Egg Marketing in National Supermarkets: Products, Packaging, and Prices Part 3

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "Egg Marketing in National Supermarkets: Products, Packaging, and Prices Part 3"

Anissa Brown
5 years ago
Views:

1 Egg Marketing in National Supermarkets: Products, Packaging, and Prices Part 3 K. W. Koelkebeck,*,1 D. D. Bell, J. B. Carey, K. E. Anderson, and M. J. Darre *Department of Animal Sciences, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, Illinois 61801, Department of Animal Science, University of California, Riverside, California 92521, Department of Poultry Science, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas 77843, Department of Poultry Science, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina 27695, and Department of Animal Science, University of Connecticut, Storrs, Connecticut ABSTRACT As part of a national retail egg quality played the greatest variety (P < 0.05) of brown shell eggs. study, the variety of shell eggs and egg products offered The average number of liquid and frozen egg products for sale, type of packaging, and price relationships were was highest (P < 0.05) for NC stores. Packaging type, compared in five major metropolitan regions. A total of USDA labeling, and carton coding differed somewhat 81 stores in 28 cities were sampled in California (CA), among states. The price per one dozen cartons of all white Illinois (IL), North Carolina (NC), Texas (TX), and New shell egg sizes was highest (P < 0.05) in CA stores, and England (NE). Data were recorded for the variety of the average liquid plus frozen egg product prices were brands, sizes, white or brown shell eggs, specialty eggs, higher in CA and NE stores compared to the other states. liquid or frozen eggs, carton sizes, package labeling and coding, and price relationships of shell eggs, liquid, and However, the ratio of liquid and frozen product prices frozen egg products displayed for sale. to all large shell egg prices was among the lowest for CA The total variety of shell eggs displayed per store was and NC stores. These data indicate that product selection, the greatest for CA and NE stores. Stores in CA and TX packaging, and consumer prices for shell eggs and egg offered more (P < 0.05) variety of white shell eggs than did stores in the other states, whereas stores in NE disproducts varied considerably across five separate regions of the country. (Key words: egg marketing, shell egg varieties, egg product varieties, egg packaging, consumer egg price) 2001 Poultry Science 80: INTRODUCTION The egg industry in the U.S. prides itself in producing the highest quality eggs for human consumption. Most shell eggs sold in large supermarkets throughout the U.S. are produced from laying hens maintained in large production complexes. It is anticipated that the quality of eggs delivered to these supermarkets is very high. It was of interest, therefore, to determine if, in fact, eggs sold to the consumer in five major areas of the country were of high quality. Sampling studies demonstrate that a wide range of interior and exterior egg quality will occur for eggs sampled from different regions of the country. Bell et al. (2001) showed that the age of white eggs sold in the different states ranged from 10.6 to 16.1 d. Albumen quality of white shell eggs ranged from 62.8 to 71.5 Haugh units (HU), and the number of cracked white shell eggs ranged from 4.0 to 7.4%. As part of the same retail egg quality study, Darre et al. (1997) reported that the age of brown eggs ranged from 1 to 45 d old with an average age of 15 d. Albumen quality ranged from 42 to 76 HU with a mean of 62. The number of cracks and leakers averaged 7.4 and 0.9%, respectively. The results of the egg quality study also revealed that the average age of specialty eggs (defined as eggs promoted as having one or more features beyond conventional white or brown eggs including nutritionally altered, organic, fertile eggs from welfare-managed hens, or hens fed all-vegetable diets) was 16.5 d (Patterson et al., 2001). That study also showed that specialty eggs averaged 63.8 HU. The percentage of cracked specialty eggs was 5.4%, whereas the percentage of leakers was 1.0%. Because the first sampling study demonstrated a wide variation in egg quality, it was of further interest to revisit the stores initially sampled and examine the variety of egg products offered to the consumer, packaging materials, and the price relationships that exist between prod- Received for publication May 9, Accepted for publication November 20, To whom correspondence should be addressed: kkoelkeb@uiuc.edu. Abbreviation Key: CA = California; HU = Haugh units; IL = Illinois; NC = North Carolina; NE = New England; TX = Texas. 396

2 NATIONAL EGG QUALITY STUDY PART ucts and shell eggs. Therefore, the extension specialists in the states and regions previously mentioned went back to the stores in the summer sampling period and recorded the variety of egg shell products displayed, liquid and frozen egg products, type of packaging used, and price relationships. Therefore, the objective of the present study was to determine the variety of egg products offered for sale in the five metropolitan regions, the type of packaging used in the supermarkets, space allowances for different products, and the price relationships in these regions. MATERIALS AND METHODS For this study, Poultry Extension Specialists from five states with the help of state Departments of Agriculture personnel in California (CA), Illinois (IL), North Carolina (NC), Texas (TX), and New England (NE) states including Connecticut, New York, and Massachusetts sampled eggs in 28 cities and 81 stores to determine the quality, packaging, and price relationships of eggs displayed for sale in those areas. Data were recorded for shell egg brands, sizes, white or brown shell, specialty eggs, liquid or frozen, carton sizes, and the price relationships of shell eggs, liquid, and frozen egg products. Of the 81 stores sampled, the number of stores sampled in CA, IL, NC, TX, and NE were 25, 23, 12, 12, and 9, respectively. The number of cities sampled in CA, IL, NC, TX, and NE were 8, 8, 3, 3, and 6, respectively. In addition, the number of supermarket chains samples in CA, IL, NC, TX, and NE were 16, 16, 7, 10, and 9, respectively. The large number of supermarket chains samples in each geographical region was used to broaden the scope of sampling product offerings and prices. For each store visited, a record was made for each type of shell eggs and liquid or frozen egg products displayed, which frequently included visiting two or more locations within the store. Specifically, the following data were recorded for shell eggs displayed by each store visited: 1) number of shell egg products displayed by egg sizes; 2) assortment of white, brown, or specialty eggs displayed; 3) number of eggs contained per unit (6, 8, 12, 18, 20, 30, 36, or 60 eggs); 4) type of packaging used for shell eggs (pulp or foam); 5) USDA seal stamped on the carton; 6) pack-by date and sell-by date; 7) presence of a refrigeration statement; 8) display frontage area; 9) percentage of display allotted for white, brown, and specialty eggs; and 10) price per one dozen cartons for white eggs (jumbo, extra-large, large, and medium sizes), large brown eggs, and large specialty eggs. In addition, the following data were recorded for liquid and frozen egg products offered for sale: 1) variety of liquid and frozen egg products displayed, 2) display frontage area for liquid and frozen egg products, and 3) price of liquid and frozen egg products based on a one dozen carton equivalent basis. To obtain the price of liquid and frozen eggs, the actual price per unit sold was multiplied by the number of eggs representing that unit. Thus, if a liquid egg product contained an equivalent of three whole eggs, then the price of that unit was multiplied by four to come up with a price that was equivalent to a carton of one dozen eggs. The numbers, percentage, square area, and prices shown in Tables 1 to 5 are based on a per-store average within each state. The data presented for the liquid and frozen product prices per dozen equivalent (Table 5) were calculated on prices for liquid and frozen egg products added together. The data shown in Table 5 for the liquidfrozen/shell egg price ratio were based on the average shell egg price per dozen for all large eggs displayed in each store (data not shown). Statistical Analysis All data were analyzed by the general linear models procedure of ANOVA of SAS software (SAS Institute, 1994). Significant differences among state means were assessed using Fisher s least significant difference test (Steel and Torrie, 1980). RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Number of Shell, Liquid, and Frozen Egg Products Table 1 represents the average number of shell egg products displayed in each state grouped by egg size, eggshell type, and total shell egg products. The results showed that eggs of the large size were displayed the most frequently in all stores. There appeared to be regional preferences for the type of shell eggs displayed at retail stores. California and TX stores offered for sale more (P < 0.05) white-shelled egg products compared to stores in IL, NC, and NE. As might be expected, NE stores marketed a greater number of (P < 0.05) brown egg products than stores in any other area. Stores in CA and NE displayed more (P < 0.05) specialty type eggs than in IL and TX. Stores in CA, TX, and NE displayed the greatest number of shell egg products with CA and NE stores marketing a significantly greater variety of shell eggs than stores in NC. These results indicated that the category of shell eggs most offered for sale across the country was large, white-shelled eggs. In addition, marketing of brown eggs seems to be greater in the East, whereas specialty eggs are marketed more on the East and West Coasts compared to the Midwest area. The data in Table 2 depicts the average number of liquid and frozen egg products and total shell egg plus liquid and frozen egg products marketed in each state. Stores in TX and NE marketed the greatest number of (P < 0.05) liquid egg products compared to the other states, whereas NC stores marketed the most (P < 0.05) frozen egg products. Supermarkets in NC provided consumers the widest array (P < 0.05) of liquid and frozen egg products combined compared to the other states. When considering both shell eggs and liquid and frozen egg products, NC and CA marketed more (P < 0.05) varieties than stores in IL. These data indicate that consumers in IL may have a more limited availability of shell egg and egg product

3 398 KOELKEBECK ET AL. TABLE 1. Average number of shell egg products marketed per store for all egg sizes, white, brown, specialty, and total shell eggs 1 Shell egg products marketed by size 2 Shell egg products marketed by type 3 Total shell egg State/region Jumbo X-Large Large Medium Small White Brown Specialty products 4 (no. of products) CA 0.9 c 2.0 a 5.6 a 1.0 a 0.0 b 7.1 a 0.9 b 1.7 a 9.7 a IL 0.9 c 1.3 bc 4.4 b 1.0 a 0.0 b 5.9 b 0.8 b 0.7 c 7.4 bc NC 0.7 c 0.9 c 5.0 ab 0.8 a 0.0 b 5.3 bc 0.9 b 1.3 abc 7.4 c TX 1.1 b 1.5 b 4.9 ab 1.3 a 0.2 a 7.3 a 1.1 b 0.6 c 8.9 abc NE 1.7 a 1.1 c 5.4 a 0.8 a 0.1 ab 4.0 c 3.4 a 1.7 ab 9.1 ab 2 Each mean includes 1) white, brown, or specialty eggs; 2) all brands; 3) all pack or carton sizes; and 4) pulp or foam cartons. 3 Each mean includes 1) all egg sizes, 2) all brands, 3) all pack or carton sizes, and 4) pulp or foam cartons. 4 Each mean includes 1) all egg sizes; 2) white, brown, or specialty eggs; 3) all brands; 4) all pack or carton sizes; and 5) pulp or foam cartons. varieties to choose from, whereas CA and NC consumers have the greatest assortment of choices. Number of Shell Egg Packs, Packaging Type, and Labeling The marketing of shell eggs in cartons and other egg packs indicates that different areas of the country offer shell eggs in varying numbers per carton or pack configuration (Table 3). Generally, the smallest group of eggs sold were 6-egg cartons and the largest egg pack contained 60 eggs. The most common large egg pack size offered for sale in CA were 60-egg packs (10 out of 25 stores or 40% of the stores). The largest egg packs offered for sale in other states were 18-, 30-, 30-, and 18-egg packs for IL, NC, TX, and NE stores, respectively. Most stores in the states and regions sampled did display 6- and 8- egg packs. Table 3 also identifies the types of cartons used for one dozen large, white shell eggs nationwide and the type of information that is printed on them. Stores in CA, IL, NC, and NE marketed the greatest (P < 0.05) percentage of large white-shelled eggs in pulp cartons compared with stores in TX. However, no significant state differences were noted for the number of cartons having the USDA label printed on them. All states surveyed had a high percentage of shell eggs marketed with a sell-by date stamped on the carton, but no differences (P > 0.05) were noted between states. A greater (P < 0.05) percentage of shell egg cartons had a pack date on them in IL stores compared to CA stores. All shell eggs marketed in NC had a refrigeration statement printed on the carton. Significantly less (70.7%) of the shell eggs offered for sale in CA stores had a refrigeration statement on the carton as compared to all other states. These data suggest that the majority of shell eggs marketed across the country have a sell-by date stamped on the carton; however, shell eggs are marketed in a wide variety of pack sizes and types of cartons and have varying degrees of information stamped on the carton. Egg Products Space In Table 4, the store area allotted for shell eggs and egg products is depicted. Texas stores had the largest (P < 0.05) display area for shell eggs and egg products compared to the other states. The lack of egg product space allocated by NC and NE stores was due to missing data not because egg products were not sold by stores in those states. In all states surveyed, the percentage of display space occupied by shell eggs was the most for white- TABLE 2. Average number of liquid and frozen egg products and total shell and liquid frozen egg products marketed per store 1 Liquid and frozen egg products marketed 2 Total liquid-frozen Total shell and liquid- State/region Liquid Frozen products marketed 2 frozen products marketed 3 (no. of products) CA 3.2 b 2.2 b 5.4 b 15.1 a IL 3.1 b 1.2 c 4.3 b 11.8 b NC 2.8 b 4.5 a 7.3 a 14.7 a TX 4.5 a 0.3 cd 4.8 b 13.7 ab NE 3.6 a 0.0 d 3.6 b 12.7 ab a d Means within a column with no common superscript differ significantly (P < 0.05). 2 Each mean includes 1) all brands, and 2) egg equivalents sold per unit. 3 Each mean includes 1) all brands of shell, liquid, and frozen egg products; 2) all shell packs, carton sizes, and liquid or frozen egg equivalents sold per unit; 3) all shell egg sizes; 4) white, brown, or specialty shell eggs; and 5) pulp or foam shell egg cartons.

4 NATIONAL EGG QUALITY STUDY PART TABLE 3. Average number of small and large shell egg packs, type of packaging, carton coding, and labeling information of shell eggs marketed per store 1 Shell egg packs 2 Carton labeling and coding 6 Type of shell Refrigeration State/region Smallest Largest egg carton 3 USDA label 4 Pack date 5 Sell date statement (no. of eggs) (% pulp) (% of total) (%) CA 7.5 a 39.9 a 88.0 a 24.7 a 54.4 ab 94.7 a 70.7 b IL 8.0 a 18.5 c 64.5 a 4.4 a 89.2 a 90.6 a 99.7 a NC 7.5 a 19.5 bc 50.0 a 27.3 a a a TX 8.2 a 27.5 b 16.7 b 8.3 a 45.0 ab 91.0 a 97.9 a NE 6.2 a 17.3 c 88.6 a 33.3 a 13.0 ab 86.8 a 90.7 a 2 Each mean includes 1) all egg sizes; 2) white, brown, or specialty eggs; 3) all brands; and 4) pulp or foam cartons. 3 Each mean represents percentage pulp cartons for all one dozen large, white shell eggs. 4 Each mean represents percentage of total one dozen large, white shell egg cartons. 5 Pack date was not recorded for cartons in NC stores. 6 Each mean represents percentage of all shell eggs sampled per store. shelled eggs. The greatest percentage of space allotted for white-shelled eggs was found in CA, IL, and TX stores, whereas stores in NC and NE provided the least space for white-shelled eggs. The percentage of display space allotted for brown-shelled eggs was greatest in NE stores than in stores from any other state. North Carolina stores allotted more (P < 0.05) space for specialty eggs as compared to stores in CA, IL, and TX. In addition to the area allotted for shell eggs and liquid and frozen egg products, the locations of these displays in the stores were different for all three types of egg products marketed. For instance, most stores in CA and IL displayed shell eggs and liquid and frozen egg products in three separate locations. Liquid and frozen egg products were located in the refrigerated and frozen food cases, whereas in some instances shell eggs were located in refrigerated food cases and in separate egg cabinets. Thus, consumers would have to visit several areas of a store to buy the particular shell eggs or egg products they were interested in. Shell, Liquid, and Frozen Egg Products Prices The average price per one dozen carton of all whiteshelled, brown-shelled, and specialty eggs marketed is presented in Table 5. For all white egg sizes, the price per dozen was highest (P < 0.05) for stores in CA compared to the other states. The most inexpensive white-shelled eggs marketed in all sizes were from stores in IL and TX. Cartons of large brown eggs cost more (P < 0.05) in CA stores than in IL and TX stores, whereas specialty eggs cost significantly (P < 0.05) less money in IL compared to CA. These data indicate that, in general, eggs cost more in CA than in other states with egg prices being intermediate in NE and NC and least inexpensive in IL and TX. Higher egg prices in CA primarily reflect this region s deficit feedstuff status and distance from primary feedstuff production areas. The liquid and frozen egg product prices corrected to an equivalent price of one dozen shell eggs illustrated TABLE 4. Display frontage area for shell and liquid-frozen egg products and space allotted for white, brown, and specialty eggs 1 Display frontage area 2 Space allowed for shell eggs 2 State/region Shell eggs Liquid-frozen eggs 3 White Brown Specialty (m 2 ) (% of display) CA 2.3 b 0.2 c 88.0 a 3.6 b 8.4 bc IL 2.7 b 0.4 b 84.9 a 7.5 b 7.6 bc NC 2.6 b b 11.7 b 17.6 a TX 4.8 a 0.5 a 92.0 a 5.7 b 2.3 c NE 3.1 b b 31.7 a 12.0 ab 2 Each mean represents all varieties of shell eggs (white, brown, specialty) and liquid and frozen egg products. 3 Liquid-frozen egg frontage display area was not recorded for NC and NE stores.

5 400 KOELKEBECK ET AL. TABLE 5. Average price of one dozen white shell egg cartons of all sizes, large brown, large specialty, and liquid-frozen egg products marketed per store and liquid-frozen to shell egg price ratio 1 White shell eggs 2 Liquid-frozen Large brown Large specialty Liquid-frozen shell egg price State/region Jumbo X-large Large Medium shell eggs 2 shell eggs 2 product price 3 ratio 4 ($/1 dozen carton ($/1 dozen carton) equivalent) CA 2.26 a 2.14 a 1.83 a 1.69 a 2.11 a 2.60 a 3.76 a 2.1 c IL 1.30 cd 1.16 c 1.07 c 0.90 c 1.32 b 1.86 b 3.40 b 3.1 a NC 1.50 cd 1.53 b 1.42 b 1.28 b 1.53 ab 1.98 ab 3.27 b 2.3 bc TX 1.21 d 1.12 c 1.05 c 0.98 c 1.22 b 1.94 ab 3.23 b 3.0 a NE 1.63 b 1.52 b 1.36 b 1.26 b 1.54 ab 2.06 ab 3.76 a 2.5 b a d Means within a column with no common superscript differ significantly (P < 0.05). 2 Each mean includes all brands of one dozen egg cartons. 3 Each mean includes 1) all brands of liquid plus frozen egg products, and 2) all sizes (units per carton) of liquid plus frozen egg products. Price was computed on an equivalent basis for one dozen eggs. 4 Each mean includes 1) all brands; 2) white, brown, and specialty shell eggs; and 3) pulp or foam cartons for all large shell eggs sold (one dozen) as the denominator. that CA and NE stores had higher prices (P < 0.05) than IL, NC, or TX stores. When taking into account all large shell egg prices and liquid and frozen egg product prices, the relative cost of product to shell prices revealed that although CA had the highest shell egg and product prices, the product to shell ratio was among the lowest of any state. The highest product to shell price ratio was for stores in TX and IL. In summary, we found that a greater selection of shell eggs and egg products were available from stores in CA and NC, an intermediate selection was available in TX and NE, and the least selection was available in IL. Shell egg packaging and labeling varied considerably among the states sampled. The price of shell eggs was generally higher in CA with the least inexpensive shell eggs marketed in IL and TX. Liquid and frozen egg product prices were higher in CA and NE compared to the other states. In conclusion, this study revealed that a wide variety of shell eggs and egg products were marketed in five separate regions of the country. In addition, prices for shell eggs and egg products also varied within supermarkets from the states that were sampled. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors gratefully acknowledge the technical assistance of Jerry Robertson, Illinois Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Weights and Measures, for assisting in data collection for Illinois; Michele Douglas for data analysis; and other Departments of Agriculture personnel from CA, NC, TX, Connecticut, New York, and Massachusetts for collecting data. REFERENCES Bell, D. D., P. H. Patterson, K. W. Koelkebeck, K. E. Anderson, M. J. Darre, and J. B. Carey, Egg marketing in national supermarkets: Egg quality Part 1. Poultry Sci. 80: Darre, M. J., J. B. Carey, K. W. Koelkebeck, P. H. Patterson, D. D. Bell, and K. E. Anderson, National retail egg quality studies, Part 2: Brown egg results. Poultry Sci. 76(Suppl. 1):56. (Abstr.). Patterson, P. H., K. W. Koelkebeck, D. D. Bell, M. J. Darre, J. B. Carey, and K. E. Anderson, Egg marketing in national supermarkets: Specialty eggs Part 2. Poultry Sci. 80: SAS Institute, SAS User s Guide: Statistics. Version SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, NC. Steel, R.G.D., and J. H. Torrie, Principles and Procedures of Statistics: A Biometrical Approach. 2nd ed. McGraw-Hill Book Co, New York, NY.

Egg Marketing in National Supermarkets: Specialty Eggs Part 2

Egg Marketing in National Supermarkets: Specialty Eggs Part 2 P. H. Patterson,*,1 K. W. Koelkebeck, D. D. Bell, J. B. Carey, K. E. Anderson, and M. J. Darre# *Department of Poultry Science, Penn State