Consumer animal welfare and healthy perception of fresh sausages’ fiber fat replaced and elaborated with meat from non‐castrated male pigs

Abstract

AbstractAlthough replacement of fat with fiber is a good strategy to avoid boar taint on high‐fat content products, as sausages, the final purchase intention is related to other external factors such as welfare and healthiness. So, the aim of this study was to evaluate the consumers' perception of sausages with fat replaced by fiber, elaborated with meat from non‐castrated male pigs, and to determine the influence of the consumers' habits and demographic parameters on their beliefs related to pig castration. An online survey was carried out. A total of 131 consumers answered a questionnaire about habits and beliefs related to meat and meat product issues. Subsequently, they evaluated four images of labeled products (castrated–not castrated/normal–reduced‐fat/traditional–high fiber content) with the Check‐all‐that‐apply (CATA) test. In all, 87.7% of meat consumers perceived meat products as positive, although 71% trimmed the fat previous consumption. In a 9‐point agreement scale, “Animal welfare worries me” obtained 7.5 and “the castration without anaesthesia should not be performed” 7.4. There was a higher grade of agreement with “castration of pigs justification to improve smell a flavour” in primary education level and in rural residence (p < .05). Sausages from castrated animals were perceived as fatty, juicy, appetizing, and animal cruelty. Reduced‐fat and rich/high fiber sausages were not associated with “healthy” but with “expensive” and “unpleasant.” Although reduced‐fat entire male pork sausages with vegetable fiber could be a better option for marketing uncastrated male pork, they will need more than fiber claims to be associated with healthy products and the consumer should be previously informed if he could appreciate the meaning of castration labeling.