1. Beef Products, Inc. Beef Patties Final Report Prepared by Food Perspectives August 2011 Frozen Patties: 80% lean / 20% fat Fresh Patties: 80% lean / 20% fat Fresh Patties: 90% lean / 10% fat

2. Study Overview Background and Products Tested5 Methodology6 Screening Criteria7 Key Findings Headlines 9 Headlines – Texture Attributes10 Headlines – Purchase Intent11 Headlines – Meets Expectations12 Key Measures – Frozen Patties: 80% lean / 20% fat13 Key Measures – Fresh Patties: 80% lean / 20% fat14 Key Measures – Fresh Patties: 90% lean / 10% fat15 Detailed Findings – Frozen Patties: 80% lean / 20% fat Mean Overall Liking17 Overall Liking Histograms18 Liking Scores19 Aftertaste Scores20 Just About Right Scores – Level 4: 20%21 Just About Right Scores – Level 3: 15% 22 Just About Right Scores – Level 1: 0% 23 Just About Right Scores – Level 2: 10% 24 Meets Expectations25 Purchase Intent26 Categorized Open Ends27 Table of Contents

3. Detailed Findings – Fresh Patties: 80% lean / 20% fat Mean Overall Liking29 Overall Liking Histograms30 Liking Scores31 Aftertaste Scores32 Just About Right Scores – Level 4: 20%33 Just About Right Scores – Level 2: 10% 34 Just About Right Scores – Level 3: 15% 35 Just About Right Scores – Level 1: 0% 36 Meets Expectations37 Purchase Intent38 Categorized Open Ends39 Detailed Findings – Fresh Patties: 90% lean / 10% fat Mean Overall Liking41 Overall Liking Histograms42 Liking Scores43 Aftertaste Scores44 Just About Right Scores – Level 4: 20%45 Just About Right Scores – Level 2: 10% 46 Just About Right Scores – Level 3: 15% 47 Just About Right Scores – Level 1: 0% 48 Meets Expectations49 Purchase Intent50 Categorized Open Ends51 Table of Contents

4. Appendix Demographics53–54 Screener and Questionnaire55 Penalty Analysis Methodology56 Table of Contents

5. Study Overview

6. 5 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% fat Level 1: 0% BLBT Level 2: 10% BLBT Level 3: 15% BLBT Level 4: 20% BLBT Fresh Patties: 80% lean / 20% fat Level 1: 0% BLBT Level 2: 10% BLBT Level 3: 15% BLBT Level 4: 20% BLBT Fresh Patties: 90% lean / 10% fat Level 1: 0% BLBT Level 2: 10% BLBT Level 3: 15% BLBT Level 4: 20% BLBT

7. 6 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. 7 Respondents were pre-recruited online or by phone to meet the following specifications: Ages 18–65 Purchase and eat hamburgers made from beef Willing to try a fully cooked/well done (NO pink) hamburgers made from beef For Frozen Patties, have eaten hamburgers from a Fast Food or Casual Dining Restaurant in the past month For Fresh Patties, have eaten hamburgers cooked at home in the past month Passed competitive employment screen No past participation in the past 2 months No food allergies Not a vegetarian or vegan Screening Criteria

9. Key Findings

10. 9 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. 10 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)

12. 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.

13. 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. 13 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 4 20% Level 3 15% Level 1 0% Level 2 10% Overall Liking6.4 6.36.1 Liking of Flavor6.36.56.46.2 Better Than Expected %35%39%34%32% Worse Than Expected %27% 32% Purchase Intent Top 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. 14 Key Measures – Fresh Patties: 80% lean / 20% fat (n=129) 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 4 20% Level 2 10% Level 3 15% Level 1 0% Overall Liking6.5 A6.3 A6.3 AB5.9 B Liking of Flavor6.4 A6.2 AB 5.9 B Better Than Expected %40% a34% ab31% b27% b Worse Than Expected %22% C32% BC40% AB47% A Purchase Intent Top 2 Box % 44% A33% B36% AB27% 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. 15 Key Measures – Fresh Patties: 90% lean / 10% fat (n=132) 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 4 20% Level 2 10% Level 3 15% Level 1 0% Overall Liking6.7 A6.4 AB6.2 B5.8 C Liking of Flavor6.6 A6.4 AB6.2 B5.8 C Better Than Expected %45% A39% A36% A21% B Worse Than Expected %23% C27% BC34% AB38% A Purchase Intent Top 2 Box % 45% A39% AB34% BC24% 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.

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

18. 17 Frozen Patties: 80% lean / 20% fat Mean 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. 18 Frozen Patties: 80% lean / 20% fat Overall Liking Histograms (n=133)

20. 19 Frozen Patties: 80% lean / 20% fat Liking Scores (n=133) Level 4 20% Level 3 15% Level 1 0% Level 2 10% Liking of Overall Aroma 6.66.86.66.5 Liking of Overall Appearance 6.7 A6.5 AB6.3 C6.3 BC Liking of Color 6.8 A6.7 AB6.4 B6.5 B Overall Liking 6.4 6.36.1 Liking of Overall Flavor 6.36.56.46.2 Liking of Grilled Flavor 6.36.46.36.2 Liking of Overall Texture 6.4 a6.3 a6.1 ab6.0 b Liking of Thickness 5.7 A5.5 AB5.1 C5.4 BC Liking of Juiciness 6.3 A6.0 A5.4 B5.7 B Liking of Saltiness 5.55.25.35.2 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). 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. 20 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 didnt detect any aftertaste were removed from the analysis. Frozen Patties: 80% lean / 20% fat Aftertaste Scores (n=133) Level 4 20% Level 3 15% Level 1 0% Level 2 10% Amount of Aftertaste (1=no aftertaste, 7=a lot of aftertaste) 3.33.23.43.3 Pleasantness of Aftertaste* (1=very unpleasant, 5=very pleasant) 2.9 a2.6 b2.9 a2.8 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. 21 Frozen Patties: 80% lean / 20% fat Just 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. 22 Frozen Patties: 80% lean / 20% fat Just About Right Scores – Level 3: 15% (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 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. 23 Frozen Patties: 80% lean / 20% fat Just About Right Scores – Level 1: 0% (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. TL 0.70 Penalty Score TM 0.72 TL 0.33 TL 0.32 The Level 1 sample received penalties on the majority of attributes measured.

25. 24 Frozen Patties: 80% lean / 20% fat Just About Right Scores – Level 2: 10% (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. TL 0.59 Penalty Score TL 0.64 TL 0.15 TL 0.35 The Level 2 sample received penalties on the majority of attributes measured.

26. 25 Frozen Patties: 80% lean / 20% fat Meets 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. 26 Frozen Patties: 80% lean / 20% fat Purchase 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. 27 Frozen Patties: 80% lean / 20% fat Categorized 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.

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

30. 29 Fresh Patties: 80% lean / 20% fat Mean Overall Liking (n=129) 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 for 3 of the 4 Refrigerated (80/20) samples. The Level 1 sample received the lowest Overall Liking score of the product set.

31. 30 Fresh Patties: 80% lean / 20% fat Overall Liking Histograms (n=129)

32. 31 Fresh Patties: 80% lean / 20% fat Liking Scores (n=129) Level 4 20% Level 2 10% Level 3 15% Level 1 0% Liking of Overall Aroma 6.9 a 6.7 b6.6 b Liking of Overall Appearance 6.76.66.56.6 Liking of Color 6.8 6.76.8 Overall Liking 6.5 A6.3 A6.3 AB5.9 B Liking of Overall Flavor 6.4 A6.2 AB 5.9 B Liking of Grilled Flavor 6.46.26.36.1 Liking of Overall Texture 6.6 A6.4 AB 6.1 B Liking of Thickness 5.5 A5.1 BC5.3 AB4.9 C Liking of Juiciness 6.4 A6.1 B6.0 B5.5 C Liking of Saltiness 5.2 A5.0 A5.0 AB4.7 B 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). The Level 4 sample received significantly higher liking scores than the remaining three products.

33. 32 Fresh Patties: 80% lean / 20% fat Aftertaste Scores (n=129) Level 4 20% Level 2 10% Level 3 15% Level 1 0% Amount of Aftertaste (1=no aftertaste, 7=a lot of aftertaste) 3.43.53.4 Pleasantness of Aftertaste* (1=very unpleasant, 5=very pleasant) 2.72.82.72.5 There were no significant differences in Aftertaste scores across the four samples. 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 didnt detect any aftertaste were removed from the analysis.

34. 33 Fresh Patties: 80% lean / 20% fat Just About Right Scores – Level 4: 20% (n=129) 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. 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. 34 Fresh Patties: 80% lean / 20% fat Just About Right Scores – Level 2: 10% (n=129) 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. TL 0.37 Penalty Score TM 0.22 TL 0.53 TL 0.29 The Level 2 sample received penalties on the majority of attributes measured.

36. 35 Fresh Patties: 80% lean / 20% fat Just About Right Scores – Level 3: 15% (n=129) 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. TL 0.25 Penalty Score TL 0.63 TL 0.49 The Level 3 sample received penalties on the majority of attributes measured.

37. 36 Fresh Patties: 80% lean / 20% fat Just About Right Scores – Level 1: 0% (n=129) 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. TL 0.61 Penalty Score TM 0.48 TL 0.94 TL 0.31 The Level 1 sample received penalties on the majority of attributes measured.

38. 37 Fresh Patties: 80% lean / 20% fat Meets Expectations (n=129) 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 Level 4 sample received significantly stronger Meets Expectations scores than Levels 3 and 1 further supporting hedonic and diagnostic scores.

39. 38 Fresh Patties: 80% lean / 20% fat Purchase Intent (n=129) 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). The greatest percentage of respondents indicated that they would purchase the Level 4 sample.

40. 39 Fresh Patties: 80% lean / 20% fat Categorized Open Ends To view the open ends, double click the icon below. 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?

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

42. 41 Fresh Patties: 90% lean / 10% fat Mean Overall Liking (n=132) 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 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. 42 Fresh Patties: 90% lean / 10% fat Overall Liking Histograms (n=132)

44. 43 Fresh Patties: 90% lean / 10% fat Liking Scores (n=132) Level 4 20% Level 2 10% Level 3 15% Level 1 0% Liking of Overall Aroma 6.8 6.96.7 Liking of Overall Appearance 6.76.66.5 Liking of Color 6.86.7 Overall Liking 6.7 A6.4 AB6.2 B5.8 C Liking of Overall Flavor 6.6 A6.4 AB6.2 B5.8 C Liking of Grilled Flavor 6.4 A 6.3 A6.0 B Liking of Overall Texture 6.2 A 6.0 AB5.7 B Liking of Thickness 5.4 A5.1 B 4.8 C Liking of Juiciness 6.3 A5.7 B5.3 C5.0 C Liking of Saltiness 5.5 A5.6 A5.4 AB5.1 B 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). The Level 4 sample received significantly higher liking scores than the remaining three products.

45. 44 Fresh Patties: 90% lean / 10% fat Aftertaste Scores (n=132) Level 4 20% Level 2 10% Level 3 15% Level 1 0% Amount of Aftertaste (1=no aftertaste, 7=a lot of aftertaste) 3.33.43.63.3 Pleasantness of Aftertaste* (1=very unpleasant, 5=very pleasant) 2.92.8 2.6 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 didnt detect any aftertaste were removed from the analysis. There were no significant differences in Aftertaste scores across the four samples.

46. 45 Fresh Patties: 90% lean / 10% fat Just About Right Scores – Level 4: 20% (n=132) 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. 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. 46 Fresh Patties: 90% lean / 10% fat Just About Right Scores – Level 2: 10% (n=132) 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. TL 0.57 Penalty Score TM 0.45 TL 0.32 TL 0.27 The Level 2 sample received penalties on the majority of attributes measured.

48. 47 Fresh Patties: 90% lean / 10% fat Just About Right Scores – Level 3: 15% (n=132) 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. TL 0.69 Penalty Score TM 0.51 TL 0.53 TL 0.14 The Level 3 sample received penalties on the majority of attributes measured.

49. 48 Fresh Patties: 90% lean / 10% fat Just About Right Scores – Level 1: 0% (n=132) 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. TL 0.68 Penalty Score TM 0.69 TL 0.60 TL 0.13 The Level 1 sample received penalties on the majority of attributes measured.

50. 49 Fresh Patties: 90% lean / 10% fat Meets Expectations (n=132) 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 Level 4 sample received significantly stronger Meets Expectations scores than Levels 3 and 1 further supporting hedonic and diagnostic scores.

51. 50 Fresh Patties: 90% lean / 10% fat Purchase Intent (n=132) 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). The greatest percentage of respondents indicated that they would purchase the Level 4 sample.

52. 51 Fresh Patties: 90% lean / 10% fat Categorized Open Ends To view the open ends, double click the icon below. 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?

53. Appendix

54. 53 Demographics Percent CategoryClassification Frozen Patties: 80% lean / 20% fat (n=133) Fresh Patties: 80% lean / 20% fat (n=129) Fresh Patties: 90% lean / 10% fat (n=132) Gender Male 172620 Female 837480 Age 17 or younger 000 18–30 141921 31–45 272231 46–55 343330 56–64 25 17 65 or older 000 Household Size 1 161412 2–3 505553 4–5 302930 6–7 525 8 or more 010

55. 54 Demographics, contd. Percent CategoryClassification Frozen Patties: 80% lean / 20% fat (n=133) Fresh Patties: 80% lean / 20% fat (n=129) Fresh Patties: 90% lean / 10% fat (n=132) Household Income Under $20,000 per year 452 $20,000–$29,999 per year 458 $30,000–$39,999 per year 5109 $40,000–$49,999 per year 8149 $50,000–$59,999 per year 13128 $60,000–$69,999 per year 999 $70,000 or more per year 393035 Prefer not to answer 201519

56. 55 Screener and Questionnaire The screener and questionnaire for this study are presented below. To view the documents, double click the icons above.

57. 56 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)