Effect of tasting and information on consumer opinion about pig castration

Meat Science

Volumn 95, Issue 2, 2013, Pages 242-249

  Kallas, Zein ^a   Gil, José Maria ^a   Panella Riera, Nuria ^b   Blanch, Marta ^b   Font i Furnols, Maria ^b   Chevillon, Patrick ^d   De Roest, Kees ^e   Tacken, Gemma ^c   Oliver, Maria Angels ^b  

^a Edifici ESAB   (Spain)

^b IRTA   (Spain)

^c WAGENINGEN UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

^d IFIP institut du porc   (France)

^e Centro Ricerche Produzioni Animali CRPA SpA   (Italy)

Author keywords

Animal welfare; Boar taint; Pig castration; Sensory experience; Willingness to pay

Indexed keywords

ANIMAL WELFARE; BOAR TAINT; PIG CASTRATION; SENSORY EXPERIENCES; WILLINGNESS TO PAY;

MEATS; SURVEYS;

MAMMALS;

ANIMALIA; SUIDAE;

ADULT; ANIMAL; ANIMAL WELFARE; ARTICLE; CONSUMER; EUROPE; EUROPEAN UNION; FEMALE; HUMAN; MALE; MEAT; ODOR; ORCHIECTOMY; ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT; QUESTIONNAIRE; SOCIOECONOMICS; SWINE; TASTE; ANALYSIS; CONSUMER ATTITUDE;

ADULT; ANIMAL WELFARE; ANIMALS; CONSUMER SATISFACTION; EUROPE; EUROPEAN UNION; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MEAT; ODORS; ORCHIECTOMY; QUESTIONNAIRES; SOCIOECONOMIC FACTORS; SWINE; TASTE; CONSUMER BEHAVIOR;

EID: 84878695022     PISSN: 03091740     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.meatsci.2013.05.011     Document Type: Article

References (43)

1. Agerhem H., Tornberg E. Eating quality of pig meat. Meat Focus International 1993, 2:159-161.
2. Arrow K., Salow R., Portney P., Leaemer E., Radner R., Schuman H. Report of the NOAA panel on contingent valuation. Federal Register 1993, 58(10):4016-4064.
3. Bennett R., Blaney R. Social consensus, moral intensity and willingness to pay to address a farm animal welfare issue. Journal of Economic Psychology 2002, 23:501-520.
4. Bennett R., Larson D. Contingent valuation of the perceived benefits of farm animal welfare legislation: An exploratory survey. Journal of Agricultural Economics 1996, 47(2):224-235.
5. Bennett R., Ralph J. Estimating the benefits of farm animal welfare legislation using the contingent valuation method. Agricultural Economics 2003, 29(1):85-98.
6. Blanch M., Panella-Riera N., Chevillon P., Font i Furnols M., Gil M., Gil J.M., Kallas Z., Oliver M.A. Impact of consumer's sensitivity to androstenone on acceptability of meat from entire males in three European countries: France, Spain and United Kingdom. Meat Science 2012, 90(3):572-578.
7. Bonneau M. Use of entire males for pig meat in the European Union. Meat Science 1998, 49(1):257-272.
8. Bonneau M., Walstra P., Claudi-Magnussenc C., Kempsterd A., Tornberge E., Fischerf K., Diestreg A., Sireth F., Chevilloni P., Clausj R., Dijksterhuisb G., Punterk P., Matthewsd K., Agerheme H., Béagueh M., Oliverg M., Gispertg M., Weilerj U., Von Sethe G., Leaskd H., Font i Furnolsg M., Homerd D., Cookd G. An international study on the importance of androstenone and skatole for boar taint: IV. Simulation studies on consumer dissatisfaction with entire male pork and the effect of sorting carcasses on the slaughter line, main conclusions and recommendations. Meat Science 2000, 54(3):285-295.
9. Carlsson F., Frykblom P., Lagerkvist C.J. Using cheap talk as a test of validity in choice experiments. Economics Letters 2005, 89:147-152.
10. Carlsson F., Frykblom P., Lagerkvist C.J. Consumer willingness to pay for farm animal welfare - Transportation of farm animals to slaughter versus the use of mobile abattoirs. European Review of Agricultural Economics 2007, 34(3):321-344.
11. Carson R. Contingent valuation: A. Comprehensive bibliography and history 2006, Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd., Cheltenham.
12. Desmoulin B., Bonneau M., Frouin A., Bidard J. Consumer testing of pork and processed meat from boars: The influence of fat androstenone level. Livestock Production Science 1982, 9(6):707-715.
13. Dransfield E., Ngapob T., Nielsenc N., Bredahlc L., Sjödénd P., Magnussond M., Campoe M., Nutee G. Consumer choice and suggested price for pork as influenced by its appearance, taste and information concerning country of origin and organic pig production. Meat Science 2005, 69(1):61-70.
14. EC Treaty of Amsterdam amending the Treaty on European Union. Protocol annexed to the Treaty on the European Community - Protocol on protection and welfare of animals. Official Journal 1997, 340:0110. (10/11/1997).
15. EC Attitudes of consumers towards the welfare of farmed animals. Special Eurobarometer 229/Wave 63.2 - TNS Opinion & Social 2005, Directorate General Health and Consumer Protection.
16. EC Attitudes of EU citizens towards animal welfare. Special Eurobarometer 270/Wave 66.1 - TNS Opinion & Social 2007, Directorate - General Health and Consumer Protection.
17. FAOSTAT Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations Statistics 2010, (http://faostat.fao.org/, consulted in February 2012).
18. Font i Furnols M., Gispert M., Diestre A., Oliver M.A. Acceptability of boar meat by consumers depending on their age, gender, culinary habits, and sensitivity and appreciation of androstenone odour. Meat Science 2003, 64(4):433-440.
19. Font i Furnols M., Gispert M., Suárez P., Pearce M., Oliver M.A. Impact of consumers' sensitivity to androstenone on acceptability of meat from male pigs vaccinated with Improvac. The 55th international congress of meat science and technology 2009, 1104-1106. (Denmark: Copenhagen).
20. Fredriksen B., Font i Furnols M., Lündstrom K., Migdal W., Prunier A., Tuyttens F.A.M., Bonneau M. Practice on castration of piglets in Europe. Animal 2009, 3(11):1480-1487.
21. Gracia A., Loureiro M., Nayga R. Valuing an EU animal welfare label using experimental auctions. Agricultural Economics 2011, 42(6):669-677.
22. Greene W. Econometric analysis 2003, Prentice Hall, New Jersey. 5th ed.
23. Harper G., Henson S. Consumer concerns about animal welfare and the impact on food choice. EU FAIR CT98-3678 2001, Department of Agricultural and Food Economics, The University of Reading, UK.
24. Kallas Z., Gil J.M. Combining contingent valuation with the analytical hierarchy process to decompose the value of rabbit meat. Food quality and Preference 2012, 24(2):251-259.
25. Kallas Z., Lambarraa F. Technical efficiency and firm exit in the wine and meat sector: Policy implication. NewMedit 2010, 9(2):25-31.
26. Kaninen B., Kriström B. Sensitivity of willingness to pay estimates to bid design in dichotomous choice valuation models: Comment. Land Economics 1993, 69(2):199-202.
27. Lagerkvist C., Carlsson F., Viske D. Swedish consumer preferences for animal welfare and biotech: A choice experiment. Journal of Agrobiotechnology Management and Economics 2006, 9(1):51-58.
28. Liljenstolpe C. Evaluating animal welfare with choice experiments: An application to Swedish pig production. Agribusiness 2008, 24(1):67-84.
29. Lundström K., Matthews K., Hauge J. Pig meat quality from entire males. Animal 2009, 3(11):1497-1507.
30. 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(3):431-436.
31. 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(2):305-312.
32. Napolitano F., Girolami A., Braghieri A. Consumer liking and willingness to pay for high welfare animal-based products. Trends in Food Science and Technology 2010, 21(11):537-543.
33. Napolitano F., Pacelli C., Girolami A.Y., Braghieri A. Effect of information about animal welfare on consumer willingness to pay for yogurt. Journal of Dairy Science 2008, 91(3):910-917.
34. Nocella G., Hubbard L., Scarpa R. Farm animal welfare, consumer willingness to pay, and trust: Results of a cross-national survey. Applied Economics Perspectives and Policy 2011, 32(2):275-297.
35. Norwood F., Lusk J. A calibrated auction-conjoint valuation method: Valuing pork and eggs produced under differing animal welfare conditions. I Workshop on Valuation Methods in Agro-food and Environmental Economics, Barcelona, Spain 2008.
36. Pearson A., Ngoddy S., Price J., Larzelere H. Panel acceptability of products containing boar meat. Journal of Animal Science 1971, 33(1):26-29.
37. Saaty T. The analytic hierarchy process 1980, Mcgraw-Hill, New York.
38. SPAHW Opinion of the scientific panel on animal health and welfare on a request from the commission related to welfare aspects of the castration of piglets. The European Food Safety Authority Journal 2004, 91:1-18.
39. Spoolder H., Baltussen W. Research report at PIGCAS Stakeholder Congress, 103, 1-38 2008, Animal Sciences Group, Wageningen, The Netherlands.
40. Stefani G., Romano D., Cavicchi A. Consumer expectations, liking and willingness to pay for specialty foods: Do sensory characteristics tell the whole story?. Food Quality and Preference 2006, 17(1):53-62.
41. Taylor A., Weary D.M., Lessard M., Braithwaite L. Behavioural responses of piglets to castration: The effect of piglet age. Applied Animal Behaviour 2001, 73(1):35-43.
42. Van Duijn A.P., Schneider O. Economic impact of existing regulations on farms with pigs, Summary Report 2010-025 2010, LEI, The Hague.
43. Walstra P. Fattening of young boars: Quantification of negative and positive aspects. Livestock Production Science 1974, 1(2):187-196.