Sensory Acceptability of Buffalo Meat and Beef in Young Consumers

Authors

  • René Rodríguez-Florentino Posgrado en Ganadería, Recursos Genéticos y Productividad, Colegio de Postgraduados, Campus Montecillo, Texcoco, Edo. De México, Mexico
  • Luis A. de la Cruz-Cruz Departamento de Producción Agrícola y Animal, Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana-Xochimilco, Ciudad de México, México https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9525-8877
  • Patricia Roldán-Santiago Departamento de Reproducción, Facultad de Medicina Veterinaria y Zootecnia, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Ciudad de México, México
  • Cristian Larrondo Facultad de Medicina Veterinaria y Agronomía, Universidad de Las Américas, Viña del Mar, Chile https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3994-6173

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.6000/1927-520X.2025.14.05

Keywords:

Consumers, beef, buffalo meat, sensory properties, quality, acceptability

Abstract

Background: The aim of this study was to evaluate the sensory acceptability of buffalo meat compared to beef, as well as to evaluate the perception of buffalo meat.

Methods: The study was conducted with young meat consumers, who responded to a questionnaire with four sections: 1) sociodemographic aspects, 2) consumer preferences, 3) hedonic acceptability, and 4) perception of buffalo meat consumption. Three 2.5 cm thick steaks (Longissimus thoracis et lumborum) were compared: 1) select beef (slight marbling); 2) select buffalo meat (slight marbling); 3) prime beef (abundant marbling). The samples were evaluated by 76 young meat consumers (non-trained panelists). A seven-point hedonic scale was used to assess appearance, odor, flavor, tenderness, juiciness, and overall acceptability.

Results: The results indicated that prime beef presented a better appearance (P=0.0042) and tenderness (P<0.0001) compared to select buffalo and select beef, respectively. Similarly, a higher score was observed in juiciness for prime beef (5.52±0.19 points), but a better score for buffalo meat compared to beef select was identified (4.52±0.18 points vs. 3.86±0.19 points, respectively; P<0.001). Most of the panelists indicated that prior to the study, they had not consumed buffalo meat (89.00%/n=68). However, they noted that buffalo meat was like select beef (71.00%/n=54). The panelist highlighted various reasons why buffalo meat is not commonly consumed, such as there is no information on the buffalo meat (93.42%/n=71), limited availability of buffalo meat products (60.52%/n =46), and unavailability at supermarkets (73.69%/n=56).

Conclusions: Buffalo meat can be a good option for young consumers. However, more information about buffalo meat characteristics (chemical, nutritional, sensory properties, and technological quality) and improved marketing channels that ensure the availability of buffalo products are important.

References

Turan A, Yalcintan H, Orman A, Ekiz B. Effects of gender and slaughter age on meat quality of Anatolian water buffaloes. Trop Anim Health Prod 2021; 53: 2-8.

Minervino AHH, Zava M, Vecchio D, Borghese A, Bubalus bubalis: A Short Story. Front Vet Sci 2020; 7: 570413.

Di Stasio L, Brugiapaglia A. Current Knowledge on River Buffalo Meat: A Critical Analysis. Animals 2021; 11: 2111.

Jaspal MH, Badar IH, Ghani MU, Ijaz M, Yar MK, Manzoor A, et al. effect of packaging type and aging on the meat quality characteristics of water buffalo bulls. Animals 2022; 12.

Vaz RZ, de Sá H, Sartori DBS, Costa PT, Fluck AC, Kröning AB, et al. Trade and consumption of buffalo meat in Brazil. Meat Sci 2024; 208: 109399.

Tamburrano A, Tavazzi B, Callà CAM, Amorini AM, Lazzarino G, Vincenti S, et al. Biochemical and nutritional characteristics of buffalo meat and potential implications on human health for personalized nutrition. Ital J Food Saf 2019; 8: 8317.

Naveena BM, Kiran M. Buffalo meat quality, composition, and processing characteristics: Contribution to the global economy and nutritional security. Animal Front 2014; 4: 18-24.

Baran B, Yilmaz I, Geçgel U. Determination of Some Quality Parameters of Buffalo Meat. J Tekirdag Agr Facul 2023; 20: 677-687.

de la Cruz L, Gibson TJ, Guerrero-Legarreta I, Napolitano F, Mora-Medina P, The welfare of water buffaloes during the slaughter process: A review. Livest Sci 2018; 212: 22-33.

Andrade BF, Paula MMdO, Carneiro JdDS, Fontes PR, Torres Filho RdA, Ramos EM, et al., Influence of intrinsic and extrinsic factors on the sensory perception and intention to purchase buffalo meat by consumers in Southeast Brazil. Braz J Food Tech 2022; 25: 1-17.

Canozzi ME, Ávila SL, McManus PCM, Jardim BJO, Candal PCH, Bergmann GP, et al. Sensory evaluation of beef and buffalo extensively reared and its relationship to sociodemographic characteristics of consumers. Semin Cien Agrar 2016; 37: 1617-1627.

Kumari S, Alam AN, Hossain MJ, Lee EY, Hwang YH, Joo ST. Sensory evaluation of plant-based meat: bridging the gap with animal meat, challenges and future prospects. Foods 2023; 13: 108.

Font-i-Furnols M, Guerrero L, Consumer preference, behavior and perception about meat and meat products: An overview. Meat Sci 2014; 98: 361-371.

Napolitano F, Castellini C, Naspetti S, Piasentier E, Girolami A, Braghieri A, Consumer preference for chicken breast may be more affected by information on organic production than by product sensory properties. Poult Sci 2013; 92: 820-826.

Asociación Médica Mundial (AMM), Declaración de Helsinki de la Asociación Médica Mundial. Arbor 2008; 184: 349-352.

NOM-004-SAGARPA-2018, Carne de bovino-Clasificación de canales conforme a sus características de madurez fisiológica y marmoleo. Secretaria de Agricultura y Desarrollo Rural (SADER). Available from: https://www.dof.gob.mx/ nota_detalle.php?codigo=5605515&fecha=23/11/2020

Prieto N, Lopez-Campos O, Suman SP, Uttaro B, Rodas-Gonzalez A, Aalhus JL. Exploring innovative possibilities of recovering the value of dark-cutting beef in the Canadian grading system. Meat Sci 2018; 137: 77-84.

Sorapukdee S, Tangwatcharin P. Quality of steak restructured from beef trimmings containing microbial transglutaminase and impacted by freezing and grading by fat level. Asian Australas J Anim Sci 2018; 31: 129-137.

Douthit TL, Bormann JM, Kouba JM. A retrospective look at students enrolled in an upper-level horse science class: Factors that affect classroom performance. J Anim Sci 2013, 91: 2976-2984.

Estévez-Moreno LX, Miranda-de la Lama GC. Meat consumption and consumer attitudes in Mexico: Can persistence lead to change? Meat Sci 2022; 193: 108943.

Cutrignelli MI, Calabrò S, Bovera F, Tudisco R, D’Urso S, Marchiello M, Piccolo V, Infascelli F. Effects of two protein sources and energy level of diet on the performance of young Marchigiana bulls. 1. Infra vitam performance and carcass quality. Ital J Anim Sci 2008; 7: 271-285.

Mammasse N, Schlich P. Adequate number of consumers in a liking test. Insights from resampling in seven studies, Food Qual Prefer 2014; 31: 124-128.

Silva PRA, Tavares FMC, Menezes WNML, Freire AT, Carvalho VPF. How do consumers evaluate buffalo meat? Rev Cient Fac Cienc Vet Univ Zulia 2023; XXXIII: 163-164.

Marques CSS, Oaigen RP, Moraes CMd, Santos MASd, Lourenço-Júnior JdB, Abel I. Segmentation of the buffalo meat consumer market in Belém, Pará, Brazil. Rev Bras Zootec 2016; 45: 336-344.

Hamad UHS, Murtaza SHA, Farooq MI, Nawaz M, Khan A, Yaqoob M, et al. Effect of Physiological State on Meat Quality: An Insight from Buffalo. Uni Sindh J Anim Sci 2024; 8: 1-6.

Islam S, Nahar TN, Begum J, Deb GK, Khatun M, Mustafa A. Study on Consumers’ Behavior on Buffen (Buffalo meat): MarketingPerspective. J Food Res 2018; 7: 77-85.

Lapitan RM, Del Barrio AN, Katsube O, Ban-Tokuda T, Orden EA, Robles AY, et al. Comparison of carcass and meat characteristics of Brahman grade cattle (Bos indicus) and crossbred water buffalo (Bubalus bubalis) fed on high roughage diet. Anim Sci J 2008; 79: 210-217.

Rao VA, Thulasi G, Ruban SW. Effect of age and sex on meat quality characteristics of South Indian non-descript buffalo, Buffalo Bull 2009; 28: 138-147.

Garmyn A. Consumer Preferences and Acceptance of Meat Products. Foods 2020; 9: 708.

Napolitano F, Braghieri A, Piasentier E, Favotto S, Naspetti S, Zanoli R. Effect of information about organic production on beef liking and consumer willingness to pay, Food Qual Prefer 2010; 21: 207-212.

Failla S, Buffalo meat quality, processing, and marketing: harnessing its benefits and nutraceutical potential. Rev Cient Fac Cienc Vet Univ Zulia 2023; XXXIII: 105-113.

Naveena BM, Kiran M, Banerjee R, Muthukumar M, Water buffalo. In: Dikeman M, editor. Encyclopedia of Meat Sciences. 3rd ed. Oxford: Elsevier 2024; pp. 624-633.

Kandeepan G, Anjaneyulu ASR, Kondaiah N, Mendiratta SK, Lakshmanan V. Effect of age and gender on the processing characteristics of buffalo meat, Meat Sci 2009; 83: 10-14.

Downloads

Published

2025-03-30

Issue

Section

Articles

How to Cite

Sensory Acceptability of Buffalo Meat and Beef in Young Consumers. (2025). Journal of Buffalo Science, 14, 42-49. https://doi.org/10.6000/1927-520X.2025.14.05

Similar Articles

1-10 of 220

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.

Most read articles by the same author(s)