Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T00:43:34.674Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Conjoint Analysis of New Food Products Processed from Underutilized Small Crawfish

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 April 2015

R. Wes Harrison ,
Aylin Özayan  and
Samuel P. Meyers
R. Wes Harrison
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics and Agribusiness, Louisiana State University
Aylin Özayan
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics and Agribusiness, Louisiana State University
Samuel P. Meyers
Affiliation:
Department of Food Science, Louisiana State University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Attributes for two value-added seafood products derived from underutilized crawfish are analyzed using conjoint data from seafood restaurants in the southern region of the United States. Preferences for the products' form, price, and flavor attributes were tested. Statistical tests revealed that the attribute interactions were not significant, and part-worth utilities for all main effects were estimated using an additive preference model. Results indicate that the new crawfish products should be marketed as a high-quality fresh soup base or seafood stuffing, priced between 30% and 50% of the cost of fresh crawfish tail meat.

Keywords

conjoint analysisminced meatseafoodvalue added
Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics , Volume 30 , Issue 2 , December 1998 , pp. 257 - 265
Copyright
Copyright © Southern Agricultural Economics Association 1998

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Anderson, J.L., and Bettencourt, S.. “A Conjoint Approach to Model Product Preferences: The New England Market for Fresh and Frozen Salmon.” Marine Resour. Econ. 8,1(1993):31–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cochran, W.G., and Cox, G.M.. Experimental Designs, 2nd ed. New York: Wiley Publications, 1957.Google Scholar
Dellenbarger, L.E., Schupp, A., and Zapata, H.. “Crawfish Marketing in Selected Cities of the United States.” Paper presented at the 8th International Symposium on Astacology, Baton Rouge LA, April 1990.Google Scholar
Dillman, D.Mail and Telephone Surveys: The Total Design Method. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1978.Google Scholar
Gan, C., and Luzar, E.J.. “A Conjoint Analysis of Waterfowl Hunting in Louisiana.” J. Agr. and Appl. Econ. 25(December 1993):36–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gates, K.W., and Parker, A.H.. “Characterization of Minced Meat Extracted from Blue Crab Picking Plant By-products. J. Food Sci. 57(1992):267-70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gillespie, J.M., and Capdeboscq, M.. “Factors to Be Considered in the Crawfish Peeling Machine Development Decision.” Res. Rep. No. DAE 705, Dept. of Agr. Econ. and Agribus., Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, December 1996.Google Scholar
Halbrendt, C., Bacon, R.J., and Pesek, J.. “Weighted Least Squares Analysis for Conjoint Studies: The Case of Hybrid Striped Bass.” Agribus.: An Internat. J. 8,2(March 1992):187-98.3.0.CO;2-#>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halbrendt, C.K., Wirth, F.F., and Vaughn, G.F.. “Conjoint Analysis of the Mid-Atlantic Food-Fish Market for Farm-Raised Hybrid Striped Bass.” S. J. Agr. Econ. 23,1(July 1991):155-63.Google Scholar
Huang, C.L., and Fu, J.. “Conjoint Analysis of Consumer Preferences and Evaluations of a Processed Meat.” J. Internat. Food and Agribus. Mktg. 7(1995):62–75.Google Scholar
Kmenta, J.Elements of Econometrics, 2nd ed. New York: MacMillan Publishing Co., 1986.Google Scholar
Lee, E., Meyers, S.P., and Godber, J.S.. “Minced Meat Crabcake from Blue Crab Processing Byproducts: Development and Sensory Evaluation.” J. Food Sci. 58,1(1993):99–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Louviere, J.J.Analyzing Decision Making-Metric Conjoint Analysis. Sage University Paper Series on Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences. Beverly Hills CA: Sage Publications, 1988.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meyers, S.P. “Developments and Trends in Fisheries Processing: Value-Added Product Development and Total Resource Utilization.” Bulletin of the Korean Fisheries Society 27,6(November 1994):839-46.Google Scholar
Özayan, A. “Market Analysis of New Minced-Meat Products Made from Undersized Crawfish.” Unpub. M.S. thesis, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, 1997.Google Scholar
Pigott, G.M. “The Status and Future of Aquatic Food Research in the U.S.” Report presented at the International Seafood Research Meeting of Mie University, Tsu, Japan, September 1994.Google Scholar
Regenstein, J.M. “The Potential for Minced Fish.” Food Technology (March 1986):101-06.Google Scholar
Yen, S.T., Dellenbarger, L.E., and Schupp, A.R.. “Determinants of Participation and Consumption: The Case of Crawfish in South Louisiana.” J. Agr. and Appl. Econ. 27(July 1995):253-62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yoo, D., and Ohta, H.. “Optimal Pricing and Product-Planning for New Multiattribute Products Based on Conjoint Analysis.” Internat. J. Prod. Econ. 38(1995):245-53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar