IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/erevae/v50y2023i3p1064-1102..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Consumer preferences for beef quality grades on imported and domestic beef

Author

Listed:
  • Shijun GaoMorrison
  • Carola Grebitus
  • Karen DeLong

Abstract

The Chinese government has recently introduced an updated beef quality-grade system. We implemented a shelf-simulation choice experiment and estimated random parameter logit models with error components to analyse Chinese consumer willingness to pay for domestic and imported beef flank labelled with the new quality grades and other relevant beef labels. Results indicated that Chinese consumers were willing to pay more for Premium quality domestic beef compared to ungraded beef, while Regular quality beef was discounted by consumers, particularly for imported beef. The results suggest that foreign beef producers could compete more closely with domestic beef if it was labelled as Premium quality.

Suggested Citation

  • Shijun GaoMorrison & Carola Grebitus & Karen DeLong, 2023. "Consumer preferences for beef quality grades on imported and domestic beef," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 50(3), pages 1064-1102.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:erevae:v:50:y:2023:i:3:p:1064-1102.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/erae/jbad009
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:erevae:v:50:y:2023:i:3:p:1064-1102.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/eaaeeea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.