Chachere Mattie Thesisreview3

Knowledge and Perceptions of U.S.
Beef Producers on the Certified Angus BeefÒ

Program
by
Mattie Leighton Chachere, B.S
A Thesis
In
Agricultural Communications
Submitted to the Graduate Faculty

of Texas Tech University in
Partial Fulfillment of
the Requirements for
the Degree of
MASTERS OF SCIENCE
Dr. Courtney Gibson

Chair of Committee
Dr. Erica Irlbeck
Dr. Nan Li
Dr. Mark Sheridan

Dean of the Graduate School
May 2018
Copyright 2018, Mattie Leighton Chachere
Texas Tech University, Mattie Leighton Chachere, May 2018
Acknowledgments
The process of conducting my thesis research was both challenging and
rewarding. Throughout the process, several individuals become my support system
and guided me along the journey. I cannot thank these individuals enough for
everything they have done for me throughout my time at Texas Tech.
Continuously through any adventure I have taken on, my parents have
encouraged and supported me. I would not be where I am today without them. Mom
and Dad, thank you both for always pushing me to be my best and never doubting by
abilities, even when I doubt myself. To my siblings, Emma and Logan, who have
always been on the sidelines cheering me on, I thank you. Though your support often
comes with challenging me, I am so thankful for your encouragement and holding me
to the highest of standards. Cord, thank you so much for supporting me through the
process of earning this degree. You have constantly been my shoulder to lean on and
encouraged me through this chapter of my life.
To my committee who made this possible, thank you. Dr. Gibson, thank you so
much for guiding me through this process. I cannot express how grateful I am for your
constant encouragement and boosting my confidence in my research and writing
abilities. To Dr. Irlbeck and Dr. Li, thank you each for your support and guidance with
my research.
Finally, to my colleagues and fellow graduate students, I thank you. Garrett,
Arianna, Diane, Kelsey, Shelby, Kelsi, and Lauren. You have all in your own way
helped me through this process, whether it was constantly answering my questions,
ii
pushing me to think outside of comfort zone, or encouraging me when I needed it. I
am grateful for you and the friendships I have made with each of you.
iii
Table of Contents
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ....................................................................................... ii
ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................vii
LIST OF FIGURES .............................................................................................. viii
I. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................. 1
Background and Setting .......................................................................................... 1
Food Labeling ......................................................................................................... 4
Need for Study ...................................................................................................... 11
Purpose and Research Questions ........................................................................... 12
Limitations of the Study ........................................................................................ 13
Assumptions ......................................................................................................... 14
II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE............................................................................ 15
Introduction .......................................................................................................... 15
Food Labeling ...................................................................................................... 15
Branding ............................................................................................................... 20
The U.S. Beef Industry.......................................................................................... 28
Theoretical Framework ......................................................................................... 40
Summary .............................................................................................................. 47
III. METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................... 48
Overview .............................................................................................................. 48
Research Design ................................................................................................... 48
Population and Sampling ...................................................................................... 50
Participants ........................................................................................................... 54
Data Collection ..................................................................................................... 59
Data Analysis ........................................................................................................ 61
Trustworthiness..................................................................................................... 63
Researcher Bias .................................................................................................... 66
IV. FINDINGS ........................................................................................................ 67
Introduction .......................................................................................................... 67
iv
Findings in Relation to Research Question One ..................................................... 68

Findings in Relation to Research Question Two .................................................... 71
Findings in Relation to Research Question Three .................................................. 87
Summary .............................................................................................................. 94
V. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................. 97
Introduction .......................................................................................................... 97
Conclusions and Discussion in Relation to RQ1 .................................................... 97
Conclusions and Discussion in Relation to RQ2 .................................................... 99
Conclusions and Discussion in Relation to RQ3 .................................................. 112
Implications ........................................................................................................ 119
Recommendations ............................................................................................... 121
Summary ............................................................................................................ 126
REFERENCES ..................................................................................................... 127
APPENDICES....................................................................................................... 138
v
Abstract
As consumers are moving further away from the farm, knowledge and literacy
of agricultural practices are declining causing them to be skeptical of where their food
comes from and the labels placed on food products. This has caused the beef industry
to create more label options to consumers including the creation of branded beef
programs. This study explored the knowledge and perceptions of beef producers on
the Certified Angus Beef (CAB) program and its impact on the beef industry. This
study used a qualitative, phenomenological approach to interview producers around
the U.S. Overall, the study found that beef producers have a strong knowledge and
understanding of and held positive perceptions of the CAB program. The findings of
this study suggest that the CAB program does a good job of marketing to beef
producers, holds a strong reputation with producers, and has a strong brand strength.
Agricultural communicators should use the knowledge and perceptions of producers
as communication efforts to other producers as well as consumers. Future research
should explore the marketing efforts of the CAB program to better understand their
marketing success.
vi
List of Figures
2.1 Beef cattle location across the U.S. (USDA, 2012) .............................................. 32
2.2 Certified Angus BeefÒ Brand Logos (CAB, 2017a) ............................................ 40
2.3 Theory of planned behavior model adapted from Ajzen, 1985 ............................. 42
3.1 Beef cattle location across the U.S. (USDA, 2012) and where
participants were located ..................................................................................... 52
4.1. Themes and sub-themes identified from data collected from
participant interviews......................................................................................... 96
5.1 Themes and sub-themes identified in relation to research question 1 ................... 98
5.2 Themes and sub-themes identified in relation to research question 2 ................. 100
5.3 Themes and sub-themes identified in relation to research question 3 ................. 112
5.4 Theory of planned behavior as it relates to this study......................................... 117
vii
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
Background and Setting
Over the past several decades, fewer people are choosing to return to the farm
resulting in less than 2% of Americans engaged in farming as their primary occupation
(Vilsack, 2014). Consumers moving further away from rural settings has caused a
decline in knowledge and literacy of agricultural practices (Doerfert, 2011). This
includes a lack of knowledge of where their food comes from as well as the processes
food undergoes to make it to their plate.
Due to this declining knowledge, consumers have become more skeptical of
their food supply and the product labels placed on the food they buy. In 2016, 56% of
consumers said they were only somewhat confident in the U.S. food supply, 20% said
that they were not too confident, and only 10% reported they were very confident in
the food supply (Greenwald & Associates, 2016). Individuals who were more likely to
have confidence in U.S. food safety were 35-80 years of age, made a higher income,
were men, and had good health (Greenwald & Associates, 2016). Americans agree
that food is more tasty and nutritious than ever, but they do not feel it is safer (Vander
Mey, 2004). Overall, Americans generally perceive fruits and vegetables to be more
safe and secure than meat products (Vander Mey, 2004).
This lack of knowledge and food skepticism is not new to the American food
industry. In 1906, the fictional work of Upton Sinclair was published in a book titled
1
The Jungle. Sinclair’s book shed light on worker conditions and the sanitation
situation of the Chicago meat industry, which created uproar for the industry
nationwide. Although the book was fictional, it caused the public to question the
safety and conditions of the food they were consuming.
Along with Sinclair’s The Jungle, Samuel Adams published a series of articles
in Collier’s Weekly in 1905 about dangers in patient medicine, provoking legislators to
take action. In 1906, the Federal Food and Drugs Act was created with the purpose of
“preventing the manufacture, sale, or transportation of adulterated or misbranded or
poisonous or deleterious foods, drugs, medicines, and liquors, and for regulating
traffic therein, and for other purposes” (FDA, 2009, para. 1). This law spawned the
regulatory agency, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which now directly
regulates almost one quarter of the U.S. gross domestic product (GPD) and has
significant power over product entity, how products are marketed to consumers, and
product manufacturing (Economic History, n.d.).
The Federal Food and Drugs Act was not the only law focused on food safety
passed in 1906. Sinclair’s The Jungle resulted in the passing of the 1906 Meat
Inspection Act which tightened the United States Department of Agriculture’s
(USDA) oversight of meat production practices (Economic History, n.d.). This act
created four sanitary requirements for the meat packing industry. The act required
mandatory inspection before slaughter, postmortem inspection of each carcass, and
slaughterhouse sanitary standards (USDA, 2014). The final requirement allowed the
USDA to enforce requirements by issuing grants of inspection to monitor slaughter
2
and processing operations (USDA, 2014). The USDA’s Bureau of Animal Industry
(BAI), which was originally created in 1884 to eradicate livestock disease, was tasked
with enforcing these requirements (USDA, 2014).
As sanitary processes began to improve, the government still aimed to improve
standards as well as make it easier to identify the quality of commodity products. The
scope of the USDA inspections and standards were expanded in 1946 when the
Agricultural Marketing Act was passed (USDA, 2014). This new act allowed the
USDA not only to inspect, but also certify and identify the class, quality, and
condition of agricultural products (USDA, 2014). This act also expanded inspections
to include exotic and game animals (USDA, 2014). The grading and quality
identification responsibilities were assigned to a division of the Agricultural
Marketing Service (AMS), the Food and Safety Inspection Service (FSIS) in 1981
(USDA, 2014). AMS provides a range of services including voluntary inspection,
identification services, and certifications that organizations and agencies may request
to be performed (USDA, 2014). Though meat and poultry grading and inspections
have shifted from different divisions throughout the USDA starting with the BAI,
today these actions are performed by the FSIS (USDA, 2014). Carcass grades
determine the quality of the meat produced, and grades for beef products include
Prime, Choice, Standard, and Commercial.
Beyond the grading systems provided by the FSIS, accreditation programs
provided by AMA offer producers of agricultural products an opportunity to assure
consumers that they are receiving consistent and quality products (USDA, n.d.a).
3
Specifically, in the beef industry, accreditation programs are known as certified beef
programs or branded beef programs (this term is further defined in the definition of
terms provided in Appendix A). These programs strive to go beyond USDA grades by
claiming specific breed and carcass specifications (USDA, n.d.c). The first of these
programs was created in 1978 to fulfill consumer demands while improving product
consistency. Many more USDA-certified programs have been developed since then
with the same goal of ensuring consistent, quality beef products. Today, there are
hundreds of branded and labeled beef programs available (Cecala, 2013); however,
only 88 are monitored under USDA certified beef programs (USDA, 2017c). Claims
of quality vary widely across certification programs, but they are meant to provide a
consistent product with regulated specifications to consumers (USDA, n.d.c).
Food Labeling
Consumers are growing more skeptical of the food industry, including food
label claims, particularly in relation to meat products. Holloway (2004) noted that
public understanding of the agricultural industry plays a crucial role in how the
industry operates, including consumption practices. Because of this, it is critical for
agriculturists to communicate to the public about the industry’s practices and the food
they are producing. One way that producers are trying to communicate practices to
consumers is through the use of food product labels. Labels are used for various
reasons, including a way for food companies to differentiate their products from their
competition (Ares et al., 2013). This creates many options for consumers at the
grocery store, which can result in confusion when making purchasing decisions.
4
The FDA requires most foods to include nutrition labeling and labeling to
indicate nutrient content claims and certain health messages to comply with specific
requirements (FDA, 2013). These labels include nutrient contents such as vitamins and
health messages such as allergen warnings like tree nut presence (FDA, 2013).
Beyond mandatory labeling, some manufactures of food products choose to
voluntarily include other information on their labels (FDA, 2018). According to the
FDA (2018), the reason for this could have to do with marketing or providing
customers with specific information of interest. These voluntary labels include claims
such as those regarding genetically modified or all-natural foods.
With the variety of label options in the market, including both mandatory and
voluntary labeling, consumers are often confused about what food labels mean and
how those labels should impact their purchasing decisions. The Enough Movement
(n.d.), a global community focused on a food-secure world, found that globally, 80%
of consumers look at labels and food claims when purchasing, of which 39% believed
all-natural labels meant that food was healthier and 66% believed labels ensured a
product had zero GMOs, hormones, artificial ingredients, and/or pesticides (Enough
Movement, n.d.). As the number of unique food labels continue to increase, so does
consumer confusion. An example of this can be seen through the number of different
labeled poultry products which include options such as antibiotic-free, hormone-free,
free-range, cage-free, and more. Consumer understanding of food labels is important
because labeling can influence purchase intent by attracting consumers’ attention and
providing information that influences expectations of a product (Ares et al., 2013).
5
Ares et al. (2013) found that consumers fixate most on the image, brand, ingredients,
and nutritional information when evaluating food labels.
Options in labels alone are not the only cause for confusion in food labeling.
According to the Pew Research Center (2016a), 66% of the public reported they heard
about or read news stories about the health effects of food as often as every day or at
least a few times a week. While the majority, 61%, of the public agreed that new
research improved their understanding about food health, 37% still believed that
health research could not be trusted because of conflicting reports (Pew Research
Center, 2016a).
Understanding the effect of all food labels on consumers’ buying habits is
important because of the economic impact the food industry has in the U.S. In 2016,
the average U.S. consumer spent $7,203 on food both at home and away from home
(United Stated Department of Labor, 2017). As a large expense for consumers, interest
in food quality and labeling has increased in the United States in recent years (The
Hartman Group, 2015), which has put an increased pressure on marketers of food
labels to understand what influences and drives a label’s success. McClusky and
Loureiro (2003) found that consumers are willing to pay a premium for labeled
products if they perceive a higher eating experience. They also suggested that because
of consumers’ increased demand for high quality and healthy food products, product-
attribute labeling has become an extremely important marketing tool (McClusky &
Loureiro, 2003).
6
Beef Labeling
Consumer interest and concern in food labeling holds true with beef products.
Loureiro and Umberger (2007) found that country of origin, traceability, tenderness,
and food safety were all factors that consumers considered as important when
purchasing beef and looking at beef-specific product labels. Verbeke and Ward (2005)
found that food labels containing content related to freshness and quality type were the
most important indicators of value that consumers attached to beef labels.
Consumer interest in food labels, and specifically beef labels, has driven the
industry to take an interest in voluntarily labeling beef products. Beef labels often
include claims regarding animal production and product claims. Beyond mandatory
beef labeling, the USDA aims to regulate voluntary label claims by defining terms
such as natural, minimally processed, no hormones, and no antibiotics. According to
the USDA (2015b), natural is “a product containing no artificial ingredient or added
color and is only minimally processed. Minimal processing means the product was
processed in a manner that does not fundamentally alter the product” (para. 17).
Separately, no hormones “may be approved for use on the label of beef products if
sufficient documentation is provided to the Agency by the producer showing no
hormone have been used in raising animals” (USDA, 2015b, para. 18). Similarly, no
antibiotics may be added with sufficient documentation is provided demonstrating the
animals were raised without antibiotics (USDA, 2015b).
Though the USDA tries to regulate these label claims, some programs are not
monitored causing confusion in the marketplace for consumers. As these are the
7
USDA requirements for beef labels that include natural, no hormones, and no
antibiotics, consumers are not always knowledgeable about what these labels mean.
According to the Enough Movement (n.d.), 61% of consumers thought that “no added
hormones” labels meant that there were no hormones at all in the meat they purchase;
however, as the report indicated, all animals have naturally occurring hormones. When
it came to antibiotic-free labels, one third of consumers believed the label meant non-
labeled products contained antibiotics (Enough Movement, n.d.).
Over the past several decades, the beef industry has increased their focus on
consumer preferences and education of these labels resulting in an increased number
of branded beef programs (Speer, 2012). The first USDA-certified beef program was
initiated in 1978, and by 1998, 10 additional programs had been added. Since 1998,
129 new programs have been introduced, which indicates the beef industry is more
committed to meeting consumer demands for producing a variety of attributes for
specific preferences (Speer, 2013).
Each branded beef program is unique and typically has specifications
regarding grade, size, and aging that help provide consistency in taste and flavor to
consumers (Beef Board, n.d.). These specifications also provide more specific
requirements for beef that go beyond the normal commodity standards. There are three
categories of branded beef programs: breed specific, company specific, and store
specific (Beef Board, n.d.). Breed specific programs focus on using cattle from
specific breeds, company specific programs can use a number of breeds but include
other types of specific criteria, and store specific programs are created and branded by
8
different grocery stores and can be breed or criteria specific (Beef Board, n.d.). The
Certified Angus BeefÒ program falls into the breed specific category (Beef Board,
n.d.).
Certified Angus BeefÒ. The first branded beef program monitored by the
USDA and established to label beef products and provide information and quality
standards for consumers was the Certified Angus BeefÒ (CAB) program. As
mentioned above, there are hundreds of branded or labeled beef programs, of which
only 88 are monitored under the USDA certified beef programs, and the CAB program
is one of the most widely known.
In 1975, an Ohio Angus producer had a bad experience with an unsatisfying
steak dinner, driving a group of Angus producers to develop a system that would
ensure consistent, premium quality beef be delivered to consumers (CAB, n.d.). The
CAB brand launched in 1978, building the first branded beef company in the nation
(Wilson, 2007). The business model established was a non-profit that linked
consumers and producers and created a market for consistent, high-quality beef (CAB,
n.d.). CAB’s mission statement includes their goal to “increase demand for registered
Angus cattle through a specification-based, branded-beef program to identify
consistent, high quality beef with superior taste” (CAB Partners, 2018, para 12). Over
the past 40 years, the brand has become popular in grocery stores and restaurants not
only in the U.S. but around the world in approximately 47 countries (CAB, n.d.).
Of the 88 brands monitored by the USDA, 54 include the term Angus (USDA,
2017c). CAB, however, is the only Angus branded beef program operated by the
9
American Angus Association and its members (CAB Partners, 2018). In 2012, nearly
75% of beef cattle raised in the U.S. were black-hided, which can be attributed to the
large presence of branded beef programs that require black-hided cattle, including the
CAB program, which is the largest and longest running program (Reiman, 2012).
The CAB program has shown success economically through sales. CAB
reported 1.121 billion pounds of beef sold in the 2017 fiscal year, which marked an
11th consecutive annual sales record (Schertz, 2017). According to Conaway (2017),
“Angus cattle have never been worth more money than they are now” (para 7).
It is essential for certified beef programs behind labels such as CAB to
understand both sides of their market: consumers and producers. As consumers drive
the demand for products in the market, producers have an influence on the animals
that are produced to fulfill consumer demands. This is why it is so important for
branded beef programs to focus communication efforts to not only consumers, but also
to beef producers. Black Ink, a column of articles published in newspapers and on
websites around the country, holds the title for CAB’s blog site. Black Ink, which is
run by CAB, specifically focuses on communicating with producers by sharing cattle
industry information to ultimately help producers raise quality beef. Black Ink and
supply teams within the CAB organization share target audiences. These audiences
include commercial ranchers, Angus seed stock producers, feed yard
owners/managers, millennial ranchers, new ranchers, non-Angus ranchers, academia,
industry partners, and agricultural media (Black Ink & SDEV Target Audiences, n.d.).
With such large and unique target audiences, it is important for CAB marketers to
10
create very targeted and responsive messages to meet the needs of each of these
groups. For instance, recruiting messages to feed yard owners/managers would be
extremely different from messages targeting non-Angus ranchers. Although CAB
provides this outlet to communicate with beef producers within the program, it is
unknown how informed beef producers are of the program or how the program is
thought of within the industry.
Need for Study

As consumer interest in food quality and labeling has increased in the United
States (The Hartman Group, 2015), it is even more critical for marketers of food labels
and brands to understand the factors that influence label success. This becomes even
more critical knowing that consumers are willing to pay a premium for products when
they perceive them to be of higher quality (McClusky & Loureiro, 2003).
As beef plays a large role in the agricultural industry and the economy,
focusing on labeled beef products becomes a salient area of research. Beef producers
have created branded beef programs to sell high quality and consistent products to
consumers (Beef Board, n.d.). However, due to the beef industry being a complicated
and unique industry, there are many sectors and decision makers within the production
line. These decisions made within the beef industry are a fluctuating relationship
between producer decisions and consumer demands. Ultimately though, producers are
the individuals providing and producing the product. With very little research on
branded beef programs and the CAB program, it is unknown what producers know,
think, or feel about branded beef programs, specifically CAB. Understanding producer
11
perceptions of branded beef programs would allow insight into how these industry
decisions are made, which could give insight for marketers of branded beef programs
to improve communication efforts to producers and promotion of the program to help
improve the beef industry.
The CAB program is one of the most widely known branded beef programs
and is thought to be the most successful. However, the reason for this success is
unknown. Especially with 88 USDA-certified beef programs on the market (USDA,
2017c), it is of interest that the first established program, the CAB program, continues
to be one of the most popular and successful. Examining beef producers’ knowledge
and perceptions of the CAB program is one step into understanding this success. This
understanding would also allow marketers of the program to explore better ways to
promote their brands to producers and ultimately understand how they are thought of
and their impact. Exploring the CAB brand, and its strength to producers will help
agricultural communicators of the CAB brand, other branded beef programs, and other
livestock programs to strengthen these programs within the industry.
Purpose and Research Questions

The purpose of this study was to determine the knowledge and perceptions of
U.S. beef producers about the Certified Angus BeefÒ program and the impact the
program has had on the beef industry. Understanding producers’ knowledge of the
program could help gauge the program’s success at communicating its brand to
producers. Insight into producers’ perceptions could also help marketers have
stronger, more focused messaging to producers. Perceptions of the beef industry in
12
general will help other programs and industry organization’s marketing efforts by
learning more about their audience of producers and their beliefs. This study was
guided by the following research questions:
RQ1: What knowledge do U.S. beef producers have of the Certified Angus
BeefÒ program?
RQ2: What perceptions do U.S. beef producers have of the Certified Angus
BeefÒ program?
RQ3: What perceptions do U.S. beef producers have on the impact the
Certified Angus BeefÒ program has had on the beef industry?
Limitations of the Study

This study was limited by the contacts the researcher had access to. The
researcher used online sources and resources close to them to obtain contact
information for participants in this study. This was a limiting factor if contact
information provided was not updated on online sources or if producers did not have
contact information available online. This was also a limitation because resources
utilized by the researcher to recruit participants likely did not have contacts for every
beef producer in the country, but rather only a limited set of producers they knew
personally.
13
Assumptions
This study operated under some basic assumptions. One assumption was that
each participant would participate fully through the interview process and would
answer the questions asked honestly, openly, and thoroughly.
This study also assumed that participants were aware of the CAB program
prior to participating which would allow them to respond appropriately when asked
their perceptions of the program. Participants were also assumed to be in a position
that allows them to provide accurate answers to the questions about the decision-
making and operation of their farm or ranch. This was important to the study when
exploring why beef producers choose to raise the breed of cattle they do, and
participate or not participate in branded beef programs. Exploring this allowed the
study to determine motivators for production choices.
14
CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Introduction
This chapter provides an overview of research related to food labeling,
branding, the U.S. beef industry, cattle producers, the Certified Angus BeefÒ (CAB)
program, and how these concepts relate to the theory of planned behavior and the
corporate reputation management theory. This chapter provides an overview of these
concepts to help provide information and explore previous literature on the topics.
Food Labeling
Every purchase a consumer makes influences which products line the shelves
of grocery stores and, inevitably, what food is produced. To better understand food
labels and branding of food products, we must first explore literature about
consumers’ perceptions and knowledge of these labels and brands. There have been
multiple studies on consumer knowledge and perceptions of food labeling, both
mandatory and voluntary labels, conducted in the past (Knebel, 2015; Priven et. al.,
2015; Seidenberg Miller & Cassidy, 2015, etc.), and it has become even more relevant
in recent years with food labels becoming of increasingly high importance to
consumers.
Many things influence food label use by consumers including their knowledge
and perceptions of what those labels mean. The more knowledge a consumer has of a
food label, the more likely they are to use the label when making purchasing decisions
(Seidenberg Miller & Cassidy, 2015). While shoppers who believe they understand
15
food labels are more likely to use them to make decisions, consumers who do not
believe they have an understanding will only occasionally use the labels to make
decisions (Knebel, 2015).
Knowledge does influence consumer use of label claims, particularly
understanding of front-of-package labels influence purchase decision of consumers
(Knebel, 2015). When looking at nutrition labels particularly, the more knowledge
consumers have about nutrition in general, the more likely they are to view, use, and
understand labels with nutritional information (Seidenberg Miller & Cassidy, 2015).
When a consumer’s existing knowledge of a product or label is inadequate, they may
be less confident in deciding whether to process a message since knowledge enhances
their ability to understand a message (Davies & Wright, 1994). When focusing on
free-from food product labels, consumers with lower levels of education were more
likely to believe free-from products were healthier than those with a higher education
level, which supports previous literature linking education and health literacy (Priven
et al., 2015). When consumers view free-from food product labels, specifically gluten-
free and MUI-free labels, in the absence of risk information, free-from products could
produce perceptions of healthfulness (Priven et al., 2015).
Beyond nutrition labels, studies have been conducted on genetically modified
(GM) food labels, which are currently voluntary (Irani & Sinclair, 2004; Meyers &
Miller, 2007). Consumers desire labeling on GM foods, particularly after learning the
definition of GM and how many food products contain them (Meyers & Miller, 2007).
Education level also affects how consumers viewed GM labels (Meyers & Miller,
16
2007). Beyond consumer knowledge, GM food labeling can influence consumer
perceptions of accountability, and these perceptions often influence attitudes
consumers hold toward GM foods (Irani & Sinclair, 2004). “Voluntary labeling by the
manufacturer may convey that the industry is going above and beyond what is
required” (Irani & Sinclair, 2004, p. 39). Because of this, this type of label may
indicate a strong prescription-identity link, a measure of accountability, in contrast to
mandatory FDA labeling that may be seen as a required duty (Irani & Sinclair, 2004).
When exploring consumer perceptions of food labels, felt needs and
motivations that most impacted consumers’ use of front-of-package label information
were time, taste preferences, and price preferences (Knebel, 2015). However, when
time was not a factor, significantly more consumers claimed to use front-of-package
labels for purchasing decisions (Knebel, 2015). Additionally, consumers who do not
indicate a felt need to make healthy food purchases indicated taste and price
preferences as motivation for label use (Knebel, 2015).
The importance of food labeling is often product specific and contingent on
how the information fits with consumers’ prior attitudes and knowledge (Davies &
Wright, 1994). Research on consumer perceptions of different commodities has been
used to “more effectively tailor marketing and education efforts to maintain the
importance” of the specific product (Estes, Edgar, & Johnson, 2015, p. 11). Focusing
on poultry production specifically, “in one way or another, perceptions weighed
heavily on the mind of the consumer because of the implications or consequences
associated [with] the actions driven by perceptions” (Estes, Edgar, & Johnson, p. 44).
17
Determining agricultural literacy, consumers reported knowledge regarding poultry
prices, practices, and policies showing that understanding the implications from these
characteristics influenced perception of the product (Ester, Edgar, & Johnson, 2015).
Beef Labels
Consumers’ knowledge and perceptions of product labels are important and
product specific (Davies & Wright, 1994),and this includes label use for beef
products. Studying beef labels is a popular topic in countries outside of the U.S., in
part because of traceability concerns. In Belgium, meat consumers reported low
interest for traceability and product identification cues, with high interest for
indications of quality shown by certified quality marks or seals of guarantee when
viewing beef labels (Verbeke & Ward, 2006).
When comparing consumer preferences of beef products in the U.K. and U.S.,
consumers in the U.K. indicated retailers provide higher quality and food safety than
products certified by other groups and also perceive organic beef to be a premium
product (Christensen et al., 2003). When comparing consumers’ trust, private
certifying agencies were most trusted in the U.K., while federal and local government
were most trusted in the U.S. (Christensen et al., 2003). When U.S. consumers were
given descriptions of USDA inspections and the CAB program, though the USDA was
the most preferred certifying agency, the CAB program was almost equal in
consumers’ perceptions of trust of certifying beef products (Christensen et. al., 2003).
In Canada, specifically, consumers are willing to pay premiums on beef
products with attributes represented by beef brands (Froehlich, Carlberg, & Ward,
18
2009). Though, a common attribute for not paying the premiums was confidence or
knowledge in selecting beef, the more confident a consumer was on selecting beef, the
less likely they were to pay the premium (Froehlich, Carlberg, & Ward, 2009).
Certified quality marks and seals of guarantee were perceived to be most
relevant attributes and easier heuristics as search attributes for beef products (Verbeke
& Ward, 2006). Ultimately trustworthy indications of quality had high marketing
potential for beef products (Verbeke & Ward, 2006). Consumers in the U.S. differed
from those in the U.K., indicating manufacturer brand names meant higher quality and
food safety compared to retailers, organic, and natural brands (Christensen et al.,
2003). The only significant attribute for consumers’ preference of beef was for brand
name and logo, suggesting brand names and logos are critical marketing aspects of
branded beef programs (Froehlich, Carlberg, & Ward, 2009).
Consumers in Phoenix, AZ, Baltimore, MD/Washington D.C., and Lubbock,
TX mostly (59%) identified quality as a very important characteristic when selecting
meat for purchase (Reicks, 2006). Most consumers (42.7%) indicated USDA Choice
to be of higher quality, which is correct, though, 28.6% indicated USDA Select as a
higher quality, and 28.8% indicated they did not know which grade was higher quality
(Reicks, 2006). This indicates that consumers are not well educated on the USDA
grade system (Reicks, 2006). Although the system was not created for marketing or
differentiating beef, if consumer education of beef quality labels increased, marketing
of beef products would improve (Reicks, 2006).
19
While all beef is labeled with USDA grades, many beef products are labeled
with voluntary labels that make claims regarding production practices. Almost two-
thirds of Colorado consumers shared that the most important factor when purchasing
beef was production practices that included antibiotic use and hormones (Thilmany,
Umberger, & Ziehl, 2005). Additionally, 12% of consumers were considered quality
seekers, while 13.2% were identified as health and natural consumers, and both groups
were willing to pay a premium for natural, local beef due to quality and production
perceptions (Thilmany, Umberger, & Ziehl, 2005). In another group of consumers,
22.6%, were identified as empathetic value seekers who were not willing to pay a
premiums for natural, local beef, however, would purchase it if they price was low
enough (Thilmany, Umberger, & Ziehl, 2005). Therefore, beef producers willing to
raise natural cattle should label them as such to receive higher premiums from specific
groups of consumers (Thilmany, Umberger, & Ziehl, 2005).
Branding
Labels often represent a brand, such as in the case of the CAB program.
Although brands have been a force in the organization of product production and are
not new, it was not until the 1990s that the term branding became popular (Moor,
2007). Moor (2007) explained that previous practices, such as product design, retail
design, point-of-purchase marketing, and business design, became integrated into the
term branding. It is difficult to truly define branding because of the different contexts
in which it is used; however, Moor (2007) suggested that branding is “put together
differently in these different contexts, where it makes use of different forms of
20
representation, different techniques and technologies, and different kinds of
relationships for different kinds of strategic purpose” (p. 7).
Brands represent more than a product and carry social meaning for consumers
(Loken, Ahluwalia, & Houston, 2010). According to Moor (2007), brands make
possible a repetition of information, helping consumers to organize experiences and
perceptions in line with a strategic end, and making them form opinions. Brands
monitor consumer activity by playing on cultural values to influence target audiences
behaviors and feelings and embedding them into social worlds (Moor, 2007).
Klein (2001) explained when mass production of goods began, competitive
branding became necessary to create consumer recognition and consumer value as
“image-based difference had to be manufactured along with the product” (p. 6).
Benefits of value branding are only beneficial when the receiving person shares or
understands the same meaning of the brand as the person who gives it though (Wee &
Ming, 2003). Wee and Ming (2003) concluded consumers desire symbolic values and
meanings from brands. When creating a brand, symbolic values should be carefully
chosen and create consistency while keeping consumers’ desires in mind (Wee &
Ming, 2003). When consumers relate to or believe in the communications of a brand,
successful branding has occurred (Wee & Ming, 2003).
When exploring brands, brand loyalty must also be addressed. The American
Marketing Association (AMA) defines brand loyalty as “the degree to which a
consumer consistently purchases the same brand within the product class” (AMA,
2017). As such, research has shown that brand loyalty influences consumers’
21
purchasing decision, and the more loyal a consumer is to a brand, the more likely they
are to purchase that brand no matter the cost (Chi, Yeh, & Yang, 2009). A study
focused on hotels and restaurants found that beyond a brand’s functional value,
symbolic values from self-congruence, brand identification, and lifestyle-congruence
all have a positive effect on brand loyalty (Nam, Ekinci, & Whyatt, 2011).
Brands can represent anything from an organization to a product. Studies have
been conducted on how consumers view brands and use them to make decisions.
Hoeffler and Keller (2003) summarized several studies on brands and how strong
brands benefit from marketing. They suggested that early decisions organizations
make create an impact on consumers’ associations with their brand (Hoeffler & Keller,
2003). They also stated that brand strength is measured by familiarity, or knowledge
of the brand, which is measured by association with image, reputation, high-quality
brands, high-valued brands, and positive prior attitude and ownership (Hoeffler &
Keller, 2003) creating a strong need for communicating and marketing of brands.
Brand strength can be also defined as simply observing a brand’s current
performance in the market place (Brand Finance, 2018). Obvious evidence of brand
strength with consumers is looking at sales numbers (Brand Finance, 2018). A second
way to define brand strength is through awareness, associations and beliefs, and
attitudes of the consumer (Brand Finance, 2018). From this definition of brand
strength, “you could certainly say it is strong if many people express great loyalty or
affection for it, in their words and actions” (Brand Finance, 2018, para. 7). The final
definition of brand strength is future performance and profit streams (Brand Finance,
22
2018). This definition goes a step further than a person’s perceptions of the brand to
their relationship with it, ultimately looking at consumer behavior (Brand Finance,
2018).
Brands are created to differentiate an organization or product from others and
create salience for consumers. Brand differentiation is defined as the extent to which a
brand separates itself from others (Ehrenburg, Barnard, & Scriven, 1997), while brand
salience is defined as the extent that a brand is accessible in the consumer’s mind
(Franzen & Moriarty, 2009). Specifically for the Florida Forest Service (FFS) brand,
positive brand image was not as important as brand salience when it looking at
consumer perceptions and success of the brand, which supports previous literature
(Settle et al., 2012). Brand identifiers, such as logos, and external communications
efforts have an impact on consumers’ salience of brands (Settle et al., 2012). Brand
awareness for the FFS brand was low, making it difficult for consumers to
differentiate the brand from others (Settle et al., 2012). This was caused by a lack of
communication from the organization (Settle et al., 2012), providing more evidence to
support the importance of communication when creating and maintaining a strong
brand.
Branding Food
Branding goes beyond organizations and into specific products, including food
products. Branding has played a huge role in the food industry by enhancing product
recognition and creating product differentiation for consumers (Moor, 2007). This has
played a crucial role as the food industry has evolved and created higher standards for
23
safety and regulations. Davies and Wright (1994) concluded that improvements of
standards in food labeling provisions and food claims have created product benefits
that have improved consumers’ brand attitudes.
Many states have created branded programs to promote locally produced and
sourced agricultural and food products. For milk labeled with the “Made in
Oklahoma” brand, consumers had a high willingness-to-pay for the specific labeled
product (Neill, Holcomb, & Lusk, 2016). However, as other state labeling programs
made a spillover into Oklahoma, the demand for the Oklahoma brand was reduced as
was the willingness-to-pay for the product (Neill, Holcomb, & Lusk, 2016). State
branding programs do impact demand for even generic products, but as more labels
enter the market, consumers become more price sensitive (Neill, Holcomb, & Lusk,
2016).
Other literature also supports the concept that price plays a role in purchasing
of branded products. For branded berries, consumers preferred seeing state agricultural
brands over only providing growing location on labels and associated these branded
products as being higher quality (Ruth & Rumble, 2016). Few consumers actually
made purchasing decisions based on labels with only growing location on them though
(Ruth & Rumble, 2016). This could be attributed to the fact that income level was
associated with purchase intent of strawberries, as lower income consumers indicated
that labels were not a factor when purchasing (Ruth & Rumble, 2016).
24
Beef Branding Labels
To differentiate specific characteristics of breeds and beef, the beef industry
began branding their products following the food-branding trend. According to
Claborn et al. (2011), “branded beef programs were developed to improved product
consistency while fulfilling specific consumer needs” (p. 17). When walking into a
grocery store, consumers have options of several different types of branded beef. The
USDA labels beef by identifying the cut of beef along with the grade; however, most
consumers are uneducated on the USDA grades of beef (Williams, 2006). Other beef
is branded based off of a branded beef program, such as CAB, Nolan Ryan’s Tender
Aged Beef, Cargill Meat Solutions Sterling Silver, along with many more.
Most consumers (83%) do not purchase beef based on brands (Reicks, 2006).
Only a small portion (10.5%) of consumers indicate they actually purchase nationally-
branded products on the USDA Certified Beef Programs list (Reicks, 2006). However,
consumers believe that branded beef program’s products have stricter regulations, are
safer, and are healthier to consume than non-branded beef (Williams, 2006).
Consumers claimed they consumed Angus beef on a regular basis but did not
differentiate between different Angus brands (Williams, 2006). Though consumers
were unaware that Angus was a breed and that multiple brands claimed Angus, they
did hold positive attitudes toward the term Angus and related it with quality
(Williams, 2006). When discussing branded beef products with consumers, the main
complaint was that the product was overpriced and many suggested that their purchase
motivation was based on opportunity and convenience over preference (Williams,
25
2006). Price compared to commodity was one of the most important factors for
consumers when making purchase decisions for branded beef products (Reicks, 2006).
Cross and Savell (1994) reported that “there is more than one market for beef”
(p. 23). In the beef market today, you can find natural, grass-fed, and antibiotic-free
branding which are all niche markets within the beef industry. Although the majority
of cattle are not fed or raised with intentions of being branded this way, some are.
Niche market products have been on the rise because of consumers’ mistrust of and
unrest with animal welfare, the environment, food purity, and impacts of agricultural
practices (GRACE Communications Foundation, 2013).
“Grass-finished beef (sometimes marketed as grass-fed beef) comes from cattle
that have been raised on a forest diet their entire lives” (Beef Board, 2007, p. 1). The
USDA’s AMS requires that 99% or more of a cattle’s energy must come from grass or
forage as a standard for beef to be branded grass-fed (Beef Board, 2007). For any red
meat or poultry to be labeled as antibiotic-free or no antibiotics added, the Food Safety
and Inspection Service (FSIS) requires the producer of the product to provide
documentation that the animal was raised without the use of antibiotics (USDA,
2015b).
Several studies have been conducted on these niche marketed beef products
and brands. Consumers were willing to pay a higher price for U.S. grass-fed beef
compared to grain-fed beef products, specifically in natural food stores (McCluskey et
al., 2005). “There is indeed a market for a niche beef product that focuses on health
benefits, such as grass-fed beef” (McCluskey et al., 2005, p. 7). Millennials’
26
particularly have an increased concern for food practices and production when
discussing conventionally produced and unconventionally produced products
(Crowder, Shoulders, & Rucker, 2014).
Unconventionally, or alternatively, produced products are defined as having
organic, grass-fed, locally-grown, antibiotic-free, hormone-free, pasture-raised, free-
range, or cage-free messaging and labeling on them (Crowers, Shoulders, & Rucker,
2014; GRACE Communications Foundation, 2013). For beef products specifically,
millennial preferences were split; 33% preferred conventionally produced, 33%
preferred unconventionally produced, and 33% had no preference (Crowder,
Shoulders, & Rucker, 2014). Millennial consumers held more favorable views of the
appearance, smell, and flavor of conventional beef, but found the texture of
artificially-produced beef more favorable (Crowder, Shoulders, & Rucker, 2014).
Significantly higher scores of appearance and flavor were reported for consumers who
preferred conventionally produced beef while those who preferred artificially flavored
products scored high on each appearance, smell, texture, and flavor (Crowder,
Shoulders, & Rucker, 2014).
Overall, understanding consumers’ preferences for beef products allows
producers to be more successful in raising what the market demands. Producers,
however, help influence the market as well and have been making production
decisions for a long time. Cross and Savell (1994) suggested that livestock producers
as a whole found it frustrating that while quality and carcass composition varied
greatly, there was no monetary differentiation. Due to this, the beef industry felt
27
something must be done, and a task force was established, publishing the Value Based
Marketing Task Force report, A War on Fat, in 1990 (Cross & Savell, 1994). The goal
of the report was to reduce excess trimmable fat and increase lean protein in beef
carcasses improving production efficiency (Cross & Savell, 1994).
The U.S. Beef Industry

Agriculture, including food production, plays a large role in the U.S. economy.
In 2015, $992 billion of the U.S. GDP was contributed by agriculture, food, and
related industries (USDA, 2017a). Specifically, farm outputs contributed $132.7
billion, roughly 1%, of the GPD; however, even this number is misleading because it
does not account for all sectors of agriculture such as forestry, fishing, food, or
beverages. (USDA, 2017a).
Within U.S. agriculture, the meat and poultry industry is the largest segment,
producing more than 93 billion pounds in 2012 (NAMI, 2017). Within the meat
industry, beef plays a major role. In 2012, the number of cattle operations in the U.S.
totaled 913,000 operations, with beef cattle operations accounting for 728,000 (80%)
of those (USDA, 2016). In 2016, 92 million head of cattle and calves were reported on
farms/ranches in the U.S. (National Cattleman’s Association Board, 2017) and
produced 25.23 billion pounds of beef products (Cattle Fax, 2016).
Beef makes up a large part of the total cash receipts, or total income received
through sales, received by the U.S. agricultural industry. Cash receipts for all animals
and animal products totaled $162.9 billion in 2016 (USDA, 2017b). The largest
portion of this, 39% ($63.9 billion), came from cattle and calves (USDA, 2017b). This
28
was followed by beef’s competitors in the protein market, poultry and eggs, which
accounted for $38.7 million, or 24%, and hogs, which accounted for $18.9, or 9%
(USDA, 2017b). One of the largest differences between beef and its protein
competitors is that beef is not a vertically integrated industry, meaning that there is
more than one segment from producer to supply chain.
When examining Americans’ meat eating habits, it is important to note that
only 3% report following a strict vegan or vegetarian diet (Pew Research Center,
2016b). Since 1970, Americans’ diets have seen a decrease in beef products and a
large increase in chicken (Pew Research Center, 2016b). This is not attributed to one
factor but could be an effect of price, the BSE outbreak, and increased focus on
healthy diets (Pew Research Center, 2016b).
While examining beef consumption over a long period of time shows a
decrease in consumption year to year, the beef industry is seeing a slight increase in
consumption overall. According to the USDA’s Economics Research Service (n.d.d),
24.8 billion pounds of beef were consumed in 2015 putting the retail equivalent value
of the U.S. beef industry at $105 billion, an increase from the previous year’s $94
billion retail equivalent value.
Beef sales can also be separated by specific label offerings seen in the market.
In 2016, conventional beef sales totaled $15 billion in the U.S., minimally processed
sales totaled $94 million, natural beef sales totaled $74 million, and antibiotic-free
beef sales totaled $32 million (Nielson, n.d.). These sales represented 25.668 billion
pounds of beef consumed by Americans in 2016 (USDA, n.d.d).
29
Not only are beef sales within the U.S. important, beef exports account for a
large portion of U.S. beef markets. 2017 was a record breaking year in terms of beef
exports for the U.S. with a total of $7.27 billion (U.S. Meat Export Federation
[USMEF], 2018). Of all cattle produced in the country, exports outside of the U.S.
accounted for 12.9% (USMEF, 2018). In 2016, exported cattle averaged $286.38 per
head at slaughter, which is the second highest average behind 2014’s $300.36 per head
(USMEF, 2018). USMEF (2018) attributes this increase to a significant increase in
market share in Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan, especially for chilled beef exports.
For the past few years, the U.S. has been the fourth largest country in beef exports
behind India, Brazil, and Australia (USDA, n.d.e).
The beef industry is quite different from other commodities or livestock in
general, because beef has the most unique and complex lifecycle of any livestock food
product due to the variety of segments (NCBA, 2017). For beef products to get from
farm to fork, it takes two to three years (NCBA, 2017). This is much different from
other livestock; poultry, for instance, takes from seven weeks to a year depending on
the type of bird (USDA, 2015a).
The beef industry is comprised of four major segments that produce cattle in
various stages of development. These include seedstock producers, commercial cow-
calf producers, yearling and stocker operations, and feedlot finishing operations
(Damron, 2013). The seedstock producer’s primary goal is to produce breeding stock,
especially bulls, for the industry (Damron, 2013). A cow-calf farm or ranch is where
cattle are bred and calving happens, and at the end of this stage cattle are six to 10
30
months old, weigh 300 to 700 lbs., and are sold to either a feedlot or a stocker
operation (Damron, 2013). Yearling and stocker operators grow calves to heavier
weights, typically on low priced forages, to then be entered into feedlots (Damron,
2013). Feedlots or finishing operations grow out cattle, most of the time on grain, until
they reach 900 to 1,400 lbs. and are then sent to slaughter (Damron, 2013).
After cattle are finished at a feedlot, they are harvested for beef products that
are packaged and graded. The USDA grades beef carcasses to determine the quality of
the meat produced. The highest level of grade is Prime, which is produced from
young, well-fed cattle and has slightly abundant marbling (USDA, n.d.b). The next
grade, Choice, is still high-quality beef but has less marbling than Prime (USDA,
n.d.b). The Select grade of beef is normally leaner than the higher grades but is still
tender despite having less marbling (USDA, n.d.b). The lowest grades, Standard and
Commercial, are often sold as ungraded or store brand meat and are used to make
ground beef and other processed products (USDA, n.d.b). These grades are the most
basic standards provided for labeled beef products and allow a basis for certified beef
programs to promote quality standards.
When selling cattle to be slaughtered, three things can happen. First, cattle can
be sold based on live weight, and second, on carcass weight. Thirdly, cattle can be
sold on different grid systems, which is “a system to individually price cattle based on
their merit” (Anderson, n.d., p. 5). This means that some cattle are worth more than
the market and some are worth less, based on carcass characteristics (Anderson, n.d.).
31
The U.S. has a large number of beef cattle within the various segments of the
beef industry. In 2016, 92 million head of cattle and calves were reported on farms or
ranches in the U.S. (NCBA, 2017), and in 2012, the USDA Agriculture Census
reported the average beef-cow herd size was approximately 40 head (USDA, 2012).
Figure 2.1 identifies the location of beef cows in the U.S. according to the 2012 census
(USDA, 2012).
0 200
Miles
Beef Cows - Inventory: 2012

2012 Census of Agriculture
1 Dot = 2,500 Beef Cows
0 100
United States Total
0 100 Miles
12-M144 28,956,553
U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service
Miles Dots for Alaska and Hawaii are omitted from the map.
Figure 2.1 Beef cattle location across the U.S. (USDA, 2012)
Out of the large number of cattle in the U.S., some are considered commercial,
or crossbred, cattle and some are registered to a specific breed. The most popular
breeds of cattle in the U.S. are Angus, Charolias, Hereford, Simmental, and Red
32
Angus (Beef Board, 2017b). The Angus breed is one of the most popular in the U.S.
because of their high-quality carcass characteristics and their ability to be good
mothers with low-maintenance calving (Beef Board, 2017b). According to the
American Angus Association (2017), there were 332,421 head of registered Angus
cattle in the 2017 fiscal year. Montana, Nebraska, South Dakota, Texas, and Missouri
were the five states with the largest numbers of registered Angus cattle in 2017
(Angus, 2017). Recognizing the popularity of the Angus breed, it is easy to see that
certified beef programs thrive off of the breed and its characteristics. The American
Angus Association (2016) reported in 2016 that bull prices averaged $5,605 per head
and females averaged $5,036 per head. These prices are 12% higher for bulls and 40%
higher for females compared to 2014 averages (Angus, 2016).
Although the Angus breed is the most recognizable breed, other popular breeds
have desirable characteristics to note as well (Beef Board, 2017b). The Charolias
breed, for example, can withstand cold well but also heat, due to their light-hided color
(Beef Board, 2017b). The breed is also desired for its large frame size and lean
muscling characteristics (Beef Board, 2017b). Hereford cattle are desired for their
adaptation to difficult climates and for high reproductive performance and small
maintenance costs (Beef Board, 2017b). The Simmental breed is known for their
docility, good mothering ability, low-maintenance calving, and high carcass
characteristics (Beef Board, 2017b). Finally, Red Angus cattle are similar to black
Angus but are sometimes more heat tolerant and are known for their marbling and
flavor (Beef Board, 2017b).
33
Most cattle breeds have national associations that keep track of registration for
the breed. Each breed has different requirements for how animals should be registered
and what percentage of the breed they must be, among other specificiations.
Registering cattle helps the industry keep up with blood lines and genetic value of the
animals. This is traced by expected progeny differences (EPDs) that provide
estimations of cattle’s genetic value as a parent (Greiner, 2009). EPDs are calculated
by the genetic make-up of each animal and include birth, growth, maternal, and
carcass trait predictions (Greiner, 2009). These statistics are often used by producers
to select the cattle they wish to purchase for their own herd.
Cattle Producers
According to the USDA 2012 Census of Agriculture, the average age of
principle beef cattle ranchers is 58.3. The census also reported that there are 727,906
beef operations, and of these, 91% are family or individually owned and operated,
with 11% operated by women (Vilsack, 2014).
Along with the complexity of the industry, beef producers are responsible for
other intricate details of raising cattle. Several agricultural commodities provide
checkoff programs that set a monetary value to be collected from every sale to provide
funding for different purposes such as marketing and research. The Beef Checkoff
Program is “a producer-funded marketing and research program designed to increase
domestic and/or international demand for beef” (Beef Board, 2017a, p. 1). The goal
for all checkoff programs, including beef’s, is to increase demand for the commodity
(Beef Board, 2017a). The USDA and Cattlemen’s Beef Promotion and Research
34
Board (CBB), a board that supervises cattle production in the U.S., oversee the
checkoff program. The program comprises six categories for spending including
promotion, research, consumer information, industry information, foreign marketing,
and producer communications (Beef Board, 2017a).
With cattle producers facing many responsibilities, goals and challenges must
be discussed. Beef producers’ in Louisiana indicated their three most important goals
were to maintain and conserve land, have time for other activities, and avoid years of
loss/low profit (Basarir & Gillespie, 2006). The goal of maintaining and conserving
land being the most important could answer the question of why vertical coordination
has not evolved in the beef industry (Basarir & Gillespie, 2006). These goal structures
might also give insight into the beef industry’s lower level of interest in lobbying for
government price support programs compared to other industries, such as dairy
(Basarir & Gillespie, 2006).
It is important to also discuss the issues that beef producers face. One
challenge beef producers reported they face is input volatility, which includes feed
ingredients with fluctuating prices (Rutherford, 2016). Another challenge includes
health of animals, because morbidity and mortality cause loss for producers and
keeping animals healthy is not an easy challenge (Rutherford, 2016). As discussed,
consumers’ perceptions help drive the market. In some cases, this can be a concern for
producers as pressures rise to increase focus on sustainability, antibiotic use, and other
technologies (Rutherford, 2016).
35
Consumer Beef Purchasing Habits
When exploring the beef industry, consumer beef purchasing habits should
also be looked at due to the impact they have on the industry. Consumers indicated
that important factors when purchasing beef were color, visible fat, price, and cut
(Robbins et al, 2003). Claborn et al. (2011) performed a study on consumers’
evaluation of the palatability of strip loin steak of USDA Select, USDA Prime, and
CAB from retail marketers in Lubbock, Texas. Steaks “from carcasses eligible for the
CAB program were more tender, juicier and more flavorful” according to trained
panelists; however, this did not correlate with consumer responses (Claborn et al.,
2011). Consumers responded that tenderness, flavor, consumer satisfaction, and
tenderness acceptability were similar among USDA grades and the branded label.
Because of this, the researchers suggested that there is an increased difficulty of
predicting consumers’ preferences to meat products at home based on these measures
(Claborn et al., 2011).
Certified Angus BeefÒ
The Certified Angus BeefÒ program began in 1978 and is just one of the 88
different certified beef programs operating under the USDA (USDA, 2016). The
USDA has a policy for these programs that includes specific requirements to be
determined by the originator of the program to be approved by the Livestock, Poultry
and Seed (LPS) program (Siebert & Jones, 2013). Carcasses must also meet an official
USDA quality grade for certification to be provided, and claims of breed of cattle must
meet the requirements of the specific U.S. breed association (Siebert & Jones, 2013).
36
Certified program labels that make breed or USDA certification claims must be
approved by Labeling and Consumer Protection staff, which is under the FSIS (Seibert
& Jones, 2013).
Certified Angus Beef LLC is a non-profit organization and is a subsidiary of
the American Angus Association (CAB Partners, 2011). The organizations only form
of funding comes from the approximately two cents per pound of beef sold through
licensed packers and processors that is returned back to the program for promotin and
and marketing purposes (CAB Partners, 2011). Therefore, once cattle leave the feedlot
and are harvested, they only have a chance of being labeled CAB if they are sent to a
licensed processor.
The organization does not own, buy, sell, or market any cattle, but rather owns
the trademarked Certified Angus BeefÒ logo (CAB Partners, 2011). Cattle who are
certified under the CAB program are raised by family farmers and ranchers, and
Angus farmers created the brand in 1978 (CAB, 2017). To help ensure quality and
integrity, CAB keeps a close relationship with cattle producers by working with them
by visiting ranches to improve tracking systems and production practices (CAB,
2017).
The only beef products that receive the CAB label are processed through
licensed packers and processors and are sold through distributors, restaurants, and
grocery stores partnered with the organization (CAB Partners, 2011). Reicks (2006)
reported that some consumers were not influenced by branding because they trusted
the retailer in which they made purchases. As such, CAB does not allow just any
37
retailer to sell their products; CAB products are available at several local restaurants
and grocery stores, but not at Wal-Mart (CAB, 2017b). According to CAB (2017b),
specific retailers are selected to help differentiate the brand from the variety of Angus
labeled products offered. The program specifically states the “Angus is a breed of
cattle, not an indications of beef quality” (para. 1), and their brand goes above and
beyond the breed quality with their specifications (CAB, 2017b).
Cattle sent to licensed packers are met by USDA graders that inspect the
carcass to see if it meets the specifications set by CAB (CAB Partners, 2011). For
cattle to be branded with the CAB brand, the animal must be 51% black hided or have
documented Black Angus genetics (Seibert & Jones, 2013). CAB cattle must have
predominantly solid black hair coats with no other color behind the shoulder or above
the flank. This is the only live animal identification requirement and represents a
dominant trait of the Angus cattle breed.
The carcass qualities that must be met to be CAB labeled are more extensive
and include 10 quality standards as seen in Table 2.1. According to CAB (2017),
modest or high marbling is a standard to ensure consumer satisfaction when it comes
to taste. Medium or fine marbling texture represents the white flecks seen in the beef
that ensures consistent flavor and juiciness. “A” maturity refers to the youngest
classification of a product and helps ensure superior color, texture, and tenderness
(CAB, 2017c). The next three quality standards are focused on sizing and ensure
consistency in sizing of beef products sold (CAB, 2017c). These include 10- to 16-
square-inch ribeye area, 1,050-pound hot carcass weight or less, and less than 1-inch
38
fat thickness (CAB, 2017c). The quality of appearance and tenderness include
standards focused on superior muscling, which restricts the influence of dairy cattle
breeds, and practically free of capillary ruptures, which ensures the steak will be
visually appealing (CAB, 2017c). The final two standards include no dark cutters,
which ensures visually appealing meat and no neck hump exceeding two inches,
which safeguards against more variability of tenderness cattle (CAB, 2017c). The
Brahman breed of cattle are known for the large humps on their back (Goodman,
2012), this requirement ensures no Brahman influenced cattle are labeled CAB.
Table 2.1
Certified Angus BeefÒ brand’s 10 Quality Standards (CAB, 2017c)
1. Modest or high marbling
2. Medium to fine marbling texture
3. “A” Maturity
4. 10- to 16-squar inch ribeye area
5. Less than 1,050-pound carcass weight
6. Less than 1 inch external fat
7. Superior beef muscling
8. Practically free of capillary rupture
9. No dark cutters
10. No neck hump exceeding 2 inches
The CAB brand family includes three different label offerings (shown in
Figure 2.2). The Certified Angus BeefÒ Brand is the traditional product that adheres
to stringent quality standards that include only the best cuts of choice and prime beef
grades (CAB, 2017a). The Certified Angus BeefÒ Brand Prime upholds the same
standards as the traditional product but represents the top 1.5% of graded beef in the
program (CAB, 2017a). The Certified Angus BeefÒ Brand Natural goes a step further
with its strict standards for cattle who have received no antibiotics or hormones and
39
have been fed an all vegetarian diet (CAB, 2017a). In 2007, research conducted
through the CAB program reported that 87% of consumers recognized the brand, and
91% recognized the logo, which was three and a half times more than consumers
recognized the next ranking branded beef program (CAB, n.d.).
Figure 2.2 Certified Angus BeefÒ Brand Logos (CAB, 2017a)
Theoretical Framework
Two theoretical frameworks guided this study: the theory of planned behavior
and (corporate) reputation management.
The Theory of Planned Behavior
The theory of planned behavior is an extension of Ajzen and Fishbein’s theory
of reasoned action (Madden, Ellen, & Ajzen, 1992). According to Ajzen and Fishbein
(1980), the theory of reasoned action “is based on the assumption that human beings
are usually quite rational and make systematic use of the information available to
them” (p. 5). The theory examines informational and motivational determinants to
perform a specific behavior and introduces a person’s intention to perform a given
behavior as a function of two basic determinants – attitude and subjective norms
(Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980).
40
Attitude toward a behavior is determined by whether a person has a positive or
negative evaluation of their ability to perform the said behavior and is influenced by a
person’s beliefs, which are termed behavioral beliefs (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980).
Because attitudes are seen as a function of beliefs, if performing a behavior is thought
to lead to mostly positive outcomes, then a person will hold a positive attitude toward
performing the behavior (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980). Similarly, if performing a behavior
is thought to lead to mostly negative outcomes, then a person will hold a negative
attitude toward performing the behavior. In this study, if a beef producer believes that
raising cattle that will qualify as a CAB labeled product will lead to positive outcomes,
such as producing a higher quality of meat or that they will make a higher profit, it is
predicted that they will hold a positive attitude toward taking that action.
The second determinant of intention is subjective norms which represent “the
social pressures put on him (or her) to perform or not perform the behavior in
question” (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980, p. 6). This is a person’s belief that the individuals
or groups surrounding them think they should or should not perform a behavior (Ajzen
& Fishbein, 1980). If a beef producer is surrounded by a social setting of others in
support of raising CAB cattle, to improve the industry or make an increased premium,
it is predicted by the theory that they will be more motivated to make the decision to
do so.
The theory of planned behavior is “designed to predict and explain human
behavior in specific contexts” (Ajzen, 1991, p. 181). Where the theory of planned
behavior differs from the theory of reasoned action is by joining the two functions of
41
intention with perceived behavioral control (Ajzen, 1991). Perceived behavioral
control is added as a variable that has both a direct effect on behavior and an indirect
effect on behavior through behavioral intention (Ajzen, 1991). This theory is
conceptualized in Figure 2.3 below.
Figure 2.3 Theory of planned behavior model adapted from Ajzen, 1985.
Perceived behavioral control introduces the idea that a person’s possessing
resources and opportunities to perform the given behavior will increase motivation to
perform (Madden, Ellen, & Ajzen, 1992). Therefore, the more an individual thinks
they possess the necessary resources to perform a behavior and have opportunities to
act on a behavior, the stronger their perceived behavioral control is (Madden, Ellen, &
Ajzen, 1992). In this study, if a producer believes they have the ability or resources to
raise CAB cattle, they will be more likely to perform the behavior. Perceived
behavioral control is not necessarily realistic when a person has little knowledge about
42
the behavior at hand or when a requirement or resource has changed (Ajzen, 1991).
This makes it important to also understand the knowledge that producers have of the
program.
The theory of reasoned action and the theory of planned behavior assume that a
person will act in accordance to his or her intentions, barring unforeseen events (Ajzen
and Fishbein 1980). This means that if a person intends to purchase a product they will
act on this intention. Ajzen and Fishbein (1980) further explained, “our theory views a
person’s intention to perform (or to not perform) a behavior as the immediate
determinant of the action” (p. 5). Ultimately, intentions capture a person’s
motivational factors that influence behavior (Ajzen, 1991). Therefore, if beef
producers intend to raise cattle that could be CAB labeled, they will act on that
intention by raising CAB cattle. Similarly, Ajzen (1991) explained how an
individual’s intention to perform a behavior is a central factor in the theory of planned
behavior. Intentions capture how motivated an individual is to perform a behavior,
indicating how hard they are willing to try (Ajzen, 1991). The theory makes it clear,
however, that only under someone’s will can a behavioral intention be expressed
(Ajzen, 1991).
Very few studies were found exploring beef producer behavior through the
theory of planned behavior. However, Delgado et al. (2014) explored the theory of
planned behavior regarding beef producer beliefs of holding cattle and observing
movement restrictions during an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease. Social norms, or
pressure, was found to be the highest indicator of behavior of the producers in this
43
study (Delgado et al., 2014). These pressures and norms were identified as
veterinarians and regulatory agencies (Delgado et al., 2014).
Petrea (1996) applied the theory of planned behavior to Illinois pork
producers’ behavior of utilizing respiratory protection. After two phases of the study,
all participants showed an increase in self-reported intentions to utilize respiratory
protections (Petrea, 1996). The study concluded that attitude and subjective norm
equally contributed to behavior overall (Petrea, 1996). Producers’ attitude included
that the protections were hot and uncomfortable, they help to keep dust out of lungs,
and they are difficult to keep where needed (Petrea, 1996). The strongest motivators of
subjective norms were health professionals and spouses (Petrea, 1996).
Several studies have supported the theory of reasoned action from a consumer
perspective, and some even focused on consumers’ intent to purchase beef products.
Zey and McIntosh (1992) found that social norms influenced a consumer’s intention to
purchase and consume beef products. The social norm found to have the most
influence on their participants was the influence that men (husbands, boyfriends, etc.)
held on a woman’s life and how this influence led the women to think that they should
consume and serve more beef (Zey & McIntosh, 1992).
Estes, Edgar, and Johnson (2015) found support for the theory of reasoned
action in their study of perceptions of the poultry industry in Arkansas. Their study
supported the idea that as consumers become more knowledgeable about a product,
they will understand consequences associated with their perceptions of that product
allowing them to make more informed decisions (Estes, Edgar, & Johnson, 2015).
44
They found that as consumers became more aware of the absence of negative
consequences, such as humane treating and antibiotic use, associated with the poultry
industry, they were more likely to purchase poultry products (Estes, Edgar, &
Johnson, 2015).
In this study, the theory of planned behavior was selected for a few reasons.
First, selecting breeds of cattle to raise and produce is a decision-based behavior.
Making such a decision is not a simple act as much thought and consideration must be
done especially because of the various options that cattle producers have on breed and
crossbred animals (Beef Board, 2017b). Second, the purpose of the study was to
determine the perceptions U.S. beef producers have of the CAB program’s impact on
the beef industry. Attitudes are a function of beliefs or perceptions, whether they be
positive or negative (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980). Finally, while the study focused more
on the attitudes of beef producers, perceived behavioral control was also explored.
Perceived behavioral control takes into consideration a person’s perceived possession
of resources and opportunities to behave a certain way (Madden, Ellen, & Ajzen,
1992). Overall, the study focused on attitudes and perceived behavioral control to
determine behavior intention, to raise CAB labeled cattle or not, of beef producers.
Corporate Reputation Management (CRM)
The second theory that guided this study was (corporate) reputation
management (CRM). One definition of CRM is a stakeholder’s overall evaluation of a
company over time (Gray & Balmer, 1998). The stakeholder’s evaluation is based on
direct experiences with the company, other forms of communication and symbolism
45
that provides information about the company, and a comparison with the actions of
other leading rivals (Gray & Balmer, 1998).
Gary and Balmer (1998) explored corporate image and reputation when
discussing CRM. Corporate image is defined as the “immediate mental picture that
audiences have of an organization” (Gary & Balmer, 1998, p. 6). While corporate
reputation is defined as “a value judgement about the company’s attributes” (Gary &
Balmer, 1998, p. 6). Corporate reputation evolves over time due to consistent
performance and effective communication (Gary & Balmer, 1998). Both image and
reputation influence a stakeholder’s evaluation of a company.
For this study, beef producers’ evaluation of the CAB program was explored.
This was done by asking them their perceptions of the program, their experiences with
the program, communication efforts they have seen, as well as why they believe the
CAB program has been a success when compared to other branded beef programs.
When exploring the image and reputation of the University of Florida’s
Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, perceptions of the image and reputation of
the institute were positive, but awareness of the program’s range was low (Baker et al.,
2011). However, the institute was reported to be used more as a source for agricultural
and natural resources topics (Baker et. al., 2011). Organizational reputation with
regard to food is a topic of interest as well (van Woerkum & van Leishout, 2007).
When viewing brand reputation in this industry, it is recommended that brands
become more open and transparent with their communication efforts (van Woerkem &
van Leishout, 2007). This recommendation also supports that to maintain reputation,
46
brands must be transparent in their communication efforts to consumers (van
Woerkem & van Leishout, 2007).
Summary
This chapter was a review of previous literature used to provide background
information of the key aspects of the study including labeling, branding, the U.S. beef
industry, Certified Angus Beef, the theory of planned behavior, and the CRM theory,
which both guided the study. This review of literature allowed the researcher to
determine what has been done in these key aspects and how they support the current
study. The focus of this study was to understand the knowledge and perceptions U.S.
beef producers have of the CAB program, as well as their perception on how the
program has impacted the beef industry. With very little research being conducted on
this topic before, the researcher was able to explore the topic broadly.
As previously discussed, the U.S. beef industry is the most complex livestock
industry to get from farm to fork due to the many parts and time period taken (NCBA,
2017). Specifically focusing on certified beef programs, the CAB program is just one
of the many programs operating under the USDA (USDA, 2017) however, remains to
be one of the most widely recognized and popular. This study sought to aid in the
understanding of beef producers’ perceptions of these programs to allow insight into
better marketing practices, since very little research has previously been conducted.
47
CHAPTER III
METHODOLOGY
Overview
To date, there has been virtually no research conducted on U.S. beef
producers’ knowledge and perceptions of the Certified Angus BeefÒ program or
perceptions of how the program has impacted the U.S. beef industry. This study helps
describe those perceptions and knowledge. This chapter examines the process used to
conduct this study including research design, population and sampling,
instrumentation, data collection and data analysis to answer the research questions. To
understand the characteristics of this topic, the following research questions guided the
study:
BeefÒ program?
BeefÒ program?
Certified Angus BeefÒ program has on the beef industry?
Research Design
This study used a qualitative research approach. According to Denzin and
Lincoln (2011), qualitative research locates the observer in the world. They further
explained, “qualitative researchers study things in their natural settings, attempting to
make sense of or interpret phenomena in terms of the meanings people bring to them”
48
(Denzin & Lincoln, 2011, p. 3). Using a qualitative design for this study was
important because of the uniqueness of the beef industry and its producers, and the
unique and insightful points of view they have of the beef industry. Beef producers
have the most insightful views of the industry because of their direct involvement, and
this study took advantage of this insight by exploring their perceptions and knowledge
firsthand.
A goal of qualitative research is to create a holistic picture and depth of
understanding instead of a numerical analysis of data (Ary, Jacobs, & Sorensen,
2010). This study used a qualitative research design over quantitative so the researcher
could ask open-ended questions for more in-depth responses (Creswell & Creswell,
2017). This design is appropriate when little research has been done on a topic, such as
beef producers’ knowledge and perceptions of branded beef programs. Knowledge and
perceptions are also hard characteristics to quantify, making a qualitative design ideal.
Qualitative researchers use an emerging qualitative research approach to
answer their research questions (Creswell, 2013). Based upon the needs of this study,
the qualitative research approach used was a phenomenological design. A
phenomenological study “describes the common meaning for several individuals of
their lived experiences of a concept or a phenomenon” (Creswell, 2013, p. 76). This
study explored lived experiences of beef producers and the CAB program.
Phenomenological research should be used when it is important to understand several
individuals common experiences of the topic (Creswell, 2013).
49
The purpose of phenomenological research is to describe what all participants
have in common, reduce these experiences, and describe the universal essence of the
topic (Creswell 2013; Van Manen, 1990). The researcher should collect data from
persons who have experienced the phenomenon and provide descriptions that
“consists of ‘what’ they experienced and ‘how’ they experienced it” (Creswell, 2013,
p. 76; Moustakas, 1994). When exploring phenomenological studies, the researcher
should ask what these experiences mean to all parties involved (Ary, Jacobs, &
Sorenson, 2010). In this study, the researcher explored what beef producers
experiences with the CAB program mean to them, the program, other branded beef
programs, and the beef industry.
Population and Sampling

The target population for this study included U.S. beef producers and anyone
involved in the beef production industry. To select participants for this study from this
population, a purposive sampling method was used. Purposive sampling is used in
qualitative research to select participants believed to be sufficient to allow maximum
understanding, insight, and relevance for the study (Ary, Jacobs, & Sorensen, 2010).
This is also the most common sampling method used in qualitative research
(Onwuegbuzie & Leech, 2007).
Miles and Huberman (1994) identified 16 different strategies that can be used
for purposive sampling. This study utilized one of these strategies, criterion sampling,
which involves sampling individuals that meet specific criteria (Miles & Huberman,
1994). This sampling method is used frequently to ensure quality in qualitative studies
50
(Miles & Huberman, 1994). Criterion sampling was used because qualitative
researchers not only have to choose which individuals to include, but also the
parameters to which the individuals must fit which may include participants’ locations
and experiences (Onweugbuzie & Leech, 2007). This was important for this study
particularly because the term “beef producer” is broad, and the researcher wanted to
set specific parameters to narrow the focus of the study. The first and most important
criterion set was that participants were involved in raising cattle for meat production
and not dairy production. To further focus the participants sampled, additional
inclusion criteria were also established.
The second criterion used was to select participants from different locations in
the U.S. by using environmental triangulation to sample the population. According to
recommendations from Guion, Diehl, and McDonald (2009), to ensure environmental
triangulation, researchers must interview a sample of participants from across the
United States. Environmental triangulation is used to see if findings will be consistent
under varying environmental conditions, which also helps to establish validity (Guion,
Diehl, & McDonald, 2009). This is important for this study because of the various
factors that influence beef producers’ decisions such as their environment and the
availability of resources due to location. This also helps to provide a more holistic
view of the beef industry by including producers from all areas of the country. To
ensure environmental triangulation in this study, the researcher included participants
from each region of the U.S. as defined by the U.S. Census Bureau (n.d.) which
separates the U.S. into four regions – Northeast, Midwest, South, and West. Some
51
regions of the U.S. have more beef cattle, making it easier to seek out participants
from those regions. Figure 3.1 shows a map of where beef cattle are located in the
country, while also indicated where the participants from the study resided.
West
Midwest
Northeast
South
0 200
Miles
Beef Cows - Inventory: 2012

2012 Census of Agriculture
1 Dot = 2,500 Beef Cows
0 100
United States Total
0 100 Miles
12-M144 28,956,553
U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service
Miles Dots for Alaska and Hawaii are omitted from the map.
Figure 3.1 Beef cattle location across the U.S. (USDA, 2012) and where participants
were located
A third criterion set by the researcher was to purposefully include participants
that were involved in different aspects of the beef industry. This included beef
52
producers involved in seedstock, cow/calf, stocker, or feedlot operations as defined in
Chapter 2. It was important to include participants from different aspects of the
industry as they are affected by branded beef programs differently.
Finally, the fourth criterion used to select participants was to purposefully
include participants who raised beef cattle for specific certified beef programs as well
as ones who raised commercial cattle only. This included producers who raised beef
cattle for the CAB program, those who raised cattle for other branded beef programs,
and those who raised commercial cattle only. As some producers’ goals are to raise
cattle for branded programs, others have nothing to do with them. Insight about the
CAB program could differ as could the beef industry impact by having a diverse
sample for this criteria.
To obtain large insight into topics, qualitative studies typically do not worry
about the number of participants in studies, but rather strive to extract meaning from
their data instead (Onwuegbuzie & Leech, 2007). In this study, the researcher focused
on collecting rich and meaningful data from a sample size of 10, which was sufficient
for this study. In phenomenological studies specifically, it is recommended that five to
25 individuals who have experienced the phenomenon be interviewed (Creswell,
2013). The small number allowed for more in-depth interviews to be conducted. In
qualitative studies, researchers focus on capturing the voice of participants, which is
done by conducting in-depth interviews and focusing less on the number of
participants (Onwuegbuzie & Leech, 2007).
53
Sampling Contact
From the list of contacts the researcher created, five participants were selected
based on the criteria outlined above to make initial contact. After the producers were
determined to fit the criteria of the study, participants were initially contacted through
a recruitment email (see Appendix B). The recruitment email provided potential
participants with the background of the researcher, their contact information, and the
purpose of the study and included an information sheet about the study (See Appendix
B & C). Participants could then contact the researcher to be included in the study. If
participants did not respond to the email within three to five business days, the
researcher reached out via phone calls to ask if they would participate.
After the initial five participants’ interviews were conducted or non-response
occurred, the researcher determined which inclusion criteria sufficient data was
lacking. Returning to the list of contacts, the researcher continued to contact
participants until inclusion criteria were met. Sampling concluded at 10 participants
because data saturation had occurred. Data saturation occurs when no new information
is being provided by participants (Ary, Jacobs, & Sorenson, 2010). Overall, 16 beef
producers were contacted to participate in the study, however, only the 10 included in
the study were able to complete an interview.
Participants
Ten beef producers shared their views about the CAB program and the beef
industry. These producers represent a variety of locations around the U.S., as
illustrated in Figure 3.1, and age, as well as various breeds and types of beef
54
operations, which can be seen in Table 3.1 below. Each participant was given a
pseudonym to ensure confidentiality, a brief description of each participant can be
found below.
55
Table 3.1
Participant Characteristics
Size of Branded Beef

Type of Operation by Program
Name Age Operation Head of Cattle Location Association
Certified
Hereford Beef
Travis 23 Seedstock 425 Iowa (CHB)
South
Emily 27 Seedstock 1,400/500 Carolina CAB
Specialty
Vertically Breed Branded
Brock 33 Integrated 3,000/12,000 Texas Program
Commercial South
Thomas 43 Cow/Calf 140 Carolina CAB
Pete 46 Feedyard 24,000 Texas N/A
Jeb 47 Seedstock 11,000/250 Colorado CAB
Trevor 50 Seedstock 150 Colorado Personal Brand
Registered
Wayne 54 Cow/Calf 40 Missouri CHB
Clint 61 Seedstock 400 New York CAB
Vertically
Philip 61 Integrated 1,000 Texas N/A
Travis. Travis is a 23-year-old male who lives in the Midwestern region of the
U.S. in Iowa. The operation he works on is a seed stock operation with around 425
head of cattle. Travis’ operation raises purebred Hereford cattle, and their main goal is
to sell purebred bulls to commercial breeders. The operation works closely with the
56
Certified Hereford Beef program and the Hereford Association and sells cattle that are
not kept for bulls or production through that program.
Emily. Emily is 27-year-old female who lives in the southern region of the
U.S. in South Carolina. Her operation is a seed stock operation with around 1,400
head of cattle. Emily’s operation raises purebred Angus cattle. The operation’s main
goal is to sell purebred bulls, of which approximately 500 are sold each year. Emily’s
operation works very closely with the CAB program and raises cattle specifically for
the program. Most of the cattle in her operation can be labeled as Certified Angus
BeefÒ Brand Natural; however, some cattle that get sick receive antibiotics and are
labeled under the Certified Angus BeefÒ Brand.
Brock. Brock is a 33-year-old male who lives in the southern region of the
U.S. in Texas. He operates a vertically-integrated operation that consists of 3,000
breeding females and 12,000 feeder calves. The operation owns a branded beef
program that focuses on raising Akaushi breed cattle. Akaushi cattle come from Japan
and have only recently been introduced to the U.S., making the breed rare with beef
products focused on niche markets.
Thomas. Thomas is a 43-year-old male who lives in the southern region of the
U.S. in South Carolina. His cow/calf operation has around 140 head of Angus-
influenced commercial cattle. The cattle raised on Thomas’ operation have been
labeled Certified Angus Beef in the past. He occasionally retains ownership
throughout the feedlot and primarily sends his cattle to Iowa to be finished out.
57
Pete. Pete is a 46-year-old male who lives in the southern region of the U.S. in
Texas. He operates a feed yard where around 24,000 head of cattle are run. With a
variety of suppliers, the most common type of cattle in his feed yard are the offspring
of purebred Charolaise, Angus, or Red Angus bulls and cross bred cows. Rarely does
Pete sell cattle on the pricing grid and receive CAB premiums.
Jeb. Jeb is a 47-year-old male who lives in the western region of the U.S. in
Colorado. The operation he runs is the seed stock branch of a larger ranch that
includes commercial and feedlot sectors as well. The goal of his operation on the
ranch is to raise genetic seed stock bulls for the cow/calf sectors of the operation. Jeb’s
operation raises Angus, Red Angus, Charolaise, Hereford, and a Red
Angus/Charolaise composite. In his operation, there are around 1,100 head of cows in
production as well as 250 replacement heifers they hold back to be used in production
each year. With regularity, the cattle raised on his operation are labeled through the
CAB program.
Trevor. Trevor is a 50-year-old male who lives in the western region of the
U.S. in Colorado. His operation is a seed stock operation that has around 150 head of
cattle. Trevor runs registered Limousin and Lim-flex cattle on his operation. He also
owns a small branded beef program through which he sells around 50 head of cattle
each year.
Wayne. Wayne is a 54-year-old male who lives in the Midwestern region of
the U.S. in Missouri. His operation is a registered Angus and Hereford cow/calf
58
operation that consists of around 40 head of cattle. Wayne also works for the
American Hereford Association.
Clint. Clint is a 61-year-old male who lives in the northeastern region of the
U.S. in New York. His operation is a seed stock operation that consists of 400 Angus,
Red Angus, and Hereford cattle. His operation’s main goal is to sell registered bulls to
commercial cattleman. Clint is a former employee of the American Angus
Association.
Philip. Philip is a 61-year-old male who lives in the southern region of the
U.S. in Texas. He runs an all-natural, grass-fed cattle operation with around 1,000
head of cattle. Philip’s operation is primarily a finishing operation; however, they do
have cow/calf, weanling, and yearling sectors. His operation raises Angus-influenced
commercial cattle. Other breeds that influence his cattle include Red Angus, Hereford,
Brangus, and Braford. Philip’s operation sells cattle through an alliance with Whole
Foods and a retail business run by the operation.
Data Collection
In qualitative research, the researcher, or human investigator, is the primary
instrument for collecting data (Ary, Jacobs, & Sorensen, 2010). In this study, the
researcher collected data by utilizing one-on-one, semi-structured interviews.
Interviews were used to give the researcher in-depth information about each
participant’s experiences and viewpoints of the proposed topic (Turner, 2010).
Interviews are the most appropriate data collection method when little is known about
the study or when detailed insights are required from participants (Gill, Stewart,
59
Treasure, & Chadwick, 2008). As little research has been conducted on producers’
perceptions of certified beef programs, particularly the CAB program, interviews were
ideal for this particular study.
Semi-structured interviews specifically were used because they allowed the
researcher to maintain consistency between interviews, while also allowing additional
questions to be asked to clarify points or delve further into a topic (Corbin & Strauss,
2015). This interview type also allowed the researcher to reword questions for better
explanation to the participants. This was especially important for this study, as
geographical differences could have hindered the understanding of beef industry
terms. It was also important because of the different criteria with which participants
were selected.
For this study, a researcher-created, semi-structured interview guide was used
to conduct interviews. The researcher created the interview guide with the assistance
of committee members and beef industry professionals. The questions focused on
producers’ personal experiences, their knowledge and perceptions of the beef industry,
and of the CAB program specifically (see Appendix D). The interview guide helped
the researcher conduct consistent interviews and helped the interviews to stay on track.
Interviews were conducted through one-on-one, semi-structured telephone
interviews with each participant and lasted approximately 30 to 45 minutes in length.
Telephone interviews were utilized in this study because of the geographical spread of
participants across the U.S. In the past 50 years, telephone interviews have compared
quite favorably to personal interviews (Ary, Jacobs, Sorenson, & Walker, 2014).
60
When using semi-structured interviews particularly, telephone interviews are most
appropriate and efficient (Berg, 2009). Utilizing telephone interviews has become
popular because of their low cost. This interview type was the most feasible and
effective way to collect rich data for this study. The telephone interviews were
conducted in January and February 2018.
At the beginning of each interview, the researcher explained to interviewees
that their participation was to help with a thesis study. Participants were also assured
that their responses would remain confidential. Each participant was assigned a
pseudonyms that was used when analyzing and reporting data to ensure this
confidentiality. Interviews were conducted after the approval of the Texas Tech
University Human Research Protection Program (see Appendix E).
To aid in the study’s data analysis and ensure the accuracy of participants’
responses, all interviews were audio recorded and field notes were taken by the
researcher. Recording interviews helps protect researchers against bias by providing a
permanent record of what was said during the interview (Gill, Stewart, Treasure, &
Chadwick, 2008). Field notes are used to allow the researcher to write down
observations and reflections as the interview is conducted (Ary, Jacobs, & Sorenson,
2010).
Data Analysis
Following each interview, the researcher manually transcribed the audio
recordings verbatim resulting in 74 pages of interview transcripts. Transcription of
recordings is preferred in qualitative research because it allows for a direct transfer of
61
interviews to help protect from bias in interpretation of data (Ary, Jacobs, & Sorenson,
2010). As suggested by Ary, Jacobs, and Sorenson (2010), during transcribing, no
words or phrases were changed so as not to change the meaning of what was said.
After interviews were transcribed, the researcher uploaded all transcriptions to
NVivo for Mac. This data analysis software allowed the researcher to analyzed the
data efficiently. NVivo allowed the researcher to read, search, and review text, write
memos, and categorize, compare, and combine data, all recommended by Ary, Jacobs,
and Sorenson (2010) when selecting an analysis program.
Before analyzing any data, the researcher read through each interview in
entirety to be fully immersed in the data as suggested by Agar (1980). Data was
analyzed through coding by reviewing the answers to interview questions. As
explained by Creswell (2013), coding “involves aggregating the text or visual data into
small categories of information, seeking evidence for the code from different
databases being used in the study, then assigning a label to the code” (p. 184). Initial
thoughts and concepts from the interviews were first determined through open coding.
Open coding was done by reviewing the interviews line by line, delineating the data,
and finding empirical indicators to create memos (Tesch, 1990). Memos and notes
were written in the researchers journal throughout this process, which helps
researchers in the initial process of exploring data (Creswell, 2013).
From the initial concepts made in the memos through open coding, themes
were formed. In qualitative research, themes “are broad units of information that
consist of several codes aggregated to form a common idea” (Creswell, 2013, p. 186).
62
Axial coding was then used, taking one category at a time and analyzing the concepts
within the categories, between the categories, and across subcategories (Tesch, 1990).
The researcher utilized the constant comparative method, a continuous process of
comparing information from data collection to emerging categories for identification
and clarity, when analyzing data (Creswell, 2013).
Trustworthiness
When conducting qualitative research, establishing trustworthiness, or
qualitative rigor is extremely important (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Trustworthiness can
be explained by the extent to which findings relate to reality or truth, or the confidence
that the findings represent the participants (Dooley, 2007). Creswell (2013) said that
validation, or trustworthiness, is researchers employing strategies to document the
accuracy of the study. One way trustworthiness was established in this study was by
using environmental triangulation to see if findings were consistent under varying
environmental conditions (Guion, Diehl, & McDonald, 2009). Lincoln and Guba
(1985) explained that trustworthiness contains four aspects to aid in qualitative
research’s establishment of rigor: credibility, transferability, dependability, and
confirmability.
Credibility
In quantitative research, concerns of accuracy and truthfulness of research is
termed internal validity; in qualitative research, this is paralleled with credibility (Ary,
Jacobs, & Sorenson, 2010). Credibility is ensured by being adequately submersed in
the research so that reoccurring patterns can be identified and verified (Krefting,
63
1991). In qualitative research, this can be seen through lengthy interviews, which
create a stronger relationship with participants allows them to be more open as the
interview proceeds (Krefting, 1991). Lincoln and Guba (1985) termed spending an
adequate amount of time with participants, prolonged engagement. In this study, the
researcher conducted interviews that ranged from approximately 30 to 45 minutes in
length and helped to build this relationship with participants. Another way the
researcher ensured credibility was by transcribing data verbatim and reviewing the
digitally recorded files to ensure the accuracy of the transcribed data.
Transferability
Transferability is used in qualitative research as the degree to which study
findings can be generalized or applied to other contexts and groups (Ary, Jacobs, &
Sorenson, 2010). Typically, it is not the goal of qualitative research to provide
generalizable findings but to provide sufficient data (Ary, Jacobs, & Sorenson, 2010).
To establish transferability in this study, descriptive adequacy was used – establishing
rich and detailed descriptions of the context of the study (Ary, Jacobs, & Sorenson,
2010). Establishing rich, thick descriptions was done by recording and transcribing all
interviews conducted through the use of the researcher keeping a journal. These
ensured the participants’ responses were captured as accurately as possible and as
much detail as possible could be provided about each interview. By establishing
descriptive adequacy, future researchers can make comparisons and decide if the data
is transferable to their own research (Ary, Jacobs, & Sorenson, 2010; Lincoln & Guba,
1985).
64
Dependability
In qualitative research dependability is often used rather than the quantitative
equivalent, reliability (Ary, Jacobs, & Sorenson, 2010). Dependability in qualitative
research is referred to as consistency or “the extent to which variation can be tracked
or explained” (Ary, Jacobs, & Sorenson, 2010, p. 502). Because qualitative research
expects variability, dependability allows for other researchers to determine if the study
could be replicated in the context of their own research (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). One
way to ensure a level of dependability is by utilizing an audit trial, or the researcher
maintaining records of the research. As Lincoln and Guba (1985) suggest, the
researcher maintained a researchers journal and audio recordings and transcriptions of
all interviews were stored in a secure location for the study.
Confirmability
The final aspect to aid in qualitative research rigor is confirmability (Lincoln &
Guba, 1985). Confirmability refers to the researcher’s concept of objectivity,
neutrality, or researcher’s freedom of bias in procedure and interpretation of results
(Ary, Jacobs, & Sorenson, 2010). Lincoln and Guba (1985) suggested that to ensure
confirmability, researchers should use an audit strategy. One form of an audit strategy
is keeping a researchers journal to provide insight into the researchers thoughts and
feelings during the research process (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). In this study, the
researcher kept notes in her researcher journal about interpretations of the findings,
ensuring confirmability.
65
Researcher Bias
In qualitative studies, researchers need to position themselves in the study
(Creswell, 2013). This is called reflexivity, where the researcher is aware of their own
biases, values, and experiences brought into the study (Creswell, 2013). The goal of
this is not to silence the researcher from the study, but to reflect on experiences and
how they shape the researcher’s interpretation (Creswell, 2013). In phenomenological
studies specifically, the concept of bracketing is used (Ary, Jacobs, & Sorenson,
2010). Bracketing involves the researcher setting aside their experiences and
suspending their beliefs to take on a fresh perspective based on the data collected
(Ary, Jacobs, & Sorenson, 2010). To do this, the researcher wrote a subjectivity
statement.
Researcher Subjectivity Statement
As mentioned, the researcher was raised in the beef industry, on a small
commercial operation for production purposes and raised purebred Limousin and
Hereford cattle to show across the country. Due to this, the researcher has a positive
perception and emotional ties to the overall industry. During data collection and
analysis, the researcher remained open-minded allowing this perception not to
influence the findings of the study.
66
CHAPTER IV
FINDINGS
Introduction
This study sought to determine the perceptions of U.S. beef producers on the
Certified Angus BeefÒ program and how the program has impacted the overall beef
industry. This insight will help gauge the program’s success at communicating their
brand to producers. The following research questions were used to guide this study:
BeefÒ program?
BeefÒ program?
Certified Angus Beef ProgramÒ has on the beef industry?
It is important to note that all participants shared that they rarely purchase beef
products. Participants noted that they did not usually purchase beef at the grocery
store, but rather consumed beef they produced themselves. Brock, Trevor, Wayne,
Philip, and Pete shared they very rarely purchase beef at the grocery store because
they and their family consume their own product. Travis discussed how his family
goes without purchasing beef. He discussed:
Luckily given that we have so many cattle, we have a local butcher whenever
we have any sort of particular cutter cow or cutter bull, we usually make our
own hamburger out of that. But every now and then we have a couple steers
that we finish ourselves and take to the local locker to get the high-quality cuts
that we of course grill and eat and all sorts of things. So, we are fortunate that
we don’t have to go to the grocery store. (Interview, 3, p. 1)
67
Other participants received their operation’s beef as part of their salary. Emily
noted, “That is part of our salary working at the farm. We get a certain amount of
freezer beef from our farm” (Interview 4, p. 1).
Findings in Relation to Research Question One

Research question one sought to determine what knowledge U.S. beef
producers have of the CAB program. Participants discussed their knowledge about the
program and one major theme emerged - basic knowledge and understanding of the
CAB program.
All Participants had a Basic Knowledge and Understanding of the CAB Program
Participants were asked what knowledge they had of the CAB program, and all
of the them indicated that they had at least a basic knowledge and understanding of the
CAB program. In their discussions of their knowledge of the program, two sub-themes
emerged in which participants described what they knew about the specifications or
standards required to be labeled in the program and the premiums associated with the
program.
CAB specifications or standards. The CAB program has several qualification
cattle and/or beef must meet in order to be eligible to be labeled under its program,
and all of the participants indicated they had a good understanding of the
specifications or standards set by the CAB program for cattle to qualify for the brand.
Emily specifically noted her understanding by stating “they [cattle] have to meet 10
specifications” (Interview 4, p. 2).
68
Several participants discussed the specific requirements of live cattle being
51% black-hided and the minimum grades carcasses have to meet. Pete stated:
From what I understand, the specs to get into the Certified Angus is that a calf
has to be over, at least 51% black-hided and their quality grade has to be in the
upper two-thirds choice, so high choice from a grading standpoint…Being a
beef producer, I know what that means, I know what the specs are to go into it
(Interview 6, p.2).
Jeb also discussed the carcass qualifications and became a little more specific
on how the process works, stating, “CAB comes in once that carcass is hanging on the
railing and then through the carcass merits” (Interview 5, p. 5). Including several of
the specifications required, Brock added some insight on how they have changed since
the start of the program:
I believe it was started in the upper two-thirds Choice, black-hided, less than a
three-inch hump to signify non-bos indicus cattle and also had a yield grade
parameter of falling into a certain yield grade. Since then, I believe the CAB
program has opened its parameters to being only at least 51% continuously
black-hided. (Interview 7, p. 2)
Trevor broadly discussed the 10 specifications and how the program uses them
from a business and marketing standpoint. “My understanding is that, from a business
model standpoint, they created a set of specifications for the product and have licensed
packers that if animals and carcasses meet those specifications, those packers are able
to brand that as CAB and market that accordingly” (Interview 8, p. 2).
Wayne included that the program was monitored by the USDA as well as
noted some specific specifications. He discussed:
It’s a USDA supported program that has both visual and carcass specs
associated with…cattle are predominantly black in terms of their visual specs.
No hump, if I remember right, no bos indicus, and no dairy influence…carcass
specs I think they’ve changed a little bit but carcass weights at 1,050. Upper
69
two-thirds Choice or better kind of program…it is a USDA supported program

and has both visual and carcass specifications. (Interview 9, p. 2)
CAB premiums. Participants also referenced their knowledge of premiums
given to producers and packers through the program. Travis noted, “I’m fairly familiar
with the CAB program… it’s a premium based program where you sell your cattle on
the grid” (Interview 3, p. 2). He later added, “It’s been good because it does throw out
extra premiums for feedlot producers for finishing out those nice quality animals and
leading to nice quality cuts of beef” (Interview 3, p. 2). He also noted, “I am mainly
familiar with the CAB on the feed yard and on the premium side of things at the
packer, so you know I’m always happy to see it because it promotes beef” (Interview
3, p. 3).
Emily, who personally raises cattle for the CAB program, stated she
understood the premium concepts well as her operation benefits from them:
We use a certified packer, or a licensed packer, and we are able to get those
results back and know which ones of our cows that we send to the feedlot are
able to qualify for CAB and we get those premiums. We always have used a
licensed, either, we’ve always used a feedlot that used a licensed packer or we
go directly, retaining ownership all the way through the finishing process.
(Interview 4, p. 2)
She later stated, “Once customers [other beef producers] of ours start to realize they
can get premiums for their cattle if they qualify, then yeah, they’re gonna be more
likely to purchase an Angus bull from us” (Interview 4, p. 3).
Jeb and Pete also referenced the premiums that CAB gives. Jeb noted, “It
comes to the bottom line in terms of premiums on those particular carcasses”
70
(Interview 5, p. 2). While Pete stated, “So we sell cattle and we sell into different grids
that have CAB premiums” (Interview 6, p. 2).
Findings in Relation to Research Question Two

Research question two sought to explore the perceptions participants had of the
CAB program. When discussing participants’ perceptions of the branded beef
program, four themes emerged – quality and consistency, reasons for CAB success,
perceptions of Prime and Natural Labels, and participants have begun questioning
Angus branding.
Participants Recognized that CAB Strives for Quality and Consistency
Several participants noted their perceptions that the CAB program promoted
quality and consistency within its products. This idea was related to the beef products
produced, as well as the live animals. Many participants perceived CAB products to be
of higher quality and more consistent in that quality. When asked why the CAB
program has been so successful, Trevor thought that quality and consistency were both
factors that could be attributed to branded beef programs:
I think more than anything else, by creating a branded program where market
signals can be transferred up and down the supply chain - that has done a
whole lot to improve the quality of beef products. And what I mean by that is
that, before, when it was a commodity product, if a consumer had a bad eating
experience really their only retribution, or possible retribution, would be to just
stop eating beef because they have no way of knowing where that beef came
from. Or why last night’s steak was so bad and you know two weeks ago it
was so good. I think the branded programs have created an opportunity where
by consumers can select the brand with the attributes that they value most.
(Interview 8, p. 6-7)
71
Quality of beef products. Most participants perceived CAB to be linked with
a quality product. Clint perceived CAB products as “a high quality eating experience”
(Interview 10, p. 2). He later included that the reason for the high quality could be
attributed to the criteria set by the CAB program. He added, “I think having those 10
very strong criteria to select makes a big difference. It really narrows your quality
down to a point where it’s continuously a very high quality product” (Interview 10, p.
4). Pete also suggested the specifications set by CAB added to their quality. He stated,
“I know what the specs are to go into it. I believe CAB carries a perception of quality”
(Interview 6, p. 2).
Trevor discussed a general perception of the quality of CAB products. He
stated, “It has grown to be the world’s largest branded beef program, well respected
and well known for its high quality (Interview 8, p. 2). Philip discussed his
perceptions of the CAB program from the products it produces. He stated, “I think that
consumers today in the U.S. are eating a higher quality beef” (Interview 1, p. 7). Jeb
also discussed the perception of quality for the product. He stated, “I have to admit
that the connotation is there’s a higher quality product that’s held to a higher standard
than a lot of other cuts of beef that are not, don’t have a value-added label on them”
(Interview 5, p. 3). He also added that consumers share this perception. He later
added:
It’s kind of set the gold standard in the public, the non-ag public’s, mind of
what quality beef should be…and so people take that seal of CAB stamp on
stuff as verification of a high-quality product, and they have a measure of
security and satisfaction of knowing they’re buying that. (Interview 5, p. 5)
72
Travis suggested that CAB has been a good thing because of its promotion for
high quality beef in the industry. He stated:
I would say that it’s been a good impact mainly because, like I said, it’s trying
to promote higher quality carcasses and higher quality beef for the
consumer…A lot of people can analyze it differently, but I think it’s just led to
producers holding themselves more accountable to try to get the right genetics
to try to fit the right market. (Interview 3, p. 2)
He later added:
So the end product and end beef is of high quality, and it’s also led people to
be a little more accountable in terms of how they market their cattle selling on
the grid to try and collect more premiums. (Interview 3, p. 6)
Consistency of beef products. Consistency was also a focus of participants’
perceptions of the CAB program and its products. According to Emily:
So, I think the biggest thing about my perceptions of the brand in general are
that products are going to be very consistent each and every time you eat
them…which is pretty cool because a lot of these other Angus brands…that
have the label Angus, you’re not going to get that consistency. (Interview 4, p.
3)
Brock discussed the specifications’ influence on the consistency of products
produced. He stated, “So I think any time you have a commodity product and you put
specifications on there to make the product more consistent to the consumer, you have
a better product” (Interview 7, p. 6). Trevor discussed how the CAB program has
influenced the beef industry by creating a consistent product in the beef market. He
stated, “I think that by having the foresight to create a brand that guaranteed a
consistent eating experience, that has been a positive lift for the entire beef industry”
73
Brock shared his thoughts on how consistent products are what consumers
want most. He also added that branded beef programs, such as CAB, have set up the
ideal platform to create such consistency:
I think the opportunity for beef producers is to make our product more
consistent. I think if you would take a poll of what consumers of beef like,
easily would be taste and a drawback would be consistency. Branded beef
programs have the opportunity to make their brand consistent to itself through
the specs that they put on their label. (Interview 7, p. 7)
Participants Shared Several Reasons for CAB’s Success
Participants also held perceptions that the CAB program was successful in its
efforts and provided several reasons for why this success has occurred. Trevor stated,
“I believe CAB has been a great program for Angus breeders, commercial cattleman,
and frankly, the beef industry” (Interview 8, p. 5). Participants noted several factors
that attributed to the success of the program, including their marketing efforts, the
reputation of the program, and the fact that CAB is associated with the American
Angus Association.
Marketing efforts. The first emerging perception for why the CAB program
has been successful is the fact that CAB acts as a marketing program for beef labeled
under the program and markets these products effectively. Participants were asked
what they perceived the program’s main goals to be in terms of marketing, regulatory,
or something different. Most participants perceived the program to be a marketing
program. For example, Thomas said that CAB was “strictly a marketing program”
(Interview 2, p. 3). Travis also noted this perception:
74
I would definitely kind of sway toward the marketing side of things…I think
it’s a great marketing tool actually just because it kind of teaches people to
chase those better carcass traits, and it still kind of promotes the Angus side of
things as well. (Interview 3, p. 2)
Emily also perceived the brand to be a marketing program and included that
the brand focuses on education as well. She stated, “In terms of the brand, I really feel
like they do more with marketing and education than anything” (Interview 4, p. 2).
Trevor also discussed how he perceived the program to be a marketing program. He
discussed:
I would see it very much as a marketing program, but they create a level, a set
of specification that then resolve in a consistent brand experience…and have
focused their energy on marketing that message, communicating that message,
and marketing those attributes I should say. (Interview 8, p. 2)
Although the majority of participants perceived CAB to be a marketing
program, they credited this attribute to the success of the program. Philip stated, “I
think they do a good job marketing the Angus product” (Interview 1, p. 2). Thomas
agreed that the program’s marketing abilities have supported their goals. He stated,
“It’s a very positive impression, just the branding concept of branding the quality and
then everything basically supports that, the support they get, the food service
marketing from the CAB group” (Interview 2, p. 3).
Jeb discussed the effectiveness of the program’s marketing efforts. He
discussed, “It’s probably the single most effective marketing tool that the beef industry
has seen as far as high-quality marketing, front end quality Choice, and above beef in
my opinion” (Interview 5, p. 2). Brock agreed and included the time frame that this
successful marketing has taken place. He stated, “When you have the marketing that
75
has been going on now for 40 years of Angus is better, CAB is better because of these
reasons” (Interview 7, p. 6).
Forms of advertisements recalled by producers. Though participants
attributed the CAB program’s success to its marketing efforts, when asked to recall
forms of marketing they have seen, the majority of what they recalled were
advertisements focused on communicating to producers rather than consumers.
Participants mainly recalled advertisements seen at industry related events or in
industry specific publications. For instance, Wayne mentioned, “I just came back from
NCBA, and obviously, there was some CAB promotion there that was easily seen”
(Interview 9, p. 4). Brock also discussed the NCBA convention. He said, “I was at
national cattleman’s this week and saw the CAB logo on sponsorships” (Interview 7,
p. 4). Thomas discussed advertisements he saw at another event. He discussed, “Most
of the advertisements I’ve seen have been around Angus events and specifically the
Angus event in Ft. Worth a few months ago” (Interview, p. 4).
Many participants suggested that they see advertisements in beef related
publications. For example, Trevor shared, “I see it fairly often, in obviously beef
related campaigns whether it’s in a magazine related to beef and all sorts of things
beef related” (Interview 3, p. 3). Jeb also recalled advertisements in beef related
publications. He recalled, “In most of the industry publications, particularly around the
summer buying periods and also during their bull bulletins when they’re promoting
bull sales regionally and then nationwide in industry magazines” (Interview 5, p. 3).
76
Trevor recalled seeing forms of advertisement for CAB in restaurants, which
was the only form of marketing directed toward consumers the participants noted. He
stated, “Probably recently in a restaurant in Nebraska that I saw CAB on a menu and I
believe a table placer about CAB and then a bit of a write up in the menu talking about
CAB” (Interview 8, p. 3).
CAB does not own the cattle. Another factor participants attributed to the
CAB program’s success was the fact that the company does not own any cattle, just
the labeled program. Emily explained, “The company doesn’t own any cattle; they
don’t own any beef itself. They just own the brand; they’re more working on
marketing opportunities (Interview 4, p. 2).
Brock, who is involved in a different branded beef program, stated:
Maybe the part that we are the most envious of is CAB’s ability not to own
beef or cattle but just own the brand and market that brand and charge packers
a fee to put that brand on the beef and be sold. (Interview 7, p. 2)
He also suggested that not owning cattle has also been part of the program’s success.
He added, “The reason they have been so successful is that they have had a huge
quantity of metric tons of beef sold without having to own cattle or beef, which is a
brilliant business model” (Interview 7, p. 6). Trevor also supported this and stated,
“They made a very wise strategic decision in choosing to not invest resources in
owning cattle and hard assets” (Interview 8, p. 6).
Reputation. When discussing participant’s perceptions of the CAB program
and the characteristics responsible for making the program so successful, many
participants brought up the reputation of the program. For example, Emily shared, “I
77
could not feel more confident in any other brand” (Interview 4, p. 5). Two sub-themes
about the program’s reputation emerged - CAB was the first branded beef program
and the people involved in the program.
First branded beef program. Most participants credited the success of the
program to the fact that CAB was the first branded beef program in the nation. Wayne
explained, “Well, it was first. I think that’s the big one, it was the first one” (Interview
9, p. 6). He later added, “It did set a world-wide standard for branded beef programs,
and it was the first one and I think that’s why it’s been so successful” (Interview 9, p.
7).
Other participants discussed this success in comparison to other branded beef
programs. Emily stated:
CAB, they were kind of the leader in the whole branded beef program from the
start and other programs have just kind of piggy-backed off of what they’ve
done. And none of them have had the success as CAB, but they saw that the
consumer was interested in a branded beef program, and they kind of jumped
on as well. (Interview 4, p. 6)
Trevor also discussed CAB as the leader in the branded beef market. He discussed:
I think one is that they capitalized on the first mover advantage. They were the
first branded beef program in a sea of commodity products. And so, without
taking anything away from the Angus breed and the power of the program, I
believe that any program that would have been developed with those quality
specifications, even if it was breed agnostic, I believe it could have been pretty
successful one the last 40 years. (Interview 8, p. 6)
Quality of people associated with CAB. Along with being the first branded
beef program, participants also mentioned the quality of people that work with the
CAB program as a reason for their success. Thomas noted, “[I] just have a lot of
positive experience with those people, and it’s just quality people …they just do a
78
heck of job” (Interview 2, p. 3). Emily also spoke very highly of the people who work
with CAB. She stated, “I feel very confident in the leadership at CAB” (Interview 4, p.
5). She later added:
But, as far as the brand being as successful as it has been, I think that a lot of
people that have been involved along the way, the people that work for the
brand, it’s just very unique community of folks that work there. You know,
they believe in what they do, they have every reason to…So, I just think the
people in the industry have done a really good job of promoting the brand; the
cattleman appreciate the brand, especially Angus producers. (Interview 4, p. 5)
CAB is associated with the American Angus Association. Participants also
continuously connected the CAB program with the American Angus Association and
attributed this connection to the program’s success. Some participants associated the
American Angus Association with the start of the CAB program. Jeb specifically
stated, “[The] Certified Angus Beef program was initiated by the American Angus
Association a number of years ago” (Interview 5, p. 2). Brock added, “It was started
by the Angus Association, voted on by the board in 1976 and in a marketing ploy to
sell more Angus genetics” (Interview 7, p. 2).
Participants specifically linked the success of the CAB program with the
American Angus Association’s involvement. Philip noted, “I think the work that
Angus, the American Angus Association that is, what they did early on has raised the
tide for all breeds of beef” (Interview 1, p. 3). Pete suggested the CAB program has
been a huge benefit for the Angus breed. He stated, “I think it is effective for the
Angus Association and Angus producers” (Interview 6, p. 5).
Wayne agreed that the success between the two are intertwined. He noted, “I
think, if you were to overlay the American Angus Association’s registration slope over
79
the last 20 or 30 years with the growth of the CAB program, they’re exactly alike”
(Interview 9, p. 6). Philip added, “I just think all the boats have floated with the rising
tide, so there is just better beef in the market place today because of what the
American Angus Association did” (Interview 1, p. 3).
Philip suggested that the strength of the Angus registration is the reason his
operation chose to raise the breed. He said:
We liked what they were doing with their EPD data early on, they were ahead
of the curve, most of the other breeds were following suit but fairly far behind
on the EPD data and so it was easy for us to know what and how we wanted to
improve on our own genetics and the genetics I look for in the operations that
we do business with (Interview 1, pg. 1).
Strength of registration. Although the CAB program’s success was associated
with its connection to the American Angus Association, many participants specifically
discussed this success was due to the strength of registration within the breed
association. In terms of this supporting the success of the CAB program, Philip noted:
Well I think they did a really good job…decades ago, at promoting their EPD
data and that moved a lot of ranchers away from Hereford and Braford and all
the other breeds because the rancher wants to produce the best quality meat he
can and then if he can get paid a premium for that then it’s a win, win situation.
(Interview 1, p. 6)
Travis also discussed how the Angus registration base has been beneficial to the
success of CAB. He stated:
You know, I think success is kind of just indicative to the breed’s success. You
know, you look at the distribution, of number of cattle in the beef industry, and
Angus is ahead by light years. You take all the lesser breeds and combine
them, and they still don’t touch Angus with the registration base. (Interview 3,
p. 5)
80
Due to his involvement with the Hereford association and Certified Hereford program,
Travis added a comparison of the two breeds. He added:
I don’t think we’ll ever dethrone CAB just because…the Angus registration
following is just so strong. I definitely think that they have made some good
strides and good things are happening for Certified Hereford Beef and we’ll
just kind of hope that this trend continues. (Interview 3, p. 6)
Participants Held Perceptions of Prime and Natural Labels
Participants were asked about their perceptions of CAB as well as each of their
label offerings. In addition to the regular branded product, Certified Angus BeefÒ
Brand, CAB labels two additional products, Certified Angus BeefÒ Brand Prime and
Certified Angus BeefÒ Brand Natural. When discussing these two labels specifically,
participants shared distinct perceptions about them. This theme explains those
perceptions in detail through two sub themes - Certified Angus BeefÒ Brand Prime
label perceptions and Certified Angus BeefÒ Brand Natural label perceptions.
Certified Angus BeefÒ Brand Prime label perceptions. Participants had a
variety of perceptions about the Certified Angus BeefÒ Brand Prime label offered
through the CAB program. Clint suggested the Certified Angus BeefÒ Brand Prime
labeled products are a higher quality product. He explained, “I think when you move
into a Prime, you’re guaranteed maybe just a notch better quality-wise, and Prime has
always been kind of regulated as kind of the best that you can get. I think that that’s
my perception” (Interview 10, p. 3). Wayne explained, “I just know that it’s the same
kind of specs as the basic label but just a Prime quality grade” (Interview 9, p. 4).
81
Some participants were somewhat unfamiliar with the Certified Angus BeefÒ
Brand Prime label but felt they had a decent understanding of what it meant enough to
have an opinion about it. For instance, Travis stated, “Well, I haven’t heard about it,
but I can imagine that it’s related to a Prime cut, and when I see that, I understand the
carcass trait, the level from Select, Choice, and Prime” (Interview 3, p. 4). Emily had
similar feelings, and shared:
I really, honestly don’t know how well educated I am on the Prime label. It
obviously is a higher quality cut, and I think it’s perfectly fine if people want
to pay for that Prime label that they have that option which has been a niche
thing that CAB has been able to do. (Interview 4, p. 4)
Some participants noted that labeling beef products as Prime was a good idea
for the beef industry. Clint explained, “As long as it is Prime, I think it does, they also
will receive a premium for that” (Interview 10, p. 3). Travis echoed this and explained,
“I think it’s a good thing to have because a lot of people recognize Prime as high beef.
I think once again, that’s pretty straightforward and that’s a good thing” (Interview 3,
p. 4).
Trevor also discussed the Certified Angus BeefÒ Brand Prime label as a
positive thing for CAB to offer, adding that levels of differentiation in products in the
market in general are a good thing:
Yeah, I think it is another differentiation point, and I believe in a marketing

concept called a value ladder that creates different price points for different
brands and brand attributes. And so, I think it’s probably a wise strategic
decision for CAB to segment its brand and to curviate some level of
differentiation you know in that brand product and thereby to enable CAB to
charge more for that product. (Interview 8, p. 4)
82
Other participants questioned how consumers might interpret the Certified
Angus BeefÒ Brand Prime label. Pete explained:
I think educated consumers understand that Prime is a premium product. Not

everybody knows that, so there’s going to be a level of consumers that really
may not differentiate it, they might just see high price and say, “what in the
world”. I think there is, I think Prime beef has gained traction from a consumer
knowledge standpoint. (Interview 6, p. 3)
Brock also discussed how the Certified Angus BeefÒ Brand Prime label could be
potentially confusing for consumers. He stated, “I think CAB Prime is USDA Prime,
so I think it’s a good thing. I have seen other brands use the word Prime with no
USDA label, and it’s slightly confusing” (Interview 7, p. 4).
One participant, Wayne, did not agree with CAB using the Certified Angus
BeefÒ Brand Prime label to a degree. He stated, “I understand the fact that there’s an
opportunity to encourage even a bigger margin on Prime, I’m not a fan of Prime
labeling. Number one, I’m not a fan of the product, I don’t like Prime beef” (Interview
9, p. 5). He later added:
And so now, if you’re going to differentiate yourself just a little in the market
from a branded standpoint of, you know, because we have made such progress
in quality that now I think the though is let’s move it from Choice to Prime and
set ourselves about what they might consider more of a commodity product
again because we have so much Choice product in the market. But I’m not a
big fan. I personally am not a big fan just because I don’t care for the product
that much. (Interview 9, p. 5)
Certified Angus BeefÒ Brand Natural label perceptions. Participants also
had perceptions about the Certified Angus BeefÒ Brand Natural label offered through
the CAB program. Some participants tried to look at the Certified Angus BeefÒ Brand
Natural labeled products from the consumer standpoint first. Clint explained:
83
Well, I think for me it’s a comfort level to some of the consumers that it’s a
never, never product. And I think that some of our customers want that, and I
think that it’s a product that we’ve been fortunate enough to offer. (Interview
10, p. 3)
As discussed with the Certified Angus BeefÒ Brand Prime label, participants
indicated that it adds another option for consumers when purchasing beef. Emily
noted, “It just gives the customer another option if they would feel comfortable with
that. I think it’s fine that they have that label” (Interview 4, p. 4).
Other participants viewed the Certified Angus BeefÒ Brand Natural label as
another form of marketing a beef product to consumers. Thomas discussed:
Once again, smart people understand opportunity in the market place and a
segment of the consuming public is looking for that and stepping up to fill that
need with a product that already has some brand recognition, I think is very
smart, very intuitive on the part of the marketers there. (Interview 2, p. 5)
Jeb agreed that the Certified Angus BeefÒ Brand Natural label was providing an
option that consumers wanted to see. He explained:
That specific label is taking advantage of people’s desire to provide a more

wholesome product to their family. The realities of what natural and
conventional are in the fed cattle industry and the science behind it are lost on
some of those people…most of those people don’t want to be confused with
the facts. And the facts are that conventional fed cattle are just as wholesome
as all-natural fed cattle. And all-natural fed cattle cost more to produce. But at
the end of the day, they’re just as safe and just as wholesome but you have
some very highly-educated people who want to feel good about what they’re
buying so they’ll pay more for that all-natural product. And it doesn’t matter
how much science the industry throws at them, they’re not going to change
their mind. (Interview 5, p. 4)
Travis shared his thoughts about offering Natural labeled products to the consumer
and how it provides a unique opportunity for the beef industry. He shared:
84
I obviously know of natural labeling, and you know, I can completely believe
that it’s a thing because if you think about it there’s nothing that says it can’t
be naturally raised and still qualify for the CAB premium and branding. To me,
it just sounds like a really, really good type of cattle. One that can certainly be
raised naturally without hormones or antibiotics or whatever is required in that
program and still have a carcass that is in high regards and high quality in
terms of cut out and beef. So, I think, some people get negative connotations
whenever they hear natural because they think it undermines the beef industry.
But I think we’re all in this together, we’re a consumer driven industry so I
think it’s great to hear something like that, simply because it gives our
consumers options while sill promoting the Angus branded beef program.
(Interview 3, p. 4)
Participants were also asked about their perceptions of how cattle were raised
to be labeled as Certified Angus BeefÒ Brand Natural. Some voiced opinions about
how the term natural is thought of today. Brock had a slightly negative view of the
term natural:
I think the word natural in beef sales is completely misleading, and I think a
detriment to consumers that assume the natural label has to do with the raising
process and currently the natural label on beef has to do on post-harvest
preparation and treatment. So, I think it is a word that is misused and
misleading, and I do not think it’s a good term, that is not regulated. (Interview
7, p. 4 – 5)
Wayne suggested that Natural labeling should have nothing to do with how the animal
was raised. He stated:
I think it’s a bit of a misnomer. I think that the all-natural, antibiotic-free, you
know if that’s what they want to do, fine. I think best animal practices and
making sure we care for our animals is much more important than that.
(Interview 9, p. 6)
He also added, “[In] my opinion, the largest majority of ranchers and farmers in this
industry have done a great job, there you talk about best practices, because it only
benefits them when they do it” (Interview 9, p. 4).
85
Some participants voiced opinions on the price of Certified Angus BeefÒ
Brand Natural labeled products as well. Thomas suggested that cattle raised to be
labeled as Certified Angus BeefÒ Brand Natural cost more money to produce,
therefore, should potentially have an increased product price. He explained, “I
understand their cost of the program too in terms of growth performance; they deal
with morbidity. I do believe it can be a higher priced product to produce, but that’s
about the only differentiation I see” (Interview 2, p. 5). Brock agreed with the cost of
raising cattle to be labeled as Certified Angus BeefÒ Brand Natural, but questioned
some programs that use the label. He stated:
Just by looking at the close outs of natural cattle, it takes a good amount more
to do that so they should receive a premium, but my frustration would be with
labels that say natural that don’t do that even CAB says they do. (Interview 7,
p. 5)
Participants Have Begun Questioning Angus Branding
Some participants discussed that because of the popularity of the Angus breed
and the term Angus used in the market today, they have begun questioning those
products. Travis explained that the terms similar to the CAB program labeling are seen
so often that it has made him question beef products labeled as Angus:
I do think that it’s stamped on quite a bit of product that we see on grocery
stores where I question if it truly is Certified Angus Beef, mainly because I
personally understand what kind of carcass traits they have to qualify for being
obviously uppers two-thirds Choice and the correct grade for it. So, I see CAB
thrown around at restaurants and all sorts of things as a marketing tool, which
makes me question if every piece of beef I’m eating is actually Certified Angus
Beef…When I see it at the grocery store, it’s almost a questioning perception
where I wonder if this is truly correct because I see this brand thrown around
so often that I’m not sure if it’s truly from a carcass that I would say fit the bill
or fit the premium. (Interview 3, p. 2-3)
86
Brock had similar thoughts, and explained, “CAB now is somewhat confusing, not
CAB’s fault, but a lot of other Angus programs portray themselves as CAB, so it has
become a very cloudy world in the Angus branded program” (Interview 7, p. 3). He
added that because of the large number of Angus programs on the market and since
you can purchase Angus labeled products at fast food restaurants today, the term
Angus has decreased in value of quality.
Trevor shared how the popularity of Angus has created confusion for
consumers. He explained, “They have created a lot of brand recognition and name
recognition not only for CAB but for Angus period, which has I think created some
confusion in the market place” (Interview 8, p. 2). He later added, “I think there has
been times when I’ve heard grumbling in the industry wanting to guaranty you know
that CAB was in fact 100% Angus and nothing else” (Interview 8, p. 7-8).
Findings in Relation to Research Question Three

Research question three sought to explore the perceptions of U.S. beef
producers on the impact the CAB program has had on the beef industry. One major
theme emerged from this research question - perceptions of how CAB created changes
in the beef industry.
The CAB Program has Created Changes in the Beef Industry
Most participants noted that they have seen many changes in cattle production
and the beef industry over the past few decades as a result of the influence the CAB
program has had on the industry. From these perceptions, four sub-themes emerged –
87
increase in black-hided cattle, creation of niche market options, the influence CAB has
had on producers, and connections built within the beef industry.
Increase in black-hided cattle. Several participants discussed that since the
start of the CAB program the cattle industry in the U.S. has seen an increase in the
number of black-hided cattle being raised. Trevor explained, “They have certainly
generated tremendous demand for black-hided cattle” (Interview 8, p. 2). Clint also
discussed how the CAB program has influenced the popularity of black-hided cattle,
not only in commercial cattle, but in other registered breed herds as well:
The demand for black-hided cattle since Certified Angus Beef started has
changed. I think if you asked most people today, they would not know what
color Simmental was or what color Limousin was or a Gelbvieh. And there’s
really only one way they made those breeds black, and it was by the
introduction of Angus cattle into those breeds. And I think that all started
because of the demand for Certified Angus Beef. (Interview 10, p. 2)
Wayne also discussed how the change in hide color has influenced other breeds of
cattle. He added:
The other easy thing to see here in the states is how the majority of a lot of the
continental breeds tried to change their hide color black to support that. And
there is absolutely no question, that’s been the biggest benefit of CAB
program, no question. It is creating value in marketing opportunities for black-
hided cattle. (Interview 9, p. 6)
Emily also noted that she believes this turn to black-hided cattle has come from
the CAB program and their premiums. She shared, “Angus is kind of the buzz. I think
commercial cow/calf producers have really learned that they are going to get a
premium for a black-hided calf, and the easiest way to ensure that…is to buy an
Angus bull” (Interview 4, p. 3). Philip gave an example of how he has personally seen
this change across the country. He explained:
88
If you drive across the country, which we do pretty regularly…I would guess
that two out of three ranches that we pass by and you can see cattle out in the
pasture, were black. Now I can’t tell you that they were all CAB or Angus
sourced…But, most of the ranches across the U.S. are raising Angus, Angus
influenced. (Interview 1, p. 6)
Pete gave an example of how he’s seen first-hand the success of CAB’s
marketing not only in the U.S., but from contacts he has made from across the world.
He shared:
Here in the feed yard we do tours for different, whether it’s college tours or
high school tours or foreign countries, whatever, different people. Probably,
two months ago I had, I think there was about six people come in from China
and they could barely speak, some of them couldn’t speak English. But we
drove around the feed yard and they would point at a black calf and say “black
Angus, black Angus”…they knew what they were and I was just like “wow”.
You know, the Angus Association has done such a good job promoting,
building that label and what that is so. So I said “so what is your perception of
a black Angus?” and “oh it’s the best, top of the line”. And that’s their
perception from China. So, I just tell that story to kind of reiterate that yeah, I
think the Angus Association has done a tremendous job at building a, to
building that label and building that perception. (Interview 6, p. 5-6)
Creation of niche market options. Another change noted by participants in
the beef industry as a result of the CAB program is through the creation of niche
market options as a result of branded beef programs in general, and particularly
through the Certified Angus BeefÒ Brand Prime and Certified Angus BeefÒ Brand
Natural labels. Most participants discussed that these niche market options are created
to meet the needs of the consumer. According to Clint, “All the branded beef
programs have done a good job, because that’s what people want first of all. The
reason it came about is because the customers actually wanted to have that branded
beef program” (Interview 10, p. 4).
89
Pete also gave an example of how branded beef programs have focused on
targeting niche markets. He explained:
They are marketing strategies that are targeting niche markets. So, like the
Florida beef program, they are targeting Florida people that live in Florida.
You can only get this beef in Florida, and so people say, “Hey, I’m buying
something that was raised right here.” New Mexico branded beef, I’ve been in
some of New Mexico restaurants that they are serving New Mexico raised, and
I think that’s a target for people to say, “Hey I want to eat something that was
raised right here.” You know, I believe they are targeting probably a small
portion of our total consumption, like I said I don’t know what percentage it is,
but I would say it would be a pretty small portion of the population that’s
buying that branded product. (Interview 6, p. 5)
Brock discussed how niche markets came about simply because consumers want more
choices. He stated, “I think our customer wants more choices. I think they want
different price points, I think they want different cuts” (Interview 7, p. 7).
Several participants discussed how consumer satisfaction has been a goal of
the CAB program. According to Thomas, “They focus on the single trait that is the
most important and that’s consumer satisfaction, their eating experience” (Interview 2,
p. 3). He later added, “They went after one thing and one thing only, and that’s the
consumer confidence and consumer satisfaction with their product” (Interview 2, pg.
6).
Travis added that these niche markets were good for producers as well. He
explained, “It just allows people to have niches and trying to find some market share
for their own operation” (Interview 3, p. 5). He added, “I think it’s something we can
continue to expand on and improve on just because…there’s kind of a market for
everyone” (Interview 3, p. 6). Emily echoed this perception and added, “I think, all of
these different branded programs, you know they’re all trying to find a different niche
90
market. They’re all trying to find a premium for their product which is fine”
Comparison to competing proteins. When discussing niche market options in
the beef industry, several participants discussed competing protein markets and how it
can be a challenge within the beef industry. Jeb discussed how branded beef programs
have really helped in the area of competing proteins. He discussed:
Those marketing programs has allowed beef to maintain their market share
because there’s other competing meat proteins out there that do a tremendous
job of putting out a consistent, uniform product. Probably better than the beef
industry, because they’ve got chickens that are all bred to be the same and hogs
that are all bred to be the same. So, if we don’t have these marketing programs
in whatever form or fashion…they’re gonna quit buying it if you don’t make it
appealing to them. So, I think big picture wise, if we didn’t’ have the benefit of
any of these market programs, we probably wouldn’t have a market share.
(Interview 5, p. 6)
Wayne also discussed how the differences between beef and competing proteins can
be a challenge for the industry. He shared:
Where we have some issues in my opinion in our industry is that we are not
fully integrated, or we are segregated not only in the U.S. but across the globe.
Versus poultry or pork where they basically do the same thing whether it’s in
the United States or South Africa or Australia or wherever it might be. They
kind of have the same genetic lines and they have the same goals in line…it’s a
little more difficult for us from that standpoint. And that creates a problem, but
I wouldn’t change it because I love having our own identity. (Interview 9, p. 8)
Emily explained that this challenge is because people associate beef differently than
competing proteins:
They’re not gonna probably eat a beef product every day, just because it is
more expensive in general. People will often eat chicken or maybe pork or
whatever…But I feel like beef, especially a good steak, would be more of a
celebratory type meal….I’ll ask somebody, “Where was your best steak? Do
you remember when you ate your best steak?” And most the time people can
say, “Well you know, I’ve had a really good one at this restaurant”…But, you
91
know say “Where did you eat your favorite piece of chicken?” And they say, “I
don’t know, Chick-fil-a”, you know. So, I think there’s a sensation with beef,
people really do love beef and they typically are gonna have that in a meal
when they’re celebrating a birthday, an anniversary, or whatever it may be.
Influence of the CAB program on producers. Most participants discussed
how the CAB program has had a personal impact on them and their operation,
particularly when it comes to decision making. Jeb explained, “It comes to the bottom
line in terms of premiums on those particular carcasses. So yes, in a large part, it
drives some of our decisions in what we are producing to feed and kill” (Interview 5,
p. 2).
Philip explained that the CAB program has had an impact on the quality of his
operation even though he raises grass-fed beef and does not sell cattle through the
program. He explained, “We’re able to source better quality cattle from other Angus
operators, because they too, have raised their own standards” (Interview 1, p. 3).
Trevor discussed how the CAB program has influenced his operation,
particularly in order to meet the black-hided qualification of the program:
Again, the single specification of an animal having to be black-hided in order

to qualify for the Certified Angus Beef premiums has undoubtedly encouraged
me, and many breeders like me, to raise black Limousin cattle or black
Simmental cattle or black Gelbvieh cattle. Knowing full well that if they’re
black, those animals could be used on Angus cows or Angus-based cows and
the resulted progeny can still be qualified for CAB, provided that the rest of the
quality specifications are met as well. But the first step is making sure they’re
black-hided. And because of the additional value that CAB has created, I think
it has encouraged a number of breeds and breeders to insert that dominant
black gene and make a set of black-hided cattle that can then qualify for CAB.
92
Even participants who raise cattle as part of other branded beef programs still
noted the impact the CAB program has had on their operations. Travis, who raises
cattle for the Certified Hereford Beef program, explained:
As a Hereford breeder, I still definitely promote it. Obviously, we have our

own branded program, Certified Hereford Beef. I promote that extremely
heavily. But I still see a lot of value in the CAB brand, because Hereford’s
main cross is to Angus, so I still have to advocate for Angus heavily just
because I think there is a lot of value for the Angus crossing up. So as an
operation, we heavily promote it. We market it to cliental saying if you buy a
Hereford bull you can still qualify for these premiums; you can still sell these
calves in the future to feedlots and still qualify for the premiums. So, I would
say definitely we’re advocates for it. We’re advocates for any sort of program
that adds money to our producers’ bottom line. (Interview 3, p. 2-3)
Brock, who operates his own branded beef program, added, “In our sense, we are a
premium to CAB. So, they use CAB price lists, and then [branded beef program] is
priced, or they’re trying to bid our meat accordingly” (Interview 7, p. 3).
Connections built within the beef industry. Finally, some participants said
that branded beef programs, such as the CAB program, have allowed the industry to
be better connected. Travis explained, “It led feedlot producers to seek out commercial
producers, and the commercial producers to seek out seed stock producers to supply
correct carcass genetics” (Interview 3, pg. 6). Wayne echoed this and explained:
When CAB first was implemented, it did create an opportunity for all of us to
become a little more aware of feedlot needs, packer needs and shooting for
raising an animal from the seed stock level that would promote end product
merit performance and value. Not only for the packer and the retailer or food
service, but as well as the feedlot sector. So, I think, it really did probably
revolutionize the industry from that standpoint. (Interview 9, p. 3)
Support of the entire industry. Though a few participants attributed the
connection of the industry to branded beef programs, some simply emphasized that to
93
have a successful industry, everyone needs to support each other and not talk bad
about one another. Pete explained:
I believe as a beef producer as long as we’re not trying to derail each other and
say one is necessarily better or worse for each other or the environment or
anything else. We’re just providing alternatives for beef consumers…When I
do have a problem is whenever we begin to say well “We’re better than you”,
“We’re healthier than you”, “We’re more environmental friendly than you”,
whatever. That’s where I kind of have an issue, when beef is playing against
beef. (Interview 6, p. 4)
Brock echoed this sentiment by explaining:
I think the example of the eggs is, different eggs at different prices without,
this is very important for me, without bashing or degrading any egg product. I
think if we could do that as an industry, I think we would continue to be the
premier animal protein for another century if we don’t cannibalize ourselves of
talking bad about other programs to beef consumers. (Interview 7, p. 7)
Summary
Overall, six themes, with several sub-themes, emerged from participant
interviews (see Figure 4.1). The first described that participants were very
knowledgeable about the CAB program and made that clear by discussing the set
specifications and premiums for the program. The next emergent theme found was
participants’ perceptions of quality and consistency of the product. When exploring
perceptions of participants, the next theme that emerged was reasons for CAB success,
which included several sub-themes exploring why participants believe CAB has been
a successful program. Another theme that emerged was perceptions of Prime and
Natural labels offered through the program. The fifth theme that emerged was
participants questioning the term Angus, in which they expressed that the increased
use of the term has led them to start questioning if everything labeled Angus truly is.
94
The final theme that emerged was perceptions of how CAB has created change in the
beef industry. Participants discussed the increase in black-hided cattle, the focus on
niche marketing, the influence on producers, and connections made within the
industry.
95
CAB specifications or Themes –

standards
All participants had a Sub-themes –
basic knowledge and
understanding of the Sub-sub-themes –
CAB program.
CAB premiums
Quality of beef
products
Participants
recognized that CAB
strives for quality and
consistency.
Consistency of beef
products
Forms of
Marketing efforts advertisements
recalled by producers
CAB does not own the

cattle
First branded beef
Participants shared program
several reasons for
CAB's success. Reputation
Quality of people
associated with CAB
CAB is associated
with the American Strength of registration
Angus Association

Brand Prime label
perceptions
Participants held
perceptions of Prime
and Natrual labels.
Natural label
perceptions
Participants have
begun questioning
Angus branding
Increase in black-hided
cattle
Creation of niche Comparison to

market options competing proteins
The CAB program has
created changes in the
beef industry.
Influence of the CAB
program on producers
Connections built Support of the entire

within the industry industry
Figure 4.1. Themes and sub-themes identified from data collected from participant
interviews.
96
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Introduction
This study sought to determine the knowledge and perceptions of U.S. beef
producers on the CAB program and how the program has impacted the beef industry
overall. Insight into producers’ knowledge of the program will help gauge the
program’s success at communicating its brand to producers. Exploring producers’
perceptions could help marketers create messages to producers. The following
research questions were used to guide this study:
BeefÒ program?
BeefÒ program?
Certified Angus BeefÒ program has on the beef industry?
Conclusions and Discussion in Relation to RQ1

When analyzing interviews in regard to participants’ knowledge of the CAB
program, it was clear that all participants had a very strong, basic understanding of
what the CAB program was and how it operates. This was shown in one theme, and
two sub-themes, as illustrated in Figure 5.1.
97
CAB specifications or
standards
All participants had a
basic knowledge and
understanding of the
CAB program.
CAB premiums
Figure 5.1 Themes and sub-themes identified in relation to Research Question 1
All Participants had a Basic Knowledge and Understanding of the CAB Program
Participants showed this understanding through discussing several of the 10
specifications cattle are required to have to qualify for the CAB program. They also
frequently referenced the live-animal specification of cattle being 51% black-hided.
Even participants who do not raise Angus cattle and are involved in other branded
beef programs demonstrated a basic understanding of these specifications.
Participants also indicated that they were aware of the program’s premium
offerings, discussed how the premiums work, and acknowledged if they personally
have received premiums from the program. Both specification and premium
knowledge could be attributed to the general popularity of the CAB program across
the country. However, it could also be credited to the CAB program’s marketing
efforts within the beef industry. Knowing that producers have this basic understanding
of the program shows they are well aware of industry trends, even if they are not
directly involved. The stronger the understanding producers have of the program, the
more likely they will be to promote the program to other producers and consumers,
98
and ultimately, participate as is suggested by the theory of planned behavior (Ajzen,
1985).
Another important finding to note when discussing knowledge of the program
is that all producers were raised, or grew up in, the beef industry. This finding could
suggest that some participants were taught about the CAB program from their parents.
This is an interesting factor to note as well because it gives participants even more
insight into the topic at hand since this is not just their occupation but something they
were raised doing. This finding raises the question of how hard is it to make a career
in the beef industry if it is something a person was not raised doing? Indicated from
the participants in this study, if you were not raised in the industry, it is very unlikely
you will have a career in it. It also raised the question of if beef producers were raised
in the industry, does it make it harder for new technology and innovation to be
introduced since producer’s ways are all they’ve ever known? Though not directly
explored in this study, if producers do not see a financial benefit or ease of work from
adopting new methods, they will be less likely to adopt.

Beyond discussing their knowledge of the CAB program, participants also
shared several perceptions they have about the program. Through these perceptions,
four themes emerged with several sub-themes and sub-sub-themes. This is illustrated
in Figure 5.2.
99
Quality of beef
products
Participants recognized
that CAB strives for
quality and
consistency.
Consistency of beef
products
Forms of
Marketing efforts advertisements
recalled by producers
CAB does not own the

cattle
First branded beef
Participants shared program
several reasons for
CAB's success. Reputation
Quality of people
associated with CAB
CAB is associated with

the American Angus Strength of registration
Association

Brand Prime label
perceptions
Participants held
perceptions of Prime
and Natrual labels.
Natural label
perceptions
Participants have
begun questioning
Angus branding
Participants Recognized that CAB Strives for Quality and Consistency
Participants often referenced quality and consistency as major perceptions they
held of the CAB program and its products. These perceptions were not only associated
with the end products labeled through the program, but also the live cattle raised
within it. This finding was not a surprise as the Angus breed is known for its high-
quality carcass characteristics (Beef Board, 2017c). It is important to note that
participants indicated that they do not purchase beef at grocery stores. This could
100
influence their perception and awareness of the end product produced by CAB if they
do not raise Angus cattle. For those that raise Angus, and more specifically, CAB
labeled cattle, they experience first-hand the characteristics of the product because
they personally consume it. However, those who do not are really only influenced by
marketing and still consider the program to be of quality and consistency.
These perceptions are positive when viewed in terms of the products produced
as they support previous research that has shown that consumers identify quality as
important when selecting meat for purchase (Reicks, 2006). Perceptions of quality
products associated with a specific beef brand are important for communication efforts
because consumers are not well educated on which USDA grades are ranked on
quality (Reicks, 2006). Specifically, Williams (2006) found that consumers associated
the term Angus on products with quality, but not specifically to the CAB program.
Knowing that producers believe CAB is of high quality, and that high-quality beef
products are what consumers desire should become a focus when marketing CAB
products. According to the Pew Research Center (2017), consumers trust information
about health risks and benefits of eating specifically GM foods the most from
scientists followed very closely by small farm owners. Communicators should use the
views of producers in communication efforts to other producers and consumers to
promote the CAB program. Further, CAB communication efforts should focus on
using the terms quality and consistency when targeting consumers.
101
Participants Shared Several Reasons for CAB’s Success
Participants also discussed perceptions they had about the reasons for the CAB
program’s success. Participants attributed the success of the CAB program first to its
reputation. They perceived that the reputation the CAB program holds is one of the
main reasons for its success. This included the people involved with the CAB program
and the program’s status as the first branded beef program. Recognizing the people
who are involved in the program could be an attribute to the beef industry’s ‘good
people’ atmosphere. Finding that participants discussed the people of the organization
supports the idea that brands represent more than a product and carry a social meaning
(Loken, Ahluwalia, & Houston, 2010). For participants in this study, the CAB
program carries a social setting that is filled with good people. Specifically, the
participants who discussed this in great detail were those who have personally worked
with the branded program. This suggests that those who think highly of the people
associated with the CAB program are probably more willing to promote and
participate in the program, and this could potentially be used as a selling point to those
looking to join the program.
Participants attribution of success to reputation shows that reputation does
influence beef producers’ willingness to participate within the CAB program and that
relationships are important to beef producers. The producers who have been contacted
by and built relationships with the people involved in the CAB program, raise cattle
for the program and think very highly of the program overall. As discussed with the
CRM theory, a stakeholder’s evaluation of an organization includes direct experience
102
with the company (Gary & Balmer, 1998). Participants sharing their experiences with
the CAB program and people in the organization also supports that direct experiences
support reputation. This is an important finding for other branded beef programs,
suggesting that building relationships with beef producers can influence their
perceptions and participation in these programs. Other branded beef programs that aim
to have the success that CAB has had should strive to build relationships with
producers as well. Beyond the beef industry, communicators of other livestock
programs should also focus on building relationships to improve their reputation with
producers.
Participants also noted that the CAB program was the first branded beef
program which was an important factor impacting its positive reputation. One
participant even suggested any branded beef program that came first would have been
just as successful as CAB. This may suggest that it was felt that branded beef
programs were really needed in the beef industry, which CAB realized and took
advantage of before any other program. Beef producers also recognized this need and
still recognize beef industry needs today. This is evident through the evolution of the
CAB program through expanding its label offerings and creating a niche market focus.
Hoeffler and Keller (2003) found that one way to measure brand strength is
through reputation. Brand strength is associated with a person’s awareness,
associations and beliefs, and attitudes about a brand (Brand Finance, 2018). The
participants’ focus on the CAB program’s reputation suggests that CAB is a strong
brand in this regard. Creating a strong brand through a strong reputation aids in the
103
future of CAB’s success as well. The stronger reputation they build, the more trusted
and well known they will become, ultimately driving more and more producers to
want to raise cattle for the CAB program. Other branded beef programs should focus
on how CAB has created and maintained their reputation and should try to create the
same strength to increase success in their own programs. Agricultural communicators
could use CAB as an example when exploring brand strength, specifically brand
strength to the target audience of beef producers and consumers.
Participants also attributed the success of the CAB program to the marketing of
the program. The program encompasses a number of responsibilities, though
participants perceived it’s main goals to be as a marketing program. The participants
also shared that because of its effective marketing efforts, the CAB program has been
successful at marketing for and promoting the beef industry. Participants discussed
seeing first-hand some of the CAB program’s marketing efforts through
advertisements at beef-related events and in industry-related publications. The CRM
theory states that stakeholders’ evaluation is also based on other forms of
communication that provide information about the company (Gary & Balmer, 1998).
For the CAB program, this is shown through participants recalling these different
forms of advertisements.
Although participants recalled advertisements, they did not recall seeing many
advertisements or promotions of the program in more consumer-focused places. This
could be attributed to most of them indicating that they do not purchase beef products
in traditional grocery outlets. Though, producers did recall seeing advertisements for
104
CAB at restaurants and on large trucks driving down the road. It seems that the CAB
program is doing a decent job of marketing its program to producers in appropriate
outlets; however, it may not be reaching consumers as effectively. They may also not
be doing a good job at communicating through other channels that producers and
consumers would encounter such as television and radio commercials. Still, it appears
that the CAB program is doing a good job of marketing its program to producers. This
suggests that the program is successful at communicating to the target audiences
identified through their Black Ink effort, which includes commercial ranchers, Angus
seed stock producers, feed yard owners/managers, millennial ranchers, and non-Angus
ranchers, all of which were represented in this study (Black Ink & SDEV Target
Audiences, n.d.).
As was noted in prior literature, the more knowledge consumers have of food
labels, the more confident they are in using the labels to make purchasing decisions
(Seidenberg Miller & Cassidy, 2015; Davies & Wright, 1994). Williams (2006) also
found that consumers were not knowledgeable of the different branded beef programs
but associated their products with strict regulations and safe and healthy products.
Though further research should be explored, the findings of this study could indicate
that CAB does a better job at marketing to producers than to consumers. Producers’
knowledge of the program can be beneficial to the program’s success of marketing to
the consumer as well. Some of the best promoters of products are the producers
themselves, and for them to be promoters, they must understand the program.
105
Finally, participants recognized the program’s success to be a result of the
CAB program being operated under the American Angus Association as its only
branded beef program (CAB Partners, 2018). Because of the program’s specifications,
this connection to the breed association is important when marketing an Angus
product. This finding is also important when comparing CAB to other branded beef
programs that label Angus on their products. CAB has an advantage above these
programs because of their connection with the American Angus Association due to the
association’s strength and reputation within the beef industry. Providing an example of
this strength, the American Angus Association (2017) reported 332,421 head of Angus
cattle registered in the 2017 fiscal year. Similarly, the Certified Hereford Beef
program is associated with the American Hereford Association.
Branded beef programs that associate themselves with breed associations have
an advantage over those who do not, because these associations already have built
reputations, producer followings, data base, and marketing strategies that the branded
programs can use to their benefit. This brings us to another perception the participants
shared, which was that they recognized that the success of the CAB program could
also be attributed to the strength of the Angus registration. Participants often discussed
the depth of the Angus breed’s registration and EPD data collected indicating a strong
connection to the Angus breed and the program. It is very important to note, however,
that cattle labeled into the CAB program do not necessarily have to be registered
Angus or even Angus-influenced, the only live-animal specification is cattle being
106
51% black-hided. Communicators should take advantage of this and use the American
Angus Association when promoting and recruiting producers.
Through exploring perceptions of producers about reasons for CAB’s success,
participants expressed, through each sub-theme that emerged, these perceptions by
comparing the program to other branded beef programs. According to Gary and
Balmer (1998), in the CRM theory, stakeholders’ evaluations are based on a
comparison with other rivals. Participants did make this comparison throughout their
interviews, as well as when asked why they thought the CAB program has been
successful compared to other programs on the market. Because of this, sharing direct
experiences and recalling forms of advertisement participants have a strong evaluation
of the CAB program’s reputation.
Participants Held Perceptions of Prime and Natural Labels
When exploring perceptions of the CAB program, participants also discussed
perceptions they held of the Certified Angus BeefÒ Brand Prime and Certified Angus
BeefÒ Brand Natural labels in great detail. Overall, participants were not as
knowledgeable about these specific label offerings from the CAB program; however,
they understood the claims these labels make and the reasons for having these labels
as part of the CAB program. Producers’ understanding of the label claims is important
to note here. This supports, once again, that participants are aware of industry trends
and consumer demands, specifically about label claims. This is important for the
overall beef industry, as these label claims created by the USDA are evolving more as
niche markets become more important to consumers. It is comforting to know that
107
producers are keeping up with these label claims, so they can assure they are doing
everything in their power to raise their animals the way they are supposed to. Research
has shown that knowledge of labels and their claims influence the importance placed
on the label by consumers (Davies & Wright, 1994), as well as purchase decisions
made by consumers (Knebel, 2015). This is important because, as the participants
noted, they had knowledge and understanding of these labels and can serve as
advocates for these label claims to consumers. This finding also suggests that the CAB
program may not be as effectively informing producers about these label offerings as
they are about their program in general. This suggests room for improvement for
CAB’s communication efforts to beef producers regarding these labels.
Although not all participants were aware of the different CAB program label
offerings, they supported the use of the labels because of the greater options they
provided to consumers. Participants suggested that the two label offerings were
reaching specific niche markets, which supports Cross and Savell’s (1994) suggestion
that “there is more than one market for beef” (p. 23). Products labeled as Certified
Angus BeefÒ Brand Prime, for example, are marketed toward high-end retailers and
consumers willing to spend a significantly higher price for a premium product. Reicks
(2006) found that only 10.5% of consumers purchased nationally-branded beef
products and that price compared to commodity was the most important factor when
making the decision. If consumers do not see the value in paying the higher prices
associated with these Prime label products, they will likely not purchase them. This is
extremely important to note here as it represents an area where communicators have
108
an opportunity to explore why these small targeted groups are currently purchasing
these branded products, which would allow them to expand their efforts to a greater
population with effective communication efforts that will educate consumers on the
reason for price differences.
In regard to the Certified Angus BeefÒ Brand Prime label offering
specifically, some participants expressed concern about consumers’ understanding of
the product. One participant suggested that some beef products that are labeled as
Prime could potentially be misleading to consumers, making producers fear
consumers’ beliefs about products labeled as Prime. The producer explained that he
questions if some labeled products, especially the branded programs not monitored by
the USDA, are truly what the label claims they are and that the programs are taking
advantage of consumers’ lack of knowledge. This is supported by Reicks (2006) who
found that consumers were overall uneducated on the USDA beef grading system,
which could contribute to the producers’ concerns about Prime label offerings. This
provides an area for communicators to focus on, specifically CAB, when promoting
their Prime products and provides an opportunity for the program to focus efforts on
educating consumers on what these labels mean to help bridge the knowledge gap.
The Certified Angus BeefÒ Brand Natural label provides an option to fit into
the niche market of consumers that are concerned about antibiotic and hormone use in
their food. Nielson (n.d.) reported that although conventional beef sales totaled $15
billion in 2016, natural beef sales were not far behind, totaling $74 million. Consumer
support for Natural products through strong sales, along with producer support for the
109
label claims supports the need for CAB to offer these different labels. Research has
also suggested that 33% of millennials prefer unconventionally raised beef, which
includes antibiotic-free, hormone-free, and grass-fed beef (Crowder, Shoulders, &
Rucker, 2014). This again suggests that producers’ perceptions are correct about
raising Certified Angus BeefÒ Brand Natural cattle for specific niche markets. It is
important to note here that four of the 10 participants raise at least some cattle that
could be labeled natural, even if that was not their intent. One participant specifically,
Emily, raises cattle for the Certified Angus BeefÒ Brand Natural label and had a great
deal of knowledge about the label offering especially compared to the other producers.
It was surprising to find that producers supported natural labeling of beef products,
because the product has pushed consumers away from purchasing conventionally
raised beef. Others might have this same surprise, and communicators of natural
labeled products should take advantage of this opportunity by using producers’
perceptions to communicate the label claims and products to consumers. Programs
with natural label claims should use consumers’ desire to communicate to producers
when trying to promote raising cattle for the labels as well.
Brock explained that he does not agree with Natural labeling for beef products,
because it is misleading to the consumer on how the animal was raised. This once
again can be tied to consumer knowledge about beef products. Producers suggested
throughout this study that they believe consumers are unaware of specifics of the beef
industry. This is an opportunity to allow beef producers to tell their story to help better
educate consumers on the products they produce. This will also allow agricultural
110
communicators to give consumers the transparency they demand. Once again, it is
important to note that these participants mostly do not purchase beef products, which
shows they have a strong confidence in the products they are producing, enough so to
feed them to their own families. CAB should use this to communicate messages of
safety and trust to consumers.
Participants Have Begun Questioning Angus Branding
Of the branded beef programs monitored by the USDA, 54 have the term
Angus in their name (USDA, 2016). Participants recognized this and discussed how
they perceive this has caused confusion in the market place. Producers expressed that
they sometimes question the term Angus because they see it so often, sometimes even
at fast food locations. This supports Williams’ (2006) findings that consumers eat
Angus beef regularly, but do not differentiate between Angus brands. These
consumers were likely unaware that Angus was a breed of cattle and that multiple
brands had Angus on their labels (Williams, 2006). Some participants suggested that
people look at black-hided cattle and assume that it is Angus, while thinking of quality
and better beef. This shows that there are effective communication efforts to
consumers about Angus cattle. These same efforts should focus on educating the
consumer about different breeds and their characteristics as well. Due to producers’
questioning of Angus labeling, brands that use the term should find other ways to
differentiate themselves in the market.
111

Participants also shared some important perceptions of how they felt the CAB
program has impacted the entire beef industry. Through these perceptions, one theme
emerged with several sub-themes as illustrated in Figure 5.3.
Increase in black-
hided cattle
Creation of niche Comparison to

market options competing proteins
The CAB program
has created changes
in the beef industry. Influence of the
CAB program on
producers
Connections built Support of the

within the industry entire industry
The CAB Program has Created Changes in the Beef Industry
Participants discussed changes in cattle production they have seen since the
implementation of the CAB program in 1978. One major changed they noted was the
shift toward black-hided cattle seen in the industry. In 2012, it was reported that as
many as 75% of all beef cattle in the U.S. were black-hided, indicating a strong Angus
influence (Reiman, 2012). Some participants discussed the positive impact this change
112
has had on the beef industry, discussing how the program has added value to black-
hided cattle by increasing profit for some producers on these animals. These
perceptions help the CAB program, because as producers believe this shift is positive,
they will show stronger support for the program. Others disagreed that the increase in
black-hided cattle is positive for the industry. Some participants argued that black-
hided cattle compared to other colored cattle did not look different from a carcass
standpoint. They argued that this turn of hide color has created a lower value in the
market for other colored cattle. It is interesting to see the perceptions of this differ.
Pete, the producer who held these specific views, operates a feedlot and sees a variety
of colored cattle come through his operation. He expressed that he has seen first-hand
the performance of different colored cattle. Being the only feedlot producer to
participate in this study, it is important to note this difference in perceptions. While
other’s perceived black-hided cattle to be better, they do not see cattle through the end
processes the way Pete does. This finding suggests, once again, that CAB has done a
great job marketing to beef producers and has resulted in them striving to produce
black-hided cattle for the potential benefit of being labeled CAB regardless of whether
they understand what the end carcass looks like.
Some participants discussed how the public associates black-hided cattle with
the Angus breed. This can be harmful to the overall beef industry. As discussed,
different breeds have unique characteristics that add value to the beef industry beyond
Angus. Some of these breeds are black or have turned black over the past several
decades. For some breeds, as black-hides have been bred into the cattle, so have other
113
traits. Phenotypically, you cannot select for specific breed traits, such as black-hides,
without also breeding in some of the other characteristics of those cattle. This can be
harmful to breeds in several aspects. First, as breeds are genetically changing, it can be
hard to differentiate from others especially when breeds are known for their specific
characteristics. If consumers associate black-hided cattle with Angus only, it can be
detrimental to other black-hided breeds, especially those who try to promote breed
specific programs. This can impact not only breed specific branded beef programs but
also the breed associations’ communication efforts to support their breed. When
communicating for and promoting beef products, differentiation is key, especially in
today’s market.
Consumers’ growing mistrust of topics related to animal welfare, the
environment, food purity, and the impacts of agricultural practices has caused a rise in
niche market products in recent years (GRACE Communications Foundation, 2013).
Participants discussed that as a result of the CAB program and consumer demand, they
have seen a change in the focus on niche marketing within the beef industry. They
shared that niche marketing in the beef industry really focuses on consumer
satisfaction with beef products. These niche markets include producing cattle for the
Certified Angus BeefÒ Brand Natural and Certified Angus BeefÒ Brand Prime labels
as discussed above. CAB focusing on different niche markets expands their audiences
and, ultimately, sales. The increased focus on niche marketing within the beef industry
is extremely important for communicators to pay attention to. Once again, to truly
stand out in the industry, especially with a variety of niche markets, differentiation
114
must take place when communicating to consumers. Brand differentiation is the extent
to which a brand separates itself from others (Ehrenburg, Barnard, & Scriven, 1997).
For consumers to purchase a specific label or brand, they must be able to differentiate
it from others, which is best done through communication efforts from the brand
(Settle et al., 2012). This should become a focus for branded programs, such as CAB,
if they hope to be successful in these consumer markets.
When discussing niche markets options, participants also compared the beef
industry to other competing protein sources. Protein sources, such as pork and poultry,
are the largest competitor to the beef industry. Since 1970, Americans’ diets have
consisted of a decreasing amount of beef and an increasing amount of chicken and
poultry (Pew Research Center, 2016b), making it vitally important for beef producers
and marketers to acknowledge the competition amongst protein sources. Producers
noted that to compete with these other proteins, it is vital to focus on consumer
satisfaction in the niche markets discussed above. As agricultural communicators, it is
important to acknowledge what the competition really is. In this case, instead of
focusing on other branded beef programs or conventionally-labeled beef products, the
participants looked outside of beef into all protein sources. Communicators should
focus some efforts on not only differentiating between beef products, but in the protein
market against poultry and pork as well.
A final idea discussed when exploring perceptions of CAB’s influence on the
beef industry was the connections built within the industry. Participants explained that
branded beef programs, such as CAB, have helped connect the beef industry segments
115
by forcing them to seek each other out for mutually-beneficial relationships. The beef
industry has the most complex and unique lifecycle because of the variety of segments
within it (NCBA, 2017), making it easy for segments to be secluded and in their own
world. With this, participants discussed that beef producers must support one another
to remain a successful industry. Examples brought up by participants included
supporting the niche markets discussed above. Many participants shared that just
because they did not raise cattle specifically for Prime or Natural label purposes, did
not mean they should not support those in the industry that do. Participants in this
study acknowledged this and shared that producers in every segment across the
country should be supportive of each other. CAB should promote this continued
support across industry segments and find ways to further support producers in all
markets of the industry. Additionally, agricultural communicators should take
advantage of this desire to support the industry when trying to recruit producers to
help with communication and promotional efforts, again adding transparency of the
industry to consumers.
One theory that guided this study was the theory of planned behavior, which
explains how the two functions of intention, attitude and subjective norm, along with
perceived behavioral control ultimately predict behavior (Ajzen, 1985). While the first
two research questions were descriptive in nature, research question three sought to
understand what impact the CAB program has had on the entire beef industry.
Reviewing producers’ discussions about this topic gave insight into their attitudes and
perceived behavioral norms. Overall, participants’ perceptions of the impact the CAB
116
program has had on the beef industry were fairly positive. Even though participants
held positive perceptions and attitudes of the program, the majority of them did not
raise cattle specifically for the program. This could be an indication that perceptions,
or attitudes, of the program were not strong enough motivators to these producers to
result in a behavioral change. Instead, perceived behavioral control, such as resources,
and subjective norms, or pressure from those around them, held a stronger motivation
for the behavior of the majority of the participants in this study. These motivators are
illustrated in Figure 5.4. Because of this, CAB should increase communication efforts
to producers about the added benefit of CAB and potentially add promotions to
producers.
Positive
Attitude
s
Family
raises cattle
Raise CAB
Cattle
Available
Resources
Figure 5.4 Theory of planned behavior as it relates to this study
Ajzen (1991) explained that perceived behavioral control is not realistic when
a person has little information about the behavior at hand. This was not relevant in this
117
study as all participants had adequate knowledge about the CAB program. Research
question one found that participants had adequate knowledge about the CAB program,
including the program’s specifications and premium offerings. The participants’
knowledge shows their understanding of the program and what it would take to act on
the behavior to raise Angus cattle and cattle for the CAB program, which makes
perceived behavioral control a factor in this study. This finding suggests that
participants should focus communication efforts to producers who already raise Angus
cattle and have those resources available to them.
Although some participants indicted they do not raise cattle for the CAB
program specifically, many of them do raise Angus breed cattle. This motivation could
stem back to other factors related to the participants’ perceived behavioral control.
Perceived behavioral control is an individual’s perception of possessing resources and
opportunities to act on a behavior (Madden, Ellen, & Ajzen, 1992). Some participants
in this study had resources available to them that allowed them to raise Angus cattle,
as indicated by those who stated that’s what their parents did, making the breed
accessible to them. The seed stock producers that raised Angus cattle had different
goals than the commercial producers. They were not raising cattle for the rack, but
rather to simply sell bulls to commercial producers. In this case, attitude and perceived
behavioral control could have played a role in their behavior. Attitude is explained by
having a positive or negative evaluation of performing a behavior (Ajzen & Fishbein,
1980). Angus seed stock producers had a positive perception of the CAB program
118
because it helped them market bulls to commercial producers. This perceived benefit
could have influenced their decision to raise Angus bulls above other breeds.
Other producers were very positive in their perceptions of how branded beef
programs in general have impacted the beef industry. This attitude has motivated them
to raise cattle for other branded beef programs, or in one case, start their own. The
producers that raise cattle for other branded beef programs do so for some of the same
reasons as those who raise cattle for the CAB program. In terms of perceived
behavioral control, these producers had resources that allowed them to raise other
breeds of cattle, so that is the behavior they chose to act on.
Implications
It was surprising to the researcher that no participant interviews expressed
negativity regarding the CAB program. Though some participants had negative
comments about aspects of the beef industry, particularly about the shift to black-
hided cattle, their perceptions of the CAB program were all positive. Participants
shared that the CAB program and other branded beef programs were ultimately good
for the industry, especially for the bottom line of those producers who raise the cattle.
Due to this lack of negativity, along with the knowledge that producers have of the
program, participants believe that the CAB program has been a good thing for the
industry.
The knowledge shared and overall positive perceptions producers have of the
CAB program also suggest that the program has done a good job of marketing to
producers. Producers even specifically discussed the quality of marketing done by the
119
CAB program and how it has attributed to their overall success. Participants gave
specific examples of this by recalling advertisements seen within industry outlets and
events. This finding suggests that when targeting producers, focusing communication
efforts on industry related outlets and events can be successful. Agricultural
communicators of beef industry programs and other livestock related programs should
continue to, or begin, focusing communication efforts on these outlets and events.
Participants’ perceptions of the CAB program also suggest that to producers
CAB has a strong brand. Brand strength is associated with a person’s awareness,
associations and beliefs, and attitudes about a brand (Brand Finance, 2018). One way
to measure this strength is through reputation (Hoeffler & Keller, 2003). The
participants’ focus on the CAB program’s reputation, particularly through sharing
direct experiences and relationships with people associated with the brand, suggests
that CAB is a strong brand in this regard. Other branded beef and livestock programs
should focus efforts on building strong relationships with those in the industry and
improving their reputation to create this same strength in their own brands.
Ultimately, participants suggested that they support the CAB program and
other branded beef programs because it promotes the beef industry and improves the
bottom line of program participants. Communicators for other branded beef programs
should focus efforts on the impact, bottom line, and overall benefits their program can
have on producers. Agricultural communicators for any livestock program or
organization should focus communication efforts on overall industry support and
benefits to producers.
120
Recommendations
From this study’s conclusions, several recommendations can be made for both
practitioners and future research.
For Practitioners
This study found that beef producers were knowledgeable of the CAB
program. The success of this program could be attributed to the awareness that
producers have of their program. It is recommended that other branded beef programs
make a strong effort to communicate information about the specifications and
premiums associated with their programs to producers, just as the CAB program has
done. The success of the program can be attributed in some ways to this awareness.
Also, the more aware producers are of programs and their benefits, the more willing
they will be to participate. This recommendation can also go beyond branded beef
programs to other livestock programs to help promote and differentiate themselves.
Along with providing information about specifications and premiums to create
awareness, other branded beef programs should focus on building relationships with
beef producers. As discussed, the producers who had strong relationships with the
people who work for CAB thought positively of their reputation and worked with the
program. By other branded beef programs building these relationships with producers,
they could help promote their program while encouraging them to participate.
Agricultural communicators working with companies who target producers should
focus on building relationships as well. As this study supported, stronger reputations
improve organization brand strength (Hoeffler & Keller, 2003).
121
As beef producers were very knowledgeable and had positive perceptions of
the CAB program and branded beef programs, they should be utilized as marketing
tools. CAB and branded beef programs should train and use producers as
communication tools not only within the industry, but to consumers as well.
Consumers desire values and meanings from brands (Wee & Ming, 2003), making
producers the perfect outlet to create meaning for these branded programs if they can
convey their passion to others. Research has also shown that consumers trust
producers as sources of information (Pew Research Center, 2016). Livestock
programs, in general, should take advantage of this by using producers as
communication efforts through training them to speak on behalf of the industry and
using their experiences to connect with conumsers and other producers.
Another recommendation that can be made is for branded beef programs to
make an effort to encourage open communication between the different segments of
the industry. As discussed by some participants, branded beef programs have made
different segments of the industry seek one another out. It is recommended that
branded beef programs, including the CAB program, take this opportunity to help
bridge the gap between the segments of the industry to increase awareness on industry
trends and consumer demands. This will allow for even more insight into how the beef
industry operates and can be used in communication efforts toward consumers. This
connection will also be extremely valuable if a crisis were ever to arise in the beef
industry.
122
This study also found that participants questioned the term Angus at times,
which is extremely insightful. Marketers of Certified Angus products should find ways
to truly differentiate themselves from other Angus-labeled products. As discussed,
brand differentiation is a key factor in a brand’s success (Settle et. al., 2012). These
efforts should not only focus on consumers, but producers as well, as they are
questioning the labeling themselves. For the CAB program specifically, marketing
efforts should shift the focus off the term Angus to differentiating the other
specifications that go into the label. This will help the program separate itself from
other Angus-claiming labels and help ensure the reputation of the program is
protected.
Producers’ questioning of the term Angus also suggests an opportunity for
other beef breeds and branded programs focusing on those breeds to increase sales.
Due to the confusion of Angus-labeled products in the market place, other programs
should increase marketing efforts of their respected breed’s characteristics to
consumers. These programs should focus on comparing content between their breed
and Angus to show consumers that other breeds have traits that translate to quality,
tasteful products as well.
For Future Research
Several recommendations can also be made for future research. First, this study
should be replicated with a wider sample of producers to give even more insight about
the topic. Future research should focus on exploring the knowledge and perceptions of
beef producers that have different characteristics than the ones in this study as well.
123
For example, recruiting more commercial cattle producers and producers that raise
other breeds of cattle would allow further insight as to how CAB has influenced the
entire beef industry. Exploring the perceptions of producers of other breeds,
specifically American breeds, would show whether they have the same positive
perceptions of the CAB program. This insight would benefit CAB, as well as other
branded beef programs with producer marketing efforts.
Future research should also explore the knowledge and perceptions of
consumers on the CAB program and other branded beef programs. These results could
then be compared to the current study in greater detail to understand the knowledge
gap between industry and consumers. This information would give greater insight to
marketers of the CAB program to help shape usable messages to promote CAB
products to consumers. Exploring consumers’ knowledge and perceptions would also
inform communicators of the aspects of beef brands that consumers find important, so
communicators can focus on those aspects when promoting the brand. Specifically,
other branded beef programs’ reputations should be explored to see how they compare
to CAB’s. This would show whether CAB’s reputation has influenced their success in
the industry.
Further research should also be conducted specifically on the marketing efforts
of the CAB program and how they have affected the brand’s efforts. Several studies
could come of this, such as exploring print advertisements, social media presences,
and label designs of the CAB program targeted at both consumers and producers.
Specifically, research should focus on what communication efforts directed toward
124
producers they currently use, such as the Black Ink blog, to give insight into what
makes their brand successful. Other research should focus on consumers’ and
producers’ reactions to each of these marketing channels to determine what the most
effective form of communication for the brand is.
Further research should also focus on other branded beef programs to see how
producers perceive their success. This research could provide stronger marketing
suggestions to these branded beef programs in comparison to the CAB program.
This study found some problems producers see within the beef industry, such
as the confusion and questions associated with the term Angus. Future research should
focus on consumers’ perceptions of the term Angus, specifically compared to other
breeds. Insight into consumer knowledge of cattle breeds would give marketers a
stronger understanding of how to communicate about other branded programs.
Another recommendation would be to study consumer perceptions of the use of the
term Angus on products in grocery stores and in restaurants to determine if it has an
impact on their purchase decisions and to understand what perceptions and
understanding they have of the term.
Future research should explore the branding efforts of beef products compared
to other protein sources as well, such as pork and poultry. As the participants
discussed, these protein sources are competitors, and poultry specifically, was
mentioned for targeting specific niche markets. As discussed, Americans’ diets have
decreased in beef consumption and increased in poultry products (Pew Research
125
Center, 2016b), and exploring the branding of these products could give insight into
this change.
Summary
This study explored the knowledge and perceptions beef producers had of the
Certified Angus BeefÒ program. Overall, the findings suggest that beef producers
were very knowledgeable and had positive attitudes toward the CAB program. From
this, it is recommended that communicators take advantage of beef producers’
knowledge and perceptions by turning them into communication efforts themselves.
This can include training producers to talk to other producers, and ultimately
consumers, by creating communication trainings at industry events. Communication
efforts should also include using producers’ stories in efforts to connect with
audiences by creating content from producers to use through different outlets.
Although further research is needed to explore other branded beef programs and
consumer perceptions, this study gives a first insight into producers’ views of the CAB
program, branded beef programs, and ultimately, the beef industry to help improve
communication efforts.
126
References
Agar, M.H. (1980). The professional stranger: An informal introduction to
ethnography. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Ajzen, I. (1991). The Theory of Planned Behavior. Organizational Behavior and

Human Decision Processes. 50, 179-211.
Ajzen, I. 1985. “From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behavior”. In Action-

control: From cognition to behavior, Edited by: Kuhl, J and Beckman, J. 11–
39. Heidelberg: Springer.
Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social
Behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Alberta Agriculture and Forestry. (2017). Branded Beef: What is branded beef?
Retrieved from
http://www1.agric.gov.ab.ca/$department/deptdocs.nsf/all/bdv12169
American Marketing Association. (2017). Dictionary. Retrieved from

https://www.ama.org/resources/Pages/Dictionary.aspx?dLetter=B
Anderson, P. (n.d.). Understanding Grid Marketing: How quality grades and grid
conditions affect carcass value. Retrieve from
http://www.cabpartners.com/articles/news/245/GRIDMARKETINGWHITEP
APER-6-4-12.pdf
Angus. (2017). American Angus Association. Retrieved from

http://www.angus.org/pub/faqs.aspx
Angus. (2016). American Angus Association. Retrieved from

http://www.angus.org/Pub/Newsroom/Releases/110116-aaa-fy16.aspx
Ares G., Gimenez, A., Bruzzone, F., Vidal, L., Antunez, L., & Maiche, A. (2013).
Consumer visual processing of food labels: Results from an eye-tracking study.
Journal of Sensory Studies. 28(2), 138-153. doi:10.1111/joss.12031
Ary, D., Jacobs, L. C., & Sorensen, C. (2010). Introduction to Research in Education
(8th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
Ary, D., Jacobs, L. C., Sorensen, C. K., & Walker, D. A. (2014). Introduction to
research in education (9th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
Baker, L.M., Abrams, K., Irani, T., Meyers, C. (2011). Managing Media Relations:
Determining the Reputation of Land Grant Institutions from the Perspective of
Media Professionals. Journal of Applied Communications. 9(2).
127
Basarir, A., & Gillespie, J.M. (2006). Multidimensional goals of beef and dairy
producers: an inter-industry comparison. Journal of the International
Association of Agricultural Economics. 35(1), 103-114. doi: 1111/j.1574-
0862.2006.00143.x
Beef Board. (n.d.). Branded Beef. Retrieved from

https://www.beefboard.org/news/files/Beef%20enewsletter%20files/Branded%
20Beef.pdf
Beef Board. (2018). Glossary of Terms. Retrieved from

http://www.beefusa.org/b.aspx
Beef Board. (2017a). About the beef checkoff program. Retrieved from
https://www.beefboard.org/about/faq_aboutcheckoff.asp
Beef Board. (2017b). What are the popular cattle breed in the United States. Retrieved
from https://www.beefboard.org/producer/161227Popular-Cattle-Breeds-
Landing-Page.asp
Beef Board. (2007). Fact sheet: Grass-finished beef. Retrieved from

https://www.beefboard.org/news/files/factsheets/grass-finished-beef.pdf
Berg, B.L. (2009). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences. Boston, MA:
Allyn & Bacon.
BlackInk & SDEV Target Audiences. (n.d.). Target Audiences [Fact Sheet].
Brand Finance. (2018). Brand Strength – Definition. Retrieved from

http://brandirectory.com/glossary/definition/brand_strength
Cattle Fax. (2016). Retrieved from

https://www.cattlefax.com/#!/data/cattle/production/total-beef/
Cecala, J. (2013). Are you buying faux Angus? Retrieved from

http://www.buedelmeatup.com/tag/usda-certified-beef-programs/
Certified Angus Beef. (n.d.). Certified Angus Beef Brand Timeline. Retrieved from
https://www.certifiedangusbeef.com/press/kit/Timeline.pdf
Certified Angus Beef Partners. (2018). About the Brand. Retrieved from
http://www.cabpartners.com/about/about.php
Certified Angus Beef. (2017a). Certified Angus Beef, Finding Your Flavor. Retrieved
from https://www.certifiedangusbeef.com/brand/products.php
128
Certified Angus Beef. (2017b). Licensee Services. Retrieved from

http://www.certifiedangusbeef.com/faq.php
Certified Angus Beef. (2017c). Who We Are. Retrieved from

https://www.certifiedangusbeef.com/brand/specs.php
Certified Angus Beef Partners. (2011). The cattlemen’s pocket guide to the CAB
brand. Retrieved from http://www.cabpartners.com/news/sdpocketbrochure.pdf
Chi, H.K., Yeh, H.R., Yang, Y.T. (2009). The impact of brand awareness on consumer
purchase intention: The mediating effect of perceived quality and brand
loyalty. The Journal of International Management Studies. 4(1), 135-144.
Christensen, B.J., Bailey, D., Hunnicutt, L., & Ward, R. (2003). Consumers
preferences for public and private sector certifications for beef products in the
United States and the United Kingdom. International Food and Agribusiness
Management Review. 6(3).
Conaway, L. (2017). Steadfast demand, sales growth for certified angus beef.
Retrieved from https://www.agweb.com/article/steadfast-demand-sales-
growth-for-certified-angus-beef/
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2015). Basics of Qualitative Research (4th ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Creswell J.W. (2013). Qualitative Inquiry & Research Design (3rd ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Creswell, J.W., & Creswell, D.J. (2017). Research Design Qualitative, Quantitative,
and Mixed Methods Approaches (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE
Publications.
Cross, H.R., & Savell, J.W. (1994). What do we need for a value-based beef
marketing system? Meat Science 36 (19-27).
Crowder, C.M., Shoulders, C.W., Rucker, K.J. (2014). College students’ perceptions
regarding sensory aspects of conventionally produced and uncongenially
produced foods: implication for marketing to the millennial generation.
Journal of Applied Communications 98(4) 56-71.
Damron, W.S. (2013). Introduction to Animal Science (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River,
NJ: Pearson Higher Education Inc.
Davies, M.A.P., & Wright, L.T. (1994). The importance of labeling examined food
marketing. European Journal of Marketing 28(2), 57-67.
129
Delgado, A.M., Norby, B., Scott., H.M., Dean, W., McIntosh, W.A., & Bush, E.
(2014). Distribution of cow-calf producers’ beliefs regarding gathering and
holding their cattle and observing animal movement restrictions during an
outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease. Preventive Veterinary Medicine. 117(3-4),
518-532. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prevetmed.2014.09.010
Denzin, N.K., & Lincoln, Y.S. (2011). Qualitative Research (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks,
CA: SAGE Publications.
Doerfert, D.L. (2003). Agricultural literacy: An assessment of research studies

published within the agricultural education profession. In Proceedings of the
22nd Annual Western Region Agricultural Education Research Conference,
Portland (Vol. 41).
Dooley, K.E. (2007). Viewing agricultural education research through a qualitative

lens. Journal of Agricultural Education 48(4), 32-42. doi:
10.5032/jae.2007.04032
Economic History. (n.d.). History of Food and Drug Regulation in the United States.
Retrieved from http://eh.net/encyclopedia/history-of-food-and-drug-regulation-
in-the-united-states/
Ehrenburg, A., Barnard, N., & Scriven, J. (1997). Differentiation or salience. Journal
of Advertising Research 37(6), 7-14.
Enough Movement. (n.d.). Truth About Food: The Data. Retrieved from:
https://assets.contentful.com/vvg1dh76q3vv/5RcQoxKuKAQcK0cwaYsGYS/
1ab1d4d15f3763407be0e72c5bf77f33/TAF_Report_03-21-17.pdf
Estes, S., Edgar, L.D., Johnson, D.M. (2015). Consumer perceptions of poultry
production: A focus on Arkansas. Journal of Applied Communications 99(4),
34-47.
FDA. (2018). Regulatory Information. Retrieved from

https://www.fda.gov/RegulatoryInformation/Guidances/ucm059098.htm
FDA. (2013). A Food Labeling Guide. Retrieved from

https://www.fda.gov/downloads/food/guidanceregulation/ucm265446.pdf
FDA. (2009). U.S Food & Drug Admiration. Retrieved from

https://www.fda.gov/RegulatoryInformation/LawsEnforcedbyFDA/ucm14869
0.htm
Franze, G., & Moriarty, S. (2009). The Science and Art of Branding. Armonk, NY:
M.E. Sharpe, Inc.
130
Froehlich, E.J., Carlberg, J.G., & Ward, C.E. (2009). Willingness-to-Pay for Fresh
Brand Name Beef. Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics. 57(1), 119-
137. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-7976.2008.01141.x
Fushc, P.I., & Ness, L.R. (2015). Are we there yet? Data saturation in qualitative
research. The Qualitative Report, 20(9), 1408-1416.
Gray, E. R., & Balmer, J. M. T. (1998). Managing corporate image and corporate
reputation. Long Range Planning, 31(5)
Gill, P., Stewart, K., Treasure, K., & Chadwick, B. (2008). Methods of data collection
in qualitative research interviews and focus groups. British Dental Journal
204, 291-295. doi: 10.1038/bdj.2008.192
GRACE Communications Foundation. (2013). These labels are so confusing!

Retrieved from http://www.sustainabletable.org/944/these-labels-are-so-
confusing
Greenwald & Associates. (2016). Overall, how confident are you in the safely of the
U.S. food supply? Retrieved from https://www-statista-com.lib-
e2.lib.ttu.edu/statistics/245056/safety-of-us-food-supply-according-to-
consumers/
Greiner, S.P. (2009). Understanding Expected Progeny Differences (EPDs). Retrieved

from http://pubs.ext.vt.edu/400/400-804/400-804.html
Guion, L. A., Diehl, D. C., & McDonald, D. (2009). Triangulation: Establishing the
validity of qualitative studies. Retrieved from http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/fy394
Goodman, R. (2012). Cattle Breeds 101: Brahman. Retrieved from

https://beefrunner.com/2012/01/13/cattle-breeds-101-brahman/
Hoeffler, S., & Keller, K.L. (2003). The marketing advantages of strong brands.
Journal of Brand Management, 10(6). doi: 10.1057/palgrave.bm.2540139
Holloway, L. (2004). Showing and telling farming: Agricultural shows and re-imaging
British agriculture. Journal of Rural Studies, 20, 319-330. doi:
10.1016/j.jrurstud.2003.10.002
Irani, T., & Sinclair, J. (2004). The Effect of Labeling Genetically Modified Food on
Perceptions of Accountability. Journal of Applied Communications, 88(1). 29-
42.
Krefting, L. (1991). Rigor in qualitative research: The assessment of trustworthiness.

The American Journal of Occupational Therapy 45(3) 214-222.
131
Lincoln, Y.S., Guba, E.G. (1985). Natutalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE
Publications.
Loken, B., Ahluwalia, R., & Houston, M.J. (Eds.). (2010). Brands and brand
management: Contemporary research perspectives. New York, NY: Taylor &
Francis Group.
Loureiro, M.L., Umberger, W.J., (2007). A choice experiment model for beef: what
US consumer responses tell us about relative preferences for food safety,
country-of-origin labeling and traceability. Food Policy, 32(4), 496-514.
Madden, T.J., Ellen, P.S., Ajzen, I. (1992). A Comparison of the Theory of Planned
Behavior and the Theory of Reasoned Action. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin. 18(1).
McCluskey, J.J. & Loureiro M.L. (2003). Consumer Preferences and Willingness to
Pay for Food Labeling: A discussion of empirical studies. Journal of Food
Distribution Research 34(3). Retrieved from
https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/6988619.pdf
McCluskey, J.J., Wahl, T.I., Li, Q., & Wandschneider, P.R. (2005). U.S. Grass-Fed
Beef: Marketing Health Benefits. Journal of Food Distribution Research
36(3), 1-8. Retrieved from
http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/27758/1/36030001.pdf
Merriam-Webster. (2017). Retrieved from https://www.merriam-

webster.com/dictionary/perception
Meyers, C.A., & Miller, J.D. (2007). Selected consumers’ evaluations of genetically
modified food labels. Journal of Applied Communications 91(1), 15-29.
Miles, M. B. & Huberman, A. M. (1984). Qualitative Data Analysis: A Sourcebook of

New Methods. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Moor, L. (2007). The rise of brands.
Oxford, UK: Berg.
Moor, L. (2007). The rise of brands. Oxford, UK: Berg
Moustakas, C. (1994). Phenomenological research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage.
Klein, N. (2001). No logo: Taking aim at the brand bullies. Toronto, ON: Vintage.
Knebel, T.D. (2015). Front-of-package food labels: Consumer knowledge and

purchase decisions (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Gonzaga University,
Washington.
132
Nam, J., Ekinci, Y., Whyatt, G. (2001). Brand equity, brand loyalty and consumer
satisfaction. Annals of Tourism Research. 38(3), 1009-1030. doi:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2011.01.015
National Agricultural Statistics Service. (2017). Farms and Land in Farms 2016
Summary. Retrieved from
https://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/current/FarmLandIn/FarmLandIn-02-17-
2017.pdf
National Cattlemen’s Beef Association. (2017). Beef Industry Statistics. Retrieved

from http://www.beefusa.org/beefindustrystatistics.aspx
Neill, C.L., Holcomb, R.B., Lusk, J.L. (2016). Is the Grass Really Greener across the
State Line? A Regional Analysis of State Branding Programs. Agricultural &
Applied Economics Association Annual Meeting. Retrieved from
http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/235212/2/AAEA2016_upload.pdf
Nielsen. (n.d.). Sales value of beef in the United States in 2016, by labeling type (in
billion U.S. dollars). In Statista - The Statistics Portal. Retrieved from
https://www.statista.com/statistics/622017/sales-value-of-beef-us-by-labeling-
type/
North American Meat Institute. (2017). The United States Meat Industry at a Glance.
Retrieved from
https://www.meatinstitute.org/index.php?ht=d/sp/i/47465/pid/47465
Onwuegbuzie, A.J., & Leech, N.L. (2007). A call for qualitative power analyses.
Quality and Quantity 41(1), 105-121. doi: 10.1007/s11135-005-1098-1
Petrea, R.E. (1996). Applying the theory of planned behavior to respiratory protection
utilization and behaviors of east-central Illinois pork producers. (Unpublished
doctorial dissertation). University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, Illinois.
Pew Research Center. (2017). Mixed Messages about Public Trust in Sciences.
Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/2017/12/08/mixed-messages-
about-public-trust-in-science/
Pew Research Center. (2016a). The New Food Fights: U.S. Publics Divides over Food
Science. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/2016/12/01/the-new-
food-fights/
Pew Research Center. (2016b). What’s on your table? How America’s diet has
changed over the decades. Retrieved from http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-
tank/2016/12/13/whats-on-your-table-how-americas-diet-has-changed-over-
the-decades/
133
Priven, M., Baum, J., Viera, E., Fung, T., Herbold, N. (2015). The Influence of a
Factitious Free-Form Food Product Label on Consumer Perceptions of
Healthfulness. Journal Of The Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, 115(11),
1808-1814.
Reicks, A. (2006). Consumer motivations and the impact of brand on purchasing

preferences of fresh beef. (Unpublished doctorial dissertation). Texas Tech
University, Lubbock, Texas.
Reiman, M. (2012). Nearly 75% Of U.S. Cattle Are Black-Hided; A Look Behind The
Numbers. Retrieved from http://www.beefmagazine.com/allied-
industry/nearly-75-us-cattle-are-black-hided-look-behind-numbers
Robbins, et al. (2003). Consumer attitudes towards beef and acceptability of enhanced
beef. Meat Science. 65(2), 721-729.
Ruth, T.K., & Rumble, J.N. (2016). Branding the berries: Consumers’ strawberry
purchasing intent and their attitude toward Florida strawberries. Journal of
Applied Communications. 100(2). Retrieved from
https://doi.org/10.4148/1051-0834.1028
Rutherford, B. (2016). Top 10 issues facing beef producers. Retrieved from

http://www.beefmagazine.com/blog/top-10-issues-facing-beef-producers
Schertz, J. (2017). The Certified Angus Beef® brand marks 11th consecutive year of
record sales. Retrieved from
http://www.certifiedangusbeef.com/press/releases/FY17_100517.pdf
Settle, Q., Goodwin, J., Telg, R., Irani, T., Carter, H. (2012) Brand salience and brand
differentiation of the Florida forest service. Journal of Applied
Communications, 96(3) https://doi.org/10.4148/1051-0834.1139
Siebert, J.W., & Jones, C. (2013). A case study on building the certified angus beef
brand. International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, 16(3), 195-
208.
Sinclair, U. (1906). The Jungle. Mineola, New York: Dover Publications, Inc.
Soederberg Miller, L.M., & Cassady, D.L. (2015). The effects of nutrition knowledge
on food label use. A review of literature. Appetite 92, 207-216.
Speer, N. (2012). Industry At A Glance: Branded Beef Sales. Retrieved from

http://www.beefmagazine.com/marketingproduct-promotion/industry-glance-
branded-beef-sales
134
Speer, N. (2013). Industry At A Glance: Growth Of USDA-Certified Beef Programs.

Retrieved from http://www.beefmagazine.com/retail/industry-glance-growth-
usda-certified-beef-programs
Tesch, R. (1990). Qualitative research: Analysis types and software tools. London:
RoutledgeFalmer.
The Hartman Group. (2015). What consumers want on labels. Retrieved from
https://www.hartman-group.com/acumenPdfs/clean-label-trend-2015-08-
27.pdf
Thilmany, D.D., Umberger, W.J., & Ziehl, A.R. (2005). Strategic market planning for
value-added natural beef products: A cluster analysis of Colorado consumers.
Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems: 21(3), 192-203. doi:
10.1079/RAF2005143
Townsend, K. (2001). Registration of Cattle Brands. Journal of Legal Contemporary

Issues 91.
Turner, D.W. (2010). Qualitative interview design: A practical guide for novice
investigators. The Qualitative Report, 15(3), 754-760.
USAid. (2017). Feed the Future. Retrieved from https://www.usaid.gov/what-we-

do/agriculture-and-food-security/increasing-food-security-through-feed-future
U.S. Census Bureau. (n.d.). Census regions and division of the United States.
Received from https://www2.census.gov/geo/pdfs/maps-
data/maps/reference/us_regdiv.pdf
United States Department of Agriculture. (n.d.a). Auditing and Accreditation.

Agriculture Marketing Services. Retrieved from
https://www.ams.usda.gov/services/auditing
United States Department of Agriculture. (n.d.b). Beef Grading Shields. Agriculture

Marketing Services. Retrieved from https://www.ams.usda.gov/grades-
standards/beef/shields-and-marbling-pictures
United States Department of Agriculture. (n.d.c). Certified Meat Programs. Retrieved

from https://www.ams.usda.gov/services/auditing/certified-meat-programs
United States Department of Agriculture. (n.d.d). Economics Research Service.

Retrieved from https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/animal-products/cattle-
beef/statistics-information.aspx
135
USDA & USDA Foreign Agricultural Service. (n.d.e). Export volume of beef and veal
worldwide from 2015 to 2017, by country (in 1,000 metric tons)*. In Statista -
The Statistics Portal. Retrieved from
https://www.statista.com/statistics/617458/beef-and-veal-export-volume-
worldwide-by-country/
United States Department of Agriculture. (2017a). Ag and Food Sectors and the
Economy. Retrieved from https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/ag-and-
food-statistics-charting-the-essentials/ag-and-food-sectors-and-the-economy/
United States Department of Agriculture. (2017b). Farm Income and Wealth Statistics.
Economic Research Service. Retrieved from https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-
products/ag-and-food-statistics-charting-the-essentials/farming-and-farm-
income/
United States Department of Agriculture. (2017c). USDA Certified Beef Programs.

American Marketing Services. Retrieved from
https://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/LPSCertifiedBeefProgram
Comparison.pdf
United States Department of Agriculture. (2016). Overview of the United States Cattle
Industry. Retrieved from
http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/current/USCatSup/USCatSup-06-24-
2016.pdf
United States Department of Agriculture. (2015a). Food Safety and Inspection

Service. Chicken from farm to table.. Retrieved from
https://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/portal/fsis/topics/food-safety-education/get-
answers/food-safety-fact-sheets/poultry-preparation/chicken-from-farm-to-
table/ct_index
United States Department of Agriculture. (2015b). Food Safety and Inspection

Service. Meat and Poultry Labeling Terms. Retrieved from
https://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/portal/fsis/topics/food-safety-education/get-
answers/food-safety-fact-sheets/food-labeling/meat-and-poultry-labeling-
terms/meat-and-poultry-labeling-terms
United States Department of Agriculture. (2014). Food and Safety Inspection Service.
Retrieved from https://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/wcm/connect/fsis-content/fsis-
questionable-content/celebrating-100-years-of-fmia/overview/ct_index
United States Department of Agriculture. (2012). Beef Cows – Inventory: 2012.

Retrieved from
https://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2012/Online_Resources/Ag_Atla
136
s_Maps/Livestock_and_Animals/Livestock,_Poultry_and_Other_Animals/12-
M144-RGBDot1-largetext.pdf
United Stated Department of Labor. (2017). Consumer Expenditures – 2016.

Retrieved from https://www.bls.gov/news.release/cesan.nr0.htm
U.S. Meat Export Federation. (2018). New Records for U.S. Beef Export Value, Pork
Export Value, Pork Export Volume in 2017. Retrieved from
https://www.usmef.org/news-statistics/press-releases/new-records-for-u-s-
beef-export-value-pork-export-volume-in-2017-2/
Van Manen, M. (1990). Researching lived experience: Human science for an action
sensitive pedagogy. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Van Woerkum, C. M. J., & Van Lieshout, I. M. (2007). Reputation management in

agro-food industries: Safety first. British Food Journal, 109(5), 355-366.
Vander Mey, B.J. (2004). The Globalization of Food and How Americans Feel about
It: Results of Two Surveys. Journal of Food Distribution Research 35(1).
Vilsack, T. (2014). 2012 Census of agriculture preliminary report. Retrieved from

https://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2012/Full_Report/Volume_1,_Ch
apter_1_US/usv1.pdf
Verbeke, W. & Ward, R.W. (2006). Consumer interest in information cues denoting
quality, traceability and origin: An application of ordered profit models to beef
labels. Food Quality and Preference, 17(6), 435-467. doi:
10.1016/j.foodqual.2005.05.010
Wee, T.T.T., & Ming, M.C.H. (2003). Leveraging on symbolic values and meanings
in branding. Journal of Brand Management. 10(3), 208-218.
Williams, L.E. (2006). Consumer perceptions of branded beef products (Unpublished

master’s thesis). University of Tennessee, Knoxville.
Wilson, Micky. (January 2007). Supplying the Brand. ANGUS Journal. Retrieved
from
http://www.cabpartners.com/news/published/0107_SupplyingtheBrand.pdf
Zey, M., & McIntosh, A. (1992). Predicting intent to consume beef: Normative versus
attitudinal influences. Rural Sociology, 57(2), 250-265.
137
APPENDICES
Appendix A
Definition of terms
The following terms are important to understand while investigating this study.
For the purpose of the study, the following terms were operationally defined as listed
below.
Angus – A breed of cattle originated from Scotland. The breed is known for their
black-hides, high-quality carcass characteristics, good mothering ability, and low-
maintenance calving (Angus, 2017; Beef Board, 2017).
Beef producer – Person who raises cattle for meat (beef) consumption (Beef Board,
2018).
Certified Angus Beef – The first branded beef program to be monitored under the
USDA. The brand labels beef products based on live animal and carcass specifications
(CAB, 2017c).
Certified beef programs/branded beef programs – “Programs built around
attributes that relay benefits to the consumer in the way of health, taste, tenderness,
and food safety while being environmentally sustainable and animal welfare friendly”
(Alberta Agriculture and Forestry, 2017, para. 1).
Knowledge – Knowing something through experience or association, the range of
someone’s information or understanding (Merriam-Webster, 2017).
Perceptions – A result of observing, a mental image or concept, a quick, acute and
intuitive cognition (Merriam-Webster, 2017).
138
Appendix B
Recruitment Email
Participant Recruitment Email
Date
Producer Name
Address
Dear Producer,
My name is Leighton Chachere, and I am an agricultural communications master’s

student at Texas Tech University in Lubbock, Texas. I was raised on a small, family
owned and operated farm and ranch in Dayton, Texas. My family raises commercial
cattle as well as purebred Hereford and Limousin, which I grew up showing across the
country. Along with the cattle, we farm hay that is sold at our two local feed stores.
Growing up in agriculture, and specifically around cattle, I have gained a great respect for
farmers and ranchers. I have also become fascinated with the beef industry and how the
general public perceives the industry. This has led me to focus my thesis research on
certified beef programs and more specifically, the Certified Angus Beef program. The
purpose of my research is to understand cattle producers’ perception of the Certified
Angus Beef program and the three labels that it represents.
I am writing to you today to ask for your help with my research. Your insight into the
cattle industry is unique and very valuable for my study. I am asking if I could please
speak with you about your operation and your thoughts about the Certified Angus Beef
program and how you feel it has affected the beef industry.
Your participation in this research will not only help in my graduate school research, but
the results may give a greater insight into the beef cattle industry and the way the industry
communicates its programs to others. Thank you for considering my request for your
time to help me complete my study. If you could please contact me at your earliest
convenience, it would be greatly appreciated. You can contact me through email at
leighton.chachere@ttu.edu or by telephone at 936-827-1080. I look forward to hearing
back from you.
Thank you,
Leighton Chachere
Agricultural Communications Master Student
Texas Tech University
139
Appendix C
Information Sheet
Information Sheet
Please share your thoughts in my research project
What is this project studying?

The study is called “Beef Producers Knowledge and Perceptions of the Certified Angus Beef Program.”
This study will help us better understand beef producers knowledge and perception of the Certified Angus
Beef program as well as the impact the program has on the beef industry.
What would I do if I participate?

In this study, you will be asked to share your experiences, thoughts, and feelings with the researcher.
Some questions will be about you. Some questions will be about your thoughts. Some will be about how
you feel and what have you experienced. The interviews will be audio recorded in order for us to obtain
accurate information.
How will I benefit from participating?

You will have to opportunity to voice your opinion about certified beef programs and the beef industry.
Can I quit if I become uncomfortable?

Yes, absolutely. Your participation is completely voluntary. Dr. Gibson, Miss. Chachere, and the
Institutional Review Board have reviewed the questions and think you can answer them comfortably. You
may skip any question you do not feel comfortable answering. You can also stop answering questions at
any time. You are free to leave any time you wish. Participating is your choice. However, we do
appreciate any help you are able to provide.
How long will participation take?

We are asking for 30 minutes to an hour of your time.
How are you protecting privacy?

Your name will not be linked to any documentation and any use of this material in reports, publications or
presentations will never be associated with participants in this study without permission. No one other
than the researchers associated with this project will have access to the raw data. All related
documentation will be stored either in a locked file cabinet in the researcher’s office or on a password
protected computer.
I have some questions about this study. Who can I ask?

• The study is being run by Dr. Gibson and Miss.Chachere from the Department of Agricultural
Education and Communications at Texas Tech University. If you have questions, you can email
them at courtney.gibson@ttu.edu or leighton.chachere@ttu.edu.
• TTU also has a Board that protects the rights of people who participate in research. You can ask
them questions at 806-742-2064. You can also mail your questions to the Human Research
Protection Program, Office of the Vice President for Research, Texas Tech University, Lubbock,
Texas 79409 or email them to hrpp@ttu.edu.
140
Appendix D
Interview Guide
141
142
143
144
Appendix E
IRB Approval
145

Chachere Mattie Thesisreview3

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Chachere Mattie Thesisreview3

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Knowledge and Perceptions of U.S.

Beef Producers on the Certified Angus BeefÒ

Mattie Leighton Chachere, B.S

Submitted to the Graduate Faculty

Dr. Courtney Gibson

Dr. Erica Irlbeck

Dr. Mark Sheridan

rewarding. Throughout the process, several individuals become my support system

everything they have done for me throughout my time at Texas Tech.

Continuously through any adventure I have taken on, my parents have

encouraged me through this chapter of my life.

constant encouragement and boosting my confidence in my research and writing

Finally, to my colleagues and fellow graduate students, I thank you. Garrett,

helped me through this process, whether it was constantly answering my questions,

pushing me to think outside of comfort zone, or encouraging me when I needed it. I

Findings in Relation to Research Question One ..................................................... 68

study used a qualitative, phenomenological approach to interview producers around

Agricultural communicators should use the knowledge and perceptions of producers

as communication efforts to other producers as well as consumers. Future research

resulting in less than 2% of Americans engaged in farming as their primary occupation

decline in knowledge and literacy of agricultural practices (Doerfert, 2011). This

food undergoes to make it to their plate.

Due to this declining knowledge, consumers have become more skeptical of

safe and secure than meat products (Vander Mey, 2004).

safety and conditions of the food they were consuming.

in Collier’s Weekly in 1905 about dangers in patient medicine, provoking legislators to

“preventing the manufacture, sale, or transportation of adulterated or misbranded or

product manufacturing (Economic History, n.d.).

Inspection Act which tightened the United States Department of Agriculture’s

mandatory inspection before slaughter, postmortem inspection of each carcass, and

USDA to enforce requirements by issuing grants of inspection to monitor slaughter

with enforcing these requirements (USDA, 2014).

As sanitary processes began to improve, the government still aimed to improve

identification responsibilities were assigned to a division of the Agricultural

(USDA, 2014). AMS provides a range of services including voluntary inspection,

Prime, Choice, Standard, and Commercial.

Beyond the grading systems provided by the FSIS, accreditation programs

provided by AMA offer producers of agricultural products an opportunity to assure

consistent product with regulated specifications to consumers (USDA, n.d.c).

industry operates, including consumption practices. Because of this, it is critical for

Beyond mandatory labeling, some manufactures of food products choose to

such as those regarding genetically modified or all-natural foods.

labeled poultry products which include options such as antibiotic-free, hormone-free,

free-range, cage-free, and more. Consumer understanding of food labels is important

providing information that influences expectations of a product (Ares et al., 2013).

and nutritional information when evaluating food labels.

Understanding the effect of all food labels on consumers’ buying habits is

most important indicators of value that consumers attached to beef labels.

such as natural, minimally processed, no hormones, and no antibiotics. According to

the USDA (2015b), natural is “a product containing no artificial ingredient or added

sufficient documentation is provided to the Agency by the producer showing no

antibiotics may be added with sufficient documentation is provided demonstrating the

animals were raised without antibiotics (USDA, 2015b).

labeled products contained antibiotics (Enough Movement, n.d.).

consumer preferences and education of these labels resulting in an increased number

committed to meeting consumer demands for producing a variety of attributes for

specific preferences (Speer, 2013).

Each branded beef program is unique and typically has specifications

is one of the most widely known.

In 1975, an Ohio Angus producer had a bad experience with an unsatisfying

Angus cattle through a specification-based, branded-beef program to identify

It is essential for certified beef programs behind labels such as CAB to

to beef producers. Black Ink, a column of articles published in newspapers and on