Beef Products, Inc. Beef Patties Final Report Prepared by Food Perspectives August 2011 Frozen Patties: 80% lean / 20% fat Fresh Patties: 80% lean / 20%

Beef Products, Inc.Beef PattiesFinal Report

Prepared byFood Perspectives

August 2011

Frozen Patties: 80% lean / 20% fat

Fresh Patties: 80% lean / 20% fat

Fresh Patties: 90% lean / 10% fat

Study OverviewBackground and Products Tested 5Methodology 6Screening Criteria 7

Key FindingsHeadlines 9Headlines – Texture Attributes 10Headlines – Purchase Intent 11Headlines – Meets Expectations 12Key Measures – Frozen Patties: 80% lean / 20% fat 13Key Measures – Fresh Patties: 80% lean / 20% fat 14Key Measures – Fresh Patties: 90% lean / 10% fat 15

Detailed Findings – Frozen Patties: 80% lean / 20% fatMean Overall Liking 17Overall Liking Histograms 18Liking Scores 19Aftertaste Scores 20Just About Right Scores – Level 4: 20% 21Just About Right Scores – Level 3: 15% 22Just About Right Scores – Level 1: 0% 23Just About Right Scores – Level 2: 10% 24Meets Expectations 25Purchase Intent 26Categorized Open Ends 27

Table of Contents

Detailed Findings – Fresh Patties: 80% lean / 20% fatMean Overall Liking 29Overall Liking Histograms 30Liking Scores 31Aftertaste Scores 32Just About Right Scores – Level 4: 20% 33Just About Right Scores – Level 2: 10% 34Just About Right Scores – Level 3: 15% 35Just About Right Scores – Level 1: 0% 36Meets Expectations 37Purchase Intent 38Categorized Open Ends 39

Detailed Findings – Fresh Patties: 90% lean / 10% fatMean Overall Liking 41Overall Liking Histograms 42Liking Scores 43Aftertaste Scores 44Just About Right Scores – Level 4: 20% 45Just About Right Scores – Level 2: 10% 46Just About Right Scores – Level 3: 15% 47Just About Right Scores – Level 1: 0% 48Meets Expectations 49Purchase Intent 50Categorized Open Ends 51

Table of Contents

AppendixDemographics

53–54Screener and Questionnaire

55Penalty Analysis Methodology

56

Table of Contents

Study Overview

6

Background and Products Tested

The R&D team at Beef Products, Inc. has presented products made with varying levels of BPI Boneless Lean Beef. The following products were evaluated to understand which BLBT inclusion level received the Highest Overall Liking score when evaluated by target consumers:

Frozen Patties: 80% lean / 20% fatLevel 1: 0% BLBTLevel 2: 10% BLBTLevel 3: 15% BLBTLevel 4: 20% BLBT

Fresh Patties: 80% lean / 20% fatLevel 1: 0% BLBTLevel 2: 10% BLBTLevel 3: 15% BLBTLevel 4: 20% BLBT

Fresh Patties: 90% lean / 10% fatLevel 1: 0% BLBTLevel 2: 10% BLBTLevel 3: 15% BLBTLevel 4: 20% BLBT

7

A central location test (CLT) was conducted on August 1–3, 2011 in Plymouth, MN, with separate group of respondents each day.

Day 1:August 1, 133 respondents tasted 4 samples of frozen patties: 80% lean / 20% fat

Day 2:August 2, 129 respondents tasted 4 samples of fresh patties: 80% lean / 20% fat

Day 3:August 3, 132 respondents tasted 4 samples of fresh patties: 90% lean / 10% fat

For each day of testing, samples were rotated and balanced to prevent order bias. Each sample was served on a 6-inch plastic plate with a three-digit blinding code.

Methodology

8

Respondents were pre-recruited online or by phone to meet the following specifications:

Ages 18–65Purchase and eat hamburgers made from beefWilling to try a fully cooked/well done (NO pink) hamburgers made from beefFor Frozen Patties, have eaten hamburgers from a Fast Food or Casual Dining Restaurant in the past monthFor Fresh Patties, have eaten hamburgers cooked at home in the past monthPassed competitive employment screenNo past participation in the past 2 months

No food allergies Not a vegetarian or vegan

Screening Criteria

Key Findings

10

Headlines

In all three product cells, the Level 4 20% BLBT sample performed consistently and significantly better than the remaining 3 samples across the majority of attributes measured:

There was no drop in Overall Liking as a result of including BLBT.

The Level 4 20% BLBT was rated as the most tender product in all 3 cells.

In the refrigerated cells, the Level 4 20% BLBT sample had significant advantages for both Meets Expectations and Purchase Intent.

Considering all hedonic and diagnostic scores, the Level 4 20% BLBT sample offers the best product option.

11

Headlines – Texture Attributes

Respondents rated the samples with the most BLBT (20%) consistently higher on tenderness than the lower levels of BLBT.

Of all diagnostic attributes, tenderness shows the impact of increasing the levels of BLBT most clearly.

TM 0.64

Penalty Score

TM 0.72

TM 0.15

TM 0.22

TM 0.48

TM 0.45

TM 0.69

TM 0.51

Tenderness/Toughness (not tender enough – too tender)

Headlines – Purchase Intent

There were no significant differences between the BLBT levels when products were prepared from a frozen state.

In the refrigerated cells, the Level 4 20% BLBT sample had a significant advantage in Purchase Intent results.

Headlines – Meets Expectations

As with Purchase Intent, there were no significant differences between the BLBT levels when products were prepared from a frozen state.

Similarly, in the refrigerated cells, the Level 4 20% BLBT sample had a significant advantage in Meets Expectations results.

14

Key Measures – Frozen Patties: 80% lean / 20% fat (n=133)

Notes:Liking questions were based upon a 9-point scale, where 1 = dislike extremely and 9 = like extremely.For a specific question (row), values not sharing an uppercase letter are significantly different at the 95% confidence level (LSD, p<0.05).For a specific question (row), values not sharing a lowercase letter are significantly different at the 90% confidence level (LSD, p<0.1).Rows without letters indicate no significant difference at the 90% confidence level (LSD, p<0.1).

Level 420%

Level 315%

Level 10%

Level 210%

Overall Liking 6.4 6.4 6.3 6.1

Liking of Flavor 6.3 6.5 6.4 6.2

Better Than Expected % 35% 39% 34% 32%

Worse Than Expected % 27% 27% 32% 32%

Purchase IntentTop 2 Box %

41% 43% 38% 42%

There were no significant differences in Key Measure scores between the four levels of BLBT among the frozen patty samples.

However, diagnostic scores indicate that the Level 4 sample was the best optimized of the product set.

15

Key Measures – Fresh Patties: 80% lean / 20% fat (n=129)


Level 420%

Level 210%

Level 315%

Level 10%

Overall Liking 6.5 A 6.3 A 6.3 AB 5.9 B

Liking of Flavor 6.4 A 6.2 AB 6.2 AB 5.9 B

Better Than Expected % 40% a 34% ab 31% b 27% b

Worse Than Expected % 22% C 32% BC 40% AB 47% A


44% A 33% B 36% AB 27% B

The Fresh Level 4 (80/20) patty performed consistently better than the remaining three samples across Key Measure scores.

These results were further supported by hedonic and diagnostic scores which indicate that the Level 4 sample was the best optimized of the product set.

16

Key Measures – Fresh Patties: 90% lean / 10% fat (n=132)


Level 420%

Level 210%

Level 315%

Level 10%

Overall Liking 6.7 A 6.4 AB 6.2 B 5.8 C

Liking of Flavor 6.6 A 6.4 AB 6.2 B 5.8 C

Better Than Expected % 45% A 39% A 36% A 21% B

Worse Than Expected % 23% C 27% BC 34% AB 38% A


45% A 39% AB 34% BC 24% C

There were no significant difference between the Fresh Level 4 (90/10) patty and the Fresh Level 2 (90/10) patty for Key Measure scores, however; hedonic and diagnostic scores indicate that the Level 4 sample was the best optimized, particularly on the attributes of tenderness and juiciness.

Detailed Findings Frozen Patties: 80% lean / 20% fat

18

Frozen Patties: 80% lean / 20% fatMean Overall Liking (n=133)

Notes:Overall Liking was based upon a 9-point scale, where 1 = dislike extremely and 9 = like extremely.Values not sharing an uppercase letter are significantly different at the 95% confidence level (LSD, p<0.05). Values not sharing a lowercase letter are significantly different at the 90% confidence level (LSD, p<0.1).Values without letters indicate no significant difference at the 90% confidence level (LSD, p<0.1).

There were no significant differences in Overall Liking scores between the four Frozen (80/20) patties.

19

Frozen Patties: 80% lean / 20% fatOverall Liking Histograms (n=133)

20

Frozen Patties: 80% lean / 20% fatLiking Scores (n=133)

Level 420%

Level 315%

Level 10%

Level 210%

Liking of Overall Aroma 6.6 6.8 6.6 6.5

Liking of Overall Appearance 6.7 A 6.5 AB 6.3 C 6.3 BC

Liking of Color 6.8 A 6.7 AB 6.4 B 6.5 B

Overall Liking 6.4 6.4 6.3 6.1

Liking of Overall Flavor 6.3 6.5 6.4 6.2

Liking of Grilled Flavor 6.3 6.4 6.3 6.2

Liking of Overall Texture 6.4 a 6.3 a 6.1 ab 6.0 b

Liking of Thickness 5.7 A 5.5 AB 5.1 C 5.4 BC

Liking of Juiciness 6.3 A 6.0 A 5.4 B 5.7 B

Liking of Saltiness 5.5 5.2 5.3 5.2


There were no significant hedonic difference between the Level 4 and Level 3 Frozen (80/20) patties, however; diagnostic results support that Level 4 is better optimized than Level 3.

21

Notes:Amount of Aftertaste was based upon a 7-point scale, where 1 = no aftertaste at all and 7 = a lot of aftertaste.Pleasantness of Aftertaste was based upon a 5-point scale, where 1 = very unpleasant and 5 = very pleasant.For a specific question (row), values not sharing an uppercase letter are significantly different at the 95% confidence level (LSD, p<0.05).For a specific question (row), values not sharing a lowercase letter are significantly different at the 90% confidence level (LSD, p<0.1).Rows without letters indicate no significant difference at the 90% confidence level (LSD, p<0.1).*For Pleasantness of Aftertaste, respondents who didn’t detect any aftertaste were removed from the analysis.

Frozen Patties: 80% lean / 20% fatAftertaste Scores (n=133)

Level 420%

Level 315%

Level 10%

Level 210%

Amount of Aftertaste (1=no aftertaste, 7=a lot of aftertaste)

3.3 3.2 3.4 3.3

Pleasantness of Aftertaste*(1=very unpleasant, 5=very pleasant)

2.9 a 2.6 b 2.9 a 2.8 ab

Respondents indicated no significant difference in the amount of aftertaste across the four samples, however, the Level 4 sample received a significantly higher score than Level 3 for Pleasantness of Aftertaste.

22

Frozen Patties: 80% lean / 20% fatJust About Right Scores – Level 4: 20% (n=133)

Notes:For JARs 70% or greater, the attribute can be considered sufficiently optimized.Penalty analysis is represented only for attributes that were rated as “Too Little” (TL) or “Too Much” (TM) by at least 20% of the respondents.A penalty score ≥0.50 is considered top penalty; ≥0.25 and <0.50, middle penalty; and <0.25, bottom penalty.

The Level 4 sample was the best optimized sample of the product set. However; the sample would benefit from being thicker and more salty (note the patties were served unseasoned).

TL 0.17

Penalty Score

TL 0.30

TL 0.28

23



The Level 3 sample received penalties on the majority of attributes measured.

TL 0.17

Penalty Score

TM 0.15

TL 0.36

TL 0.24

24



TL 0.70

Penalty Score

TM 0.72

TL 0.33

TL 0.32


25



TL 0.59

Penalty Score

TL 0.64

TL 0.15

TL 0.35


26

Frozen Patties: 80% lean / 20% fatMeets Expectations (n=133)

Notes:For top two/bottom two box scores, values not sharing an uppercase letter are significantly different at the 95% confidence level (LSD, p<0.05).For top two/bottom two box scores, values not sharing a lowercase letter are significantly different at the 90% confidence level (LSD, p<0.1).Top two/bottom two box values without letters indicate no significant difference at the 90% confidence level (LSD, p<0.1).

The majority of respondents indicated that all four samples met or exceeded their expectations.

27

Frozen Patties: 80% lean / 20% fatPurchase Intent (n=133)

Notes:Top two box scores may not add up exactly due to rounding.For top two box scores, values not sharing an uppercase letter are significantly different at the 95% confidence level (LSD, p<0.05).For top two box scores, values not sharing a lowercase letter are significantly different at the 90% confidence level (LSD, p<0.1).Top two box values without letters indicate no significant difference at the 90% confidence level (LSD, p<0.1).

There were no significant differences in Purchase Intent scores across the four samples.

28

Frozen Patties: 80% lean / 20% fatCategorized Open Ends

Respondents were asked:

How well does this sample meet your EXPECTATIONS of a beef patty (PLEASE keep in mind that you are sampling only ¼ of an entire patty)?

What is the main reason you answered the previous question the way you did?

To view the open ends, double click the icon below.

Open Ends

Detailed Findings Fresh Patties: 80% lean / 20% fat

30

Fresh Patties: 80% lean / 20% fatMean Overall Liking (n=129)


There were no significant differences in Overall Liking scores for 3 of the 4 Refrigerated (80/20) samples.

The Level 1 sample received the lowest Overall Liking score of the product set.

31

Fresh Patties: 80% lean / 20% fatOverall Liking Histograms (n=129)

32

Fresh Patties: 80% lean / 20% fatLiking Scores (n=129)

Level 420%

Level 210%

Level 315%

Level 10%

Liking of Overall Aroma 6.9 a 6.9 a 6.7 b 6.6 b

Liking of Overall Appearance 6.7 6.6 6.5 6.6

Liking of Color 6.8 6.8 6.7 6.8

Overall Liking 6.5 A 6.3 A 6.3 AB 5.9 B

Liking of Overall Flavor 6.4 A 6.2 AB 6.2 AB 5.9 B

Liking of Grilled Flavor 6.4 6.2 6.3 6.1

Liking of Overall Texture 6.6 A 6.4 AB 6.4 AB 6.1 B

Liking of Thickness 5.5 A 5.1 BC 5.3 AB 4.9 C

Liking of Juiciness 6.4 A 6.1 B 6.0 B 5.5 C

Liking of Saltiness 5.2 A 5.0 A 5.0 AB 4.7 B


The Level 4 sample received significantly higher liking scores than the remaining three products.

33

Fresh Patties: 80% lean / 20% fatAftertaste Scores (n=129)

Level 420%

Level 210%

Level 315%

Level 10%


3.4 3.5 3.4 3.4


2.7 2.8 2.7 2.5

There were no significant differences in Aftertaste scores across the four samples.


34

Fresh Patties: 80% lean / 20% fatJust About Right Scores – Level 4: 20% (n=129)


TL 0.22

Penalty Score

TL 0.28

TL 0.24

The Level 4 sample was the best optimized sample of this product set. However; the sample would benefit from being thicker and more salty (note the patties were served unseasoned).

35



TL 0.37

Penalty Score

TM 0.22

TL 0.53

TL 0.29


36



TL 0.25

Penalty Score

TL 0.63

TL 0.49


37



TL 0.61

Penalty Score

TM 0.48

TL 0.94

TL 0.31


38

Fresh Patties: 80% lean / 20% fatMeets Expectations (n=129)


The Level 4 sample received significantly stronger Meets Expectations scores than Levels 3 and 1 further supporting hedonic and diagnostic scores.

39

Fresh Patties: 80% lean / 20% fatPurchase Intent (n=129)


The greatest percentage of respondents indicated that they would purchase the Level 4 sample.

40

Fresh Patties: 80% lean / 20% fatCategorized Open Ends





Open Ends

Detailed Findings Fresh Patties: 90% lean / 10% fat

42

Fresh Patties: 90% lean / 10% fatMean Overall Liking (n=132)


There were no significant differences in Overall Liking scores between Level 4 and Level 2 for the Refrigerated (90/10) samples.

The Level 1 sample received the lowest Overall Liking score of the product set, and was significantly less liked than the other three products

43

Fresh Patties: 90% lean / 10% fatOverall Liking Histograms (n=132)

44

Fresh Patties: 90% lean / 10% fatLiking Scores (n=132)

Level 420%

Level 210%

Level 315%

Level 10%

Liking of Overall Aroma 6.8 6.8 6.9 6.7

Liking of Overall Appearance 6.7 6.6 6.5 6.5

Liking of Color 6.8 6.7 6.7 6.7

Overall Liking 6.7 A 6.4 AB 6.2 B 5.8 C

Liking of Overall Flavor 6.6 A 6.4 AB 6.2 B 5.8 C

Liking of Grilled Flavor 6.4 A 6.4 A 6.3 A 6.0 B

Liking of Overall Texture 6.2 A 6.2 A 6.0 AB 5.7 B

Liking of Thickness 5.4 A 5.1 B 5.1 B 4.8 C

Liking of Juiciness 6.3 A 5.7 B 5.3 C 5.0 C

Liking of Saltiness 5.5 A 5.6 A 5.4 AB 5.1 B


The Level 4 sample received significantly higher liking scores than the remaining three products.

45

Fresh Patties: 90% lean / 10% fatAftertaste Scores (n=132)

Level 420%

Level 210%

Level 315%

Level 10%


3.3 3.4 3.6 3.3


2.9 2.8 2.8 2.6


There were no significant differences in Aftertaste scores across the four samples.

46



TL 0.25

Penalty Score

TL 0.35

TL 0.42

The Level 4 sample was the best optimized sample of the product set. However; the sample would benefit from being thicker, more juicy, and more salty (note the patties were served unseasoned).

47



TL 0.57

Penalty Score

TM 0.45

TL 0.32

TL 0.27


48



TL 0.69

Penalty Score

TM 0.51

TL 0.53

TL 0.14


49



TL 0.68

Penalty Score

TM 0.69

TL 0.60

TL 0.13


50

Fresh Patties: 90% lean / 10% fatMeets Expectations (n=132)


The Level 4 sample received significantly stronger Meets Expectations scores than Levels 3 and 1 further supporting hedonic and diagnostic scores.

51

Fresh Patties: 90% lean / 10% fatPurchase Intent (n=132)


The greatest percentage of respondents indicated that they would purchase the Level 4 sample.

52

Fresh Patties: 90% lean / 10% fatCategorized Open Ends





Open Ends

Appendix

54

Demographics

Percent

Category Classification

Frozen Patties: 80% lean /

20% fat(n=133)

Fresh Patties: 80% lean /

20% fat(n=129)


10% fat(n=132)

Gender

Male 17 26 20

Female 83 74 80

Age

17 or younger 0 0 0

18–30 14 19 21

31–45 27 22 31

46–55 34 33 30

56–64 25 25 17

65 or older 0 0 0

Household Size

1 16 14 12

2–3 50 55 53

4–5 30 29 30

6–7 5 2 5

8 or more 0 1 0

55

Demographics, cont’d.

Percent

Category Classification

Frozen Patties: 80% lean /

20% fat(n=133)


20% fat(n=129)


10% fat(n=132)

Household Income

Under $20,000 per year 4 5 2

$20,000–$29,999 per year 4 5 8

$30,000–$39,999 per year 5 10 9

$40,000–$49,999 per year 8 14 9

$50,000–$59,999 per year 13 12 8

$60,000–$69,999 per year 9 9 9

$70,000 or more per year 39 30 35

Prefer not to answer 20 15 19

56

Screener and Questionnaire

The screener and questionnaire for this study are presented below.

To view the documents, double click the icons above.

Screener Questionnaire

57

Penalty Analysis Methodology

Penalty Analysis is used to understand which of the attributes queried in a study are most closely related to respondents’ Overall Liking ratings. This helps the developer assess which attributes, if improved, would have the greatest impact in increasing the acceptance of a given product. It should be noted that Penalty Analysis only assesses those attributes asked. If an important attribute is not queried, or is difficult for respondents to express in words, then penalty analysis is less effective in planning reformulation initiatives. The strongest use of Penalty Analysis is to compare among the products tested, and serve as an initial hypothesis of improvement opportunities. The method for calculation is as follows:

Collapse 5-point Just-About-Right (JAR) scales to 3-point scales: 4, 5 = “Too Much” 3 = “Just-About-Right” 1, 2 = “Not Enough”

Summarize distribution of JAR responses.

Compute average acceptance within each JAR category.

Compute Penalties Only done when > 20% respondents rate product not JAR and Overall Liking(Not JAR) is significantly lower than Overall Liking(JAR)

at the 90% confidence level. Mean Drop = Overall Liking(JAR) - Overall Liking(Not JAR). “Total Penalty” = (% Not JAR)(Mean Drop)

Documents

Beef Products, Inc. Beef Patties Final Report Prepared by Food Perspectives August 2011 Frozen Patties: 80% lean / 20% fat Fresh Patties: 80% lean / 20%