Market Price Determination for Ready-to-Cook Catfish Products: Insights from Experimental Auctions
Abstract
1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Experimental Auction Protocol
2.2. Market Price and Market Demand of Catfish Products
3. Results
3.1. Basic Characteristics of the Participants
3.2. Sensory Evaluation of the Ready-to-Cook Catfish Products
3.3. Market Price for Ready-to-Cook Catfish Products
3.4. Factors Influencing Market Price
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
Abbreviations
| PBSS | Panko-breaded standard catfish strips |
| PBSF | Panko-breaded standard catfish fillet |
| PBDF | Panko-breaded standard catfish fillet |
| SMDF | Sriracha-marinated delacata catfish fillet |
| SGMDF | Sesame-ginger-marinated delacata catfish fillet |
| JAR | Just About Right |
Appendix A
| Appearance | Color | Glossiness | Serving Size | Smell | Taste | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Appearance | 1.00 | |||||
| Color | 0.82 *** | 1.00 | ||||
| Glossiness | 0.30 *** | 0.25 *** | 1.00 | |||
| Serving size | 0.12 *** | 0.07 | 0.23 *** | 1.00 | ||
| Smell | 0.19 *** | 0.16 *** | 0.09 ** | 0.06 | 1.00 | |
| Taste | 0.14 *** | 0.14 *** | 0.08 ** | 0.04 | 0.61 *** | 1.00 |
| Texture | 0.19 *** | 0.21 *** | 0.13 *** | −0.03 | 0.51 *** | 0.64 *** |
| Smell intensity | −0.03 | 0.00 | 0.00 | −0.01 | −0.16 *** | −0.12 *** |
| Crispy | 0.13 *** | 0.15 *** | 0.04 | −0.09 ** | 0.24 *** | 0.32 *** |
| Saltiness | 0.06 | 0.07 * | 0.02 | 0.04 | 0.02 | 0.11 *** |
| Oily | 0.01 | 0.07 | −0.01 | 0.09 ** | 0.07 * | 0.05 |
| Juicy | 0.05 | 0.09 ** | 0.00 | 0.08 ** | 0.12 *** | 0.21 *** |
| JAR glossiness | 0.53 *** | 0.49 *** | 0.37 *** | −0.05 | 0.15 *** | 0.11 *** |
| JAR serving | 0.06 | 0.05 | 0.05 | 0.35 *** | 0.05 | 0.03 |
| JAR saltiness | −0.03 | −0.03 | −0.03 | −0.03 | 0.18 *** | 0.28 *** |
| JAR oiliness | 0.14 *** | 0.19 *** | 0.04 | −0.00 | 0.19 *** | 0.32 *** |
| JAR juiciness | 0.09 ** | 0.13 *** | 0.06 | 0.02 | 0.24 *** | 0.27 *** |
| Age | 0.10 ** | 0.08 ** | 0.09 ** | 0.03 | 0.05 | −0.02 |
| DFemale | −0.01 | −0.04 | −0.04 | 0.09 *** | −0.02 | −0.09 ** |
| DAfrAm | −0.15 *** | −0.11 *** | −0.12 *** | −0.11 *** | −0.03 | −0.05 |
| DGradaute | 0.18 *** | 0.15 *** | 0.15 *** | 0.14 *** | 0.01 | 0.05 |
| DMyself | 0.06 | 0.05 | 0.05 | −0.02 | 0.03 | −0.04 |
| DIncA60k | 0.07 * | 0.12 *** | 0.12 *** | 0.05 | 0.08 ** | 0.16 *** |
| Panel size | −0.08 ** | −0.08 * | −0.10 ** | −0.09 ** | −0.09 ** | −0.06 |
| Texture | Smell Intensity | Crispy | Saltiness | Oily | Juicy | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Texture | 1.00 | |||||
| Smell intensity | 0.02 | 1.00 | ||||
| Crispy | 0.44 *** | 0.03 | 1.00 | |||
| Saltiness | −0.02 | 0.10 ** | 0.03 | 1.00 | ||
| Oily | 0.06 | 0.16 *** | 0.02 | 0.13 *** | 1.00 | |
| Juicy | 0.25 *** | 0.05 | 0.12 *** | 0.08 ** | 0.37 *** | 1.00 |
| JAR glossiness | 0.12 *** | −0.03 | 0.12 *** | 0.04 | 0.01 | −0.02 |
| JAR serving | −0.01 | 0.05 | 0.01 | 0.02 | 0.11 *** | 0.03 |
| JAR saltiness | 0.20 *** | −0.03 | 0.11 *** | −0.58 *** | 0.00 | 0.08 * |
| JAR oiliness | 0.37 *** | 0.03 | 0.24 *** | −0.08 ** | 0.21 *** | 0.24 *** |
| JAR juiciness | 0.37 *** | −0.02 | 0.21 *** | −0.03 | 0.16 *** | 0.38 *** |
| Age | 0.06 | −0.03 | 0.11 *** | 0.15 *** | −0.03 | −0.03 |
| DFemale | −0.07 * | 0.03 | −0.11 *** | 0.08 * | 0.01 | −0.01 |
| DAfrAm | −0.06 | −0.07 * | −0.00 | −0.13 *** | −0.08 ** | −0.05 |
| DGradaute | 0.08 * | 0.05 | 0.08 ** | 0.24 *** | 0.05 | 0.06 |
| DMyself | 0.03 | −0.1 ** | 0.06 | 0.09 ** | 0.02 | 0.01 |
| DIncA60k | 0.12 *** | 0.02 | 0.04 | 0.07 * | 0.02 | 0.03 |
| Panel size | −0.17 *** | 0.00 | −0.03 | −0.03 | 0.09** | −0.00 |
| JAR Glossiness | JAR Serving | JAR Saltiness | JAR Oiliness | JAR Juiciness | Age | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| JAR glossiness | 1.00 | |||||
| JAR serving | 0.22 *** | 1.00 | ||||
| JAR saltiness | −0.05 | −0.05 | 1.00 | |||
| JAR oiliness | 0.11 *** | 0.06 | 0.24 *** | 1.00 | ||
| JAR juiciness | 0.05 | 0.11 *** | 0.15 *** | 0.38 *** | 1.00 | |
| Age | 0.14 *** | 0.01 | −0.11 *** | −0.06 | −0.04 | 1.00 |
| DFemale | −0.03 | 0.23 *** | −0.13 *** | −0.04 | 0.02 | 0.11 *** |
| DAfrAm | −0.08 * | 0.08 * | 0.10 ** | −0.01 | 0.01 | −0.17 *** |
| DGradaute | 0.07 * | −0.02 | −0.18 *** | 0.02 | −0.05 | 0.18 *** |
| DMyself | 0.07 * | −0.03 | −0.06 | −0.04 | 0.01 | 0.23 *** |
| DIncA60k | 0.04 | 0.07 * | −0.09 ** | −0.02 | −0.00 | 0.17 *** |
| Panel size | −0.04 | −0.06 | 0.04 | −0.00 | −0.02 | −0.09 ** |
| DFemale | DAfrAm | DGrad. | DMyself | DIncA60k | Panel Size | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DFemale | 1.00 | |||||
| DAfrAm | 0.12 *** | 1.00 | ||||
| DGradaute | −0.10 ** | −0.51 *** | 1.00 | |||
| DMyself | 0.05 | 0.00 | 0.06 | 1.00 | ||
| DIncA60k | 0.05 | −0.24 *** | 0.14 *** | −0.13 *** | 1.00 | |
| Panel size | 0 | 0.23 *** | −0.18 *** | 0.08 | −0.28 *** | 1.00 |
References
- Harris, J.M.; Shiptsova, R. Consumer Demand for Convenience Foods: Demographics and Expenditures. J. Food Distrib. Res. 2007, 38, 15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carrigan, M.; Attalla, A. The myth of the ethical consumer—Do ethics matter in purchase behaviour? J. Consum. Mark. 2001, 18, 560–578. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nelson, P. Information and Consumer Behavior. J. Political Econ. 1970, 78, 311–329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dey, M.M.; Rabbani, A.G.; Singh, K.; Engle, C.R. Determinants of retail price and sales volume of catfish products in the United States: An application of retail scanner data. Aquac. Econ. Manag. 2014, 18, 120–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Govindasamy, R.; Italia, J.; Zurbriggen, M.; Hossain, F. Predicting Consumer Willingness-to-Purchase Value-Added Products at Direct Agricultural Markets. J. Food Prod. Mark. 2002, 8, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Thong, N.T.; Solgaard, H.S. Consumer’s food motives and seafood consumption. Food Qual. Prefer. 2017, 56, 181–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Furst, T.; Connors, M.; Bisogni, C.A.; Sobal, J.; Falk, L.W. Food Choice: A Conceptual Model of the Process. Appetite 1996, 26, 247–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shepherd, R. Factors influencing food preferences and choice. In Handbook of the Psychophysiology of Human Eating; John Wiley and Sons: New York, NY, USA, 1989; pp. 3–24. [Google Scholar]
- Gallardo, R.K.; Kupferman, E.; Colonna, A. Willingness to pay for optimal ’Anjou’pear quality. HortScience 2011, 46, 452–456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kotler, P.; Keller, K.L. Marketing Management, 14th ed.; Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Ainslie, A.; Rossi, P.E. Similarities in Choice Behavior Across Product Categories. Mark. Sci. 1998, 17, 91–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rabin, M. Psychology and Economics. J. Econ. Lit. 1998, 36, 11–46. [Google Scholar]
- Bi, X.; House, L.; Gao, Z.; Gmitter, F. Sensory Evaluation and Experimental Auctions: Measuring Willingness to Pay for Specific Sensory Attributes. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 2012, 94, 562–568. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Costanigro, M.; Kroll, S.; Thilmany, D.; Bunning, M. Is it love for local/organic or hate for conventional? Asymmetric effects of information and taste on label preferences in an experimental auction. Food Qual. Prefer. 2014, 31, 94–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dinis, I.; Simoes, O.; Moreira, J. Using sensory experiments to determine consumers’ willingness to pay for traditional apple varieties. Span. J. Agric. Res. 2011, 9, 351–362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Breidert, C.; Hahsler, M.; Reutterer, T. A review of methods for measuring willingness-to-pay. Innov. Mark. 2006, 2, 8–32. [Google Scholar]
- Dey, M.M.; Surathkal, P.; Chen, O.L.; Engle, C.R. Market trends for seafood products in the USA: Implications for Southern aquaculture products. Aquac. Econ. Manag. 2017, 21, 25–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Singh, K.; Dey, M.M.; Surathkal, P. Analysis of a Demand System for Unbreaded Frozen Seafood in the United States Using Store-level Scanner Data. Mar. Resour. Econ. 2012, 27, 371–387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Singh, K.; Dey, M.M.; Surathkal, P. Seasonal and Spatial Variations in Demand for and Elasticities of Fish Products in the United States: An Analysis Based on Market-Level Scanner Data. Can. J. Agri. Econ. 2014, 62, 343–363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Surathkal, P.; Dey, M.M.; Engle, C.R.; Chidmi, B.; Singh, K. Consumer demand for frozen seafood product categories in the United States. Aquac. Econ. Manag. 2017, 21, 9–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alfnes, F.; Rickertsen, K. European Consumers’ Willingness to Pay for U.S. Beef in Experimental Auction Markets. Am. J. Agri. Econ. 2003, 85, 396–405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Demont, M.; Rutsaert, P.; Ndour, M.; Verbeke, W.; Seck, P.A.; Tollens, E. Experimental auctions, collective induction and choice shift: Willingness-to-pay for rice quality in Senegal. Eur. Rev. Agric. Econ. 2013, 40, 261–286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hung, Y.; Verbeke, W. Sensory attributes shaping consumers’ willingness-to-pay for newly developed processed meat products with natural compounds and a reduced level of nitrite. Food Qual. Prefer. 2018, 70, 21–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Melton, B.E.; Huffman, W.E.; Shogren, J.F. Economic Values of Pork Attributes: Hedonic Price Analysis of Experimental Auction Data. Appl. Econ. Perspect. Policy 1996, 18, 613–627. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Uchida, H.; Onozaka, Y.; Morita, T.; Managi, S. Demand for ecolabeled seafood in the Japanese market: A conjoint analysis of the impact of information and interaction with other labels. Food Policy 2014, 44, 68–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wakamatsu, H.; Anderson, C.M.; Uchida, H.; Roheim, C.A. Pricing Ecolabeled Seafood Products with Heterogeneous Preferences: An Auction Experiment in Japan. Mar. Resour. Econ. 2017, 32, 277–294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Umberger, W.J.; Feuz, D.M. The Usefulness of Experimental Auctions in Determining Consumers’ Willingness-to-Pay for Quality-Differentiated Products. Rev. Agric. Econ. 2004, 26, 170–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Adhikari, S.; Deb, U.; Dey, M.M.; Xie, L.; Khanal, N.B.; Grimm, C.C.; Bland, J.M.; Bechtel, P.J. Consumers’ willingness-to-pay for convenient catfish products: Results from experimental auctions in Arkansas. Aquac. Econ. Manag. 2021, 25, 135–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Deb, U.K.; Dey, M.M.; Adhikari, S.; Khanal, N.B.; Gosh, K.; Xie, L.; Bechtel, P.J.; Bland, J.M.; Grimm, C.C.; Brashear, S.; et al. Convenient (Ready-to-Cook) Catfish Products: The Development Process, Sensory Attributes, and Consumers’ Evaluation. J. Agric. Environ. Consum. Sci. 2020, 20, 5–18. [Google Scholar]
- Khanal, N.B.; Deb, U.K.; Adhikari, S.; Dey, M.M. Taste and value: Exploring sensory acceptance and willingness-to-pay for convenient farm-raised catfish products through experimental auction. Aquac. Econ. Manag. 2025, 30, 1–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dey, M.M.; Rahman, M.S.; Dewan, M.F.; Sudhakaran, P.O.; Deb, U.; Khan, M.A. Consumers’ willingness to pay for safer fish: Evidence from experimental auctions in Bangladesh. Aquac. Econ. Manag. 2024, 28, 460–490. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lusk, J.; Shogren, J.F. Experimental Auctions: Methods and Applications in Economic and Marketing Research; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK; New York, NY, USA, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Bland, J.M.; Grimm, C.C.; Bechtel, P.J.; Deb, U.; Dey, M.M. Proximate Composition and Nutritional Attributes of Ready-to-Cook Catfish Products. Foods 2021, 10, 2716. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- USCB U.S. Census Bureau QuickFacts: United States. 2024. Available online: https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/RHI125223 (accessed on 10 September 2025).
- Engle, C.R.; Dellenbarger, L.E.; Hatch, U.; Capps, O.J.; Dillare, J.; Kinnucan, H.; Pomeroy, R.S. The U.S. market for farm-raised catfish: An overview of consumer, supermarket and restaurant surveys. In Arkansas Agricultural Experiment Station; University of Arkansas: Pine Bluff, AR, USA, 1990; p. 25. [Google Scholar]
- Riepe, R. Marketing Seafood to Restaurants in the North Central Region. North Central Regional Aquaculture Center in Cooperation with USDA. 1998. Available online: https://www.ncrac.org/files/inline-files/ncrac110_0.pdf (accessed on 10 September 2025).
- Cheng, H.; Capps, O. Demand Analysis of Fresh and Frozen Finfish and Shellfish in the United States. Am. J. Agri. Econ. 1988, 70, 533–542. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kinnucan, H.W.; Venkateswaran, M. Effects of Generic Advertising on Perceptions and Behavior: The Case of Catfish. J. Agric. Appl. Econ. 1990, 22, 137–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Myrland, Ø.; Trondsen, T.; Johnston, R.S.; Lund, E. Determinants of seafood consumption in Norway: Lifestyle, revealed preferences, and barriers to consumption. Food Qual. Prefer. 2000, 11, 169–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nayga, R.M.; Capps, O. Factors Affecting the Probability of Consuming Fish and Shellfish in the Away from Home and at Home Markets. J. Agric. Appl. Econ. 1995, 27, 161–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brooks, P.M.; Andersen, J.L. Effects of retail pricing, seasonality and advertising on fresh seafood sales. J. Bus. Econ. Stud. 1991, 1, 77–90. [Google Scholar]
- Carroll, M.T.; Anderson, J.L.; Martínez-Garmendia, J. Pricing U.S. North Atlantic bluefin tuna and implications for management. Agribus. Int. J. 2001, 17, 243–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McConnell, K.E.; Strand, I.E. Hedonic Prices for Fish: Tuna Prices in Hawaii. Am. J. Agri. Econ. 2000, 82, 133–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Asche, F.; Guillen, J. The importance of fishing method, gear and origin: The Spanish hake market. Mar. Policy 2012, 36, 365–369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nurse Rainbolt, G.; Onozaka, Y.; McFadden, D.T. Consumer Motivations and Buying Behavior: The Case of the Local Food System Movement. J. Food Prod. Mark. 2012, 18, 385–396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Boleware, V.; Dillard, J.G. Consumer Awareness and Acceptance of Farm Raised Catfish-Second Survey. In MAFES Information Bulletins; Mississippi State University: Starkville, MS, USA, 1984; Volume 14, Available online: https://scholarsjunction.msstate.edu/mafes-info-bulletins/14?utm_source=scholarsjunction.msstate.edu%2Fmafes-info-bulletins%2F14&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages (accessed on 10 September 2025).
- Dixon, D.A., Jr.; Miller, J.S.; Conner, J.R.; Waldrop, J.E. Survey of Market Channels for Farm-raised Catfish. In AEC Research Report; Mississippi State University, Department of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Forestry Experiment Station: Starkville, MS, USA, 1982. [Google Scholar]
- Drammeh, L.; House, L.; Sureshwaran, S.; Selassie, H. Analysis of factors influencing the frequency of catfish consumption in the United States. In Proceedings of the 2002 American Agricultural Economics Association Annual Meeting, Long Beach, CA, USA, 28–31 July 2002. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dellenbarger, L.E.; Dillard, J.; Schupp, A.R.; Zapata, H.O.; Young, B.T. Socioeconomic factors associated with at-home and away-from home catfish consumption in the United States. Agribusiness 1992, 8, 35–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brunner, T.A.; Van Der Horst, K.; Siegrist, M. Convenience Food Products. Drivers for Consumption. Appetite 2010, 55, 498–506. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shafer, W.; Sonnenschein, H. Chapter 14 Market demand and excess demand functions. In Handbook of Mathematical Economics; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1982; pp. 671–693. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Froehlich, E.J.; Carlberg, J.G.; Ward, C.E. Willingness-to-Pay for Fresh Brand Name Beef. Can. J. Agric. Econ. 2009, 57, 119–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Marn, M.V.; Roegner, E.V.; Zawada, C.C. The Power of Pricing McKinsey and Company. 2002. Available online: https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/growth-marketing-and-sales/our-insights/the-power-of-pricing (accessed on 10 September 2025).
- Gall, K.L.; Otwell, W.S.; Koburgier, J.A.; Appledorf, H. Effects of Four Cooking Methods on the Proximate, Mineral and Fatty Acid Composition of Fish Fillets. J. Food Sci. 1983, 48, 1068–1074. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gulati, S.; Misra, A. Abdominal obesity and type 2 diabetes in Asian Indians: Dietary strategies including edible oils, cooking practices and sugar intake. Eur. J. Clin. Nutr. 2017, 71, 850–857. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moumtaz, S.; Percival, B.C.; Parmar, D.; Grootveld, K.L.; Jansson, P.; Grootveld, M. Toxic aldehyde generation in and food uptake from culinary oils during frying practices: Peroxidative resistance of a monounsaturate-rich algae oil. Sci. Rep. 2019, 9, 4125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Raatz, S.K.; Golovko, M.Y.; Brose, S.A.; Rosenberger, T.A.; Burr, G.S.; Wolters, W.R.; Picklo, M.J. Baking Reduces Prostaglandin, Resolvin, and Hydroxy-Fatty Acid Content of Farm-Raised Atlantic Salmon (Salmo salar). J. Agric. Food Chem. 2011, 59, 11278–11286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rodríguez-Ayala, M.; Banegas, J.R.; Ortolá, R.; Gorostidi, M.; Donat-Vargas, C.; Rodríguez-Artalejo, F.; Guallar-Castillón, P. Cooking methods are associated with inflammatory factors, renal function, and other hormones and nutritional biomarkers in older adults. Sci. Rep. 2022, 12, 16483. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

| Participants Rating | PBSS | PBSF | PBDF | SMDF | SGMDF |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Appearance score (1 to 5) | 3.34 (0.84) | 3.34 (0.87) | 3.61 (0.80) | 2.26 (1.14) | 1.80 (0.98) |
| Color score (1 to 5) | 3.46 (0.82) | 3.45 (0.94) | 3.54 (0.91) | 2.45 (1.22) | 1.81 (0.93) |
| Smell score (1 to 5) | 3.43 (0.81) | 3.35 (0.74) | 3.68 (0.86) | 3.33 (0.85) | 3.22 (0.95) |
| Taste score (1 to 5) | 3.54 (0.96) | 3.36 (1.02) | 3.82 (0.84) | 3.38 (1.03) | 3.31 (1.04) |
| Texture score (1 to 5) | 3.63 (0.85) | 3.51 (0.88) | 3.70 (0.92) | 3.27 (1.00) | 3.31 (1.04) |
| Glossiness JAR (% of participants) | 69.4 | 70.2 | 73.6 | 47.9 | 33.9 |
| Serving size JAR (% of participants) | 55.4 | 73.6 | 73.6 | 63.6 | 66.9 |
| Crispiness JAR (% of participants) | 52.9 | 45.5 | 42.1 | NA | NA |
| Saltiness JAR (% of participants) | 45.5 | 52.9 | 59.5 | 54.5 | 48.8 |
| Oiliness JAR (% of participants) | 71.9 | 74.4 | 85.1 | 68.6 | 61.2 |
| Juiciness JAR (% of participants) | 71.9 | 71.1 | 77.7 | 58.7 | 64.5 |
| Overall liking score (1 to 9) | 6.22 (1.80) | 5.98 (1.92) | 6.77 (1.51) | 5.70 (2.01) | 5.51 (2.11) |
| Appearance score (1 to 5) | 3.34 (0.84) | 3.34 (0.87) | 3.61 (0.80) | 2.26 (1.14) | 1.80 (0.98) |
| Color score (1 to 5) | 3.46 (0.82) | 3.45 (0.94) | 3.54 (0.91) | 2.45 (1.22) | 1.81 (0.93) |
| Panel Size a | Number of Observations b | Average Market Price for the Product (Before Tasting) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PBSS (80 gm) | PBSF (110 gm) | PBDF (110 gm) | SMDF (110 gm) | SGMDF (110 gm) | ||
| 3 | 1 | 2.25 (NA) | 3.00 (NA) | 3.50 (NA) | 2.50 (NA) | 2.00 (NA) |
| 4 | 3 | 4.33 (2.31) | 4.50 (1.32) | 4.55 (2.21) | 2.19 (0.65) | 3.18 (0.99) |
| 5 | 2 | 2.63 (0.88) | 3.13 (0.53 | 3.00 (0.70) | 2.50 (0.71) | 2.50 (0.71) |
| 6 | 4 | 3.44 (1.26) | 3.75 (1.50) | 3.88 (1.09) | 3.81 (0.55) | 2.69 (0.85) |
| 7 | 1 | 5.00 (NA) | 5.00 (NA) | 5.00 (NA) | 1.10 (NA) | 1.50 (NA) |
| 8 | 2 | 2.88 (0.18) | 3.75 (0.35) | 5.00 (1.41) | 3.50 (0.71) | 4.25 (1.06) |
| 9 | 2 | 3.38 (0.88) | 4.50 (0.00) | 4.38 (0.88) | 4.50 (0.71) | 3.75 (0.35) |
| 10 | 2 | 4.50 (0.71) | 4.63 (0.53) | 5.33 (0.46) | 4.75 (0.35) | 4.00 (0.00) |
| 11 | 1 | 4.11 (NA) | 7.00 (NA) | 7.00 (NA) | 4.00 (NA) | 3.00 (NA) |
| All Panels | 18 | 3.60 (1.28) | 4.19 (1.22) | 4.45 (1.38) | 3.33 (1.15) | 3.10 (0.98) |
| Panel Size a | Number of Observations b | Average Market Price for the Product (Before Tasting) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PBSS (80 gm) | PBSF (110 gm) | PBDF (110 gm) | SMDF (110 gm) | SGMDF (110 gm) | ||
| 3 | 1 | 1.50 (NA) | 3.00 (NA) | 3.50 (NA) | 2.50 (NA) | 2.00 (NA) |
| 4 | 3 | 2.66 (2.08) | 2.00 (1.00) | 3.50 (1.32) | 2.46 (0.50) | 4.17 (2.02) |
| 5 | 2 | 2.63 (1.24) | 3.00 (0.71) | 3.13 (0.88) | 2.08 (0.11) | 2.50 (0.71) |
| 6 | 4 | 2.94 (0.97) | 2.81 (1.25) | 3.75 (1.32) | 3.19 (0.94) | 3.69 (0.94) |
| 7 | 1 | 5.00 (NA) | 3.00 (NA) | 5.00 (NA) | 2.00 (NA) | 3.00 (NA) |
| 8 | 2 | 3.75 (1.06) | 3.50 (0.71) | 4.50 (0.71) | 3.88 (0.18) | 3.75 (1.06) |
| 9 | 2 | 2.88 (0.53) | 3.13 (0.88) | 4.00 (0.00) | 3.00 (0.00) | 3.50 (0.71) |
| 10 | 2 | 5.75 (0.35) | 5.00 (0.01) | 6.78 (1.73) | 6.00 (0.00) | 4.94 (1.33) |
| 11 | 1 | 5.00 (NA) | 8.00 (NA) | 8.99 (NA) | 6.00 (NA) | 7.00 (NA) |
| All Panels | 18 | 3.40 (1.51) | 3.36 (1.59) | 4.43 (1.79) | 3.36 (1.40) | 3.81 (1.44) |
| Variable | Before Tasting the Products | After Tasting the Products | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coefficient | Std. Err. | Coefficient | Std. Err. | |
| Appearance | 0.064 *** | 0.022 | −0.007 | 0.021 |
| Glossiness JAR | 0.127 ** | 0.052 | 0.127 ** | 0.052 |
| Serving size JAR | 0.009 | 0.048 | −0.043 | 0.047 |
| Smell | - | - | 0.066 ** | 0.034 |
| Taste | - | - | 0.128 *** | 0.032 |
| Texture | - | - | −0.006 | 0.032 |
| Smell intensity | - | - | −0.020 | 0.039 |
| Crispiness JAR | - | - | 0.036 | 0.046 |
| Saltiness JAR | - | - | 0.065 | 0.045 |
| Oiliness JAR | - | - | 0.065 | 0.057 |
| Juiciness JAR | - | - | 0.012 | 0.052 |
| Age | −0.003 * | 0.002 | −0.001 | 0.002 |
| Dummy for female | −0.039 | 0.045 | 0.012 | 0.044 |
| Dummy for African American | 0.095 * | 0.052 | 0.043 | 0.052 |
| Dummy for graduate | −0.236 *** | 0.056 | −0.308 *** | 0.058 |
| Dummy for myself | −0.117 *** | 0.044 | −0.168 *** | 0.044 |
| Consumes fish frequently | 0.096 ** | 0.045 | 0.165 *** | 0.046 |
| Family income ≥ $60 k | 0.185 *** | 0.049 | 0.132 *** | 0.049 |
| Panel size | −0.062 *** | 0.010 | −0.060 *** | 0.010 |
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. |
© 2026 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.
Share and Cite
Adhikari, S.; Deb, U.K.; Khanal, N.B.; Dey, M.M.; Xie, L. Market Price Determination for Ready-to-Cook Catfish Products: Insights from Experimental Auctions. Gastronomy 2026, 4, 3. https://doi.org/10.3390/gastronomy4010003
Adhikari S, Deb UK, Khanal NB, Dey MM, Xie L. Market Price Determination for Ready-to-Cook Catfish Products: Insights from Experimental Auctions. Gastronomy. 2026; 4(1):3. https://doi.org/10.3390/gastronomy4010003
Chicago/Turabian StyleAdhikari, Saroj, Uttam Kumar Deb, Nabin B. Khanal, Madan M. Dey, and Lin Xie. 2026. "Market Price Determination for Ready-to-Cook Catfish Products: Insights from Experimental Auctions" Gastronomy 4, no. 1: 3. https://doi.org/10.3390/gastronomy4010003
APA StyleAdhikari, S., Deb, U. K., Khanal, N. B., Dey, M. M., & Xie, L. (2026). Market Price Determination for Ready-to-Cook Catfish Products: Insights from Experimental Auctions. Gastronomy, 4(1), 3. https://doi.org/10.3390/gastronomy4010003

