Abstract
Consumer preferences for beef products are diverse and progressing with societal changes. Long-standing product quality attribute preferences are being extended with increased attention to sustainability – especially environmental impacts and social concerns of cattle and beef production. Cattle producers need to understand this evolution to make informed production and marketing decisions. This study reports results of a nationally representative survey of 3,001 US consumers measuring beef product preferences. While beef product freshness, safety, price, and flavor are most often cited as most important, environmental and societal concerns are important to a notable segment of consumers. Heterogeneous consumers suggest multiple strategies to satisfy diverse preferences will be most successful.
1 Introduction
Consumer preferences for beef products are complex and evolving. Fundamental changes in consumer lifestyles and associated food preferences challenge cattle producers and beef processors in aligning production and marketing practices with consumer demands. Policy makers face the daunting task of designing policies to effectively deal with industry concerns while addressing broad public interests. In addition to long-standing expectations to produce affordable, high quality, safe, healthy, and nutritious beef products (Tonsor, Mintert, and Schroeder, 2010), pressure is escalating for the industry to become more sustainable (Greenwood, 2021; Gordon, 2020). Enhancing sustainability includes increased attention to environmental and social issues in addition to the ever-present economic dimensions of beef production. Concerns regarding animal welfare; impacts of production on land and water quality; greenhouse gas emissions; use of antibiotics and synthetic growth promotants; locally produced food; and other preferences are influencing downstream beef customer and consumer demands and policy (Lusk et al., 2006; Olynk, 2012; Olynk et al., 2010; Tonsor and Olynk, 2011).
Cattle producers in the meantime grapple with producing, marketing, and promoting beef products possessing attributes consumers most prefer while addressing environmental, social, customer, and policy concerns that can be complementary or conflicting (Capper, 2012; Hubbart et al., 2023; Molidor, 2017). Understanding the relative importance of consumer preferences for beef products concurrent with other matters facing producers is necessary in making suitable production decisions, designing prosperous product marketing and promotion programs, and devising effective lobbying. We specifically focus our study on deriving recommendations for producers derived from our analysis of survey results.
The purpose of this study is to provide information cattle producers can use to understand consumers’ rankings of various beef attributes. Specific objectives include: (1) to determine relative rankings of specific beef product attributes by US consumers including traditional product traits such as price and quality as well as evolving environmental and social sustainability dimensions; (2) to quantify how product preferences relate to consumer demographics; and (3) to provide associated recommendations for beef cattle producer production and marketing decisions. Findings of this study will help inform cattle producer production, marketing, promotion, and policy strategies.
2 Previous Literature
A large body of literature has estimated consumer willingness to pay (WTP) and preferences for a variety of beef product attributes. We have learned a great deal about consumer demand from the wealth of studies conducted on beef preferences. First, numerous product attributes are desirable by at least some consumers (see Lin, 2023 for meta-analysis of numerous attributes studied). Second, consumers exhibit heterogeneous preferences with varied product attribute preferences. This suggests numerous niche markets may be successful for marketing beef products possessing different traits to consumers with diverse preference rankings. Third, several attributes are associated with each other in consumers’ minds and thus, many are not independently ranked in survey results.
Four previous studies related to our project design are Lusk and Briggeman (2009); Lister et al. (2017); Ardebili and Rickertsen (2023); and the Meat Demand Monitor (Tonsor, 2023) all of which ranked consumer food preferences. Lusk and Briggeman (2009) conducted a survey of consumers regarding 11 general food values. Food safety was the highest ranked, followed by three closely ranked values of nutrition, taste, and price. Other attributes including natural, convenience, appearance, environment, fairness, tradition, and origin were low ranked. Ardebili and Rickertsen (2023) completed a consumer ranking of 12 general food product attributes similar to Lusk and Briggeman (2009). For US consumers, depending upon segmented groups of respondents, safety, nutrition, price, taste, and animal welfare were highly ranked attributes. Lister et al. (2017) assessed food values for specific products including beef steak and ground beef. Safety, freshness, and taste were highest ranked, with health, price, and nutrition next. Low ranked were hormone/antibiotic free, animal welfare, environmental impact, origin, and convenience. Tonsor (2023) conducts a monthly survey in the Meat Demand Monitor project. His work ranked 12 protein product (not just beef) values of which taste, freshness, safety, price, and nutrition ranked highest; health, appearance, and convenience next; and hormone / antibiotic free, animal welfare, origin, and environmental impact were low ranked. We used these studies, together with a few modified product attributes of specific interest in our study design, to rank consumer beef preferences. We compare our results especially with findings of Lister et al. (2017) given their study specifically assessed beef product attribute preferences and Tonsor (2023) given his focus on protein products. We extend the previous studies by also estimating how consumer demographic factors are related to consumer preference rankings. We also assess implications for cattle producers associated with consumer preference rankings.
3 Product Attributes
In selecting product attributes to have consumers rank importance of when making beef purchase decisions, we were specifically interested in assessing consumer preferences for factors related to the “three pillars of sustainability” — social, environmental and economic (Capper, 2021) — compared with attributes not generally considered sustainability concerns. In this way, we were able to specifically rank consumer preferences across several types of product attributes. However, we limited the alternative product attributes to include those found most preferred in prior studies. We also included new traits of particular interest in this study while excluding several previously determined low-ranked traits. The intent was to keep the number of choices from being burdensome for respondents especially relative to previously found low-ranked traits. To accomplish this, we selected the product attributes presented in Table 1.
Beef Attributes Ranked in the Survey
Citation: International Food and Agribusiness Management Review 27, 2 (2024) ; 10.22434/ifamr2023.0061
Attributes that are new relative to Lister et al. (2017) and Tonsor (2023) are specific attributes related to sustainability of low carbon beef and supports local farmers.
Attributes not included that were in either Lister et al. (2017) and/or Tonsor (2023) were convenience, origin/traceability, health, and environmental impact. Convenience and origin are among the lowest ranked consumer preference attributes in prior studies, so they were not included. Environmental impact has also been a low-ranked preference in previous studies however, we included low carbon beef to determine if specific recently introduced and promoted beef claims would be preferred to more generic environmental term.1 Health impacts of beef have been a middle-ranked preference in past studies. However, we did not include health separately since nutritious content and health are related product attributes.
4 Data and Methods
A survey was conducted of US consumers in mid-March 2023 targeting a nationally representative sample with respect to key demographic factors.2 The survey was administered through an on-line panel managed by dynata™. The survey was entered by 3783 possible respondents of which 416 indicated they did not consume meat and thus did not complete the survey. Of 3367 that completed the survey, an attention test question included in the survey suggested 366 respondents were speeding or incomplete and these responses were not used in our analysis leaving 3001 useable responses. Survey respondents were required to be at least 18 years old and currently residing in the US.
Summary statistics of survey respondents are provided in Table 2. Overall, the sample matches closely with US Census demographic data. Just over half the respondents were female (US Census is 51.2% females), and 39% indicate being in the most common age group category of 30–49 years old. Half of the respondents had completed college and the most common (39%) annual household income category was $25 000–$74 999 (US Census had 36%). About two-thirds of respondents indicated they did not have children less than 18 years old living at home matching Census data. Democratic political affiliation was the most common representing 38% of respondents followed by other party affiliation than Democrat or Republican at 34%. Responses were completed from every state in the US with Southern states representing 35%, followed by Northeastern and Western states at 24% each.3 Caucasians represented 73%, Black or African Americans 13% (both similar to US Census values), Asian or Pacific Islanders were 5%, and all other and multi-race respondents represented 9%.
Independent Variable Definitions and Summary Statistics, 3001 Respondents
Citation: International Food and Agribusiness Management Review 27, 2 (2024) ; 10.22434/ifamr2023.0061
We separated what we refer to as low beef eaters from beef eaters based on respondent frequency of beef consumption. Low beef eaters consumed two or fewer meals per week that included beef and were 55% of respondents, with the rest (beef eaters) eating three or more meals that included beef per week. Finally, we queried respondents’ self-assessed familiarity with farming. Somewhat surprisingly, 22% indicated they were very familiar, and 47% moderately familiar. We expected fewer to have familiarity with farming, but this is a self-reported perception, and we did not assess these ratings in other ways.
To obtain consumer preference rankings for the nine attributes selected, we asked respondents to complete a modified version of a drag-and-drop questionnaire. The method we used is similar to Tonsor (2023) to rank beef product preferences and Neuhofer and Lusk (2021) to rank consumer chicken purchase decisions. This method is not a complete best-worst type of questionnaire where respondents are asked to complete a series of questions indicating their most or least preferred from several lists (Finn and Louviere, 2015). Blasius (2012) compared the method we used of obtaining rankings in web surveys with numbering, arrows, and most–least. The drag-and-drop format was determined best in response time, visualization of selections made by the respondent at each step, and completeness of responses. Our survey delved into details of beef sustainability beyond what is presented in this article. The overall survey was complex and to increase quality of responses, the method we used was preferable because it was sufficient for the intended purpose while reducing respondent fatigue which deteriorates response quality in web surveys (Galesic and Bosnjak, 2009). Respondent fatigue can easily occur in best-worst scaling which would necessitate notably increasing survey length compared to the method we used. The tradeoff is we obtain less separation in preference levels than best-worst scaling would provide.
In the modified drag-and-drop framework we used, respondents complete two questions where in the first they indicate their three most important and in the second their three least important beef product attributes influencing their purchase decisions among nine alternative attributes. Because many on-line survey respondents use cell phones to enter responses, survey questions need to be structured to be completed easily on a small screen. To accommodate this instead of using the standard drag-and-drop format like Tonsor (2023) and Neuhofer and Lusk (2021), we separated the question into two. The first question asked the respondent to select the three most important attributes and the next question asked them to identify the three least important attributes of the remaining six items (eliminating the three attributes they selected as most important from the list).4 The first question posed is illustrated in Figure 1 for the three most important attributes. The order of the attributes presented was randomized across respondents.
First question used to obtain respondent’s three most important attributes affecting beef purchase decisions.
Citation: International Food and Agribusiness Management Review 27, 2 (2024) ; 10.22434/ifamr2023.0061
Answers to the preference questions are rank-order responses with each respondent having three attributes selected as least important; three attributes not chosen considered moderate importance; and three attributes selected as most important. Our first objective to rank preferences of respondents involves calculating shares of preferences among the 3001 respondents for the nine product attributes. To do this we assigned a value of −1 to least important, a value of 1 to most important, with the remaining moderate assigned a value of 0. This is similar to best-worst scaling when assigning values to the best and worst selected attributes in individual choice sets. In this manner, the simple averages of the responses for each attribute represent shares of preferences where the highest possible average would be 1 if all respondents selected that attribute as one of the three most important and the minimum value would be −1 if all respondents selected the attribute as one of the three least important.
To accomplish the second objective of estimating the relationship between respondent demographics and beef product attribute rankings, we converted the responses to ordinal rankings with 0 assigned to least, 1 to moderate, and 2 to most important product attributes. In this manner, each respondent had three beef attributes assigned a value of 0, three a value of 1, and three a value of 2. To quantify the relationship between demographic characteristics and preference rankings of the attributes we used heteroskedastic ordered Probit models (Greene, 1997).
The parameters were estimated using maximum likelihood estimation. Nine heteroskedastic ordered Probit models were estimated with the dependent variables being the individual respondent preference ranking for each of the nine beef product attributes. The explanatory variables included in each model were the set of demographic variables of survey respondents. Regressors in our models are all binary variables associated with categorical responses of surveyed consumers as defined in Table 2. Parameter estimates obtained from the model are not directly interpretable as marginal effects of changes in the regressors on associated probabilities, but the marginal effects can be easily calculated (Greene, 1997).
Each set of categorical explanatory variables had a default category left out of the model as the base to avoid perfect collinearity. The base was a low beef eater; female (which includes the small portion that indicated other gender as well); less than 30 years old; did not have a college degree; had no children under 18 years old; was not familiar with farming; registered as a Democrat; lived in the South; and Caucasian.
5 Results
Distributions and average rankings of responses to the nine beef product traits are illustrated in Figure 2. The percentage of respondents that selected each attribute as one of their three most important and three least important are presented. These two categories add to less than 100% with the remainder having selected the trait as neither most nor least important. The difference between the most and least responses, which is also the mean of response rankings when least important is assigned a value of −1, middle as 0, and most important as 1, are also presented. The three attributes with the largest number of respondents indicating they were among their most important attributes were Freshness and Price (each at 51%) and Safety of Food (49%). Only about 20% indicated Freshness and Safety of Food were least important, resulting in these two traits having the highest average importance rank (percentage ranking attribute most important minus percentage ranking it least important). For Price, 28% indicated it was a least important attribute affecting purchase decisions which resulted in an average rank of third. This indicates more than half of respondents were sensitive to Price whereas 28% ranked it as least important suggesting a significant portion were not price sensitive. The four highest ranked attributes of Freshness; Safety of Food; Price; and Flavor, juicy, tender are consistent with Tonsor’s (2023) top four rankings for general protein products (though the precise orderings are not the same as his ranking was taste, freshness, safety, and price). Our results are also consistent with Lister et al. (2017) for ground beef and steak (though they had safety ranked highest for ground beef with freshness a close second, but these were reversed for steak).
On the other end of our ranking spectrum were Supporting local farmers, Nutritious content, and Low carbon beef. Less than one-quarter of respondents indicated any of these three were among the most important. Tonsor (2023) and Lister et al. (2017) found nutrition to be roughly in the middle ranking of preferred traits. Low carbon beef was considered least important by 57% of respondents. Given elevating importance of public concerns about greenhouse gas emissions and contributions of beef cattle production to greenhouse gases as well as branded products being developed in this space, we thought more consumers might rank this attribute important. We asked respondents several Likert-scale questions (not tabulated here) to determine their perceptions about beef cattle production and the environment and 37% indicated they agreed greenhouse gas emissions in general were excessive and 31% felt beef production was a major contributor to greenhouse gases. Comparing these results with the rankings suggests, though some consumers have concerns about greenhouse gases, beef produced with 10% less greenhouse gas emissions (Low carbon beef) was not a highly ranked beef product attribute. However, consumer preferences for carbon emissions labelling for food transportation has been demonstrated (Caputo et al., 2013). Though, we are not aware of other published studies including low carbon beef specifically in general preference rankings of attributes by consumers, environmental impact was the lowest ranked attribute in Tonsor (2023) and second lowest ahead of convenience in Lister et al. (2017).
A final point about results shown in Figure 2 is that every attribute had a notable proportion of consumers who ranked it highly and every attribute also had a number that ranked it low importance. This illustrates heterogeneous preferences of consumers for beef product attributes. Others have confirmed this result (e.g. Lister et al., 2017). However, it indicates a variety of beef product claims can potentially be successful in attracting consumers. For example, roughly one-quarter of consumers indicate Animal Welfare, No hormone/antibiotic use, Supports local farmers, and Nutritious content are among their three most important beef purchase decision determinants. Next, we explore whether we can identify demographic attributes associated with such variation which might be useful for potential market segmentation with these and other attributes.
Please rank the importance to you of the following beef product attributes in your purchase decision (3001 respondents, select 3 best/3 worst).
Citation: International Food and Agribusiness Management Review 27, 2 (2024) ; 10.22434/ifamr2023.0061
Parameter estimates from the heteroskedastic ordered Probit model are presented in Table A1 in the Appendix. While not directly interpretable for marginal effects, model parameters are useful for revealing the sign of marginal effects on changes in probabilities and for identifying statistically significant demographic variables. For example, males, those at least 50 years old, respondents not familiar with farming, Republicans, and lower income respondents have statistically significant coefficients indicating they ranked Price as an important attribute. In contrast, females, people younger than 30, Democrats, lower income, and Caucasians tended to place high importance on Animal welfare.
To assess the relationship among the nine attribute rankings across respondents, Spearman correlation coefficients are reported in Table 3. Somewhat surprising is how small the correlations were for every attribute-pair ranking. Most correlations were less than zero indicating rankings tended not to be grouped across attributes. The largest negative correlations were between Price and No hormone/antibiotic use (−0.28) and between Price and Animal welfare (−0.25) and the other relatively large negative correlation was between Flavorful, juicy, tender and Low carbon beef (−0.24). Overall, correlations further illustrate varied rankings of product attributes across respondents. The correlations indicate attribute rankings were independent with none being strongly associated with another attribute in the group.
Spearman correlation coefficients between product attribute importance in purchase decision rankings, 3001 respondents
Citation: International Food and Agribusiness Management Review 27, 2 (2024) ; 10.22434/ifamr2023.0061
Predicted probabilities of the three preference rankings associated with changing each demographic factor from a value of zero to one, holding all else constant, were calculated using the estimated ordered Probit models. The predicted probabilities are reported for each of the nine product attributes in Table 4. To aid in interpretation, the largest predicted probability for each attribute in Table 4 is italicized.
Predicted probabilities of least, medium, and most importance of attributes by demographic characteristic (largest probability for each attribute is italicized)
Citation: International Food and Agribusiness Management Review 27, 2 (2024) ; 10.22434/ifamr2023.0061
Price had the highest probability of being selected as the most important overall and across most demographic factors. Price was most likely to be selected most important by males (62%), older respondents (60% for 65+), Republicans (61%), those living in the Midwest (59%) and Asian or Pacific Islander race (59%). Price was less likely to be selected as most important by higher income respondents (40% for the two highest), and those who indicated being familiar with farming (48% for familiar and 49% for moderately). Freshness was most important to the oldest age category (60%) and Black race (60%). Freshness was least likely to be most important to those familiar with farming (40%) and those moderately familiar (45%). Freshness had the highest net ranking overall (Figure 2) which in general was not strongly associated with many different demographic attributes.
Flavorful, juicy, tender was more likely to be most important to those older than 65 years (38%), Republicans (39%), and progressively increased in likelihood of being most important with income having 3% higher most important probability than the base for $25 000–$75 000, 9% for $75 000–$150 000, and 12% for over $150 000. In contrast Flavorful, juicy, tender had lower probability of being important to Asian race (23% as most). Nutritious content was more likely to be most important for college graduates (27%), those with children at home (26%), and those familiar with farming 27%). Nutrition was less important to those over 30 years old (13% to 16% indicating most important).
Safety of food was most likely to be most important to those between 30 and 64 years old (56% indicating most important) as well as non-Caucasians. Food safety was least likely to be important for those familiar with farming (41%) and those residing in the West (43%). The probability of supporting local farmers being important was most strongly associated with those familiar with farming (27%) and those moderately familiar (18%). Other demographic factors were not strongly associated with supporting local farmers.
Low carbon beef tended to be important with those familiar with farming (20% indicating most important). However, it was less likely to be important for Republicans (13%) and was progressively less important as age increased (11% for 30–49, 7% for 50–64, and 4% for over 65 year olds having probability of most important). The probability of Animal welfare being most important was most likely for those familiar with farming, college graduates, those with kids, age 30–49, and those living in the West or Northeast (37–42% most important). Animal Welfare was less likely to be important for males (30%), older respondents (23%), Republicans (28%), and Blacks (29%), and progressively declined with income level from 31% to 28% as income level went from $25 000–$75 000 to greater than $150 000. Of all the beef product traits we analyzed Animal welfare had the strongest association with demographic attributes of respondents. Finally, the probability of Antibiotic/hormone free being designated as most important was associated with age as all ages over 30 had at least a 32% predicted probability of being most important. Those familiar with farming were also more likely to consider this important (32–34%). The least likely to consider antibiotics and hormones as important were males (18%), heavy beef eaters (23%), and Republicans (23%).
6 Recommendations
Results of our study provide guidance for producers as well as downstream industry participants and policy makers regarding strategies for meeting consumer preferences for beef products and ensuring a sustainable cattle and beef industry. We offer the following recommendations:
(1) Beef product freshness and food safety are among the most important product attributes to most consumers. Furthermore, these two attributes rank relatively high across demographic subsets identified. Ensuring beef products are fresh in the retail counter is essential to beef demand. Though producers cannot do a lot to influence product freshness, they can stress importance of product freshness with downstream retail customers through producer association work with packers and retailers. Also, ensuring food safety must continue to be a major effort for the industry. Every stage of beef production from producers through food preparers and consumers may impact food safety. Producers themselves are proactively promoting food safety procedures at the farm through things such as Beef Quality Assurance (BQA) protocols. Continued emphasis should be placed on ensuring BQA standards are sufficient and are being adhered to. In addition, food safety regulations in downstream beef production and marketing must be continuously assessed as public value of food safety exceeds expected private value and includes externalities to cattle producers through potential impacts on beef demand.
(1) Beef price matters for many consumers as 51% ranked it as important. As such it must continue to be a focus of the industry. Development and adoption of production technologies that make the industry more efficient and cost competitive both with other proteins and globally will directly affect long run prosperity of the cattle industry. Producers are advised to continue to encourage policy supporting new production technology research. In addition, producers should continue to explore ways to advance increased privately funded research investment as public supported investment declines. In contrast, a significant share (28%) of consumers rank price relatively low in importance. This means for consumers who are more price sensitive, low-cost, but not less fresh or less safe, beef will attract consumers. However, there is also a robust market for high-end expensive beef products offering consumers things they most value, including high quality, branded products, special assurances, certifications, etc. Continued differentiation of beef product offerings is recommended to provide desired eating experiences for diverse consumers.
(2) Beef flavor, juiciness, and tenderness are important to most consumers. A desirable eating experience will continue to attract consumers to beef products. Efforts improving beef quality in the industry have been remarkable over the last several years. We strongly recommend continuing to develop cattle value signals that pay premiums for high quality products offering the best eating experience for consumers. Pricing cattle using grids and other value-based signals has been instrumental in producing more high-quality beef products. This presents a promotion opportunity for the industry. Consumers need to know the eating quality of beef products is at a high threshold and has improved relative to competing meat proteins.
(3) About a quarter of consumers indicate preference for beef produced without use of hormones or antibiotics. This market segment has been relevant for several years and appears to be at least stable, if not growing. We do not recommend over-expanding the industry into naturally raised and related beef production practices as the supply could quickly outpace demand growth. However, as market pricing signals continue to evolve, we expect this segment to be worth continuing to build and promote for consumers who value this and for producers who have comparative advantage to supply this segment. One thing that must be recognized though in promoting naturally raised beef (or similar) is it should be done carefully so as not to damage markets for the rest of the beef industry – that is, a potential stigma for the rest of the beef offering could occur if naturally raised beef were heavily promoted.
(4) Animal welfare is important to about 20% of consumers. We recommend on-going efforts to ensure consumers the entire industry is practicing proper animal welfare standards. Currently the beef cattle industry has a relatively strong reputation for animal welfare (Heleski et al., 2006; Sullivan et al., 2022). However, potential contradictions between animal welfare and using fewer antibiotics in cattle production must continue to be monitored and efforts assessed to make these more compatible.
(5) Low carbon beef was by a sizeable margin the least important to consumer respondents. Only 11% of consumers ranked low carbon beef as one of their most important purchase decisions. A niche market opportunity appears to be present for low carbon beef. However, it presently represents a small market segment that most producers are not likely to benefit from pursuing. However, regulatory issues surrounding greenhouse gas emissions appear to be gaining traction5 regardless of its relatively low importance to beef consumers. Producer associations are advised to continue to inform policy debates around environmental regulations relative to greenhouse gas emissions. Addressing greenhouse gas emissions in beef production through increased production costs are unlikely to be recoverable through consumer demand enhancements. If overall consumer demand does not increase sufficiently to offset costs associated with regulated production practices, US cattle producers will incur economic harm. Ultimately, if such costs were not offset by increased consumer demand, the result would be a smaller US cattle and beef industry and reduced producer and consumer welfare (Saitone, Sexton, and Sumner, 2015).
(7) Consumer preferences are heterogeneous which is both beneficial and challenging to the industry. The fact no single beef product attribute was ranked among the three most important by much more than half of survey respondents reveals the degree of diversity in preferences across consumers. The benefit is numerous production and marketing strategies can be successful if designed and targeted toward consumers having specific preferences. The challenge is a single strategy is likely to be less successful than a variety of strategies targeting varied consumer segments.
7 Conclusions
The cattle and beef industry faces mixed and complex signals regarding consumer preferences. Sustainability, especially associated with environmental and social concerns, of cattle and beef production is receiving considerable attention from policy makers, major processors, and consumer organizations. Long-standing consumer beef product preferences of food safety, price, freshness, eating quality, and nutrition are receiving less attention, but remain most important to most consumers. As producers manage cattle production practices to address regulatory and downstream customer demands associated with sustainable beef production, they need to understand how consumer preferences align with these directives. Adopting costly production practices, if not associated with higher demand for beef, is not sustainable for producers. Furthermore, as producers design product promotion programs associated with the beef checkoff program, they strive to design promotion strategies that will be most successful. For these reasons, consumer beef product preferences are important to update and document. This study was designed to address this need.
Based on a survey of 3001 US consumers, the overall highest ranked consumer preferences affecting beef product purchases (>35% ranking as most important) were product freshness; food safety; price; and flavor, juicy, tender. Middle importance (between 20% and 30% ranking as most important) overall was animal welfare; hormone and antibiotic use; supporting local farmers; and nutritious content. The lowest importance was beef produced with 10% lower greenhouse gas emissions or low carbon beef (11% ranking as most important). However, every product attribute was ranked among the most important by at least some respondents with all but low carbon beef having at least 20% of respondents indicating a product attribute was among the three most important. In addition, every product attribute had at least 19% of respondents indicating the attribute was among the three least important. No single product attribute had more than 51% of consumers indicating it was one of their three most important. Clearly consumer beef product preferences vary considerably.
The implication is producers can target varied beef products to important segments of consumers. A single unified industry strategy is not a good strategy for attracting the most customers. Rather, a host of cattle production and marketing strategies are recommended for appealing to varied consumer preferences, including niche markets for some attributes. In such a differentiated industry, market signals in the form of identified and reported premiums and discounts must be as clear to producers as possible to better inform production and marketing decisions. This places a greater burden on public market reporting on the US Department of Agriculture Agricultural Marketing Service in the fed cattle sector for greater market transparency (Schroeder et al., 2023). Furthermore, beef board product promotion efforts should not be unidimensional. Recognizing different consumers with varied demographics, especially gender, age, income level, and political affiliation tend to have divergent beef product attribute rankings and they will respond differently to alternative signals.
This study confirmed work from prior research and provided additional information not previously explored detailing consumer beef preferences. As with any study, limitations of the current work suggest the need for future work. While we have provided ranked preferences in this work, we have not quantified relative willingness-to-pay or the costs associated with providing products of importance to consumers. Knowing costs and pricing points of supplying associated product attributes is essential to adoption. Furthermore, results of this study suggest potential contradictions in consumer signals versus downstream processor demands and regulations. For example, regulations around greenhouse gas emissions in cattle production as well as initiatives by processors striving for themselves and their suppliers to reduce carbon footprint are occurring. How costs of these initiatives that are not priorities of most beef consumers will be addressed is important but well beyond the scope of this study.
Acknowledgements
We are grateful to two anonymous journal reviewers for helpful comments on earlier versions of this article. We acknowledge partial funding support for this study from the Kansas Beef Council. Opinions presented are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of the Kansas Beef Council. The authors have no conflicts of interest to claim.
References
Ardebili, A.T. and K. Rickertsen. 2023. Food values and personality traits in the United States and Norway. Journal of Cleaner Production 413: 137310. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.137310
Blasius, J. 2012. Comparing ranking techniques in web surveys. Field Methods 24 (4), 382–398.
Capper, J.L. 2012. Is the grass always greener? Comparing the environmental impact of conventional, natural and grass-fed beef production systems. Animals 2: 127–143. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani2020127
Capper J.L. 2021. Healthy livestock produce sustainable food – The impacts of livestock health and the performance-enhancing technologies on environmental and economic sustainability. Merck Animal Health, available online at https://www.merck-animal-health-usa.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/54/2021/10/Healthy-Livestock-Produce-Sustainable-Food-.pdf
Caputo, V., R.M. Nayga and R. Scarpa. 2013. Food miles or carbon emissions? Exploring labelling preferences for food transport footprint with a stated choice study. Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 57: 465–482. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8489.12014
Finn, A. and J.J. Louviere. 1992. Determining the appropriate response to evidence of public concern: The case of food safety. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing 11 (2), 12–25.
Galesic, M. and M. Bosnjak. 2009. Effects of questionnaire length on participation and indicators of response quality in a web survey. Public Opinion Quarterly 73(2), 349–360. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfp031
Gordon, B.L. 2020. Why you can’t ignore sustainability chatter any longer. Beef Magazine (13 February), available online at https://www.beefmagazine.com/sustainability/why-you-cant-ignore-sustainability-chatter-any-longer
Greene, W.H. 1997. Econometric analysis, 3rd edn. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Greenwood, P.L. 2021. Review: An overview of beef production from pasture to feedlot globally, as demand for beef and the need for sustainable practices increases. Animal 15 (Suppl. 1), 100295. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.animal.2021.100295
Heleski, C.R., A.G. Mertig and A.J. Zanella. 2006. Stakeholder Attitudes Toward Farm Animal Welfare. Anthrozoös 19 (4), 290–307. https://doi.org/10.2752/089279306785415439
Hubbart, J.A., N. Blake, I. Holaskova, D.M. Padrino, M. Walker and M. Wilson. 2023. Challenges in sustainable beef cattle production: A subset of needed advancements. Challenges 14 (1), 14. https://doi.org/10.3390/challe14010014
Lin, W. 2023. The effect of product quantity on willingness to pay: A meta-regression analysis of beef valuation studies. Agribusiness 39 (3), 646–663. https://doi.org/10.1002/agr.21798
Lister, G., G.T. Tonsor, M. Brix, T.C. Schroeder and C. Yang. 2017. Food values applied to livestock products. Journal of Food Products Marketing 23 (3), 326–341. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10454446.2014.1000436
Lusk, J.L. and B.C. Briggeman. 2009 Food values. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 91 (1), 184–196. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8276.2008.01175.x
Lusk, J.L., F.B. Norwood and J.R. Pruitt. 2006. Consumer demand for a ban on antibiotic drug use in pork production. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 88: 1015–1033. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8276.2006.00913.x
Molidor, J. 2017. Habitat-fed food: grass-fed beef and sustainable solutions. Biodiversity 18 (2–3), 78–81. https://doi.org/10.1080/14888386.2017.1359668
Neuhofer, Z.T. and J.L. Lusk. 2021. Decomposing the value of food labels on chicken. Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 53, 229–245. https://doi.org/10.1017/aae.2021.2
Olynk, N.J. 2012. Assessing changing consumer preferences for livestock production processes. Animal Frontiers 2(3, July), 32–38. doi: 10.2527/af.2021-0046
Olynk, N.J., G.T. Tonsor and C.A. Wolf. 2010. Consumer willingness to pay for livestock credence attribute claim verification. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 42: 439–452.
Saitone, T.L., R.J. Sexton and D.A. Sumner. 2015. What happens when food marketers require restrictive farming practices. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 97 (4), 1021–2043. https://doi.org/10.1093/ajae/aav021
Schroeder, T.C., B.K. Coffey and G.T. Tonsor. 2023. Hedonic modeling to facilitate price reporting and fed cattle market transparency. Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy 45 (3), 1716–1733. https://doi.org/10.1002/aepp.13324
Sullivan, P., S. Mijares, M. Davis, K. Oselinsky, C. Cramer, N. Román-Muñiz, L. Stallones and L. Edwards-Callaway. 2022. Animals 12 (17), 2294. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani12172294
Tonsor, G.T. 2023. MDM: Meat Demand Monitor. Kansas State University, Department of Agricultural Economics 4 (3), available online at https://www.agmanager.info/livestock-meat/meat-demand/monthly-meat-demand-monitor-survey-data/meat-demand-monitor-march-2023
Tonsor, G.T., J.R. Mintert and T.C. Schroeder. 2010. U.S. meat demand: Household dynamics and media information impacts. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 35 (1), 1–17.
Tonsor, G.T. and N.J. Olynk. 2011. Impacts of animal well-being and welfare on meat demand. Journal of Agricultural Economics 62 (1), 59–72.
Appendix
Heteroskedastic ordered probit parameter estimates of models explaining importance rankings of beef attributes
Citation: International Food and Agribusiness Management Review 27, 2 (2024) ; 10.22434/ifamr2023.0061
Corresponding author
See, for example, Tyson Foods recently introduced Brazen™ Beef indicating it was produced with greenhouse gas emissions reduced by 10% (https://brazenmeats.com/). See also the low carbon beef process verification program available through https://www.lowcarbonranch.com/.
The survey instrument was reviewed by the Institutional Review Board and determined to be exempt. The questionnaire used in this study is provided in the Appendix.
States were grouped into regions using the World Atlas defined regions available online at https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/the-officially-recognized-four-regions-and-nine-divisions-of-the-united-states.html
By completing these questions in a sequential process the second list contains only the remaining six instead of the original nine attributes. Future research could explore whether this affects preference rankings relative to more standard drag-and-drop formats.
A search on ProQuest Central electronic data base conducted on October 19, 2023 using keywords “cattle” and “greenhouse gas” resulted in less than 2000 publications annually 2010–2015; 2000–5000 publications annually 2016–2020; and more than 8000 publications each year from 2021 thru October 19, 2023.
