Consumer Perception and Willingness to Purchase Chicken Meat from Algae-Fed Broilers: A Survey in Flanders (Belgium)
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe article discusses an important aspect of using algae in meat production. It introduces the subject of the importance of searching for new solutions related to the preparation of poultry feed, aspects of market research, and the preferences of meat consumers, as well as contributes by preparing consumers for the changes introduced. Below (within each section), the areas worthy of improvement are indicated.
Abstract:
Line 28: Due to the sample size (n=275), the results refer mainly to it and not to the entire population of the country. Please rephrase the sentence “Despite limited general knowledge about microalgae, Flemish consumers are open to the idea of algae-fed chicken meat, particularly when it is framed as more sustainable.”
Materials and Methods:
- Lines 82-85: Figure 1 is signed with a very extensive sentence; it is worth shortening the description and moving the rest to the main text.
- No indication of how respondents were selected. It was described that social media (LinkedIn, Facebook, and personal communication) was used, but how and to whom was the first wave directed? To anyone who looked at the page/account, or regular "readers", snowball, etc.?
- No indication of the reasons for specifying the research sample at n=275 (aim à n=200). How does it relate to the population of people consuming meat/ chicken meat in the country being studied? There is no statement that the authors are aware that meat consumers also include people who do not use social media (e.g., as an addition to the study's limitations). If these are the results of a pilot study, then it is also worth providing at least one sentence.
Results:
- Line 265: missing literature reference in square brackets "[14]".
- Line 270: in the sentence “The survey results of Flemish consumers indicated that 80.9% would buy algae-fed chicken meat if it had a yellower color.” There is a reference to the entire population, not the study group…
- Lines 294-295: After Pinto da Rosa (2021) is missing a literature reference in square brackets "[17]".
Conclusions:
- There is no indication of the limitations of the study conducted, e.g., it was only aimed at people active in social media, the results refer to the study group and not the entire Belgian population, etc., as well as directions for future research to supplement, for example, the above-mentioned limitations.
- The authors can also indicate the benefits of the research conducted, and what can it be useful for?
References:
- In my opinion, there is quite little literature on the subject; it is worth adding a few more items (publications from 2020-2025), research results from outside Europe, e.g., the use of algae in the diets of other animals and humans.
- Line 395: In bibliography no. 17, a strange abbreviation is used: " P.; B., P.Á.; I., D.V.A.; R., G.C.; T., A.F.; J., da S.C.; M., B.; V. F. B., (...). Please verify whether this record is consistent with the journal format. For example, in bibliography no. 16 (line 391) the following entry is already used: Potter, C.; Bastounis, A.; Hartmann-Boyce, J.; Stewart, C.; Frie, K.; Tudor, K.; Bianchi, F.; Cartwright, E.; Cook, B.; Rayner, M.; et al.
Author Response
Reviewer 1:
Question 1:
The article discusses an important aspect of using algae in meat production. It introduces the subject of the importance of searching for new solutions related to the preparation of poultry feed, aspects of market research, and the preferences of meat consumers, as well as contributes by preparing consumers for the changes introduced. Below (within each section), the areas worthy of improvement are indicated.
Answer 1:
Thank you very much for this overall feedback.
Question 2:
Line 28: Due to the sample size (n=275), the results refer mainly to it and not to the entire population of the country. Please rephrase the sentence “Despite limited general knowledge about microalgae, Flemish consumers are open to the idea of algae-fed chicken meat, particularly when it is framed as more sustainable.”
Answer 2: The sentence was replaced by: ‘the consumers surveyed are open to the idea of algae-fed chicken meat, particularly when it is framed as more sustainable’.
Question 3:
- Lines 82-85: Figure 1 is signed with a very extensive sentence; it is worth shortening the description and moving the rest to the main text.
Answer 3: The info was indeed already mentioned extensively in the main text. So I removed it from the caption.
Question 4:
- No indication of how respondents were selected. It was described that social media (LinkedIn, Facebook, and personal communication) was used, but how and to whom was the first wave directed? To anyone who looked at the page/account, or regular "readers", snowball, etc.?
Answer 4:
Following sentence was added: ‘The questionnaire was initially distributed via the authors’ professional and personal social media networks (e.g., LinkedIn connections and Facebook friends) in several waves on a weekly basis. It was also shared within other people’s networks, creating a snowball effect.’
Question 5:
- No indication of the reasons for specifying the research sample at n=275 (aim à n=200). How does it relate to the population of people consuming meat/ chicken meat in the country being studied? There is no statement that the authors are aware that meat consumers also include people who do not use social media (e.g., as an addition to the study's limitations). If these are the results of a pilot study, then it is also worth providing at least one sentence.
Answer 5: We did not distribute the survey through a survey agency. Therefore, an expert told us, aiming for 200 respondents was realistic. This is indeed a limitation of the survey, which will be added in the discussion. Indeed, not everyone is active on social media. However, also emails were send and through oral communication, more people (eg older people not active on socials) were reached. However, this is also further discussed now.
Question 6:
- Line 265: missing literature reference in square brackets "[14]".
Answer 6: The reference number was added.
Question 7:
- Line 270: in the sentence “The survey results of Flemish consumers indicated that 80.9% would buy algae-fed chicken meat if it had a yellower color.” There is a reference to the entire population, not the study group…
Answer 7: ‘The Flemish consumers’ was removed from the text.
Question 8:
- Lines 294-295: After Pinto da Rosa (2021) is missing a literature reference in square brackets "[17]".
Answer 8: The reference number was added.
Question 9:
Conclusion: There is no indication of the limitations of the study conducted, e.g., it was only aimed at people active in social media, the results refer to the study group and not the entire Belgian population, etc., as well as directions for future research to supplement, for example, the above-mentioned limitations.
Answer 9: The limitations were added and mentioned for future research. This is also mentioned in the discussion now. We now also refer to the study group, not to the entire population.
Question 10:
- The authors can also indicate the benefits of the research conducted, and what can it be useful for?
Answer 10: The following was added to the conclusion: ‘This research highlighted the importance of customized marketing for different demographic groups. It can contribute to a better understanding and acceptance of the use of algae in broiler diets. In further research, larger population groups should be studied, and choice experiments should be included. ’
Question 11:
References:
- In my opinion, there is quite little literature on the subject; it is worth adding a few more items (publications from 2020-2025), research results from outside Europe, e.g., the use of algae in the diets of other animals and humans.
Answer 11: More references were added in the discussion on the use of algae in chicken diets (Kang, Mirzaie, Park, Abdel-Moneim). However, no more studies were found specifically on the topic this article covers.
Question 12:
- Line 395: In bibliography no. 17, a strange abbreviation is used: " P.; B., P.Á.; I., D.V.A.; R., G.C.; T., A.F.; J., da S.C.; M., B.; V. F. B., (...). Please verify whether this record is consistent with the journal format. For example, in bibliography no. 16 (line 391) the following entry is already used: Potter, C.; Bastounis, A.; Hartmann-Boyce, J.; Stewart, C.; Frie, K.; Tudor, K.; Bianchi, F.; Cartwright, E.; Cook, B.; Rayner, M.; et al.
Answer 12: The references were edited.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsIntroduction
L 55-57 - Remove the information, due to insect meal not be the work issue
L48-63 - Is very focused on bibliographic review. Authors must enter other information regarding the importance of the proposed study. In particular, focus on the types of algae studied, the different social classes evaluated (and informations described in L103-105), and the importance of having differentiated products to be offered on the market
M&M - OK
Results
L220-227 - It is tiring to read, and completely repetitive of table 2. Authors should change the way of writing, to call the data in a more interconnected way, leaving their analysis to table 2
Table 2 - Change "B" for "beta-symbol"
Also, data from table 2 can be better presented in graphs
Discussion - is written in a very superficial way, and in parts, repeating the information present in the results. It must explain the findings, pointing out the implications of each of the studies in the poultry chain, in particular, in making decisions on whether or not to use algae in broiler feed.
Conclusion - should be more direct and summarized, responding to the objectives of the work
Author Response
Reviewer 2:
Question 1:
L 55-57 - Remove the information, due to insect meal not be the work issue
Answer 1: We chose to retain the information, since it is important to address the whole study Altmann performed. Because the study describes a choice experiment, and choices are always made relatively to other options. In this case, Spirulina, insect meal and a conventional diet.
Question 2:
L48-63 - Is very focused on bibliographic review. Authors must enter other information regarding the importance of the proposed study. In particular, focus on the types of algae studied, the different social classes evaluated (and informations described in L103-105), and the importance of having differentiated products to be offered on the market
Answer 2: Thanks for the remark, we removed the bibliographic review and the following was added in the introduction: ‘Microalgae such as Chlorella vulgaris and Spirulina (Arthrospira) platensis therefore show potential as a sustainable replacements for antibiotic growth promotors. Also macroalgae (seaweed, e.g., Ulva spp.) can have potential beneficial effects for poultry health. Furthermore, microalgae (particularly Spirulina sp. and Chlorella sp.) are rich in protein and thus show potential as a source of protein in poultry feed [3]. ‘
‘The population of Flanders was approximated as closely as possible by covering different groups of age, gender, degree, income, place of residence and dietary lifestyle preferences (omnivore, flexitarian, vegetarian, vegan or pescatarian). This way, the study can provide group-specific recommendations and highlight the importance of differentiated products on the market.’
Question 3:
L220-227 - It is tiring to read, and completely repetitive of table 2. Authors should change the way of writing, to call the data in a more interconnected way, leaving their analysis to table 2
Answer 3: Thanks for this valuable remark. We indeed rephrased these paragraphs and made them more connected to table 2.
Question 4:
Table 2 - Change "B" for "beta-symbol"
Answer 4: done as requested
Question 5:
Also, data from table 2 can be better presented in graphs
Answer 5: Because there is a large amount of data in this table, this would end up in too many graphs and the beta values are actually of the most importance, therefore it is important to report them. Generally, in other survey articles are read, beta values, together with SD and P values are reported in tables. However, indeed, as you mentioned in your remark above, we will remove the repetition of the values in the main text and make the text more connected with the table.
Question 6:
Discussion - is written in a very superficial way, and in parts, repeating the information present in the results. It must explain the findings, pointing out the implications of each of the studies in the poultry chain, in particular, in making decisions on whether or not to use algae in broiler feed.
Answer 6: The discussion was extended mentioning limitations, benefits of algae for chicken health. And recommendations for the sector.
Question 7:
Conclusion - should be more direct and summarized, responding to the objectives of the work
Answer 7: The conclusion was shortened: ‘This study showed that general consumer knowledge about microalgae such as Chlorella and Spirulina is limited in the population studied. However, consumers are willing to purchase yellower chicken meat produced with algae, especially when linked to more sustainable production. Taste, safety, health, and sustainability were key motivations, while education level, sustainability beliefs, age, and price also influenced purchasing decisions. Transparent communication, including clear labeling and education about the benefits of algae in animal feed, can further strengthen consumer acceptance and support the transition toward a more sustainable food system. This research highlighted the importance of customized marketing for different demographic groups. In further research, larger population groups should be studied, and choice experiments should be included.’
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsManuscript is able for acceptance
