’oultry Science
P(
CONSUMERS SAY
CHICKEN FITS BOTH
HEALTHY EATING
AND BUDGET PLANS
William D. Weaver, Jr.
Dept. Of
Poultry Science
The National Broiler Council
has recently completed (Spring
Pork Prose
(Continued from Page C 4)
References
Heimel. S. R. 1993. Dead pig compost
ing. turning a problem into an asset. Nation
al Hog Farmer. May 15, 1993. pp 40-41.
Langston, J., A. Rteck, and K. Combs.
1992. Composting swine carcasses. Field
trial for disposal of pig carcasses to 25
pounds and field trial for disposal of hog
carcass. University of Arkansas Coopera
tive Extension Service. Little Rock,
Arkansas.
Rynk, R. el al. 1992. On-farm compost
ing handbook. Northeast Regional Agricul
tural Engineering Service. Cooperative
Extension.
Shield, R. G., Jr., D.C. Mahan and V.R.
Cahill. 1983. A comparison of methods for
estimating carcass in swine from birth to
145 kg. J. Anim. Sci. 57: 55-65.
Veum, T. L.. J. D. Firman, C. D. Fulhage,
R. L. Plain, and R. B. Miller. 1991. Com
posting dead swine on the farm. 1991
Swine Day Report. Missouri Agriculture
Experiment Station.
legion Veterinary Scienci
Capita!
1993) a survey to assess consumer
desires and opinions as they relate
to the purchase and use of poultry
and poultry products.
The survey was conducted by a
commercial market research firm
and included a demographically
balanced group of 1,004 house
holds, consisting of 522 female
and 482 male adults. Highlights
from the survey are;
• About 63 percent of the survey
respondents ranked chicken first in
nutritional value, beef was second
with 27 percent, and pork third
with 7 percent. Chicken’s current
high rating for good nutrition
stands in contrast to a consumer
survey conducted by the National
Broiler Council in 1974. At that
time, consumers gave beef the
higher ranking for nutritional val
ue with chicken second and pork
third.
• Consumers were asked about
their preferences for various meats
when dining away from home,
excluding fast food. Survey
respondents were permitted to
mention three meats when answer
ing the dining out question. When
the three mentions are grouped
together, there is no statistical dif
ference between seafood/fish,
chicken, or beef. These three foods
received mentions by approxi-
mately three-fourths of the
consumers.
• Consumers were asked about
the frequency of serving chicken
when eating at home. The largest
percentage, 37 percent, reported
serving chicken at home “two or
three times per week.” and 31 per
cent said “about once a week.”
Eight percent said “four or more
times per week.” This level of
usage means 76 percent reported
serving chicken at least once per
week. Frequency of serving chick
en at home in 1993 was compared
with results from the National
Broiler Council’s previous survey
of 1983. Chicken is now served
much more frequently at home
compared to 1983. Consumers
were also asked about their fre
quency of eating chicken when
dining out About 83 percent of
Americans eat chicken when
dining out. Breaking this 83 per
cent into certain smaller groups,
the survey found almost 22 percent
report eating chicken away from
home two or three times per month
followed by 20pcrcentof consum
ers who report “about once per
week.” Another 18 percent said
they eat chicken away from home
“about once per month” and 17
percent of the respondents said
they “rarely or never” eat chicken
when dining out.
When asked about reasons for
buying chicken, consumers said
they eat chicken for its nutritional
qualities (highest score), but eco
nomy, versatility, taste, and conve
nience were all somewhat grouped
together in second place. Specifi
cally, “more healthy” is given as
the first reason by 24 percent of
respondents, “it’s more economi
cal” by 16 percent, “low in fat” by
15 percent, and “tastes better” by
14 percent
Comparing NBC’s 1993 survey
to previous NBC surveys, it was
found that in the 1983 survey,
“economical to serve,” was the
primary motivation for purchasing
chicken, followed by “tastes
good.” Nutrition, versatility, and
convenience were lower in rank
ing. But in NBC’s 1991 survey,
“nutritious” had moved up to equal
“economical,” while “low in fat
content” was a mid- to lower
reason.
Survey respondents were asked
“when you are looking to find meal
ideas in newspapers or magazines,
what chicken recipes would you
prefer to see more often?” In
response, 46 percent said, as their
Highly Erodible Land,
Wetland Rules Enforced
LEESPORT (Berks Co.)
Richard Troutman, chairman of
the Berks County Agricultural
Stabilization and Conservation
Service (ASCS) said farm prog
ram participants must know
whether their land is highly credi
ble or a wetland, and must comply
with the highly credible land and
wetland conservation provisions
to be eligible for payments and
any other USDA program
benefits.
Troutman said producers will
lose program benefits if they plant
an agricultural crop on highly
credible land without using an
approved conservation system, if
they plant agricultural commodi
ties on wetlands converted after
December 23, 1985, or if they
convert a wetland to make agricul
tural production possible after
November 28, 1990.
Lancaster Farming, Saturday, June 19, 1993-CS
first response, they would like to
see more recipes for “boneless/
skinless breasts” and more than 17
percent gave as their first response
“breasts with skin on/bone in.”
Survey results confirm that
American consumers continue to
have very positive attitudes toward
eating chicken and are increasing
their preference for and consump
tion of chicken products. Survey
results also confirm that nutritional
considerations are becoming
important reasons for buying -
chicken and that consumers have
very definite preferences for cer
tain parts of the chicken and for
certain further processed chicken
products.
“The highly crodiblc land and
wetland restrictions apply to all
farm program participants and
they will be enforced,” Troutman
said. Once a crop is planted in
noncompliance of the highly crod
iblc land or wetland requirements,
Troutman said it is 100 late. The
producer will be considered ine
ligible for 1993 benefits.
Beginning January 1, 1995, all
conservation systems must be ful
ly applied on highly crodiblc land
for a producer to earn program
benefits.
Producers who still need deter
minations on whether their land
that will be planted to an annually
tilled crop, or designated as con
servation uses or acreage conser
vation reserve, is highly credible
or a wetland, should contact our
office or the Berks County Soil
Conservation Service as soon as
possible.