Quality refers to the attributes of a pro duct that satisfy the expectations that users have for it. In foods, considerations like freshness, wholesomeness, and suitability for a specific need (recipe, for example) are important. Standards may be developed by, for, or among traders to provide a means of describing product differences in these quality characteristics (see Table 10 for example).
Apples, like most U.S. agricultural products, move through the marketing system on the basis of purchases and sales made by description (relating to quality) rather than by actual product inspection. It is likely that the retail shopper in the grocery store is the first person in the entire marketing process to be examining the apples at the time the purchase decision is being made.
To be able to buy and sell by description in wholesale lots clearly does much to streamline.the marketing system, helping it to function smoothly, quickly, and cheaply. Transactions can be made by phone or wire with the briefest messages, as opposed to the expense of requiring buyers to be physically present to inspect each prospective purchase. The system works well when the codified descriptions result in product performance that meets buyer expectations-and when mutually- understood adjustments apply in those unexpected instances when it does not.
So standardized descriptions are important. They work extremely well when all agree on their meaning and their merit. But the system transmits error and expense when there is disagreement or misunderstanding on the meaning or the utility of descriptive applications.
For many decades the USDA has aided marketing efficiency by developing
federal grades based on measurable standards for many products,
including apples. Tradesmen also develop descriptive terms so that,
in many industries, both or either public and private standards may
be applied. Typically, there are varied opinions among users about
the utility of the method being used. The apple industry is like
that. The Ohio study provides an illustration (Table 9).
Table 9: Percentage Distribution of Grower Responses About Quality Specification Being Used, Ohio, 1983. | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Specifications That Are Used | Own Waxer | No Waxer | All Growers |
| Percent | |||
| Buyer specifications | 92.3 | 33.3 | 51.5 |
| Federal grades | 7.7 | 20.0 | 16.3 |
| Grower standards | 0.0 | 36.7 | 25.6 |
| No answer | 0.0 | 10.0 | 7.0 |
| TOTAL | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 |
| Source: Uchida, S.A., and TT. Stout, "The Wholesaling of Fresh Ohio Apples," ESO 1506, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, 1989. | |||
Among 43 growers, buyer specifications were most important to owners of apple waxers (who focused primarily on wholesale sales to groceries). Growers who did not own waxers, and who placed relatively more emphasis on alternative outlets such as roadside markets, displayed a different set of priorities about quality specifications (Table 9).
But what "buyer specifications" really meant was not entirely clear.
When asked what was expected by buyers for the fresh wholesale
market, there was a wide divergence of opinion, about the value of
waxing apples, for example (Table 6). But there was no category in
which there was consensus among all growers that buyers expected any
of 10 criteria suggested by the researchers (Table 6). So, while
buyer expectations were acknowledged to be important (and growers
themselves considered the Table 6 criteria to be important), growers
had no precise understanding of what buyer specifications included.
Not surprisingly, the Uchida research recommended that buyers should
be explicit, and that grading seminars should be co-sponsored by
buyers and growers.
Table 10: Percentage of Growers Agreeing that Specified Attributes Are Expected by Buyers for Apples Sold to the Fresh Wholesale Market, Ohio, 1985.* | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Specifications | Waxer | No Waxer | Survey Population |
| Grade: | |||
| U.S. Fancy | 25.0** | 20.8 | 22.2 |
| U.S. No. 1 | 0.0 | 37.5 | 25.0 |
| Other | 0.0 | 12.5 | 8.3 |
| Waxing | 84.6 | 8.3 | 35.1 |
| Russeting, less than 10% of surface | 33.3 | 66.7 | 50.3 |
| No bruise | 41.7 | 48.8 | 44.4 |
| No hail damage | 50.0 | 54.2 | 52.8 |
| No indentures | 41.7 | 37.5 | 38.9 |
| No scab | 58.3 | 62.5 | 61.1 |
| No insect damage | 58.3 | 62.5 | 61.1 |
| Condition, 12 p.s.i. | 16.7 | 4.1 | 8.3 |
| Number of respondents (N) | 12 | 24 | 36 |
| *Data were not collected on apple shape, decay, bitter pit, scald,
and punctures or
broken skin.
**For example, 25 percent of growers (3 out of 12) thought that buyers expected (without necessarily specifying it) apples to meet the U.S. Fancy grade. Source: Uchida, S.A., and TT. Stout, "The Wholesaling of Fresh Ohio Apples," ES0 1506, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, 1989. | |||