Animal Bioscience

  • 제36권8호
  • /
  • Pages.1274-1284
  • /
  • 2023
  • /
  • 2765-0189(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2765-0235(eISSN)
아세아태평양축산학회 (Asian Australasian Association of Animal Production Societies)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Consumer perception of marbling and beef quality during purchase and consumer preferences for degree of doneness

  • 투고 : 2023.01.05
  • 심사 : 2023.03.09
  • 발행 : 2023.08.01
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

Objective: Understanding consumer perception of meat quality in developing countries is an important issue since consumer perception of quality could be highly variable. In the current study, consumers' purchasing preferences affected by marbling and perception of quality were evaluated in a survey study. Furthermore, consumers' preferences for degree of doneness were investigated using both survey and consumer panel studies. Methods: The study was carried out in two phases. Firstly, a survey was conducted in Adana Province, Turkey to collect data related to the attributes affecting consumers' meat purchase decision and consumers' degree of doneness preferences. In the second phase, boneless ribeye was used to investigate consumers' degree of doneness preferences in a consumer panel. In addition, proximate analyses of the samples were conducted. Results: The survey study using pictures of marbling illustrations indicated that higher degrees of marbling might be considered too fatty to be purchased by consumers. Consumers' perceptions regarding the relationship between marbling and beef quality further indicated that marbling might not be acknowledged as a cue of a higher quality meat. Nevertheless, the results of the importance of some attributes related to intrinsic and extrinsic quality cues showed that consumers were looking for the cues that indicated not only quality but also safety of the meat during meat purchase. The results of both survey and consumer panel studies revealed that consumers might prefer higher degrees of doneness while consuming meat since a majority of the consumers' preference of degree of doneness was at least well done. Conclusion: This study revealed that consumer purchasing preferences might vary between countries regarding marbling and perception of quality. Furthermore, higher degrees of doneness could be the preference of these consumers. Thus, further studies are needed to increase consumer satisfaction in these countries.

키워드

과제정보

This work was supported by Cukurova University Scientific Research Projects Coordination Unit (Project No: FYL-2016-5202).

참고문헌

  1. Aberle ED, Forrest JC, Gerrard DE, et al. Principles of meat science. 4th ed. Dubuque, IA, USA: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company; 2001.
  2. FAOSTAT. Crops and livestock products [Internet]. c2022 [cited 2022 Dec 20]. Available from: https://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/QCL
  3. FAOSTAT. Food Balances (2010-) [Internet]. c2022 [cited 2022 Dec 20]. Available from: https://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/QCL
  4. FAOSTAT. Food Balances (-2013, old methodology and population) [Internet]. c2022 [cited 2022 Dec 20]. Available from: https://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/QCL
  5. Seko MO, Ndour APN, Ossebi W, et al. Consumer perception on purchase decision factors and health indicators related to the quality and safety of meat sold in dibiteries in Dakar, Senegal. Sustainability 2020;12:7428. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12187428
  6. Henchion M, McCarthy M, Resconi VC, Troy D. Meat consumption: trends and quality matters. Meat Sci 2014;98: 561-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2014.06.007
  7. Miller R. Drivers of consumer liking for beef, pork, and lamb: a review. Foods 2020;9:428. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods9040428
  8. Becker T. Defining meat quality. In: Kerry J, Kerry J, Ledward D, editors. Meat processing : improving quality. Boca Raton, FL, USA: CRC Press; 2002. p. 464.
  9. Pogorzelski G, Wozniak K, Polkinghorne R, Poltorak A, Wierzbicka A. Polish consumer categorisation of grilled beef at 6 mm and 25 mm thickness into quality grades, based on Meat Standards Australia methodology. Meat Sci 2020; 161:107953. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2019.107953
  10. Lorenzen CL, Davuluri VK, Adhikari K, Grun IU. Effect of end-point temperature and degree of doneness on sensory and instrumental flavor profile of beefsteaks. J Food Sci 2005; 70:S113-8. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2621.2005.tb07114.x
  11. Akbay C, Tiryaki GY, Gul A. Consumer characteristics influencing fast food consumption in Turkey. Food Control 2007; 18:904-13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2006.05.007
  12. Uzundumlu AS, Isik HB, Kirli MH. Determining the most appropriate meat type in Kucuk Cekmece district of Istanbul province. Alinteri J Agric Sci 2011;21:40-8.
  13. Uzundumlu AS, Isik HB, Kirli MH. Affecting factor's analysis of red and white meat consumption in Istanbul province Kucuk Cekmece district. Alinteri J Agric Sci 2011;21:20-31.
  14. Aydin G, Kilic O. Factors affecting consumers' awareness of food safety: A case study in the urban area of Samsun province in Turkey. Res J Appl Sci 2013;8:330-4.
  15. Uzundumlu AS, Birinci A. Analysis of factors affecting consumers in raw milk consumption: the case study of Erzurum. Alinteri J Agric Sci 2013;25:1-12.
  16. Benli H. Consumer attitudes toward storing and thawing chicken and effects of the common thawing practices on some quality characteristics of frozen chicken. Asian-Australas J Anim Sci 2016;29:100-8. https://doi.org/10.5713/ajas.15.0604
  17. North American Meat Processors Association. The meat buyer's guide: beef, lamb, veal, pork, and poultry. New ed. Hoboken, NJ, USA: John Wiley; 2007.
  18. Becker T. Consumer perception of fresh meat quality: a framework for analysis. Br Food J 2000;102:158-76. https://doi.org/10.1108/00070700010371707
  19. AMSA. Research guidelines for cookery, sensory evaluation, and instrumental tenderness measurements of meats. 2nd ed. Champaign, IL, USA: American Meat Science Association;2015.
  20. Meilgaard MC, Civille GV, Carr BT. Sensory evaluation techniques. 3rd ed. Boca Raton, FL, USA: CRC-Press; 1999.
  21. William Horwitz; AOAC International. Official methods of analysis of AOAC International. 17th ed. Gaithersburg, MD, USA: AOAC International; 2000.
  22. Nielsen SS. Food analysis. 3rd ed. New York, USA: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers; 2003.
  23. TUIK. Attained education level by provinces, 2008-2021, Population 15 years of age and over [Internet]. c2021 [cited 2022 Oct 12]. Available from: https://data.tuik.gov.tr/Search/Search?text=%C4%B0llere%20g%C3%B6re%20bitirilen%20e%C4%9Fitim%20durumu
  24. Senturk B. The relationship between animal-originated food demand and income growth in Turkey. Ataturk universitesi Vet Bil Derg 2015;10:1-5. https://doi.org/10.17094/avbd.23641
  25. Garmyn A. Consumer preferences and acceptance of meat products. Foods 2020;9:708. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods9060708
  26. Savell JW, Cross HR. The role of fat in the palatability of beef, pork, and lamb. Designing foods: animal product options in the marketplace. Washington, DC, USA: National Academy Press; 1988. 384 p.
  27. Miller RK. Factors affecting the quality of raw meat. In: Kerry J, Kerry J, Ledward D, editors. Meat processing : improving quality. Boca Raton, FL, USA: CRC Press ; Woodhead Pub.; 2002. p. 27-63.
  28. Arenas de Moreno L, Jerez-Timaure N, Valerio Hernandez J, Huerta-Leidenz N, Rodas-Gonzalez A. Attitudinal determinants of beef consumption in venezuela: a retrospective survey. Foods 2020;9:202. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods9020202
  29. Droval AA, Benassi VT, Rossa A, et al. Consumer attitudes and preferences regarding pale, soft, and exudative broiler breast meat. J Appl Poult Res 2012;21:502-7. https://doi.org/10.3382/japr.2011-00392
  30. Becker T, Benner E, Glitsch K. Consumer perception of fresh meat quality in Germany. Br Food J 2000;102:246-66. https://doi.org/10.1108/00070700010324763
  31. Lucherk LW, O'Quinn TG, Legako JF, Rathmann RJ, Brooks JC, Miller MF. Consumer and trained panel evaluation of beef strip steaks of varying marbling and enhancement levels cooked to three degrees of doneness. Meat Sci 2016;122:145-54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2016.08.005
  32. Verbeke W, Perez-Cueto FJ, Barcellos MD, Krystallis A, Grunert KG. European citizen and consumer attitudes and preferences regarding beef and pork. Meat Sci 2010;84:284-92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2009.05.001
  33. Hastie M, Ashman H, Torrico D, Ha M, Warner R. A mixed method approach for the investigation of consumer responses to sheepmeat and beef. Foods 2020;9:126. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods9020126
  34. Reicks AL, Brooks JC, Garmyn AJ, Thompson LD, Lyford CL, Miller MF. Demographics and beef preferences affect consumer motivation for purchasing fresh beef steaks and roasts. Meat Sci 2011;87:403-11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2010.11.018
  35. Prill LL, Drey LN, Olson BA, et al. Visual degree of doneness impacts beef palatability for consumers with different degree of doneness preferences. Meat Muscle Biol 2019;3:1. https://doi.org/10.22175/mmb2019.07.0024
  36. Drey LN, Prill LL, Olson BA, et al. Evaluation of marbling and enhancement's abilities to compensate for reduced beef palatability at elevated degrees of doneness. J Anim Sci 2019;97:669-86. https://doi.org/10.1093/jas/sky435
  37. Benli H, Tokgoz LA. Effects of traditional tenderization treatments on Transversus abdominis muscles obtained from Holstein carcasses. S Afr J Anim Sci 2021;51:715-22. https://doi.org/10.4314/sajas.v51i6.4