Meat Science 87 (2011) 366–372
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Meat Science
j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w. e l s ev i e r. c o m / l o c a t e / m e a t s c i
Aspects of quality related to the consumption and production of lamb meat.
Consumers versus producers
Wilmer S. Sepúlveda a,b,⁎, María T. Maza a,b, Luis Pardos c
a
b
c
University of Zaragoza, Faculty of Veterinary, Department of Agriculture and Agricultural Economics, Miguel Servet 177, 50013 Zaragoza, Spain
Sustainable Agro-silvo-pastoral Systems Research Group, Zaragoza, Spain
University of Zaragoza, Polytechnic School of Huesca, Department of Agriculture and Agricultural Economics, Ctra.Cuarte s/n, 22071 Huesca, Spain
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history:
Received 8 April 2010
Received in revised form 12 November 2010
Accepted 12 November 2010
Keywords:
Consumer
Producers
Lamb meat
Meat quality
Sheep
a b s t r a c t
The purpose of this study was to identify and compare the different evaluations made by the agents at either
end of the lamb meat chain, i.e. producers and consumers, in relation to the parameters that consumers use
when purchasing lamb meat and the factors that affect the production of quality lamb meat. In addition,
consumer segments that can be targeted for action by the different agents in the chain were examined. The
study was carried out in Aragón, a region in north east Spain that is a producer and consumer of lamb meat.
371 surveys were carried out on purchasers of lamb meat and 49 surveys on sheep farmers. Bivariant analyses
and a cluster analysis were performed. The results suggest that there are certain congruencies and
divergences between producers and consumers. Also, a segment of consumers for whom the hygiene and
sanitary conditions on the farm, animal welfare and the environment are of great importance were found.
© 2010 The American Meat Science Association. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
The importance placed on quality has been one of the most
significant factors in agro-food chains over the past few years. This
importance has heightened due to the problems that have arisen in
animal production in Europe. Consequently, quality has become a key
concept for both producers and consumers (Bosmans, Verveke, & Van
Gysel, 2005; Verbeke, Demey, Bosmans, & Viaene, 2005). However,
whilst primary producers and agro-industries judge quality from an
objective viewpoint, i.e., taking into account the characteristics of the
product to form an opinion based on technical indicators, quality is a
much more subjective concept from the consumer's point of view
(Grunert, Harmsen, Larsen, Sorensen, & Bisp, 1997; Sepúlveda, Maza,
& Mantecón, 2008).
Consumers' opinion of quality before purchase is inferred by
means of quality cues (Oude Ophuis & Van Trijp, 1995). Two types of
quality cues, intrinsic and extrinsic, have been proposed (Becker,
2000; Grunert et al., 1997; Northen, 2000; Steenkamp & Van Trijp,
1996). Whilst the former are part of the physical product, for example,
the colour or fat content of the meat, the latter are related to the
product but are not a physical part of it, such as the price or labelling
(Bredahl, 2004; Oude Ophuis & Van Trijp, 1995; Steenkamp & Van
⁎ Corresponding author. University of Zaragoza, Faculty of Veterinary, Department of
Agriculture and Agricultural Economics, Miguel Servet 177, 50013 Zaragoza, Spain.
Tel.: + 34 976 76 1603; fax: + 34 976 76 1595.
E-mail addresses: [email protected] (W.S. Sepúlveda), [email protected]
(M.T. Maza).
Trijp, 1996). Furthermore, any aspect in the agro-food chain that
affects the product's observable physical structure affects the intrinsic
cues and must be considered (Northen, 2000). In the meat chain, a
great number of pre- and post-slaughter factors influence the intrinsic
quality of meat. e.g., at farm level, the multiple interactions between
animal feeding, disease control, production systems, breed and age
amongst others, are factors that are linked to the intrinsic quality of
meat (Beriain, Purroy, Treacher, & Bas, 2000; Martínez-Cerezo,
Sañudo, Medel, & Olleta, 2005; Olson & Pickova, 2005; Rosenvold &
Andersen, 2003; Sañudo, Sanchez, & Alfonso, 1998). With regard to
the other aspects relating to animal production, e.g. region of origin,
that are not perceivable by intrinsic cues, quality can be denoted by
extrinsic cues, e.g., labelling (Northen, 2000). Hence, objective quality
is related to subjective quality (Bredahl, Grunert, & Fertin, 1998).
The differences in judgment of quality also mean that there are
divergences between the quality supplied by producers and that
demanded by consumers (De Haes, Verbeke, Bosmans, Januszewska,
& Viaene, 2004; Verbeke et al., 2005). In this regard, knowing and
integrating into the meat chain, those aspects (intrinsic and extrinsic)
that consumers most associate with the quality of the product, is of
upmost interest (Maza & Ramírez, 2006; Simons, Francis, Bourlakis, &
Fearne, 2003; Thanh Loc, 2003), as farmers and the rest of the agents
in the chain would be expected to focus their added value activities on
those aspects that consumers rate as being most important in order to
improve their commercial value (Brunso, Ahle Fjord, & Grunert, 2002;
Ottesen, 2006).
The aim of the present work is to identify and compare the
different evaluations made by the agents at either end of the lamb
0309-1740/$ – see front matter © 2010 The American Meat Science Association. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.meatsci.2010.11.013
W.S. Sepúlveda et al. / Meat Science 87 (2011) 366–372
meat-producing chain (producers and consumers) using different
quality parameters. These evaluations refer to the parameters that
consumers use when purchasing lamb meat and to the factors that
affect the production of quality lamb meat. In addition to the main
aim, segments of consumers are also examined in search of profiles
that may be targeted in actions by different agents in the chain.
2. Methodology
2.1. Selection and description of the sample
The information was obtained from questionnaire-based personal
surveys carried out on a sample of 371 lamb meat buyers residing in
the city of Zaragoza and 49 sheep farmers oriented towards meat
production located in rural areas of Aragón. The study was carried out
in the Autonomous Community of Aragón in north east Spain, which is
a typical consumer and producer of lamb meat. This region has the
greatest per capita consumption of lamb meat (6.5 kg of meat/person/
year), well above the national average of around 2.4 kg of lamb meat/
person/year (MARM, 2010). Furthermore, in 2008 Aragón produced
13.0% of all lamb meat in Spain. 77.9% of the meat produced in Aragón
corresponds to lamb meat carcasses of between 10.1 kg and 13.0 kg,
obtained from animals no more than 100 days old (MARM, 2009).
The city of Zaragoza is the capital of Aragón and was selected for
the consumer study as it is the largest centre of consumption and also
because 50.5% of the population of Aragón live there (IAEST, 2007). To
ensure representativeness in terms of age, the sampling that was
carried out from July to November 2008 was stratified with
proportionate allocation by age ranges. Within the socio-demographic
variables, gender and age have been identified as those most
associated with meat consumption. Age was selected for stratification
as it seems to be more closely related with meat consumption
(Guenther, Jensen, Batres-Marquez, & Chen, 2005; Nesbitt et al., 2008;
Schnettler, Silva, & Sepúlveda, 2008). The socio-demographic characteristics of the sample of consumers are indicated in Table 1.
The sample comprises 60.2% women and 39.8% men. With regard
to age, all of the pre-established age ranges are represented. This is
logical given the sample used. Furthermore, in the sample 34.4% of the
respondents stated they were university educated, 33.9% had an
intermediate level of education and the remaining 31.7% had a basic
level of education. Level of income was included in the survey but was
not taken into account in the analyses due to the high non-response
rate. In addition, prior analyses indicated that in this variable the
missing data did not display a completely randomized distribution and
this may have biased the results.
In the case of producers, a convenience sample was carried out
(Santesmases, 2004) and information was gathered during the spring
and winter 2008. The producers interviewed were farmers who form
Table 1
Socio-demographic characterisation of consumer sample.
Variable
Gender
Male
Female
Age of respondent
15 to 24 years
25 to 34 years
35 to 49 years
50 to 64 years
=N65 years
Level of education
Basic
Intermediate
Higher
Sample (%)
Populationa (%)
39.8
60.2
48.1
51.9
12.1
18.3
29.9
21.3
18.3
12.2
19.3
27.1
21.0
20.4
31.7
33.9
34.4
44.3
45.7
10.0
a
Information calculated from IAEST (Institute of Statistics of Aragón) (2007) and INE
(Spanish Institute of Statistics) (2001) data.
367
Table 2
Socio-demographic characterisation of producer sample.
Socio-demographic variables
Age of producer (mean, in years)
Gender (%)
Male
Female
Living with partner (%)
Children—Yes (%)
Number of members of the family unit (mean)
Number of children per household (mean)
Time producing lambs (mean in years)
44.8
91.1
8.9
76.7
70.8
3.9
1.3
24.6
part of programme of Economic Technical Management of sheep meat
organised by the Escuela Politécnica Superior de Huesca that forms
part of the University of Zaragoza and the farming cooperative Carnes
Oviaragón SCL. The farmers that belong to this programme have been
subject of other studies related with the sector (e.g. Pardos, Maza,
Fantova, & Sepúlveda, 2008), because of their willingness to supply
information and the quality of said information. It is noteworthy that
the farming cooperative Carnes Oviaragón SCL, is one of the largest
lamb meat producers in Spain. Table 2 shows the socio-demographic
characteristics of the sample of producers.
The sample of farmers mainly comprises men with a mean age of
45 years. These producers belong to the farming cooperative Carnes
Oviaragón SCL and are located in 31 municipalities of Aragón. 76.7% of
the producers interviewed live with their partner and 70.8% have
children. The mean number of members in the household was 3.9,
with a mean of 1.3 children. The mean period of time that the
producers interviewed have been raising lambs was 24.6 years.
2.2. Survey design
Two surveys were prepared, one aimed at consumers and the
other at producers. The two surveys included socio-demographic
questions and two common questions with a ranking scale. One of the
ranking questions was used to evaluate the order of importance that
consumers and producers assign to a series of aspects related to the
quality of lamb meat at the time of purchase (see Table 3). The other,
also aimed at both, asked them to rate the aspects that, at farm level,
could affect quality lamb meat (see Table 4). The information obtained
from the two ranking type questions included in the surveys allows
the main objectives of this research to be fulfilled. In the survey aimed
at consumers, further questions referring to lamb meat purchasing
habits were included.
Each ranking question contained seven items that respondents
were asked to place in order. The items included in the ranking
question related to aspects that may affect the forming of quality
perception of meat at the time of purchase were: price, quality label,
production region/origin, direct appraisal, animal feeding, production
that respects animal welfare and environmentally friendly production. The first four items were included because it was presumed that
they play an important role in signalling the quality of lamb meat at
Table 3
Question related to quality aspects at the time of purchase. Ranking scale included in
the interview carried out on consumers and producers.
Column L
Column R
Aspect
Level of importance Order
1. Price
2. Quality label (PGI)
3. Production region/region of origin
4. Production that respects animal welfare
5. Animal feeding
6. Environmentally friendly production
7. Direct appraisal (colour, freshness, fat, and others)
Most important
.
.
.
.
Least important
368
W.S. Sepúlveda et al. / Meat Science 87 (2011) 366–372
Table 4
Questions related to quality aspects at animal production level. Ranking scale included
in the interview carried out on consumers and producers.
Column L
Column R
Aspect
Level of importance
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Most important
.
.
.
.
.
Least important
Animal feeding
Animal breed
Production system
Environmentally friendly production
Correct disease control
Production that respects animal welfare
Hygiene practices on the farm
Order
the time of purchase (Bernabéu & Tendero, 2005; Ulloa & Gil, 2008).
Furthermore, whilst animal feeding was included because it is one of
the aspects that consumers consider to be relevant at farm level
(Bernués, Olaizola, & Corcoran, 2003), the last two items were
included because of their growing importance in decision-making
processes concerning the purchase of food and products derived from
animal farming activities (Kj rstad & Kjærnes, 2005; Vanhonacker,
Verbeke, Poucke, & Tuyttens, 2008).
The items included in the ranking question related to aspects
which, at farm level, may affect quality lamb meat were: animal
feeding, the breed, production system, correct disease control,
hygiene practices on the farm, environmentally friendly production
and production that respects animal welfare. The first five items were
included due to the fact that, from the point of view of animal farming,
these are aspects which potentially affect the technical, sanitary,
nutritional and sensory quality of meat (Beriain et al., 2000; Olson &
Pickova, 2005; Verbeke et al., 2005). As in the question relating to
purchase, the two last items were included due to the growing
importance they have in farming (Vanhonacker et al., 2008). The
animal's age, although it is of great importance in lamb production,
was not included in the ranking questions since producers in Aragón,
as previously mentioned, mainly slaughter animals that are less than
100 days old and, for this reason, age is not a particularly
discriminating parameter for evaluating the quality of meat for either
consumers or farmers.
2.3. Statistical analysis
The two questions included in the survey for consumers and
producers were integrated in the same database so that both
consumers and producers evaluated the same quality aspects relating
to purchase and lamb production, but from their respective viewpoints (Fig. 1).
In each case the ranking scale allowed the seven items to be
classed by consumers and producers in order of preference, from the
most to the least important (see Tables 3 and 4). To facilitate the
analysis of information, each ranking question gave rise to seven new
variables with scales numbered from 1 to 7 (1 = last level of
importance and 7 = first level of importance) so that finally 14 new
variables were obtained, seven referring to purchase and seven
relating to the farming activity. The values of the new variables
reflected the level of importance that each respondent is assigned to
each item in each ranking scale. The SPSS version 14.0 statistical
package was used to analyze data.
Bearing in mind the use of ranking type variables and in order to
establish differences between consumers and producers with regard
to the level of evaluation of the 14 quality aspect variables, the Mann
Whitney test for comparing two independent sample ranges was
used. This test is considered to be the non-parametric analogue of the
paired T-test but unlike the T-test this test is based on the sum of the
ranges (Glantz, 2006). In the analysis, if there are no significant
differences (P ≥ 0.05) between consumers and producers in the level
of evaluation of quality aspects, this would indicate that the two
groups rate each aspect in the same way. If there are significant
differences (P b 0.05), the evaluation will be different.
Subsequently, in order to segment consumers according to their
judgment of quality aspects when purchasing lamb and those related
to animal production, a Two-Step cluster analysis was carried out. The
clusters were obtained automatically and for each respondent a new
cluster membership variable was created.
In the socio-demographic and purchase habit variables, contingency tables with their respective Chi-square tests were used to select
the most significant variables that would allow the clusters established to be differentiated. In the 14 ranking variables referring to the
Fig. 1. Methodological framework for producer–consumer comparison.
W.S. Sepúlveda et al. / Meat Science 87 (2011) 366–372
evaluation of quality aspects the Mann Whitney test for comparing
two independent sample ranges was again used.
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Evaluation of quality aspects related to the time of purchase (cues)
Of the seven items related to the evaluation of lamb meat quality at
the time of purchase, consumers and producers displayed statistically
similar ratings in aspects of direct appraisal, quality labelling and
environmentally friendly production (P ≥ 0.05) (Fig. 2). For the
remaining four items under study, evaluations displayed statistically
significant differences. The results are in agreement with those
obtained by Concepcion et al. (2006) and Ottesen (2006), who found
that there was little agreement between producers and intermediaries on the importance that various aspects played in evaluating the
quality of food at the time of purchase.
Although in the lamb meat chain there are different cooperation
strategies between agents, especially between farms, e.g. large-scale
common fattening programmes, cooperation between agents for the
exchange of upstream information is a pending issue. Feliciano,
Camarena, and Albisu (2003) highlighted the low integration of
traditional butchers' shops (the main sales channel for lamb meat in
Zaragoza) in the supply chain.
In the more traditional chains there is a greater possibility of
interruptions in the transmission of information, which may be either
involuntary (lack of integration) or voluntary (concealment of
information) (Concepcion et al., 2006; Lee, Padmanabhan, & Whang,
1997; Ottesen, 2006). Farmers' lack of awareness of the attributes that
are most demanded by consumers can lead to their not focussing their
efforts on those aspects and to not planning their production in the
right way, which in turn means that resources are not optimised to
generate downstream value in the meat chain (Simons et al., 2003;
Taylor & Fearne, 2006). Simons et al. (2003) pointed out that it is
important to develop strategies for cooperation between the agents in
Fig. 2. Quality aspects related to the purchase of lamb meat. Consumers versus
producers. Note: *P b 0.05, **P b 0.01, ***P b 0.001.
369
the meat chain for information management, to pass on data in order
to reduce risks and uncertainty and to encourage innovation and
value generation.
Direct appraisal at the time of purchase was found to be a key
aspect that both consumers and producers consider affects quality
evaluation. However, aspects relating to animal welfare and the
environment were those that were least valued. Magnusson, Arvola,
Koivisto Hurst, Aberg, and Sjoden (2001), found that in foods, aspects
relating to intrinsic quality cues were most highly rated at the time of
purchase, whilst ecological aspects received the lowest rating. Direct
appraisal of meat, which refers to intrinsic quality cues such as colour,
juiciness and fat content, is used by consumers before purchase to
predict sensory attributes such as tenderness and taste (Becker, 2000;
Northen, 2000). Verbeke et al. (2005) indicated that for both
consumers and farmers, in meat, sensory aspects were the most
important quality attributes.
In this study, whilst the producers considered that, over and above
direct appraisal, price is the most important aspect that consumers
take into account to obtain information on quality at the time of
purchase, consumers assigned an average level of importance to price
and significant differences between the two evaluations were found
(P b 0.001). Hubbard, Bourlakis, and Garrod (2006) found that
producers considered that, in the purchasing process, consumers
assign great importance to price, over and above any other aspects
related to production. Judd (2000) indicated that from the consumers'
viewpoint, there is a poor relationship between the quality perception
and the price of foodstuffs.
After direct appraisal, both consumers and farmers considered the
meat quality label to be an extrinsic cue that considerably contributes
to evaluating quality. Labelling and quality labels are increasingly
becoming an effective way of transmitting confidence to the
consumer (Gellynck, Verbeke, & Vermeire, 2006). In the case of
farmers, they consider that meat quality labels are an important
purchasing factor for consumers, especially those producers who form
part of production differentiation schemes (Bosmans et al., 2005).
In the present study the production region showed statistically
different ratings between consumers and farmers (P b 0.05). These
results suggest that the former, in comparison to the latter, place
greater importance on the origin of the meat as a quality aspect at the
time of purchase. This leads to the assumption that although farmers
acknowledge that the quality label is an aspect that indicates quality
to consumers, they do not rate the origin of meat in the same way. As
in the case of the production region, animal feeding was rated more
highly by consumers than by producers (P b 0.001). Within the aspects
referring to farm production, which may be considered at the time of
purchase, animal feeding has been identified by other authors
(Bernués et al., 2003; Sepúlveda et al., 2008), as a point of interest
for consumers.
It was found that, for both consumers and producers, production
that respects animal welfare and environmentally friendly production
were the two lowest-rated aspects that may affect evaluation of
quality at the time of purchase. Bernués et al. (2003) reported that in
Spain, within the quality cues for lamb meat related to production,
environmentally friendly production and production that respects
animal welfare were those that received the lowest rating by
consumers. Although the results point to a low rating of these two
aspects as quality cues, over the past few years the general public has
shown a growing interest in more environmentally friendly production systems and systems that respect animal welfare (Gellynck et al.,
2006; Grunert, 2006; Hoffman & Wiklund, 2006; McEachern &
Willock, 2004).
Animal welfare was given a higher score by consumers than
producers (P b 0.01). Vanhonacker et al. (2008) found that there is a
discrepancy in the perception of animal welfare between citizens and
farmers in the sense that, citizens have a more negative image of the
current state of animal welfare on farms. This negative image can lead
370
W.S. Sepúlveda et al. / Meat Science 87 (2011) 366–372
consumers, as citizens, to consider animal welfare to a greater degree
at the time of purchase (Kj rstad & Kjærnes, 2005; Vanhonacker et al.,
2008).
3.2. Evaluation of quality aspects related to animal production
Of the seven items related to obtaining quality lamb meat at farm
level, consumers and producers assigned statistically different values
to the following aspects: animal breed, correct control of diseases and
environmentally friendly production. In the remaining four items, the
evaluations assigned by consumers and producers did not display
statistically significant differences (P ≥ 0.05) (Fig. 3). These results
suggest that there is a lack of awareness of consumers with regard to
producers. From the commercial point of view, this lack of awareness
could be taken as an “opportunity” by lamb producers. Hence, whilst
bearing in mind the aspects that farmers consider to be most
important at production level, their downstream marketing efforts
through the chain could focus on those aspects in relation to which
some consumer segments link meat of a better quality to aspects
relating to the farm.
More specifically, both consumers and producers coincided in
giving animal feeding the highest rating as a quality aspect at farm
level. However, whilst after animal feeding consumers assigned a
higher score to correct control of diseases (P b 0.001), producers
considered that the breed was the second most important aspect
(P b 0.001). Bernués et al. (2003) found that within the aspects related
to sheep production in Spain, animal feeding was rated by a majority
of consumers as a quality aspect. The strong link, for consumers,
between correct disease control and meat quality, has led us to believe
that there is still a degree of mistrust in relation to animal production
and the healthiness of meat. In the present study it was found that,
from the farmers' viewpoint feeding and breed are considered to be
key aspects in relation to the production of quality meat. Verbeke et al.
(2005) highlighted that, for farmers, feeding and animal breed are
linked to the sensory characteristics of meat, especially to taste and
tenderness, which are important to satisfy the needs of consumers.
Hence, producers link quality at farm level more to aspects relating to
technical features of production (Ilbery & Kneafsey, 2000).
Both consumers and producers coincided in assigning third place
in importance to hygiene practices on the farm. Whilst consumers
placed the animal breed next in order of importance after hygiene
practices, farmers considered correct disease control to be next in
importance. Once again consumers were more inclined to associate a
better quality of meat with health-hygiene aspects at farm level. With
regard to breed, previous research (Bernués et al., 2003; Sepúlveda et
al., 2008), concludes that within animal production aspects, breed is
not one of the highest rated aspects by consumers. On the other hand,
from the point of view of the farmer Verbeke et al. (2005) found that,
in relation to good hygiene practices, farmers consider such practices
to be a way of preventing diseases and reducing the use of medication,
whilst at the same time, providing consumers with residue-free meat.
Furthermore, producers and consumers were found to agree that
the production system, animal welfare, and environmentally friendly
production are the three aspects, in order of importance, that are least
linked, at farm level, to obtaining quality lamb meat. Significant
differences were found between the rating given by consumers and
producers to environmentally friendly production (P b 0.001). Consumers assigned greater importance to environmentally friendly
production.
Bernués et al. (2003) indicated that environmentally friendly
production forms part of the production aspects that are least valued
by lamb consumers in Spain. Although over the past few years there
has been an increase in people's interest in environmentally friendly
production systems, organic meat still has a small market share
(McEachern & Willock, 2004). In the case of the producers, this lower
rating of environmentally friendly production as an aspect associated
with obtaining quality lamb meat, is due to the fact that the farmers,
as pointed out by De Haes et al. (2004), believe that environmentally
friendly production does not have a critical impact on meat quality,
unlike animal welfare, which they consider to have a more critical
influence.
3.3. Segmentation of consumers
Fig. 3. Quality aspects related to lamb production at farm level. Consumers versus
producers. Note: **P b 0.01, ***P b 0.001.
By means of cluster analyses, two segments of consumers of
substantial and comparable sizes were obtained (Table 5). Cluster 1, of
a smaller size, is characterised by having a high percentage of
consumers in the lower age ranges and with an intermediate or higher
level of education. These consumers are also characterised by the fact
that they consider that they have little expertise in the purchase of
meat and they consume lamb meat less frequently. Cluster 2, of a
larger size, is characterised by the presence of consumers of
intermediate or older age ranges, with levels of education that are
representative of the three pre-established ranges, but with a higher
percentage with a basic level of education. They consider themselves
to be more expert purchasers of meat and display a high frequency of
lamb meat consumption.
In relation to quality aspects considered at the time of purchase,
the consumers in both clusters assigned great importance to direct
appraisal, production region, price and quality label. These results
which, to a certain degree, coincide with those indicated in Fig. 2,
confirm that the quality label, direct appraisal, production region and
price are indeed of great importance in informing consumers about
the quality of the meat at the time of purchase. However, the
consumers in cluster 1 assigned significantly less importance
(P b 0.01) to the last three aspects compared to the consumers in
cluster 2. Animal feeding and quality label were given a significantly
similar rating in both clusters (P ≥ 0.05).
W.S. Sepúlveda et al. / Meat Science 87 (2011) 366–372
Table 5
Characterisation of the clusters of consumers obtained.
Variables
Cluster 1
Cluster 2
Sig.
(n = 148) (n = 214)
Socio-demographics and purchase habits of respondent
Gender (%)
Female
Age (%)
15 to 24 years
25 to 34 years
35 to 49 years
50 to 64 years
=N65 years
Level of education (%)
Basic
Intermediate
Higher
Highly expert
Expertise in the
Average expert
purchase of lamb
Inexpert
meat (%)
Always or almost always
Frequency of
consumption of lamb Occasionally or never
meat (%)
65.3
21.0
23.6
27.0
19.6
8.8
20.7
38.6
40.7
12.9
40.1
46.9
44.6
55.4
55.4
6.5
14.5
31.8
22.4
24.8
37.7
31.6
30.7
22.4
48.1
29.4
76.4
23.6
Ns.
***
**
**
***
a
Answers of consumers to the two ranking questions included in the study
Quality aspects
Price
4.2
5.0
related to purchase
Quality label (PGI)
4.5
4.9
Production region/region
3.8
5.1
of origin
Production that respects
3.7
2.1
animal welfare
Animal feeding
3.6
3.5
Environmentally friendly
3.2
1.7
production
Direct appraisal (colour,
5.0
5.7
freshness, fat, and others)
Animal feeding
4.6
6.3
Quality aspects
Animal breed
2.7
4.9
related to animal
Production system
3.1
3.4
production
Environmentally friendly
3.0
2.0
production
Correct disease control
5.6
5.0
Production that respects
3.8
2.4
animal welfare
Hygiene practices on the
5.2
3.9
farm
**
Ns.
***
***
Ns.
***
***
***
***
Ns.
***
***
***
***
Note: Ns. No significance = P ≥ 0.05, **P b 0.01, ***P b 0.001. aThe values displayed in each
item for each cluster refer to the average ranking scores.
With regard to production that respects animal welfare and is
environmentally friendly, this was rated significantly higher by those
in cluster 1 than those in cluster 2 (P b 0.001). Hence, the consumers in
cluster 1 displayed greater sensitivity towards these issues than those
who formed part of cluster 2.
In relation to aspects which, at farm level, have an impact on
quality meat, with the exception of the production system (P ≥ 0.05),
significant differences were found between the rating levels of the
two clusters. For those in cluster 1, the three aspects assigned the
highest rating, in order of importance, were correct control of
diseases, hygiene practices on the farm and animal feeding. In cluster
2, the three aspects that were rated most highly, in order of
importance, were animal feeding, correct control of diseases and
animal breed. In line with the results obtained previously (Fig. 3), it
can be highlighted that animal feeding and the correct control of
disease, were indeed the aspects that were most highly rated by
consumers to obtain, at farm level, a better quality meat. However,
whilst the consumers in cluster 1 placed more importance on health
and hygiene issues, the consumers in cluster 2 linked better quality
meat with more technical production aspects, such as feeding and
breed. Furthermore, those in cluster 1 linked, to a significantly greater
extent, production that respects animal welfare and which is
environmentally friendly with a better quality meat than those in
cluster 2 (P b 0.001).
371
Hence, the results suggest that in cluster 1, consumers considered
that there is a relationship between meat of a better quality and an
environmentally friendly production system that also respects animal
welfare. Furthermore, those forming this cluster considered that
health-hygiene issues at the production level are of great importance.
Bearing in mind the characteristics that best describe cluster 1, the
results are in line with those reported by other authors (De Haes et al.,
2004; Hoffman & Wiklund, 2006; Magnusson et al., 2001; María,
2006; Schnettler, Vidal, Silva, Vallejos, & Sepúlveda, 2007), i.e., that
persons in the lower age range with a higher level of education and
who consume meat with less frequency, are those who are more
interested in aspects relating to animal welfare and environmentally
friendly production. In addition, Selfa, Jussaume, and Winter (2008)
found that persons who are more interested in environmental issues
are also those who are most concerned with their health.
It is difficult to explain the relationship that exists between sociodemographic variables and the higher rating given to animal welfare
and environmentally friendly production because these evaluations
entail complex cognitive processes and, amongst other aspects,
involve values, behavioural patterns and attitudes (Benet & Blaney,
2002). Even so, it is assumed that a higher level of education can lead
to consumers, in their role as citizens, having access to more
information and acquiring a greater social awareness and a greater
understanding of aspects relating to animal production which would,
in turn, increase their interest in such matters. Indeed, Schnettler et al.
(2007) proposed that people who show the greatest interest in animal
welfare are those who know the most about livestock management on
farms. Furthermore they highlight that concerns about animal welfare
may lead to a reduction in meat consumption.
4. Conclusions
The study suggests that there are differences and similarities
between consumers and producers with respect to the level of
appraisal of quality parameters related to purchase and production.
The differences can be regarded as a lack of awareness, in both
directions, of the agents at either end of the chain. As far as the
similarities are concerned, consumers and producers agreed that
direct appraisal of meat is one of the aspects that is most valued by
consumers to obtain information on quality of lamb meat at purchase.
Furthermore, they coincided in considering animal feeding to be most
important in terms of quality in relation to animal production. In
addition, for both consumers and producers, environmentally friendly
production and production methods that respect animal welfare are
amongst the aspects that are least valued at the time of purchase, to
obtain information about quality, as well as their influence on animal
production to obtain quality lamb meat. However, there is a segment
of consumers for whom these aspects deserve a higher rating. Given
that this segment is comprised of younger persons, attention should
be paid changes this trend may undergo in the future.
Since few studies have been carried out on quality evaluations at
the ends of the agro-food chain and given that this present research is
limited to a lamb meat producing, and consuming region in Spain, it
would be of interest if future research could be carried out with
similar objectives, permitting comparison of results.
Acknowledgements
This research was supported by a grant from the BSCH —
University of Zaragoza. The authors thank the veterinary team at
Carnes Oviaragón S.C.L. for their collaboration.
References
Becker, T. (2000). Consumer perception of fresh meat quality: A framework for analysis.
British Food Journal, 102(3), 158−176.
372
W.S. Sepúlveda et al. / Meat Science 87 (2011) 366–372
Benet, R., & Blaney, R. (2002). Social consensus, moral intensity and willingness to pay
to address a farm animal welfare issue. Journal of Economic Psychology, 23,
501−520.
Beriain, M. J., Purroy, A., Treacher, T., & Bas, P. (2000). Effect of animal and nutritional
factors and nutrition on lamb meat quality. In I. Ledin, & P. Morand-Fehr (Eds.),
Sheep and goat nutrition: Intake, digestion, quality of products and rangelands
(pp. 75−86). Zaragoza: CIHEAM-IAMZ.
Bernabéu, R., & Tendero, A. (2005). Preference structure for lamb meat consumers. A
Spanish case study. Meat Science, 71, 464−470.
Bernués, A., Olaizola, A., & Corcoran, K. (2003). Extrinsic attributes of red meat as
indicators of quality in Europe: An application for market segmentation. Food
Quality and Preference, 14, 265−276.
Bosmans, W., Verveke, W., & Van Gysel, L. (2005). Valorisation of meat production
oriented on ‘superior’ quality: A case study of Belgian farmers' motivations. Paper
presented at the XI th congress of the EAAE, “the future of rural Europe in the global
agri-food system”, 24–27 August 2005, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Bredahl, L. (2004). Cue utilisation and quality perception with regard to branded beef.
Food Quality and Preference, 15(1), 65−75.
Bredahl, L., Grunert, K. G., & Fertin, C. (1998). Relating consumer perceptions of pork
quality to physical product characteristics. Food Quality and Preference, 9(4),
273−281.
Brunso, K., Ahle Fjord, T., & Grunert, K. G. (2002). Consumers food choice and quality
perception. Aarhus V, Denmark: The Aarhus School of Business.
Concepcion, S. B., Montiflor, M. O., Gualda, L. T., Digal, L. N., Rasco, E. T., Manalili, N. M.,
et al. (2006). Differences in quality perceptions among actors in the Mindanao
vegetable supply chain. Proceeding Ith IS on Supply Chains in Transitional Economics.
De Haes, E., Verbeke, W., Bosmans, W., Januszewska, R., & Viaene, J. (2004). Dynamics
and interactions in consumer expectations versus producer motivations toward
value-related aspects in “superior” quality meat chains. In H. J. Bremmers, S. W. F.
Omta, J. H. Trienekens, & E. F. M. Wubben (Eds.), Dynamics in chains and networks
(pp. 318−324). Wageningen: Wageningen Academic Publishers.
Feliciano, D., Camarena, D., & Albisu, L. M. (2003). La comercialización de la carne de
cordero fresco en Zaragoza. ITEA, 99A(3), 177−191.
Gellynck, X., Verbeke, W., & Vermeire, B. (2006). Pathways to increase consumer trust
in meat as a safe and wholesome food. Meat Science, 74(1), 161−171.
Glantz, S. A. (2006). Bioestadística (6ª ed). México: McGraw-Hill Interamericana.
Grunert, K. (2006). Future trends and consumer lifestyles with regard to meat
consumption. Meat Science, 74, 149−160.
Grunert, K., Harmsen, H., Larsen, H., Sorensen, E., & Bisp, S. (1997). New areas in
agricultural and food marketing. In B. Wierenga, A. Tilburg, K. Grunert, J. B.
Steenkamp, & M. Wedel (Eds.), Agricultural marketing and consumer behaviour in a
changing world (pp. 3−30). Norwell: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Guenther, P., Jensen, H., Batres-Marquez, P., & Chen, C. (2005). Sociodemographic,
knowledge, and attitudinal factors related to meat consumption in the United
States. Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 105(8), 1266−1274.
Hoffman, L. C., & Wiklund, E. (2006). Game and venison – meat for the modern
consumer. Meat Science, 74, 197−208.
Hubbard, C., Bourlakis, M., & Garrod, G. (2006). Farmers' perceptions of animal welfare
across the UK farm assurance schemes. Paper presented at the Rural Futures
Conference 2006. The Rural Citizen: Governance , Culture and Wellbeing in the 21st
Century, 5–7 April 2006, UK.
IAEST (2007). Instituto Aragonés de Estadística, Gobierno de Aragón.
Ilbery, B., & Kneafsey, M. (2000). Producer constructions of quality in regional speciality
food. Journal of Rural Studies, 16, 21−230.
INE (2001). Censo de población y viviendas 2001. Madrid: Instituto Nacional de
Estadística.
Judd, V. C. (2000). The price–quality relationship: An empirical study food products.
Journal of Food Products Marketing, 6(1), 11−24.
Kj rstad, I., & Kjærnes, U. (2005). Consumer concerns for food animal welfare. Farm
animal welfare concerns: Consumers, retailers and producer. In J., & M. (Eds.), Cardiff:
Welfare Quality Reports No. 1. (pp. 1−80).
Lee, H. L., Padmanabhan, V., & Whang, S. (1997). Information distortion in a supply
chain: The bullwhip effect. Management Science, 43(4), 546−558.
Magnusson, M. K., Arvola, A., Koivisto Hurst, U. K., Aberg, L., & Sjoden, P. O. (2001).
Attitudes towards organic foods among Swedish consumers. British Food Journal,
103(3), 209.
María, G. (2006). Public perception of farm animal welfare in Spain. Livestock Science,
103, 250−256.
MARM (2010). Base de datos de consumo en hogares correspondiente al año 2008.
Ministerio de Medio Ambiente, y Medio Rural y Marino. http://www.mapa.es/es/
alimentacion/pags/consumo/BD/consulta.asp.
MARM (2009). Anuario de estadística 2008. Madrid: Ministerio de Medio Ambiente, y
Medio Rural y Marino.
Martínez-Cerezo, S., Sañudo, C., Medel, I., & Olleta, J. L. (2005). Breed, slaughter weight
and ageing time effects on sensory characteristics of lamb. Meat Science, 69,
571−578.
Maza, M. T., & Ramírez, V. (2006). Distintas consideraciones en torno a los atributos de
calidad de la carne de vacuno por parte de industria y consumidores. ITEA, 102(4),
360−372.
McEachern, M. G., & Willock, J. (2004). Producers and consumers of organic meat. A
focus on attitudes and motivations. British Food Journal, 106(7), 534−552.
Nesbitt, A., Majowicz, S., Finley, R., Pollari, F., Pintar, K., Marshall, B., et al. (2008). Food
consumption patterns in the Waterloo region, Ontario, Canada: A cross-sectional
telephone survey. BMC Public Health, 8, 370, doi:10.1186/1471-2458-8-370.
Northen, J. R. (2000). Quality attributes and quality cues. Effective communication in
the UK meat supply chain. British Food Journal, 102(3), 230−245.
Olson, V., & Pickova, J. (2005). The influence of production systems on meat quality,
with emphasis on pork. Ambio, 34(4–5), 338−343.
Ottesen, G. (2006). Do upstream actors in the food chain know end-users' quality
perceptions? Findings from the Norwegian salmon farming industry. Supply Chain
Management: An International Journal, 11(5), 456−463.
Oude Ophuis, P., & Van Trijp, H. C. (1995). Perceived quality: A market driven and
consumer oriented approach. Food Quality and Preference, 6, 177−183.
Pardos, L., Maza, M. T., Fantova, E., & Sepúlveda, W. (2008). The diversity of sheep
production systems in Aragón (Spain): Characterisation and typification of meat
sheep farms. Spanish Journal of Agricultural Research, 6(4), 497−507.
Rosenvold, K., & Andersen, H. J. (2003). Factors of significance for pork quality—A
review. Meat Science, 64, 219−237.
Santesmases, M. (2004). Marketing conceptos y estrategias (pp. 357). (5 ed). Madrid:
Ediciones Pirámide.
Sañudo, C., Sanchez, A., & Alfonso, M. (1998). Small ruminant production systems and
factors affecting lamb meat quality. Meat Science, 49(l), 29−64.
Schnettler, B., Silva, R., & Sepúlveda, N. (2008). Beef consumption in southern Chile and
its relation to consumers sociodemographic characteristics. Revista Chilena de
Nutrición, 35(1), 262−271.
Schnettler, B., Vidal, R., Silva, R., Vallejos, L., & Sepúlveda, N. (2007). Consumer
perception of animal welfare and livestock production in the Araucania region,
Chile. Chilean Journal of Agricultural Research, 68(1), 80−93.
Selfa, T., Jussaume, R. A., & Winter, M. (2008). Envisioning agricultural sustainability
from field to plate: Comparing producer and consumer attitudes and practices
toward ‘environmentally friendly’ food and farming in Washington State, USA.
Journal of Rural Studies, 24, 262−276.
Sepúlveda, W., Maza, M. T., & Mantecón, A. R. (2008). Factors that affect and motivate
the purchase of quality-labelled beef in Spain. Meat Science, 80(4), 1282−1289.
Simons, D., Francis, M., Bourlakis, M., & Fearne, A. (2003). Identifying the determinants
of value in the U.K. red meat industry: A value chain analysis approach. Journal on
Chain and Network Science, 3(2), 109−121.
Steenkamp, J. B. E. M., & Van Trijp, H. C. (1996). Quality guidance: A consumer-based
approach to food quality improvement using partial least squares. European Review
of Agricultural Economics, 3, 195−215.
Taylor, D. H., & Fearne, A. (2006). Towards a framework for improvement in the
management of demand in agri-food supply chains. Supply Chain Management: An
International Journal, 11(5), 379−384.
Thanh Loc, V. T. (2003). Quality management in shrimp supply chain in the Mekong Delta,
Vietnam: Problems and measures. Centre for ASEAN Studies — Centre for International
Management and Development Antwerp.
Ulloa, R., & Gil, J. M. (2008). Valor de mercado y disposición a pagar por la marca “Ternasco
de Aragón”. Revista Española de Estudios Agrosociales y Pesqueros, 219, 39−70.
Vanhonacker, F., Verbeke, W., Poucke, E. V., & Tuyttens, F. A. M. (2008). Do citizens and
farmers interpret the concept of farm animal welfare differently? Livestock Science,
116, 126−136.
Verbeke, W., Demey, V., Bosmans, W., & Viaene, J. (2005). Consumer versus producer
expectations and motivations related to “superior” quality meat: Qualitative
research findings. Journal of Food Products Marketing, 11(3), 27−41.