556 6. 2 IB 7/ ose S20 18.2 17%, 3 Total American white_--___ 2, 692 12. 4 16. 2 20. 2 27. 4 12. 4 11. 4 Colored: : ‘Poor. classss 2 Sateen te 190 17.4 16.3 18. 9 ane 12.6 12.6 Middilerclassae = ae 178 15.7 12.4 19. 7 29. 2 17.4 5.6 Foreign: RT PS nei a a ee 97 6. 2 13. 4 25.8 29.9 13.4 abe: nn SNe sek eee ees 43 9.3 9.3 9.3 34: 9 27.9 9.3 TPRer OG oe eee es ee 50 16.0 14.0 8.0 32.0 16.0 14.0 German 23 a 168 5. 4 7.7 19.0 23.8 17.3 26. 8 MG LA Tee ee ee ee a 237 5.9 16.0 20. 3 30. 0 13. 5 14.3 Jewish) 2-1 oe 100 9.0 17.0 28. 0 25.0 14.0 7.0 IRO}SH eh. ee ee 157 SU 15.9 17. 2 30. 6 15.3 L553 FEGUISS 12g ra eee oe mE AO a | ene antes ts 12.2 42.9 20. 4 14.3 10. 2 Scandinavian = ee 146 6. 2 18.5 24.6 30. 8 IBS 7/ 6. 2

1 Replies from 13 cities; Baltimore, Jacksonville, and New Haven not included.

TABLE 25.—Replies by cities to the question: How long have you bought meat from your present dealer?

[Middle class and well-to-do class American white replies combined]

Percentage replying—

Total City number of replies|6months| 7to12 13 to 2 Over 10 or less | months | months years

Baltimore 222 = ee ns. 76 13.1 2.6 9. 2 29.0 10. 5 35. 6 BIN ghamMLones see ee ee 69 7.2 7.2 17.4 29.1 20. 3 18.8 Birminghameee. 2. se 90 25. 6 14, 4 24. 4 18.9 10. 0 6.7 ID GNV CR een So eee ae 91 8.8 14.3 24. 2 29. 6 14.3 8.8 HATS Qe ease a eS ee eae 97 10.3 23.7 22.7 37.1 6:2) eee Grandbhorks ee 2 eee 99 22. 2 18.3 22, 2 30. 3 4.0 3.0 Jacksomvallenees So als po 84 1595) 23. 8 26. 2 25.0 8.3 ee MIN COlNe Ree eS Be a 100 11.0 16.0 25. 0 33. 0 12.0 3.0 Minneapolis ais 2. ae ee : 94 15.9 14.9 18. 1 24.5 13. 8 12.8 IN@w Haven tiniest s sss ee 85 9. 4 20. 0 20. 0 24.7 8.2 Wad INewsOrleqnstes eat ee 100 28. 0 10. 0 9.0 23. 0 16.0 14.0 Oklahoms Citys-224 oe 88 18. 2 18. 2 26.1 25. 0 9.1 3.4 Philadelphias=2 ss 96 33, I ie 29. 2 14. 6 1683 28. 1 Pittsburgh ee 88 6.8 12.5 18.2 45.5 9.1 7.9 Sanehranciscosss 222-8 ae 85 18. 8 17.7 3 : 15.3 8.2 Washing tonvesse sae eae 98 : 9.2 8.2

ZAI" Cities! a es 1, 440 14.2 16.3 10.7 10.7

52 BULLETIN 1443, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE TABLE 26.—Replies to the question: Why do you buy from your meat dealer in preference to others? Percentage replying— Total : Busi- num- Pleas- Grou Good _ | Eco- ness or : Bay ake e ber of | qual- | C2" | nom- | Good | social | Habit} Sani-| ing | Charge replies| . ven- | ; F or cus-| tary | per- F ity of reaee ical |service| con- Anes | ln service meat priees nec- Deo ti ality ous American white: iPoorclass. 2202 S22 sas 698 | 35.8} 34.1] 12.0 1.9 6.0 2.9 2.6 2.6 Dall Middle class --__--------- 727 | 41.4 / 28.1 10. 4 5. 2 5.8 2.9 2.9 2.6 afi Well-to-do class____------ 726 | 48.0] 22.3 eal 9.7 Dele 4.0 3. 4 IE 7 oll Wealthy class!_..--_----- 558 53. 2 15. 8 4.3 15.2 4.3 2a 2.5 DHO a Pee eae Total American white_-| 2,709 | 44.2 | 25.5 8.2 7.6 525 By ll 2.9 Pa) .8 Colored: 1 ap 4 i PoorielasSe222222 aaa es 189} 20.6] 45.5 | 21.7 2.1 21 1.6 .6 Sal 2.1 Middle-class __-...--___-- 178 | 28.1 35. 4 16. 9 2.2 6. 2 2. 2 3. 4 Thee ff 3.9 Foreign: 10) afd WS) 0 sae a a ar 97 56. 7 11.3 9.3 GVOm See ees 2. I AS Dod awed Brel ee Ee inniShiess so) Ai ee ea AZO EAD ONS ali 204 OF eens 4.7 2.13 9.3 De Sin ick ies Peares Dae TEAC TAC Maat Wer eel Ae 49} 32.7 26. 5 2.0 8. 2 14.3 8. 2 2.0 Gs eee aoe German hse ieee 166 45. 2 30. 1 3. 6 9.7 7.8 2.4 P25, arte ie SE he Oe ete Galiano ses) ue eee Le 240 | 36.2 26. 2 8.3 13.8 6.3 5. 4 21 4 1.3 Vie wish seas so Pee ee 101 58. 4 14.8 2.0 LOE Oh aa ee TSO My ieee em ae ee ree VEO) TPH Se ae i SO el Saha eae 160 |} 30.6] 33.8] 15.0 4.4 5. 6 6. 2 Sopa Neale $ 183 RUSSIAN 8 ee oe 49 | 24.5 SOD 4.1 22. 4 8.2 Ci I ieee nee 8a. re Scandinavian ______-_-___ 143) .36,.33| ld 8.4 7.0 6.3 5. 6 1.4 BY Dilly

1 Replies from 13 cities; Baltimore, Jacksonville, and New Haven not included.

TABLE 27.—Replies to the questions: Have you ever stopped trading with a meat dealer because of dissatisfaction, and if so, what was the reason?

Ss “No” Yes ’”’ . . 6 ” e replies replies Reasons given by those replying ‘‘Yes 2 be ra} Z i] o = 8 Sale s/s es Grp 23 @a| Se 620) Sees ee Sa as es as os Pepi secse ns oo S Be} Pole, Ae |g =P Been see 6 | & | SH |gog Seige, (eee! Sate |e | eh Slee lee ro) s 5 3 8 | 8 a Piet 5 2 |3 |sor0 al Zi Ay Z Ay Ay QA Ay Ay 4 a Ay American white: ? IPOOTClaSS) = ee ee 444 | 359 | 80.9 SoG OMI EG7a2 |= As Tela ees3:.01| paso euget 3.5 Middle class ___=--_--_- 458 326 | 71.2 132 | 28.8 | 60.6 | 11.3 9.8 6.1 7.6 D8 7A, 3} Well-to-do class_______- 469 342 | 72.9 W272 5250) T6250. 6.3 | 10.2 1.6 2.4 Wealthy class____-__.__ | 467 334 | 71.5 PSSM 2S On| Oe ela! WS om eile lool 4.5 ERG) See Total American white'l, 838 |1,361 | 74.0.| 477 | 26.0 | 57.6 | 12.2 | 11.3 8.2 6.7 Diet 1.9 Colored: 3 Pooriclass? 2. Sani 150 120 | 80.0 30 | 20.0 | 43.3 OHA Asada eee one GENE | aes Middlejiclass2 22s 150 117 | 78.0 3322.00 /6306 | 3.08 121 3.1 3.0 9.1 6.1 Foreign: Binnish) 2222 eee 45 31 | 68.9 AR SN eM: jeri Aes ee 1 fea | cee t= ol Re A Led hea ol Are n clas Jai otk ere 50 40 | 80.0 OZ O GOO) AOS ee Sy On ee 10.0 Germanii ener eee 75 60 | 80.0 WS 220.0 Gs 704) 83, Bi) POO eae Italian eg aie ea a 74 59 | 79.7 Wy | ZO ses 2170 I) GRO Gs 7h) POO Wee ae Russian ___ eRe e Bes pa, 49 39 | 79.6 LOS) 820540780505) TONO 2 zee LOS) |224222 | Se Scandinavian ____-._.__ 147 109 | 74.2 38 | 25.8 | 50.0 | 13.2 | 21.0 7.9 ES ag Re ae 2.6

1 Number of replies for each reason expressed as a percentage of the total number replying “‘ Yes.”’

?Replies from 10 cities: Birmingham, Denver, Fargo, Grand Forks, Lincoln, Minneapolis, New Orleans, Oklahoma City, San Francisco, and Washington.

3 Replies from Birmingham, New Orleans, and Washington.

4 Replies from Minneapolis and San Francisco.

> Replies from Denver and San Francisco.

Sree eee wanes eee

pe ago

CONSUMER PREFERENCES IN PURCHASE OF MEAT

TABLE 28.—Replies to the question:

53

Why did you stop buying from your last meat

dealer? 3 a Percentage replying— = | + > 2 oy a Or ice iS aa - | S iS) Bs 2 3 a 23 S Bre ye P | ao Group Slee aan | ais | oa | 8 AAS) OS oS | es Pref a) olEy Ae sited 4 sotsaes | peele sl oae? pl at aera accent ears |e (= e| 2 |sg/og|s.| 4) 8 | 23|,8| 2| 3 | 38 3 gq | eo 5 Bee iio Aiea oe s | ee S a | 2 ° tpl aces Onan 3 S| sas o | o° & | & |A Pp | A] of Z oe ee American white: ! | | | IOC ClaSSese ee es AVA NGA sd Ne ONGs er GaAs | GDI 4G acoeme 2. Os ost ln Ons |g a0sid, 0.7 Middle classes sua 420 | Oa Ae le SSF lh Oxia ln Opals: 2.4 tf 1.0 ots 72 Well-to-do class____--_. AAAS GOS6 WEA. (e847. 28:0: Be O36 4.|- Td jae 2s 2 ab) Wealthy class......___- a72qlusd 8 (299 |1000'| 5.9 | £0 | 073.6 | 68) 78). .34 24 Total American white 1, 650 | 61.2} -$:2 | 7.6 | 6.6| 5.8 | Golo 258s 13 6 -5 3 Colored:? eae | | | Poorielass gs. 8) 3 er 18H G2. 5! 2 8a6; | 8561! 5.5, | 12.5. to 1.5 2 Bulbs eee eee Middle class ______.--- {05 43° 8 [bre 4 suiMida 4 4.7 [eee TAO es Galt PaO eee eee Foreign: 1 Daten SES glee es ee es COU ROSe Gal ae2sOn eee 4e3 SEM PAU he ee bse gS. So |p ee WMINMISHE See aes TEDL a7 PA Yl Hasse i ee Ios 7a [eae | pieces eA a as ee Qe eee eae | eee ae WTEC Res ean ee BO leiza2e | Os ae oao 2s Silleed se |e rae ea| eee Esk We (ea i Fs I Germans Se TIZEOSS8ais Sasmiee aio lero peo. o-| 2 4a00 |) Sil 207 je es ee Atalinns22=s20 se AOU 25Oe4 tee EOE SLOROE a 3h0) |e 28. 98410, 98) Ons 2s0 les. [oe ee Howse enn ee T4507 =| oF a| Be 4 oe Be A | DAG G5 Bs | ever aa eee Polishes 2. = Ses ARES G Inbal ee | Biya = eens MS4a | Avot ohgs | ween eee |e Sets | ee nee EVUSSIATY ee eae eager 30) (h63. 49) 1OkO i eae RSS ec sa se eee 3905 Yea bd Uy (0 Fas alee cc | eee Seandinavian ____-=___- COR y Sa PNG ei 7. ull OTe 289 ta Aa Al 4) Rey) Pee ae eee 1.4 |

1 Replies from 12 cities: Birmingham, Denver, Fargo, Grand Forks, Lincoln, Minneapolis, New Orleans, Oklahoma City, Philadelphia, Pitttsburg, San Francisco, and Washington,

2 Replies from Birmingham, New Orleans, and Washington.

3 Replies from Denver, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, and San Francisco.

4 Replies from Philadelphia and Pittsburgh.

5 Replies from Grand Forks and Minneapolis.

TABLE 29.—Replies to the question: Where have you seen fresh meat advertised by local stores?

Percentage replying—

Total number Group of | Posters News Hand- Street- | Motion- replies in anere bills and car picture shops pape circulars | posters shows American white: ! OOM ClASS as ser eer ek we ES 247 72.9 20.6 6sbel. Derren eee ee AVI GHerClaSsisp aes a pikes ee eos 310 75.8 12.9 10.0 DER ete er Wiell=to-dorclass Sit ee ee RS eae 315 PAL 2163 6.0 sD o| See iIWiealthiysclass=e sere S27 yet ae eT bee 271 71.2 26. 2 135 4 0.7 ———— fakoo palatal ‘LotalcAmericani-white = 3-2. 1, 143 | ee! 20. 0 6.1 | -6 2 Colored: 2 POoreC@1aSS = as. 2 ee ee ae 74 44.6 PAY? 41.9 eS ees ee eee Vind dilezelassee se sas a eee aa iia 102 52.0 17.6 20:4). eee 1.0 Foreign: UN oa GG) 0 be Nace as SS See CaN 23 95. 6 Ce Dre Pe CR a coe pe NY ee eae aL PRET G We eh ce een em Be eee 22 SORA eee 4.5 | 4.5 4.6 Genrmantis Sacks aes eet ee ee 34 61.8 32.3 Bx Qi sede ee a fer ee D Iyegeut Tike a itis Se Ales oe ke Se pare aw ee ie 31 12.9 83. 9 Bei ee eee | wee ae IEVUISS TQS soot a Ss nl ene eee 22 68. 2 4.6 Pp anit Sama ease a Sep nave bbne near ee ee ee 82 81.7 11.0 (Yee cle ie | eae eae >

| ig

1 Replies from 10 cities: Birmingham, Denver, Fargo, Grand Forks, Lincoln, Minneapolis, New Orleans, Oklahoma City, San Francisco, and Washington.

2 Replies from Birmingham, New Orleans, and Washington.

3 Replies from Minneapolis and San Francisco.

‘ Replies from Denver and San Francisco.

54 BULLETIN 1448, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

TABLE 30.—Replies by cities to the question: Where have you seen fresh meat advertised by local stores?

{Middle class and well-to-do class American white replies combined]

Percentage replying—

Cit number ‘ y of Posters Handbills| Street- replies in 5 and car

shops | P@P®S | circulars | posters

Birmingham <5. tes eee 90 84. 4 15316: oe SS eee ees 1 DSS ae ee, Se CN OR a eee! Ral ie eis Cla lee | 80 38. 8 31.2 SOl0se see IMATE Opeeeree ese 2 ae SU ice eee Ba epee ee is eee ae 44 97.8 2) Deo ee GAT GOT RS Law 2S Os TN ies ERNE Ug eee 85 94.1 Be Oia] 2S Elk ee | BS 1 Erb VECO) be seta ie Se ETN SN OS OS ee po oe EA 66 95. 5 BiG fis at Jala Gav (Ste 4 OK0) Obs ype siete el a A Oy I ie ee 73 54.8 24. 6 19.2 1.4 INGw. Orleans = ies a2 Oiled Cue ee eee amin iemer! een 52 86. 6 956).|/52 oon 3.8 A ORah oma, Oltyes ceeweus ous cae teuee net tee aentt outa 60 73.3 2550) Sees Wes Sanehrancisco se 25 oe Se Re Ree cin ee 46 65.2 26. 1 oY fay (ee ae ce Washing tone sin. ata eee ee eee ee 29 34. 5 31.0 27.6 6.9 PAN Cities ask Cl SLE re ies Seren se 625 73.9 17.1 8.0 .0

TABLE 31.—Replies to the question: What do you remember about meat advertising by local stores?

Percentage replying—

Tote Group Cae or Cheap Govern- re- |Reason- List of Attrac-| “cuts | Charts t plies able |Specials| ~~ Quality|tive dis- ,_ men 2 prices prices play ane of cuts Inspect American white:! IPOOMCLASS pee 171 49.1 24. 0 15.2 5.8 Pe 748} 1.8 0. 6 IVMid dle classe22225 eae 218 48. 2 22. 0 19.3 5.6 2.7 9 .9 zs EA Well-to-do class__.__-_._ 242 43. 4 2522 18. 2 3.3 3.7 255 3.3 .4 Wealthy class.____.-____ 205 49.7 29.7 10.7 4.4 1.5 2.0 1.5 i) Total American white. 836 47.4 25. 2 16. 0 4.7 2.4 1.9 1.9 5 Colored: 2 IPOOnClaSSee oe eee ae 40 55. 0 20. 0 DOR Orn tee roa oe = eae lai PTS bases cP Seas CS iVEiddleiclassa222 a ea 54 51.9 2252 18.5 5 2/ Bet tL ee Ce (ee Foreigh: innishs = 322-2 fee at) 21 61.9 235 Qi |eee case O25; || Se SS BT |e | MFeNch Ae sa ie. | ww ye 14 Chi bee lla ips srt 0 14.3 Ceol ESS San ee eed 7 7 ji aa See German's S222 2k es 20 65. 0 15.0 5.0 5.0 10. 0 O10) 9 |e ee | ee Mealigny se. 2 Se eres 21 52.4 14.3 SHO So el Ee oan eos er cea | eee me RUSSIA ee ee 11 COR Ss 9.1 ) be ey fil (a eee ae Kea aa | eM NI SNS RS Scandinavian________-___ 56 48. 2 33. 9 8.9 Ces ope Pe ale EN | te eon ga ge

1 Replies from 10 cities, Birmingham, Denver, Fargo, Grand Forks, Lincoln, Minneapolis, New Orleans, Oklahoma City, San Francisco, and Washington.

2 Replies from Birmingham, New Orleans, and Washington.

8 Replies from Minneapolis and San Francisco.

4 Replies from Denver and San Francisco.

CONSUMER PREFERENCES IN PURCHASE OF MEAT

55

TABLE 32.—Replies to the question: If you owned a market, what would you adver- tise about your meat ?

| | | =————S ooOoeee———S.$"§ OE O8QES_E—Omaa———SSS Sa Oe

Percentage replying—

Eco- | Gov- nom- ern- 4 ical | ment | Food | Vari- | 4004 | Reli- | Spe- prices| in | value| ety : it ae spect- vice lly prices ed 15.1] 5.6] 41|- 22] 06] 271° o6 SPO asleep eal oa 12 2.6 (1 tak | 5 | -Sylereepipts 5 efi Sri ones init 2 | 22 10 12 0 cit) GS eee ae caleria| Ge: Be bia eee 28 f> 6 eee ee ES Bre: |2e | ates ae hes Cy os eeesel a a Bid 2 |e es 320-7 8: OF [2 es Oi7) jenoees || ase 1 i pete Beatie 1 ae ne (ete 14) 4 | Dawes ih ae FN Ss een ce Recta 2 SNe 7 Hesse ries Peo Pee Ad Lee 21s bl eee aOh eae Or IG ee A Tezaro op lee eee

Total num-| Good Group ber | qual- of ity replies American white:! 363 || 52:1 POOMC aSSeees ee een eee 417 | 50.0 IMiddileclass=2= 22s esses 424, 56.3 Well-to-do class______---__ 411 | 66.5 Wealthy class____--------- Total American white___-| 1,615 | 53.7 Colored: ? POOMClasS == 228s se 130} 65.4 WMiddlezclass=— =e = ED) A Gyn Foreign: Minnishees serene eee ee 33 | 75.8 Hen Chwe= == Seka eee eee Sieh 710 Germans=-=s32see ee 73°|° 52.0 italian esaseseee ee eee Bb eel RuUssian==s2ssseee = Siem rel Scandinavian ...._...__.__ 116 | 36.2

1 Replies from 10 cities: Birmingham, Denver, Fargo, Grand Forks, Lincoln, Minneapolis, New Orleans, Oklahoma City, San Francisco, and Washington. 2 Replies from Birmingham, New Orleans, and Washington. 2 Replies from Minneapolis and San Francisco.

4 Replies from Denver.

TABLE 33.—Replies by cities to the question: If you owned a market, what would you advertise about your meat?

[Middle class and well-to-do class American white replies combined]

Tote

F number ae re aie Good P quality Birmingham_-__ 2... 100 62.0 BDenvers assess > 86 75.6 FATE Oo awe 83 28.9 Grand Forks__---.-.- 91 58.2 mincolnees esses 100 69.0 Minneapolis ____--_- 86 52.3 New Orleans___----- 87 21.9 Oklahoma City -.-_- 82 54.9 San Francisco___.--- 91 44.0 Washington_-_---__. 35 71. 4 All cities __.-__ 841 53.1

i | ff

28.8

bo tw OU go

Percentage replying—

Govern- ment |Variety in- spected| meats meats

2.0

7.0

3. 6 1.2 3.3 2.2 4.6 1.2 6.9 6.9 2.4 6.1 12.1 2.2 4.4 2.0

Food value

Good Service

whale Specials ig) 35 lene pees eo P 12 eon | AEPOD 1.2 » Sy eya pas eh

2 2,

.6 4

56

BULLETIN 1443, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

TABLE 34.—Replies to the question: How do you purchase meat?

House- wife

personally

Percentage replying—

Phone orders

Husband buys

Total number Group of ; replies American white: POOTICLASS lies erie nadly eet 700 Middileiclasst asso soe se 732 Well-to-do class!____-___ -___ 745 Wealthy class? .___.-.___-_- 533 Total American white___- 2, 710 Colored: IP OOMClASS Sea a eas 202 Mid@leclassec= eae 197 Foreign: SE MPI SHS ye ee ean pe Siete 50 IMIS 45 Brench 22 tee eS Va 50 Germaneesee ea sae 150 Geni ey rays aegis a 226 FO Wiis Os eet supe ue ay ae 61 IPOLISTNO pe eae neces SY 150 AUSSI Mies aie Se SCY 50 Scandinavian22- oso sate 149

SIs Po

on 00 SII ~I CO BSS oe POON OCON OS © 00

re bo?

1 Replies from 15 cities, Philadelphia not included. 2Replies from 12 cities, Binghamton, Birmingham, Denver, Fargo, Grand Forks, Lincoln, Minneapolis, New Orleans, Oklahoma City, Pittsburgh, San Francisco, and Washington.

¢ Replies from Pittsburgh.

=

ho RO — bi CO nba ae Seb HONDO CORS

Children | Servants| Various 10. 9 0.3 BS CO ie ees sn eo 3. 0 iki; aa) 2.6 a7} 4.3 2<1 4.5 iit 2.8 10.9 As) 16 5) 6. 6 ti) 4.1 ee ee | mee ~~ ~~ cs eameentaiare eA eet acs 2.0 6.0 12.0 ALES (D 3} erste eee ae 3 SOS ii eee ne el 4.9 QEIQUN ee Do oR a pa = 87 Oule fan see 207, 26. (0) eee 6. 0 PAN Vy RM eT ee mith

4 Replies from Baltimore, Binghamton, Denver, Pittsburgh, and San Francisco. > Replies from Baltimore, Binghamton, and Pittsburgh.

TABLE 35.—Replies by cities to the question: How do you purchase meat?

{Middie class and well-to-do class American white replies combined]

Total City pees

replies IBalbimn One soe se eek 94 IBM aC OMy ee ae ee 89 BAGIMIN Hanes a2 see Sa 99 JOYE) OV 5) geal ae age ene Sac ND AN a 97 JEL chad he say AEP a 1 a el 100 Grands Korksee see) ar eh aay 101 Tacksomvailless sae ee ee 99 Tin comers eS ees wea 100 Mannea polisz2 = ss2-2- 90 100 INE WHET AaWiOrl ea Vie 103 iNew: Orleans = 1622 fase 100 Oklahoma! City 22222 aes 100 ACES DUTCH ets eee 98 AANSH Tran cGiSCO 2 22su seen sae ees 100 Wiashingtones. aes senemr oes 97

AN Cities aos ae ee 1, 477

House- wife per- sonally

43.0

or ~1m DwayDmog S| SVESSSIRSASR ow ROMDSooCcwoOocoo:-l

Phone orders

14.9 23. 6 24.2

Percentage

replying—

Husband buys

tt

— Se ea con eth pooch ea ed One a ees

e NOCCOCMOOFOOCR HWW

Children | Servants | Various

a eel er lee ed

oe o es

CS GOO ESAS LOE eC

BONE SS colReoHrHoooo

CONSUMER PREFERENCES IN PURCHASE OF MEAT 57

TasBLEe 36.—Replies to the question: When you purchase meat, is your mind made up to buy beef, pork, etc., before you go to the store?

Total Percentage replying—

number a Group of replies Yes Partly No American white: ; IROOTICTRSS et ee, oS nl nin Ge Re ere ale 732 68. 4 L512 16. 4 NTA GIGTCL ASS = eee aa ee RE, ee ee Nw er eee er 776 66. 2 19.6 14, 2 WCTIETO=G@NCIASSe Cet Sa See air eas i ee ee 785 73. 2 15.8 11.0 Wrealthyeclassias ssentec. tee Sts See ian Bis wee ee ee ee 577 80. 2 9. 2 10. 6 Dotali-AmnericanawMite:. + ise en ek cole i Bes nw 2, 870 yAlnts) 15s3 13:2 Colored: | TROOTICIGSS, soos NN 8 ee a ge ESE 203 §2. 7 15.8 31.5 Iii d dlerelassrs 5 aera od SAN: et Cale yn es Ue Se ies 197 54. 8 17.8 27.4 Foreign: TAS Paes hs Ae ee ei dee ee ALA ee 96 71.8 16.7 11.5 WANTS Bees Oe ee SER eS eee Nee ep ere eee SY ~ 45 64. 4 13.4 22.2 ATCT) Chat RS ei EE a ee eek a iris 50 58. 0 16.0 26. 0 Gennaio eRe fa ibe A ni SS 171 70.7 17.0 12.3 TGs oO ea en Oe Ue eee ens e SPR PESOS 266 56. 0 12. 4 31.6 Jie aS RO eed Bem eas WR EE Se 109 41.3 27.5 3162 ROUIS tee a Sy Pat ae eek aise er eee tee EES 192 73.4 9.9 16.7 RUSSIA re he 2 OR ie eee ES See ae eS 50 72.0 14.0 14.0 Scand awl an esse Se eee ee ee eee ee eS 150 68. 6 16.7 14.7

1 Replies from 13 cities; Baltimore, Jacksonville, and New Haven not included.

TABLE 37.—Replies by cities to the question: When you purchase meat, is your mind made up to buy beef, pork, etc., before you go to the store?

[Middle class and well-to-do class American white replies combined]

Total Percentage replying— City number replies Yes Partly No

Pal Gin ON Ota geen is ee at gage ag ela Ca ene eer 94 74. 5 IDE Y/ 13.8 IM EATING OMe rene ie ae SNR ce Soe fs Tal es eS 89 56.2 21.3 22.5 IBAnMINe hawieee ecw Se) ie ee Se ee 100 80.0 11.0 9.0 Denver __---- ee as a Ue eS Pa ey ah aaa 97 iy /e7/ 34.0 8.3 RYAN OS eee pea aie a srs Degen 6) es np een A AA hee meer re SS 92 85.9 7.6 6.5 Grande h onksrk ses ost au sie a etre Ee ae eee Seas ee Beau 101 66.4 20.8 12.8 EXCKSO TI voll] 1 soe cre waa ps a ara ee) et Se ae 99 76.8 ISH 12.1 GIT COTE ees he Sheen oe eae ee eee ree Ses 100 77.0 17.0 6.0 MME POlSs vases Sees Whe eet re pac ie Bees eee 100 63.0 22.0 15.0 Be le yy gd ave ra eee a a ea eee er 103 73.8 4.8 21. 4 ING ye One iri sires se a te San ans eh ae Se Mea pgs Se 100 60. 0 24.0 16.0 eRe ea a CG yi relia ea pd ec eat een Nhe Sm 100 69. 0 14.0 17.0 TE URGE YO CERO, OS aS a eB Sea an ee a eae 93 65. 5 24.8 O37 TETSU OUT a a ee yo a ae RO a ae eae 94 54. 3 35.1 10.6 SATE ATA CISCO Metenties harp cee ait eee RE Ue VS RS Ear ee 100 64.0 21.0 15.0 NVA Lara UO nee Sit cance erst aS ha Ne on mi nes 9! LED 99 90.9 4.0 5.1 VG SEN Oe ON oe pees 1, 561 | 69.8 | 17.7 12.6

| 58 BULLETIN 1443, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE | é Rage , Hl | TABLE 38.—Replies to the question: When you purchase meat, 1s your mind made up to i buy boiling meat, roast, fry, etc., before you go to the store? i Total Percentage replying-— i 5 | | Group ou ber replies Yes Partly No American white: IPROOriClAaSS ae eee beat Ls Bases ee eS Se ea ee leet 735 70. 7 12.0 17.3 AMET idle pelais Siete se 2 IR ig SE en 774 71.6 16.9 11.5 IWiell=toedo) Classi) fe sc ce Skeets Dae en a ta eee ea 785 78. 0 13. 0 9.0 WiGal thy Class) cee ay a Onan Oar Pe ee eee ees 575 81.1 8.5 10. 4 TotalcAmerican white tees eo oe wee ero ea 2, 869 75.0 12.9 12.1 Colored: pie Raa POOT CLAS) 10 sy Ses aera TC ee aE RIO EE NW OAL oly tea 203 63. 7 18.7 27.6 IMiddlesclass: Selhetess Ss Micees A aman Danttbe en yn simenen on 197 58. 4 20.3 21.3 Foreign: TOO aye ORS) 0 ROE EA a eR ag OY AP NU NE SU fe LS 96 70. 8 15.6 13.6 JB 0 0 Bo) ate DU Ss So DORE Ba RA il Oe et Se es SCR 45 71.1 11.1 17.8 BETO TNC Ta set NE PSE Sel eh Sf arpa CIN ti ec 50 56. 0 20. 0 24. 0 German S222 ou Sasa L, a eee verbena pe nef Lae a Oem aie 171 73. 7 14.0 12.3 BU ea eg a ei I NL estan Dua oe on Re 264 49.3 14.4 36.3 WAS Ine Se a SSB Sanya HANGIN olen) 0 eps eed 109 38. 5 32. 1 29. 4 1 GC 0) 1 ES} 8s ec CU RYO em TS D7 Be Ra GE hd NR SS BOR 194 76.8 8.8 14. 4 EUUISS VET ek STIR Si i iar Si SU eat ie eae ten ea 50 76. 0 14.0 10. 0 Scandinavian shee. bark oe anion. ape ee eae 150 77.3 14.0 8.7 1 Replies from 13 cities; Baltimore, Jacksonville, and New Haven not included. TABLE 39.—Replies by cities to the question: When you purchase meat, is your mind made up to buy boiling meat, roast, fry, etc., before you go to the store?

[Middle class and well-to-do class American white replies combined]

Cc r =_ Total Percentage replying City number ofreplies} yes Partly No

PES AGT TTT ONO Ge ee SN AT pla ope cr Ns Ue atk 94 74. 5 -11.7 13.8 TB UDO REA OR a aly 0 ae opted Se Ts 89 60. 7 19.1 20. 2 IBinMin ge am ER See ee PRR hn ee eer ya ae 100 82.0 8.0 10. 0 LD Yepa eS) Benepe xk 5 (ee Rei ek Oo Ra ED 5 er a ea UI Si AE tn RT 97 63.9 28.9 7.2 PIAGET 0 oe I ei eas 2 A 6 SURI IN Se lA oa Lees 92 83. 6 12.0 4.4 Grand Rh Orks eet ch 0 Berek TI Lae oe ee pee ye eee 101 81.2 15.8 3.0 MAC RSO MWA eee tee =e eS ARE aS ee CS A ae dara Mt ee) ee a 99 85.8 5.1 9.1 income eee EPG UE) Mil eam Sereda Beare YI oa a ce LS 100 86.0 11.0 3.0 IVEIMMCA POLISH aio tea ts 2 RNB Nii Se ee piped es ares Stee Nee 100 70. 0 17.0 13.0 INOW ELAN CIN 2 es RENE AE Se RT aye eK ae eR DON ee apa ant 103 Ths, 7 5.8 18. 5 INOW © le ara Spe Aa RR OE IPR coe ae aula Se era 100 59.0 25.0 16.0 ORda hori ag @ ibys ok ek SP eek Se i eee ee 100 82.0 7.0 11.0 Ha del pla awee 2 se el Eek OREN aE ach Ll ete agnor 93 63.5 27.9 8.6 PERL G ES Fours Ena ee aN eR Bi en LP Ne 92 60. 9 3155 7.6 Sangh ranCiseorsec BAe en ae AE eR Oe See LA oe ae 100 72.0 13.0 15.0 DWV eS lnm trae oe ak eR ae ee Ee CT ra ake 99 93. 0 3.0 4.0

BAN GiGi @ sme! i 62 tak RIA tee GA Oe ay ee ee re a 1, 559 74. 8 14.9 10.3

CONSUMER PREFERENOES IN PURCHASE OF MEAT 59

TABLE 40.—Replies to the question: When you purchase meat, do you buy at aueiite advertised prices?

Percentage replying—

Total Group number of replies Occasion- Often

Never ally

————— | | —

American white:

GOT: ClASS Hh - = ee e PAS OAD) 738 70. 5 22. 6 6.9

Mird dilevelassca2* sen ee ee ee ee ee 767 76.5 22, 2 1.3

aWiell-t0-doiclaSS= = ee 2) ens ae ee 778 79. 9 18.9 1.2

Wie ab hiyiic lass) Ue eee ee oe eee ees mee ae 577 88.7 237 |e ae

FROLAIPASM CHICANE WIL Gp a ee Ce ee eee 2, 860 78.3 19.2 2.5 Colored

IP OOTACI ASS ae ee a Sele ee 202 68. 8 19.3 11.9

VET dlevclass estos ei nae do es ae cena ee ee 196 76.5 19.9 3.6 Foreign:

ITD LS eee ew age ee ie a ee ee 95 63. 2 25. 2 11. 6

SH LTaTh TS Fea es a mee he eye. a ase no meee een te 45 75.6 QASAS ae. pane

HON Che eee Pe eae aie ne ee a ee ee 50 10020) |222225=2 |e

Gerinian ete Pain ns ne eo ee oe el 172 67. 4 27.9 4.7

Coli an eereat St mnie ae Dn Yee ee een eee 240 Gee: 12.9 15. 4

AGN AG) Cee ARS SN aes ee Eee ene Sw serena ones 97 73. 2 18.6 8.2

IR OTIS a psseenc as accel coe nage ee eset CN wren aoe Ere 183 63. 4 19.7 16.9

EU UISS 1a Ua pee ee eee on ie Lereone eee s ee ee 50 80. 0 20" Oe seer eee

SGA Gira van seer ee oe a leh c is 2a) wees same en eae ate nae meee 150 59. 3 AON eat eee

1 Replies from 13 cities; Baltimore, Jacksonville, and New Haven not included.

TABLE 41.—Replies by cities to the question: When you purchase meat, do you buy at specially advertised prices?

[Middle class and well-to-do class American white replies combined ]

Percentage replying—

Total City ne A oireplies ecaslon- Never ally Often SSL ATHORe Sekie ae oe IW ES A NS oils op 94 85.1 10.6 43 Disp Haat One set eR is PE a Se 85 TIT 18.8 3.5 SIFT Carries So hc NR es EME 9 ht 100 73.0 97: 04) be ee

CTV er eats ey ie lid BAe eee ee ye le yc 96 89. 6 10..4)=2-he ee

60

BULLETIN 1443, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

TABLE 42.—Replies to the question: When you purchase meat, are you influenced by

meat displays?

Group

American white: Poor class VETO GIGNCTASS iz Sse ee SE ty ule aa SSNS NAL pasa ARNE WO Well-to-do class Wealthy class!

Total American white

Colored:

Total number of replies

Percentage replying—

No Yes 42.4 43. 2 47.3 31.3 51.9 30. 5 57.7 28.3 49. 4 Bou, 3222 50. 0 36. 0 43.7 58.9 16.9 26.7 40. 0 48. 0 40. 0 59. 6 24.0 36. 4 49.8 72.9 13.1 60. 0 31.9 48. 0 36. 0 41.3 Boh a

Partly

Been Noe

CUS? COSCON Coe CT ROHOCMOROWN woo

Noe

1 Replies from 13 cities; Baltimore, Jacksonville, and New Haven not included.

TaBLE 43.—Replies by cities to the question: When you purchase meat, are you influenced by meat display?

|Middle class and well-to-do class American white replies combined]

City

Baltimore Binghampton Birmingham Denver

Lincoln Minneapolis New Haven

Oklahoma City Philadelphia Pittsburgh San Francisco Washington

All cities

Total num ber replies of

Percentage replying—

No Yes 53.8 39.6 42.1 39.7 30.0 61.0 45.8 25. 0 17.4 56.5 47.0 25.0 78.8 13.1 40.0 41.0 50. 6 26.2 65.0 21.4 44.0 32.0 37.0 46.0 65.6 2.1 44.7 23.4 Sol 27.6 Wore) 15.3

30.9

Partly

—

RWW DrhH Loe Soe) SPS NES Bo To 5S GOr an CS 2} Gale

NWOWSOOANOKOHNOND

CONSUMER PREFERENCES IN PURCHASE OF MEAT 61

TABLE 44.—Replies to the question: When you purchase meat, are you influenced by

salesmen ? Total Percentage replying— Group number of Some- replies No Yes Patines American white: | PO OTIC ASS ee eae ee EE ee ie ey ere oe 741 124 21.0 6.9 VINEE TS HCL ASS Si ie Reha Sen A ee Rae Sal sain water oe eee 772 75.9 14.0 |. 10.1 Weell-to-do-class22.2 8 3 sa ee aa ees pacha cect eS 781 (ize 16.6 ig len: Wealthy class tye Os Nhs eee 8 ee don ey oe = ene ae | 576 75.3 12. 8 11.9 TTROLATWATHOLI CAI Ww HtC nse ee ee eee Nee a Be ee 2, 870 73.8 16.3 9.9 —_————$— SS SSS === SSE Colored: | POOR CIASS RE es OT BENE ae eee Ce 203 81.8 8.0 10. 2 ANd EG VOB US Cob Eo a I ae ead a aye eh ee 197 79.2 13°7 Teck Foreign: FET DTG hy cea tees PA Ue pe ne pe ieee Cae A Se 94 81.9 By 14.9 SYRIA T DTS Fae ee ts RE OS OE ie igs SD Ap eS See 45 88.9 8.9 22, TOT CYT eee ek Ep Ok US ae. SS MT ed hy gn 50 70.0 20.0 10.0 RGR Are oe a wl ees siete Rs Oe Tee 172 81.4 8.1 10.5 NGA ae e ae es re ep ee is, ee ae a | 261 69.0 74 et 9.9 BFE WW 1S 1 ee eae ila nA ic re NR ol eta en EE ce eee 111 86.5 Tse, 6.3 OES Ta eeet cc aia i Ia 9 oh ee ee EE Ee, 188 87.3 10.1 2.6 NUUISSI ATT ebro aioe Wer Eh as one eee ore ne ee ae 50 82.0 12.0 6.0 SS CED ED GLLIT Asi Ca T ass ee reese cen sea CR eae Cot ee 149 72.5 LD: 14.8

1 Replies from 13 cities; Baltimore, Jacksonville, and New Haven not included.

TABLE 45.—Replies by cities to the question: When you purchase meat, are you influenced by salesmen ?

[Middle class and well-to-do class American white replies combined]

Percentage replying—

Total City TD Der 1 (9) replies No Yes eons AES NGPANET EOP 8 ares RAN TNE ee Pe en pa a eee SS 91 87.9 8.8 3.3 FEET IVS Oe Maes oe at as 2 oe ea beens nae eee a SE ee 87 75.9 10.3 13.8 Ssibetaa ii Pheer ea Re oR are eae pee one ee et 100 76.0 15.0 9.0 70.0 16.5 1325 42.4 BH 7/ 23.9 Ave - 8.9 7.9 8 10. 2 2.0 sO 16.0 8.0 -8 14.1 task ao) 10.7 5.8 -0 22.0 17.0 -0 19.0 10.0 cb 5.4 | 16.3 .6 8.4 | 20. 0 -0 11.0); < 14.0 38! 34.7 | 1.0 15.3 | 10.7

SN ey oes

REX opens = "3

pay

Sos

62 BULLETIN 1443, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

TABLE 46.—Replies to the question: When you purchase meat, are you influenced

by price ? Total Perce ntage replying— number Group ae replies No Yes Partly American white: IPOOTCIASS ites i ee SN ere Sa Rae eer a le ee 742 40.7 47.2 12h Mid dlerclass: 2s 222s casa oS Wha Oe ein ele peoe ae eh Vessie Aue 772 53.4 22.4 24.2 AWiell=t0-dOgC LASS ae a oa es ora e ent ee nag er 784 61.9 21.5 16.6 WWiealt NyAClASs hc: Poe 1 Oe Seka cen eee eM een eS 577 77.3 ih kal 11.6 “NOLAICAUTIO TIC ATI WILLE Ge a ee ee ee ee 2, 875 | 57.2 26.3 16.5 Colored: IPOONGIASS | 2252 2 So Be Sn ie ae ee ek a Se eee 203 33. 5 47.3 19.2 Middlevclass:- 2 shes case o eb et | oblate fe ea oe ae 197 54.3 31.0 14.7 Foreign: English he Ral Re Bgl Re ME TEE ea i ace me epee ee 96 43.8 14.6 41.6 Winn Shee 2 See ae Oe es es en eae 45 57.8 33.3 8.9 CHP RE Ca ete RP i a as al ea 50 76.0 | 16.0 8.0 German asco os- ee ae ce Sh ee ee ee eee 172 54.1 22.1 23.8 MEQ AN Pe no Se Soe ee kao ae ea ae ee a eens Sate a cee RS 256 50. 8 37.1 12.1 NO wishyer onan ct hee ee eee See ee ee Cee see eee eee 108 65.8 25.9 8.2 IR OLISH ee be Se al ee eh le aM ore meine see Soe 190 58.9 23nd, 17.9 Rg DISS) Ey See eae a ee re el ee eee 50 56. 0 36.0 8.0 SCandinawians ioe Sack wouter ee Re ee 149 30.2 42.9 26.9

1Repkes from 13 cities; Baltimore, Jacksonville, and New Haven not included.

T ABLE 47.— Replies by cities to the question: When you purchase meat, are you influ- enced by price ?

[Middle class and well-to-do class American white replies combined]

T otal Percentage replying— , number City at replies No Yes Partly |

Baltimore-___- PRs 2 ON Coe eS SB as ee fee Seazeseke 93 66. 7 26.9 6.4 Binghamton sss sees anos ere ee ee eee ne eee eens 87 55.2 23.0 21.8 RNIN CHAM Sno e eee a eae ee eee 100 64.0 15.0 21.0 PDOTNV CP ee re ee nD ee ee ee eee 97 59. 8 16.5 23.7 1 OES 0 ce a a eS een ee es ee ee 92 31.5 33.7 34.8 UGTA RE ORS os a a a ee nee ee 101 46.5 20.8 32.7 AACR SOM Vill le Mere oe ee ee ee Re re analy ae ae 99 68. 7 19.2 12.1 INCOM cer ee eee a De re ee ae ee ee (aso 100 55.0 22.0 23.0 IVEINNeA POMS es bee eS Sees pee oe eee 100 62.0 25.0 13.0 INGWwihbavien = 2 ooo Sas Se 2 2 oe eee eee eee 103 67.9 7.8 24. 3 INewOrleans: 2-- 62202225005 ooo ae ee eee 100 71,0 15.0 14.0 OETA no rat Oy i ee ene 100 58. 0 27.0 15.0 IPniladelphiaets. oooh ki ess ee eS a ee ee Sica 92 46.7 19.6 33.7 TEAR RS) OD Erp 2d bale BRS AO i aa he ae a a ere ant Sk LO 93 47.3 19. 4 33.3 Ga eB Tan CISCO. tee see we ee ee ee ey oe Se 100 67.0 15.0 18.0 Washington? 2220.0 te eS oe leone Dees aaa eee eee 99 51.5 46.5 2.0

UA Cities) see a os oe Ee oe ae ee ort 1, 556 57.6 21.9 20.5

CONSUMER PREFERENCES IN PURCHASE OF MEAT 63

TABLE 48.—Replies to the question: When you purchase meat, do you shop between

stores ? Total Percentage replying — number Group of replies None Some Much

American white:

HOF CLA Ss ae ie np ner a eS Se 741 51.4 33.3 15.3

Witt dlevel asstehes sete at a eae ee ee eee 767 51.3 34.2 14.5

WU ros eG es Se ee ee ee a 717 57.3 31.8 10.9

Wiealéhyielassts= ss. - er ee sa eee ee re 575 70. 6 | PA SF edi

otal Atnericane whites 20. sees ts 2,860| 56.9) 31.2 11.9

Colored:

IPO OE Clas see ae a ee ee ee 203 31.4 48.4 20.2

Mid cles class esas see a eee er ee BEAN 197 35.5 47,2 17.3 Foreign: :

Toya Yea UG) ete ee eae SS ee oe a ee eee eo 96 35.4 55. 2 9.4

TODD REIS) Bee se Re a ak OS” Sa ee IS ar SY 45 68.9 2252, 8.9

TON Clee Se ee eS Ee Stee a 50 70.0 26.0 4.0

Gra 2 ees ae ee ee es es ee 165 54.5 35.8 9.7

EN reg Ee a ea ea en ee Sa Saree a PS 260 | 31.5 48.5 20.0

Uy Ua es ak al ey ee nae 8 re oe ene RE eg eg 103 53. 4 42.7 3.9

TE 75] RS) epee iy Se cE Se es i Ne a ee ee os Se 188 39.4 45.7 14.9

PRTISS1 AT ee eee eee a ee eee. Panes 50 68.0 16.0 16.0

SGAnGing Vaan es ee a ee ee ee ee ee Ss ee 150 60.6 34.7 4.7

1 Replies from 13 cities; Baltimore, Jacksonville, and New Haven not included.

TABLE 49.—Replies by cities to the question: When you purchase meat, do you shop between stores?

[Middle class and well-to-do class American white replies combined] City number

ES TILITTIOTO ewe ee eS eae Se eee Se oe ee 94 |

62. 8 21.3 15. §

SAGAR OT re ae nea ere 86 60.5 30.2 9.3 ERS Varies 0724 Cr20 ce) See eae ee SE ee eee 100 38. 0 51.0 11.0 TUBES Re) ies SNS BA a i ee eg ee 97 44.4 50. 5 5.1 AT Qa 2 Bt et SS es ee epee a ee RE 91 47.2 46. 2 6.6 Grand Forks! 2:02 = 2s 2. = Beery Reiner eT a ie Pass i a 101 76.2 20.8 3.0 BAC ISOTUV UEC ps eka ates oe Bi eee eee ER Ea 97 TEES! 17.5 ae. TLR T VEST) Fo Poh Seater (8 SE aS os eT Ra 6 So Se, ae ee 100 38. 0 21.0 41.0 minneapolis. =. S52 San eee PS eee ae ee en ea 99 46.5 36. 3 ivy: BO WeELAV eM sees te ee et cee Sane neat es 103 64.1 33. 0 2.9 ENG Cod GP ORS 5 SS eas ae Se ae eee 100 49.0 36. 0 15.0 Anon Cit ye ee a SN ee ae EO bs 100 44,0 27.0 29. 0 lade lp hides ao ae La eS ee ee 93 47.3 43.0 9.7 aL SDR Rae es oe eo) ee Se ee Se ee 87 37.9 50. 6 1.5 SPT Ne EE = Soa a ee eee 98 D2 31.6 16.8 98 84.7 14.3 1.0

1, 544 54.3 33.0 12.7

64 BULLETIN 1443, U. 8S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

TABLE 50.—Replies to the question: When you purchase meat, do you buy by pound or portion? !

Percentage Tora replying— Group na er cuban replies Pound | Portion American white: QOTTCIASSES 22 So Paneer ie Sell ya ee aie ere nia Sk, Se 183 92.3 end INTHE CYRSS 2 aE AR ae ee 184 83.7 16.3 IW’ ell-to=dotelassct-as Si SAR Gee ay cee epee ge tene ke Set 5 eee ieee 199 73.9 26. 1 ‘Total Armericancyw Ni tezseiccres sine rae iatce 2s ere ee eee 566 83. 0 17.0 Colored: 2 | q OOPS CLASS ae Te MR RIE a SIC RIEL sey oF alee Se RN 53 88. 7 11.3 VET Ge :C LASS ie os eo AE Co trea ames cot ana ae) es Aue iS est ra) 2 Sc we eae AT.) 2 91 8.5 Foreign: TD Ey alot Steamer tees oper mL e OG ap a (a a eh Roan N Sc Aen ae Soo 99 91.9 8.1 1 YO) Vix) a eee eae ay oases Bet es elegy MOLE. UN CEL oy Hes sane metas BRU Siem ae Le AU! aa 96 94.8 522

1 Replies from Baltimore, Binghamton, Jacksonville, and New Haven. 2 Replies from Jacksonville only.

TABLE 51.—Replies by cities to the question: When you purchase meat, do you buy by pound or portion?

[Middle class and well-to-do class American white replies combined]

Total Percentage City pur be repiying—

replies Pound | Portion

Baltimores i225 see 4 eee ee a oe ee oe See eee ere 94 77.4 22. 6

I BATON] G7 001] Oy 0 yer eee see Ooh eh a pe kG a le a 88 70.5 29.5 ACKSONVINIC ak a 8 eee a ee ee ea Se ee eA cle PME nde Liat dt ae 98 84.8 15. 2 TICE Fd Ey A) a a Re eee ee eee 103 81.6 19.4

INTIGLETOS coe os sores oe Ai eee bg oe a acre ae 383 78.5 | 21.5

TABLE 52.—Replies to the question: Name the kinds of beefsteaks and beef roasts you can recognize if cut

| Beef steaks | Beef roasts Average Average Group eae number anette number of recog- Tecog- replies ee Jee a replies anaes anit American white: PROOL Cas seme oe ete ae I ee ke og ea me 681 2.4 | 665 1.5 VTi UTS CTS Seek eS OY Ia My I ee 769 3. 0 754 2 SWWG11-GO-GONClASS se ey Ss Ue Bia eS a or eee eae a 780 3. 5 770 2.5 Wiealthyreclassiic se ie. 02 Sew Bee ee eae eee eae 557 3.4 429 3.3 otal American swhite =242 226 54 9200 ea eee eee 2, 787 Seal 2, 618 2.3 Colored: TOOT CLASS sees pe aoe YR ea ee eats RIE Sha see | 194 2.0 182 0.9 Whiddile::class2 S22 = SoA ee Bree ee ere eee | 194 2.6 191 1.3 Foreign: Dy a2 OCs} 0 Verna eee IRS ct a Pap CEC le yee eee 57 3.9 66 3. 4 ERASER TN S Ta ts aE es lp aye ee a a Kee 45 Soll 45 PA 1 DS ifs V6) ceptor en mens agra Vr ee nee erga eS ee ean te ee ee 44 3. 4 33 Ph. 9 (OTS aha ols a Yeeaee hil ence gee rey ae thee ate Nope EM ERO MRS Res Wales 2 ES ea 150 348 149 2.9 GD pry hes ei ss pee Re ens ged AC 5 Sine Mp ee eg 221 peat 223 1.2 ST WGA S Tne es i a a iE oa Sa eee 59 2.6 59 74,31 TP OTS a as See I ea Se I ae res ep pe epee es 142 2.0 145 1.4 RUSSIAT es Se ea Sie a pee Deu 50 2.5 50 1.9 Sain iri civ ara se 2 a seme eee | 150 2.7 150 2.8

1 Replies from 13 cities; Baltimore, Jacksonville, and New Haven not included.

O

| |

ORGANIZATION OF THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

December 1, 1926

is Secretary of Agriculture__..._-_.....------ W. M. JARDINE.

Mescwstant Secrelary.__- = 5 32. - R. W. Dunuap.

Director of Scientific Work_.........------ A. F. Woops

Director of Regulatory Work.....---------- WALTER G. CAMPBELL. Director of Extension Work___------------ C. W. WARBURTON.

Director Gp thiarmation= <8 2507 ee eS Neztson AnTRIM CRAWFORD. Director of Personnel and Business Adminis-

area re ek A a ae W. W. StockBERGER. eee ee ek RS UN Be R. W. WIitxiaMs.

Weather Burd ee 2s Cuanius FF. Manyin, Chief.

Bureau of Agricultural Eeconomics_________ Luoyrp 8. Tenny, Acting Chief.

Bureau of Animal Industry_.-.----------- JoHN R. Mouser, Chief. pmureau of Plani Indusiry_._.--...----.=-- WiiuraM A. Taytor, Chief. ‘Forest RiGee Ea W. B. Greeiey, Chief. ‘Bureau of Chemistry. SE ERE Tage eee See! C. A. Browns, : Chief. eer of Sauls< os ee Mitton Wurtney, Chief. Bureau tay SimOnGOG yf eo Re L. O. Howarp, Chief. ‘Bureau of Biological Survey.-.------------ E. W. Netson, Chief.

Bureau fF Wie WOES 2 528 SoS ee Tuomas H. MacDonatp, Chief.

ureau of Home Economics___------------ Louise STaNnuey, Chief. Bureau of Barry dndnstr ye 3 os C. W. Larson, Chief.

)ffice of Experiment Stations__._..-.------ E. W. Aen, Chief. = of Cooperative Extension Work___-_-- C. B. Smirs, Chief.

‘Federal Horticultural Board__....--------- C. L. Maruatt, Chairman. Insecticide and Fungicide Board___-_------ J. K. Haywoop, Chairman. | vie and Stockyards Administration__-_--- Joun T. Carne III, in Charge. Grain Futures Administration __----------- J. W. T. Duvet, in Charge.

This bulletin is a contribution from :

- -

Bureau of Agriculiural Economics_-_-_------ Luoyp S. Tenny, Acting Chief.

Division of Economic Information---..-- J. ChypE Marquis, in Charge.

ze ADDITIONAL OCOPIES

& OF THIS PUBLICATION MAY BE PROCURED FROM aH THE SUPERINTENDENT OF DOCUMENTS

4 GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

ee WASHINGTON, D. C.

os AT “

ry

A

10 CENTS PER COPY 4

ee eas Fees eS CLARIBEL R. Barnett, Librarian.

wis aes

cE f teenie