Pork Quality National Retail Benchmarking Study Dr. David Newman World Pork Expo 2015

Objectives -Gather pork quality attributes nationwide -Provide benchmarking data to producers, processors, and retailers Provide a baseline for current quality variation Identify areas of improvement Benchmark future industry improvement

COLOR STANDARDS 1.0 2.0 3.0 Minolta L*-Value 61 55 49 4.0 5.0 6.0 43 37 31

MARBLING STANDARDS 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 10.0

In Store Data Collection Full and self-serve cases Pork Blade Steaks Pork Center-Cut-Loin Chops (En & Non-En) Pork Sirloin Chops Location 117 Retail Supermarkets 15 Club Stores 67 Cities 25 States 32 Markets 51 Store Brands

Pork Loin Chop Assessment Ten packages of each brand assessed in store Ten packages of each brand purchased Color-Marbling-Defects-Package Info-Tenderness-pH-cook loss

Results 65 Brands of Pork (L S B) 117 stores carried center-cut-loin chops 5 temp recommendations ranging from 145-165⁰F Meat Cut Total Number of Pkg Percent of Pkg Bone-in Percent of Packages Enhanced Percent of Packages Over-wrapped Percent of Packages MAP Percent of Packages Vacuumed Blades 863 95.25 40.44 80.07 0.35 19.58 Sirloins 706 22.10 59.21 88.95 2.41 8.64 Loins 6237 47.49 50.87 91.07 4.95 3.98

Figure 1. Frequency distribution of subjective color scores for enhanced and non-enhanced center-cut loin chops.

Frequency distribution of Minolta L*

Figure 3. Frequency distribution of subjective marbling scores for enhanced and non-enhanced center-cut loin chops.

Figure 4. Shear force frequency distribution of enhanced and non-enhanced center-cut loin chops. 24.5

Implications A significant amount of US pork fails to meet standards associated with good eating quality Any attempt to use quality measures to develop grading or certification standards will depend on benchmarking the mean and SD

Discussion Benchmarking is needed. No consistent dataset to compare against. However: Subjective color in store over the past 7 years is fairly consistent (NPPC 3.12 – 3.52) Objective color has decreased (L* 48.07 – 55.39) over the same time period L. I. Wright, J. A. Scanga, K. E. Belk, T. E. Engle, J. D. Tatum, R. C. Person, D. R. McKenna, D. B. Griffin, F. K. McKeith, J. W. Savell, G. C. Smith. 2005. Benchmarking value in the pork supply chain: Characterization of US pork in the retail marketplace. Meat Science, 71: 451-463. S. J. Moeller, R. K. Miller, K. K. Edwards, H. N. Zerby, K. E. Logan, T. L. Aldredge, C. A. Stahl, M. Boggess, J. M. Box-Steffensmeir. 2009. Consumer perceptions of pork eating quality as affected by pork quality attributes and end-point cooked temperature. Meat Science, 84: 14-22. L. I. Wright et. al. 2005. Benchmarking value in the pork supply chain: Characterization of US pork in the retail marketplace. S. J. Moeller et. al. 2009. Consumer perceptions of pork eating quality as affected by pork quality attributes and end-point cooked temperature.

Discussion Some research suggests that pork is bought on visual acceptance (R. C. Person et. al; M. S. Brewer et. al) and prior eating satisfaction (M. S. Brewer et. al) Intercept data Research also suggests that pork with greater pH and higher marbling equates to a better eating experience (S. J. Moeller et. al)

Discussion Marbling has remained fairly consistent (NPPC 2.37 – 2.52) since 2005. Goal = consumer acceptance of higher marbled pork ? Research suggests consumers eating experience is better when pork is higher in marbling (S. J. Moeller et. al) Education of consumers and meat case managers L. I. Wright et. al. 2005. Benchmarking value in the pork supply chain: Characterization of US pork in the retail marketplace. S. J. Moeller et. al. 2009. Consumer perceptions of pork eating quality as affected by pork quality attributes and end-point cooked temperature.

Comparison to existing data Taste of Preference Study (Moeller et al., 2010) Consumer responses favor pork with: Lower WBS Greater pH Higher IMF Pork cooked to a lower temperature