Relationship between Consumers’ Perceptions about Goat Kid Meat and Meat Sensory Appraisal
Abstract
:Simple Summary
Abstract
1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Recruitment of Consumers
2.2. Survey
2.3. Consumer Home Test
2.4. Data Analyses
3. Results and Discussion
3.1. Characterization of the Consumer Sample
3.2. Clustering and Sociodemographic Description
3.3. Purchasing and Eating Habits
3.4. Importance of Meat Attributes
3.5. Home Test
- (1)
- There is great potential for creating markets for a variety of goat products in southern European countries [2], similar to the markets for suckling lambs. According to Pophiwa et al. [63], there is a need for breeds that are well adapted to the environment and resistant to diseases, with a potential for quality meat production. Goat production systems should be oriented toward the achievement of a more sustainable product and guaranteeing animal welfare [57]. However, in Spain, there are six Protected Geographical Indications (PGIs) for lamb meat, but only one for goat kid meat.
- (2)
- Young consumers should be given more information, trying to capture their interest in the importance of this meat in relation with environmental, social, and animal rights issues and, particularly, health concerns [45].
- (3)
- Finally, industries should develop marketing strategies according to the different groups of consumers, mainly depending on the region and habits of consumption. In other words, the marketing mix of variables should be defined depending on the specific market niche, and new ways should be devised to attract consumers (designing new products, price variations, new messages and communication channels, new distribution channels, and so on). Moreover, the marketing mix must be adapted to each product and each consumer [19].
4. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Castel, J.M.; Mena, Y.; Ruiz, F.A.; Camúñez-Ruiz, J.; Sánchez-Rodríguez, M. Changes occurring in dairy goat production systems in less favoured areas of Spain. Small Rumin. Res. 2011, 96, 83–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sañudo, C.; Campo, M.M.; Muela, E.; Olleta, J.L.; Delfa, R.; Jiménez-Badillo, M.R.; Alcalde, M.J.; Horcada, A.; Oliveira, I.; Cilla, I. Carcass characteristics and instrumental meat quality of suckling kids and lambs. Span. J. Agric. Res. 2012, 10, 690–700. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ministerio de Agricultura, Pesca y Alimentación. Anuario de Estadística. Available online: https://www.mapa.gob.es/es/estadistica/temas/publicaciones/anuario-de-estadistica/2021/default.aspx (accessed on 20 March 2023).
- Ripoll, G.; Alcalde, M.J.; Horcada, A.; Panea, B. Suckling kid breed and slaughter weight discrimination using muscle colour and visible reflectance. Meat Sci. 2011, 87, 151–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Panea, B.; Ripoll, G.; Horcada, A.; Sañudo, C.; Teixeira, A.; Alcalde, M.J. Influence of breed, milk diet and slaughter weight on carcass traits of suckling kids from seven Spanish breeds. Span. J. Agric. Res. 2012, 10, 1025. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Vinnari, M.; Tapio, P. Future images of meat consumption in 2030. Futures 2009, 41, 269–278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- González, N.; Marquès, M.; Nadal, M.; Domingo, J.L. Meat consumption: Which are the current global risks? A review of recent (2010–2020) evidences. Food Res. Int. 2020, 137, 109341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chamorro, A.; Miranda, F.J.; Rubio, S.; Valero, V. Innovations and trends in meat consumption: An application of the delphi method in Spain. Meat Sci. 2012, 92, 816–822. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Grunert, K.G.; Bredahl, L.; Brunso, K. Consumer perception of meat quality and implications for product development in the meat sector-a review. Meat Sci. 2004, 66, 259–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bernués, A.; Ripoll, G.; Panea, B. Consumer segmentation based on convenience orientation and attitudes towards quality attributes of lamb meat. Food Qual. Prefer. 2012, 26, 211–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Milford, A.B.; Le Mouël, C.; Bodirsky, B.L.; Rolinski, S. Drivers of meat consumption. Appetite 2019, 141, 104313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Verbeke, W.; Viaene, J. Beliefs, attitude and behaviour towards fresh meat consumption in Belgium: Empirical evidence from a consumer survey. Food Qual. Prefer. 1999, 10, 437–445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cotes-Torres, A.; Munoz-Gallego, P.A.; Cotes-Torres, J.M. S-shape relationship between customer satisfaction and willingness to pay premium prices for high quality cured pork products in Spain. Meat Sci. 2012, 90, 814–818. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ripoll, G.; Albertí, P.; Panea, B. Consumer segmentation based on food-related lifestyles and perception of chicken breast. Int. J. Poult. Sci. 2015, 14, 262–275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Grunert, K.G. Development and testing of a cross-culturally valid instrument: Food-related life style. ACR N. Am. Adv. 1995, 22, 475–480. [Google Scholar]
- de Boer, M.; McCarthy, M.; Cowan, C.; Ryan, I. The influence of lifestyle characteristics and beliefs about convenience food on the demand for convenience foods in the Irish market. Meat Sci. 2004, 15, 155–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hoek, A.C.; Luning, P.A.; Stafleu, A.; de Graaf, C. Food-related lifestyle and health attitudes of Dutch vegetarians, non-vegetarian consumers of meat substitutes, and meat consumers. Appetite 2004, 42, 265–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Buckley, M.; Cowan, C.; McCarthy, M. The convenience food market in Great Britain: Convenience food lifestyle (cfl) segments. Appetite 2007, 49, 600–617. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Escriba-Perez, C.; Baviera-Puig, A.; Buitrago-Vera, J.; Montero-Vicente, L. Consumer profile analysis for different types of meat in Spain. Meat Sci. 2017, 129, 120–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Bernues, A.; Olaizola, A.; Corcoran, K. Extrinsic attributes of red meat as indicators of quality in europe: An application for market segmentation. Food Qual. Prefer. 2003, 14, 265–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Font, I.F.M.; Gispert, M.; Guerrero, L.; Velarde, A.; Tibau, J.; Soler, J.; Hortos, M.; Garcia-Regueiro, J.A.; Perez, J.; Suarez, P.; et al. Consumers’ sensory acceptability of pork from immunocastrated male pigs. Meat Sci. 2008, 80, 1013–1018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Font i Furnols, M.; Realini, C.; Montossi, F.; Sañudo, C.; Campo, M.M.; Oliver, M.A.; Nute, G.R.; Guerrero, L. Consumer’s purchasing intention for lamb meat affected by country of origin, feeding system and meat price: A conjoint study in Spain, France and the United Kingdom. Food Qual. Prefer. 2011, 22, 443–451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ngapo, T.M.; Dransfield, E.; Martin, J.F.; Magnusson, M.; Bredahl, L.; Nute, G.R. Consumer perceptions: Pork and pig production. Insights from France, England, Sweden and Denmark. Meat Sci. 2004, 66, 125–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ngapo, T.M.; Martin, J.F.; Dransfield, E. International preferences for pork appearance: Ii. Factors influencing consumer choice. Food Qual. Prefer. 2007, 18, 139–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Miller, R. Drivers of consumer liking for beef, pork, and lamb: A review. Foods 2020, 9, 428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Rodrigues, S.; Teixeira, A. Consumer’s preferences for meat of cabrito trasmontano. Effects of sex and carcass weight. Span. J. Agric. Res. 2010, 8, 936–945. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Borgogno, M.; Corazzin, M.; Sacca, E.; Bovolenta, S.; Piasentier, E. Influence of familiarity with goat meat on liking and preference for Capretto and Chevon. Meat Sci. 2015, 106, 69–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ripoll, G.; Córdoba, M.G.; Alcalde, M.J.; Martín, A.; Argüello, A.; Casquete, R.; Panea, B. Volatile organic compounds and consumer preference for meat from suckling goat kids raised with natural or replacers milk. Ital. J. Anim. Sci. 2019, 18, 1259–1270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ripoll, G.; Alcalde, M.J.; Argüello, A.; Panea, B. Web-based survey of consumer preferences for the visual appearance of meat from suckling kids. Ital. J. Anim. Sci. 2019, 18, 1284–1293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Alcalde, M.J.; Ripoll, G.; Panea, B. Consumer Attitudes toward Meat Comsumption in Spain. Special Reference to Quality Marks and Kid Meat; Wageningen Academic Publishers: Wageningen, The Netherlands, 2010; p. 334. [Google Scholar]
- Ripoll, G.; Alcalde, M.J.; Horcada, A.; Campo, M.M.; Sanudo, C.; Teixeira, A.; Panea, B. Effect of slaughter weight and breed on instrumental and sensory meat quality of suckling kids. Meat Sci. 2012, 92, 62–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Colomer-Rocher, F.; Morand-Fehr, P.; Kirton, A.H. Standard methods and procedures for goat carcass evaluation, jointing and tissue separation. Livest. Prod. Sci. 1987, 17, 149–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- MacFie, H.J.; Bratchell, N.; Greenhoff, K.; Vallis, L.V. Designs to balance the effect of order of presentation and first-order carry-over effects in hall tests. J. Sens. Stud. 1989, 4, 129–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cubero, E.; Naspetti, S.; Arsenos, G.; Caramelle-Holtz, E.; Latvala, T.; Martin-Collado, D.; Orsini, S.; Ozturk, E.; Zanoli, R. European consumers’ willingness to pay for red meat labelling attributes. Animals 2021, 11, 556. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bernabeu, R.; Tendero, A. Preference structure for lamb meat consumers. A Spanish case study. Meat Sci. 2005, 71, 464–470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Mandolesi, S.; Naspetti, S.; Arsenos, G.; Caramelle-Holtz, E.; Latvala, T.; Martin-Collado, D.; Orsini, S.; Ozturk, E.; Zanoli, R. Motivations and barriers for sheep and goat meat consumption in Europe: A means–end chain study. Animals 2020, 10, 1105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Scollan, N.; Hocquette, J.-F.; Nuernberg, K.; Dannenberger, D.; Richardson, I.; Moloney, A. Innovations in beef production systems that enhance the nutritional and health value of beef lipids and their relationship with meat quality. Meat Sci. 2006, 74, 17–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Babiker, S.; El Khider, I.; Shafie, S. Chemical composition and quality attributes of goat meat and lamb. Meat Sci. 1990, 28, 273–277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Marichal, A.; Castro, N.; Capote, J.; Zamorano, M.; Argüello, A. Effects of live weight at slaughter (6, 10 and 25 kg) on kid carcass and meat quality. Livest. Prod. Sci. 2003, 83, 247–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ministerio de Agricultura, Pesca y Alimentación. Informe del Consumo de Alimentación en España en 2020; Ministerio de Agricultura, Pesca y Alimentación: Madrid, Spain, 2021; p. 740. [Google Scholar]
- Sañudo, C.; Alfonso, M.; San Julián, R.; Thorkelsson, G.; Valdimarsdottir, T.; Zygoyiannis, D.; Stamataris, C.; Piasentier, E.; Mills, C.; Berge, P.; et al. Regional variaton in the hedonic evaluation of lamb meat from diverse production systems by consumers in six European countries. Meat Sci. 2007, 75, 610–621. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Reverdy, C.; Schlich, P.; Köster, E.P.; Ginon, E.; Lange, C. Effect of sensory education on food preferences in children. Food Qual. Prefer. 2010, 21, 794–804. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rabadán, A.; Martínez-Carrasco, L.; Brugarolas, M.; Navarro-Rodríguez de Vera, C.; Sayas-Barberá, E.; Bernabéu, R. Differences in consumer preferences for lamb meat before and during the economic crisis in Spain. Analysis and perspectives. Foods 2020, 9, 696. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wycherley, A.; McCarthy, M.; Cowan, C. Speciality food orientation of food related lifestyle (frl) segments in Great Britain. Food Qual. Prefer. 2008, 19, 498–510. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ngomane, M.; Tsvakirai, C.; Mlambo, V. Improving the marketing of goat meat to youths in South Africa. Small Rumin. Res. 2022, 214, 106760. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Corcoran, K.; Bernués, A.; Manrique, E.; Pacchioli, T.; Baines, R.; Boutonnet, J. Current consumer attitudes towards lamb and beef in Europe. Options Méditerranéennes A 2001, 46, 75–79. [Google Scholar]
- Morales-Jerrett, E.; Mancilla-Leytón, J.M.; Delgado-Pertíñez, M.; Mena, Y. The contribution of traditional meat goat farming systems to human wellbeing and its importance for the sustainability of this livestock subsector. Sustainability 2020, 12, 1181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Pinho, M.G.M.; Mackenbach, J.D.; Charreire, H.; Oppert, J.-M.; Bárdos, H.; Rutter, H.; Compernolle, S.; Beulens, J.W.; Brug, J.; Lakerveld, J. Spatial access to restaurants and grocery stores in relation to frequency of home cooking. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 2018, 15, 6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Guerrero, A.; Campo, M.M.; Cilla, I.; Olleta, J.L.; Alcalde, M.J.; Horcada, A.; Sañudo, C. A Comparison of Laboratory-Based and Home-Based Tests of Consumer Preferences Using Kid and Lamb Meat. J. Sensory Stu. 2014, 29, 201–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jia, W.; Di, C.; Shi, L. Applications of lipidomics in goat meat products: Biomarkers, structure, nutrition interface and future perspectives. J. Proteom. 2022, 270, 104753. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Verbeke, W.; Vackier, I. Profile and effects of consumer involvement in fresh meat. Meat Sci. 2004, 67, 159–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Boyazoglu, J.; Morand-Fehr, P. Mediterranean dairy sheep and goat products and their quality: A critical review. Small Rumin. Res. 2001, 40, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- dos Santos Souza, M.F.; Passetti, L.C.G.; Gonçalves, T.R.; Passetti, R.A.C.; de Arruda Santos, G.R. Characterisation of goat product consumers and goat farming systems in the Brazilian northeast region. Small Rumin. Res. 2019, 179, 7–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sañudo, C.; Muela, E.; Olleta, J.L.; Campo, M.M. Percepciones del Consumidor Sobre la Carne de Cordero. Encuesta en Aragón. In Proceedings of the XXXIX Jornadas de Estudio. XIII Jornadas Sobre Producción Animal, Zaragoza, Spain, 12–13 May 2009; pp. 604–606. [Google Scholar]
- Madruga, M.; Arruda, S.; Narain, N.; Souza, J. Castration and slaughter age effects on panel assessment and aroma compounds of the “mestiço” goat meat. Meat Sci. 2000, 56, 117–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gracia, A.; Maza, M.T. Determinants of the intention to purchase an autochthonous local lamb breed: Spanish case study. Meat Sci. 2015, 110, 212–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Font, I.F.M.; Guerrero, L. Spanish perspective on meat consumption and consumer attitudes. Meat Sci. 2022, 191, 108874. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Krystallis, A.; Chryssochoidis, G.; Scholderer, J. Consumer-perceived quality in ‘traditional’ food chains: The case of the Greek meat supply chain. Appetite 2007, 48, 54–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Banović, M.; Chrysochou, P.; Grunert, K.G.; Rosa, P.J.; Gamito, P. The effect of fat content on visual attention and choice of red meat and differences across gender. Food Qual. Prefer. 2016, 52, 42–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Horcada, A.; Ripoll, G.; Alcalde, M.J.; Sanudo, C.; Teixeira, A.; Panea, B. Fatty acid profile of three adipose depots in seven Spanish breeds of suckling kids. Meat Sci. 2012, 92, 89–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Panea, B.; Ripoll, G. Plant-derived extracts feed-addition and packaging type influence consumer sensory perception of pork. Nutrients 2019, 11, 2652. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Troy, D.J.; Kerry, J.P. Consumer perception and the role of science in the meat industry. Meat Sci. 2010, 86, 214–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Pophiwa, P.; Webb, E.C.; Frylinck, L. A review of factors affecting goat meat quality and mitigating strategies. Small Rumin. Res. 2020, 183, 106035. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Socio-Demographic Variables | |
---|---|
Family members 1 | Under 14 years old |
From 14–65 years old | |
Over 65 years old | |
Gender 2 | Male |
Female | |
Age 1 | |
Place of residence | Zaragoza |
Sevilla | |
Purchasing and eating habits | |
Where do you buy meat more often? | Traditional butcher |
Local market | |
Supermarket | |
Hypermarket | |
How often do you eat kid meat? | Less than once a month |
2–3 times a month | |
1–3 times a week | |
More than 3 times a week | |
Where do you usually eat kid meat? | Own home |
Other people’s homes | |
Restaurant | |
How often do you cook each week? 3 | |
How often do you eat out each week? 3 | |
How often do you eat prepared meals each week? 3 | |
Questions about the perception of kid meat 4 | |
Kid meat is more expensive than lamb meat | |
Kid meat is healthier than lamb meat | |
Kid meat is taster than lamb meat | |
Kid meat contains more fat than lamb meat | |
I prefer kids being fed by natural milking rather than artificial milking | |
I prefer heavier kids to light kids | |
I would like to eat more kid meat than I consume now | |
I don’t eat more kid meat because I don’t see it in the supermarket | |
I would like to buy kid meat from a quality brand | |
I would pay more for kid meat from a quality brand | |
Importance of meat attributes 5 | |
Animal breed | |
Animal live weight | |
Animal age | |
Animal feeding | |
Origin of the meat | |
Type of meat cut | |
Place in which meat is consumed | |
Meat color | |
Meat tenderness | |
Taste of meat | |
Amount of fat in the meat |
Percentage | ||
---|---|---|
Age (years) | Under 21 | 18.9 |
From 21 to 30 | 11.3 | |
From 31 to 40 | 11.5 | |
From 41 to 50 | 25.7 | |
From 51 to 60 | 21.1 | |
Over 60 | 11.5 | |
Gender | Male | 45.3 |
Female | 54.7 | |
City | Sevilla | 45.3 |
Zaragoza | 54.7 |
CL1 (13.8%) | CL2 (34.0%) | CL3 (27.7%) | CL4 (24.5%) | s.e. | p | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Age | 56 a | 38 b | 44 b | 36 b | 4.154 | 0.006 |
N° people <14 years at home | 0.1 b | 0.8 a | 0.5 ab | 0.5 ab | 0.152 | 0.039 |
N° people 14–65 years at home | 2.8 | 2.8 | 3.0 | 3.0 | 0.172 | 0.839 |
N° people >65 years at home | 0.8 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.126 | 0.207 |
Total (%) | CL1 (13.8%) | CL2 (34.0%) | CL3 (27.7%) | CL4 (24.5%) | χ2 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Seville | 45.7 | 11.6 | 30.3 | 18.6 | 39.5 | 0.016 |
Zaragoza | 54.3 | 15.7 | 37.3 | 35.3 | 11.7 |
CL1 (13.8%) | CL2 (34.0%) | CL3 (27.7%) | CL4 (24.5%) | s.e. | p | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Kid meat is more expensive than lamb meat. | 3.1 c | 4.8 ab | 5.3 a | 4.0 ab | 0.258 | 0.000 |
Kid meat is healthier than lamb meat. | 2.6 c | 3.8 b | 5.4 a | 3.8 b | 0.202 | 0.000 |
Kid meat is tastier than lamb meat. | 2.3 c | 4.7 a | 5.2 a | 4.0 b | 0.234 | 0.000 |
Kid meat contains more fat than lamb meat. | 2.3 b | 3.0 ab | 2.8 b | 3.7 a | 0.243 | 0.004 |
I prefer kids being fed by natural milking rather than artificial milking. | 2.1 c | 4.2 a | 2.0 c | 3.5 b | 0.222 | 0.000 |
I prefer meat from heavier kids to that of light kids. | 1.4 b | 1.7 b | 1.5 b | 4.4 a | 0.258 | 0.000 |
I would like to eat more kid meat than I consume now. | 4.92 | 5.50 | 5.43 | 4.93 | 0.311 | 0.202 |
I do not eat more kid meat because I do not see it in the supermarket. | 4.67 | 5.60 | 5.26 | 5.20 | 0.339 | 0.873 |
I would like to eat kid meat from a quality brand. | 5.33 | 5.35 | 5.57 | 4.93 | 0.364 | 0.380 |
I would pay more for kid meat from a quality brand. | 5.00 | 4.95 | 5.39 | 4.47 | 0.344 | 0.267 |
Total (%) | CL1 (13.8%) | CL2 (34.0%) | CL3 (27.7%) | CL4 (24.5%) | χ2 | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
No continuous variables | ||||||||
How often do you eat kid meat? | I never eat kid meat | 3.2 | 0.0 | 3.1 | 0.0 | 8.7 | 0.277 | |
Less than once a month | 94.7 | 100 | 90.6 | 100 | 91.3 | |||
2–3 times a month | 2.1 | 0.0 | 6.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | |||
More than once a week | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | |||
Where do you usually eat kid meat? | Own home | 19.8 | 41.7 | 23.1 | 12.5 | 10.6 | 0.029 | |
A different house | 16.0 | 16.7 | 3.8 | 33.3 | 10.5 | |||
Restaurant | 64.2 | 41.6 | 73.1 | 54.2 | 78.9 | |||
Continuous variables | ||||||||
CL1 (13.8%) | CL2 (34.0%) | CL3 (27.7%) | CL4 (24.5%) | s.e. | p | |||
How often do you cook each week? (0–14) | 6.3 | 4.4 | 4.7 | 4.3 | 1.02 | 0.601 | ||
How often do you eat out each week? (0–14) | 1.5ab | 1.4ab | 1.2b | 2.6a | 0.38 | 0.045 | ||
How often do you eat prepared meals each week? (0–14) | 0.5 | 0.9 | 0.8 | 1.2 | 0.24 | 0.423 |
Level * | Total (%) | CL1 (13.8%) | CL2 (34.0%) | CL3 (27.7%) | CL4 (24.5%) | χ2 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Animal breed | 1 | 47.8 | 38.5 | 58.1 | 42.3 | 45.5 | 0.018 |
2 | 23.9 | 23.1 | 25.8 | 30.8 | 13.6 | ||
3 | 20.7 | 23.1 | 16.1 | 23.1 | 22.7 | ||
4 | 5.4 | 0 | 0 | 3.8 | 18.2 | ||
5 | 2.2 | 15.4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
Animal live weight | 1 | 12.0 | 0 | 3.2 | 11.5 | 31.8 | 0.007 |
2 | 5.4 | 0 | 9.7 | 7.7 | 0 | ||
3 | 20.7 | 15.4 | 35.5 | 19.2 | 4.5 | ||
4 | 35.9 | 30.8 | 25.8 | 46.2 | 40.9 | ||
5 | 26.0 | 53.8 | 25.8 | 15.4 | 22.7 | ||
Animal feeding | 1 | 10.8 | 0 | 9.4 | 7.7 | 22.7 | 0.085 |
2 | 14.0 | 15.4 | 15.6 | 15.4 | 9.1 | ||
3 | 18.3 | 15.4 | 34.4 | 7.7 | 9.1 | ||
4 | 33.2 | 23.1 | 31.3 | 38.5 | 36.4 | ||
5 | 23.7 | 46.2 | 9.4 | 30.8 | 22.7 | ||
Meat tenderness | 1 | 1.0 | 0 | 3.1 | 0 | 0 | 0.099 |
2 | 5.4 | 0 | 3.1 | 11.5 | 4.5 | ||
3 | 7.5 | 0 | 0 | 7.7 | 22.7 | ||
4 | 30.1 | 23.1 | 40.6 | 30.8 | 18.2 | ||
5 | 55.9 | 76.9 | 53.1 | 50.0 | 54.5 | ||
Meat taste | 1 | 1.0 | 0 | 3.1 | 0 | 0 | 0.029 |
2 | 1.1 | 0 | 0 | 3.8 | 0 | ||
3 | 5.4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 22.7 | ||
4 | 22.6 | 15.4 | 21.9 | 30.8 | 18.2 | ||
5 | 69.9 | 84.6 | 75.0 | 65.4 | 59.1 |
CL1 | CL2 | CL3 | CL4 | s.e. | p | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Taste | 8.0 a | 6.7 c | 7.3 b | 6.7 c | 0.12 | <0.0001 |
Tenderness | 7.3 a | 6.5 b | 6.9 b | 6.7 b | 0.15 | 0.002 |
Juiciness | 7.3 a | 6.5 b | 6.9 b | 6.7 b | 0.14 | 0.005 |
Overall appraisal | 7.9 a | 6.9 c | 7.3 b | 7.0 bc | 0.12 | <0.0001 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Alcalde, M.J.; Ripoll, G.; Campo, M.M.; Horcada, A.; Panea, B. Relationship between Consumers’ Perceptions about Goat Kid Meat and Meat Sensory Appraisal. Animals 2023, 13, 2383. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani13142383
Alcalde MJ, Ripoll G, Campo MM, Horcada A, Panea B. Relationship between Consumers’ Perceptions about Goat Kid Meat and Meat Sensory Appraisal. Animals. 2023; 13(14):2383. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani13142383
Chicago/Turabian StyleAlcalde, María J., Guillermo Ripoll, María M. Campo, Alberto Horcada, and Begoña Panea. 2023. "Relationship between Consumers’ Perceptions about Goat Kid Meat and Meat Sensory Appraisal" Animals 13, no. 14: 2383. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani13142383