Mexican consumers at the point of meat purchase. Pork choice

Accepted Manuscript Mexican consumers at the point of meat purchase. Pork choice

T.M. Ngapo, M.S. Rubio Lozano, D. Braña Varela PII: DOI: Reference:

S0309-1740(17)30450-3 doi: 10.1016/j.meatsci.2017.08.005 MESC 7338

To appear in:

Meat Science

Received date: Revised date: Accepted date:

21 April 2017 15 August 2017 15 August 2017

Please cite this article as: T.M. Ngapo, M.S. Rubio Lozano, D. Braña Varela , Mexican consumers at the point of meat purchase. Pork choice. The address for the corresponding author was captured as affiliation for all authors. Please check if appropriate. Mesc(2017), doi: 10.1016/j.meatsci.2017.08.005

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Mexican consumers at the point of meat purchase. Pork choice. T. M. Ngapo*a, M. S. Rubio Lozanob, D. Braña Varelac. a

Saint Hyacinthe Research and Development Centre, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada,

3600 boul. Casavant Ouest, St-Hyacinthe, Québec, Canada, J2S 8E3 b

PT

Meat Science Laboratory, Centro de Enseñanza Práctica e Investigación en Producción y

Salud Animal, Facultad de Medicina Veterinaria y Zootecnia, Universidad Nacional

Elanco Animal Health, Av. Americas #1592, Guadalajara, Jalisco, 44620, Mexico.

ED

MA

NU

c

SC

RI

Autónoma de México, Cruz Blanca 486, San Miguel Topilejo, Mexico DF 14500, Mexico.

*Corresponding author at: Saint Hyacinthe Research and Development Centre, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, 3600 boul. Casavant Ouest, St-Hyacinthe, Québec, Canada, J2S 8E3

AC C

EP T

Email address: [email protected] (T. M. Ngapo)

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Abstract

Use of within-consumer preference replication and systematic image manipulation in surveying showed that consumers in four cities across Mexico had similar strategies for pork choice.

New surveying tools also determined preferred levels of the characteristics used in

the decision-making process.

The most important choice criteria were colour (31% chose

dark and 21% light red), and fat cover (42% chose lean and 8% fatty). Marbling and drip

characteristics to make their choice.

PT

were less used, but are nevertheless important given that 21% of consumers used three or four Split colour and marbling preferences and a range of

RI

acceptable limits for both, and a preference for the leanest fat cover available were observed.

SC

Preferences within the normal range of pork colour, fat cover achieved through trimming and drip countered by an absorbent pad all favour industry practice. Unfortunately, preferences

NU

for minimal or no marbling and fat cover likely result in a compromised gustative experience for many Mexican consumers.

MA

Keywords

AC C

EP T

ED

preferences; consumers; choice; attribute levels; pork

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 1. Introduction Meat is the largest food category in Mexico, accounting for approximately 25% of total grocery spending (Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, 2012). Pork is the second most popular meat with a per capita consumption in 2015 of 11.5 kg equating to a total domestic consumption of 2.18 M metric tons (OECD, 2016).

In the same year, pork production in

Mexico totaled 1.32 M metric tons, of which 0.13 M metric tons were exported, and imported pork totaled 0.98 M metric tons (USDA, 2016). With this significant amount of pork demand

PT

met through international trade it is as much in the interest of the Mexican as the global meat industry to be aware of Mexican market preferences.

RI

About ten years ago, a study was undertaken to identify and compare the most

SC

important intrinsic characteristics of fresh pork that determine consumer choice at purchase in 23 countries, including Mexico (Ngapo, Martin, & Dransfield, 2007a, 2007b). The survey

NU

method was based on the use of digitally modified photographs allowing the systematic assessment of the impact of varying appearance characteristics on consumer preference. Not only were significant differences observed in the choice strategies among countries (Ngapo et

MA

al., 2007a, 2007b), but regional differences were also observed in South Korea (Cho et al., 2007), France (Ngapo, Martin, & Dransfield, 2004) and Canada (Ngapo, Fortin, Aalhus, & In Mexico, 751

ED

Martin, 2010) where responses had been obtained from a range of sites.

consumers were surveyed, but all within one region, Chihuahua in the north west of Mexico. Mexico is a geographically and culturally diverse country and the potential exists for regional

EP T

differences in consumer preferences, yet aside from this international survey, no reports of Mexican consumer preferences for pork are evident in the literature. Expanding the survey to include several cities across Mexico would demonstrate regional differences.

AC C

The image-based survey method compares four intrinsic characteristics allowing identification of those which are most important in determining consumer choice at purchase (Ngapo et al., 2004). Findings show that a majority of consumers use more than one intrinsic characteristic to make their choice (Ngapo et al., 2007a) suggesting that studying individual intrinsic characteristics in isolation could lead to erroneous results. However, using a model with two levels of each characteristic results in limited differentiation and the actual preferred levels and acceptable limits of these characteristics are unable to be identified. Development of a tool to determine acceptable limits and actual levels of preference for individual intrinsic characteristics

when

used

complementary information.

in

collaboration

with

the

image

survey

would

provide

Indeed, a means of determining colour, fat cover and marbling

levels that the consumer will tolerate in fresh pork can provide production and industry

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT benchmarks. The current study therefore aims to identify the most important characteristics of fresh pork which determine consumer choice at purchase in cities in four regions across Mexico, to determine the preferred and acceptable levels of three intrinsic meat characteristics and to show how Mexican consumer segmentation in choice relates to socio-demographic, behavioural and regional differences.

In addition, a qualitative phase of preliminary

interviews prior to undertaking the full surveys aims to validate the use of the chosen

PT

attributes for manipulation of pork images, and to elaborate on criteria self-reported as useful at the point of purchase to gain insights into the perceptions of the decision-making process

SC

RI

of fresh pork purchase in Mexico.

NU

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Preliminary interviews

MA

Recorded interviews of about 60 minutes duration were conducted in person by staff of a marketing research consulting company in Mexico City (15) and Merida (16) in Participants were recruited by phone using a standardized invitation.

ED

December, 2012.

Consumers were evenly distributed for age (4 levels), gender and socioeconomic level (2 levels), and were the member of the household responsible for buying the pork.

To help

EP T

guide the selection of characteristics to focus testing on and to validate the full surveys that followed, the qualitative survey focused on diversity in responses to reveal missing areas of study and detailed descriptions of characteristics and behaviour highlighting potential

AC C

explanations or areas of misunderstanding in the quantitative survey.

Drawing from meat

science and surveying experience of the authors and the consultants, an interview guide was designed to elicit overlooked characteristics and to better understand perceptions of meat attributes.

The interview guide comprised ten open-ended questions (Table 1).

Consumers

spontaneously responded to a given question and then a list of eighteen attributes was used to prompt responses to attributes not cited.

These eighteen attributes, sourced from literature

and experience, were intrinsic and extrinsic, related to quality and safety, and relevant to purchase and consumption.

Consumers were also given the option to add other attributes.

The participants by no means constitute random samples of the population of Mexico or the cities in which they were interviewed. claimed or self-reported behavior.

In addition, inferences have been drawn based on

It is recognized that these responses may be subject to

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT social desirability, post-rationalization or cognitive dissonance or consonance.

Hence the

reported behaviors may deviate from actual or overt behavior.

2.2. Surveys

2.2.1. Books of pork chop images for consumer choice

PT

The method and chop characteristics are described by Ngapo et al. (2004). Briefly, photographs of 16 commercially obtained pork chops were digitally modified to give two

RI

levels of each of the characteristics of fat cover, colour, marbling and drip. The resulting 256

SC

images were published as a book (Dransfield, Martin, Miramont, & Ngapo, 2001), in which every double page contains the 16 different chop shapes and each chop shape represents one The position of the chops and the

NU

of the combinations of the four characteristics studied.

order of representation of the characteristics with respect to the chop shape in double-page are randomized. Chop shape was not a factor studied, but instead was a means to realistically

MA

present a range of characteristics to the consumer. Given that every combination of the factors was represented in every chop shape, consumers using the chop shape to make their

ED

choice would have generated random results for the four characteristics studied.

EP T

2.2.2. New tools for determining preferred and acceptable levels of characteristics

In addition to the books of images described in section 2.2.1, new booklets of images of pork steaks were developed as tools for determining preferred and acceptable levels of Photographs of six different steak shapes for colour, seven for

AC C

three intrinsic characteristics.

marbling and one for fat cover were digitally modified to give six levels of colour and seven of marbling corresponding to the levels of the NPPC Pork Quality Standards (NPPC, 1999), and seven levels of fat cover equivalent of 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 15 and 20 mm for a steak of 120 mm length and 70 mm height. single column of steaks.

Each characteristic was presented on a separate page in a

Two booklets were produced, one with the order of the

characteristic from least prevalent to most prevalent and the second with the order reversed.

2.2.3 Surveying

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT In February and March of 2013, consumers were randomly intercepted in shopping centres in four cities across Mexico and invited to participate in the survey. Consumers who accepted the invitation (Mexico City, n=204; Guadalajara, n=102; Merida, n=120; Veracruz, n=60) were asked to select their preferred chop from each double-page of the pork choice albums showing the 16 combinations of two options of each of the characteristics of colour, fat cover, marbling and drip.

The selection process was repeated using 8 different double

pages that showed that same 16 appearance characteristics and chops, but in different

PT

combinations, as previously described (Ngapo et al., 2004). The consumers were then asked to select their preferred and maximum and minimum acceptable levels of each of the three

RI

characteristics in the supplementary booklet. The booklets were alternated for order of levels

SC

with each consumer so that the orders were used approximately equally throughout a survey period. Finally, the consumer completed a questionnaire asking basic socio-demographic and

2).

NU

purchase-, cooking- and eating-behaviour information and some perceptions of pork (Table The questionnaire was exploratory in nature since it was neither embedded in a

theoretical economic or attitudinal framework nor based on hypotheses.

MA

responses were obtained.

A total of 486

ED

2.2.4. Analyses and statistical methods

EP T

2.2.4.1. Validation of ‘real’ choices

For each consumer, the greatest repeatability within the 8 choices of the book of images was designated as the “main choice”. For example, a main choice of 2 means that the

out of 8.

AC C

most repeated combination of all four characteristics for that consumer was chosen 2 times The probability of achieving the main choice at random was determined by

randomly and independently selecting 1000 times, eight numbers between 1 and 16.

The

main choices and the probability at random were compared.

2.2.4.2. Analysis of choices

The choices were divided into three categories for each characteristic; in the first two categories the consumer actually chooses one of the two levels of the given characteristic, in contrast with the third category where the characteristic is not consistently selected (Ngapo et al., 2004). The results can be quantified by the definition that if 6 or more of the 8 choices

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT for one consumer are the same for a given characteristic, the choice is a ‘real’ choice (P < 0.14) for that characteristics and is not random. If less than 6 choices are the same for a given intrinsic characteristic, the selection is considered to be ‘inconsistent’ or, in other words, randomly selected. This test assumes a binomial distribution of the results (P = 0.5). For each characteristic, significant differences in the number of choices were observed using the χ² test. A hierarchical cluster analysis of consumer choice was undertaken using the SAS

PT

CLUSTER procedure (SAS, 2007). Four clusters were retained by considering the ‘distance’ between clusters and the profile of the resulting graph. A disjoint cluster analysis was then

RI

carried out using the SAS TREE procedure (SAS, 2007) forcing the consumers into the four

SC

different clusters.

NU

2.2.4.3 Analysis of the preferred and acceptable levels of characteristics

Consumers whose preferences did not fall within the minimum and maximum Frequencies of the levels of preference and acceptable

MA

acceptable levels were removed.

ED

minimum and maximum for three characteristics were tabulated.

2.2.4.4 Analysis of the questionnaire

EP T

Relationships between the consumer choice-based clusters and all questionnaire items were determined using χ² test. Note that the χ 2 test requires a minimum of 5 responses and therefore where a strong bias existed for a given question the χ2 test was not valid. All the

AC C

results are shown, and where significant, the validity was checked; when not valid, the relationship between clusters and the criterion was not further investigated. Relationships between the levels of characteristic and questionnaire items were determined using χ² test.

The numbers of questionnaire items and characteristic levels were

reduced to facilitate both analyses and interpretation of the links, in particular noting the small numbers of consumers in some of the response categories.

There was no set rule for

the selection of questions, but rather selection was made on relevance to the objectives of the study and potential to give the most information and was based on past findings, experience and preliminary statistical analyses.

The combined levels for analyses were colour scores of

1 + 2, fat cover of 8 + 10 mm and 15 + 20 mm, and marbling scores of 4 + 5 and 6 + 10. The questionnaire items selected for analyses were:

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT • What is your age (years)? • Gender? • Are you the member of you household who normally shops for meat? • Where do you normally purchase your meat? • Do you cook the main meals in your household? • If you do the cooking, how do you normally cook pork? • How often do you eat pork?

PT

• Do you freeze the pork you buy?

RI

• City where the survey was completed (noted, not asked).

SC

3. Results

NU

3.1. Preliminary interviews

Consumers spontaneously reported 13 pork attributes as important at the point of

MA

purchase of which colour, freshness, quantity of fat, price, smell and appearance were all cited as most important for some consumers. When prompted, all attributes were considered important for some consumers (Figure 1).

Fifteen attributes were cited as essential for The latter

ED

purchase (Figure 2) with juiciness, texture, temperature and brand being omitted.

two attributes were, however, considered to add value, such that absence of the given

EP T

attribute would not be an impediment to its purchase, but the meat would be preferred over No consumers thought juiciness, texture, taste, drip

important at the time of purchase.

Not one consumer cited welfare friendly products or

similar cuts if the attribute was present.

or tenderness added value to the meat.

Interestingly, juiciness and texture were neither

AC C

considered essential nor value-adding, yet these attributes had been spontaneously reported as

country of origin as important, essential or value-adding. Descriptions of all 19 attributes were obtained from all consumers. The following are summaries of the descriptions and/or comments common to most consumers. 

Pork lean should be bright pink and uniform.

Dark red or non-uniform colour

indicates previously frozen pork, while pale pink or almost white, or undertones of yellow or green lean indicate decomposition. 

Freshness is indicated by uniform, pink colour, a good aroma (natural, not bad or old smell), drip visible on the meat surface (but not excessive), firmness, cleanliness, low fat content and overall appearance.

It is notable that not one consumer cited ‘best

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT before’ or ‘packed on’ dates as indicators of freshness. Some consumers believe drip is a result of preservatives added to pork to retain freshness and was viewed in a positive manner.

Frozen then thawed meat is not considered fresh and is less

desirable than meat that has never been frozen.

It was reiterated throughout the

interviews that frozen meat is undesirable, particularly because freezing does not allow the consumer to evaluate quality traits, such as texture and smell, and results in 

Appearance

is

the

first

PT

a reduced eating quality. Finally, freshness is equated with hygienic meat handling. impression which must be attractive before other

RI

characteristics can be considered and for some consumers is intuitive. Suspicion of tricks to hide defaults, such as, use of red lighting to disguise yellow and green 

SC

undertones, was expressed. Sealed packaging is preferred over non-packaged pork. A little fat is important for flavour, but fat is viewed as unhealthy.

Fat cover is



Pork is neither cheap nor expensive.

NU

preferred to marbling, because it can be trimmed off.

Discussions of cost focussed on meeting the

MA

family budget, shopping in several places to find the cheapest options and/or reduced prices and price variability rendering pork inaccessible at times. 

Tenderness and texture were not differentiated and are reportedly used at the point of

ED

purchase. Texture should be firm, not soft or limp, should not be dried out or watery, and is associated with freshness and eating quality. Hygiene was described in terms of the cleanliness of the place of purchase, including

EP T



cleanliness of counters, cabinets, knives and butcher’s clothing and appearance, absence of flies, no traces of blood or skin, no mess, and sealed, clean packaging.

AC C

While cleanliness is deemed to instil confidence in the place of purchase, it was noted that the conditions prior to sale are unknown. For example, one consumer discussed that pork which has fallen on the floor while processing, still looks good behind a counter. Meat should be washed prior to use. 

Juiciness was defined as the liquid or moisture within the meat structure and some consumers believe the flavour is concentrated within.

If the meat is not juicy at

purchase, it will be dry and tough “like the sole of a shoe” when cooked, including stewing. 

The presence of fat and bone defines meat taste and hence the reason different cuts are sought for different dishes and methods of preparation. Pork was described as having unique and “delicious” flavour.

However, frustration was expressed at not

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT being able to predict if the meat will be tasty and delicious or completely lacking in taste “as though it has been washed.” 

A quality seal is interpreted as a sign of endorsement by a governing body, such as the Ministry of Health, ensuring that meat handling has been undertaken in a manner meeting standards of hygiene or sanitation established by the endorser.



Brand was described as a quality guarantee or an indication of the origin (farm,

PT

processor, packer, butcher and/or store).

RI

Almost all attributes were considered important for almost all cuts in a carcass and therefore those attributes considered applicable to specific cuts are therefore salient (Table 3).

SC

The three attributes not assigned to all cuts by any one consumer were all related to fat, that is, quantity of fat, meat-bone-fat ratio and fat distribution.

For several attributes the inverse

were applicable to all cuts.

NU

was true in that no specific cuts were cited, but rather, the consumers stated that the attributes Almost all of these attributes were related to hygiene and

MA

sanitation and included hygiene, quality seal, temperature, and presentation. For all three places of purchase (supermarket, butcher shop or market), consumers mentioned trust and freshness as reasons for their preferred place. Features that differentiated

ED

the points of purchase were the convenience of being able to do all grocery shopping under one roof and refrigerated display for supermarkets and the personalized service of the butcher While consumers cited trust in all three places, skepticism was

EP T

for the butcher shop.

demonstrated by some consumers when asked about meat preparation and additives.

A

majority of the consumers think that the meat they purchase is ‘natural’, but some believe that additives are used to prolong the shelf life and others commented on the use of hormones and

AC C

growth promoters during production. However, unlike the negative perception of the use of hormones and growth promoters in production, an additive to extend shelf life was thought of probable benefit.

3.2. Survey consumer panel

The consumer panel composition is given in Table 2 (translated from Spanish) from which the following are of particular note. Proportions of consumers 45-54 years (21%) and 65 years or older (24%), and women (81%) were high compared to the other response categories.

At 29%, the proportion of consumers with false teeth was also high.

While a

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT question on false teeth may appear odd, during the course of previous studies consumers have expressed that pork can be tough and dry and difficult to eat if wearing a dental prosthesis. It was therefore deemed relevant to quantitate the number of consumers wearing false teeth and any impact this had on choice.

A third of consumers stated that they have changed their

consumption of pork recently, and almost all of those have decreased their consumption. While comparisons with the survey of Mexican consumers in 2001 must be made with caution, in this earlier survey a quarter of consumers claimed to have changed their

PT

consumption, of which most also reported a decrease (Ngapo et al., 2007b).

Almost all

consumers reported liking pork and 85% stated taste as the reason, with other reasons and Although much higher than the

RI

versatility the next highest at 20 and 15%, respectively.

SC

alternative options, 85% of consumers in the current study is lower than the 93% in 2001 that cited taste. In 2001, only 16% of consumers stated that pork was expensive compared to 41% About a fifth of consumers claim that they always or almost always

NU

in the current survey.

freeze the pork that they buy and another fifth say they do sometimes. It is interesting that in the preliminary interviews, many consumers expressed a dislike of meat at the point of

MA

purchase that is frozen or has been frozen and thawed. Freezing meat prior to sale is equated

3.3. Range of characteristics

ED

with deterioration in quality, yet it appears that many consumers freeze pork after purchase.

EP T

Defining the greatest repeatability within the 8 choices for a given consumer as the ‘main choice’, Table 4 compares the probability of randomly achieving the main choice versus the respondents’ main choices. Fewer single or double choices were made, and more

AC C

choices were made 3, 4, 5 and 6 times than would be expected randomly. This evidence of deliberate choice corroborates the findings of the French (Ngapo et al., 2004), Belgian (Verbeke et al., 2005), Greek and Cypriot (Fortomaris et al., 2006) and Taiwanese (Chen, Guo, Tseng, Roan, & Ngapo, 2010) surveys. showed similar results.

Mexican consumers in the 2001 study also

The distribution of the repeatability illustrates that the levels of the

characteristics used differed from random selection suggesting that the range and levels of characteristics used allowed the consumers to make a positive (as opposed to random) choice, but were not extreme, which would have resulted in more consistent preferences. Additionally, all of the 256 images were selected. No matter what the combination of the four characteristics and shape, for each chop there was at least one consumer who found that chop not only acceptable, but preferred that particular chop to 15 others.

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

3.4. ‘Real’ choices Significant differences in the choices were observed for all four characteristics (P ˂ 0.0001; Table 5).

About half of the consumers used colour and fat cover in the decision

making-process for pork.

Of those who used fat cover, more than five times the consumers

showed a preference for lean than for fatty meat cover. The differences were not as marked

PT

between consumers who used colour, with 1.5 times more preferring the dark than the light pork. Only about a third of consumers used the marbling and drip in their choices suggesting

RI

that these characteristics are less important in the decision making process than fat cover and

SC

colour. Little difference was observed in the numbers of consumers preferring marbled than preferring non-marbled meat, whereas more consumers wanted no drip than the presence of

NU

drip.

MA

3.5. Number of characteristics used

Based on the ‘real’ and ‘inconsistent’ choices above, 59% of consumers used two or

ED

more characteristics to make their choice (Figure 3). Only 10% did not consistently use any of the given characteristics in their decision making process and 31% used only one of the characteristics.

These findings are in agreement with the distributions observed across 23

EP T

countries (Ngapo et al., 2007a).

3.6. Choice-based clusters and links to questionnaire items

AC C

Consumers were grouped into four clusters of similar size and with similar strategies for pork chop selection (Table 5).

Significant relationships were observed among clusters

and all four characteristics (P ≤ 0.0009).

Relationships between the consumer choice-based

clusters and the questionnaire items were then determined.

The number and percentage of

consumers in each item of the questionnaire are presented in Table 2.

Differences in

distributions among the four choice-based clusters were observed for responses to gender and cooks pork by frying (Table 6). The individual clusters can be defined from the percentages of consumers significantly different to the entire panel and can be summarised as: 

Cluster 1 of 155 consumers (32%): preferred fatty pork with drip, but did not care about colour or marbling.

Higher proportion of men and lower proportion of

consumers who fry meat than the other clusters.

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 

Cluster 2 of 137 consumers (28%): strongly preferred dark red, lean pork.



Cluster 3 of 86 consumers (18%): strongly preferred light red meat with a preference for drip.



Cluster 4 of 108 consumers (22%): strongly preferred lean meat without drip. Lower proportion of men and higher proportion of consumers who fry meat than the other clusters.

items strongly differentiated any given cluster.

PT

While these distributions vary significantly among clusters, none of the questionnaire Note that in this study the recruitment of

RI

consumers was not limited to only those who shopped for the meat for the household. Rather, this responsibility was identified in the questionnaire and analysed as a characteristic

SC

of the consumer, showing no significant impact on consumer preference.

NU

3.7. Preferred and acceptable levels of characteristics

MA

The distributions of consumer preferences and acceptable minimums and maximums of levels of colour, fat cover and marbling are presented in Table 7. Two distinct peaks in preference scores were evident for the consumers who chose dark red or light red colour.

ED

These peaks at colour scores 3 and 4 correspond to about a third of consumers each who chose light or dark red pork, respectively.

A minimum acceptable colour score of 1 was

EP T

selected by about half the consumers and about 40% selected a maximum of 4. The profiles fell away on either side of the peaks in accordance with the findings in the preliminary interviews where consumers described that the meat should be bright pink and neither too red nor too pale.

AC C

Unlike the relatively even spread of colour preferences, preferences for fat cover were at the lower end of the scale.

Almost three quarters of the consumers who chose lean

preferred 2 to 4 mm fat cover, with 41% preferring 2 mm (the lowest level presented). Interestingly, of the consumers who chose the fatty meat, 41% preferred the 4 mm fat cover (compared to 32 % of those who consistently chose lean pork), but it should be noted that there were only 27 consumers who consistently chose the fatty meat.

While 70% of

consumers chose the lowest fat cover option (2 mm) as the minimum acceptable level of fat cover, 62% chose the next two levels (4 and 6 mm) as the maximum acceptable. Finally, more than half of the consumers who consistently selected marbled meat preferred marbling scores 2-3, while a third of consumers who consistently chose no

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT marbling preferred a score of 1 (practically devoid of marbling).

More than half of

consumers chose the lowest marbling score as the minimum acceptable level, while the maximum acceptable was relatively evenly spread over scores 2 to 10.

3.8. Characteristic levels and questionnaire items

Relationships between the characteristic levels and questionnaire items were only

PT

observed between colour preference and survey site (P = 0.0019), maximum fat cover and cooks pork by frying (P = 0.0141), and maximum marbling and pork consumption frequency The significant differences between survey sites were mainly a result of the

RI

(P = 0.0376).

SC

high proportions of colour score 4 in Mexico City (58%) where 44% of the consumers were surveyed and combined colour scores 1 and 2 in Merida (44%). Guadalajara and Mexico

NU

City also had high proportions of consumers (35 and 28%, respectively) choosing colour score 3. Guadalajara only accounted for 19% of the consumers, but more than half of these chose colour score 3. The significant difference between consumers who fry pork is mainly a

MA

result of a high proportion of consumers who don’t fry pork (77%) choosing 10 mm fat cover. And the differences in pork consumption frequency were mainly a consequence of the

ED

high proportion (56%) of consumers who eat pork less than once a month choosing a

4. Discussion

EP T

marbling score of 2 compared to the remaining 44% spread over the other marbling scores.

Lower proportions of consumers in the inconsistent category for colour and fat cover

AC C

suggest that these characteristics were more important in consumer choice than marbling and drip. These finding are in accord with a number of other consumer studies (Becker, Benner & Glitsch, 2000; Diamant, Watts & Cliplef, 1979; Emerson, Pearson, Hoefer, Magee, & Bratzler, 1964; Glitsch, 2000; O’Mahony, Cowan, & Keane, 1995; Ngapo et al., 2007a; Romans & Norton, 1989; Zuidam, Schmidt, Oosterbaan, & Sybesma, 1971). In addition, in 2007, using the same image-based methodology as the present study it was observed that in 18 of 23 countries studied, Mexico, Finland and Yugoslavia were the only countries where consumer choice of fat cover was more consistent than colour (>5% difference) (Ngapo et al., 2007a).

In the US (Romans & Norton, 1989) and the Netherlands (Zuidam et al., 1971)

trends of divided preferences for colour, but a predominant preference for lean than fatty meat have been reported. The same trends are evident in the current study where, while the

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT proportions of consistent choices were similar for colour and fat cover, more than five times the consumers showed a preference for the lean than fatty meat, but only 1.5 times more preferred the dark than light coloured pork. While the colour preferences were relatively evenly divided between dark and light red, the preference levels show that this division occurs largely between scores 3 and 4 with more than half of consumers preferring these levels.

These colour levels correspond well

with the light and dark red options, respectively, presented in the books of images which With the darker red

PT

were based on pork commercially available in the French market.

preferred level also the maximum acceptable redness for 40% of consumers and with half of

RI

the consumers selecting the palest possible score (1) as the acceptable minimum, it appears

SC

that the consumers were more willing to accept lighter than darker red meat. The distribution of preferences for fat cover differed from that of colour being at the

NU

lower end of the scale with a majority of consumers preferring the lowest levels of fat cover (2 to 4 mm) and maximum acceptable levels of 4 to 6 mm. Divided colour preference and preferred lean over fatty fat cover are favorable characteristics for the industry. Fat cover is

MA

largely a matter of trimming and variations within the normal range of pork colour allow the industry to readily meet consumer preferences. However, while limited to 66 loin samples in

ED

a specific region of Mexico, a recent study in the Central Highlands found that colour scores of loin available in supermarkets ranged from 2.0 to 3.7 suggesting that preferences for the darker coloured meat (scores of 4 and higher) may not be met by the pork currently on offer

EP T

(Mariezcurrena-Berasain et al., 2014).

Of the consumers who used marbling and drip in their choice, marbling preferences were relatively evenly divided between marbled and non-marbled pork. Consumers preferred

AC C

marbling scores of 1-3, where marbling at the lowest level (score 1) is virtually absent. In a review of factors affecting the sensory quality of pork, Ngapo and Gariépy (2008) found that, while the role of marbling (or intramuscular fat content) in the sensory quality of meat is not clear, more than half of the studies reviewed showed a positive correlation between the two aspects and some studies even reported minimum intramuscular fat contents to ensure satisfactory eating characteristics.

Only one study related the fat cover to sensory quality of

pork (Kempster et al., 1986) reporting that consumers found pork loin chops from fat carcasses (15.5–16.6 mm mean fat thickness measurements over LD at the last rib) more juicy and tender than those from lean carcasses (8.4 to 8.8 mm). The preference for no or very little marbling coupled with as lean as possible fat cover therefore likely results in a compromised gustative experience for many Mexican consumers (Ngapo and Gariépy, 2008).

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT However, for the industry, the bias towards low levels of marbling is favorable with recent nationwide surveys reporting an average marbling level in the loin of 2.41±0.94 in the US (Newman, 2014) and of 2.23±1.11 in US pork in Mexico (Huerta-Leidenz, Howard, RuízFlores, Ngapo, & Belk, 2016). In addition, the latter study found an overall marbling score for fresh US pork cuts in Mexico was 2.26±1.02 and the survey limited to the Central Mexican Highlands reported marbling scores of 2.0 to 4.3 in pork loins (MariezcurrenaBerasain et al., 2014). Finally, the preference for an absence of drip is of little concern in the

PT

commercial environment nowadays as drip issues are often countered by the use of an absorbent pad.

RI

In a survey using the same methodology as the current project on 751 consumers from

SC

Chihuahua, Mexico in 2001 (some of which is published in Ngapo et al., 2007b), similar choice trends for all four characteristics were observed, but about 10% fewer consumers

NU

chose light red pork and 20% fewer chose lean in the current study. The differences are largely reflected in an increase in the inconsistent choices.

This increase may indicate that

the Mexican consumer no longer uses the given criterion at the levels presented, but does not

may also be regional.

MA

indicate a complete shift in preferences for the characteristics.

However, these differences

Consumers from four Mexican states were surveyed in the present

ED

study; Mexico City in the Distrito Federal in central Mexico, Guadalajara in Jalisco in the west, Veracruz in the state bearing the same name on the eastern gulf, and Merida in Yucatan in the south eastern Yucatan Peninsula.

While no regional differences were observed in

levels.

EP T

preferences between dark and pale red pork, differences were observed in the preference Although only 20% of the consumers surveyed in Merida chose the paler colour

scores of 1 and 2, Merida consumers accounted for 44% of these pale choices. Mexico City,

AC C

in contrast, accounted for 58% of the consumers choosing score 4 and almost half of the total consumers surveyed were from Mexico City (44%). But no consumers from Chihuahua were included in the present study. Different explanations can be postulated, but it is not possible to determine the reason for the differences in preferences when the consumers are not from the same region of Mexico and the socio-demographic make-up of the panels is not the same. However, while the reasons cannot be ascertained, comparisons can be made keeping in mind, of course, the differences in the panels. It is particularly interesting to note that more than 10 years apart, these surveys achieve similar findings. While four clusters of consumers were apparent based on choices for the pork characteristics, only two consumer characteristics, gender and cooking by frying, were significantly linked to the clusters.

And even though these distributions varied significantly

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT among the clusters, none of the questionnaire items strongly differentiated any given cluster. Of note is that all four clusters showed preferences for at least two chop characteristics. Indeed, as was found in the comparison of 23 countries studied about 10 years ago using this methodology (Ngapo et al., 2007a), a majority of the consumers used two or more characteristics to make their choice.

In the current study, 39% of the Mexican consumers

used two of the four characteristics to make their choice, and a further 20% used three or four. Investigating a characteristic in isolation does not take into account such dependencies Furthermore, investigation of an individual characteristic which

PT

in consumer preference.

SC

erroneous findings or exaggerate their influence on choice.

RI

may be of low importance to the consumer, such as drip in the present study, could result in

NU

5. Conclusions

Using within-consumer preference replication and systematic image manipulation in surveying it was observed that consumers in four cities in four regions of Mexico had similar

MA

strategies for pork choice. Colour and fat cover were the most important choice criteria with colour divided between dark and light red, while lean fat cover was preferred. Marbling and

ED

drip were less used, but nevertheless important in choice noting that 21% of consumers used three or four characteristics to make their choice. The new image tools showed a range of preferred and acceptable colour levels, a preference for the leanest fat cover available and a

EP T

range of preferred marbling levels at the lower end of the scale. Divided colour preference and preferred lean over fatty fat cover are favorable characteristics for the industry. Variations within the normal range of pork colour allow the industry to meet consumer

trimming.

AC C

preferences with the range of pork currently on offer and fat cover is largely a matter of The bias towards low levels of marbling is favorable for the industry and the

preference of an absence of drip is of little concern in the commercial environment nowadays as drip issues are often countered by the use of an absorbent pad.

Unfortunately, the

preference for no or very little marbling coupled with as lean as possible fat cover likely results in a compromised gustative experience for many Mexican consumers.

While this

study has focused on the intrinsic characteristics of pork, it would be interesting to understand how price perceptions relate to other characteristics.

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Acknowledgements

The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support of the Fondo Sectorial Sagarpa CONACYT No.109127 “Fresh meat quality indicators”.

Thanks are also expressed to

Victoria Lorenzana and her team at Facta Research México, Mexico City, Mexico for the

PT

data collection and to Claude Laberge of Experts-Conseils STATEX, Quebec City, Canada

RI

for the statistical analyses.

SC

References

Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (2012), “Consumer trends: Pork products in Mexico. indicator

report

July

NU

Market

2012”,

available

at:

http://www5.agr.gc.ca/resources/prod/Internet-Internet/MISB-DGSIM/ATS-

MA

SEA/PDF/6201-eng.pdf (accessed 18 November 2016). Becker, T., Benner, E., & Glitsch, K. (2000). Consumer perception of fresh meat quality in Germany. British Food Journal, 102(3), 246-266.

ED

Chen, M.T., Guo, H.L., Tseng, T.F., Roan, S.W., & Ngapo, T.M. (2010). Consumer choice of pork chops in Taiwan. Meat Science, 85, 555-559.

EP T

Cho, S., Park, B., Ngapo, T., Kim, J., Dransfield, E., Hwang, I. & Lee, J. (2007). Effect of meat appearance on South Korean consumers’ choice of pork chops determined by image methodology. Journal of Sensory Studies, 22, 99-114.

AC C

Diamant, R., Watts, B.M., & Cliplef, R.L. (1976). Consumer criteria for pork related to sensory, physical and descriptive attributes.

Canadian Institute of Food Science and

Technology Journal, 9(3), 151-1544. Dransfield, E., Martin, J.-F., Miramont, J., & Ngapo, T.M. (2001). Meat Appearance: Pork Chops.

A tool for surveying consumer preferences.

INRA, France, ISBN 2-7380-

0976-X. Emerson, J.A., Pearson, A.M., Hoefer, J.A., Magee, W.T., & Bratzler, L.J. (1964). Effect of slaughter

weight

upon

the

processing

characteristics,

quality

and

consumer

acceptability of pork carcasses and cuts. Journal of Animal Science, 23, 436-443. Fortomaris, P., Arsenos, G., Georgiadis, M., Banos, G., Stamataris, C., & Zygoyiannis, D. (2006). Effect of meat appearance on consumer preferences for pork chops in Greece

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT and Cyprus. Meat Science, 72, 688-696. Glitsch, K. (2000). Consumer perceptions of fresh meat quality: cross-national comparison. British Food Journal, 102(3), 177-194. Huerta-Leidenz, N., Howard, S.T., Ruíz-Flores, A., Ngapo, T.M., & Belk., K.E. (2016). A survey of Mexican retail chain stores for fresh U.S. pork. Meat Science, 119, 165-173. Kempster, A.J., Dilworth, A.W., Evans, D.G., & Fisher, K.D. (1986). The effects of fat thickness and sex on pig meat quality with special reference to the problems associated

PT

with overleanness. 1. Butcher and consumer panel results. Animal Production, 43, 517– 533.

RI

Mariezcurrena-Berasain, M.A., Pinzón-Martínez, D.L., Bernal-Martínez, L.R., Gutiérrez-

SC

Ibáñez, A.T., Velázquez-Garduño, G., Domínguez-Vara, I.A., Mariezcurrena-Berasain, M.D. (2014). Physicochemical characteristics that influence the meat pork quality in

NU

supermarkets in the Central Highlands of Mexico. Life Science Journal, 11, 818-824. Newman, D. (2014). Pork Check-off research report. National Pork Retail Benchmarking Study - NPB #11-163. Accessed 25 April 2016.

MA

http://research.pork.org/Results/ResearchDetail.aspx?id=1760 Ngapo, T.M. & Gariépy, C. (2008). Factors affecting the eating quality of pork. Critical

ED

Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition, 48, 599-633. Ngapo, T.M., Fortin, J., Aalhus, J.L., & Martin, J.-F. (2010). Consumer choices of pork

EP T

chops: Results from two Canadian sites. Food Research International 43, 1559-1565. Ngapo, T.M., Martin, J.-F. and Dransfield, E. (2004).

Consumer choices of pork chops:

Ngapo, T.M., Martin, J.-F. & Dransfield, E. (2007b).

International preferences for pork

Results from three panels in France. Food Quality and Preference, 15, 349-359. Ngapo, T.M., Martin, J.-F. & Dransfield, E. (2007a).

International preferences for pork

AC C

appearance: I. Consumer choices. Food Quality and Preference, 18, 26-36.

appearance: II. Factors influencing consumer choice.

Food Quality and Preference,

18, 139-151.

NPPC (1999). Pork quality standards. Des Moines, Iowa, USA: National Pork Board. OECD (2016), “OECD-FAO Agricultural Outlook: Meat Consumption”, available at: https://data.oecd.org/agroutput/meat-consumption.htm (accessed 18 November 2016). O’Mahony, R., Cowan, C., & Keane, M. (1995). Dublin consumers and pork: Attitudes to quality. British Food Journal, 97(11), 26-33. Romans, J.R., & Norton, H.W. (1989). Consumer evaluation of fresh pork quality. Proceedings of the 35th International Congress of Meat Science and Technology (Vol.

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT II, pp 614-618). Copenhagen, Denmark. SAS (2007). SAS users guide: Statistics. Version 9.1. Cary, USA: SAS Institute Inc. USDA (2016), “Foreign Agricultural Service: Market and Trade Data. Production, supply and

distribution

online”,

available

https://apps.fas.usda.gov/PSDOnlinev2/app/index.html#/app/home

(accessed

at: 18

November 2016). Verbeke, W., De Smet, S., Vackier, I., Van Oeckel, M. J., Warnants N. & Van Kenhove, P.

PT

(2005). Role of intrinsic search cues in the formation of consumer preferences and choice for pork chops. Meat Science, 69, 343-354.

RI

Zuidam, L., Schmidt, R.G., Oosterbaan, J., & Sybesma, W. (1971). Effect of fresh pork

SC

colour on consumer acceptance. Proceedings of the 2nd International Symposium on

AC C

EP T

ED

MA

NU

Condition and Meat Quality of Pigs (pp 282-286). Abstract.

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Figure 1. Characteristics of pork self-reported as important at the point of purchase. Figure 2. Characteristics of pork self-reported as essential or value adding at purchase.

AC C

EP T

ED

MA

NU

SC

RI

PT

Figure 3. Number of the four characteristics studied that consumers used in the choice process.

MA

NU

SC

RI

PT

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

AC C

EP T

ED

Figure 1. Characteristics of pork self-reported as ‘most important’ and ‘important’ at the point of purchase.

MA

NU

SC

RI

PT

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

AC C

EP T

ED

Figure 2. Characteristics of pork self-reported as ‘essential’ or ‘value adding’ at purchase.

RI

PT

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

AC C

EP T

ED

MA

NU

SC

Figure 3. Number of the four characteristics studied that consumers used in the choice process.

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Table 1. Open-ended questions in the interview guide.

AC C

EP T

ED

MA

NU

SC

RI

PT

1. What is the most important attribute when choosing pork? For what reasons? 2. What other things are important to you when you choose pork? For what reasons? 3. In addition to the attributes mentioned, do you take into account [att ribute] when choosing pork? For what reasons? 4. What attributes do you consider to be basic and essential, that is, if pork did not have these attributes, you would not buy it? Why these attributes? 5. What attributes do you consider give added value, that is, if the pork did not have the se attributes it would not be an impediment to choosing it, but if it did have these attributes you would prefer this pork over another similar cut? 6. How would you describe each of the attributes mentioned? 7. For which cuts is each of the attributes important and why? 8. Where do you purchase pork and why there? 9. Do you consider that the pork you buy is natural or do you think that it has had some sort of preparation prior to its sale? If the consumer believed that there was some sort of preparation prior to sale, they were then asked: 10. What preparation was undertaken or additive added? And for what reasons?

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Table 2. Questionnaire composition, responses, and significant links by χ² test (P-value < 0.05 shown in bold) between questionnaire items and choice-based clusters.

Gender? Marital status?

Consumers (number) (%) 59 12 66 14 78 16 104 21 61 13 118 24 392 81 94 19 199 41 287 59 27 6 71 15 109 22 114 23 82 17 83 17 227 47 119 25 89 18 50 10 27 6 111 23 61 13 112 23 116 24 46 9 45 9 148 30 110 23 152 31 27 6 142 29 344 71 110 23 376 77 278 57 229 47 177 36 50 10 80 17 220 45 70 14 116 24 14 3 224 46 94 19 203 42 216 44 92 19 238 49 75 15 17 3 13 3 349 72 65 13 42 9

P-value 0.28

0.03 0.88 0.31

Number of children

MA

What is the total monthly income of your household? (Pesos)

NU

SC

RI

How many people live in your household?

Response options 16-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 >64 female male single/widowed married/cohabitating 1 2 3 4 5 6+ 0 1 2 3+ < 2,000 2,000-5,999 6,000-9,999 10,000-29,999 30,000-75,999 ≥76,000 no education compulsory secondary tertiary higher yes no no yes butcher supermarket market farm everyday several times/week once/week 1 h every meal, everyday once/day, everyday several times/week once/week
PT

Question What is your age (years)?

EP T

Do you have a dental prosthesis?

ED

Education?

AC C

Are you the member of you household who normally shops for meat? Where do you normally purchase your meat?

Do you cook the main meals in your household?

If you do the cooking, how do you normally cook pork?

How long do you normally spend preparing a meal?

How often do you eat meat?

0.26

0.91

0.05

0.33 0.38 0.39 0.25 0.97 0.61 0.56

0.10 0.01 0.36 0.83 0.95 0.54

0.94

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Have you changed your consumption of pork in the last few years?

Do you like pork? For what reasons:

SC

RI

The pork meat that you buy is of good quality:

NU

You freeze the pork you buy:

ED

Survey was completed in (noted, not asked):

MA

Is pork expensive?

EP T

(Note that Table 2 is spread over two pages)

AC C

everyday ≥once/week ≥once/month
38 337 88 23 309 177 12 165 469 17 6 19 71 411 23 98 223 198 58 3 47 42 101 87 207 284 201 102 120 204 60

PT

Table 2 (cont.) How often do you eat pork?

8 69 18 5 64 36 7 93 97 3 1 4 15 85 5 20 46 41 12 1 10 9 21 18 43 58 41 21 25 42 12

0.65

0.84

0.16 0.87 0.93 0.43 0.78 0.24 0.65

0.19

0.34 0.70

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Table 3. Pork cuts for which the attributes are considered important in consumer interviews Loin X

Ham X

Ribs

Chops

X X

X

X

X

X X

X X

Milanesa

All X X X X

X X X X X

X X X

X X X X X X X

PT

X

SC

X

X

X X X X X

RI

X

X

AC C

EP T

ED

MA

NU

Attribute Colour Freshness Quantity of fat Cut Presentation Meat-bone-fat ratio Price Hygiene Tenderness Smell Appearance Fat distribution Texture Juciness Taste Drip Temperature Quality seal Other (brand)

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Table 4. Simulated probabilities of randomly achieving main choices and the percenta ge of consumers with these main choices.

8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

AC C

EP T

ED

MA

NU

SC

RI

PT

Main choices Simulated probability at random Mexican (% of 486 consumers) Mexican in 2001 (% of 748 consumers) French (% of 414 consumers; Ngapo et al., 2004) Belgian (% of 443 consumers; Verbeke et al., 2005) Greek and Cypriot (% of 412 consumers; Fortomaris et al., 2006) Taiwanese (% of 716 consumers; Chen et al., 2010)

Number of times (out of 8) that the same combination of all four characteristics was chosen (% of consumers) 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 0 0.1 1.8 15.6 71.0 11.5 0 0.4 0.4 4.9 25.1 62.8 6.4 0 0 1.3 7.6 31.3 55.7 4.0 0 0.2 1.6 8.7 30.4 54.1 5.1 0 0 2.3 8.8 33.2 49.4 6.3 0.2 0 1.7 8.0 32.0 52.7 5.6 0 0.4 2.4 9.2 31.0 51.9 5.0

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Table 5. Consumer selections within the four chop characteristics and for each cluster with the most important differences shown in bold (determined by χ 2 compared to results of the entire panel). Proportion of consumers choosing the given characteristic in cluster (%) 1 2 3 4 8 87 0 5 14 0 75 11 56 2 4 38

Proportion of consumers in cluster choosing the given characteristic (%)B 1 2 3 4 8 96 0 7 9 0 90 10 83 4 10 82 25 6 69

Fat Lean Inconsistent

40 202 244

8 42 50

95 5 44

3 43 20

3 11 26

0 42 10

Marbling

Marbled Not Inconsistent

71 88 327

15 18 67

35 8 38

31 35 26

14 22 17

20 35 19

Drip

Drip No drip Inconsistent

36 143 307

7 29 63

50 28 32

14 27 30

33 15 17

100

32 155

28 137

18 86

A

1 26 73

0 78 22

16 5 79

16 23 61

12 22 66

13 29 58

3 29 21

12 26 63

4 28 68

14 26 60

1 39 60

22 108

32 155

28 137

18 86

22 108

SC

NU

Total (%) Total (number) 486

1 63 36

RI

Fat Cover

PT

Characteristic Level Color Dark Light Inconsistent

Overall consumer selection A (n) (%) 152 31 102 21 232 48

For all four characteristics, significant differences in the number of choices were observed using the χ² test (P ˂ 0.0001). B

AC C

EP T

ED

MA

Significant differences in the distribution of choices across the clusters were observed for color, fat cover and marbling (P ˂ 0.0001) and for drip (P = 0.0009) using the χ² test. The bold percentages within clusters do not have an associated p-value, but instead are those values in the table with greater differences between the expected values from the total panel and the observed values using the χ² test and are therefore the values with the greatest influence on the significant differences within clusters.

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Table 6. Distribution of significant questionnaire items (P < 0.050) by χ² test in each choice-based cluster.

Questionnaire item Gender

P-value 0.026

Response options Female Male

Cooks by frying

0.013

No Yes

Distribution All 81 19 54 46

of selection (% consumers)1 1 2 3 4 74 81 84 88 26 19 16 12 63 37

56 44

47 53

1

44 56

AC C

EP T

ED

MA

NU

SC

RI

PT

Bold percentages within clusters do not have an associated p -value, but instead are those values in the table with greater differences between the expected values from the total panel and the observed values by χ² test and are therefore the with the greatest influence on the significant differences within clusters.

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Table 7. Distribution of levels of consumer preference and acceptable minimum and maximu m of colour, fat cover and marbling. Consumers – level Colour (NPPC scale) All – preference Used colour – preference Chose dark red – preference Chose pale red – preference Used colour – acceptable minimum Used colour - acceptable maximu m

1 8 10 9 12 49 2

2 9 10 10 11 19 5

Fat Cover(mm) All – preference Used fat cover – preference Chose fatty – preference Chose lean – preference Used fat cover – acceptable minimum Used fat cover - acceptable maximu m

2 30 37 15 41 70 8

4 33 33 41 32 23 30

6 22 20 15 20 4 32

8 5 3 7 2 1 11

Marbling (NPPC scale) All – preference Used marbling – preference Chose marbled – preference Chose no marbling – preference Used marbling – acceptable minimum Used marbling - acceptable maximu m

1 27 25 16 33 59 4

2 28 21 27 16 26 19

3 21 27 33 22 8 17

4 10 12 9 14 4 14

Consumer selection (%) 3 4 5 23 37 15 24 31 15 18 38 15 33 21 15 20 10 2 12 40 22

408 220 129 91 220 220

15 2 1 7 0 0 4

20 4 4 7 3 1 10

393 188 27 161 188 188

5 6 6 4 8 0 18

6 4 6 7 5 1 11

10 5 3 4 3 2 16

362 119 55 64 119 119

PT

10 4 3 7 2 1 6

RI

SC

NU

MA ED EP T AC C

Total consumers 6 8 9 10 8 0 18