Consumer Preferences and Willingness to Pay for Value‐Added Chicken Product Attributes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A growing demand for convenient and ready-to-eat products has increased poultry processors' interest in developing consumer-oriented value-added chicken products. In this study, a conjoint analysis survey of 276 chicken consumers in Edmonton was conducted during the summer of 2009 to assess the importance of the chicken part, production method, processing method, storage method, the presence of added flavor, and cooking method on consumer preferences for different value-added chicken product attributes. Estimates of consumer willingness to pay (WTP) premium prices for different combinations of value-added chicken attributes were also determined. Participants'"ideal" chicken product was a refrigerated product made with free-range chicken breast, produced with no additives or preservatives and no added flavor, which could be oven heated or pan heated. Half of all participants on average were willing to pay 30% more for a value-added chicken product over the price of a conventional product. Overall, young consumers, individuals who shop at Farmers' Markets and those who prefer free-range or organic products were more likely to pay a premium for value-added chicken products. As expected, consumers' WTP was affected negatively by product price. Combined knowledge of consumer product attribute preferences and consumer WTP for value-added chicken products can help the poultry industry design innovative value-added chicken products. Practical Application: An optimum combination of product attributes desired by consumers for the development of a new value-added chicken product, as well as the WTP for this product, have been identified in this study. This information is relevant to the poultry industry to enhance consumer satisfaction of future value-added chicken products and provide the tools for future profit growth.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".