Impact of Disclosing Fat Content, Primal Source, and Price on Consumer Evaluation of Ground Beef
Meat and Muscle Biology, ISSN: 2575-985X, Vol: 6, Issue: 1
2022
- 2Citations
- 1Captures
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Article Description
The objective of this study was to evaluate the effect of providing information about the fat content, primal source, and price on consumers’ palatability ratings of ground beef from the same source. Ground beef chubs that were 80% lean/20% fat (n = 15/panel type) were obtained, and 151.2 g patties were manufactured from the chubs. Chubs were assigned randomly to panels for 1 of 3 different panel types. The fat content panels had samples labeled as 90% lean/10% fat (90/10), 80% lean/ 20% fat (80/20), 73% lean/27% fat (73/27), lean, and extra lean. Price point samples were assigned to 1 of 5 different points: ultra-high, high, medium, low, and ultra-low. Primal panel samples were labeled as ground chuck, ground round, ground sirloin, and store ground. Each panel had one sample with no information given (NONE). Samples were evaluated by consumers (N = 305), who were informed of the treatment prior to evaluation for tenderness, juiciness, flavor, texture, overall liking, and purchasing intent and rated each trait as acceptable or unacceptable. Labeling ground beef as 90/10, 80/20, and 73/ 27 resulted in increased (P < 0.05) consumer ratings for tenderness, flavor, and overall liking. Informing consumers of the price of the product resulted in increases (P < 0.05) for all palatability traits for samples labeled with ultra-high, high, medium, and ultra-low prices. Furthermore, attaching a primal blend label to the samples resulted in an increase (P < 0.05) for all the palatability traits evaluated for all 4 primal blend types. Additionally, purchasing intent was increased (P < 0.05) for samples when consumers were informed of the price and primal blend. Ultimately, providing consumers with information about the fat content, price, and primal blend type influences their perceived palatability of ground beef.
Bibliographic Details
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know