Beef consumers’ perceptions and relationships with acceptation assessed by photography

References

• Aalhus JL, Robertson WM, Ye J. 2009. Muscle fibre characteristic and their relation to meat quality. In: Richard M, Du M, editors. Applied muscle biology and meat science. Boca Raton (FL): CRC Press; p. 97.
   Google Scholar
• Alinda F, Kavoi M, Migisha J. 2016. Consumer willingness to pay for quality beef in Kampala, Uganda. J Agric Sci Technol. 17(2):59–77.
   Google Scholar
• AMSA. 2016. Research guidelines for cookery, sensory evaluation, and instrumental tenderness measurements of meat [Internet]. Champaign (IL): American Meat Science Association. http://www.meatscience.org.
   Google Scholar
• Anderson S. 2019. Soxtec: its principles and applications. In: Luthria DL, editor. Oil extraction and analysis: critical issues and competitive studies. New York (NY): Taylor & Francis; p. 11–24.
   Google Scholar
• Ardeshiri A, Rose JM. 2018. How Australian consumers value intrinsic and extrinsic attributes of beef products. Food Qual Prefer. 65(October):146–163.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Banović M, Chrysochou P, Grunert KG, Rosa PJ, Gamito P. 2016. The effect of fat content on visual attention and choice of red meat and differences across gender. Food Qual Prefer. 52:42–51.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barragán-Hernández WÁ, Mahecha-Ledesma L, Angulo-Arizala J, Olivera-Angel M. 2019. Clasificación de la calidad de la carne bovina mediante el uso de infrarrojo por transmitancia y técnicas multivariadas. XV Encuentro Nacional y VIII Internacional de los Investigadores de las Ciencias Pecuarias (ENICIP). Rev Colomb Ciencias Pecu. 32(Supl):50.
   Google Scholar
• Bates D, Mächler M, Bolker B, Walker S. 2015. Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. J Stat Softw. 67(1):1–48.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carpenter CE, Cornforth DP, Whittier D. 2001. Consumer preferences for beef color and packaging did not affect eating satisfaction. Meat Sci. 57(4):359–363.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cayuela L. 2012. Modelos lineales mixtos (LMM) y modelos lineales generalizados mixtos (GLMM) en R. Barcelona, España. https://www.docsity.com/es/modelos-lineales-mixtos-lmm-y-modelos-lineales-generalizados-mixtos-glmm-en-r/3990869/.
   Google Scholar
• Chan SH, Moss BW, Farmer LJ, Gordon A, Cuskelly GJ. 2013. Comparison of consumer perception and acceptability for steaks cooked to different endpoints: validation of photographic approach. Food Chem. 136(3–4):1597–1602.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Christensen RHB. 2018. Ordinal – regression models for ordinal data. R package version 2018.8-25. https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/ordinal/vignettes/clm_article.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Cocking C, Walton J, Kehoe L, Cashman KD, Flynn A. 2020. The role of meat in the European diet: current state of knowledge on dietary recommendations, intakes and contribution to energy and nutrient intakes and status. Nutr Res Rev. 33(2):1–9.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cortez Passetti RAC, Torrecilhas JA, Ornaghi MG, Mottin C, de Oliveira CAL, Guerrero A, del Mar Campo M, Sañudo C, do Prado IN. 2017. Validation of photographs usage to evaluate meat visual acceptability of young bulls fi nished in feedlot fed with or without essential oils. Meat Sci. 123:105–111.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Enciso K, Burkart S, Charrya A, Rodriguez CDP, Quiceno JJM, Ruiz LR, Solis JFG, Quilac NJV, Lopez NA, Velasco SM, et al. 2016. Consumer preferences and market segmentation for differentiated beef with less environmental impact. Paper presented at Conference on International Research on Food Security, Natural Resource Management and Rural Development organised by University of Natural Resources and Applied Life Sciences (BOKU Vienna), Austria. Vienna, Austria.
   Google Scholar
• Flowers S, McFadden BR, Carr CC, Mateescu RG. 2019. Consumer preferences for beef with improved nutrient profile. J Anim Sci. 97(12):4699–4709.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Font-I-Furnols M, Guerrero L. 2014. Consumer preference, behavior and perception about meat and meat products: an overview. Meat Sci. 98(3):361–371.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Giaretta E, Mordenti AL, Canestrari G, Brogna N, Palmonari A, Formigoni A. 2018. Assessment of muscle Longissimus thoracis et lumborum marbling by image analysis and relationships between meat quality parameters. PLoS One. 13(8):e0202535.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grunert KG, Bredahl L, Brunsø K. 2004. Consumer perception of meat quality and implications for product development in the meat sector-a review. Meat Sci. 66(2):259–272.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Henchion MM, McCarthy M, Resconi VC. 2017. Beef quality attributes: a systematic review of consumer perspectives. Meat Sci. 128:1–7.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Joo ST, Kim GD, Hwang YH, Ryu YC. 2013. Control of fresh meat quality through manipulation of muscle fiber characteristics. Meat Sci. 95(4):828–836.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ladeira MM, Schoonmaker JP, Gionbelli MP, Dias JCO, Gionbelli TRS, Carvalho JRR, Teixeira PD. 2016. Nutrigenomics and beef quality: a review about lipogenesis. IJMS. 17(6):918.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ladeira MM, Schoonmaker JP, Rodrigues LM, Swanson KC, Teixeira PD, Duckett SK, Gionbelli MP. 2018. Review: nutrigenomics of marbling and fatty acid profile in ruminant meat. Animal. 12(s2):s282–s294.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Larraín RE, Schaefer DM, Reed JD. 2008. Use of digital images to estimate CIE color coordinates of beef. Food Res Int. 41(4):380–385.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lê S, Josse J, Husson F. 2008. FactoMineR: an R package for multivariate analysis. J Stat Software. 1(1):1–18. https://www.jstatsoft.org/v025/i01.
   Google Scholar
• Mancini RA. 2009. Meat color. In: Improving the sensory and nutritional quality of fresh meat.Great Abington, Cambridge:Woodhead Publishing Limited; p. 89–110. https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1533/9781845695439.1.89.
   Google Scholar
• Mancini RA, Hunt MC. 2005. Current research in meat color. Meat Sci. 71(1):100–121.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mejía-Arango LJ, Estrada CM, Salcedo-Amaya GJ, Higuita JM, Granados JD. 2016. Informe de calidad de vida Medellín. Medellín:Medellín cómo vamos.p 317 .
   Google Scholar
• Merlino VM, Borra D, Girgenti V, Dal Vecchio A, Massaglia S. 2018. Beef meat preferences of consumers from Northwest Italy: analysis of choice attributes. Meat Sci. 143:119–128.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morales R, Aguiar APS, Subiabre I, Realini CE. 2013. Beef acceptability and consumer expectations associated with production systems and marbling. Food Qual Prefer. 29(2):166–173.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Realini CE, Kallas Z, Pérez-Juan M, Gómez I, Olleta JL, Beriain MJ, Albertí P, Sañudo C. 2014. Relative importance of cues underlying Spanish consumers’ beef choice and segmentation, and consumer liking of beef enriched with n-3 and CLA fatty acids. Food Qual Prefer. 33:74–85.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schneider CA, Rasband WS, Eliceiri KW. 2012. NIH Image to ImageJ: 25 years of image analysis. Nat Methods. 9(7):671–675..
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scollan N, Hocquette JF, Nuernberg K, Dannenberger D, Richardson I, Moloney A. 2006. Innovations in beef production systems that enhance the nutritional and health value of beef lipids and their relationship with meat quality. Meat Sci. 74(1):17–33.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Teixeira PD, Coelho TC, Carvalho JRR, Oliveira DM, Paiva LV, Gionbelli M, Chalfun-Junior A, Ladeira MM, Chizzotti ML. 2017. Subspecies and diet affect the expression of genes involved in lipid metabolism and chemical composition of muscle in beef cattle. Meat Sci. 133(June):110–118.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Torrescano-Urrutia GR, Sánchez-Escalante A, Vásquez-Palma MG, Francisco A, David R, Dino V, Investigación C, De Ciad AC, Hermosillo CP. 2017. Estimación Del Grado De Marmoleo De Canales De Bovino Sonorenses Utilizando Diferentes Metodologías: Análisis De Imagen, Evaluación Usda Y Extracción Con Solventes. Rev Ciencias Biológicas la Salud. 19(3):34–39.
   Google Scholar
• Troy DJ, Kerry JP. 2010. Consumer perception and the role of science in the meat industry. Meat Sci. 86(1):214–226.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Xue H, Mainville D, You W, Nayga RM. 2010. Consumer preferences and willingness to pay for grass-fed beef: empirical evidence from in-store experiments. Food Qual Prefer. 21(7):857–866.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zuur AF, Ieno ENI, Walker NJ, Saveliev AA, Smith GM. 2009. Mixed effects models and extensions in ecology with R. New York:Springer Science + Business Media, LLC.
   Google Scholar