Market Study of Meat Processing Industry in Manabí, Ecuador

  • Ramón Rivadeneira García Department of Teaching, Research and Production, Agro-industrial Degree, ESPAM MFL, Calcetas, Manabí, Ecuador
  • Ricardo Montesdeoca Párraga Department of Teaching, Research and Production, Agro-industrial Degree, ESPAM MFL, Calcetas, Manabí, Ecuador
  • Raúl Guevara Viera Faculty of Agricultural Sciences, University of Cuencas, Yanuncay Campus, Cuenca, Azuay, Ecuador
  • Arnaldo del Toro Ramírez Faculty of Agricultural Sciences, Technical University of Manabí, Ecuador
  • Lino Curbelo Rodríguez CEDEPA, Faculty of Agricultural Sciences, University of Camaguey, Cuba
  • Guillermo Guevara Viera Faculty of Agricultural Sciences, University of Cuencas, Yanuncay Campus, Cuenca, Azuay, Ecuador
  • Carlos Torres Inga Faculty of Agricultural Sciences, University of Cuencas, Yanuncay Campus, Cuenca, Azuay, Ecuador
  • Alex Roca Cedeño Livestock Raising Degree, ESPAM MFL, Calcetas, Manabí, Ecuador
Palabras clave: production chain, bovine, pig, analysis, quality, consumer

Resumen

A meat market study was conducted in Bolivar canton, as part of this research. The population included in the study (380 persons) was taken from the total number of inhabitants of the canton (37 262). A number of questions were made about the meat market system in the city of Calceta and other areas in Bolivar canton. Supply analysis made to several other similar products available in the area explained the behavior through time. Also included in the study were national meat processing plants that sell cured meat cuts and other meat products, in general. The chain study concluded that 96 % of meat consumers preferred fresh beef from butcheries and traditional markets, though with an increasing perception to consume safer cuts with less supermarket packing. They were also more prone to buy up to 1.8 kg/week of trademark fresh beef, sausages and smoked meat. It revealed a higher inclination to develop a local university industry offering standard processed and meat products, reducing health risks due to wrong production practices at the local slaughterhouse.

Citas

ELLIES-OURY, M. P.; CANTALAPIEDRA-HIJAR, G.; DURAND, D.; GRUFFAT, D.; LISTRAT, A.; MICOL, D. y PICARD, B. (2016). An Innovative Approach Combining Animal Performances, Nutritional Value and Sensory Quality of Meat. Meat Science, 122, 163-172.

FONT-I-FURNOLS, M.y GUERRERO, L. (2014). Consumer Preference, Behavior and Perception About Meat and Meat Products: An Overview. Meat Science, 98(3), 361-371.

GUEVARA, R.; CURBELO, L. y SOTO, S. (2012). Conferencia de ganado de doble propósito en el trópico americano. Maestría de Producción Animal del CEDEPA, Facultad de Ciencias Agropecuarias, Universidad de Camagüey. Cuba.

INECI (2001). Informe de proyección en el tiempo por cantones de la población en la provincia de Manabí en Ecuador. INECI.

BARCELLOS, J. O. J.; ABICHT, A. D. M.; BRANDÃO, F. S.; CANOZZI, M. E. A.y COLLARES, F. C (2012). CONSUMER Perception of Brazilian Traced Beef. Revista Brasileira de Zootecnia, 41(3), 771-774.

LOBATO, J. F. P.; FREITAS, A. K.; DEVINCENZI, T.; CARDOSO, L. L.; TAROUCO, J. U.; VIEIRA, R. M. y CASTRO, I. (2014). Brazilian Beef Produced on Pastures: Sustainable and Healthy. Meat science, 98(3), 336-345.

LUCHERK, L. W.; O'QUINN, T. G.;LEGAKO, J. F.; RATHMANN, R. J.; BROOKS, J. C.y MILLER, M. F. (2016). Consumer and Trained Panel Evaluation of Beef Strip Steaks of Varying Marbling and Enhancement Levels Cooked to Three Degrees of Doneness. Meat Science, 122, 145-154.

MALAFAIA, G. C.; BARCELLOS, J. O. J.y AZEVEDO, D. D. (2006). Construindo Vantagens Competitivas Para a Pecuária de Corte do Rio Grande do Sul: o Caso da Indicação de Procedência da “Carne do Pampa Gaúcho”. Retrieved on May 10, 2015, from http://sistema.semead.com.br/9semead/resultado_semead/trabalhosPDF/408.pdf.

MORRIS, S. T. y KENYON, P. R. (2014). Intensive Sheep and Beef Production from Pasture—a New ZealandPerspective of Concerns, Opportunities and Challenges. Meat science, 98(3), 330-335.

PICASSO, V. D.; MODERNEL, P. D.; BECOÑA, G.; SALVO, L.; GUTIÉRREZ, L.yASTIGARRAGA, L. (2014). Sustainability of Meat Production Beyond Carbon Footprint: a Synthesis of Case Studies from Grazing Systems in Uruguay. Meat science, 98(3), 346-354.

RISIUS, A. y HAMM,U. (2017). The Effect of Information on Beef Husbandry Systems on Consumers’ Preferences and Willingness to Pay. Meat Sciences,124, 9-14.

SEPÚLVEDA, W.; MAZA, M. T.y MANTECÓN, A. R. (2008). Factors that Affect and Motivate the Purchase of Quality-Labelled Beef in Spain. Meat Science, 80(4), 1282-1289.

VELHO, J. P.; BARCELLOS, J. O. J.; LENGLER, L.; ELIAS, S. A. A. y OLIVEIRA, T. E. (2009). Disposição dos Consumidores Porto-Alegrenses à Compra de Carne Bovina com Certificação. Revista Brasileira de Zootecnia, 38(2), 399-404.

TURP, G. Y. (2016). Effects of Four Different Cooking Methods on Some Quality Characteristics of Low Fat Inegol Meatball Enriched with Flaxseed Flour. Meat science, 121, 40-46.

ŻAKOWSKA-BIEMANS, S.; PIENIAK, Z.; GUTKOWSKA, K.; WIERZBICKI, J.; CIESZYŃSKA, K.; SAJDAKOWSKA, M. Y KOSICKA-GĘBSKA, M. (2017). Beef Consumer Segment Profiles Based on Information Source Usage in Poland. Meat Science, 124, 105-113.
Publicado
2017-06-14
Sección
Manejo y Alimentación