Comparison of Acceptance and Preference Between Rabbit Burgers and Other Lean Meat Burgers by Young Consumers

Abstract

Burgers are proposed as an ideal way to increase rabbit meat consumption among young people in a context where it is declining in several countries, mainly due to less familiarity with and appetite for rabbit meat and greater demand for easy-to-cook preparations. This study compared the acceptance and preference of commercial rabbit burgers with those of pork, chicken and turkey using an untrained panel of 45 young Spanish consumers (23.5 years; 55.6% male). A first trial evaluated on cooked burgers: a) acceptance of organoleptic characteristics and overall assessment, using a 9-point hedonic scale and b) order of preference of burgers (1st to 4th position). For this purpose, the panellists were presented with a dish with 2  5 cm blind-coded samples of each of the four burgers, randomly placed and to be tasted and evaluated from left to right. Overall acceptance and sensory attribute ratings differed between cooked burgers, except for texture (6.9 points for rabbit burger). Odour was rated better in the cooked rabbit (6.8 points) and turkey burgers, worst in the pork burger, and intermediate in the chicken burger. The colour, appearance, juiciness and overall acceptance of the cooked rabbit (6.5, 6.8, 6.9 and 7.1 points, respectively), pork and turkey burgers were rated better than the chicken burger. The flavour of the cooked rabbit (7.2 points) and turkey burgers was better accepted than that of pork and chicken burgers. The elasticity of the cooked rabbit (6.6 points) and pork burgers was rated better than that of the chicken, while that of the turkey burger was intermediate. The cooked turkey burger was preferred first, followed by the rabbit (second position; average order 2.27) and pork burgers, while the chicken burger was ranked last. A second trial evaluated on raw burgers: a) acceptance of colour and visual appearance and b) order of preference for burgers. For this purpose, the panellists were presented with a dish containing a 3  3 cm blind-coded raw sample of each of the four burgers, arranged in random order, to be visually evaluated in a clockwise direction. The colour of the raw turkey burger was rated best, the chicken burger was rated worst, and the rabbit and pork burgers were rated in between. Visual evaluation of appearance scored best for raw turkey, rabbit and pork burgers and worst for chicken burger. The visual appearance of the raw turkey burger was ranked first, followed by the rabbit and pork burgers, while the raw chicken burger was ranked last. In both trials, the gender of the consumer had no effect, and there was no interaction with the type of cooked burger. In conclusion, rabbit burgers were rated at the same level as pork and turkey burgers and better than chicken burgers, showing the potential to increase rabbit meat consumption among young people, which would benefit from promotion using this presentation format targeted at this specific audience.

Keywords

• Rabbit
• Pork
• Chicken
• Turkey
• Meat
• Processed products
• Consumer behaviour
• Burgers

References

1. ASESCU (1996). Transformados cárnicos de conejo. Boletín de Cunicultura 83: 36-37
2. CIE. Commision International de l’Éclairage (1976). Official recommendations on uniform colour spaces. Colour difference equations and metric colour terms. Suppl 2. CIE Publication 15 Colourimetry, Paris.
3. Cocking C, Walton J, Kehoe L, Cashman K D & 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. Nutrition Research Reviews 33(2): 181-189. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954422419000295
4. Cossu M E, Lamanna, M L, Picallo A B, Cumini M L, Gambetti P & Lazzari G (2012). Physical, chemical and sensory quality in rabbit burgers, refrigerated and stored under different conservation methods. In: Proceedings 10th World Rabbit Congress, 3-6, September Sharm El-Sheikh, Egypt pp. 887-890
5. Dal Bosco A, Mattioli S, Matics Z, Szendrő Z, Gerencsér Z, Mancinelli A C, Kovács M, Cullere M, Castellini C & Dalle Zotte A (2019). The antioxidant effectiveness of liquorice (Glycyrrhiza glabra L.) extract administered as dietary supplementation and/or as a burger additive in rabbit meat. Meat Science 158: 107921. doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2019.107921
6. De Santos M L (2019). El sector de la carne de conejo se adapta a los cambios en el mercado. Distribución y Consumo 157: 48-51
7. EFSA Panel on Dietetic Products, Nutrition, and Allergies (NDA) (2010). Scientific Opinion on establishing Food‐based Dietary Guidelines. EFSA Journal 8(3): 1460
8. Escriba-Perez C, Baviera-Puig A, Buitrago-Vera J & Montero-Vicente L (2017). Consumer profile analysis for different types of meat in Spain. Meat Science, 129: 120-126. doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2017.02.015

9. Escribá-Pérez C, Baviera-Puig A, Montero-Vicente L & Buitrago-Vera J (2019). Children's consumption of rabbit meat. World Rabbit Science, 27: 113-122. doi.org/10.4995/wrs.2019.11991
10. Fernández M (2019). Nuevos cortes y elaborados, ¿cómo hacerlos más visibles? Boletín de Cunicultura 194: 6-8
11. García-Vázquez L M, Zepeda-Bastida A, Ayala-Martínez M & Soto-Simental S (2020). Infusion of Chenopodium ambrosioides consumed by rabbits: effects on carcass, meat and burger quality. Food Science and Technology, Campinas, 40(Suppl. 2), 451-457. doi.org/10.1590/fst.32819
12. González-Redondo P, Mena Y & Fernández-Cabanás V M (2010). Factors affecting rabbit meat consumption among Spanish university students. Ecology of. Food and Nutrition 49: 298-315. doi.org/10.1080/03670244.2010.491053
13. Hernández P & Gondret F (2006). Rabbit meat quality. In: L. Maertens & P. Coudert (Eds.), Recent Advances in Rabbit Sciences, Institute for Agricultural and Fisheries Research (ILVO), Melle, Belgium pp. 269-290
14. Hui J & McLean-Meyinsse P E (1996). Assessing the market potential for specialty meat: goat, rabbit, and quail. Journal of International Food & Agribusiness Marketing, 8: 55-68. doi.org/10.1300/J047v08n03_04
15. Kiefer I, Rathmanner T & Kunze M (2005). Eating and dieting differences in men and women. The Journal of Men’s Health & Gender, 2: 194-201. doi.org/10.1016/j.jmhg.2005.04.010
16. Kubberød E, Ueland Ø, Rødbotten M, Westad F & Risvik E (2002a). Gender specific preferences and attitudes towards meat. Food Quality and Preference, 13: 285-294. doi.org/10.1016/S0950-3293(02)00041-1
17. Kubberød E, Ueland Ø, Tronstad Å & Risvik E (2002b). Attitudes towards meat and meat-eating among adolescents in Norway: A qualitative study. Appetite, 38: 53-62. doi.org/10.1006/appe.2002.0458
18. Lee N, Kwak H S, Joo J Y, Kang J & Lee Y (2018). Effects of partial replacement of pork meat with chicken or duck meat on the texture, flavor, and consumer acceptance of sausage. Journal of Food Quality 2018: 6972848. doi.org/10.1155/2018/6972848
19. Maj D, Bieniek J, Sternstein I, Węglarz A & Zapletal P (2012). Effect of genotype and sex on meat colour changes in rabbit. Archiv für Tierzucht 55(4): 385-390. doi.org/10.5194/aab-55-385-2012
20. Mancini S, Mattioli S, Nuvoloni R, Pedonese F, Dal Bosco A & Paci G (2020a). Effects of garlic powder and salt on meat quality and microbial loads of rabbit burgers. Foods 9(8): 1022. doi.org/10.3390/foods9081022
21. Mancini S, Mattioli S, Nuvoloni R, Pedonese F, Dal Bosco A & Paci G (2020a). Effects of garlic powder and salt additions on fatty acids profile, oxidative status, antioxidant potential and sensory properties of raw and cooked rabbit meat burgers. Meat Science 169: 108226. doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2020.108226
22. Mancini S, Preziuso G & Paci G (2016). Effect of turmeric powder (Curcuma longa L.) and ascorbic acid on antioxidant capacity and oxidative status in rabbit burgers after cooking. World Rabbit Science 24: 121-127. doi.org/10.4995/wrs.2016.4207
23. Mancini S, Preziuso G, Dal Bosco A, Roscini V, Parisi G & Paci G (2017a). Modifications of fatty acids profile, lipid peroxidation and antioxidant capacity in raw and cooked rabbit burgers added with ginger. Meat Science 133: 151-158. doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2017.07.003
24. Mancini S, Preziuso G, Dal Bosco A, Roscini V, Szendrő Z, Fratini F & Paci G (2015). Effect of turmeric powder (Curcuma longa L.) and ascorbic acid on physical characteristics and oxidative status of fresh and stored rabbit burgers. Meat Science 110: 93-100. doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2015.07.005
25. Mancini S, Preziuso G, Fratini F, Torracca B, Nuvoloni R, Dal Bosco A & Paci G (2017b). Qualitative improvement of rabbit burgers using Zingiber officinale Roscoe powder. World Rabbit Science 25: 367-375. doi.org/10.4995/wrs.2017.7656
26. McLean-Meyinsse P E (2000). Assessing the market outlook for rabbit meat in Louisiana and Texas. Journal of Food Distribution Research 31: 139-144
27. Ministerio de Agricultura, Pesca y Alimentación (2006). La alimentación en España – 2006. Retrieved in May, 15, 2023 from https://www.mapa.gob.es/es/alimentacion/temas/consumo-tendencias/panel-de-consumo-alimentario/libro-la-alimentacion-en-espana-/libro2010-11-04_18.56.25.7562.aspx
28. Ministerio de Agricultura, Pesca y Alimentación (2021). Panel de consumo alimentario 2021. Retrieved in May, 12, 2023 from https://www.mapa.gob.es/es/alimentacion/temas/consumo-tendencias/panel-de-consumo-alimentario/
29. Montero L (2015). La cadena de valor del sector cunícola en España. Segmentación del consumo en base al Food-Related Lifestyle (FRL). Published PhD Thesis, Universidad Politécnica de Valencia, Valencia (Spain). RiuNet UPV Institutional Repository. https://riunet.upv.es/handle/10251/58775
30. Montero L, Escribá C & Buitrago J M (2015). El marketing como propuesta para incrementar el consumo de carne de conejo (III). Boletín de Cunicultura 174: 34-42
31. Pagliarini E (2002). Valutazione sensoriale. Aspetti teorici, pratici e metodologici. Ulrico Hoepli Editore, Milan, Italy.
32. Petracci M & Cavani C (2013). Rabbit meat processing: historical perspective to future directions. World Rabbit Science, 21: 217-226. doi.org/10.4995/wrs.2013.1329
33. Petracci M, Soglia F & Leroy F (2018). Rabbit meat in need of a hat-trick: From tradition to innovation (and back). Meat Science, 146: 93-100. doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2018.08.003
34. Priorelli A (2019). Martini Alimentare, per un coniglio di Qualità. Orizzonte 14(2): 26-26
35. Sanah I, Becila S, Djeghim F & Boudjellal A (2020). Rabbit meat in the east of Algeria: motivation and obstacles to consumption. World Rabbit Science, 28(4): 221-237. doi.org/10.4995/wrs.2020.13419
36. Santos MLS & Booth DA (1996). Influences on meat avoidance among British students. Appetite 27: 197-205. doi.org/10.1006/appe.1996.0046
37. Siddiqui SA, Gerini F, Ikram A, Saeed F, Feng X & Chen Y (2023). Rabbit meat—production, consumption and consumers’ attitudes and behavior. Sustainability, 15(3): 2008. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15032008
38. Silva H L, Pires P G S, Lima A L S, Cristofolini A C, Netto D P, Miotto M, Verruck S, Hauptli L, Gouvêa F L & Moraes P O (2022). Hamburger de carne de coelho enriquecido com fibra de farelo de aveia: impacto nas propriedades físico-químicas e aceitabilidade. In: N.J.L. Rodriges (Ed.), Ciência Animal e Veterinária: Inovações e Tendências, 3rd ed., Editora Científica Digital, São Paulo, Brazil, Volume 3, pp. 125-136
39. Śmiecińska K, Gugołek A & Kowalska D (2022). Effects of garlic (Allium sativum L.) and ramsons (Allium ursinum L.) on lipid oxidation and the microbiological quality, physicochemical properties and sensory attributes of rabbit meat burgers. Animals, 12: 1905. doi.org/10.3390/ani12151905
40. SPSS Inc. (2006). Manual del Usuario de SPSS Base 15.0; SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA.
41. Tapp W N, Yancey J W S & Apple J K (2011). How is the instrumental color of meat measured? Meat Science 89(1): 1-5. doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2010.11.021
42. Tavares R S, Cruz A G, Oliveira T S, Braga A R, Reis F A, Hora I M C, Teixeira R C & Ferreira E F (2007). Processamento e aceitação sensorial do hambúrguer de coelho (Oryctolagus cuniculus). Food Science and Technology 27: 633-636. doi.org/10.1590/S0101-20612007000300031
43. Tomasevic I, Djekic I, Font-i-Furnols M, Terjung N & Lorenzo JM (2021). Recent advances in meat color research. Current Opinion in Food Science 41: 81-87. doi.org/10.1016/j.cofs.2021.02.012
44. Trocino A & Xiccato G (2000). La carne di coniglio: come variano le richieste del consumatore e la qualità del prodotto. Eurocarni, 8. Retrieved in July, 27, 2023 from https://www.pubblicitaitalia.com/carne/prodotti/eurocarni/2000/8/1420
45. Whiting R C & Jenkins R K (1981). Comparison of rabbit, beef, and chicken meats for functional properties and frankfurter processing. Journal of Food Science, 46(6): 1693-1696. doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2621.1981.tb04465.x