Beef acceptability and consumer expectations associated with production systems and marbling

Food Quality and Preference

Volumn 29, Issue 2, 2013, Pages 166-173

  Morales, R ^a   Aguiar, A P S ^a   Subiabre, I ^a   Realini, C E ^b  

^a INSTITUTO DE INVESTIGACIONES AGROPECUARIAS   (Chile)

^b IRTA   (Spain)

Author keywords

Chilean beef; Consumer acceptability; Consumer expectations; Marbling; Production system

Indexed keywords

EID: 84877657481     PISSN: 09503293     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2013.02.006     Document Type: Article

References (55)

1. Anonymous Handbook of Australian meat 2005, AUSMEAT, Brisbane. 7th ed.
2. ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials. Guidelines for the selection and training of sensory panel members. ASTM STP 758 1981, ASTM, Philadelphia, p. 33.
3. Bello Acebrón L., Calvo Dopico D. The importance of intrinsic and extrinsic cues to expected and experienced quality: an empirical application for beef. Food Quality and Preference 2000, 11:229-238.
4. Bernués A., Olaizola A., Corcoran K. Extrinsic attributed of red meat as indicators of quality in Europe: an application for market segmentation. Food Quality and Preference 2003, 14:265-276.
5. Berry B.W., Leddy K.F., Bond J., Rumsey T.S., Hammond A.C. Effect of silage diets and electrical stimulation on the palatability, cooking and pH characteristics of beef loin steaks. Journal of Animal Science 1988, 66:892-900.
6. Bredahl L. Cue utilisation and quality perception with regard to branded beef. Food Quality and Preference 2003, 15:65-75.
7. Caporale G., Policastro S., Carlucci A., Monteleone E. Consumer expectations for sensory properties in vigin olive oils. Food Quality and Preferences 2006, 17:116-125.
8. Cardello A.V., Sawyer F.M. Effects of disconfirmed consumer expectations on food acceptability. Journal of Sensory Studies 1992, 7:253-277.
9. Cerjak M., Karolyi D., Kovacic D. Effect of information about pig breed on consumers' acceptability of dry sausage. Journal of Sensory Studies 2011, 26:128-134.
10. Claro D., González M. Producción de carne bovina en la zona central. Producción y manejo de carne bovina en Chile 2005, 323-349. Instituto de Investigaciones Agropecuarias INIA, Temuco, Chile. A. Catrileo (Ed.).
11. Conner D.S., Oppenheim D. Demand for pasture-raised livestock products: results from Michigan retail surveys. Journal of Agribusiness 2008, 26(1):1-20.
12. Deliza R., MacFie H.J.H. The generation of sensory expectations by external cues and its effect on sensory perceptions and hedonic rating: a review. Journal of Sensory Studies 1996, 11:103-128.
13. Deliza R., MacFie H.J.H., Feria-Morales A., Hedderely D. The effect of conusmer expectation on evaluation of instant coffee. Brazilian Journal of Food Technology 2000, 3:97-105.
14. Echávarri V., López I., Amunátegui R., de la Fuente T. Boletín carne bovina: Tendencias de producción, precios y comercio exterior 2012, Oficina de Estudios y Políticas Agrarias (Odepa), Minsiterio de Agricultura, Gobierno de Chile, Santiago, Chile, (p. 40).
15. Egan A.F., Ferguson D.M., Thompson J.M. Consumer sensory requirements for beef and their implications for the Australian beef industry. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 2001, 41:855-859.
16. FAO/WHO Fats and fatty acids in human nutrition report of an expert consultation. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and the World Health Organization. FAO Food Nutrition Papers 2008, 91:1-91.
17. Font i Furnols M., Realini C., Montossi F., Sañudo C., Campo M.M., Oliver M.A., et al. Consumer's purchasing intention for lamb meat affected by country of origin, feeding system and meat price. A conjoint study in Spain, France and United Kingdom. Food Quality and Preferences 2011, 91:448-453.
18. Font i Furnols M., Tous N., Esteve-Garica E., Gispert M. Do all the consumers accept marbling in the same way? The relationship between eating and visual acceptability of pork with different intramuscular fat content. Meat Science 2012, 91:448-453.
19. Goic L. Descripción y perspectivas de la producción de carne bovina en Chile. Informe final. Taller internacional: limitaciones y perspectivas del sector cárnico bovino en Chile y el Mercosur 2001, 136-148. FAO, Santiago, Chile. A. Catrileo (Ed.).
20. Grunert K.G. What's in a steak? A cross-cultural study on the quality perception of beef. Food Quality and Preferences 1997, 8:157-174.
21. Hersleth M., Lengard V., Verbeke W., Guerrero L., Næs T. Consumers' acceptance of innovations in dry-cured ham: Impact of reduced salt content, prolonged aging time and new origin. Food Quality and Preference 2011, 22:31-41.
22. Hersleth M., Næs T., Rødbotten M., Lind V., Monteleone E. Lamb meat--Importance of origin and grazing system for Italian and Norwegian consumers. Meat Science 2012, 90:899-907.
23. IICA Estudio comparativo de dos sistemas de producción de leche: pastoreo y confinamiento 2004, Instituto Interamericano de Cooperación para la Agricultura IICA, Oficina Nicaragua, Nicaragua, pp. 62.
24. INE. (2007). VII Censo Agropecuario y Forestal, Instituto Nacional de Estadísticas (INE), Santiago, Chile. Available at (accessed 23.02.2012). http://www.censoagropecuario.cl/.
25. INE. (2008). Estadísticas Vitales. Informe anual 2008, Instituto Nacional de Estadísticas (INE), Santiago, Chile. Available at (accessed 15.11.2012). http://www.ine.cl/canales/menu/publicaciones/calendario_de_publicaciones/pdf/21_12_10/vit_08211210.pdf.
26. Issanchou S. Consumer expectations and perceptions of meat and meat products quality. Meat Science 1996, 43:S5-S19.
27. Killinger K.M., Calkins C.R., Umberger W.J., Feuz D.M., Eskridge K.M. A comparison of consumer sensory acceptance and value of domestic beef steaks and steaks from a branded, Argentine beef program. Journal of Animal Science 2004, 82:3302-3307.
28. Killinger K.M., Calkins C.R., Umberger W.J., Feuz D.M., Eskridge K.M. Consumer visual preference and value for beef steaks differing in marbling level and color. Journal of Animal Science 2004, 82:3288-3293.
29. Kubberød E., Ueland Ø., Tronstad A., Risvik E. Attitudes towards meat eating among adolescents in Norway--a qualitative study. Appetite 2002, 38:53-62.
30. Lange C., Rousseau F., Issanchou S. Expectation, liking and purchase behaviour under economical constraint. Food Quality and Preference 1999, 10:31-39.
31. Luo, J., Mainville, D., You, W., & Nayga, R. (2009). Hispanic Consumers' Preferences and Willingness-to-Pay for Pasture-Fed Beef in Virginia. IAMA's 19th annual World symposium (pp. 20-21). The Europa Congress Center, Budapest, Hungary.
32. Lusk J.L., Parker N. Consumer preferences for amount and type of fat in ground beef. Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 2009, 41(1):75-90.
33. MacFie H.J.H., Bratchell N., Greenhoff H., Vallis L.V. Designs to balance the effect of order of presentation and first-order carry-over effect in hall test. Journal of Sensory Studies 1989, 4:129-149.
34. Maughan C., Tansawat R., Cornforth D., Ward R., Martini S. Development of a beef flavor lexicon and its application to compare the flavor profile and consumer acceptance of rib steaks from grass- or grain-fed cattle. Meat Science 2012, 90(1):116-121.
35. Meillon S., Urbano C., Guillot G., Schlich P. Acceptability of partially dealcoholized wines - measuring the impact of sensory and information cues on overall liking in real-life settings. Food Quality and Preferences 2010, 21:763-773.
36. Morales R., Folch C., Iraira S., Teuber N., Realini C. Nutritional quality of beef produced in Chile form different production systems. Chilean Journal of Agricultural Research 2012, 72(1):80-86.
37. Næs T., Kubberød E., Sivertsen H. Identifying and interpreting market segments using conjoint analysis. Food Quality and Preference 2001, 12:133-143.
38. Napolitano F., Braghieri A., Caroprese M., Marino R., Girolami A., Sevi A. Effect of information about animal welfare, expressed in terms of rearing conditions, on lamb acceptability. Meat Science 2007, 77:431-436.
39. Napolitano F., Braghieri A., Piasentier E., Favotto S., Naspetti S., Zanoli R. Effect of information about organic production on beef liking and consumer willingness to pay. Food Quality and Preference 2010, 21:207-212.
40. Napolitano F., Caporale G., Carlucci A., Monteleone E. Effect of information about animal welfare and product nutritional properties on acceptability of meat from Podolian cattle. Food Quality and Preference 2007, 18:305-312.
41. Ngapo T.M., Martin J.-F., Dransfield E. International preferences for pork appearance. II. Factors influencing consumer choice. Food Quality and Preference 2007, 18:139-151.
42. Realini C., Font i Furnols M., Guerrero L., Montossi F., Campo M.M., Sañudo C., et al. Effect of finishing diet on consumer acceptability of Uruguayan beef in the European market. Meat Science 2009, 81:499-506.
43. Ryan Y.M. Meat avoidance and body weight concerns: nutritional implications for teenage girls. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 1997, 56:519-524.
44. Savell J.W., Branson R.E., Cross H.R., Stiffler D.M., Wise J.W., Griffin D.B., et al. National consumer retail beef study: palatability evaluations of beef loin steaks that differed in marbling. Journal of Food Science 1987, 52:517-519.
45. Savell J.W., Cross H.R., Francis J.J., Wise J.W., Hale D.S., Wilkes D.L., et al. National consumer retail beef study: Interaction of trim level, price and grade on consumer acceptance of beef steaks and roasts. Journal of Food Quality 1989, 12:251-274.
46. Schnettler B., Ciesla M., Candia A., Llancapán F., Sepúlveda J., Denegri M., et al. Importancia del color, contenido de grasa y frescura en la compra de la carne bovina en Temuco, Región de La Araucanía, Chile. Revista Científica FCV-LUZ 2010, XX:623-632.
47. Schnettler B., Ruiz D., Sepúlveda O., Sepúlveda N. Importance of the country of origin in food consumption in a developing country. Food Quality and Preference 2008, 19:372-382.
48. Siret F., Issanchou S. Traditional process: influence on sensory properties and on consumers' expectations and liking application to 'pâté de campagne'. Food Quality and Preferences 2000, 11:217-228.
49. Sitz B.M., Calkins C.R., Feuz D.M., Umberger W.J., Eskridge K.M. Consumer sensory acceptance and value of domestic, Canadian, and Australian grass-fed beef steaks. Journal of Animal Science 2005, 83:2863-2868.
50. Stafleu A., Graaf C., Staveren W., Schroots J. A review of selected studies assessing social-psychological determinants of fat and cholesterol intake. Food Quality and Preference 1991/2, 3(4):183-200.
51. Steenkamp J.-B.E.M., van Trijp H.C.M. Quality guidance. a consumer-based approach to food quality improvement using partial least square. European Review of Agricultural Economics 1996, 23(195-2):15.
52. Tourila H., Meiselman H.L., Bell R., Cardello A.V., Johnson W. Role of sensory and cognitive information in the enhancement of certainty and liking for novel and familiar foods. Appetite 1994, 23:231-246.
53. Villanueva N.D.M., Petenate A.J., Da Silva M.A.A.P. Performance of the hybrid hedonic scale as compared to the traditional hedonic, self-adjusting and ranking scales. Food Quality and Preferences 2005, 16:691-703.
54. Worsley A., Skrzypiec G. Teenage vegetarianism: beauty or the beast?. Nutrition Research 1997, 17:391-404.
55. Xiong Y.L., Moody W.G., Blanchard S.P., Liu G., Burris W.R. Postmortem proteolytic and organoleptic changes in hot- boned muscle from grass- and grain-fed and zeranol-implanted cattle. Food Research International 1996, 29:27-34.