Consumer meat purchasing behaviors have been a topic of significant debate in recent years, especially as individual products like chicken wings have dazzled the marketplace with ‘the best of times and the worst of times’ in quick succession. We’ve had increasing debates about local/regional supply chains and resiliency in food production and continued ongoing concerns about changing consumer behavior during the (still ongoing!) COVID-19 pandemic era.

We have been studying holiday behaviors here on Consumer Corner since the beginning, looking at what we serve at Thanksgiving, public sentiment surrounding Halloween, and pandemic-era adaptations surrounding holidays.

In late January 2021, we collected data about the winter holiday season spanning December 2020 – January 2021. We sought to study who was gathering (or not), with whom, with how many total people, and what they were serving or eating. Bottom line was that we were wondering if smaller gatherings would lead to changes in what meat items were being served, especially since Thanksgiving 2020 saw challenges with too many large turkeys for too-small gatherings. In total, we collected data from a sample of 929 U.S. households for whom sample demographics match very closely with those of the target values from the U.S. population as reported in the U.S. Census.

Demographic information n=929.

Demographic Information

ψIndicates the percentage of respondents is statistically different than the U.S. Census at the 0.05 level. 1not all respondents indicated their household makeup; n is as given.

We found Christmas Eve and Christmas Day were the most popular holidays meals for attendance, although New Year’s Eve and other non-holiday family gatherings were also popular amongst respondents. On average, there were two to three attendees from within the household at holiday gatherings, while the number of attendees from outside the household was lower (means ranging between one and two people).

Number of people who attended holiday-related meals in December 2020. N given in table.

Number of People at Holiday Gathering

The most popular meat or protein was beef for Christmas Eve, ham for Christmas Day (although not by much, with turkey a close second), and beef again for New Year’s Eve. Interestingly, chicken was served by a higher proportion of respondents than turkey for all holiday meals except Christmas Day.

Meat or protein items served or consumed at holiday meals of 2020; % of respondents. Multiple selections allowed. N=929

Protein Served at Holiday Meal

We were particularly interested in changes surrounding beef due to significant changes in beef cut prices in late 2020 compared to previous holiday seasons and potential changes in sizes of gatherings/scale of meals. In total, 25% of respondents changed their holiday protein consumption; 14% served more ham, 12% served more beef and 6% served more fish or shellfish.

Changes related to holiday protein consumption for 2020 holidays. Percentage of respondents n=929. Multiple selections allowed.

Changes to Holiday Protein

By following up with the 109 respondents who indicated they served more beef at holiday meals in December 2020, we learned 28% indicated it was because of the lower price of beef and because they were ordering from a restaurant. Only 21% indicated that a smaller number of attendees led them to change their entrée offering. And the largest proportion of agreement (38%) was a change simply due to the preference of the person doing the cooking.

Reason respondent who served more beef did so for their holiday meal in 2020. Multiple selections allowed. N=109

Reasons for Serving More Beef

Certainly there is no denying that 2020 was ‘different’. Interestingly, we have delved into a variety of explanations for holiday meal differences and did find some support that relative prices or size of gatherings drove families to make changes, but the most popular reason for serving more beef was the preferences of the home chef, driving home once again that consumer (and chef!) preferences matter.

ConsumerCorner.2022.Article.2