Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T21:57:27.981Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Untrained consumer assessment of the eating quality of European beef: 2. Demographic factors have only minor effects on consumer scores and willingness to pay

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 February 2017

S. P. F. Bonny ,
G. E. Gardner ,
D. W. Pethick ,
P. Allen ,
I. Legrand ,
J. Wierzbicki ,
L. J. Farmer ,
R. J. Polkinghorne  and
J.-F. Hocquette
S. P. F. Bonny*
Affiliation:
School of Veterinary and Life Sciences, Murdoch University, Murdoch, WA 6150, Australia INRA, UMR1213, Recherches sur les Herbivores, F-63122 Saint Genès Champanelle, France
G. E. Gardner
Affiliation:
School of Veterinary and Life Sciences, Murdoch University, Murdoch, WA 6150, Australia
D. W. Pethick
Affiliation:
School of Veterinary and Life Sciences, Murdoch University, Murdoch, WA 6150, Australia
P. Allen
Affiliation:
Teagasc Food Research Centre, Ashtown, Dublin 15, Ireland
I. Legrand
Affiliation:
Institut de l’Elevage, Service Qualité’ des Viandes, MRAL, 87060 Limoges Cedex 2, France
J. Wierzbicki
Affiliation:
Polish Beef Association Ul. Kruczkowskiego 3, 00-380 Warszawa, Poland
L. J. Farmer
Affiliation:
Agri-Food and Biosciences Institute, Newforge Lane, Belfast BT9 5PX, UK
R. J. Polkinghorne
Affiliation:
431 Timor Road, Murrurundi, NSW 2338, Australia
J.-F. Hocquette
Affiliation:
INRA, UMR1213, Recherches sur les Herbivores, F-63122 Saint Genès Champanelle, France VetAgro Sup, UMR1213, Recherches sur les Herbivores, Clermont Université, F-63122 Saint Genès Champanelle, France
*
†E-mail: S.Bonny@Murdoch.edu.au
Get access

Abstract

The beef industry must become more responsive to the changing market place and consumer demands. An essential part of this is quantifying a consumer’s perception of the eating quality of beef and their willingness to pay for that quality, across a broad range of demographics. Over 19 000 consumers from Northern Ireland, Poland, Ireland and France each tasted seven beef samples and scored them for tenderness, juiciness, flavour liking and overall liking. These scores were weighted and combined to create a fifth score, termed the Meat Quality 4 score (MQ4) (0.3×tenderness, 0.1×juiciness, 0.3×flavour liking and 0.3×overall liking). They also allocated the beef samples into one of four quality grades that best described the sample; unsatisfactory, good-every-day, better-than-every-day or premium. After the completion of the tasting panel, consumers were then asked to detail, in their own currency, their willingness to pay for these four categories which was subsequently converted to a proportion relative to the good-every-day category (P-WTP). Consumers also answered a short demographic questionnaire. The four sensory scores, the MQ4 score and the P-WTP were analysed separately, as dependant variables in linear mixed effects models. The answers from the demographic questionnaire were included in the model as fixed effects. Overall, there were only small differences in consumer scores and P-WTP between demographic groups. Consumers who preferred their beef cooked medium or well-done scored beef higher, except in Poland, where the opposite trend was found. This may be because Polish consumers were more likely to prefer their beef cooked well-done, but samples were cooked medium for this group. There was a small positive relationship with the importance of beef in the diet, increasing sensory scores by about 4% in Poland and Northern Ireland. Men also scored beef about 2% higher than women for most sensory scores in most countries. In most countries, consumers were willing to pay between 150 and 200% more for premium beef, and there was a 50% penalty in value for unsatisfactory beef. After quality grade, by far the greatest influence on P-WTP was country of origin. Consumer age also had a small negative relationship with P-WTP. The results indicate that a single quality score could reliably describe the eating quality experienced by all consumers. In addition, if reliable quality information is delivered to consumers they will pay more for better quality beef, which would add value to the beef industry and encourage improvements in quality.

Keywords

consumer testingbeefqualitydemographicsEurope
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 11 , Issue 8 , August 2017 , pp. 1399 - 1411
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

a

Present address: School of Veterinary and Life Sciences, Murdoch University, Murdoch, WA 6150, Australia.

References

Anonymous 2008. Accessory publication: MSA sensory testing protocols Australian. Journal of Experimental Agriculture 48, 1360–1367.Google Scholar
Berry, BW and Hasty, RW 1982. Influence of demographic factors on consumer purchasing patterns and preferences for ground beef. Journal of Consumer Studies & Home Economics 6, 351–360.Google Scholar
Bonny, SPF, Hocquette, J-F, Pethick, DW, Farmer, LJ, Legrand, I, Wierzbicki, J, Allen, P, Polkinghorne, RJ and Gardner, GE 2016a. The variation in the eating quality of beef from different sexes and breed classes cannot be completely explained by carcass measurements. Animal 10, 987–995.Google Scholar
Bonny, SPF, Pethick, DW, Legrand, I, Wierzbicki, J, Allen, P, Farmer, LJ, Polkinghorne, RJ, Hocquette, JF and Gardner, GE 2016b. Ossification score is a better indicator of maturity related changes in eating quality than animal age. Animal 10, 718–728.Google Scholar
Bonny, SPF, Hocquette, JF, Pethick, DW, Legrand, I, Wierzbicki, J, Allen, P, Farmer, LJ, Polkinghorne, RJ and Gardner, GE 2016c. Untrained consumer assessment of the eating quality of beef: 1. A single composite score can predict beef quality grades. Animal 1–10.Google Scholar
Cox, RJ, Thompson, JM, Cunial, CM, Winter, S and Gordon, AJ 1997. The effect of degree of doneness of beef steaks on consumer acceptability of meals in restaurants. Meat Science 45, 75–85.Google Scholar
Feuz, DM, Umberger, WJ, Calkins, CR and Sitz, B 2004. U.S. consumers’ willingness to pay for flavor and tenderness in steaks as determined with an experimental auction. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 29, 501–516.Google Scholar
Gregory, NG 1997. Meat, meat eating and vegetarianism. A review of the facts. In Proceedings of the 43rd International Congress of Meat Science and Technology (ed. J Bass), pp. 68–85. Elsevier, Aukland, New Zealand.Google Scholar
Hocquette, J-F, Legrand, I, Jurie, C, Pethick, DW and Micol, D 2011. Perception in France of the Australian system for the prediction of beef quality (Meat Standards Australia) with perspectives for the European beef sector. Animal Production Science 51, 30–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huffman, KL, Miller, MF, Hoover, LC, Wu, CK, Brittin, HC and Ramsey, CB 1996. Effect of beef tenderness on consumer satisfaction with steaks consumed in the home and restaurant. Journal of Animal Science 74, 91–97.Google Scholar
Hwang, IH, Polkinghorne, R, Lee, JM and Thompson, JM 2008. Demographic and design effects on beef sensory scores given by Korean and Australian consumers. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 48, 1387–1395.Google Scholar
Kubberød, E, Ueland, Ø, Rødbotten, M, Westad, F and Risvik, E 2002. Gender specific preferences and attitudes towards meat. Food Quality and Preference 13, 285–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Legrand, I, Hocquette, J-F, Polkinghorne, RJ and Pethick, DW 2013. Prediction of beef eating quality in France using the Meat Standards Australia system. Animal 7, 524–529.Google Scholar
Lorenzen, CL, Neely, TR, Miller, RK, Tatum, JD, Wise, JW, Taylor, JF, Buyck, MJ, Reagan, JO and Savell, JW 1999. Beef customer satisfaction: cooking method and degree of doneness effects on the top loin steak. Journal of Animal Science 77, 637–644.Google Scholar
Lusk, JL, Fox, JA, Schroeder, TC, Mintert, J and Koohmaraie, M 2001. In-store valuation of steak tenderness. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 83, 539–550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyford, C, Thompson, J, Polkinghorne, R, Miller, M, Nishimura, T, Neath, K, Allen, P and Belasco, E 2010. Is willingness to pay (WTP) for beef quality grades affected by consumer demographics and meat consumption preferences? Australasian Agribusiness Review 18, 1–17.Google Scholar
Neely, TR, Lorenzen, CL, Miller, RK, Tatum, JD, Wise, JW, Taylor, JF, Buyck, MJ, Reagan, JO and Savell, JW 1999. Beef customer satisfaction: cooking method and degree of doneness effects on the top round steak. Journal of Animal Science 77, 653–660.Google Scholar
Reicks, AL, Brooks, JC, Garmyn, AJ, Thompson, LD, Lyford, CL and Miller, MF 2011. Demographics and beef preferences affect consumer motivation for purchasing fresh beef steaks and roasts. Meat Science 87, 403–411.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
SAS 2002. Applied statistics and the SAS programming language. SAS institute, Cary, NC, USA.Google Scholar
Thompson, J, Polkinghorne, R, Gee, A, Motiang, D, Strydom, P, Mashau, M, Ng’ambi, J, deKock, R and Burrow, H 2010. Beef palatability in the Republic of South Africa: implications for niche-marketing strategies. In ACIAR Technical Reports, Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research ACIAR, Canberra, ACT, Australia, pp. 1–56.Google Scholar
Thompson, JM, Pleasants, AB and Pethick, DW 2005. The effect of design and demographic factors on consumer sensory scores. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 45, 477–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verbeke, W, Van Wezemael, L, de Barcellos, MD, Kügler, JO, Hocquette, J-F, Ueland, Ø and Grunert, KG 2010. European beef consumers’ interest in a beef eating-quality guarantee: insights from a qualitative study in four EU countries. Appetite 54, 289–296.Google Scholar
Watson, R, Gee, A, Polkinghorne, R and Porter, M 2008b. Consumer assessment of eating quality – development of protocols for Meat Standards Australia (MSA) testing. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 48, 1360–1367.Google Scholar
Watson, R, Polkinghorne, R and Thompson, JM 2008a. Development of the Meat Standards Australia (MSA) prediction model for beef palatability. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 48, 1368–1379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, EJ 1949. Experimental designs balanced for the estimation of residual effects of treatments. Australian Journal of Chemistry 2, 149–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar