Consumers want pork with ‘adjectives’
D. N. D’Souza A C , D. Cleary B and R. J. E. Hewitt A
+ Author Affiliations
- Author Affiliations
A SunPork Solutions, Loganholme, Qld 4129, Australia.
B SunPork Fresh Foods, Murarrie, Qld 4174, Australia.
C Corresponding author. Email: darryl.dsouza@sunporkfarms.com.au
Animal Production Science 57(12) 2331-2338 https://doi.org/10.1071/AN17362
Submitted: 31 May 2017 Accepted: 1 August 2017 Published: 20 November 2017
Abstract
Pork is the most consumed meat globally, but its consumption varies widely across the major pork-consuming nations. Consumers consider a wide variety of intrinsic and extrinsic cues, and credence attributes, when making purchasing and consumption decisions for food products. Brand recognition has been an important extrinsic cue for consumers, especially in the case of pork-product quality. However, the branding of fresh pork products in Australia has not been very prominent, due to the dominance of retailer ‘home-brand’ labels. However, increasingly these retailer labels are using information and branding relating to adjectives (credence attributes), for example, animal welfare, production systems, environment. The role of these credence attributes in Australia are now very much regarded by consumers as surrogate indicators of pork quality. The present paper will look at consumer preferences and attitudes to pork and the role credence attributes play when consumers purchase pork. In addition, the paper looks at the role of retailers in delivering pork with adjectives.
Additional keywords: credence values, intrinsic and extrinsic factors, willingness to pay.
References
ABARES (2015) ‘Agricultural commodity statistics 2015.’ (Australian Bureau of Agricultural Resource Economics and Sciences: Canberra) Available at http://www.agriculture.gov.au/abares/publications/publications [Verified May 2017]ABS (2016) ‘Value of agricultural commodities produced, Australia, 2014–15.’ (Australian Bureau of Statistics: Canberra) Available at http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/7503.0 [Verified May 2017]
Aloha JK (2008) ‘Beef production in the European Union: a look into our future?’ (Beef Magazine Farm Progress: New York)
APL (2010) Usage and attitudes study. Internal report. Australian Pork Ltd, Canberra.
APL (2015) Annual report. Australian Pork Ltd, Canberra. Available at https://cloud.3dissue.com/74027/74377/102152/ARnew/index.html?r=91 [Verified May 2017]
Batterham ES, Jones IR, Schumann GJ, Creagh JM (1982) Current developments within the pig industry. Proceedings of the Australian Society of Animal Production 14, 225–237.
Bellhouse A, Malcolm LW, Griffith G, Dunshea FR (2010) Australian consumers’ willingness to pay and willingness to purchase a hypothetical lower cholesterol pork product. Australasian Agribusiness Review 18, 161–192.
Breidert C, Hahsler M, Reutterer T (2006) A review of methods for measuring willingness-to-pay. Innovative Marketing 2, 8–32.
Bryhni EA, Byrne DV, Rodbotten M, Claudi-Magnussen C, Agerhem H, Johansson M, Lea P, Martens M (2002) Consumer perceptions of pork in Denmark, Norway and Sweden. Food Quality and Preference 13, 257–266.
| Consumer perceptions of pork in Denmark, Norway and Sweden.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Channon HA, Warner RD (2011) Delivering consistent quality Australian pork to consumers: a systems approach. In ‘Manipulating pig production XIII, Vol. XIII’. (Ed. RJ van Barneveld) pp. 262–293. (Australasian Pig Science Association: Melbourne)
Christensen T, Lawrence A, Lund M, Stott A, Sandoe P (2012) How can economists help to improve animal welfare? Animal Welfare 21, 1–10.
| How can economists help to improve animal welfare?Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:CAS:528:DC%2BC38Xnt1GmsbY%3D&md5=ac864d9d785d33cc0a4dbf252c4e840dCAS |
Clark B, Frewer LJ, Panzone LA, Stewart GB (2017) The need for formal evidence synthesis in food policy: a case study of willingness-to-pay. Animals 7, 23
| The need for formal evidence synthesis in food policy: a case study of willingness-to-pay.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Cummins AM, Olynk Widmar NJ, Croney CC, Fulton JR (2016) Understanding consumer pork attribute preferences. Theoretical Economics Letters 6, 166–177.
| Understanding consumer pork attribute preferences.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
de Barcellos MD, Krystallis A, de Melo Saab MS, Kügler JO, Grunert KG (2011) Investigating the gap between citizens’ sustainability attitudes and food purchasing behaviour: empirical evidence from Brazilian pork consumers. International Journal of Consumer Studies 35, 391–402.
| Investigating the gap between citizens’ sustainability attitudes and food purchasing behaviour: empirical evidence from Brazilian pork consumers.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Denver S, Sandøe P, Christensen T (2017) Consumer preferences for pig welfare: can the market accommodate more than one level of welfare pork? Meat Science 129, 140–146.
| Consumer preferences for pig welfare: can the market accommodate more than one level of welfare pork?Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Dries L, Leuven KU, Mancini MC (2006) ‘Food quality assurance and certification schemes.’ Stakeholder hearing 11/12 May 2006. Background paper. (European Communities)
Dunshea FR, D’Souza DN, Channon HA (2016) Metabolic modifiers as performance-enhancing technologies for livestock production. Animal Frontiers 6, 6–14.
| Metabolic modifiers as performance-enhancing technologies for livestock production.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
European Commission (2007) ‘Attitudes of EU citizens towards animal welfare: special Eurobarometer 270.’ (European Commission: Brussels)
Fallon RJ, Earley B (2008) ‘Animal welfare guidelines for beef cattle farms.’ (Teagasc: Oak Park, Carlow, Ireland)
FAO, IFAD and WFP (2015) ‘The state of food insecurity in the world 2015. Meeting the 2015 international hunger targets: taking stock of uneven progress.’ (FAO: Rome)
Foley JA, Ramankutty N, Brauman KA, Cassidy ES, Gerber JS, Johnston M, Mueller ND, O’Connell C, Ray DK, West PC, Balzer C, Bennett EM, Carpenter SR, Hill J, Monfreda C, Polasky S, Rockstrom J, Sheehan J, Siebert S, Tilman D, Zaks DPM (2011) Solutions for a cultivated planet. Nature 478, 337–342.
| Solutions for a cultivated planet.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:CAS:528:DC%2BC3MXhtlSktbjF&md5=ea96d396d5bd3e4d9e0f8c6ad5de7b7eCAS |
Früh B, Bochicchio D, Edwards S, Hegelund L, Leeb C, Sundrum A, Werne S, Wiberg S, Prunier A (2014) Description of organic pig production in Europe. Organic Agriculture 4, 83–92.
| Description of organic pig production in Europe.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Fuseini A, Wotton S, Hadley PJ, Knowles TG (2017) The perception and acceptability of pre-slaughter and post-saughter stunning for halal production: the views of UK Islamic scholars and halal consumers. Meat Science 123, 143–150.
| The perception and acceptability of pre-slaughter and post-saughter stunning for halal production: the views of UK Islamic scholars and halal consumers.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Garcés L, Cussen V, Wirth H (2008) Viewpoint of animal welfare organisations on the long distance transportation of farm animals. Veterinaria Italiana 44, 59–69.
Gerber PJ, Steinfeld H, Henderson B, Mottet A, Opio C, Dijkman J, Falcucci A, Tempio G (2013) ‘Tackling climate change through livestock: a global assessment of emissions and mitigation opportunities.’ (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO): Rome)
Grunert KG (2005) Food quality and safety: consumer perception and demand. European Review of Agriculture Economics 32, 369–391.
| Food quality and safety: consumer perception and demand.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Grunert KG (2006) Future trends and consumer lifestyles with regard to meat consumption. Meat Science 74, 149–160.
| Future trends and consumer lifestyles with regard to meat consumption.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Grunert KG, Skytte H, Esbjerg L, Poulsen CS, Hviid M (2002) ‘Dokumenteret kødkvalitet (MAPP project paper no. 2-02).’ (Aarhus School of Business: Aarhus, Denmark)
Hanley N, Mourato S, Wright RE (2001) Choice modelling approaches: a superior alternative for environmental valuation? Journal of Economic Surveys 15, 435–462.
| Choice modelling approaches: a superior alternative for environmental valuation?Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Heerwagen LR, Mørkbak MR, Denver S, Sandøe P, Christensen T (2015) The role of quality labels in market-driven animal welfare. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 28, 67–84.
| The role of quality labels in market-driven animal welfare.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
IPCC (2013) Climate change 2013: the physical science basis. In ‘Contribution of Working Group I to the fifth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’. (Eds TF Stocker, D Qin, GK Plattner, M Tignor, SK Allen, J Boschung, A Nauels, Y Xia, V Bex, PM Midgley) pp. 867–952. (Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK)
Lagerkvist CJ, Hess S (2011) A meta-analysis of consumer willingness to pay for farm animal welfare. European Review of Agriculture Economics 38, 55–78.
| A meta-analysis of consumer willingness to pay for farm animal welfare.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Lusk JL, Briggeman BC (2009) Food values. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 91, 184–196.
| Food values.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Lyford C, Thompson J, Polkinghorne R, Miller M, Nishimura T, Neath K, Allen P, Belasco E (2010) Is willingness to pay (WTP) for beef quality grades affected by consumer demographics and meat consumption preferences? Australasian Agribusiness Review 18, 1–17.
María GA (2006) Public perception of farm animal welfare in Spain. Livestock Science 103, 250–256.
| Public perception of farm animal welfare in Spain.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
McCarthy M, Henson S (2005) Perceived risk and risk reduction strategies in the choice of beef by Irish consumers. Food Quality and Preference 16, 435–445.
| Perceived risk and risk reduction strategies in the choice of beef by Irish consumers.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Meuwissen MPM, Van der Lans IA (2005) Trade-offs between consumer concerns: an application for pork supply chains. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, Section C – Food Economics 2, 27–34.
| Trade-offs between consumer concerns: an application for pork supply chains.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Miranda-de la Lama GC, Villarroel M, Liste G, Escos J, María GA (2010) Critical points in the chain of lambs in Spain that may compromise the animal’s welfare. Small Ruminant Research 90, 174–178.
| Critical points in the chain of lambs in Spain that may compromise the animal’s welfare.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Moffatt CRM, Greig A, Valcanis M, Gao W, Seemann T, Howden BP, Kirk MD (2016) A large outbreak of Campylobacter jejuni infection in a university college amused by chicken liver pate, Australia, 2013. Epidemiology and Infection 144, 2971–2978.
| A large outbreak of Campylobacter jejuni infection in a university college amused by chicken liver pate, Australia, 2013.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:CAS:528:DC%2BC28XhvV2gt7vK&md5=458f5cb59bcd439ecc8d03968917ef31CAS |
Mørkbak MR, Christensen T, Gyrd-Hansen D (2010) Consumer preferences for safety characteristics in pork. British Food Journal 112, 775–791.
| Consumer preferences for safety characteristics in pork.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Ngapo TM, Dransfield E, Martin JF, Magnusson M, Bredahl L, Nute GR (2004) Consumer perceptions: pork and pig production. Insights from France, England, Sweden and Denmark. Meat Science 66, 125–134.
| Consumer perceptions: pork and pig production. Insights from France, England, Sweden and Denmark.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:STN:280:DC%2BC3Mbns1WrsA%3D%3D&md5=6fcee996962eda367d17447312d0ee3aCAS |
Ngapo TM, Martin J-F, Dransfield E (2007) International preferences for pork appearance: 1. Consumer choices. Food Quality and Preference 18, 26–36.
| International preferences for pork appearance: 1. Consumer choices.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
OECD–FAO (2016) ‘OECD–FAO agricultural outlook 2016–2025.’ (OECD Publishing: Paris)
Pei X, Tandon A, Alldrick A, Giorgi L, Huang W, Yang R (2011) The China melamine milk scandal and its implications for food safety regulation. Food Policy 36, 412–420.
| The China melamine milk scandal and its implications for food safety regulation.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Perren R (2006) ‘Taste, trade and technology: the development of the international meat industry since 1840.’ (Ashgate Publishing: Aldershot, UK)
Ratcliff J (2009) Extrinsic factors affecting consumer purchasing decisions for pork. In ‘Manipulating pig production XII’. (Ed. RJ van Barneveld) pp. 78–93. (Australasian Pig Science Association: Melbourne)
Rost S, Gerten D, Bondeau A, Lucht W, Rohwer J, Schaphoff S (2008) Agricultural green and blue water consumption and its influence on the global water system. Water Resources Research 44, W09405
| Agricultural green and blue water consumption and its influence on the global water system.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Saxelby C (1990) The nutritional value of Australian fresh pork. In ‘Pig production in Australia’. 2nd edn. (Eds JAA Gardner, AC Dunkin, LC Lloyd) pp. 22–26. (Butterworths: Sydney)
Slattery H, Malcolm LW, Dunshea FR (2010) The benefits to the Australian pig meat industry from an increase in demand for a hypothetical low cholesterol pork product. Australasian Agribusiness Review 18, 152–160.
Sundrum A (2001) Organic livestock farming: a critical review. Livestock Production Science 67, 207–215.
| Organic livestock farming: a critical review.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Vanhonacker F, Verbeke W (2014) Public and consumer policies for higher welfare food products: challenges and opportunities. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 27, 153–171.
| Public and consumer policies for higher welfare food products: challenges and opportunities.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Verbeke W (2009) Stakeholder, citizen and consumer interests in farm animal welfare. Animal Welfare 18, 325–333.
Verbeke W, Vackier I (2004) Profile and effects of consumer involvement in fresh meat. Meat Science 67, 159–168.
| Profile and effects of consumer involvement in fresh meat.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Verbeke W, Frewer LJ, Scholderer J, De Brabander HF (2007) Why consumers behave as they do with respect to food safety and risk information. Analytica Chimica Acta 586, 2–7.
| Why consumers behave as they do with respect to food safety and risk information.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:CAS:528:DC%2BD2sXhvVynsLw%3D&md5=b63a265e565fe435ddca384e93ef5cf2CAS |
Verbeke W, Perez-Cueto FJA, de Barcellos MD, Krystallis A, Grunert KG (2010) European citizen and consumer attitudes and preferences regarding beef and pork. Meat Science 84, 284–292.
| European citizen and consumer attitudes and preferences regarding beef and pork.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Weddle-Schott L (2009) Communication of animal welfare key to consumer trust. In ‘Farm and ranch guide’. Available at http://www.farmandranchguide.com/articles/2009/01/31/ag_news/livestock_news/live4.txt [Verified May 2017]
