Nutrition & Food Science

The impact of sensory factors on beef purchase and consumption

Heather McIlveenJulie Buchanan
Article information:
To cite this document:
Heather McIlveenJulie Buchanan, (2001),"The impact of sensory factors on beef purchase and consumption", Nutrition &
Food Science, Vol. 31 Iss 6 pp. 286 - 292
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00346650110409119
Downloaded on: 06 February 2015, At: 06:12 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 8 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 921 times since 2006*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
Downloaded by Northern Alberta Institute of Technology At 06:12 06 February 2015 (PT)

Bertil Hultén, (2011),"Sensory marketing: the multi-sensory brand-experience concept", European Business Review, Vol. 23
Iss 3 pp. 256-273 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09555341111130245

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by 405387 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service
information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please
visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of
more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online
products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication
Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.


The impact of sensory
factors on beef
purchase and
consumption
Heather McIlveen and
Julie Buchanan
The authors
Downloaded by Northern Alberta Institute of Technology At 06:12 06 February 2015 (PT)
Heather McIlveen is Course Director of the BA Hons
Consumer Studies programme, University of Ulster,
Jordanstown, Northern Ireland.
Julie Buchanan was a Final Year Student of the BA Hons
Consumer Studies programme, University of Jordanstown,
Jordanstown, Northern Ireland. She has now completed
the PGCE in Home Economics.
Keywords
Consumer behaviour, Meat
Abstract
This preliminary study investigated the factors which
influence consumer choice of beef. A questionnaire and
sensory evaluation considered the level of importance
which consumers attached to the sensory (intrinsic)
properties of beef, as compared to extrinsic factors. It was
found that consumers use sensory properties to predict
safety, freshness and overall eating quality but they can
also misinterpret the quality cues. Expectations play a
prominent role in evaluating beef quality and sensory
evaluation revealed that when consumers were made
aware of the beef cut, fat content and place of purchase,
they altered their overall assessment of quality to conform
with their expectations. It was concluded that consumers
utilise a combination of sensory properties and other
extrinsic factors to predict and assess beef quality. The
particular combination used, however, appears to vary
considerably from one consumer to another and with the
particular use occasion.
Electronic access
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is
available at
http://www.emerald-library.com/ft
Nutrition & Food Science
Volume 31 . Number 6 . 2001 . pp. 286±292
# MCB University Press . ISSN 0034-6659
286
Introduction
In spite of the impact of BSE and, more
recently, with the foot and mouth outbreak, a
significant proportion of the UK population
continues to consume meat, thus confirming
its place in the UK diet. However, the choice
of meat is a complex process and is influenced
by a wide range of interrelating factors. The
physical and chemical properties of a food will
largely be perceived by the consumer in terms
of its sensory attributes, such as appearance,
aroma, flavour and texture. However, as
Shepherd and Raats (1996) stated:
It is the person's liking for [each] attribute . . .
which will be the determining factor.
Clearly, sensory attributes may also vary with
the type of product or with nutrient content,
for example, where a health-conscious
consumer may only purchase lean beef, which
will in turn determine the cut they buy as well
as the price they pay.
Obviously, the level of consumer
satisfaction will depend greatly on their
expectations and on the extent to which the
product meets these expectations. In
addition, a consumer will often reflect on past
experiences to make current food choices,
where, for example, a negative experience
with a particular retailer or cut of beef, may
prevent a consumer from making a similar
purchase in the future. Sometimes,
consumers trade-off sensory properties for
other perceived benefits such as nutritional
value or price. However, a repeat purchase is
unlikely if the sensory properties do not at
least meet the consumer's expectations.
Sensory quality and beef choice
Sensory properties are used extensively by
consumers as indicators of quality and
acceptance throughout all stages of beef
selection, purchase, storage, preparation and
consumption. According to Grunert (1997),
at time of purchase, consumers would like to
infer taste, tenderness, juiciness, freshness,
leanness, healthfulness and nutrition from the
intrinsic (colour, size and shape and visible
leanness) and extrinsic (price and labelling)
quality cues. As Grunert (1997) concluded:
The most important concrete product
characteristics which consumers base their
quality evaluation on are fat content and colour.
 The impact of sensory factors on beef purchase and consumption
Heather McIlveen and Julie Buchanan
Fat of any kind tends to be perceived
negatively and the positive effects of fat,
particularly linked to flavour, tenderness and
juiciness are not always acknowledged by
consumers. Chambers and Bowers (1993)
came to a similar conclusion, finding that:
. . . many consumers will not buy meat with
obvious fat . . . cover or marbling, because it is
viewed as less nutritious or not good value.
In the case of beef, flavour, tenderness and
juiciness would appear to be the three most
important determinants of sensory pleasure
for the UK consumer.
The flavour of beef is difficult both to
predict and to describe. Bett (1993) identified
beef flavour descriptors, including beefy,
Downloaded by Northern Alberta Institute of Technology At 06:12 06 February 2015 (PT)
brothy/meaty, cooked beef fat, serum/bloody,
browned, grainy/cowy and livery/organ meat,
many of which are not particularly inviting! In
most instances, however, consumers merely
evaluate the overall flavour intensity and
acceptability, but the importance of flavour as
an influence on ultimate acceptance should
not be underestimated.
As Chambers and Bowers (1993) stated:
It has long been believed that tenderness is the
most important attribute, because if meat is
tough other sensory properties become less
important.
Szczesniak (1998) also highlighted the
importance of meat texture, concluding that it
is equal to or even greater in importance than
flavour. Assessment of meat texture occurs in
several stages, beginning with an evaluation of
the meat's surface properties, such as the
surface characteristics or amount of visible
fat. When the meat is first bitten, the
hardness, compressibility and moisture
release properties are assessed. During
mastication the number of chews required to
prepare the sample for swallowing and the
amount of connective tissue, fibrousness and
gristle are then determined (Bett, 1993).
Although the consumer may not consciously
follow this procedure, it is probable that they
use some of the factors identified to make
their overall quality assessment. In addition,
of all the sensory attributes, texture is the
most sensitive to cooking and storage
processes. Thus, consumers and indeed food
manufacturers in the case of ready meal
production for example, cannot merely rely
on the extrinsic and intrinsic quality cues at
the selection stage. Rather, they must also
ensure that the cooking processes and
subsequent storage conditions do not
287
Nutrition & Food Science
Volume 31 . Number 6 . 2001 . 286±292
detrimentally affect the beef's texture, hence
the value of sensory evaluation.
The juiciness of beef is synonymous with
tenderness. Chambers and Bowers (1993)
found that juicy and moist were terms
frequently mentioned by consumers, to
describe their ``ideal'' piece of meat. Beef with
a higher fat content is perceived as having a
higher degree of juiciness, yet most
consumers reject beef that has marbling or
much visible fat, thus misinterpreting the
intrinsic quality cues. In contrast, excessive
moistness and juiciness may cause greasiness,
which is equally undesirable. This preliminary
study sought to investigate the relative
influence of sensory properties on consumers'
choice of beef products.
Methodology
In order to investigate the importance that
consumers attach to sensory properties as
compared to other extrinsic factors, when
predicting and assessing beef quality, a small
scale questionnaire was administered to a
representative sample of 50 consumers.
Sensory analysis was also carried out to
further investigate the expectations that
consumers have when assessing beef quality.
The following three tests were completed:
(1) Influence of beef cut. Panellists tasted
samples of fillet, sirloin and chump steak.
Initially the samples were tasted blind and
the test was then repeated with the
samples labelled with the name of each
cut.
(2) Influence of beef fat content. Panellists
tasted ordinary, lean and extra lean
minced beef, first blind and again, when
labelled respectively.
(3) Influence of outlet in which the beef was
purchased. Panellists tasted chump steak
from an independent butcher, a
recognised ``higher quality'' retailer and a
perceived ``lower quality'' retailer, first
blind and then when labelled with the
name of the outlet.
Products were rated for five attributes (four
for the minced beef samples), where panellists
used unstructured line scales, to mark the
point that best reflected the relative intensity
of each beef attribute. In order to achieve
consistency in recording, all panellists were
provided with a description of exactly how
 The impact of sensory factors on beef purchase and consumption
Heather McIlveen and Julie Buchanan
they should assess each beef attribute, as
given below.
Attribute definitions for steak tasting
(1) Appearance. Consider the colour of the
meat; the density of the meat fibres; the
presence of fat or any other surface
characteristics.
(2) Tenderness. Consider the hardness or
compressibility of the meat when it is first
bitten; the number of chews required
before the meat is ready for swallowing;
the presence of gristle.
(3) Juiciness. Dry = a food which causes a
decrease of fluids in the mouth; moist = a
food which causes neither an increase nor
Downloaded by Northern Alberta Institute of Technology At 06:12 06 February 2015 (PT)
a decrease of fluids in the mouth; juicy =
a food which causes an increase in fluids
slowly and progressively during chewing.
(4) Flavour. Assess the overall flavour
intensity.
(5) Overall quality. Assess the overall quality
based on the above categories.
Attribute definitions for mince tasting
(1) Appearance. Consider the colour of the
mince; how coarsely/finely the mince is
ground; the presence of fat or gristle.
(2) Texture. Consider the number of chews
required before the meat is ready for
swallowing; the presence of gristle; the
level of juiciness.
(3) Flavour. Assess the overall flavour
intensity.
(4) Overall quality. Assess the overall quality
based on the above categories.
The anchor points for each attribute were
selected, in accordance with a study by
Dransfield et al. (1998) and were as follows:
. appearance: extremely poor to extremely
good;
. tenderness: extremely tough to extremely
tender;
. juiciness: extremely dry to extremely
juicy;
. flavour: extremely poor to extremely
good; and
. overall quality: low quality to high
quality.
For each test 12 semi-trained panellists, who
consumed beef on a regular basis, were used.
Procedures as outlined by Stone and Sidel
(1993) were followed and the laboratory
conformed to BSI7183 (BSI, 1989). Mean
scores (ranging from 0-100) were calculated
288
Nutrition & Food Science
Volume 31 . Number 6 . 2001 . 286±292
for each attribute and statistical significance
considered.
Results
As mentioned earlier, the cut of meat may be
influenced by a range of factors, including the
consumer's perception of quality or
nutritional value, their age, financial means or
other lifestyle factors. To investigate this,
questionnaire respondents were asked to state
which cuts of beef they consumed regularly.
Fillet, sirloin, silverside and minced steak
proved to be the most popular, with over
40 per cent of the respondents selecting each
of these categories. Consumers within all age
groups purchased minced steak, which
perhaps underlines its flexibility and
versatility as an ingredient, as well as being
relatively cost effective. Interestingly however,
a similar pattern was observed for fillet steak
even though it was the most expensive cut.
Clearly, there is a link to the use occasion
here, which in turn influences the price paid
and cut of meat selected.
The largest number of respondents
purchased beef only from an independent
butcher. This group formed a significant
majority in all age categories apart from the
18-29 age group and is an interesting finding,
given the growth in one-stop supermarket
shopping. One explanation could be that
younger consumers prefer the convenience of
purchasing all food products from one store
whereas the older consumers may have
purchased beef from a particular butcher for
many years. Thus their continued use of the
shop may be due to habit, tradition, loyalty
and/or a perception of higher quality. To
investigate this issue further, respondents
were asked if their choice of outlet varied with
the cut of beef being purchased or with the
particular use occasion. Of the respondents,
12.5 per cent believed they purchased ``better
cuts of beef'' from a butcher, 2.5 per cent
stated they used a butcher if they wanted
speciality cuts and 2.5 per cent always
purchased mince from a butcher because they
were certain of its origin. With regards to use
occasion, 15 per cent of respondents
indicated that for a special occasion they
would purchase beef from a butcher and 7.5
per cent stated they would go to a butcher
if they wanted beef cut in a particular
size or shape.
 The impact of sensory factors on beef purchase and consumption
Heather McIlveen and Julie Buchanan
However, when consumers' perceptions of
each outlet were examined in more detail, it
became apparent that they used supermarkets
and independent butchers for very different
reasons, as illustrated in Figure 1. For
instance, 65 per cent of respondents stated
that they purchased beef from an independent
butcher because it was of superior quality,
whereas only 7.5 per cent of respondents gave
this as a reason for purchasing beef from a
supermarket. These results correspond with
those of Grunert (1997) who stated that:
Place of purchase and quality perception are
related . . . the butcher is regarded as a sort of
guarantor of high quality.
Knowledge of the beef's origin was stated by
Downloaded by Northern Alberta Institute of Technology At 06:12 06 February 2015 (PT)
45 per cent of respondents as a reason for
purchasing from an independent butcher as
compared to only 2.5 per cent of respondents
who indicated this as a reason for purchasing
from a supermarket. It appears, therefore,
that although many supermarkets have
improved their beef labelling, for example by
labelling as a product of Northern Ireland,
consumers may not perceive this information
to be as reliable as that provided by their local
butcher. Increased choice, a high level of
personal service, loyalty to the shop and
hygiene standards were also cited by a high
percentage of respondents as reasons for
Figure 1 Consumer perceptions of butcher and
supermarket outlets
289
Nutrition & Food Science
Volume 31 . Number 6 . 2001 . 286±292
using the butcher. In comparison, lower
prices and convenience were the two main
reasons for purchasing from supermarkets.
It has been highlighted that when assessing
beef quality, consumers attach varying levels
of importance to each attribute. Thus, to
determine the relative importance of the
sensory (intrinsic) attributes, respondents
were asked to rank them in order of
importance.
Texture was found to be the most
important attribute, with flavour the second
most important. The final question then
asked respondents to rank a combination of
intrinsic and extrinsic quality cues in order of
importance for assessing beef quality, as
summarised in Figure 2.
It is perhaps not surprising that the highest
number of respondents ranked cut of meat as
the most important factor in determining beef
quality. This is well-established and is
generally reflected in price. A high percentage
(24 per cent) of the respondents ranked place
of purchase as the most important factor.
Overall, it was apparent that 75 per cent of
respondents ranked an extrinsic factor (cut of
meat, place of purchase, country of origin,
price, brand/label or packaging) as being the
most important factor used to determine beef
quality whilst only 25 per cent ranked a
sensory property (appearance, juiciness,
flavour or leanness) as being the most
important. It could be concluded from this
that more consumers use extrinsic quality
cues than intrinsic sensory properties to
evaluate the quality of their beef. It is more
probable however, that consumers use a
combination of these factors to determine
quality, where the extent of influence and
indeed consumer awareness of using each
factor may vary considerably from one
consumer to another.
Sensory analysis
The results of the consumer questionnaire
illustrated that 28 per cent of respondents
ranked the cut of meat as the most important
factor used to determine beef quality. To
establish if in practice, consumers were
influenced by a knowledge of beef cut,
panellists tasted fillet, sirloin and chump
steak, first blind, and then when it was
labelled (see Tables I±III for summary data).
When tasted blind, fillet was ranked best
 The impact of sensory factors on beef purchase and consumption Nutrition & Food Science
Heather McIlveen and Julie Buchanan Volume 31 . Number 6 . 2001 . 286±292

Figure 2 Respondents' assessment of the extrinsic and intrinsic quality cues

Downloaded by Northern Alberta Institute of Technology At 06:12 06 February 2015 (PT)

Table I Summary (line scale) data from sensory evaluation of steak samples (sensory test no. 1)
Appearance Tenderness Juiciness Flavour Overall quality
Blind Labelled Blind Labelled Blind Labelled Blind Labelled Blind Labelled
Fillet 60 66 66 64 65 67 68 70 60 74
Sirloin 58 68 53 55 57 58 59 67 58 59
Chump 54 46 54 50 53 54 64 59 57 54

Table II Summary (line scale) data from sensory evaluation of minced beef samples (sensory test no. 2)
Appearance Texture Flavour Overall Quality
Blind Labelled Blind Labelled Blind Labelled Blind Labelled
Standard 48 42 42 40 46 43 41 38
Lean 61 58 59 50 66 60 60 58
Extra lean 68 56 60 54 57 59 50 57

Table III Summary (line scale) data from sensory evaluation of steak from independent butcher and supermarkets (sensory test no. 3)
Appearance Tenderness Juiciness Flavour Overall quality
Blind Labelled Blind Labelled Blind Labelled Blind Labelled Blind Labelled
Butcher 42 49 45 55 40 37 40 50 40 51
Lower quality
supermarket 60 38 35 42 36 49 49 40 42 40
Higher quality
supermarket 49 48 40 43 58 50 52 51 52 45

followed by sirloin and then chump and
texture tended to be the dominant sensory
attribute. This suggests that identifiable
differences between the cuts may exist,
making the cut of beef a reasonably reliable
quality cue for consumers. The small
difference in the overall quality ratings
however, does not necessarily correspond
with the significant difference in the price of
these cuts.
When the cuts were labelled, the overall
quality of the fillet steak was found to be
highly significantly preferred over the sirloin
at the 1 per cent level and very highly
290
significantly preferred over the chump at the
0.1 per cent level. This indicates that the
panellists' preferences became more
pronounced when they were made aware of
the type of cut being tasted. The results
therefore, appear to support Marshall's
comments, as panellists' expectations had a
marked effect on their perception of quality.
Previous research established that
consumers use the leanness of beef as an
indicator of quality. To investigate this,
panellists tasted ordinary, lean and extra lean
minced beef, first blind and then when it was
labelled. Data illustrate that when tasted
 The impact of sensory factors on beef purchase and consumption
Heather McIlveen and Julie Buchanan
blind, the extra lean was preferred for
appearance and texture but rated second for
overall quality, whereas the lean mince was
rated first for flavour only and yet was ranked
first overall. This indicates that the flavour of
mince may be a vital attribute in determining
the overall quality judgement. Therefore, a
very low fat content may detrimentally affect
the mince flavour. However, the results also
suggested that too high a fat content can have
equally undesirable effects on the flavour,
appearance and texture of mince. This was
illustrated by the fact that the lean mince was
significantly preferred over the ordinary at a
5 per cent level for appearance, flavour and
overall quality. When the labelled mince was
Downloaded by Northern Alberta Institute of Technology At 06:12 06 February 2015 (PT)
tested for overall quality, the samples were
ranked in a similar order. It was found
however, that the lean mince was highly
significantly preferred over the ordinary at a
1 per cent level and the extra lean was
significantly preferred over the ordinary at a
5 per cent level. It was evident again, that the
preferences for the extra lean and lean mince
became more pronounced when the fat
content was known. The results of this test
appear to correspond with those of a test
implemented by Dransfield et al. (1998), in
which beef labelled as 75 per cent lean
received more favourable quality attributes
than identical samples labelled 25 per cent fat.
As with the previous test on the cuts of beef,
expectations may have played a role in
determining the panellists' overall quality
assessment. It could also be concluded that
because lean mince was still preferred over
extra lean when the samples were labelled, the
appearance, texture and flavour of the mince
were more important than leanness in
determining overall quality.
The consumer questionnaire revealed that
40 per cent of respondents ranked place of
purchase as either the first or second most
important factor used to assess beef quality.
In addition, it was established that the
butcher was regarded by many as a source of
high quality. To investigate this further,
panellists tasted steak samples from a butcher,
from a ``lower quality'' supermarket (named)
and from a perceived ``higher quality'' retailer
(named). The samples were again tasted blind
and then labelled.
Interestingly, when tasted blind, the higher
and lower quality retailer samples came out
first and second respectively, in terms of
overall quality. In contrast, when the steaks
291
Nutrition & Food Science
Volume 31 . Number 6 . 2001 . 286±292
were labelled with the respective outlet, the
butcher's product was preferred overall,
followed by the higher and lower quality
retailers. It is obvious from the results that the
panellists' perceptions of each outlet
influenced their quality assessment. In
addition, the results appear to be consistent
with the view that consumers perceive meat
from an independent butcher to be of a
superior quality. The results also revealed
however, that perceptions of supermarkets
differed depending on the image of the
individual store portrayed. Place of purchase
is not necessarily a particularly reliable
indicator of meat quality and increasingly so,
given the stringent quality assurance
procedures imposed by retailers when
sourcing product.
Conclusion
It can be seen that the food choice process is
influenced by a large number of complex
factors related to the food, to the person
making the decision and to the environment
within which the choice is made. Consumers
use sensory properties (intrinsic cues) at the
time of purchase to predict safety, freshness
and overall eating quality, and they continue to
use them to evaluate quality throughout
storage, preparation and consumption. This is,
however, in addition to extrinsic quality cues
such as price, packaging and place of purchase.
Place of purchase seems to be a particularly
important extrinsic quality cue, where almost
two thirds of respondents, whether rightly or
wrongly, perceived meat from a butcher to be
of a superior quality. In comparison,
convenience and lower prices were the main
reasons supplied for purchasing from a
supermarket.
Most respondents believed tenderness to be
the most important beef attribute, followed by
flavour. However, each consumer will have a
personal hierarchy of attributes that are
important to them, which further complicates
the evaluation process. Consumers will use a
combination of both extrinsic and intrinsic
quality cues to predict and assess beef quality,
but the combination of factors used and
consumer awareness of using them appears to
vary considerably from one consumer to
another and with the particular use occasion.
Nevertheless it is important to continue to
research the role that consumers'
 The impact of sensory factors on beef purchase and consumption
Heather McIlveen and Julie Buchanan
preconceptions can play, particularly in relation
to their perception of product quality and the
likely impact that this will have on their future
purchase and consumption behaviour.
References
Bett, K.L. (1993), ``Measuring sensory properties of meat
in the laboratory'', Food Technology, November,
pp. 121-6.
British Standards Institute (BSI) (1989), British Standard
Guide to Design of Test Rooms for Sensory Analysis
of Food ± BS7183, BSI, London.
Chambers, E. and Bowers, J.R. (1993), ``Consumer
perception of sensory properties in muscle foods'',
Food Technology, November, pp. 116-20.
Downloaded by Northern Alberta Institute of Technology At 06:12 06 February 2015 (PT)
292
Nutrition & Food Science
Volume 31 . Number 6 . 2001 . 286±292
Dransfield, E., Zamora, F. and Bayle, M.C. (1998),
``Consumer selection of steaks as influenced by
information and price index'', Food Quality and
Preference, Vol. 9 No. 5, pp. 321-5.
Grunert, K.G. (1997), ``What's in a steak? A cross cultural
study on the quality perception of beef'', Food
Quality and Preference, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 157-74.
Shepherd, R. and Raats, M.M. (1996), ``Attitudes and
beliefs in food habits'', in Meiselman, H.L. and
Macfie, H.J.H. (Eds), Food Choice, Acceptance and
Consumption, Blackie Academic and Professional,
London.
Stone, H. and Sidel, J.L. (1993), Sensory Evaluation
Practices, 2nd ed., Academic Press, London.
Szczesniak, A.S. (1998), ``Sensory texture profiling ±
historical and scientific perspectives'', Food
Technology, Vol. 52 No. 8, pp. 54-7.
 This article has been cited by:

1. Jane Lu Hsu, Hester Chun-Hui Lu, Carey Ming-Li Chen. 2014. The effect of family beef taboos on beef consumption on
young Taiwanese adults. Food Quality and Preference 34, 45-49. [CrossRef]
2. Terhi Latvala, Mari Niva, Johanna Mäkelä, Eija Pouta, Jaakko Heikkilä, Jaana Kotro, Sari Forsman-Hugg. 2012. Diversifying
meat consumption patterns: Consumers' self-reported past behaviour and intentions for change. Meat Science 92:1, 71-77.
[CrossRef]
3. Angelo D'Alessandro, Sara Rinalducci, Cristina Marrocco, Valerio Zolla, Francesco Napolitano, Lello Zolla. 2012. Love me
tender: An Omics window on the bovine meat tenderness network. Journal of Proteomics 75, 4360-4380. [CrossRef]
4. Ruth Hamill, Begonya Marcos, Dilip Rai, Anne MullenOmics Approaches to Meat Quality Management 249-282. [CrossRef]
5. Angelo D΄Alessandro, Cristina Marrocco, Valerio Zolla, Mariasilvia D΄Andrea, Lello Zolla. 2011. Meat quality of the
longissimus lumborum muscle of Casertana and Large White pigs: Metabolomics and proteomics intertwined. Journal of
Proteomics 75, 610-627. [CrossRef]
6. J.A. Ujan, L.S. Zan, S.A. Ujan, C. Adoligbe, H.B. Wang. 2011. Back fat thickness and meat tenderness are associated with a
526 T→A mutation in the exon 1 promoter region of the MyF-5 gene in Chinese Bos taurus. Genetics and Molecular Research
10:4, 3070-3079. [CrossRef]
7. A.M. Mullen, L. Pannier, R. HamillNew insights into the biology of meat quality from genomic and proteomic perspectives,
Downloaded by Northern Alberta Institute of Technology At 06:12 06 February 2015 (PT)

with particular emphasis on beef 199-224. [CrossRef]

8. Joel Espejel, Carmina Fandos, Carlos Flavián. 2008. The Influence of Consumer Degree of Knowledge on Consumer Behavior:
The Case of Spanish Olive Oil. Journal of Food Products Marketing 15:1, 15-37. [CrossRef]
9. M. Ylä-Ajos, E. Puolanne. 2007. Temperature shows greater impact on bovine Longissimus dorsi muscle glycogen
debranching enzyme activity than does salt concentration. Meat Science 77:4, 587-592. [CrossRef]
10. A.M. Mullen, P.C. Stapleton, D. Corcoran, R.M. Hamill, A. White. 2006. Understanding meat quality through the
application of genomic and proteomic approaches. Meat Science 74:1, 3-16. [CrossRef]
11. Klaus G. Grunert. 2006. Future trends and consumer lifestyles with regard to meat consumption. Meat Science 74:1, 149-160.
[CrossRef]