ATfITUDJSS,
CONSU;
ZACTICLS, AN) CONSUNPTION
PArT1Ns FO1 L3ROILiiS IN O1UGON
i3UYING
by
bY F1kD CAR11AN
A THESIS
submitted to
O.RGON STATE UNIVERSITY
in partial fulfilLent 0±'
the requireients for the
degree of
hASTEk OF SCIINCE
June 1962
APPROVED:
Redacted for privacy
Professor of Agricultural Econoaics
In Charge of kajor
Redacted for privacy
Head of Departient
0
Agricultural i'conowics
Redacted for privacy
Chrn of School rduate
Redacted for privacy
Dean of Qraduate School
Date thesis is presented
Typed by Carol Baker
June 29
1961
ACKNOWLEDGENTS
The author wis
Lo e:pres his grateful
a:preciation to Dr. harold F. Flollands, Profeor of
Aricu1ura1 1conoilc, for assistance rocoivcd in the
rd sugges
rearation of this thesis, His eritici
tions have been extremely valuaLle.
Assistance in plannin the study and carrying
out the statistical analysis was iveii by Dr. Lyle D.
Calvin, Experimimeut 5tation Statistician.
Dr. G. . ood, Head, Department of Mricultural
iconoics, rovided administrative assi tauco and the
Oregon Fryer Couission provided funds, both o which
were of material id in this study.
Appreciation is expressed to the numerous
individuals not mentioned who aided in this study.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION.
a a a a .
(INERAL. . . , , . . . . .
. . a
a e
a a a a a a
, a
.. ....
1 OF PR VIOUS
(ii)JC fIVES a a a
SEARCH
S
a . a a *
I44
a
a a a s a
a
a
a a
5
0 a a a a -. a a .
SS44
a a a a a
. a a
a
a a a a a e a 4 a
4aa4
aaaa
Multnornah County. . . .
iortland Fringe
The Quo3tionna:iro t 4 4
Ara.s,.a,..,*a.
a a
SSS4
0
5
5
6
6
7
8
9
10
a a
10
*Sa as Sal
10
and Age.,.a.......,.
10
ESULTS.
,
a
44
a a 1- 4
SOCIO-CONOMIC CIIAiACTkRISTICS..
So
4 a 4440
a a a
*44 a
a,p, a as
4 a S
a
a a a e a a a
RCSy.;OfldCfltS
a
Sa
a.., a . a a
The Intcrview.
054
Resarc Procedure, a... **
CONSUIiER S1JTVY
a * a a
1
4
44'
S a a a a a
a a a a a a
ETHC'DOLOGY. a,.
G enerl
ple * S
1ie
a
, . , , . a
a
S
S
4SS
esontLent5' LeveL of Education,.....
Nuiber f Y .r.;t1ie j.jond enL Uao
11
Soon a Rezidont of Oregon.......a. 12
NUnJC oi PCI'3OflS Living in Ro;i,')n(ients'
12
Househo1d anti Ditriiution by Age
14
,arner.
ol
- on o ..ri
iiiy Level ci Livng.
a a a a
ASSOCIATION OF FOUDSa aa a 04 a...
a a a a , . a. a
16
a.S S. a I a
Aociated with Special OccaUirthdy . . . . . . . .
eddixig Anivr.triesa asa. a.a o a.
Dinner 1arties, a asØa5*S 40*454014
sion . . .
a .
a a a a a . a a
. a a a a a a a a a
. a
a , . a
. . . . a
Foods Served on Selected Past Holidays
FourthofJuly
euoria1 Day. * . a a a
a * a a . a a a S a a a a
Labor Day
New Yeo.rs Day.
,aaa.a.,-,.a.a.aaa
a
a
a
a a a a a s
14
a *
16
16
i8
19
21
Fryers as an Everyday or Special
0 ecasion Food. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Reasons for Serving Fryors on Holidays and Special Occasions...
Attitudes Tow.trd Selected Statements.
a
24
CONSUMPTION PATTERNS... .......
Serving. . ... .. . . . . ... ..
PrinciaJ. Factors Affecting Frequency
of Serving
Days and Liea1 Fryors Were Served...,
Frequency o
Princi1 Iiethods of Preparation
37
PREFEi.ENCES. . . ... . .
(2iht
Sixt Ccl
Foi
. . . a. a a . S S S I S
a0
0C00
41
4
S
Pr±ce Qu.ot. .ion. . . . .
O:reon-grown £ryers . . . . a .
Additives . , . . . . , . . ,
S. a S a a
aa.
a
. . a
a
e . a a
. . . . . . . . a
aaaaa04
0
6
.
.
Saaa.,aa
a
PsL purchases..........a...s,...
Cut-up
fryers..............a.e..
..
BUYING PRACTICES...... . ... a's.....
I-Iou eholds Which Never Purchase
.. .....o... 'a a
Bcoi1ers.. a
Reons for Purchasing
Factors Considered
Fxyers . . . . . . . .
uhfl
37
39
/2.
49
49
51
Purchasing
..........
.a
...
...a * as a
Storage Practices . . . . a a a e
Lat Purcaase..,..,..,..a............
aa I aa
Factor propting. .
Facto's deterdning iocation....
Location.. . . . . . . . . . .. .
4
54
,0
57
59
FRYER ADVERTISING. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . a . . a a
LiCCLVOflOSS. .aa.s.a*.. ,IaaaaS0 ..,
Awareness of Posters Used,...a....,..
Preference for Posters........
i.eazons for Poster Preferenco
A.-Fasi1y. . a a a a 0.Iaa0.a*.
B-B3 . boone a a . a . a
C-Contost . . . ,
D-Washington.. 'a .
aa
aaaa
60
61
62
63
*95
aaaa
aaaa
aa
63
63
64
64
ORJQON LA3iLING LAW.,............'...........
Attitude Toward
Knor1ede ci' Law. . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . , .
Origin of Last Fryer ±'urchaü. ...
SiJ1IiA2Y AND CONCLUSi:0Ns..........................
..... .......
APiui:; A
API3iX B
..
QUi3TIOAi2.
..............
..,. ..
.
61i
66
63
69
70
73
e
L)FINITION5 OF LEVELS OF LIVING.....
APk'ENDIXC
90
93
ArUI. 0
1LACK Ai
APPENDIX E
CALCULATIONS FJR
'HITE CrI.;S 0i' POSTE13. . .
ULTIPLE--E(iaESS ION
.
101
._'
LIST OF TABLES
Table
Page
Nucr and jercentage distribution of 500
Portland
ondnts by sex, June-July,
19b0 . .
..aaaa
,a
.
11
fluber and j1cnte distribution of 500
Portland r
1960. .
.
on(ieflt5 by
. . I. a U
Nun
0 5I S
t;o, June-July,
.SaSa
s.Iaa
00 0 a 0
Couf distribution of $00
ii' ,iiia rondeut by level of formal
-i.i'a, June-JuLy,
ru cot
erce:acagc istribuica o.k. 500
forlant rosfondents by uscer of year S
resLdence in Oregon, June-July, 19oU.....
5
11
Nuber and percentage distribution of 50(
Portland res:ondcs by size of household
June-July, 196U . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
...
12
13
I)
Nuisher and percente c1itribution by age
of perso:as l:ving Le.
ortland ropondents' aouseholds, June-July, 190
.5
Nuioor and percentgo estribution of )O0
Portland househo1d by occu tiuru of the
principal iao earner, June-July, 19b)...
8,
Nwsber and
15
rcentage distribution of 500
Portland failies by level of living,
Juno-July, l2J.........,.,.,.,...,,,....
15
Nuber ntc ercentae distribution of 500
Port1ari. . es;ondont; by food associated
q1.th bi th1ays ,
ddin tniv''r
ies
and diiuor parties, June-July, 1960......
NuWei' dibibutjoii of Od Portland
17
n'e.'ondert.$ liv iovel:
f 1ivin,- and foods
sscite
ith birth.rs , June-July,
. I, S *.c ass,aa
as 54..s SSSUOSOaa *0 a
Ii. Nuier and :e'centaze distribution of i00
Port1iid resondents by foods served on tIle
Fourth sJ July, eoria1 Dar, Labor Day,
anu No Lears iay, June-July, 1,u0, .. s...
22
12,
l.
14.
15,
Number and percentage distribution f 500
Portland respondents by principal seis
at which fryers were served, June-July,
1960....... .
,,.... . ....,.... ... ,.......
25
Number and percentage
distribution of 500
Portland respondents by reasons Liven for
serving fryers on holidays and special
occasions, June-July,
26
Number distribution of 500 Portland respondents by response to tour selected statements
concerning fryers, June-July, 1960........
28
Number and percentage distribution of 500
Portland respondents by frequency of
serving fryers on Sundays and weekdays,
...........
June-July, 1960
29
Number and percentage distribution of 500
Portland respondents by frequency of
serving fryers, June-July,
30
1960...........
Average frequency of serving fryers per
month distributed by family size, 500
Portland households, June-July, 1960......
18,
Nwnber
and
31
ercentage distribution of 500
Portland households by tne methods of
preparation used during the past year,
June-July, 1960. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , , . . . . . .
. .
32
Number and percentage distribution of 335
Portland respondents by principal methods
of preparation used during winter and
suamer , June-July, 1960. . . . a . . . . s .
a
a..a.s
Nubr and percentage di3tribution of 500
Portland respondents by days of the weeI
fryers were sorved, June-July, 1960...ae..
Number and percentage distribution of 500
Portland respondents by meals at which
fryers were served on weekdays and
Sundays/holidays, June-July, 1960.........
Number and percentage distribution of 500
Portland respondents by weight preference
for broilers, June-July, 1960
37
Nwuber and j.crcentage distribution of 500
rcland rs ondents by color of broiler
;3.:iri preferred, June-July, 1960......,....
40
Nwber and percentage distribution of 500
Portland respondents by state in wb.ich they
preferred to have tiiei'
ryr g'own,
June-Ju,ty, ±)O). . . . . . . . . . . , . ....... .
...
44
Number and percontae distribution of 500
Portland res;:ondents by reasons given for
preierring Oregon-grown fryers, June-July,
....................
19u0
44
Nucber and. percentage distribution of 228
Portland respondents by factors disliked
etbou fryers purehaed during the last
year, Juie-Ju1y, 1960.....,...............
48
Nwubar and percentage distribution of 100
Portland rcspondens by fsctors disliked
about the last cut-u fryer purchased,
. . . . . .
.
. . . . .
JuiieJuly, 196u
50
Number and orccatago dist:.ribution of 17
Portland repondents by reasons iveri for
never servin; broilers, June-July, 1$U...
51
Nuber and ;c-ceeitage distribution of 500
?crtLtnd rce,ondents by reasons given for
purc.in; iryers, June-July, 19uU....,...
52
iUiJ' and porcoge distribution o± 500
2.
33.
Portland respondents by factors considered
when furchasin fryer's, June-July, 19b0.. .
53
Nunber aad percentage distrihubion of 500
Portland respondents by length of time
fryer's are stored, June-July,
1960........
55
utade distribution of 500
Portland respondents by levgth ci tic
since last fryer purchase, June-July, 1960
57
NuAubcr and per
Nz'
d peacezIage disrL-uion of 500
Per 1.nd re eiondents by factor propting
last fryer purchase, June-July, l9GOa...,.
58
Number and percentage distribution of 500
Portland respondeLs by factors influencing
their last fryer i;urchase, June-July, 1963..58
Nuiuber and precentage distribution of 500
Frtland respondents by store where last
fryer was purchased, Juno-July, 1960....... 59
Percentage distribution of 425 Portiaid
respondents by response to question asking
whether they had seen any of the four
fosters in a store, June-July, 1960.......
62
Percentage distribution of 42 Portland
respondents by responso to the question,
"Which poster s the kuost and next siost
interesting to you?" June-July, 1960.....
Nusmber anJ. percentage distribution of 500
Portland respondents by attitudes expressed
toward labeling, June-July, 1960..........
Nuiriber and percentage distribution of 500
Portic.tncm respondents by reasons given for
having fryors labeled, June-July, 1960....
4i, uier an percentage distribution of 500
Pci lLflCt respondents y given answers to
tie question, "Are fryors required by
Oregon law to carry a label showing location cd production?" June-July, 1960.,...
41.
Number and percentage distribution of 500
Portland respondents by states where isst
purc1nsed fryer was grom, June-July, 1960
66
67
70
APPWlX C TAL3LES
Nb
distribuLLun of 50U Portland respond-
y family siso and frequency of serving
fryors per onth, June-July, l90...,...... 9
Nusder distribution of 500 Portlancm respondcuts by number of methods of preparation
used and frequency of serving fryors per
month, June-July, 1960. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii . .
cuts
Number ditribution of 500 Portland respondents by a and weight of fryer preferred,
tk.
JuneJuly, ,6o. .,,..... .. ... , * as a a is a.
Nuliber diGtr:iiut:jon of 500 Portland re;pond-
by ae atd zkin color preference,
Cn
Jaie-Ju1y, 1960. , . . . , , . . . . .
,
.a
a
a.a
Nuber distribution of 500 Portland respondenz Py level of education arid skin color
pro.Lerenco, June-July, i90. . ........ . ...
NuLiber
Stfibutlon of P) Portland respondent. y level, of l.iving nd .kin o1or
preference, June-July4 19d°,,....
......
7.
Number distribution of 500 Portland respondents by length of tise Iryers are store and
for preference, June-JuLy, 19t0............
Nuber distr:ibution of 500 lortland respondents by preferred price quotation and weight
..
preference, Juno-July, 1960.,
Number distribution of 500 Portlanu respondents by oreferrod price quotation and form
94
94
94
95
95
96
s.... 96
preference, June-July, 1960......
Number distribution of 500 i'ortland respondents by aLtitud3 toward additives nd
iscation of production, Juno-July,
1 96u , . . . * . . . . . . . . . .
........ ..
96
Nuer distribution of 500 Portlanu respondents by lentb of time fryers arc stored and
,
June-July, 1960, . . . .
ifier distributio
,.a..
.a
a.
of 3d Per L1aid respond-
en ts by ?ent e:tiae fryers are stored and
level of 1ivin:, Juno-July, 1960,...........97
Number distriLution o. 300 Portland respond-
ents by length of time fryers are stored and
falAlily size, June-July, 19u0..,..,.
Nuiibe:
:Lstribition of 500 Portland respondens y lendth ci tiue iryers are stored and
level of education, June-July, 1960......... 9
15.
Number distribution of 300 Portland respondcuts by length of time fryors are stored and
rincia1 L:.lE
r:uich £ryers were served,
,
16, Nu.r <:L,
i9u0 . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
oi
5OO Portland iond-
y Oi.iO1 .D:. i 1.Ln
iroqU.cncj 01
rving
:.or cn;
Jne-Juy, 196U...,
o
17
Nwibcr
:;tj:i. utioi oj 503 iort1nd eondonts
by oi:Lo on lac1in unc3. ttitude to
of 13 t;vs , Juno-J..iy, 1ZO .
..
.
99
e
..aa
100
LIST OF FIGU2ES
Figure
Pa go
P.zter A - Fresh, Oregon-grown fryers as a
i-i.i1;r
fav.te ,
.,.,..
,.I
.o
.L J
Frch, Creoi-grown fryer being io;
,
.
. .
- Oregon fryer recipe coiitet.... 10k
Po.. er D hiu.jtoi Fryer Co;iseion
05
,os Le a1te<t t red
. .. I.
O3ei
.
-
..'2I
1.UL..fti i
.t3iOIL.tRb
IN ORiQON
ANi) CONSUiiPTlON PATTTS FOi
INTRODUCTION
(MNAAL
The production, proccssin, and marketing of
fryers /1 has undergone sweeping changes since the
end of world War II. Production has expanded with the
financing arrangements of feed dealers, processors, and
others. Nerly all commercial fryers are now produced
under some type of integrated basis (18, p. 8). The
largest expansion o production has taken place in the
South Central United States. The existing transportation sysc iakes it possible to ship fryers Iron'
the South Central States to the west coast by truck
in as little as three and one-half days (6, p. 5).
Rapid trnsportttion cobined with low cost of production enables southern 1ryers to cote favorably with
locally grown fryers. The lower costs of producing
southern fryers, as compared to Oregon fryers, are
due mainly to low cost chicks and feed, a combination
of which stakes up the majority of costs (16, p. 5-46).
The terms "fryers" and broi1ersU are used
interchangeably.
2
The long range objective of the Oregon fryer in-
dustry has been to obtain a premium for Oregon-grown
fryers over those shipped in from the southern stato,
As stated by the fryer industry, sevoral intermediate
objectives must be accomplished before the final objective can be reached.
I,
These are:
Diccrentiatixig Or'on-.çom £ryers from those
shipped in.
Selling Oregon consumers on demanding Oregongrom fryors to the point where they are
iilling to py a premium of two to three
cents a pound over those hipped i.
3.
Selling retailers on the idea that in view
of the strong demand for Oregon-grown fryer s,
they should be worth two to three cents a
pound over those shipped in (2, p. 2).
The Oregon Commodity Cow.nission Act was enacted
by the 1953 Oregon le is1aturo.
of the Act producers
Under the provisions
1 any agricultural commodity in
Oregon may organize I r the purpose of conducting a
program to help the commodity industry.
Each commission
is a state agency, operating on funds collected from
Oregon producers, plus any gifts or grants it may receive.
The operating funds are to be expended for
research, promotion, and protection of that conimodity
produced in Oregon.
or regulation a
No production or marketing controls
the commodity are permitted (11, p.
9).
The Oregon Fryer Commission was activated January
17, 1958
with tic appointment, by the governor, of nine
commissioners who were recommended by the Oregon
Broiler Association to represent nearly OO producers
of fryers in Oregon. The Oregon Fryer Comission set
forth a program designed to promote fryero to Oregon
consumers, imiprove marketing, encourage labeling, help
set standards of quality, encourage year around production of high quality birds, promote industry cooperation, study consumer needs and preferences, and conduct
or finance research to improve the fryer industry in
Oregon (lii, p. 5).
The Oregon Fryer Commission, as a presentative
of Oregon fryer producers, has had the primary interest
in enforcing the Oregon Unifor Fryer Labeling Law
since its passage August 5, l99. This law ueI.zes it
mandatory for the retailer to identify by label all
fryers being offered for sale in Oregon as to where
they were grom and the chemical preservative, if any,
that they contain (10, p. 585-587).
With the passage of the labeling law the Fryer
Commission accomplished the first intermediate objec-
tive of the Oregon fryer industry, that of differentiating Oregon-gro:n fryors. The Co:iasion is now engaged in the second objective of getting Oregon cons
to demand Oregon labeled fryerz. To accomplish the
second and third intereiate objectives it is desirable
preferences, attitudes,
ing pracices, and consumption patterns for fryors,
Inforaation pertaining to conswner know1ed of the
labeling lai and pa t fryer advertising is also necesSary to doteriine ;b zucceS of differentiating
Oregon fryers in the eii of the Oregon consuer.
to know Oregon
iW OF PVIOUS WORK
No wor
hae been done. at Oregon S.to University
on the characteritics of doaand for fryers. The United
States Department of Agriculture and research agenciqs
in Texas, Maine, Washington, Tennessee, Virginia, and
California are aong those which have conducted studies
dealing with the characteristics of demand for fryers.
The Washington Fryer Coeiission initiated a study
shortly before this research :as begun. A preliminary
draft of the Washington study indicates that the effects
of the Washington leiing law were investigated. The
Washington work was sieAilar to this study but was done
in the Seattle area in iat.e Nay, 1960. No relationships
were tested as to the effect of socjO-eConOIiliC charac-
teristics o th reseondont on their attitudes and
preferences for fryers (17).
Findings of other studies will be cth?eered to the
findings of this study.
JECTIVES
The over-all objective of this study is to determine the consumption patterns
and demand character-
istics for fryers in the Portland
etropolitan area.
In this connection the study was designed to deterniini
Consu!er attitudes tords fryors.
Consumer 2references rearding fryors.
Consumer buying practices.
Ccautjo: ;aterns for firz.
5
Consumer awareness of fryer advertisij.
6,
ano;rlede ci the Oreon labeling law anu
on purchases.
its
iUSEAk&CH NEIIIODOLOGY
en e r L
This study was initiatod in the fall of 1959.
The infor:stLLon which appears in this thes:is was collected thruh personal interviews with consumers i
the Portland metro?oiitan area during late June and
The s1iu universe consisted of
early July,
all private households in iiultnomah County, rdich in-
cludes Portland, aid
all
fringe area.
tiand
tions of
The
Cisc sos
and
incorporatdsuburbs of
o
households in the Portland
fringe area contains porIJsLton counties where the
eavertou,
(TOgO,
ii.Laukie,
6
and Clackamas are located.
the ivs
cic
erc
nrvic
was drawn and
The
b
)1tla1Li
'hOtinh
re'oarch
The Sal
Mul
County
The sa1 Zor the survey was stric b robahility
type, dra\m fre a 10 :ez-cent block litin of £.ultnouah
County. In d rdng the asle the cowit ;as irst
0L oloci
divided into census tracts. ext, all
like s merits within the census tracts were nubereci in
serpentine fashion. Using a table of randoni £1uabc-rs1
10 percent of the blocks in each tract wore drawn for
listing. All dwelling units in the designated blocks
or ceients were then listed by star tin, t the southeast corner of the block or segent and listing in a
clockwise direction.
The actual sa:pie was drawn by dividing the nuriher
of addrcsos listed by the osi.rod neeber of interviews
to obtain a dwelling unit interval. A random starting
household was assigned
point was used and then every
for contact, tazing tlie choice entirely out of interviewer hands. The 5aLple consisted of total
interviews ade personally in the hoes of the
/3 Interviewing as conducted by Dan
and Associates.
of63
. Clrh, II
7
respondents.
Portland Fringe Area
Sample for the survey iai of an area or probability
type, which guaranteed each household in the universe an
equal opportunity o' being contacted.
It was decided liz advance that 150 interviews would
be made in the Portland fringe area. The number o
interviews within the fringe arca ra aort:Loned accord-
ing to best available statistics on urban and rural
population distribution. Sampling locales within the
urban and rural classifications were selected by a random interval method, which stratified the sample by
size
the communities,
In citie and torns for which detail maps were
available an ajiroximate 10 percent block or segment
sample was utilized. All blocks or segments were first
numbered in serpentine fashion wlthin the individual
areas. Aiying a table of random numbers, approximately
10 percent of the blocks or egments were then drawn for
i
Intervicers were instructed to contact every 35th household within smaple blocks or soents.
In strictly rural areas, interviewers were given
road or postal iaps, and instructed to contact every
sampling purposes.
houeho1d on a biven road or route.
In a few areas, for which maps were not available,
interviewers were instructed to start at a pecifiod
point, again contactinZ evory 35 housoi.11 until their
quotas ror
fhe
obtained.
otaI
ti1e x.or tao fringe area paaso onsisteci
of 157 intervie, each of wh
of the re; ::ent
tal
Portland city :Ii i'rt1wad £i'i
tize:. in the home
iic for hth areas,
,
of
lows wi
ora iith
constseer;-h-) ievo:r ;t1Li üd £ yers, wer'Lu1Lted
eLreteiy
osu1. s of the
interviews
tie :L
I
on
t
quo st i onna ir
The Quo tioiiiiaire
Preration of the questionnaire ben in the early
spring of 1960.
Studies and questionnaires frohi other
parts of the United ates ore reviewe .
prcl.iiinary
draft of the questionnaire s re-te3oi in Corvalli.
The questienirc eontiued two types o quo stion:
(1) the open-end, t: which tho: sondmt' s replya
recorded verbais, and (2) an alter:tivo typo ilL
which the interviewer circled the code nubor representin the ensver.
the jori-ond ques tions the interviewers iww mo L:euo ioria to probe for co.lote answers.
A copy o the ciutionnaire is iac1d. in &pendi: A.
The author £io1. tested the oriina1 questionnaire
for coteni; on wordin;, Tw i'inal ii1d tests wore
eade by the fwi which conduct;od the intorviewin.
9
The Interview
All interviewing was done by Vro essianal interviewers. Each interviaei- was given printed set of
instructions for conducting the interview, The instructions contained a separate section on how each question
should be presented and recorded, All questions were
read to the respondents as rinted on the questionnaire.
The interview was conducted with the person in the
or the
fatsily who purchased most of the groceri
household, gene'ally the homemaker.
in the case of not-at-homes, two callbacLs were
made. If a second callback was necessary, it was made
at a different time 01' the day. If the interviewer was
unable to
contact at the designated household after
the second callback, a rigid system of substitution was
en t
When
follocd ithin the sane block or
le
iaking a substitution, the interviewer first took the
address preceding that of the assigned household as
shown in the listing book, and second the address following that of the assigned household. The intov1ewer
alternated in this fashion until an interview was
tamed. The interviewers made 133 substitutions,
either because of refusals or not-at-homes. A portion
of each intervi ar s work was verified for accuracy
and authenticity.
10
Research Procedure
Machine tabulation o
all data from the completed
questionnaires was the first step.
Sorts were iacIe on
the basis of personal and family, or socio-economic
characteristics.
Included were level uf living, ago,
education, and I alnily size.
Additional sorts were made
to compare consumer attitudes with their conzurjtion
patterns.
Tests of significance to deteruine is2portances of
relationships were made at the five percent level using
the cu-square
I'he co-efficient of oie multiple-
regression equation was tested at the five percent level
using the F test.
CONSUMER S UiVLY RESULTS
ECONON1C C1IAACTEiISTICS
Respondents
Sex and Ae
This survey ;as oriented towards the principal
grocery buyer in the family.
Because of this,
percent of the respondents were wonen (Tab
majority of the respondents,
40 years
age (Table 2).
C
94.4
1).
The
58.2 percent, were over
About 18 percent of the
respondents were under 30 years of ao.
11
Nuiber and
Table
percontage distribution of
500 Portland respondents by sex, June-
July, 1960.
Respondents' sex
Male
Female
percent
28
5.6
472
Toti
Table 2.
nuib er
500
91k
100.0
Nuiber and percentage distribution of
500 Portland respondents by age, June-
July, 1960.
Respondents' ago
Under 30
nunb or
rr)
parc out
j.0 .4r
IS?
30-39
40-49
117
107
21.4
50 and ov
184
'so
500
100.0
Total
Ros'ondents' Level of Education
The majority of respondents interviewed,
53.2
percent, had at least co1Apleted high school (Table
3).
To be counted in either college classification the
respondent izust have attended a college or university.
Business or trade school students were not includ din
1
the college classifications,
Table
3.
Number and percentage distribution of
300 Portland respondents by level oI
fornal education, June-July, 1960.
Level of education
percent
number
Grade-school or no schooling
High school
Some college
17
87
266
2
53.2
19.4
9.6
.4
500
100.0
97
48
Finished college
Refused to ansor
Total
Nuibor of Years the 1tes'ondent Had Been a. Resident of
9con
Four out ol' five respondents bad
for ten years or longer (Thb1
had been a resident of Oregon
Nuiuber of Persons Living in te
4).
lived in Oregon
Only 8.2 )ercont
£eer thtn
five years.
Households
and DistributioJAe
Two-thirds of t-ic households numbered froa two
to four persons (Table
was 3.
persons,
lived alone.
5).
The average size household
About nine percent of the respondents
Table 4.
Nuniber and percentao distribution of
500 Portland respondents by number of
years residence in Oregon, June-July,
l90.
Number of years
Less than 1 year
1-4 years
5-9 years
10 years or more
Total
number
12
r
35
424
500
per cent
2.4
3.8
7.0
fl LL
100.0
Table 5. Nuher and percentage distribution of
500 Portland respondents by size of
household, June-July, 19(0.
Nuiraber of persons in
house;.o1d
number of
houscliolds
percent
9.4
29
87
103
63
4
5
27
21
6
7
8
12e6
54
4
1
9
Total
500
100.0
Of the total 1679 persons in the respondents'
households, almost 41 percent were under 20 years of
ae (Taile 6). People 60 and over iade up 1.2 percent
of the uembers of the respondents' households.
Table
iuuiber and percentago distribution by
e of persons living in 5U0 Portland
respondents' households, June-July, l9O.
.
Age grouis (years)
nuzab e
of peo' le
387
299
10-19
20-29
30-39
10 - 9
50-59
60 and over
Blank
Total
219
156
222
percent
17.3
9.1
13.0
£ .
1
1679
100 0
Princi
mr
Laborers rore the principal wage earners in
percent of the respondents* households (Table 7)
The n::t occuiation in terms of nuzbei e;ployed as
3tion
1
craftsien and Loreuzen.
Famil Level of Livin
To obtain a aeasure of annual incomes the inter-
viewer made an estimate of each £uilyu level of
living based on observable factors. Occupation of
the principal wage earner, ne, location of hoze and
neighborhood, and the level of formal education were
among the factors considered. A definition of' the four
economic levels of living i included in Aendix B.
Table 7' Nuiiber and percontae distribution of
500 Portland households by occupation
of the principal wage earner, JuneJuly, 1960.
Occupation
number
Professional or technical
Laborers
Managers, officials, and
proprietors
Clorica1
Sales workers
Craftstnen or resen
Private household and service
workers
0.vernment workers
i'.rzners and fars nanagors
iefused to answer
Total
percent
61
12.2
140
2(3.0
68
13,u
12.2
13.8
61
6')
3,5
4.2
7.0
500
100.0
21
Number and porcentae distribution of
500 Portland fwil:Les 'by level of
living, Juno-July, 1960.
Tab
el of livin
Upper A (wealthy)
Upper B (well-to-do)
number
17
90
Middle class
Lower
To t1
500
percent
.1k
0
66.4
12.2
100.0
five the at
ksadO
were
level. percent
sinii'jcance of tests All
birthdays. with food
particular a associate not did respondents the of cent
per- Twenty occasion. this with associated sDOndents
re- of number largest the which meat the was Chicken
9). (Table respondents the of percent 5.2 by birthdays
with associated was cake Birthday t1its;
/5 discussed. are results significant Only
size. faiiiy ane living, of level education, of level
respondent's the an occasions special the with
associated foods beteen tested were i.olatioashis
investigated.
the of nts the told been not had
eing Lity
anse biased a prevent To occasions.
respondent
special the with associated foods the specify to
asked as respondent the interview tie in arly
parties? dinner and anniversaries,
wedding birthdays, with associate consuers do any, if
foods, What Thanksivin. with turkey of association
the bein o'asle outstanding the occasions, special
with foods certain associate consumers Many
te
Occasions S-ecial with Associated Foods
FOODS OF ASSOCIATION
16
Table 9. Nuiiher and percont;e distribution of 500 Portland respondents by foods
.s..ocitted with birticLy, 'eddii nnivoruiies, and dinner parties,
Juno-July, 1960.
Foods
Jofl-;:
5.2
ee1
Chicken
orL
112
89
36
43
20
Turey
L.isce1l;meuu
ioii' t i:UlOw or
none
Dinner
art i es
nunbor
e.rcent
o ddin
nnivcrsari
1,2
102
20.tk
Total 500
:Loo .0
6
'U
7.2
8.6
4.0
1.2
178
Total
number
''U
376
35.6
321
21.4
213
2
'
72
14.4
137
9.].
6
1.2
4.4
33
34
'. . .;
c_I
3b0
500
500
100.0
1500
100.0
3.8
The form used in recording all relationships tested
is sitiilar to that shown in Table 10. The respondent's
level of 1iVin
S an iyortant source of variation
in the foods associated '4;ih birthdays. In this re.;ard,
a high percentage of those rcs;ondents who associatea
cicIen with birthdays was in the isiddle level of
living classification (Table 10).
Table 10.
Nnbor distribution of 500 Portland
res:.ondents by levels of living and
loods associated with birthdays,
Juno-July, 1960.
Levels
of
iora-
living
idOLtt
Foods
beef cniecen pork uisc. dontt Total
kIIOW
or
none
u±ber of resoondents
Upper A and 13
Middle
150
lo
0
Lower
Total
14
33
U
63
1
1
2
8
21
62
6].
7
54
107
13
102
aiiversaries: More than ono-.third, 38.6
percent, of the rospondents did not associate apartiC
ular food with wecwng anniversaries (Pablo 9). A1;roxiatoly 22 percent of those respondents who answered
this question positively associated a non-ueat food id.tIi
nniversarios, The rmncir;a1 ion-noat rosionse wo cake.
Weddin.
19
at hlost often a S ociated with this event
with 17,8 percent of th? respondents akin tht food
association. Chicken
associated with L1aiversaries
by only 7.2 percent of the resondonts.
Level of' education, level of living, age, and
fari1y size were sources of variation in the foods
associated with wedding anniversaries. About 77 percent of the respondents who associated chicken with
this event had a high school education. There was a
tendency for I1idLLLe level of living resondents to
associate beef or pork with wedding anniversaries.
Fifty percent of the older respondents, 50 years and
over, as well as 8 percent of those respondentz with
Beef was the
£I
a sa1l faily (one to three persons) did not associate
a particular food with wedding anniversaries.
Dinner parties: Beef was the meat sost often
associated with dinner ;arties with 35.6 percent of the
respondents iaking this association (Table 9). Chicken
was second, being associated with dinner parties by
18 .8 percent of the respondents. In contrast, 18 .0
percent of the respondents did not associ.to a particular food with thir' event.
w
The respondents level of living and
sources of variation in the foods associatod with
dinner parties. For ex10 77 percent of the middle
20
level of living respondents failed to associate a
particular food with this occasion. There was a tendency for younger respondents to sssociate a variety
of foods with dinner parties and for older responden
especially those 50 years and over, to associate no
particular food with. this event.
The total colun in Table 9 shows that heel as
the meat most often associated with brt hchys,
eddin
anniversaries, and dinner 'rties. Chicken was t
second LLIOSt
ortant meat in frequency of association
with l.2 percent of the respondents associating it
with a special occasion1 One-half of the respondents
ass iated no 1:a1'ticultr food, or a no-meat food with
the special occasions.
Foods Serv ed on Se,
00 ted
Pa S t 1-lolida
8
The assumption Is that in most cases the food a
person serves on a certain holiday or special occasion
will be the food associated with that holiday or occasion, To detersine consumer association of foods with
special OCCaSIOnS, the respondents were asked to
specify the food served on selected past holidays. The
holidays included were the Fourth of July, oiorial Day,
Labor Day, and Nei Years.
Rlatiouship were tested to determine the effect
21
of the resanden 4, level of education, level of living,
family sic,
on the food served on the selected
ast ho1idys.
Fourth of July: chicken was served on the last
Fourth of July by 23.8 Jercent of the respondents (Table
11). Relative to this wne occasion another 17.4 iercont
of the respondents served a food classified as miscelUS.
Hot dogs were named most frequently.
Family size and age wore major sources of varia-
tion in the foods served on the last Fourth of July.
Small families, one or two persons, had 59 percent
their responses in the do not reebor" classification.
Larger families, six or more persons, had a tendency to
serve beef e Fifty-five percent of the respondents in
the 50 years and over ago group did not reaedlber what
food had been served on the last Fourth of July.
e3oria1 Day: Almost one-hnlf of the resondents
stated that toy did not reeher what food they
served on -iemorial Day (Table 11). Of the respondents
who did rerxember, chicken was the meat most frequently
served.
The resondcnt's age was a source of variation in
the foods served on I orial Day. Approximately onehalf of the respondents Q years and over did not
Table 11.
Food
1on-eat
Number and percentage distribution of 500 Portland respondents by
foods served on the Fourth of July, ?1euorial Day., Labor Day, and
Ne Years Day, June-July, 1960.
New Years D
Labor Day
Fourth of July Memorial D
flu icr )C1'COflt T1UIL)01 :Oi'COflt number :crcent nu.Wor ercent number ..ercent
11
2.2
1.2
21
105
4.6
5.3
iu.o
Beef
Chicken
Pork
Threy
64
75
37
87
13.4
23.8
8.8
1.6
17.
100
20.0
227
25
5.0
500
100.0
07
119
44
8
u.sce11aneous
Don' t
reabor
None
Total
1
16.8
15.0
7.4
.2
51
63
22
7
10.2
12.6
4.4
1.4
6.4
7.8
32
:66
-54
45.4
6.8
33
53.2
7.6
500
100.0
500
100.0
26
21
11
134
2
5.2
4.2
36.2
26.8
4.6
8
19
500
100.0
10.4
7u
284
150
161
1.9
14.2
7.5
9.0
678
116
33.9
5.6
2000
100.0
23
reejber what food had been served on that occcicu.
In contrast a tendencr ex±stad for ro spondents under
40 years of
rve a vane
oods on that
day.
&2rDav: Chickew was served xoro often than
any other meat on Labor Day with 12.6 percent of the
respondents servin.; chicken (Table 11 ). The ;iajonity
of respondents, 55.2 percent, id not roueuber what
they had erved on Labor Day. This was not surpricing
since the last Labor Day had been about 10 months
prior to the interviewing0
The reondent
e was a source of variation
in the foods served on Labor Day. Forty-two percent
of the respondents 50 years and over did not remeer
what had been served on that occasion. Respondents
)0-)9 years of age cuded to serve caicen.
New Years:
i-'ork was the LAcat isost frequently
served on New Years. Ijost 0 tko pork was in the form
of ham (Table 11), An additional 2.3 ercent of the
respondents re:iied they nad served turkey on New
Years. Turkey and hasi had a cothined total of 63 percent of the responses. Chicken ws served by only 4.2
percent of the respondents cm iew Ycax
The rospondents level of 1ivin
jon
source of variation in the foods served on New Years.
:
Seventytwo percent of the respondents in the roup
having a middle level of living served pork on this
occasion,
The total colwim in Table 11 showu that about onethird of' the respondents did not remember the foods
I)OfldOfltS who
served on the four selected holidays.
did rernefoor served chicken most frequently on t1e
Fourth of July, eorial
and LHor Day. P.rk as
the ieat iOt oten erved on New Years.
Frrers as an Everdar Secia1 Occasion Food
Fryers;'ro ro consiuered a ood for everyday Leal
percent of' Portland respondents (Tb1e 12).
An additional 14'. ercent said that there was no difLerence, that fryers were an everyday and also a
special occasion food. Twenty percent of the respondents considered fryers a food for special occasions.
Relationships were tested to determine the effect,
by 65.6
if any, of the respondent's level of education, age,
level of living, family size, and se on attitude
towards fryers as an everyday or special occasion
ea1. None o the relationships was sinificant.
Reasons for Sorvin.
ryers on Holidays and Spec!
Occasions
"Almost everyone likes chicken" was the reason
Table 12.
Number and percentage distribution of
500 Portland respondents by irincipal
iueals at which fryers were served,
June-July, 1960.
Meals
nuuber
Regular everyday
percent
u5.
19.8
1
eai
Holiday and special occasion meals
No difference
Don't know
Total
72
1
.2
500
100.0
most frequently given by 500 Portland respondents
for serving fryors on holidays and. speci1 occasions
(Table 13),
This reason was given by 238 of the 300
respondents.
The second most prevalent reason given was that
chicken is easy to prepare and serve (Table 13).
This
is an important reason since the housewife is becoming
more and more interested in
the convenience ad ease
of preparation 0-f the food which she serves.
The reasons which were third in frequency
response dealt with economy (Table 13).
Iteconomical to serve to a group" and ttOO
for everyday use" made u
given
The reasons
expensive
13.1 percent of the reasons
No relationship existed between res;.ondents
26
giving eeonoy as a reason and their levels of living.
The reasons given by con umez s for serving fryers
on holidays and sjecial occasions are an indication of
the attitudes t.iey ve torrd fryers. The principal
reasons indicate that ro;ondents consider chicken to
be jo:;ular with almost everyone, economical, and easy
to serve.
Table 13. Nthiber and percentage distribution of
500 Portland respondents by reasons
given for serving fryers on holidays
and sjeci.l occasions, June-July, 1960.
number
Reason
Almost everyone likes chicken
Chicken io esy to roiare and serve
Chicken is economical to serve to a
group
percent
i.6
238
165
21.9
93
12.3
Chicken is easy to take on picnics
and is good cold
Chicken is a treat
52
Customary to serve chick on
15
9.2
6.9
2.0
Chicken is too expensive for everyday
use
No reason
6
Don't serve on holidays
Niscellaneous
Total
28
29
r
75/*
* Some resondents gave more than one reason
.8
3.7
3.8
7.00
100.0
Attitudes Toward Selected Stateaients
Portland respondents were road four essentially
true statements deal
dii fryers. Te statements
were designed to give an indication of coiimeru
dttitUU.3 C(1in fry rs U no rJ a i tie nu
trtzs.a 1 o t. ii' .
ciei
A1%11roximately
ercen..ci' the respondents
agreed with the second and thirci stateionts deali
with the food and dollar value of fryers (Table l).
A large number of respondents either disagreed with
the stateients dealing with freshness and calorie
content or did not inow. l3otn the suhjec areas secu
to offer a good opportunity for the disseminati
information to Oregon consumers.
Relationships uere tested between respoxses to
all, four statements and the respondent's level of
living, level of oducation, and age. The respondent's
age was a source of variation ui the responses to the
statement assocaating chicken with ieople who are watching their weight. The
of respondents'siho agreed
with the statement increased with each increase in age.
Approximately 6J percent of the respondents 50 years
of age and over areed with the
tesent, ucreas
only l percent of those respondents under O years
of age agreed.
Table 14,
Nuiber distri'ution of 500 Portland
je sondents br i'eaeonse to four
selected stateiaen.ts concerning
fryors, June-Juiy, 1960.
R
Stat eent
4ree d1'r cc co:a't total
01
Nuia or of roondents
Chicken fryers are freør
when they're 0reon grom 357
Chicken fryers are a good
source of proteins.
428
Pound for pound chicken
fryers are one of' your
best xneat buys.
403
52
91
300
500
10
66
31
103
116
Chicken fryer aeat is a
good food for people who are
tching their vi,ht,
281
C0NSUPTI N
çuencyof 5cr yin
en weekC
F yers were served at least once
days in 149 households and at least once vsry two weeks
on weedays in an aaciitional 118 households (Table 15).
Ten lercent of the respondents did nt serve fryers on
weekdays.
Fryers were served at least once every two -ee;a
en Sundays by 117 resondents (Table 1). An adciiiona1
153 respondents served frycra at least one Sunday a
uonth. Eleven percent 0 the respondents did not serve
29
fryers on Sundays,
Table 15,
Number nd percentage distribution of
500 ortiand respondents by frequency
of orvin fryors on Sundays and week-
June-July, 19t0.
as
Frequency of crying
numbererceut number ercent
3 or more times a week
Twice a week
Once a week
Once every two weeks
Once a month
Once every two months
or less ofton
Never serve
4
95
3,8
23.2
23.6
19.0
68
52
13.6
10,4
91
53
19
18,2
11.0
3.8
0
100,0
500
100.0
19
126
118
Don't know
Total
-28
149
138
29
31.6
Respondents who served fryors at 1et once a
week made up 41.2 percent of the sample (Thble 1
Only 10.8 percent of the consumers interviewed stated
that they served fryers less than once
a
ionth.
Tic
columns in Table 15 showing frequency of serving on
weekdays and sundays wore combined in Table 16. Other
studies have shown that front ) to 75 percent of the
consumers served fxyers once a week or oftener. /6
/6 Washinton findings show 0 percent; USDA findiri
show 50 percent; and Tena findings show that
percent of the consumers served f'ryers at least
once a week (17, p. 10; 1, p. 2; and 1, p. 8).
30
Table 16,
NthJber and
ercentae dis-ributiou of
O( Portland respondents by frequency
o' servin fryers, June-July, 1960.
Frequency of serving
Three or ore times a week
Twice a
Once a week
Three times during; month
Twice during month
Once during uonti
Less than mice month
Don't know how often
number percent
6
2.8
172
99
61
1.2
5.6
3.1k
13.0
19.8
J_ '. £;.,
5/1
10.3
500
100.0
Rolatiouship were tested between frequency of
serving and the respondent's age, level of education,
level of living, and faiily size. Also tested was the
serving arid occu
relationship between frequency
tion of the principal wage earner in the house hold.
Family size was te oniy factor which was a source of
variation in hc frequency of servi: fryora.
onth
Avera;e Lrequoucy of serving fryes
increased with each increase in Lastily size with the
exception of a four or five member househol ( .hle 17).
One member households served fryers an avera
of 1.79 times per month; three member households
Table 17.
Average frequency of serving fryers
per month distributed by fi1y size,
500 Portland households, June-July,
C (j )
Fai1y size
One person
Two persons
Three persons
Four persons
Five persons
Six persons
Seven or more persons
All families
Average frequency of
serving
1.79
2.68
3.14
2.87
3.13
3.81
2.o7
average of 3.14 time pe month; and seven or more
member households an average of 3.81 tises r nonth
(Table 17). Families with a Ia e number of children
were the families which served fryors most frequently.
Reasons for this may be ease o preparation, economy,
or children's preference for fryors. The average
frequency of serving for all households as about
2.9 times per month. The relationship between family
size and frequency of serving' i included in Aendix
Table 1.
Prina1 Methods of Preparatio
Portland respondents were asied to indicate the
32
principal methods of preparing fryers used during the
year. Frying was the uot po..uiar icthod o preparation. 1ethods ot fry' uod re pan £ry1n, 73.3
percei or
, 42 prcent and acep
fryin&,
9.6 percent (Table 1$). Baking was used by 2 percent
of the respondents
prej.aring fryers An average
of 2,1 methods of preparation was used by each respondexit.
Table 13. Number and percentage distribution of
500 Portland households by methods o±
preparation useU during the past year,
June-July, l90.
Method of preparation
numb or
Pan fried
39 1k
Oven fried
210
LiaLed
i :i s
percent
Charcoal broIled
Oven barbecued
roi1ed in stove
Deep fat fried
50
i3raised
.'
17.0
11.2
10,0
9.6
3.2
14.6
o th ci1057 *
335
respo: ents used more than one £nethod of'
pre.atin.
A .L'e iiad
of the iiethods listed.
rcparei frycr by all
iesponccii.ts ;ii.i prepared fryors more than one way were
asked to inccate the tuod c,f :Y:aratioF ); often
iter
Used dL2J
ier. Frying was th?
thod
used by 61.7 percent
the res.ondenta durin
u'inter and 55.1 percent during the suiaier (TaI 19).
Eleven percent of the resondente baked chicken during
the winter idonths, ihereas only 2.7 j; ercent used this
uethod of preparetion during the zuriier
Outdoor
cookin was
ular during the suL1ner with 49 respondexits using charcoal broiling, Only one respondent
used charcoal broiling as the principal IMethod of
preparation during the winter rimnths.
Table 19.
Nuitibcz' and percentage distribution of 35
Portland respondents by principal methods
o' rearation used during winter and
Su1Le;, June-July, 1960,
Nethod of preparation.
Jinter
Suirwier
nuher percent nuniber percent
Pan fry
11
45.1
144
Oven fry
52
6
1
8
15.5
11.0
.3
2,4
8
2.4
8
2.4
3
1.2
1.2
1.5
1
60
17.9
57
.3
17.0
Charcoal broil
Stove broil
Deep fat fried
Oven barbecue
Braise
Don't know, always varies
10,7
2.7
.
Other
Total
T
100.0
100.0
Findings in thc iaine study indicate the principal
method of pro artian tsed by the hoaseiives interviewed
was roasting (l
p.
5).
A United States Departont of
Agriculture survey found frying to be the iost popular
method of preparation.
In fact, about one out of three
users indicated this way was the only way fryors were
served (15, p. 7).
A significant relationship existed between frequency of serving fryers and the number of methods of
Iespondents using
preparation used by the respondent.
only one method of preparation served fryers an average
of
2.49
times per month, whereas respondents uiig
or tuore methods served fryers
3.24
Wa
times per month
(Appendix Table
Principal Factors Affecti
Fro uencl of Servin
Frequency of serving was used in this study as
an indication
f total consumj.>tion o
Portland coIiu;eis intorv:ied.
fryer's by the
Frequency of
serving
was related to several variables to determine factors
which affect the total consumption of fryers,
Scatter
diagrams were constructed showing the relationships
between the frequency of serving fryer's and (1) level
of' education, (2) level of living,
size, and (5) number of method
of'
(3) age, (4)
rejaration.
family
The
diagrams indicated that iaiiily sic aid the number of
methods of preparation used were the only two factors
included iii this study which influenced frequency of
serving to any degree. A multiple regression equation
was computed and tested to determine the effect of
these two variables. The F value-s were significant
at the five percent level showing that there was a
linear relationship between frequency of serving and
both family size and number of methods of prc;;;ration.
Calculations are included in Appendix 1. The following equation was obtained, whire y is frequency of
serving, x1 is family size, and x9 is nuiber of methods
of preparation used.
1.9 + .15x1 + 26x0
y
A correlation coefficient was calculated which
shows that only about 5 percent of the total variation
in frequency of serving was accounted for by the
regression of frequency of serving on family size nd
number of methods o reparation.
Days and Mea1: Fryers 'iere Served
At 1ea.t three out of five of the co: ume r interviewed, 64.2 percent, did not serve fryers more frequently
on one day than on any other day of the week (Table 20).
Respondents who frequently served fryers on Sunday
made up 27.3
ercnt of the sample. It appears that
Portland re .onCcat
considered fryexs iuore an ever
food than dJJ catt;1E rospondents, The Seattle study
found that 9 percent of the respondents served fryors
more often on Sundays, wiereas
vcont served
fryors with about he sae ro-quency on weehdays and
Sundars (17, p. 1.2).
Table 20. Number and percentage distribution of
500 Portland respondents by days of
the week fryers were served, Juno-July
-> J'J a
Days sc.rv
r4onday
number
5
Tuesday
Wednesday
Sunday
1.0
.6
6
Thursday
Friday
Saturday
percent
9
1.2
1,2
1.4
1,3
No one day
21
DQt know
Total
27.3
6k.
.8
oo
100.0
139
reonderance o Portland ros ondents, 77'S percent,
serve. fryors at e evenin; me1 on eehdaya (Table 21)..
The answers wore a1nost evenly divided betieen the noon
and evenin 1ea1 on sundays., Only 10. 7ercent of
the ropondenta served fryers zost often at noon meals
A
during the -acek.
Table 21. Niier ;nd percent:u distributiou
500 Portl:nd res.;ozidonts b:
mLch f"yer wer- se;'ved oi
Sundays/holidy, June-July,
an
Eve nin,
Noon
3C
About even
serve
Dont know
17
19
1.0
100.0
Total 500
0
4
C)
100.0
eiht
A broiler ieihing between 23'k and
potmds was
preferred by 54 1rcent of the consuiers interviewed
(Table 2
Only
percent of the respondents nsorod
that weiEht did not matter.
study ado .Ln houston
Texas fou.nd that the weiht or size of ehicken reforred
varied as the wett
e par tion vc.ried. /7 ?esu1ts
of controlled
.nLcatec
ii
in
.
conswiors
bout
ii equal nur of this threo
fryer sizes offerod: le th
over 2.5 pounds (3, p. 8).
Consuners
antec
or broilin, a
a
,O,
1-2 pound chicken for barbecuing
pound chicken for frying, and
ound
chicken
for baring (8, p.
-5
38
Table 22
Nuwber and percentage distribution of
500 Port1rnd res onde:ats 1y eiht
jreferencs for broilers, June-July,
1960.
Weight preference (pounds)
Over
2
to
3
3
Under 2
knor or doesn't
Total
Lter
nwabcr
perce.at
123
270
87
15
5 0'J
Affirmative replies made np 35,8 percent of the
responses to the quetion,'ere you able to buy the
size fryer you wanted the last tiiie you purchased a
fryer?" Only one percent of the res;ondents answered
that they did not know whether they were able to purchase the size pre.0 erred,
Of the 13.2 percent, or 66, respondents who wore
not able to purchase the size preferred, 3$ would have
pounds; 22 would
preferred a fryer weighing over
pounds; five
have preferred a fryer weighing 2
would have preferred a fryer under 2 pounds; and one
respondent did not knoz the size preferred.
Relations ips were tested between the preferred
weight of £ry:r and the respondent's level of livin
fasi1y size, an
ge;-s a
o. The repondent'
source of variatlea in the preferred weight. The
relationship indicates a tendency for the :rcerred
weight to increase as the r3o1 ;u1ta3e :uc;es.
The relationship is inc1ude1 in Apendix Table 3.
S:in Color
Skin color was a factor considered by 73.2 percent
the Portland r ondonto when purchasing fryors.
All of tic reso:adent -ere ke to s tate t1ieii efeI'
once for a broiler .± LL either white or ye
As shown in Table 2
l.0 )ercent rforred broiler
wi Ui wlii to skin and 9. percent prefcrre1 a broiler
ith yellow skin. Cf the respondents who considered
percent
skin color when purchasing broiler
preferred a broiLer with white skin; 3c,. perceni;
p eferred one with yellow shin; and 12.) percent had
no 1referencce
Other studies have found conswners
a1rost evenly divided in their ireferences for skin.
color. /3
The color of a skin can be regulated to so;:e extent
in the processing plant. A scalding tenporture of 138
degrees Fahrenheit and over resoves the thin outer layer
of skin which carries the natural siam color. Broilers
scalded in this Lianner cosie out with a tight, white
Of' the ilouston consuxers who considered skin color,
T1 percent preferred ycl1or and IC perccnr Preierred
white (C, .. 6) . ashington results sho.: 21.3 ...ercent of ti. r;o;w.onto referred yclloi shin, 19.5
percent rcferrcd ,diite in rd 5b.9 percent had
no preference (17, p. 15).
skin. Lower scalding teiiìperatures of 122 to 130 degrees Fahrenheit leave the outer skin layer to show the
natural color of the broiler, either yellow or white
(19, i' 7),
Nwabcr and percenLge distribution of
500 Portland respondents by color of
broiler in preferred, June-July, 1960.
Table 23,
Color
preferred
reondcnt3 Po consider
kin color whenIii'
all
resondents
umber percent
white
Yell ow
No prefer-
ence
Don't know
'6
l2.
27.6
500
100.0
The respondents age was a source of variation in
preference for skin color. Younger respondents preferred broilers with white skin, whereas older respondents,
especially those 50 years and over, preferred broilers
with:yellow skin (Appendix Table ). This relationship
indicates that a larger percent of' Portland eonsuaers
can be expected to prefer broilers with white skin in
future years.
Level of education and level of living were also
sources oz var1aioii in oorences br s±in color.
roxisately 50 percent o the respondents with grade
4 I
or no schooling preforred broilers with yellea skin
(Appendi: Table
5).
Thce was a tendeucy for respond-
outs with a lewer 1vei af 1iin
to prec
br ci. 1 e rs
wLth yellow si:i.n (Appendi; Teele 6)
Form
Portland cmstere who last purchased a whole,
rcer
cut-up fryer ;ad
ercent rirc aaod a vhoie fryer not
additional 2
)eonnta tJo
cut-up
mLeceh
An
of the saaipie.
u.rchased jaLrtiCUlar
aat
SLU
-
or winC .0 C auwted for
pre:'er..Ces ci' eatt1c
conuaerC were ao1e cut-up, 63.4 orcent whole not
cut-ui
PC
'or:
c
11.0 prcc.ait of th
eferonce,
ent; and
16.3 :ere1t
(17, p.
Pespondents :'-w
chases of
.
skc
their mferonce s r
ardii.g
cut-ukJ fryors, whether they preferre
a package containing particular
whole chicken et
pieces
Aios1threo-fourthJ 2referred a whole tryer
out-up.
iosiondent
tho 1referr
the replies.
accounted foc 17.;. arcent c
iu 9.4 percent
pieces
The reaain-
replied that they had always purchased
that they had no preference.
whole frye
t relatioush
re
1artictla
dents' for;.
:orcd
eferonce;
i'Ci a.
c;isted between thc
of the roondenL
d.oie c
last purchased
fryer indicated that they did not store fryors (Ap1endix
Table 7). A tendency wa exhibited for rezondents
who store fryors over four weeks to pre±er a whole fryer
not cut up,
No reltionshi- existed between £or preference
and the r5pondnts age, level of education, level of
living, and i'aily size.
Prjce Quotation
Consuorr; ;ere aded with iiih
rice jer pound
o: ;ore
L.OUi2d
concerned when ..urchai
or rice per
e, Pri
:
interest to 63.:
erccid
were more
k.
'
I-
.- 1C
..ondents, whereas
29.0 perceut ;erc ore interested in a .rice per package quotation. depondents who did not cre, oi did
rcout of the
not have a preference
u 1O.
sa-ple.
Pinding in a cattle, :hin;ton study concerning
prefereiicos for price quotationerc price oi pound,
mrcent; and does
ice per pacao,
2k7.l percent;
t aake any difference, 32.6 percent (1
A si;:ificaxt relationship e isted bet cen tite
price quotations in which the respondents were rost
interested anc the :cight of roi1er referred.
Twenty-seven
ercent
of
the resondents who answered
that they werc o;t interested in
Co per
CCc
quotation also preferred a broiler weighing less than
There was a tendency
2 pounds (Apendix riilc 8) ,
;ounds
for r orLuents c referred a broiler over
to be rot interested in price quoted per ?OUI.
Forts jreference was also a source of variation in
the price quota t:ion in which the res.ondent was most
interested. A tendency existed for respondents who
tho1e chicken to be interested in
last purctased
nonts 'ho last purchased a
price per pound; Lo.
cut-up fryer to be interested in lricc per pacae;
and for ros;c ieLz aho preferred rticuXar cu p
rticular type of
pieces to have no preference far
quotation (Aei: Table 9).
Orec
Portland respondents rho had a definite preference
for Oregon-grown i'ryers made up 61,2 percent of the
sample (Thble 2'i). Only one percent statea that they
had a preference lor ir:yer ro'sn in other states. flie
remaining 37,8 percent o the .esponcients did not caxe
whore the fryors they purchased were grom.
When asked why they preferred to buy Oregon-grown
fryers, 1kl.
Oregongrown
perCent of the respondents answered that
as an indication of freshness (Table 25).
44
nd percentage di;tiibution of
500 Portland respondents by statc in
which they preferrod to have their
ryers grown, June-July, 1960.
Table 21k
NuThc
nuGr percent
State preference
61.2
.8
.2
Oregon
Southern
Other
know
Doesntt matter
Total
170
500
100.0
Table 25. NuLther and percentage di2tribuion of
500 Portland respondents by reasons
cIVCI1 for
rferring Ore i-grom
i'ryers, June-July, 1960.
Indication of frc;sl-mess
Should patronize Oregou
Knot;;
at I'
17
oducts
ating
Not treted with
I6
rCZOrVative3
3hould be choae
i1iscei1aneou
Total
420
100.0
also the asoi 1'ost olten given for
having fryors lab1Cd, The ecoud reason given for
preferring Oregon-rown fryere Was that Or3ofl
This wa
45
residenti 1oul :trouizo G ;on products. Four
percent Said that ai Oregon fryer
not tted
a chemical rreervtive,
The
:u efforts of the Oregon Fryer Coission
have beei directed toward convincing )regon conswiers
that an Oregon-grown fryer is a superior product. If
successful, the result of it; efforts will be to izicreaso
deuand and/or to make the doaand less elastic,
With
such a change riore Oregon-grom fryors could he sold
at the same prce or the sane nuoer could cc so.id at
a higher price. To get an idea of the success of the
Fryer Commission's efforts, the respondents were asked
whether they would be willing
ay
to four cents
a pOtina remiva for
C
-grawn £ryers.
oao consujer5 do believe that Orego r o'm
fryors are a su;erior product Cansu.iiers uho indicated
they insist enoudli on Oreonrown fryers to
niui of our cents a .;cund made up 59. 2 orcent 01' the
sample, An addltion:l
2 percent of the respondents
answered that they would he willing to pay a preniut
of two cents a pound for Oreon-groii fryors. Iespondcuts who would not pay a preil±um for
gonfryers numbered 167, or 33.4 percent; those who ere
undecided, 6 or 12.6 percent; and those tho did not
e.
Nordhauser and Farris estimate the short-run
elasticity of demand for fryors to be -1.80 which
is elastic (9, p. 803).
Lk6
These results indicate that
know, 31 or 6.2 percent.
almost one-half of the consuiers interviewed bol1evt
that therc
uffioieut differenco between an Orego
d in to
gro.m fryer and a fryer which
premium of at least two cents a poix
I
ay
the Oregon
iryor.
No relatl ahip exiotd between ros;ondont
reiva for Oregon fryers and
wii1inness to pay a
their levels of living or their years of residence
in Oregon.
Additives
On November
1955 tho Federal Food and Drug
Administration cleared the way for the use of aurcofor keeping poultry
mycin chiortotracycline as
fresh long'
(7,
p. 12).
One of the )opular irocese
is acronizing, which retardo the arowih of spoil.
bacteria.
Portland rospondcuts were asked how
they ielt atout the idea ci using adeitivos to zaintain
the quality of
ryers.
eonients who
they dislihod the ido. of using
dditives aide up 57.0
fhe .'cainin
ido
ered that
C
bercent
of using additives,
One set of oxperients showed that chickens dipped
aureoycin solution lasted 29 days before
showing the signs ci' deterioration that ordinary
referigoreLed CkII.CiZOflS developed in ix to eight
days (5,
..
1U).
or that they did not care, In Washington study, Ginrn
and
cnco
wide variation in o4nions about
the quality of t:eat
ye
oprossed by concuers
who had urch.
Fro 27 to 70. ereent of the
COiaior Contacted said tht the oual:ty of o:od
fryors was ltoororH
4).
ucation,
that of untreated frycL'
(4
end it s level o livin;, level of
and a'c .:oro ll sources or variLtio1: i t1c attitudes
wt Oj
adaitivos. AJ.sost
respondents Tho liked the ide of using additives on
f'ryers were ii t1e iddle level ot living classification,
A tendency e±sted far respondents with drade or 110
schooling or a h±i school education
re:ly that tiey
either liked the idoa of usin additives or did not care.
Seventy percent of the respondents with soae college
education were opposed to the use of additives. A
tendency existed for the younger respondents to Jik
the idea ct additives and older respondent& to dislike
e:;;ros sod tow.r
it.
Approximately 69 percent of the ros ondents who
disliked the use of dd:Ltives also answered tt the
eferred to bu, 1- Ore; gron fryer
;eiidix Table
10) . Respondents \ho
aercd tha t they Liked
TAe
use or
Ltivc or
they did not care nre
cre tenod to :naer tht
e.Lr fryer were
oai,
Obj ections
Some indication of preferences can be ;.ined from
a knowledge of the factors consumers have disliked
about past fryer jurchases. Objections can aio be a
guide to weai;nesses in the marketing of fryers.
Past purchases: The majority of the res.ondents,
511.1k percent, had no coulciints about fryers purchased
during the last year (Table 26). There is, however,
room for improvoent. TIe 228 respondents who were
not satisfied with past purchases listed :5 coip1aints.
Table 26
Number and percentage dltriUutioa
228 Portland res;ondentz y factors
disliked about fryers purchased during
the last year, June-July, 1960.
Factor disliked
Taste
percent
nunber
67
Appearance in package, not fresh
or not clean
Preservatives
22.5
12 6
6Li
Method of cutting
2
Size
21
Parts omitted
17
6,o
19.8
100.0
kespondeuts who stated that a fryc:
urchsed
Miscellaneous
Tot4l
during the last year "Just didn't taste
t
counted for 67 or 23.5 percent o the coiiipaints
49
listed (Table -6). The second most frequent coiiplaint
concerned the
..carance of the fryer in the. package.
Respondents wilu urchasod tryors wiiic aid no look
good, were not fresh, or were not clean accounted for
22.5 percwit of the coci:1aints, That this cociplaint
is i ofw.n'; is shovm by 4 .0 iercont or the respondents
replyin,' that
rance
the
ain thinLr, exweLnod
when purchin rryers (bie
yers:
total of 0U respondents were
eiher "very" or uitc" satisfied with twh last cut-up
fryer urchased. iospondents iiho were not too"
"not at all" satisried nuibered 3G, while l answered
Cut-u..
that they cLi1n't wwow.
The aaia factor disliL:ed :bout the last cut-up
fryer purchased was the failure of the ea. Cutter to
separate the iey irOm the thighs. This factor accounted
for 25.2 crc
of the objections (Table 7).
Twenty three respondents complained because the
breast
t cut in liali', where
o.iaincd
because the breast
in half (Table 7)
points out the probieas encountered in trying
utisfy everyone.
This
BUYING PRACTICES
rous die? ds 1aich Never Purchase Broilers
jost households serve broilers a
s evidenced, by
Table 27.
Number anä percentage u.ibtri;ution o
l)ü Portland re .:oncents by fz.ctors
JisLioã out tho ict cut-up fryer
Jrne-JuIy, 1960.
Factors disl:L.ot.
Legs not separated from thighs
Breast not cut in half
nuii; e
orcent
23
23
15
17,6
17,6
Not a complete c].icken
3
6.1
Breast cut in half
3
Back not cut across
3
Bone splinters
Not cut at joints
iscel1aneous
Total
21
131
ii.4
2.3
16.o
100.0
the fact that only 17 out of 520 respondents stated
that they never serve broilers. Three rosondents
answered thct they did not purchase broilers because
they raises heir own.
The
cipal reason given or not serving
broilers as ha- the espondents o their fa:uilies
did not like the flavor o broilers
I,
Flavor or taste also accounted ior 23. percent of
the objections to broilers purchased during tne last
year (Table 26).
The five resondents who preare1 very 10 ideals
were older, single me: (Table. ) * This
.:-i
(i) the significnt1y greater ratio of men to
rojen
51
Table 2 8
Re
nc ercentage distribution of
17 Po tind respondents by reasons given
for nover serving broilers, June-july,
NuL.lber
nu7icr
on.
cc ut
Don't like broilers
1k7 .0
Prepare very fe meals
Religious reasons
Health reasons
29.3
12.0
12 0
Tot
2
I.
17
in the households which never purchased broilers,
compared with households which did, and
(
)
significantly sller size of the households.
ho
Respond-
ents who never urchase broilers were also older and
had a lower level of education than respondents who
purchased broilers.
Reasons for Purchasin
Respondents who purchased fryers because their
faaily either liked or rreforr ed thci rde up 77.8
percent of the
Table '9). This reason was
:riced and econoaicaI", ehich u
1;ercent of the i-epondents. The r
ents gave an average of 1.8 re:sons for purchasiu
fryers.
followed by
given by
A Washington study found that the reasons most
Table 29.
Nwnber and percentage distribution of
500 Portland respondents y reasons
given for purchasinç iryers, JuneJuly, 1960.
Roas
nuith er
Family likes or prefers
Low price and economical
Ease ot' preparation and serving
Variety in aea1s
Easy to take on picnics
good cold
Nutritional value
339
181
l5
35
30
30
Other
Total
percent
77 3
36.2
29.0
11.0
6.0
6,0
15.8
909
often given for purchasing' fryers ere fai1y iie
fryers," 36 percent, and "econony," 31 percoït (17,
p. 13),
Only 6.0 percent of the Portland resondents gave
nutritional value as a reason for purchasing fryors
(Thblo 29).
Factors Considered When iurchasin Fr' or
rt1and rooidents averaged about two facto: S
which they consider when purchasing a fryer (Table
30). The factor most often considered wa j:earanco,
that the fryer was clean, fresh, and firm. This factor
was considered by 114e0 percent of tie respondents. A
fryer with a weaty appearance was wanted by 'kl.6 percent
53
of the consuIiers interviewed. Size or weight wS
rorcent of tile respOndonS when
considered by
making a purc1wse, nd 10,8 percent said that the aain
thing they looked for was price.
Table
o.
zad :efcdntagc disLribu.tion of
500 PortL.d respondents by factors
conidered idien purchasing fryors,
Juic-Ju1y, 1960.
Factors
nvuh or
perc 011
0
App e;trance
Meaty appearance
Size o weight
210
173
Skin color
Oregon-ron or brand label
Price
Miscellaneous
Nothing or don't know
Total
rz
20
41.6
42,0
34,6
13.2
10.8
14,4
4.9
1025
The principal factors considered by Seattle conin fryer s crc z ehiaosz, clearLlien urc
uier
ness, ano prce in tna order, Size or ioight ;a
rarued eigntn aiionc fcors considered (1/,
coridorA study in Houto Toaa found tho
ations in pure aSiid :rez 1'rye: :eic color, 4-a Prcdnt;
p1uipness, 41 percert; ;reiht, 25 Lrcent; c1enlineas,
24 percent; .L're
llCSS , 2
brand, 7 percent (8, p. 2).
;ercent ;
nd doond1b1e
54
!ae Practices
A question of interest to the fryer industry
COnCerns the effect of sales on the consuapticm Of
fryers Nordhausor and Ferris found no evidence that
featuring fryer's a low prices one week hd any carryover £nflucnc0 on sales response to price the following
week (9, . 800). flame iindjn indicate that fryer
specials had a prsziyy. effect on 1:ound voluise sales
of' fryors durin the ost-slo week. Gross receipts
from fryer sales, however, ¶Tere practically the saao
during sale and non-sale wee:s (13, p 12). This nas
due principally to a post-sale price which was highe
than average,
The assumption in this study was that cortsuners
who store iryers more than one week freeze tho and
are therefore in a position to take advantage of specie I
sales. The effect of specLJ. ales, however, cannot be
determ.zjned from a question on length of' storage, This
iust be done through actual in-the-store exaoriisents.
Findings show that 6.G ercent of the Portland
respondents store fryers ou one day to over four
weeks (Table 31). Respondnt wh StOL.ed frycrs macre
than one weeiz nade
up 'i6.4 percent of the saapl.
A
study in Houston, Texas, £'ound tnat 90 per cent of the
respondents
chicken three days or less before it
was cooked (8
p. 3).
Table 319
Nuber and percentge distribution ai
00 Portland respondents by length of
tLe fryors re stored, June-July,
1960.
Length of storage time
1-3 days
nwber percent
6,3
4-7 days
l2 ieeLs
3-4 wees
Over
,±
4 weoL:s
110
Do not store
157
Do not knor how 1on;
Total
500
i0
100.0
The respondent's age, level of living, level of
oducation, ani Liiy size were sources of variation
in the length of storage of fryer s. Length of storage
tended to increase s the res[;ondent's
increased
up to age 50. Approiatoly 5 percent of the respondents 50 years and over did not stare fryer s (Appendix
Table 11). Length of storage also tended to increase
with increases in the level of living (Appendix Table
12). Appendix Pablo l shows that 44 ;ercent of
families witb one or to -iersons did not store fryors.
The relationship between level of education and length
of storage is io1c in Apendix Table -S
Attitude toward fryers as an everyday or special
occasion food was statistically related to the leagth
a
storage (Appendix Table 15). Respondent-S who con-
sidercd fryers a food for everyday nea1s tonced to
store iryers iereas re;.)ondent5 who considoed fryors
cia1 occasions had a tendency
a Load for holidays and
to not store fryors.
No relationship existed between 1on.th of stora-;e
and preference for Oregon-grorn fryors, or length of
storage and willingness to pay a preIiwn for Oregoncrown fryers.
Last Purchase
Portland consumers
a had purchased a fryer
during the week prior to being interviewed do up
55.2 percent of the response (Table 32). An additional
33.6 percent of the respondents had purchased a fryer
during the month prior to being interviewed. Only
11.2 percent had not purchased a fryer within the previous 30 days.
A Washington study found that
47
rcent of the
Seattle cons rs interviewed iad purchased fryers
during the week prior to tha urvoy; 22 percent had
purchased two woe: prior; 15 percent had purchased
within four weeks; and 15 percent had purchased fryers
more than four wos prior to the survey (17, p. 36).
Factor :roiroting:
"I just wanted a fryer" was the
57
reentago distribution of
since last fryer purchao, June-
Table 32. Nu-ber
ü
Portlantl resoents y !onth of
nuibor percent
Time period
Within last 7 days
Within last 11 days
Within last 30 days
Within last 60 days
Wjthi.n last 12 onths
Nore than one year ago
276
55.2
93
i8 6
75
39
12
3
Can not rethember tiiae
Total
15,0
7.8
2
.6
2
300
100.0
percent, of the
respondents to make their last fryer purchase (Table
factor which prompted 197, or
39.
factor considered when purchasing a fryer by only 10.3 percent of the respondents
:ercent Ci? the csuira intorvio d.
(Table 30), yet
r because of a 1or
were profJpted to buy their 1:L
33).
Price was iven as
in points out the necessity of actual
price. This
sales e:periments to determine the effects of price
changes on the quantity of fryors rurchasede
den asked io
Factors
they deteried the location of their last fryer purchase, 65.6 percent of the respoidents stated that
they bought from a regular store or dealer (Table 3)
58
Table 33.
'ber and
c3ntaTe cIistribu:ion e
Portlaii ros;ondcmts by factor
iLt1fl last fryc2: urchae, JuneJuly, 1960.
Fa tor
Just wanted a fryer
or
nu
197
Were s ciaIly iriced
r
S2eci.1 OccLon
Stocking u refrigerator or
ire o or
Variety in meals
Fryer looked good
He bit - buy er iocUcally
8.0
6.o
-# .
i4iscelJ.aneous
11.0
Total
Table 34.
561
Nuiaber and percentage distribution of
500 Portland rzpoudents by f;ctors
:influencingtbcir lust fryer urchase
June-July, 1960.
Factors
umber
,orcent
Buy from regular store or dealer
;hoin; at stor2
Nomaer advortiie:ets
Wa
3ecja1 onitectio
Store handbills
Niscellmeous
Total
iii ;tore
7
500
100.0
An additional 17,6 ercent said tt. they ppened to
be shopping at that particular ,tore. Only 9.0 percent
of the consumer interviewed were influenced by necpaper adv t OOuL5 or store hdbiils.
Location: Purci:e at ineendeut atores accounted
for 46.4 percent of the fryer urc se; de by te con-
ors intervjeie1 (Table 5), e;ioni c'
,2.6 percent 01 tile sales, w.th Frec i'leyor accounting
for a1iost one-half. Safewoy, he only national chi,n,
accounted for 18.4 percent of the sales.
Table 35.
Nwiber and percent'e distribution of
500 Portland respondents by store
hero last fryer was purchased, JuneJuly, 1960.
Store
numb or
Independent stores
p crc out
232
Sat eway
92
18.4
Fred 1eyer
78
6
Albertsons
21
7.6
4.2
Pig1y Wily
1
Kienows
Columbia ILrhet
Lut or
Can not rc;iciiber
No azisrer
Total
9
I
12
1
500
.2
C
S
100.0
60
FRYER ADVETIsINi
Most people connected with advertisjn recognize
the numerous ditficjtje involved in measuring con
succr awareness and the effectiveness of advertising.
A consumer's recall of particular thrertisjrg is dependent on such variablos as tjc L:ced since exrosure
and the freiuency of exposure to the advertisoent.
in seasuring cffectivecss of advertising, it is impossible to hold all of the relevant factors constant,
Keeping these limitations in iiind, an atterpt was made
to evaluate past fryer advertising,
Three out of five consumers were not aware whether
their stores featured fryers as Oregon-grown,
Consumer's
response when asked if their store featured fryers as
Oregon-grown was "yes", 37.6 percent; "io",
cent and: "do not know", 41,4 percent.
21.o per-
These results
seem to indicate th;t ui-store and point-of-purchase
advertising for Oregon-gi
lye
at
the time
ifl fryors was not very c1fect-
01' this study.
Tables 33 and 34 in the rrevious section show that
in most cases advertising wa
when consuJors
riot a deciding; factor
urchased their 1:4st fryer.
was not the principal factor
chase (Table 33).
Advertising
roting any fryer pur-
Newspaper advertising,
however,
6].
helped deteru.i:ine the store where 7.6 ercent of the
respondents made their last fryer urchase (Table vi-).
respondents Aade purchases
Another 1.4 percent
after reading a handbill from the store.
Awareness of Posters Used
ondent was shown a series of four colored
posters advertising Oregon-grtnn fryors. hesponde.nts
were then asked to indicate whether they had seen any
Each
of the four posters in a store at any time.
(Black and
white copies of the posters are included in Appendix .)
Posters were shown to the respondents in the following
order: first, poster A showin Oregon-grown fryors as a
arbecued fryfaiiily favorite; second, poster ii show
cr5; third, poster C proLaotiri a recipe contest; and,
f you had purchased youi second
fourth, poster D ask
Orogongrown fryer this week. Three of these posters
had been made avail&jlc to Orcori retail outlets. The
fourth, poster D, was a Was?iin.ton Fryer Cission
poster in which the word, Washin;ton, ad been covered to
read Oregon.
It had been displayed only in adinton
stores. Results of this question again show the difficulty in rn asuring awareness of advertising. More
respondents indicated seeing the washington poster
than any of the other three posters (Table 36). in all
cases a high percentage of the respondents had not seen
ptOOJ
uooqo stat
OOO
At
pe!-çA.xe;u
O. 9UO.Xe.UT ;so
O1OUT
ntto
0' :; Jo
..zcod onooq..niq oq
tZPUO"SO.T OtT; JO
Sut;e.xe;ut ;ow ;xu o
e; ;i;
oq)
io;ocX uotx
OL
O.
oq
T1OO1c!
o':' xot.j;ta
nso.x pou-qwo
uoptzoax eq; o ;uotoci
uoq;
it ..i;ocT onooq.ttq otj,
rO(T.
SORT
o toqi o;totput O4 pOt
oq
UOtUOIU &[flOTOId
uopuoro
ro
8E3 XOJ OOUOX3JO.Xd
6iI
- C!
6
959
SOTXO3 -
0' t
D
-V
MOtz3'
. $ XXOfl
.xa;od
ON
096T 'k'natm
odmoj. ott; jo £u
tq
O. OO)T &(
ueas PtT
.
1j JO
-.XOd
Ut1t? uot;sonb
0I9..SO.X pur-(
o2;ttooio
'9 O[qtJ,
uojs
aq; o. euodso oq;
o. onp q2on tonz" voA':? oq ;ou pno ouoda.i o&-r;
toAxj uko.x-uoZo.xo uT;op
o! otj.
--r oc
Ot
63
Table 37.
Poster
Percentage distribution of 425 Port
1eud respondents by response to the
quction, "Which poster is the most
and next most interesting to you?"
June-July, 1960.
most interesting next uost total
intorestincr
Percent of resiondents
A - Family
1.1
27
13 - Barbecue
47.0
1.7
30.5
21,0
2.4
39.5
4.' 7
9.7
C - Contest
U - Washington
Don't know
Total
100.0
10%)
21.8
34.0
33.0
7.2
100.0
Reasons for Poster Preference
A-Fa:iily: The main reason given for preferring
the family poster was that the chicken looks so appetizing and realistic. This reason uudc up 32.7 percent of
the reasons given. Other reasons were color stands
out, 30 percent; is fixed the way we like our chicken,
8.2 percent; good background and art work, 7.3 percent,
and; miscellaneous, 21.3 percent.
13-Jiarbecue: Fifty percent of the respondents
liked the barbecue poster because it 1oo:ed so ap]:>etizing and realistic and the barbecue theme s timely.
The reasons given were like barbecue theie, 26.3 percent; looks appetizing and realistic, 25.3 percent;
good background and art work, 18.2 percent; color
6 li
stands out, 16,3 percent; is fixed the way we fix our
chicken, 5.2 percent, and; miscellaneous,
C-Contest:
8.7 percent.
Only seven respondents thought tht
the contest poster was the most interesting.
their reasons
concerned their
Most of'
interest in entering
contests.
D-ashington: The principal reason for preferring
the Washington poster was because it looked o appeti
ing and realistic,
p rcent.
Other reasons 'ere
color stands out, 22.3 percent; is fixed the tay we fix
our chicken,
9.7
percent; good background and art work,
5.8 percent; 1iie theue,
2.tf
percent; and, aiiscellaneous,
20.5 percent.
The reason most often given for preferring a poster
was that the chicken looked so
appetizing
and realistic.
This reason was followed by the respondents preference
for a colorful poster.
OREGON LABELING LAW
The Oregon Labeling
La;,
passed August 5, 1959,
makes it mandatory for ret,ilors to identify by label
all fryers offered for sale in Oregon as to where they
were grown and the additives, if any, that they contain.
The label must not be less than one inch in height and
one and one-half inches in width in legible letters or
figures of not los
than three-si:tcenths of an inch
in height, with the words "grown in (here inser; the
ne of the state in which the fryer as grown)". If
the fryer co:ains additives, the label aust also have
the words "preservatives added(here insert a list of
either their osn or
the preservatives added u.sin
technical
1105 ".
This label must be affixed to the
fryer or container so it is easily readable by consumers
or purchasers.
Violatiuxi of the law is a iisdeenc,r
and circuit courts are authorized, upon petition of
the Oregon Fryer Comission, to enjoin by teijorary or
pernwnent
injunction any violation of the act (10, p.
585-587).
With the passage of the labeling law it is now
possible for Oregon fryer producers to differentiate
their product in the same manner as mary other
products are differentiated
The region of production
is a good method of differentiation because of the
perishbility of fresh fryors.
The average shelf
life of uiitreated fryers is about seven or eight days
from
the time of processing.
west coast frohl the southern
its shelf life.
A fryer shipped to the
states uses up
half of
A locally grorn fryer should, there-
fore, be a fresher product.
The promotion program of the Oregon Fryer
66
Ctuaiission is designed with the objective of increasin
the de;and and also making the dind less elastic for
Oregon-grown fryors.
This will, be accomplished when
Oregon consumers insist on purchasing an Oregon-grown
fryer at the same price as or at a higher price than,
competing fryors.
Attitude Toward Labeli
Portland consumers wore
thor or not they
believed fryers should be labeicd to show the state
where they were produced.
zec. w
This question c.ras dezi;ncd
to load up to the next question on why they believed
a fryer should be labeled. The majority of respondents,
61.6 percent, believed that fryers should be labeled
(Table 93), Three percent gave a definite 'no" an swer,
The remaining answers were of an uncertain nature.
Table 33. Number ud percentage di:3tribution o
500 Portland respondents by attitude
expressed toward labeling, Juno-July,
1960.
Attitudes
Yes - should be labeled
No - shou1 not be labeled
Does not
Don't hnow
tter
tal
26
percent
61.6
3,0
30.2
5.2
500
100.0
number
308
15
151
67
The princij.al reason given for having fryers I
beled was that the consumer wanted an indication of
freshness
(Table 39),
should purchase Oregon
Respondents who believed they
products to aid
Oregon's econoey
gave 29.2 percent of the reasons given.
Table 39.
iulither and percentage
distribution of
500 Portland respondent3 by reasons
given for having fryers labeled, JuneJuly, 1960.
Reason
nuniber
Indication of freshne.s
1 ii:0
Should ,;atronize Oregon products
108
percent
37.9
29 2
7.0
3.0
Curious
26
Like Oregon products
11
Prefer brand nanes
20
Want to know if treated
19
5.4
5.1
Miscellaneous
Total
4'G
12.4
100.0
Frequency of serving fryers was a source of variation in the respondent's attitude toward having fryers
labeled.
There was a decided tendency for respondents
who thought that fryers should be labeled to be the
ones who served fryers most frequently, whereas respondents who answered that it did not uatter tended to
serve fryors only once or twice a month (Appendix Table
16).
Attitude toward the use of additives and opinion
on labeling were related. Seventy-two percent of the
respondents who thought fryors should be labeled
either liked or disliked the use of additives (Aendix
.es;ondents who answered that it did not
matter if fryers ero or were not labeled also had no
strong feeling toward the use of additives.
Almost 84 percent of the respondents who answered
that they would be willing to pay at least two cents
uore per pound for an Oregon fryer wanted the fryei'
they purchased labeled. Respondents who ;ou1d pay no
reium for an Oregon fryer tended to answer that they
did not care wheter yors wore or were not labeled.
Table 17).
isted be?n
ion an labeli
and the respondent's age, level of education, or length
No re1ationshi.
of residence in Oregon.
1edeofLa
Knowledge of the Oregon Fryer Labeling Law was not
widespread among the Portland consumers interviewed.
Respondents who were not aware of the law mmade up 68.4
percent of the saiap1e (Table 40), Of these, 13.6 per-
cent said that fryers were not required by Oregon law
to be labeled. Only 31.4 percent othe res'ondents
said that fryers were required by Oregon law to be
labeled.
69
Table 4o.
flumLer end
ercentagc distribution of
Portland res.;ondent by ivcn
answerz
the quosiiom, "Aic fryei'
requ1rec y rc;on law to carry a
label showin location of ioduction?"
June-July, 1960.
jLi'
nwber percent
Answer
Are required
Are not required
157
Other
Do not know
Total
31.4
68
i.6
3
.6
272
500
100.0
There were no rolationshi;s boteen knowledge of
the labeling lar and the respondents age, level of
education, or level of' living.
Ori'in of La t Fryer Purchas
iven thouii Oregon
I&oiin law it is not
difficult to rind fryer ciic are iioper1y labeled
or have no label. More than one-third of the cci or
interviewed did not !now where the last fryer they
purchased was grown (Table 4i).
These consumers either
noticed no label or forgot that they had seen one. Of
the 314 respondents who i1CJ wfere their last fryer was
grown, 257 or 1.0 percent said that the fryer was
labeled.
70
Table 41, Number and ercentage distribution of
500 Portland respondentS by otates
where last purchased fryer as rowu,
June-July, 1960.
State
number
Oregon
266
17
Washinton
i6
Idaho
Southern s
;es
California
5
percent
53.2
3.4
3.2
1.0
4k
P
Other
Don't know
r
186
Total
500
100.0
STJ11ARY AND CONCLUSIONS
The purose of this study as to determine as
nearly as possible the consumption patterns and denand
characteristics for fryers in the Portland metropolitan
area. Interviews wore conducted with 520 consw;iers to
obtain information concerniu their attitudes, preferences, buying practices, and consumption atterns for
fryers. informations also collected concerning
of fryer advertising and knowledge
of the Oregon 1abolin law.
Alziiost ta-t1iirds of the respondento considered
fryors an everyday food. Fryers were considered a
food for special occasion meals by 20 percent of the
consumer awarene
71
respondents. The reason most frequently given for
serving Iryers on holidays and secial occasions was
that "alriost everyone likes chicken". Other reasons
were "ease of preparation and serving ',oconoy,,
"chicken is good cold", and "chicken is a treat".
Al]. of these reasons seem to offer good copy for
fryer advertising.
Approximately 80 percent of the respondents
believed that fryors ucre a toed source oP roteins
and were also one of their best meat buys. Seventy
percent believed that Oreon-grown fryers were fresh
whereas only $6 percent believed that fryers were a
good f'ood for people who are watching their oi.cut.I
The low calorie content of chicken meat should be a
good selling point with people as diet conscious as
they are at present. They will, however, have to be
inforwed of the calorie content of chicken *eat.
The results of this study iiouid scc to indicate
that it will be pessible to expand fryer consmiption
in the Portland metropolitan area. Fortysoven percent
of the respondents served fryers two or los h times per
month.
Only about
31k percent served fryors weehly.
Approximately 2u percent of the consumers served fryers
more frequently on Sundays than on other days of the
weolz.
i'hreefourths of the respondents served fryors
72
at the evening meal on weekdays, whereas the response
was almost evenly divided between the noon and evenin
meals on Sundays and/or holidays. A progra to stimu-
late greater use of chicken at weekday flO011 meals and
for lunches could help to increase demand.
Linear relationships existed between freqtency of
serving and ;oth family size and the number ol' methods
of preparation used. Frying as the ost popular
method of preparation used during both ilnter and
summer. Portland respondents used an average of 2.1
methods of preparation, however, 165 respondents used
only one method.
Respondents 'tho used one method of
preparation served ryers an average of 2.49 times per
month, whereas those who used two or more methods
served fryers an average of 3.24 times per month.
promotion program
ich rovidos
A
umers with new,
easy-to-prepare recipes for chicken would be desirable.
Portland consumer reforred a variety of weights,
when purchasin ryers with the most popular weight
being 2¼-3 pounds.
Of the 66 consumers who could not
purchase the weight fryer preferred, 3 would have
preferred a fryer eighing over
rids. Older
respondents tended to prefer the heat er fryors.
almost tin-ceSkin color was a factor conidered
fourths of the respondents when purchasing fryers.
73
Fryors with both yellow and white skin should be offered to Oreg n cOflUiei
eferyuiçer re ondont
rect fryors with white skin, whereas older
ondens
preferred a biro
s tht
ih±
b. yollo
a lar.!: percent of fryors with white skin will b
preferred in the future.
Appro
tely two-third of the cc xier iat
purchased v. 1wle
fryer. When give:
between a :;ieic c icen cutup and particular ieccs,
three-fourr.. u. the
atc'
would t:;o a who!:; Cieei.t Catu:
stored fryor for longer :oriod3 01
hoi
t.at
i
:2oflde.
Iryor not CUtp,
Three out of five respondents were st interested
in a j:rice per pound quotation, whereas U percO were
aoro interested
co per packae quotatior.
There was a tendency for res.;ondentL
o preferred
a price per packaa'e quotation to also ;refer
ryer
ihin less than pounds. A price per pound quotation was preferred by respondents who preferred fryer
weihing over 3A pounds,
Sixty percent of the Portland r :ondent stated
that they pcforred to purchase an Ore
.j.n L"er.
Alsost one-half of the conz;irs
would pay a preLu
o
id that the
two or four cents a pound for
74
The principal reason given for
this preference was that Oregou-grom cas an indication
of freshness Other reasons were "should iatronio
Oregon productstt;
not
what I'
treated with prervaives", Approximately 9 percent
of the respcidonts who preferred an Or on-rown fryer
an Oregon-grown fryer.
also voiced o poit±on to the use of additives t
poultry I e:,1 Icer.
Oregon-rom Lryc
of Ceun industry
grown iryers are ai
oe
the friness
should be continued. u.ort
Promotion bazed
2b
f addit:Lve
prootiA ideas.
.au an objection
about a fryer rurchaseo during te last :ar "A fryer
purchased did not taste good" was the objection most
often mentioned, This objotion was closely followad
byt;pearance ifl the ackae. Tue main
disliked
about the last cut-u fryer purchased was the failure
AL.Aoe1; oue-i11 of the r
of the meat cutter to separate the leg. frosi the thighs.
Most of the objections could be eliminated with stricter
quality control in the processing plant an4i more care
in packaging fryers. Appearance in the cl ge was not
only on important objection, it was a major selling
point.
Only 20 rcE;:::ondents out of 520 indicated that they
never purchased iyers. Three of these respondents
:
75
raised their own fryers, ihi1e 13 indicated that they
either disliked the flavor of. Iryers or prepared very
few meals at home.
The principal reason given for purchasing fryors
was that ti respondent's family either iihd or proferred fryers Other reasons were cco;:y" "ease of
1.reparation", and "variety in ;tca1s". All of the reasons
could be used as ffec iv adver iia
Forty-four pore cut of the respondents cheched tie
fryers they purchased to eice sure t
they were clean,
fresh, and firm. Almost the
erc et looed for a
fryer with a eaty eppeeranco aud of te
nt weight.
Only one out of tcu consumers said that the main
thing considered was price.
Almost 50 percent o the resporideute customarily
store iryers longer than one wee. fhese are plobably
the consumers ho take advante o 0 Ice ecials on
fryers. Respondents over 30 years of age and with one
or two family iiembc-rs tei.ided to axswer t
they did
not store fryors. Length of storage tended to increase
witi) increases in the level of living.
Respondents elia had purchased a fryer during
weeh prior to Lc za'vey ade
.2 percew.. of the
sazsple. The naizz factor
;he last :urchase
was that the respondent just wanted a fryer.
76
Approxiiiiately two-thirds of the consumers pUrchased
their last fryer at their regular store or dealer.
almost one-half of the cases this purchase wai
In
ado at
an inde?endent store,
In-store and point-of-purchase advertising were
not very effective at the time of this survey.
Most
did not reAneber advertising of any type
as a strong :LLctor in influencing their last fryer
purchase. Fro 73 to 3' percent of the reS1OfldefltS
respondents
did not
seeing posters used to auvertso
Oregon-grown fryors in retail stores.
The largest
positive response was for a poster included for control
purposes which had never been displayed in Oregon stores.
Oregon has a labeling law which requires all fryers
sold in Oregon retail stores to have a label showing
the state in which they were grown and the additives,
if any, that they contain,
This law has made it pos
sible for the Oregon Fryer Commission to differentiate
£ryers by region of production and to undertake a promotion program based on this product differentiation.
Three out of five consumers believed that fryers
should be leboled to show the state rhere they were
produced.
the label
The principal res ons for this
were that
an indication of iresimess and Oregon
resid3nt.; should buy Oregon products
The respondents
7?
who wanted a label also tended to be the conswners 1ho
served fryers most frequEntly and LiO either definitely
li}ted or disliked the use of additives,
Knowledge of the Oregon labeling law wa not
widesred aon, de consuicrs interviewed
About
two-thirds of tii had no knowledge of the law.
Thirty-seven orcent of the respondents did not knote
where the last fryer they had purchased w gr on,
either because of no label or dii'fiulty in reca1lin
a laLel. ie1oiieias vouj.a proo)1y ac .iore c nscious
Oregon
of labels if
ad SOiC knotclod.'c o
laLelin, l:.
78
BIBLIoGPAPflr
1.
3
and ieorge J. 1ountney. Consumer attitudes and preferences rearding chIcken.
tiun, 1),o. l' p. (j.'exa. Aica1College
tural iKper:ucnt Station, Bulletin 895)
Fischer, Charles N. The long range progran of
the 0reon broiler industry. Corvallis, Oregon,
1960. 3 p. (Cooperative ixtonsion work in
Branson, I.obert
.
Agriculture and come conomic s)
C3u,or acceptance of fry ors.
Garin, TLwias I
Pullman, l9f, 10 j;, (dsshing .on. Agricultural
a oms Circular 5i7)
uriment Station.
John V. Spenc or Ac cc tanc e
Guiui, iomas I
ot a:;ib1otc treatsa poultry in ashngton.
giicultural
PulLn, 1)39. 7 . (
ii
Stations Circular 361)
Harms, John. Antibiotics enter poultry meat
field. Poultry Processing and 11aretin 61(12;18
1xporimont Station,
Dec. 1953.
HugIn, Charles E.
The commercial, broiler--from
this new giant rises a vibrant, complex industry.
Araour's Analysis 9(3);i-P, Dec. 1960.
Niller, Dr. ilbur H. Answers about acronize for
fresh-ki11e poultry. Poultry Frocessing and
arketn :L) 1., 43-k4. liar. 1956.
Nountney, G, J., R. E. Branson and H. V. Courtenay.
Preferences of chain food store shoppers in buying
chicken. College Station, 1959. l . (Texas.
Agricultural Experiment Station. 1%P-3C)
Nordhauor, Fred and Paul L. Farris. Ai estiaate
of the short-run pr:ice elasticity of demand for
fryers. Journal of Farm economics 4l(4) :79U-303.
Nov. 1959,
Oregon Laws (1959) Cha, 385,
Rowoll, Faul T. Jregon c
uitr commissions.
In; Oron Ste )part'cnt c
Agr.iculturl ul1cti.i
. 9-lu.
Agr:Leuituro
.o. 2. S Ic , 1),.
79
Saunders,
ichard.
Socio-psycho-ocononic differences beten high and low level users o± chicken.
Agricultural ExperiOrono, 19W.
(iaine.
9 p.
iAe1lt Station. A. E. irogres2 LeTort No. 2)
Sunier, ]Ucir
and Everot Soddard, II.
Effects of fryer s:ccials on supermarket sa1e
and profits. Urono, 19G3. 14 p. (ilaine,
Aricu1tura1 ix;;eriient Station,
isce1ktncous
Publication 643)
Stuart, Dale W,
Oreon irye1' eOiaaissiOfl.
In:
Oregon State Doartent of Agriculture Agricultural
Bulletin no, 2O.
1959. p.
U. S. ept. of Agriculture. Agricultural Marketing Service
iiarI;eting flesou-ch D:Lvision.
Consuar roferences, usuges', nd buying practices
for poultry products. Washington, 1958. 134 p.
(Mareting ±osearch ieport io. 252)
16,
U. S.
ept. o Agriculture. Crop ieporting
Board. Agricultural prices. Washington, April,
U4 p.
1901.
State Department of Agriculture.
Washington state fryer conmission report. Olympia,
ash.uigton.
196o.
64 p.
Western Agricultural Econo;zics Research Council.
Vertical integration in aricu1ture. Reno,
Nevada, 1959. 34 u (eport No. 3)
19,
Wilson, R. 13. and I. D. imith.
xpanding nearby
izar&ets for Indiana broilers. Lafayette, Indiana,
3
.
(Iudiana. Agricultural &.-eriient
1959.
Station.
c 162)
(i4iaeographed)
APPENDIX A
QULSTIONNAIRki
T ?f'.
/6o Fin
(J LL'
on Stako
1o11o, I worina on
rke survey f
Co 110
;ou1d like to ask you a few interesting
questi
if you don't mind.
1Soetimes eolo ssociate certain foods with
thday
NO
certain occasions. For
example, soie people
We ddin
associate turey iitn
O None
11 D.K. Anniversary iinksivin.
As I read
Dinner Party off each of these occao None
I),K, for Guests
sions, nil you please
tell e what food, if
any, you think of as
the main c&ish icr that
iioa1time occasion?
I also haVe a list
4th of July
U. K.
Leoria]. D
ow Year
y
holidays. As I name
each one, will you please
te:L1 se the main thing
you served for your meal
on that last holiday?
Day
WI thin
in
ci thin
like
you a i'cn questions
about chicken fryors.
Jhen did you last
purchase a fryer,
frycre, for a
Non,
last 7 days
(Ski
1 as t
( Si.::i
to
last U days
(s:i tc #4)
Within last Co days
to #4)
5
Within last i
( Skip ±r
zos.
14ore than 1 year
7
(Ski
Never purc1
(
8
o
)
ryrs
and then
to #37)
er time (Skip 0 #4)
81
3a-
Would you mind telling me why you don'
iryers?
(PROi3i)
1
A1bersons
2
3
6 Pily
Fred I4eyer
7 Safeway
Other
9 Cannot remember
I
ColumbiaNkt
Kienows
At what store, or place
did you last purchase a
chicken fryer?
iigly
Luthers
5- What are the main
5
buy chicken
nz you buy chicken ii
(PnoJ3E)
Any other roasons?
6- What are tha
thags you look for chen you buy
or pick out a chicken fryer?
Anything else?
1ack over the fryers you've purcha
liked about th fryors you've bou;k;? (:*OBk!
Loo.dn
the last year, irhat this, if any, haven't y:
An thiii. else?
.K.
Times a month
1 3 or more ti;es a
2
3
tk
6
7
8
Twice a week
Once a week
Once every 2 weeks
Once a month
oek
Once wery 2 mos, or los
often
Never serve on weekdays
D.K.
About how many times a
month do you serve
chicken fryors as the
vain meat for a meal?
Will you please look
at this card (HANi.) CARD
i
TO 1ESPONDENT) and tell
me which one of these
best describes how often
you generally serve
chicken fryers on weekdays -- onday through
Saturday?
82
101
3
I
5
6
i.1i you please 1oo1
Every Sunday
Ti:o Sunday
this card (HAND CARD
iiionth
One iundzy a Lonth
One Sunday every 2 mos.
or less
Never on Sundays
D.K.
ii1
On weekdays, do you en
Evening
Noon
4
Mout even
Don't serve on weekdays
5
D.i..
1
2
3
4
Evening (1.
S
D.K.
Noon (Up to
About oven
or later)
£i.
dii)
Don't serve on Sundays/
holidays
131
0
3
4
and tell m bow often
you generally serve
chicken fryors on Sunday
orally serve chicken
fryers ore often at the
noon theal, or at the evening meal?
On Sundays and holidays,
dO you
e]crcdiy servo
fryeri iorc olten at the
no on se a l or at the
evening íea1?
Do you consider chicken
iryers aain1y as a ioou
for regular everyday
No djL'erence
izea1s, or as a food that
J.K.
is served iairLiy on holidays and secia1 occasions?
What are the main reasons, if any, that you serve
(woult.
v) c'uc en frycrs on hul-i)
U
special ooce;ions? (PRoBir!)
keu1ar everyday nea1s
Ho1idays/s.ecia1 occasions
Any other reasons?
1
2
3
4
5
ion.
Thes.
Wed.
Thurs.
Fri.
6
7
8
9
Sat.
c
No one
D.K.
ci
I
Considering the entire
week, is there any one
day on which you serve
chicken fryers noro
oi'ten than other days?
(If YES)
1hat day?
or ways ,
In wh t
have you cooked chicken
LLke CI
fryoro within the past
ye r?
Oven barbecued
Era is ed
3roi1ed 1:
ove
3r oiled
charcoal
Doe p f-t fr
7
Oven fried
9
P an
O the
a
ci
i-led
S1( IF COOiCED IN kOih ThAN ONE
Al (Above)
Now do you cook
chicken
fyers most often during
Oven barbecue
the winter tie?
Jr a is e
Jroil-stove
5
6
5
6
7
7
8
8
9
0
droil-ci.arcoa1.
ry-deep fat
?ry oven
Fry-i.
D.K./alwztys
Other
171
-'-.
Over
I
-1/4 lbs.
3-1/4 lbs.
2-l/f 1s.
4
D.L.. or
matter
Yes
No
r
, .
191
2
3
4
How do you cook chickei,
fryors most elton durLn
the sthser t:Lmc?
Particular pieces cut up
Jho1e chicken cut up
Whole chicken (not cut up)
D4. - can't remeber
ci
('
c-
are three sizes o
ehichen fryers. \.iliich
one of theSe sizes do
you prefer to buy?
The iaot time you bouti
a chicken fryer, wore you
able to buy the size you
wanted, or not?
In which onc of these
s the last
forms
chicken fryer you )ur(hAND RY.'SPON
chased?
DENT CAkD 1))
$t
The last t1iie you bought
20-.
a chicken fryer cut u,
how satisfied were you
cut
Not too (ALii 2O-a)
ty it
with the
3
Not at all (As; #20-a
- very satisfil,
O.K.
(skip to #21)
quito satisfied, not too
5
sLLjsiied, or not satisfiod
at all?
20-a ASK IF "NOT TOO" Oi "NOT AT ALL" SATISFIED (IN Q-20
What was it .....t you didn't like too well about the
way your
chicken fryer was cut up? (PRoBE!)
1
2
Very (Skip to #21)
Quito (Skip to #21)
li
lztt
Anything else?
211
2
Whole chicken cut up
Particular iecos
Other
t mat er
OK.
5
22
1
2
Yes
tk
No
Other
O.K.
231
2
3
L
White
Yellow
No preference
O.K.
When you buy cut-up fryers,
do you generally prefer to
buy a whole chicken cut up
in parts, or a package
containing particular pieces
cut up?
When you buy chicken fryers,
do you pay any attention to
the color of the skin, or
not?
As you may know, soue
chickens have a yellow
colored skin, while others
have a white colored skin.
Do you have any preference
between white and yellow
co1ord sin on fryors?
(If Ye) Which do you prefer?
Do you happen to know in
what state the last fryer
you purchased as
1
0
California
3
Oregon
Southern state(s)
Washington
Other
No
know Sip to #25)
_ -
tk
5
6
7
- - - * - -
- * -
---*-------
24-a ASK IF A STATi CU AUEA NMktD IN ABOVE QUESTION
Uow did you find out, or how did you know, in
which state the fryer was grown?
2
1
2
4
Do you th:ink chicken
Yes-should (Ash #25-a)
No-should not (Skip to 26)
Doesn't ter(Srip to 26)
D,K. (:i;
o
fryers should carry a
label telling in what
state they were grown,
or not?
2
25-a IF"YS"
Why do you thinh chicken fryors should carry a
label telling where they were produced? (PhOI3E!)
Anything e
1
2
3
4
Other_____________
D.K.
1
Oregon (Ask #27-a)
Southern (Ask #27-a)
Other
(Ask #27-a)
iJ,i. (S'zip to z)
2
3
4
5
-
it yoir impression
Are required
Are not required
that chicken fryors are,
or arc not required by
oregon law to carry a
label showing in which
state they were grovn?
Sose people prefer to
buy chicken fryors grown
in Oregon, while others
prefer to buy chicken
fryers grown in the
Southern states which
co you prefer to buy, or
Doesn't iatter (Skip to
27-a
--*---
doesn't it matter?
WHY do you prefer to buy
---
2
(PROthI)
Any other reasons?
1
2
3
4
Yes (Ship to #29)
No (Ask r2-a
Maybe (Ask
D.i. (Ask
ould you be willing to
pay four cents wore per
pound for ehickon fryors
groin in Oregon than in,
say, the Southern states?
1
2
3
4
would you be willing to
pay two cents siore per
pound for chicken Iryers
produced in Qreon than
Yes
No
Maybe
D.K.
in the Southern states?
291
2
3
4
Price or 3ouacl
Price or
Other
cie
Yes - I -
Yes - 4
ays
Yo
-145 Ycs-3-toeks
- over 4
YeL
6
7
interested in the price
per pound, or the price
per package?
D.1(.
301
2
3
In your buying of chicken
fryors, are you Lilore
No - do not store
D.K. how long
Do you ever store fresh
or frozen chicken £ryers
in your freezer, or the
freezing coTiartient of
your referigerator?
(If YES)
About what is
the average
ti you uual1y
store fryers in
the freezer?
1
2
3
4
3
As you iiy in :, additives
are soietiiiies used on
chicken f'ryers to maintain
quality. How do you feel
D.K.
about the idea of using
additives on fryers -do you like the Idea,
dislike the idea, or
don't you care?
The last time you bought a chicken frye iia
pronipted you to buy it t that tiie?
Like idea
Dislike idea
Don't care
Anything else?
32-a How did you deterrtine where you were going to
buy it?
(INT:VIER:
.dvertising't mntioned in either
32 or 32-a,
advertising?"
"Yhat kind of
nero
TPT1T
each one, will you please tell ie whether you.
generally agree or disagree with that stateuont.
The first ort&? is
A$rec JJioe D..
CJi&zen fryors are
fresher when they're
Oregon grom?
1
2
1
2
CIic;eit fryers are a
good source of rotein
Pound for iound, chicion
fryers are one of your
st meat buys?
Chicken fryer meat is a
good food for people who
are watching their
ueight?
Does the store where you
buy most of your meat
advertise :its fryors o
Oregon grom?
Yes
1
2
3
No
D.K.
are four chic: fryer j:osters or advert±soents0
As I show you each one, will you 1ce toil
YOU flaj.;OUO( to sco it in a store at OOiO t1O?
35_ Here
Yez-
v.
f-
_, S L *
1
1
3.
3.
A- Faii ly
1)-Barbecue
C-Contost
2
0
3
n
1)-Second
Interviewer:
Most
Ne;t i10
respondent Call compare
A- Fa.xi1y
3
!i
5
5
Spread
out all four ads so
i-Darbecue
C-Contest
1)-Second
D.K.
*-
them)
Now, 1oo.dng at these
four ostors together,
is
the most interesting to
which one if the
you?
Ihich is ne>i
interesting?
ost
----------- - - * - * -
- _S*S----to you.
vThat are tao main reasons tnat one s most intcresting to jou?
36-a You say tuis is tho one nost mnterestin
37-
iould you mind tellin;
Grate or no schooling
High schoI
Some co1lo
1
2
3
4
Uie last grc' de you
copietoa in scnool?
Finished coiIeo
hat type of word does
the head of the house-
'rype
I ndustry
hold do?
Nuiab or
Inc1udin yourself, how
many persons are there
39-
regularly living in this
ii ou s oh old?
Jhat is th
approxima
a;e of each of these
persons?
40-
Ho
I Less thn 1 year
2 1 - yc
3 5 -9 years
4 10 years or aoro
1
2
Jale
Feia1e
3
4
5
6
long h ;
you lived
in the Stat oj Ore:on?
Under 30
0-39
40-4)
1
2
3
Upper-A
Uppor.-J3
.JiJ,d1e-C
Portland City
Portland Fringe
50 or over 4 Lower-I)
(intervieer; Al]. four categorieo ust have a code
circled)
Phone nuither of resoordent
(for verification only)
Signature) s (Interviewers
(Date)
(Address
,1960
contact. the of account accurate
true a represents and address, following the at
talen actually was interview this certify hereby I
nd
usd.)
substitution '1ethor or
callback, the on hold,
house- assind to call
original on completed
interview whether NTERVIIi:Circle
Substitution
Callback
call Ori:Lwi
X
3
2
1
39
90
APPENDIX 13
cii' L;VLS oF
Out of every 100 faii1ies in a coun
two
or three most prospercus -- or wealthy -- be1ng in this
top oconoi.ic groui. Geiierally, these families have, or
could have, if they
hcc1, all the lu:zuries
ropriate
to the comiriunity in which they live. While tho concrete
evidences of :realth and roajerity differ frau place to
place, the co;won c1enoinator of this grout; is the fact
they generally can afford the luxuries which are available in the community in which they reside.
Wealthy persons will be found folloing certain
occupatiou more frecuently than others -- bank executive, L:r cattle rancher, holder of mining interests,
lawyer, physici
contractor, or the like. iany
ill have a high level of foral education; a gooc :uaLor rill be older.
realthy persou
li-to-do)
In thi
up fail the uo::. i
ous fwiiies cut of every 100
be called
r aLddle class." These people can take
the necessities and eo!forts of life for rantc, but
differ from the wealthy in that their eboice of the
luxuries available in their oa'uunity is limited. Unlike the wealthy, they must choose the luxuries which
they raost want.
Frequently, these popie follow a professional or
se1&i-profeso:i. line of business, such as orit.stry,
pharaacy or siiilar pursuits. lie may be a professor of
high standing, an owner or operator of a fairly sll
or medium-size busine
(judged in relation to other
businesses in the coiunity), or an executive below
the top ranks.
may also be a highly-skilled tec
nician or contractor,
1-b
kiddie Class
A large share of the population falls in this
class. The middle class comprises about 59 or 0
out of every 103 families in a community. Like the
wealthy and well-to-do, they have all the necessities
and some or even all the comforts of life available
to their eoaunity. Unlike the wealthy and well-to-do,
they have few, if any, luxuries and may, in some eee,
lack most of the tanU le cohiforts, according to the
local standard of living scale.
The bulk of the middle class group may be found
in skilled and semi-skilled occupations, such as mechanical and production workers; experienced clerical
92
workers and retail sales employees; overnient eloyeoS
federal, state, county and municipal; owners or operators
of small businesses with liuiited sales VOithile (as coparod
with other businesses in the conmity).
Lo
About l-2O percent of the families in the community
fall in this group. None of them has all, ulthouh they
£ the items which are considered necessary
may have
to an acceptable stan(.tard of living in the community.
When members of the "lower income group have jobs, they
are usually in those occupations which pay the locrest
wages in the community .-- coiou day labor; cua1 employment; typos of domestic service ;here te J.1l or
experience is required; unskilled and poorly paid
industrial or farm labor; or certain yi)eS of clerical
the 20 25
At the bottom of the scale -won:
out of 100 lower-income ;ersons -- are the destitute,
people on relief, many old age pensioners, many of the
unemployed and the unemloyables.
93
APPENDIX C
CHI-SQUA1E TABLES
Tdblc 1.
Nuiber distribution of 500 Portland respondents by family size and frequency of serving
fryors er month, June-July, 1960.
Family
Size
1 person 16
2 persons 27
3 persons l'k
4 persons 19
5 persons 12
17
34
6persons
7persons
5
3
15
31
10
Table 2e
1
25
30
6
1
5
3
17
19
10
25
3
8
4
3
1
6
1
3
4
4
2
3
0
1
12
17
16
8
3
2
3
4
3
3
5
2
8 persons 1
9 persons I --
6
1
3
1
1
I
1
--
--
--
--
_-_
-
Nunber distribution of' 500 Port1id respondents by number of othods of preparation
used and frequency of serving frycrs per
onth, June-July, 1960.
s ervjrior.orith
Number of
methods of1
iDr epara-
2
One
41
20
27
79
53
72
tion used
Ione
7
Nuiaber of' resondents
4
16
1
More than
one
55
21
15
II
20
a
Table
Nuibor ditr±bution of 500 ortind rcondants by ae end weight of li'yer rofeioc,
June-July, 1960.
preference (.;ounds)
under 2 don't know
re son dents
we I
Age (years)
over 3
under 30
16
3039
23
29
60
40-49
50 and over
Table 4.
46
72
4
1
17
59
93
23
Nubor distribution Q 50 Portland respondeits by age and skin color preference, JunoJuly, 1960.
Age (yeaz
white
under 30
52
30-39
40-49
16
16
24
36
1k7
23
32
50 and over
45
Table 5.
none
rO1lO1.
Nubor of res:)ondents
53
uher i.strLblLtion of 5O) Portland resoxid-
ants 1y level of educition and skin color
erenco, June-July, 1960.
Level of education
white
Finished college
none
Nuiber of res oudents
Erado or no schooling
High school
Sonic college
reforence
_.1ow
126
40
21
'k
"I
70
70
38
14
19
13
95
Table 6.
Number distrIbution of 500 Portland resondcolor
ent by level of living and
preferonco, June-July, 1960.
Love? of living
Upper - A
Upper - B
Middle - C
Lower - D
skin color iroferonce
2llow
none
ihite
Nuwer o' resondents
3
0
41
142
17
96
32
94
21
27
13
1
Table 7, Number distribution of 500 Portland respondents by length of time fryors are stored and
form preference, June-July, 1960.
Length of storage
fori preference
whole
particular
(cut u)
Number of rosiondents
whole
frj 1.CCC S
1-3 days
tk-7 days
1-2 weeks
3
8
20
50
11
16
4
39
25
weeks
5
over 4 weeks
15
Don't store or don't know 20
18
41
121
19
96
Table 8.
Nurbor distribution of 500 Portland respond
ont by preferred price quotation anu weight
preference, June-Ju:Ly, 1960.
Preferred price
quotation
Price per pound
Price per package
Other
Don't know
iizt:rierence ( bounds)
under
over 33 2Nuiber of resonden
95
11
41
39
15
3
2
11
11
6
5
4
Table 9, NuLhor distribution of 500 Portland repondents >y preferred rico quotation ard form
preference, June-July, 1960.
forui ireference
Preferred price
quotation
part:Lcular
pieces
whole
w-h ci e
cut - u
Number of' resimnden
Price per pound
Price per p tcia
31
11
169
6
17
15
Other
Don't know
Table 10,
7
104
1l
20
4
2
Nwnber distribution of 500 Portland respondents by attitude toward additives and preferred location o production, June-July, 1960.
Attitude toward
additives
prefer Oregon- prefer fryer frou
other states or no
grown fryer
referenco
Nwibcr of respondent
Like additives
Dislike additivc;
LjI,,
care
Don' t know
31
31
Table 11. Number distribution of 300 ortlanc respondents y 1cnh a' tihie fryer re torei -uid
agO, June-July, 196U.
Length of Stor
U UcOVOX'
ondent z
i-
days
7
4-7 dy
24
aeis
3-4 ,eeks
13
8
Over 4 weeks
4.
1-2
2
14
18
19
18
11
31
19
6
82
Don't store or
don ' t know
16
33
Table 12. Nutnber distribution ol' 500 Portland respond-
ents by length o ti fryerz Lre stored
and level of living, Juno-July, 1960.
Length of storage
Level i livixi
I I U
.j'.L.. I..
Uper(A&B)
.-
Lower
Nuiaber of reson.dents
1-3 days
4-7 days
1-2 weeks
3
21
10
14
11
7.)
7
50
7
3-4 weeks
3
'U
Over
73
Don' t ma
or
store
5
98
Table j3
Nunber distribution of 500 Portland respondents 1y lentli of time fryers are stored and
family size, June-July, 1960.
Len'th of
and
5
storage
over
TJum ,
1-3 days
4..7 days
1-2 oek
10
22
16
3-4k weeks
i6
Over 4 weeks
27
Don't store
7
13
13
lo
13
6
20
10
7
10
5
21
9
15
24
29
13
7
12
18
25
3
or dont
1
6
Nuiber ditribution of 300 Portland respondent;. by length 0±' time frycrs are stored and
level of education, June-July, 1960.
Table
Length of
storage
Grade or no
S Cii 001
hi n
Finisbe
schoolSoiiecolo1le$e
reiondent s
1-3 days
4-7 days
1-2 weeks
3-4 wee
Over 4 weeks
7
21
17
10
:9
7
7
32
61
39
75
stora or
t know
I
13
5
1L
9
7
7
12
14
Table
5
i&C distrijution of 500 ort1c rondh 1enth of tjie
re stored and
jZ111C1 i
a!st i.hicli fryei' vrcre served,
r'
Juno-July, 1960,
Meals
Lenth of
1voryday
S tor a e
oliday/S1eciai
Occasion oals
r res
1-3 days
18
47 days
No diiierence
dents
7
9
10
9
1-2 weeks
46
3
14
weeks
37
78
11
6
11
Over 4 weeks
Dontt store or
don' t know
Table 16.
21
91
Nwiber distribution of 500 ortland respondents by opinion on 1abelin; and frequency
of servin; fryors pea' month, June-duly, 1960.
f119J O]
Opinion
or ;-iorC
\iiabcr of rosonde
Yes-lou1d
be labeled 11
50
6
47
9
68
No-should
not be
labeled
r
'4
t
atter
2
Don't kno
2
31)
'4
i8
i8
7
4
5
2
100
Table 17.
er distr±bution of O0 Portland rosjondy opinion on 1cbe1ing and attitude
tmard use of additives, June-July, 1960.
ent
Opinion
Attitude toward use of additives
like
dislike U
NUIb er 1' resoudcnts
Yes - should
be laeleci
23
1)
Nc - should not
1e labeled
I
matter 12
66
Don't know
13
1
t know
51
I
21
101
iLACK ANC. iTi COI'IiS OF POSTERS
102
F'm//y /iri/é!
Fresh
OREGON-GROWN
Ij
4
-.
Fried Chicken
f6
Fresher Fryer
label for
Figure 1.
Poster A - Fresh, Oregon-grown fryers
as a family favorite.
fv'atu/WiY
___
Fresher
jtt2IlY 9efter
__
OREGONGROIYN
this FRYER
grown in
OREGON
Figure 2.
Poster B - Fresh
Oregon-grown fryer being barbecued.
104
INCLUDING
If you live in Oregon, you can
A
NEW
1960
FORD
t FALCON
t
PLUS
;49
c OTHER
r
this FRYER
grown in
BIG
PRIZES
OREGON
L NAME THIS FINE
OREGON FRYER
RECIPE
CONTEST OPEN TO OREGON RESIDENTS ONLY
GET ENTRY BLANKS AT THE MEAT CASE
Figure
3.
Poster C - Oregon fryer recipe contest.
105
Had
LfOUt SECOND
OREGON
GROWN
FRYER&week
FRESHER WI-lEN
Luscious FRIED!
8aked or
Figure 4.
Poster D - Washington Fryer Commission
poster altered to read Oregon-grown.
IG
APPENDIX E
LTIPLE-EQESSION EQUATION
CALCULATIONS F0
C Natri
-.002227
.014633
000806
)
- ff\ ._j
-.0002
S
.001475
Z? values
= 1.905206
.152849
260857
= 1730
=
.268
= .051.
y = 1.9 + .15 x, + .26 x
7.99
12.