Understanding Apple Attribute Preferences of US Consumers
Abstract
:1. Introduction
1.1. Objective and Subjective Consumer Knowledge
1.2. Socio-Demographics
1.3. Apple Buyer Discernment
1.4. Attitudes towards Growers
1.5. Objective and Hypotheses
2. Material and Methods
2.1. Research Design and Data Collection
2.2. Data Analysis
3. Results
4. Discussion
4.1. Practical Implications
4.2. Limitation and Suggestions for Future Research
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Ceschi, S.; Canavari, M.; Castellini, A. Consumer’s preference and willingness to pay for apple attributes: A choice experiment in large retail outlets in Bologna (Italy). J. Int. Food Agribus. Mark. 2018, 30, 305–322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Meyerding, S.G.; Merz, N. Consumer preferences for organic labels in Germany using the example of apples–Combining choice-based conjoint analysis and eye-tracking measurements. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 181, 772–783. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Boca, G.D. Factors influencing consumer behavior in sustainable fruit and vegetable consumption in maramures county, Romania. Sustainability 2021, 13, 1812. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zaikin, A.A.; McCluskey, J.J. Consumer preferences for new technology: Apples enriched with antioxidant coatings in Uzbekistan. Agric. Econ. 2013, 44, 513–521. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Blanke, M.; Burdick, B. Food (miles) for thought-energy balance for locally grown versus imported apple fruit. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2005, 12, 125–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Legun, K.; Burch, K. Robot-ready: How apple producers are assembling in anticipation of new AI robotics. J. Rural. Stud. 2021, 82, 380–390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Funke, K.; Blanke, M. Spatial and Temporal Enhancement of Colour Development in Apples Subjected to Reflective Material in the Southern Hemisphere. Horticulturae 2021, 7, 2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fresh Facts. Apples. 2019. Available online: https://www.freshfacts.co.nz/ (accessed on 3 November 2021).
- USDA. On the Map: California, Florida, and Washington Are Nation’s Largest Fruit-Producing States. 2021. Available online: https://www.ers.usda.gov/amber-waves/2011/june/on-the-map/ (accessed on 12 November 2021).
- Karkee, M.; Zhang, Q.; Silwal, A. Agricultural Robots for Precision Agricultural Tasks in Tree Fruit Orchards. In Innovation in Agricultural Robotics for Precision Agriculture. Progress in Precision Agriculture; Bechar, A., Ed.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tibbets, J.H. Not too far from the tree. Mech. Eng. 2018, 140, 28–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yue, C.; Tong, C. Consumer preferences and willingness to pay for existing and new apple varieties: Evidence from apple tasting choice experiments. HortTechnology 2011, 21, 376–383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- US Apple. Apple Varieties. 2021. Available online: https://usapple.org/apple-varieties (accessed on 26 November 2021).
- Canavari, M.; Castellini, A.; Spadoni, R. Challenges in Marketing Quality Food Products. J. Int. Food Agribus. Mark. 2010, 22, 203–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Harker, F.R.; Gunson, F.A.; Jaeger, S.R. The case for fruit quality: An interpretive review of consumer attitudes, and preferences for apples. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 2003, 28, 333–347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De Hooge, I.E.; Oostindjer, M.; Aschemann-Witzel, J.; Normann, A.; Loose, S.M.; Almli, V.L. This apple is too ugly for me!: Consumer preferences for suboptimal food products in the supermarket and at home. Food Qual. Prefer. 2017, 56, 80–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bolos, L.A.; Lagerkvist, C.J.; Normann, A.; Wendin, K. In the eye of the beholder: Expected and actual liking for apples with visual imperfections. Food Qual. Prefer. 2021, 87, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kelley, K.; Hyde, J.; Travis, J.; Crassweller, R. Assessing consumer preferences of scab-resistant apples: A sensory evaluation. HortTechnology 2010, 20, 885–891. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Onik, J.C.; Wai, S.C.; Li, A.; Lin, Q.; Sun, Q.; Wang, Z.; Duan, Y. Melatonin treatment reduces ethylene production and maintains fruit quality in apple during postharvest storage. Food Chem. 2021, 337, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cofelice, M.; Lopez, F.; Cuomo, F. Quality control of fresh-cut apples after coating application. Foods 2019, 8, 189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Šernaitė, L.; Rasiukevičiūtė, N.; Valiuškaitė, A. Application of plant extracts to control postharvest gray mold and susceptibility of apple fruits to B. cinerea from different plant hosts. Foods 2020, 9, 1430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Endrizzi, I.; Aprea, E.; Betta, E.; Charles, M.; Zambanini, J.; Gasperi, F. Investigating the Effect of Artificial Flavours and External Information on Consumer Liking of Apples. Molecules 2019, 24, 4306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Poles, L.; Gentile, A.; Giuffrida, A.; Valentini, L.; Endrizzi, I.; Aprea, E.; Gasperi, F.; Distefano, G.; Artioli, G.; La Malfa, S.; et al. Role of fruit flesh cell morphology and MdPG1 allelotype in influencing juiciness and texture properties in apple. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 2020, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Loureiro, M.L.; McCluskey, J.J.; Mittelhammer, R.C. Assessing consumer preferences for organic, eco-labeled, and regular apples. J. Agric. Resour. Econ. 2001, 404–416. Available online: https://www.jstor.org/stable/40987117 (accessed on 15 November 2021).
- Fernández-Serrano, P.; Tarancón, P.; Besada, C. Consumer Information Needs and Sensory Label Design for Fresh Fruit Packaging. An Exploratory Study in Spain. Foods 2021, 10, 72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Denver, S.; Jensen, J.D. Consumer preferences for organically and locally produced apples. Food Qual. Prefer. 2014, 31, 129–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sackett, H.M.; Shupp, R.S.; Tonsor, G.T. Discrete Choice Modeling of Consumer Preferences for Sustainably Produced Steak and Apples. In Presented at the Agricultural and Applied Economics Association (AAEA) Conferences, 2012 AAEA/EAAE Food Environment Symposium, 30–31 May 2012; Tufts University: Boston, MA, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Moser, R.; Raffaelli, R. Consumer preferences for sustainable production methods in apple purchasing behaviour: A non-hypothetical choice experiment. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 2012, 36, 141–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Olynk, N.J.; Tonsor, G.T.; Wolf, C.A. Consumer willingness to pay for livestock credence attribute claim verification. J. Agric. Resour. Econ. 2010, 261–280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sackett, H.M.; Shupp, R.; Tonsor, G. Consumer perceptions of sustainable farming practices: A Best-Worst scenario. Agric. Resour. Econ. Rev. 2013, 42, 275–290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Marette, S.; Disdier, A.C.; Beghin, J.C. A comparison of EU and US consumers’ willingness to pay for gene-edited food: Evidence from apples. Appetite 2021, 159, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wong, R.; Kim, S.; Chung, S.J.; Cho, M.S. Texture preferences of Chinese, Korean and US consumers: A case study with apple and pear dried fruits. Foods 2020, 9, 377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Wilson, L.; Lusk, J.L. Consumer willingness to pay for redundant food labels. Food Policy 2020, 97, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, Q.; Sun, J.; Parsons, R. Consumer preferences and willingness to pay for locally grown organic apples: Evidence from a conjoint study. HortScience 2010, 45, 376–381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Endrizzi, I.; Torri, L.; Corollaro, M.L.; Demattè, M.L.; Aprea, E.; Charles, M.; Gasperi, F. A conjoint study on apple acceptability: Sensory characteristics and nutritional information. Food Qual. Prefer. 2015, 40, 39–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Oh, C.O.; Herrnstadt, Z.; Howard, P.H. Consumer willingness to pay for bird management practices in fruit crops. Agroecol. Sustain. Food Syst. 2015, 39, 782–797. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, S.W.; Brorsen, B.W.; Lusk, J. Not everybody prefers organic food: Unobserved heterogeneity in US consumers’ preference for organic apple and milk. Appl. Econ. Lett. 2018, 25, 9–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Holdershaw, J.; Konopka, R. Consumer knowledge of country of origin of fresh food at point of purchase. J. Promot. Manag. 2018, 24, 349–362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Taylor, M.; Granatstein, D. A cost comparison of organic and conventional apple production in the state of Washington. Crop Manag. 2013, 12, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Drkenda, P.; Ćulah, A.; Spaho, N.; Akagić, A.; Hudina, M. How Do Consumers Perceive Sensory Attributes of Apple? Foods 2021, 10, 2667. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kleine-Kalmer, R.; Profeta, A.; Daum, D.; Enneking, U. Pre-Launch Exploration of Consumer Willingness to Purchase Selenium-and Iodine-Biofortified Apples—A Discrete Choice Analysis of Possible Market Settings. Nutrients 2021, 13, 1625. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hurgobin, Y.; Le Floch, V.; Lemercier, C. Effect of multiple extrinsic cues on consumers’ willingness to buy apples: A scenario-based study. Food Qual. Prefer. 2020, 81, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ellis, D.; Mattison Thompson, F. The effect of wine knowledge type on variety seeking behavior in wine purchasing. J. Wine Res. 2018, 29, 71–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ellis, D.; Caruana, A. Consumer wine knowledge: Components and segments. Int. J. Wine Bus. Res. 2018, 30, 277–291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Peschel, A.O.; Grebitus, C.; Steiner, B.; Veeman, M. How does consumer knowledge affect environmentally sustainable choices? Evidence from a cross-country latent class analysis of food labels. Appetite 2016, 106, 78–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hwang, H.; Nam, S.J. The influence of consumers’ knowledge on their responses to genetically modified foods. GM Crops Food 2021, 12, 146–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Tait, P.R.; Saunders, C.M.; Dalziel, P.C.; Rutherford, P.; Driver, T.; Guenther, M. California Apple Consumer Consumption Behaviours and Product Preferences: A Latent Class Analysis; AERU Research Report No. 366, prepared for Unlocking Export Prosperity Research Programme; Agribusiness and Economics Research Unit, Lincoln University: Lincoln, New Zealand, 2021. [Google Scholar]
- Maples, M.; Morgan, K.L.; Interis, M.G.; Harri, A. Who Buys Food Directly from Producers in the Southeastern United States? J. Agric. Appl. Econ. 2015, 45, 509–518. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Fastring, D.; Nadorff, D.; DeShong, H. The Influence of Rurality on Fruit and Vegetable Intake and BMI: Findings in Mississippi Are Not Consistent with Those at the National Level. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 5021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yue, C.; Gallardo, R.K.; Luby, J.; Rihn, A.; McFerson, J.R.; McCracken, V.; Iezzoni, A.F. An investigation of US apple producers’ trait prioritization—evidence from audience surveys. HortScience 2013, 48, 1378–1384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gallardo, R.K.; Hanrahan, I.; Yue, C.; McCracken, V.A.; Luby, J.; McFerson, J.R.; Carrillo-Rodriguez, L. Combining sensory evaluations and experimental auctions to assess consumerspreferences for fresh fruit quality characteristics. Agribusiness 2018, 34, 407–425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Uribe, R.; Infante, R.; Kusch, C.; Contador, L.; Pacheco, I.; Mesa, K. Do Consumers Evaluate New and Existing Fruit Varieties in the Same Way? Modeling the Role of Search and Experience Intrinsic Attributes. J. Food Prod. Mark. 2020, 26, 521–534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jaeger, S.R.; Harker, F.R. Consumer evaluation of novel kiwifruit: Willingness-to-pay. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2005, 85, 2519–2526. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cheng, H.T.; Criner, G.K.; Kezis, A.S. The impact of consumer characteristics on preferences for selected apple varieties. J. Food Prod. Mark. 1997, 3, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Asioli, D.; Canavari, M.; Malaguti, L.; Mignani, C. Fruit branding: Exploring factors affecting adoption of the new pear cultivar ‘Angelys’ in Italian large retail. Int. J. Fruit Sci. 2016, 16, 284–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Litman, L.; Robinson, J. Conducting Online Research on Amazon Mechanical Turk and Beyond; Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Aguinis, H.; Villamor, I.; Ramani, R.S. MTurk research: Review and recommendations. J. Manag. 2021, 47, 823–837. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Goodman, J.K.; Cryder, C.E.; Cheema, A. Data collection in a flat world: The strengths and weaknesses of Mechanical Turk samples. J. Behav. Decis. Mak. 2013, 26, 213–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hair, J.F.; Howard, M.C.; Nitzl, C. Assessing measurement model quality in PLS-SEM using confirmatory composite analysis. J. Bus. Res. 2020, 109, 101–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hair, J.F.; Risher, J.J.; Sarstedt, M.; Ringle, C.M. When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM. Eur. Bus. Rev. 2019, 31, 2–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hair, J.F.; Hult, G.T.M.; Ringle, C.M.; Sarstedt, M. A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM); Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Chin, W.; Cheah, J.-H.; Liu, Y.; Ting, H.; Lim, X.-J.; Cham, T.H. Demystifying the role of causal-predictive modeling using partial least squares structural equation modeling in information systems research. Ind. Manag. Data Syst. 2020, 120, 2161–2209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hair, J.F.; Ringle, C.M.; Sarstedt, M. PLS-SEM: Indeed a silver bullet. J. Mark. Theory Pract. 2011, 19, 139–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fornell, C.; Larcker, D.F. Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error. J. Mark. Res. 1981, 18, 39–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Henseler, J.; Ringle, C.M.; Sarstedt, M. A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 2015, 43, 115–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Robertson, J.; Ferreira, C.; Botha, E. The influence of product knowledge on the relative importance of extrinsic product attributes of wine. J. Wine Res. 2018, 29, 159–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hoekstra, J.C.; Leeflang, P.S. Marketing in the era of COVID-19. Ital. J. Mark. 2020, 4, 249–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pulighe, G.; Lupia, F. Food first: COVID-19 outbreak and cities lockdown a booster for a wider vision on urban agriculture. Sustainability 2020, 12, 5012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bir, C.; Lai, J.; Thompson, N.M.; Widmar, N.O. Evaluating the Inclusion of Words and/or Pictures in Best-Worst Scaling Experiments. J. Int. Food Agribus. Mark. 2021, 1–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Freq | % | Median | StDev | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Age | ||||
Under 21 | 2 | 0.5 | ||
21–24 | 16 | 4.2 | ||
25–34 | 215 | 56.1 | ✓ | 0.940 |
35–44 | 104 | 27.2 | ||
45–54 | 27 | 7.0 | ||
55–64 | 14 | 3.7 | ||
65+ | 5 | 1.3 | ||
Total | 383 | 100 | ||
Education | ||||
Did not finish high school | 6 | 1.6 | ||
Finished high school | 46 | 12.0 | ||
Attended University | 40 | 10.4 | ||
Bachelors Degree | 223 | 58.2 | ✓ | 0.927 |
Postgraduate Degree | 68 | 17.8 | ||
Total | 383 | 100 | ||
Household Annual Income | ||||
USD 0 to 24,999 | 80 | 20.9 | ||
USD 25,000 to 49,999 | 117 | 30.5 | ✓ | 1.141 |
USD 50,000 to 74,999 | 119 | 31.1 | ||
USD 75,000 to 99,999 | 40 | 10.4 | ||
USD 100,000 or higher | 27 | 7.0 | ||
Total | 383 | 100 | ||
Gender | ||||
Male | 196 | 51.2 | ✓ | 0.501 |
Female | 187 | 48.8 | ||
Total | 383 | 100 | ||
US Geographical Distribution | ||||
North-East | 83 | 21.7 | ||
Mid-West | 133 | 34.8 | ||
South | 90 | 23.5 | ||
West | 77 | 20.1 | ||
Total | 383 | 100 |
Scales and Items | Factor Loadings | Cronbach’s Alpha | Composite Reliability | Average Variance Extracted |
---|---|---|---|---|
Discerning Apple Buyer | 0.836 | 0.877 | 0.504 | |
How similar are Pink Lady and Cosmic Crisp | 0.741 | |||
How similar are Granny Smith and Royal Gala | 0.731 | |||
How similar are Pink Lady and Cripps Pink | 0.706 | |||
How similar are McIntosh and Braeburn | 0.749 | |||
How similar are Zestar! and Sweet Tango | 0.718 | |||
How similar are Fuji and Red Delicious | 0.639 | |||
How similar are Red Delicious and Golden Delicious | 0.680 | |||
Importance of Apple Commercial Attributes | 0.701 | 0.817 | 0.527 | |
Importance of—Price | 0.702 | |||
Importance of—Labelled as sustainable | 0.719 | |||
Importance of—Labelled as traditional varieties such as Royal Gala, Braeburn, Granny Smith | 0.735 | |||
Importance of—Labelled as club apples such as Pink lady or Cosmic Crisp | 0.747 | |||
Importance of Apple Physical Attributes | 0.723 | 0.825 | 0.543 | |
Importance of—Colour of the skin is true to variety | 0.773 | |||
Importance of—Smell is appealing | 0.700 | |||
Importance of—Texture is soft | 0.793 | |||
Importance of—Skin is free of visual blemishes | 0.673 | |||
My Attitudes towards US Apple Growers | 0.836 | 0.880 | 0.552 | |
I think that US growers have a longstanding tradition and lots of experience in growing sustainable apples. | 0.728 | |||
I think that US apple growers contribute to the care and maintenance of the landscape | 0.678 | |||
I think that US apple growers make active contributions to preserve biodiversity | 0.841 | |||
I think that US apple growers treat land resources responsible | 0.707 | |||
I think that social pressure on apple growers should be increased as they are main agents of climate change. | 0.665 | |||
I think that US apple growers are environmental conscious | 0.821 | |||
Subjective Apple Knowledge | 0.860 | 0.905 | 0.704 | |
I understand a lot about apples | 0.821 | |||
I am confident in my knowledge of apples | 0.810 | |||
Among my friends I am the apple expert | 0.882 | |||
I know more about apples than others do | 0.841 |
Fornell–Larcker Criterion | Discerning Apple Buyer | Importance of Apple Commercial Attributes | Importance of Apple Physical Attributes | Attitudes towards US Apple Growers | Subjective Apple Knowledge |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Discerning Apple Buyer | 0.710 | ||||
Importance of Apple Commercial Attributes | 0.638 | 0.726 | |||
Importance of Apple Physical Attributes | 0.571 | 0.719 | 0.737 | ||
Attitudes towards US Apple Growers | 0.503 | 0.476 | 0.501 | 0.743 | |
Subjective Apple Knowledge | 0.484 | 0.426 | 0.360 | 0.548 | 0.839 |
Heterotrait–Monotrait Ratio | |||||
Discerning Apple Buyer | |||||
Importance of Apple Commercial Attributes | 0.831 | ||||
Importance of Apple Physical Attributes | 0.713 | 1 | |||
Attitudes towards US Apple Growers | 0.588 | 0.614 | 0.618 | ||
Subjective Apple Knowledge | 0.566 | 0.546 | 0.417 | 0.635 |
Hypothesised Relationship | Coefficient | T Stat | p Value |
---|---|---|---|
H1a: Objective Apple Knowledge -> Discerning Apple Buyer | −0.008 | 0.191 | 0.848 |
H1b: Subjective Apple Knowledge -> Discerning Apple Buyer | 0.456 | 11.929 | 0.000 |
H2a: Gender -> Discerning Apple Buyer | −0.027 | 0.627 | 0.530 |
H2b: Age -> Discerning Apple Buyer | −0.077 | 1.773 | 0.076 |
H2c: Education -> Discerning Apple Buyer | 0.068 | 1.511 | 0.131 |
H2d: Income -> Discerning Apple Buyer | −0.054 | 1.206 | 0.228 |
H3a: Objective Apple Knowledge -> My Attitudes towards US Apple Growers | −0.086 | 2.133 | 0.033 |
H3b: Subjective Apple Knowledge -> My Attitudes towards US Apple Growers | 0.536 | 10.553 | 0.000 |
H4a: Gender -> My Attitudes towards US Apple Growers | −0.006 | 0.129 | 0.898 |
H4b: Age -> My Attitudes towards US Apple Growers | 0.031 | 0.729 | 0.466 |
H4c: Education -> My Attitudes towards US Apple Growers | 0.126 | 2.134 | 0.033 |
H4d: Income -> My Attitudes towards US Apple Growers | 0.005 | 0.140 | 0.889 |
H5: Discerning Apple Buyer -> Importance of Apple Physical Attributes | 0.428 | 7.142 | 0.000 |
H6: My Attitudes towards US Apple Growers -> Importance of Apple Physical Attributes | 0.286 | 4.776 | 0.000 |
H7: Discerning Apple Buyer -> Importance of Apple Commercial Attributes | 0.534 | 9.267 | 0.000 |
H8: My Attitudes towards US Apple Growers -> Importance of Apple Commercial Attributes | 0.208 | 3.586 | 0.000 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 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
Meike, R.; Dean, D.L.; Baird, T. Understanding Apple Attribute Preferences of US Consumers. Foods 2022, 11, 166. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods11020166
Meike R, Dean DL, Baird T. Understanding Apple Attribute Preferences of US Consumers. Foods. 2022; 11(2):166. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods11020166
Chicago/Turabian StyleMeike, Rombach, David L. Dean, and Tim Baird. 2022. "Understanding Apple Attribute Preferences of US Consumers" Foods 11, no. 2: 166. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods11020166
APA StyleMeike, R., Dean, D. L., & Baird, T. (2022). Understanding Apple Attribute Preferences of US Consumers. Foods, 11(2), 166. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods11020166