You're using an outdated browser. Please upgrade to a modern browser for the best experience.
Consumer Perception of Beef Quality: Comparison
View Latest Version
Please note this is a comparison between Version 2 by Amina Yu and Version 1 by Jingjing LIU.

Consumer perception of beef quality undergoes a multi-step process at the time of purchase and consumption in order to achieve an overall value assessment. Beef quality perception is determined by a set of quality attributes, including intrinsic (appearance, safety, technological, sensory and nutritional characteristics, convenience) and extrinsic (price, image, livestock farming systems, commercial strategy, and so etc.on) quality traits. The beef eating qualities that are the most valued by consumers are highly variable and depend mainly on the composition and characteristics of the original muscle and the post-mortem processes involved in the conversion of muscle into meat.

  • beef quality attributes
  • beef eating quality
  • consumer perception

1. The iImportance of beef qBeef Quality to cConsumers

Beef quality is of paramount importance to consumers since consumer perception of quality determines the decision to purchase and repeat purchase, which is of utmost importance for the development and success of the beef market and industry. Beef quality is multifactorial, and consumer perception of beef quality mainly depends on four dimensions: (1) search quality (visual appeal): the morphological property of beef such as the appearance (e.g., color, visible fat), technological, and convenience quality attributes (e.g., cooking yield, shelf life); (2) experience quality (sensory appeal): the eating experience of beef such as beef tenderness, juiciness, and flavor liking; (3) credence quality: the safety, nutritional, and health value of a product and other additional values related to certain attributes such as animal welfare and environmental sustainability; (4) quality of value (cost effectiveness): the cost/price of the product is perceived to correspond as much as possible to the value and image of the product [1,2][1][2].
Prior to purchase, only search quality can be reached by consumers, and based on the appearance of the product, consumers might develop expectations according to the available information conveyed by the extrinsic cues of a product at the time of purchase. Extrinsic quality cues primarily have their influence on the search and credence quality of the product from the outside, such as brand, origin, price, and image [1]. The image value is more related to the livestock and industrial production system [1], which would create an overall image of the product presented to consumers.
On the other hand, the experienced quality is the key criteria that is most responsible for the actual demand and satisfaction of consumers and their repeat purchase intention [3]. However, experienced quality can only be determined after purchase and is mainly related to the intrinsic properties of the product. These intrinsic factors cover the physical characteristics of the beef product itself, such as meat color, muscle cut, fat content and marbling distribution, [4] etc.
Quality is sought because it contributes to the fulfillment of purchase motives [1]. Consumers expect good quality when they eat beef, but the presumed and/or experienced eating quality may not always match their expectations and the price they paid is usually higher than what the product actually deserved [5]. This is, at least in part, the major reason why beef consumption has declined, especially in Europe [6]. Maintaining consistency between expectations and actual experience is beneficial to a long-term consistent consumption level and to the success of the beef industry. The study Cof consumer decision-making on intrinsic and extrinsic cues is essential in order to understand how consumer quality perception for beef products is formed (Figure 1). More precisely, consumers’ inability to predict their own quality experience after purchase is sometimes due to the scarcity of extrinsic cues and misinterpretation of intrinsic cues. For instance, a higher marbling level may not be good for the credence quality for normal consumers, but it is actually good for the eating quality of the product [1,2][1][2]. In this situation, an appropriate extrinsic cue is needed to inform consumers of the relevant eating quality through the visible marbling. This indicates that the perception of beef quality is affected by both intrinsic and extrinsic quality cues, and the perceived intrinsic cues are affected by the perceived extrinsic cues and vice versa. This is useful for the industry to align the value more accurately with the quality of the product for marketing purposes.
Foods 11 01732 g001 550
Figure 1.
The formation of consumer beef quality perception.
Much scientific and industrial effort has therefore been devoted to closing the gap between expectation and experience through the consistency of extrinsic (e.g., brand, grade, price, etc.) and intrinsic (e.g., marbling level, eating quality, etc.) cues of the product and aligning value as closely as possible with the quality of the product. The Meat Standards Australia (MSA) system is a good example. In this system, beef eating quality is consistently guaranteed by a specified quality grade and a money-back guarantee. Indeed, the quality of beef that consumers receive is that for which they are prepared to pay [2] that ensures consumer satisfaction to large extent. In addition, the price premiums generated predominantly from the MSA-guaranteed quality are being noticed by the Australian beef industry [6]. Overall, understanding quality factors and ultimately improving beef quality is imperative to both consumers and the industry.
The aims of this review article are therefore to first describe consumers’ perception of beef quality, then the main factors affecting beef eating quality, and finally the main methods of measurement and prediction of beef eating quality.

2. Consumer Perception of Beef Quality

2.1. Extrinsic Quality Traits

When consumers select products in shops and markets, the extrinsic cues conveyed by the products play a dominant role in the formation of quality perception and expectation and in the subsequent purchase decision-making [1]. Within the meat sector, the extrinsic quality traits of beef are predominantly related to production, processing, and marketing, including the commercial quality of beef carcasses, brand, origin, image, quality grade, price and other product information that is of value to consumers, such as animal breed, feeding resources, breeding environment, and ethical, cultural, and environmental dimensions [7].

2.1.1. Commercial Quality, Quality Grade and Price

The variability in bovine carcasses and, consequently, in meat quality is high, inconsistent, and multifactorial in origin [7]. As the unit of trade and grading is based on carcasses, the commercial quality of bovine carcasses is of paramount importance not only for farmers, but also for the intermediate actors of the supply chain and retailers to ensure an optimized meat quality for consumers [8]. In many countries such as the United States, Japan, and South Africa, the commercial quality of a carcass is mainly evaluated based on animal type (sex and age) and carcass weight. Additionally, conformation and fat scores are important commercial quality traits of carcasses in European countries. Other attributes can indicate carcass quality, especially with the incorporation of meat quality predictors, but these attributes are also carcass-based, which means they can be considered as commercial quality attributes of the beef carcass. With the exception of sex and carcass weight, other traits such as rib fat depth, marbling score, ultimate pH, ossification, and hump height (estimate of Bos indicus content) are used by MSA to predict beef eating quality. All of these attributes related to carcass quality can be good references for producers to target the value proposition between commercial carcass quality and eating quality [2]. For instance, as the marbling score is a key component of beef quality, there are several mechanisms available to breeders to improve this attribute through genetics, animal type, carcass weight and fat level, high-energy diets, and maturity patterns, to ultimately improve the quality of beef products for consumers [9].
There are several beef grading schemes (i.e., MAS, USDA, JMGA) around the world to score beef eating quality. It has been shown that quality grade is a reliable predictor of expected quality in studies on consumer willingness to purchase. Indeed, Lyford et al. (2010) found that consumers from different countries (Japan, Australia, the United States, and Ireland) would be willing to pay more for beef with a higher quality grade [10]. This implies that a higher grade is linked to a better quality perception and that consumers would indeed be willing to pay a premium for the product that is perceived as valuable to them. On the other hand, price is also used as an indicator of quality since a higher price should logically correspond to a higher quality. Unlike the predominant extrinsic cues such as brand and quality grade, which are associated to a large extent with experience and credence quality, price only influences credence quality expectations of consumers [3]. In fact, price may be more related to the packaging characteristics of the product in certain circumstances, and is also a strong driver of perceived quality [11]. It has also been observed that in France, there is no apparent link between the market price of beef and the perceived tenderness of the meat by consumers. This implies that consumers can either obtain good beef at a low price or be disappointed by expensive beef by pure chance [12]. This emphasizes that an accurate grading scheme for at least beef eating quality is paramount in order to enable value-based purchasing for consumers.

2.1.2. Brand

Specifically, when consumers have prior knowledge of the brand, it is regarded as the most dominant factor in forming expected quality as consumers rely on brand as a trustworthy quality indicator to help them reduce purchase uncertainty due to the high biological variability in beef quality [3]. For example, Certified Angus Beef brand is reputed to be tender, juicier, and flavorful, and indeed receives a higher palatability perception by consumers [13]. Brand is also linked to the image of a product, such as the “Label Rouge” in France, which represents a superior quality in terms of palatability and credence [14]. In addition, the information given by labels could raise consumers’ expectations of extraordinarily high quality. The labelling of a superior fatty acid composition or information that the cattle were raised on natural pasture or certain specialized breeds such as Aberdeen Angus beef, could create a sense of luxury and pleasure among consumers, as they traditionally associate them with good quality [15]. In terms of “luxury”, some beef brands aim to produce highly marbled products (e.g., Japanese Wagyu) with more than 10% or even 20% fat. Despite the fact that these brands are not intended for everyday consumer consumption or the mainstream market, and do not have a strong focus on the health and nutrition issues that consumers value, they still have a market share due to the premium and luxury they are associated with, which can give consumers a sense of social importance when consuming these products [2].

2.1.3. Origin

Origin has often been considered by consumers as an important predictor to product value, while this quality cue does not seem to have an impact on eating quality [16]. In fact, as pointed out by Loureiro and Umberger [17], origin can only become a symbol of superior quality if consumers associate this origin with higher quality and safety. Despite the lack of direct influence of origin on quality, an indirect relationship actually exists through the emotional connection established for consumers that influences perceived intrinsic cues, which in turn influence expected quality [3]. Consumers also believe that local breeds are closer to the terroir [18]. In Europe, quality origin (‘PDO’ for protected designation of origin and ‘PGI’ for protected geographical indication) represents excellence in European agricultural food production and is valued by consumers for the unique combination of human and environmental factors that are based on specific quality characteristics derived from a specific geographical origin [14]. As in 2019, the European Union had a total of 1421 PDO and PGI registered products.

2.1.4. Image

In contrast to monogastric animals, the arguments against beef production do not so much concern food competition with humans but are more related to environmental sustainability in terms of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and use of land and water [7]. Another issue in relation to beef production is animal welfare, such as the animal suffering caused by factory farming systems to boost meat productivity. The environmental, ethical, and cultural aspects related to how the product is produced and processed all contribute to the quality perception of consumers. These image value attributes are therefore useful indicators of the quality of a beef product. Since livestock production is considered as a primary source of greenhouse gas emissions, the “low-carbon diet” has become a new trend in the catering sector [19]. A “carbon label” can remind consumers of the GHG impact of the food product. This image has a positive association with consumers’ perception of the quality of the food product [20]. The animal welfare assessment system developed following the European Welfare Quality project could improve the quality of the product image if the assessment can be applied on the products and the information could be provided to consumers. Indeed, animal welfare on-package labels can boost consumer appreciation and purchase intention [21]. Some animal welfare regulations during animal transport and slaughter to reduce animal stress can be a decisive factor for image-related quality attributes. Furthermore, some consumers are more willing to pay for on-farm slaughtered beef products [22].
In fact, image quality is a broad concept since almost all the extrinsic attributes can constitute the holistic image of a product. In other words, consumer perception of food quality at the time of searching/purchasing is based on the overall image of the product, which is indeed a major driver of purchase decision-making [23]. More importantly, consumer perception is also associated with ethical and environmental sustainability, and therefore improving the image value of beef products could be a key strategy for the industry.

2.2. Intrinsic Quality Traits

Intrinsic quality traits mainly include three categories: (1) appearance, which is part of the physical characteristics of the product that visually define a given category of beef product such as muscle cut, meat color, fat color, fat trim, marbling, and exudate [24]; (2) sensory quality, which is the perceived overall quality of beef (e.g., eating experience) and preferences for individual sensory responses during beef consumption (e.g., taste, tenderness, juiciness, flavor, aroma, freshness, and leanness) [1]; (3) health quality, which is associated with credence quality, including safety, nutritional composition, and healthiness of the product [25]. In contrast to extrinsic quality factors, most intrinsic factors are more relevant for predicting the quality of experience during consumption [26]. The contributions of factors such as brand and price are likely to decline over time due to fierce domestic market competition, so other factors, such as the sensory quality of beef, will continue to become increasingly important to consumers [5].

2.2.1. Appearance

Consumers can detect differences in quality through the visual appearance of the beef product. Indeed, the appearance of fresh meat is of great importance for consumer purchase [27]. A whole raw steak on display could give the feeling of a good quality premium food. At the time of purchase, meat color and fat color are critical indicators of freshness and quality for consumers [28]. Bright, cherry-red meat color and white fat color are more desirable than dark meat and yellow fat to consumers [29]. In addition, marbling represents the visual appraisal of intramuscular fat (IMF) content and consumer perception of marbling is negative to a large extent due to the sign of excess fat [30], which is not as “trimmable” as preferred by most consumers. Nevertheless, quality preferences vary from one individual to another, Killinger et al. (2004) found that consumers who preferred low marbling appeared to want lean products, whereas those who preferred high marbling favored products of superior eating quality [31]. Overall, when consumers select beef products, they rule out the influence of extrinsic quality traits, with the appearance of the product playing a predominant role at this point. For instance, as it is well known in the beef industry, Pale Soft Exudative (PSE) and Dark Firm Dry (DFD) meat products are unacceptable to consumers in shops due to their appearance defects, which are obviously related to low quality [32]. However, appearance cannot guarantee consistent eating quality at all times. It has been observed that around 15% of the retail beef in some cities in the United States does not meet the expectations of the bright cherry-red lean designation [33]. Additionally, another important factor is the morphological integrity or intactness of the primal cuts; for some consumers, when these muscle cuts are taken directly from the carcass without any processing, this implies naturalness and safety. On the other hand, meat that has been processed, even for the purpose of tenderization, may induce negative consumer attitudes [34].

2.2.2. Technological and Convenience Quality Attributes

Technological and convenience quality attributes are also factors that consumers take into consideration when selecting beef products at the time of purchase. Technological quality is associated with the storage (e.g., shelf life) and processing (e.g., cooking yield) of food, which are influenced by the chemical and microbiological properties (e.g., water/fat holding capacity, antioxidant capacity, bacterial growth) and storage requirements (shelf life, temperature, light, package) of the meat [7]. These quality attributes are also related to the practicality and usability of a product, which is known as convenience quality. A product design based on consumer benefits (e.g., time and effort saving), such as ready-to-cook foods or foods that can be kept at a normal temperature for a long time, would play a positive role in shaping consumer quality perception. Despite these trends, the proper evaluation and indication of technological and convenience quality attributes need to be better explored and formalized [35].

2.2.3. Eating Quality

Beef muscle contains approximately 75% water, and the ability to hold water and bind it in the meat during processing is strongly associated with beef texture and palatability [36]. Due to the limited ability of objective and accurate measurements to capture the variance of meat eating quality from actual consumer eating experience, sensory evaluations of meat by trained panelists or untrained consumers have been developed and are widely used in meat sensory research.
Meat tenderness depends mainly on three primary factors: (1) background toughness related to connective tissue; (2) degree of muscle contraction; (3) integrity/degradation of the myofibrillar structure during aging and tenderization [37]. In early research on beef sensory evaluation, tenderness was assessed by muscle fiber, connective tissue, and IMF characteristics in addition to global tenderness evaluation [38]. The perception of tenderness through direct measurements (consumer and/or sensory panel) includes three aspects: the ease with which the teeth penetrate the meat at first, the ease with which the meat splits into fragments during chewing, and the amount of residue left after chewing. This illustrates the complexity of tenderness in its definition and measurement. Consumer satisfaction with meat tenderness is based on the interaction between the physical/textural characteristics of the meat and the “mouthfeel”—an experience related to the sensations of biting and chewing [39].
Meat juiciness is defined as the perceived amount of juice and the level of lubrication when meat is masticated in the mouth. It is mainly affected by the inherent properties of the meat such as water holding capacity (WHC), fat content, and pre-rigor muscle metabolism; the physiological state of the tasters such as taste sensation also has an impact on the perception of meat juiciness. Therefore, as a unique subjective property of meat, a relevant measure of juiciness is achieved by sensory evaluation with consumers and/or panelists. The evaluation of meat juiciness can be performed in two steps: (1) initial juiciness, which is the initial impression of meat fluids released by the first chews of the meat and which is related to the water content of the meat; (2) sustained or overall juiciness, the perception of juiciness during sustained mastication known to be associated with fat content, which is considered to be the result of the stimulating effect of fat on salivary flow with different individual tasters [40]. As early as 1972, meat scientists found that juiciness accounted for part of the variance (less than 19%) in meat texture [41]. In the first Meat Descriptive Sensory Evaluation published by the American Meat Science Association (AMSA), juiciness was used as a key factor in evaluating meat eating quality [42]. With the development of sensory evaluation, juiciness plays a consistent role in meat eating quality. In the MSA system, 10% of the variability in consumer acceptance is explained by juiciness [43]. For American consumers, juiciness accounts for less 10% of the overall palatability of beef [44].
Flavor is a very complex sensation detected by humans, which involves a combination of olfactory and gustatory sensations that detect basic taste and aromas [45]. Physical factors (i.e., breed, sex, and age) and chemical traits (i.e., fatty acid profile) have heavy impacts on the reactions within beef during the cooking process with regard to the production of volatile aroma compounds and the taste of the beef [46]. Flavor has always been considered as an important component of beef eating quality to consumers. Efforts have been made and documented to formally improve beef flavor for more than two hundred years. In the evolution of beef sensory quality research, flavor was included in the sensory description system in 1995 by the American Meat Science Association [47] twenty years after the introduction of tenderness and juiciness. Nevertheless, meat scientists still regarded beef flavor as the second most important attribute for beef eating quality and consumer acceptance, with tenderness being the first most important [48]. In recent decades, in the MSA system, flavor liking has become as important as tenderness [43]. Furthermore, with the improvement of tenderness in recent decades, flavor is considered the most important determinant of variability in beef eating quality [49]. Beef flavor has been expanded to describe specific components such as species-specific flavor (beef broth) or descriptive attributes formed from the Beef Lexicon (fat flavor, bloody, grainy, grassy, cardboard, painty, fishy), and these attributes are related to consumer sensory attributes [46]. In current studies, flavor liking is used in the MSA system with untrained consumers, and typical flavor and abnormal flavor are used in beef evaluation with panelists.

2.2.4. Health Quality

With the improvement of people’s living standards especially in developing countries, and the increase in food safety issues, consumer perception of beef quality is highly influenced by the potential health and nutritional benefits as well as the quality of safety in the daily purchase of meat. Furthermore, with the development of more safety control and traceability systems, consumer perception of meat safety has been improved, in particular with the provision of information on safety supervision [50].
As indicated by Clinquart et al. (2022), microbiological quality is essential for beef safety and health quality. Indeed, foods of animal origin (e.g., beef, chicken, and pork) are major reservoirs of many foodborne pathogens such as Shiga toxin-producing E. coli, Salmonella, and Campylobacter [7]. Illness and even death that are caused by meat-related foodborne pathogens raise great concern for the conventional meat industry [51]. In Europe, the prevalence of Salmonella in cattle is about 2% [52]. Bacterial contamination of meat occurs during the muscle to meat conversion, transport and slaughter, processing, storage and cooking, pre-slaughter stress is identified as a factor affecting Salmonella and pathogenic E. coli contamination of animals [53]. A hygienic operating environment on the slaughter floor and chilling are essential elements in controlling all biological hazards. The microbiological issue of beef products can be serious when the meat is raw or undercooked. The meat product, especially processed beef (ground beef), must therefore meet at least the microbiological criteria set out in the relevant regulations [7]. There is no doubt that microbiological quality can affect human health, while synthetic pesticides, antimicrobials, and growth hormones used during animal production to treat infections and prevent diseases and also to optimize growth are another problem that threaten human health [54] and should therefore be rejected for consumption, especially for sensitive individuals.
Meat plays a crucial role in human evolution through the supply of essential macro and micronutrients, including high biological value proteins, fatty acids, iron, zinc, selenium, and vitamins B3, B6, and B12. Many factors such as animal type, farming system, muscle type, processing, and cooking have an impact on the concentration of these macro and micronutrients. Consumers eat meat because it is delicious in taste and necessary for its good nutritional quality [55]. Thus, consumers tend to prefer organic food, which ensures that synthetic fertilizers, pesticides, and hormones are avoided in the production process and that the use of veterinary drugs is minimized [56]. In addition, previous studies have demonstrated that organic beef has higher nutritional value than conventional beef in terms of improved bioactive compound content and a better balanced fatty acid (FA) composition, with a higher level of poly-unsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs) especially n-3 PUFAs [35]. In view of the importance consumers place on nutritional value, they would be willing to pay a premium for organic meat [57], especially for a better composition of beneficial FAs [58]. In addition, concern about chronic nutrition-related complications is in contradiction with the desire to consume meat, which might have a higher fat content for better eating quality.
In general, consumers already perceive meat as a healthy component in their diet. With the evaluation of consumer expectations, an increased interest in credence quality and health quality has been observed, which were identified above as often as being related to the quality of the production process [59]. Consumers consider high animal welfare standards or natural grass feeding to be associated with increased safety, healthiness and eating quality of food [60]. On the other hand, consumers are increasingly concerned about food-related risks and prefer natural foods (i.e., non-invasive technologies or non-chemical processes) to artificially produced foods [61]. Similarly, some consumers are opposed to novel products such as cell-based meat, due to concerns about unnaturalness and high degree of artificial production, with no assurance that cell-based meat will be safe and healthy [62].

Overall, beef is an essential part of the human diet. Providing consistently good quality of meat is of importance to consumers, which generally implies the production of safe, healthy and tasty beef. However, meat, especially beef, has gradually become an ideological battleground over the past decades. Producing meat in an environmentally sustainable and animal welfare friendly manner is therefore critical for the continued success of the conventional meat industry. Beef quality is a complex concept and tends to become more broadly based on different dimensions. Among these, extrinsic quality traits, which include not only factors external to the product but also factors that add value to the product such as animal welfare and environmental sustainability, are becoming increasingly important to consumers.

References

  1. Grunert, K.G.; Bredahl, L.; Brunsø, K. Consumer Perception of Meat Quality and Implications for Product Development in the Meat Sector - A Review. Meat Sci. 2004, 66, 259–272, doi:10.1016/S0309-1740(03)00130-XGrunert, K.G.; Bredahl, L.; Brunsø, K. Consumer perception of meat quality and implications for product development in the meat sector—A review. Meat Sci. 2004, 66, 259–272.
  2. Pethick, D.W.; Hocquette, J.F.; Scollan, N.D.; Dunshea, F.R. Review: Improving the Nutritional, Sensory and Market Value of Meat Products from Sheep and Cattle. Animal 2021, 15, 100356, doi: 10.1016/j.animal.2021.100356Pethick, D.; Hocquette, J.-F.; Scollan, N.; Dunshea, F. Review: Improving the nutritional, sensory and market value of meat products from sheep and cattle. Animal 2021, 15, 100356.
  3. Banović, M.; Grunert, K.G.; Barreira, M.M.; Fontes, M.A. Beef Quality Perception at the Point of Purchase: A Study from Por-tugal. Food Qual. Prefer. 2009, 20, 335–342, doi:10.1016/j.foodqual.2009.02.009Banović, M.; Grunert, K.G.; Barreira, M.M.; Fontes, M. Beef quality perception at the point of purchase: A study from Portugal. Food Qual. Prefer. 2009, 20, 335–342.
  4. Hocquette, J.F.; Meurice, P.; Brun, J.P.; Jurie, C.; Denoyelle, C.; Bauchart, D.; Renand, G.; Nute, G.R.; Picard, B. The Challenge and Limitations of Combining Data: A Case Study Examining the Relationship between Intramuscular Fat Content and Fla-vour Intensity Based on the BIF-BEEF Database. Anim. Prod. Sci. 2011, 51, 975–981, doi:10.1071/AN10044Hocquette, J.-F.; Meurice, P.; Brun, J.P.; Jurie, C.; Denoyelle, C.; Bauchart, D.; Renand, G.; Nute, G.R.; Picard, B. The challenge and limitations of combining data: A case study examining the relationship between intramuscular fat content and flavour intensity based on the BIF-BEEF database. Anim. Prod. Sci. 2011, 51, 975–981.
  5. Henchion, M.; McCarthy, M.; Resconi, V.C.; Troy, D. Meat Consumption: Trends and Quality Matters. Meat Sci. 2014, 98, 561–568, doi:10.1016/j.meatsci.2014.06.007Henchion, M.; McCarthy, M.; Resconi, V.C.; Troy, D. Meat consumption: Trends and quality matters. Meat Sci. 2014, 98, 561–568.
  6. Farmer, L.J.; Farrell, D.T. Review: Beef-Eating Quality: A European Journey. Animal 2018, 12, 2424–2433, doi:10.1017/S1751731118001672Farmer, L.J.; Farrell, D.T. Review: Beef-eating quality: A European journey. Animal 2018, 12, 2424–2433.
  7. Clinquart, A.; Ellies-Oury, M.P.; Hocquette, J.F.; Guillier, L.; Santé-Lhoutellier, V.; Prache, S. Review: On-Farm and Processing Factors Affecting Bovine Carcass and Meat Quality. Animal 2022, 100426, doi:10.1016/j.animal.2021.100426Clinquart, A.; Ellies-Oury, M.; Hocquette, J.; Guillier, L.; Santé-Lhoutellier, V.; Prache, S. Review: On-farm and processing factors affecting bovine carcass and meat quality. Animal 2022, 16, 100426.
  8. Ellies-Oury, M.P.; Hocquette, J.F.; Chriki, S.; Conanec, A.; Farmer, L.; Chavent, M.; Saracco, J. Various Statistical Approaches to Assess and Predict Carcass and Meat Quality Traits. Foods 2020, 9, 525, doi:10.3390/foods9040525Ellies-Oury, M.-P.; Hocquette, J.-F.; Chriki, S.; Conanec, A.; Farmer, L.; Chavent, M.; Saracco, J. Various Statistical Approaches to Assess and Predict Carcass and Meat Quality Traits. Foods 2020, 9, 525.
  9. Pethick, D.W.; Harper, G.S.; Oddy, V.H. Growth, Development and Nutritional Manipulation of Marbling in Cattle: A Re-view. Aust. J. Exp. Agric. 2004, 44, 705–715, doi: 10.1071/ea02165Pethick, D.W.; Harper, G.; Oddy, V.H. Growth, development and nutritional manipulation of marbling in cattle: A review. Aust. J. Exp. Agric. 2004, 44, 705–715.
  10. Lyford, C.; Thompson, J.; Polkinghorne, R.; Miller, M.; Nishimura, T.; Neath, K.; Allen, P.; Belasco, E. Is Willingness to Pay (WTP) for Beef Quality Grades Affected by Consumer Demographics and Meat Consumption Preferences? Australas. Agribus. Rev. 2010, 18, 1–17, doi: 10.22004/ag.econ.125701Lyford, C.; Thompson, J.; Polkinghorne, R.; Miller, M.; Nishimura, T.; Neath, K.; Allen, P.; Belasco, E. Is Willingness to Pay (WTP) for Beef Quality Grades Affected by Consumer Demographics and Meat Consumption Preferences? Australas. Agribus. Rev. 2010, 18, 1–17.
  11. Loose, S. M., Szolnoki, G. Market Price Differentials for Food Packaging Characteristics. Food Qual. Prefer. 2012, 25, 171–182, doi: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2012.02.009Loose, S.M.; Szolnoki, G. Market price differentials for food packaging characteristics. Food Qual. Prefer. 2012, 25, 171–182.
  12. Hocquette, J.F.; Botreau, R.; Picard, B.; Jacquet, A.; Pethick, D.W.; Scollan, N.D. Opportunities for Predicting and Manipulating Beef Quality. Meat Sci. 2012, 92, 197–209, doi: 10.1016/j.meatsci.2012.04.007Hocquette, J.-F.; Botreau, R.; Picard, B.; Jacquet, A.; Pethick, D.W.; Scollan, N.D. Opportunities for predicting and manipulating beef quality. Meat Sci. 2012, 92, 197–209.
  13. Wilfong, A.K.; McKillip, K.V.; Gonzalez, J.M.; Houser, T.A.; Unruh, J.A.; Boyle, E.A.; O'Quinn, T.G. The effect of branding on consumer palatability ratings of beef strip loin steaks. J. Anim. Sci. 2016, 94, 4930-4942, doi:10.2527/jas2016-0893Wilfong, A.K.; McKillip, K.V.; Gonzalez, J.M.; Houser, T.A.; Unruh, J.A.; Boyle, E.A.E.; O’Quinn, T.G. The effect of branding on consumer palatability ratings of beef strip loin steaks. J. Anim. Sci. 2016, 94, 4930–4942.
  14. Hocquette, J.F.; Botreau, R.; Legrand, I.; Polkinghorne, R.; Pethick, D.W.; Lherm, M.; Picard, B.; Doreau, M.; Terlouw, E.M.C. Win-Win Strategies for High Beef Quality, Consumer Satisfaction, and Farm Efficiency, Low Environmental Impacts and Improved Animal Welfare. Anim. Prod. Sci. 2014, 54, 1537–1548, doi:10.1071/AN14210Hocquette, J.-F.; Botreau, R.; Legrand, I.; Polkinghorne, R.; Pethick, D.W.; Lherm, M.; Picard, B.; Doreau, M.; Terlouw, E.M.C. Win–win strategies for high beef quality, consumer satisfaction, and farm efficiency, low environmental impacts and improved animal welfare. Anim. Prod. Sci. 2014, 54, 1537–1548.
  15. Grunert, K.G.; Loose, S.M.; Zhou, Y.; Tinggaard, S. Extrinsic and Intrinsic Quality Cues in Chinese Consumers’ Purchase of Pork Ribs. Food Qual. Prefer. 2015, 42, 37–47, doi:10.1016/j.foodqual.2015.01.001Grunert, K.G.; Loose, S.M.; Zhou, Y.; Tinggaard, S. Extrinsic and intrinsic quality cues in Chinese consumers’ purchase of pork ribs. Food Qual. Prefer. 2015, 42, 37–47.
  16. Becker, T.; Benner, E.; Glitsch, K. Consumer Perception of Fresh Meat Quality in Germany. Br. Food J. 2000, 102, 246–266, doi:10.1108/00070700010324763.Becker, T.; Benner, E.; Glitsch, K. Consumer perception of fresh meat quality in Germany. Br. Food J. 2000, 102, 246–266.
  17. Loureiro, M. L., Umberger, W.J. A Choice Experiment Model for Beef: What US Consumer Responses Tell Us about Relative Preferences for Food Safety, Country-of-Origin Labeling and Traceability. Food Policy. 2007, 32, 496–514, doi: 10.1016/j.foodpol.2006.11.006Loureiro, M.L.; Umberger, W.J. A choice experiment model for beef: What US consumer responses tell us about relative preferences for food safety, country-of-origin labeling and traceability. Food Policy 2007, 32, 496–514.
  18. Raulet, M.; Clinquart, A.; Prache, S. Construction of Beef Quality through Official Quality Signs, the Example of Label Rouge. Animal 2021, 100357, doi:10.1016/j.animal.2021.100357Raulet, M.; Clinquart, A.; Prache, S. Construction of beef quality through official quality signs, the example of Label Rouge. Animal 2021, 16, 100357.
  19. Shen, Y. C., Chen, H.S. Exploring Consumers ’ Purchase Intention of an Innovation of the Agri-Food Industry : A Case Of. Foods 2020, 9, 745, doi: 10.3390/foods9060745Shen, Y.-C.; Chen, H.-S. Exploring Consumers’ Purchase Intention of an Innovation of the Agri-Food Industry: A Case of Artificial Meat. Foods 2020, 9, 745.
  20. Camilleri, A.R. What ’ s Your Beef ? How ’ Carbon Labels ’ Can Steer Us towards Environmentally Friendly Food Choices. 2018.Camilleri, A.R. What’ s Your Beef? How’ Carbon Labels’ Can Steer Us towards Environmentally Friendly Food Choices. 2018. Available online: https://theconversation.com/whats-your-beef-how-carbon-labels-can-steer-us-towards-environmentally-friendly-food-choices-108424 (accessed on 17 December 2018).
  21. Cornish, A.R.; Briley, D.; Wilson, B.J.; Raubenheimer, D.; Schlosberg, D.; McGreevy, P.D. The Price of Good Welfare: Does In-forming Consumers about What on-Package Labels Mean for Animal Welfare Influence Their Purchase Intentions? Appetite 2020, 148, 104577, doi:10.1016/j.appet.2019.104577Cornish, A.R.; Briley, D.; Wilson, B.J.; Raubenheimer, D.; Schlosberg, D.; McGreevy, P.D. The price of good welfare: Does informing consumers about what on-package labels mean for animal welfare influence their purchase intentions? Appetite 2020, 148, 104577.
  22. Carlsson, F.; Frykblom, P.; Lagerkvist, C.J. Consumer Willingness to Pay for Farm Animal Welfare: Mobile Abattoirs versus Transportation to Slaughter. Eur. Rev. Agric. Econ. 2007, 34, 321–344, doi:10.1093/erae/jbm025Carlsson, F.; Frykblom, P.; Lagerkvist, C.J. Consumer willingness to pay for farm animal welfare: Mobile abattoirs versus transportation to slaughter. Eur. Rev. Agric. Econ. 2007, 34, 321–344.
  23. Aboah, J.; Lees, N. Consumers Use of Quality Cues for Meat Purchase: Research Trends and Future Pathways. Meat Sci. 2020, 166, 108142, doi:10.1016/j.meatsci.2020.108142Aboah, J.; Lees, N. Consumers use of quality cues for meat purchase: Research trends and future pathways. Meat Sci. 2020, 166, 108142.
  24. Acebron, L. B., Dopico, D.C. The Importance of Intrinsic and Extrinsic Cues to Expected and Experienced Quality: An Empir-ical Application for Beef. Food Qual. Prefer. 2000, 11, 229–238, doi: 10.1016/S0950-3293(99)00059-2Acebrón, L.B.; Dopico, D.C. The importance of intrinsic and extrinsic cues to expected and experienced quality: An empirical application for beef. Food Qual. Prefer. 2000, 11, 229–238.
  25. Lähteenmäki, L. Claiming Health in Food Products. Food Qual. Prefer. 2013, 27, 196–201, doi: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2012.03.006Lähteenmäki, L. Claiming health in food products. Food Qual. Prefer. 2013, 27, 196–201.
  26. Marreiros, C.; Ness, M. A Conceptual Framework of Consumer Food Choice Behaviour. 2009, University of Evora, CEFAGE-UE (Portugal).Marreiros, C.; Ness, M. A Conceptual Framework of Consumer Food Choice Behaviour; University of Evora, CEFAGE-UE: Évora, Portugal, 2009.
  27. Borgogno, M.; Favotto, S.; Corazzin, M.; Cardello, A. V.; Piasentier, E. The Role of Product Familiarity and Consumer In-volvement on Liking and Perceptions of Fresh Meat. Food Qual. Prefer. 2015, 44, 139–147, doi:10.1016/j.foodqual.2015.04.010Borgogno, M.; Favotto, S.; Corazzin, M.; Cardello, A.V.; Piasentier, E. The role of product familiarity and consumer involvement on liking and perceptions of fresh meat. Food Qual. Prefer. 2015, 44, 139–147.
  28. Smith, G.C.; Belk, K.E.; Sofos, J.N.; Tatum, J.D.; Williams, S.N. Economic Implications of Improved Color Stability in Beef. Antioxidants muscle foods Nutr. Strateg. to Improv. Qual. 2000, 397–426.Smith, G.C.; Belk, K.E.; Sofos, J.N.; Tatum, J.D.; Williams, S.N. Economic Implications of Improved Color Stability in Beef. In Antioxidants in Muscle Foods: Nutritional Strategies to Improve Quality; John Wiley and Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2000; pp. 397–426.
  29. Ardeshiri, A.; Rose, J.M. How Australian Consumers Value Intrinsic and Extrinsic Attributes of Beef Products. Food Qual. Prefer. 2018, 65, 146–163, doi:10.1016/j.foodqual.2017.10.018Ardeshiri, A.; Rose, J.M. How Australian consumers value intrinsic and extrinsic attributes of beef products. Food Qual. Prefer. 2018, 65, 146–163.
  30. Morales, R.; Aguiar, A.P.S.; Subiabre, I.; Realini, C.E. Beef Acceptability and Consumer Expectations Associated with Produc-tion Systems and Marbling. Food Qual. Prefer. 2013, 29, 166–173, doi:10.1016/j.foodqual.2013.02.006Morales, R.; Aguiar, A.; Subiabre, I.; Realini, C. Beef acceptability and consumer expectations associated with production systems and marbling. Food Qual. Prefer. 2013, 29, 166–173.
  31. Killinger, K.M.; Calkins, C.R.; Umberger, W.J.; Feuz, D.M.; Eskridge, K.M. Consumer Sensory Acceptance and Value for Beef Steaks of Similar Tenderness, but Differing in Marbling Level. J. Anim. Sci. 2004, 82, 3294–3301, doi: 10.2527/2004.82113294xKillinger, K.M.; Calkins, C.R.; Umberger, W.; Feuz, D.M.; Eskridge, K.M. Consumer sensory acceptance and value for beef steaks of similar tenderness, but differing in marbling level. J. Anim. Sci. 2004, 82, 3294–3301.
  32. Adzitey, F.; Nurul, H. Pale Soft Exudative (PSE) and Dark Firm Dry (DFD) Meats: Causes and Measures to Reduce These Incidences-a Mini Review. Int. Food Res. J. 2011, 18.Adzitey, F.; Nurul, H. Pale Soft Exudative (PSE) and Dark Firm Dry (DFD) Meats: Causes and Measures to Reduce These Incidences-a Mini Review. Int. Food Res. J. 2011, 18, 11–20.
  33. Killinger, K.M.; Calkins, C.R.; Umberger, W.J.; Feuz, D.M.; Eskridge, K.M. A Comparison of Consumer Sensory Acceptance and Value of Domestic Beef Steaks and Steaks from a Branded, Argentine Beef Program. J. Anim. Sci. 2004, 82, 3302–3307, doi: 10.2527/2004.82113302xKillinger, K.M.; Calkins, C.R.; Umberger, W.; Feuz, D.M.; Eskridge, K.M. A comparison of consumer sensory acceptance and value of domestic beef steaks and steaks from a branded, Argentine beef program. J. Anim. Sci. 2004, 82, 3302–3307.
  34. Yang, L.; Arnold, N.L.; Drape, T.; Williams, R.C.; Archibald, T.; Chapman, B.; Boyer, R. A Survey of United States Consumer Awareness, Purchasing, and Handling of Mechanically Tenderized Beef Products. Food Control 2021, 120, 107505, doi:10.1016/j.foodcont.2020.107505Yang, L.; Arnold, N.L.; Drape, T.; Williams, R.C.; Archibald, T.; Chapman, B.; Boyer, R. A survey of United States consumer awareness, purchasing, and handling of mechanically tenderized beef products. Food Control 2021, 120, 107505.
  35. Prache, S.; Adamiec, C.; Astruc, T.; Baéza-Campone, E.; Bouillot, P.E.; Clinquart, A.; Feidt, C.; Fourat, E.; Gautron, J.; Girard, A.; Guillier, L.; Kesse-Guyot, E., Lebret, B., Lefèvre, F., Perchec, S., Martin, B., Mirade, P.S.; Pierre, F.; Raulet, M.; Rémond, D.; Sans, P.; Souchon, I.; Donnars, C.; Santé-Lhoutellier, V. Review: Quality of Animal-Source Foods. Animal 2021, 100376, doi:10.1016/j.animal.2021.100376Prache, S.; Adamiec, C.; Astruc, T.; Baéza-Campone, E.; Bouillot, P.; Clinquart, A.; Feidt, C.; Fourat, E.; Gautron, J.; Girard, A.; et al. Review: Quality of animal-source foods. Animal 2021, 16, 100376.
  36. Warner, R.D. The Eating Quality of Meat-IV Water-Holding Capacity and Juiciness. 2017, ISBN 9780081006979Warner, R.D. The Eating Quality of Meat—IV Water-Holding Capacity and Juiciness. In Lawrie’s Meat Science, 8th ed.; Toldra’, F., Ed.; Woodhead Publishing: Cambridge, UK, 2017; ISBN 9780081006979.
  37. Hopkins, D.L.; Geesink, G.H. Protein Degradation Post Mortem and Tenderization. Appl. muscle Biol. meat Sci. 2009, 149–173, doi: 10.1201/b15797-9Hopkins, D.L.; Geesink, G.H. Protein Degradation Post Mortem and Tenderization. In Applied Muscle Biology and Meat Science; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2009; pp. 149–173.
  38. Miller, R.K. The Eating Quality of Meat: V—Sensory Evaluation of Meat. In Lawrie´ s Meat Science; Woodhead Publishing, 2017; pp. 461–499, ISBN 9780081006979Miller, R.K. The Eating Quality of Meat: V—Sensory Evaluation of Meat. In Lawrie’ s Meat Science, 8th ed.; Toldra, F., Ed.; Woodhead Publishing: Cambridge, UK, 2017; pp. 461–499. ISBN 9780081006979.
  39. Warner, R.; Miller, R.K.; Ha, M.; Wheeler, T.; Dunshea, F.; Li, X.; Vaskoska, R.; Purslow, P. Meat Tenderness: Underlying Mechanisms, Instrumental Measurement, and Sensory Assessment. Meat Muscle Biol. 2021, 4, 17–18, doi:10.22175/mmb.10489Warner, R.; Miller, R.K.; Ha, M.; Wheeler, T.; Dunshea, F.; Li, X.; Vaskoska, R.; Purslow, P. Meat Tenderness: Underlying Mechanisms, Instrumental Measurement, and Sensory Assessment. Meat Muscle Biol. 2021, 4, 17–18.
  40. Winger, R.J.; Hagyard, C.J. Juiciness — Its Importance and Some Contributing Factors. In Quality Attributes and their Meas-urement in Meat, Poultry and Fish Products; Springer US, 1994; pp. 94–124, doi: 10.1007/978-1-4615-2167-9_4Winger, R.J.; Hagyard, C.J. Juiciness—Its importance and some contributing factors. In Quality Attributes and Their Measurement in Meat, Poultry and Fish Products; Springer: Princeton, NJ, USA, 1994; pp. 94–124.
  41. Harries, J.M.; Rhodes, D.N.; Chrystall, B.B. MEAT TEXTURE: I. Subjective Assessment of the Texture of Cooked Beef. J. Tex-ture Stud. 1972, 3, 101–114, doi:10.1111/j.1745-4603.1972.tb00613.xHarries, J.M.; Rhodes, D.N.; Chrystall, B.B. MEAT TEXTURE: I. Subjective Assessment of the Texture of Cooked Beef. J. Texture Stud. 1972, 3, 101–114.
  42. Cross, H.R.; Bernholdt, H.F.; Dikeman, M.E.; Greene, B.E.; Moody, W.G.; Staggs, R.; West, R.L. Guidelines for Cookery and Sen-sory Evaluation of Meat. Chicago: American Meat Science Association.; American Meat Science Association.: Chicago, 1978Cross, H.R.; Bernholdt, H.F.; Dikeman, M.E.; Greene, B.E.; Moody, W.G.; Staggs, R.; West, R.L. Guidelines for Cookery and Sensory Evaluation of Meat; American Meat Science Association: Chicago, IL, USA, 1978.
  43. Watson, R.; Gee, A.; Polkinghorne, R.; Porter, M. Consumer Assessment of Eating Quality - Development of Protocols for Meat Standards Australia (MSA) Testing. Aust. J. Exp. Agric. 2008, 48, 1360–1367, doi:10.1071/EA07176Watson, R.; Gee, A.; Polkinghorne, R.; Porter, M. Consumer assessment of eating quality-development of protocols for Meat Standards Australia (MSA) testing. Aust. J. Exp. Agric. 2008, 48, 1360–1367.
  44. O’Quinn, T.G.; Legako, J.F.; Brooks, J.C.; Miller, M.F. Evaluation of the contribution of tenderness, juiciness, and flavor to the overall consumer beef eating experience. Transl. Anim. Sci. 2018, 2, 26-36, doi: 10.1093/tas/txx008O’Quinn, T.G.; Legako, J.F.; Brooks, J.C.; Miller, M.F. Evaluation of the contribution of tenderness, juiciness, and flavor to the overall consumer beef eating experience1. Transl. Anim. Sci. 2018, 2, 26–36.
  45. Delwiche, J. The Impact of Perceptual Interactions on Perceived Flavor. Food Qual. Prefer. 2004, 15, 137–146, doi:10.1016/S0950-3293(03)00041-7Delwiche, J. The impact of perceptual interactions on perceived flavor. Food Qual. Prefer. 2004, 15, 137–146.
  46. Kerth, C.R.; Miller, R.K. Beef Flavor: A Review from Chemistry to Consumer. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2015, 95, 2783–2798, doi:10.1002/jsfa.7204Kerth, C.R.; Miller, R.K. Beef flavor: A review from chemistry to consumer. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2015, 95, 2783–2798.
  47. Stock, N.L.; Board., M. Research Guidelines for Cookery, Sensory Evaluation, and Instrumental Tenderness Measurements of Fresh Meat. American Meat Science Association. 1995.Stock, N.L.; Board, M. Research Guidelines for Cookery, Sensory Evaluation, and Instrumental Tenderness Measurements of Fresh Meat; American Meat Science Association: Chicago, IL, USA, 1995.
  48. Miller, M.F.; Huffman, K.L.; Gilbert, S.Y.; Hamman, L.L.; Ramsey, C.B. Retail Consumer Acceptance of Beef Tenderized with Calcium Chloride. J. Anim. Sci. 1995, 73, 2308–2314, doi: 10.2527/1995.7382308xMiller, M.F.; Huffman, K.L.; Gilbert, S.Y.; Hamman, L.L.; Ramsey, C.B. Retail consumer acceptance of beef tenderized with calcium chloride. J. Anim. Sci. 1995, 73, 2308–2314.
  49. Liu, J.; Ellies-Oury, M.P.; Chriki, S.; Legrand, I.; Pogorzelski, G.; Wierzbicki, J.; Farmer, L.; Troy, D.; Polkinghorne, R.; Hocquette, J.F. Contributions of Tenderness, Juiciness and Flavor Liking to Overall Liking of Beef in Europe. Meat Sci. 2020, 168, 108190, doi:10.1016/j.meatsci.2020.108190Liu, J.; Ellies-Oury, M.-P.; Chriki, S.; Legrand, I.; Pogorzelski, G.; Wierzbicki, J.; Farmer, L.; Troy, D.; Polkinghorne, R.; Hocquette, J.-F. Contributions of tenderness, juiciness and flavor liking to overall liking of beef in Europe. Meat Sci. 2020, 168, 108190.
  50. Angulo, A.M.; Gil, J.M. Risk perception and consumer willingness to pay for certified beef in Spain. Food Qual. Prefer. 2007, 18, 1106–1117, doi: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2007.05.008Angulo, A.M.; Gil, J.M. Risk perception and consumer willingness to pay for certified beef in Spain. Food Qual. Prefer. 2007, 18, 1106–1117.
  51. Heredia, N.; García, S. Animals as Sources of Food-Borne Pathogens: A Review. Anim. Nutr. 2018, 4, 250–255, doi: 10.1016/j.aninu.2018.04.006Heredia, N.; García, S. Animals as sources of food-borne pathogens: A review. Anim. Nutr. 2018, 4, 250–255.
  52. Gutema, F.D.; Agga, G.E.; Abdi, R.D.; De Zutter, L.; Duchateau, L.; Gabriël, S. Corrigendum: Prevalence and Serotype Diversi-ty of Salmonella in Apparently Healthy Cattle: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Published Studies, 2000–2017. Front. Vet. Sci. 2019, 6, 102, doi: 10.3389/Fvets.2019.00102Gutema, F.D.; Agga, G.; Abdi, R.D.; De Zutter, L.; Duchateau, L.; Gabriël, S. Corrigendum: Prevalence and Serotype Diversity of Salmonella in Apparently Healthy Cattle: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Published Studies, 2000–2017. Front. Veter.-Sci. 2019, 6, 102.
  53. Niyonzima, E.; Ongol, M.P.; Kimonyo, A.; Sindic, M. Risk Factors and Control Measures for Bacterial Contamination in the Bovine Meat Chain: A Review on Salmonella and Pathogenic E.Coli. J. Food Res. 2015, 4, 98, doi:10.5539/jfr.v4n5p98Niyonzima, E.; Ongol, M.P.; Kimonyo, A.; Sindic, M. Risk Factors and Control Measures for Bacterial Contamination in the Bovine Meat Chain: A Review on Salmonella and Pathogenic E.coli. J. Food Res. 2015, 4, 98.
  54. Ma, F.; Xu, S.; Tang, Z.; Li, Z.; Zhang, L. Use of Antimicrobials in Food Animals and Impact of Transmission of Antimicrobial Resistance on Humans. Biosaf. Heal. 2021, 3, 32–38, doi: 10.1016/j.bsheal.2020.09.004Ma, F.; Xu, S.; Tang, Z.; Li, Z.; Zhang, L. Use of antimicrobials in food animals and impact of transmission of antimicrobial resistance on humans. Biosaf. Health 2021, 3, 32–38.
  55. Ellies-Oury, M.P.; Lee, A.; Jacob, H.; Hocquette, J.F. Meat Consumption–What French Consumers Feel about the Quality of Beef? Ital. J. Anim. Sci. 2019, 18, 646–656, doi:10.1080/1828051X.2018.1551072Ellies-Oury, M.-P.; Lee, A.; Jacob, H.; Hocquette, J.-F. Meat consumption—What French consumers feel about the quality of beef? Ital. J. Anim. Sci. 2019, 18, 646–656.
  56. Prache, S.; Lebret, B.; Baéza, E.; Martin, B.; Gautron, J.; Feidt, C.; Médale, F.; Corraze, G.; Raulet, M.; Lefèvre, F.; et al. Review: Quality and Authentication of Organic Animal Products in Europe. Animal 2021, 100405, doi: 10.1016/j.animal.2021.100405Prache, S.; Lebret, B.; Baéza, E.; Martin, B.; Gautron, J.; Feidt, C.; Médale, F.; Corraze, G.; Raulet, M.; Lefèvre, F.; et al. Review: Quality and authentication of organic animal products in Europe. Animal 2021, 16, 100405.
  57. Sarma, P.K.; Raha, S.K. Consumers’ Willingness to Pay for Organic Beef: Evidence from Dhaka City. J. Bangladesh Agric. Univ. 2016, 14, 83–91, doi: 10.3329/JBAU.V14I1.30602Sarma, P.; Raha, S. Consumers’ willingness to pay for organic beef: Evidence from Dhaka City. J. Bangladesh Agric. Univ. 2016, 14, 83–91.
  58. Flowers, S.; McFadden, B.R.; Carr, C.C.; Mateescu, R.G. Consumer Preferences for Beef with Improved Nutrient Profile. J. Anim. Sci. 2019, 97, 4699–4709, doi: 10.1093/jas/skz327Flowers, S.; McFadden, B.R.; Carr, C.C.; Mateescu, R.G. Consumer preferences for beef with improved nutrient profile. J. Anim. Sci. 2019, 97, 4699–4709.
  59. Henchion, M.M.; McCarthy, M.; Resconi, V.C. Beef Quality Attributes: A Systematic Review of Consumer Perspectives. Meat Sci. 2017, 128, 1–7, doi: 10.1016/j.meatsci.2017.01.006Henchion, M.M.; McCarthy, M.; Resconi, V.C. Beef quality attributes: A systematic review of consumer perspectives. Meat Sci. 2017, 128, 1–7.
  60. Fallon, R.J.; Earley, B. Animal Welfare Guidelines for Beef Cattle Farms. Teagasc: Oak Park, Carlow, Ireland. 2008.Fallon, R.J.; Earley, B. Animal Welfare Guidelines for Beef Cattle Farms; Teagasc: Carlow, Ireland, 2008.
  61. Buch, S.; Pinto, S.; Aparnathi, K.D. Evaluation of Efficacy of Turmeric as a Preservative in Paneer. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2014, 51, 3226–3234, doi: 10.1007/s13197-012-0871-0Buch, S.; Pinto, S.; Aparnathi, K.D. Evaluation of efficacy of turmeric as a preservative in paneer. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2012, 51, 3226–3234.
  62. Chriki, S.; Hocquette, J.F. The Myth of Cultured Meat: A Review. Front. Nutr. 2020, 7, doi: 10.3389/fnut.2020.00007Chriki, S.; Hocquette, J.-F. The Myth of Cultured Meat: A Review. Front. Nutr. 2020, 7, 7.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
Academic Video Service
Feedback