Journal of Retail Management

and Research (JRMR)

Vol. 1, Issue 2, Dec 2015, 29-40
TJPRC Pvt. Ltd.

WHAT IS QUALITY BEEF TO CONSUMERS IN UGANDA?

ALINDA F1, MUGISHA J2, MPAIRWE D3 & ILUKOR J4
1, 2

Department of Agribusiness & Natural Resource Econ., Makerere University, Kampala, Uganda
3

Department of Animal Science, Makerere University, Kampala, Uganda

4

Food Agricultural Organization

ABSTRACT
Producing beef that offers consumers desirable eating experience is vital to increase consumer utility and
demand. This study sought to establish the beef quality attributes that underlie consumers choice on beef quality to
buy, the specific beef quality attributes preferred by consumers and what is considered as quality beef by consumers in
Kampala, Uganda. Primary data was gathered through face-to-face interviews on a sample of 300 respondents. Data
analysis utilized descriptive and inferential statistics. Results indicated that consumers in Uganda consider fat content
and bone content when choosing the beef to buy. Preference for fat content and type of fat varied significantly (p<0.05)
across consumers income and education levels. Consequently, beef quality was defined and distinguished into two
types and the respective consumers who would most likely buy a particular beef quality type were characterized. These

or female consumers; (ii) beef cut mixed with bones, with low fat content and marbled for the high income earners,
highly educated male or female consumers. Such quality type can be supplied fresh (not chilled) with yellowish fat and
bright red lean as universally preferred. It is high time beef producers and traders in Kampala targeted to produce and
offer beef that meets such quality demand for the respective categories of consumers looking forward to enhance beef
demand.

Original Article

are: (i) beef cut mixed with bones, high fat content and covering carcass for the low income earners, less educated male

KEYWORDS: Consumer, Beef Quality Attributes

Received: Aug 18, 2015; Accepted: Dec 07, 2015; Published: Dec 21, 2015; Paper Id.: JRMRDEC20155

INTRODUCTION
Beef remains the most dominant meat type under the livestock subsector which contributes 17-19 percent
of the Agricultural Gross Domestic Product and 7-9 percent of the total Gross Domestic Product. The beef
industry generates subsistence and cash incomes to producers and dealers in its trade (MAAIF, 2008). Beef
production is demand driven with consumption observed to be low. The World Health Organization in 2007
estimated per capita beef consumption in Uganda at 5.6kg, much lower than the 50kg recommended by
international standards (FAO, 2007). The per capita consumption is also lower than that for Kenya and South
Africa estimated at 12 and 14 kg respectively (EKN, 2012). It is however higher than 3.2kg for pig meat and 0.9
kg for goats meat indicating the biggest share of beef in Ugandas meat industry. Beef in the country is mainly
offered for sale in unprocessed form mainly at butcheries along road side and in local markets. Supermarkets also
known as the premium market segment account for only 16% of the total meat produced. The beef industry faces
severe challenges among which include poor hygiene, transportation systems, cattle slaughter and post slaughter
handling facilities (MAAIF, 2012). The challenges are considered to compromise beef quality which current
strategic interventions to promote beef production and marketing sets out to improve (MAAIF, 2012). The

www.tjprc.org

editor@tjprc.org

30

Alinda F, Mugisha J, Mpairwe D & Ilukor J

interventions however necessesiate empirical evidence on beef consumer behavior.

According to Tey et al. (2008), producing beef that offers consumers desirable eating experience and fits
consumers lifestyles was identified among the pre-requisites to increase beef demand. In countries with developed beef
industries and vast researches on consumer behavior for example Canada, United States, Australia and Mexico the most
desired eating quality attributes of beef have been identified (Thonney, 1991; Warriss, 1996; Arker, 1991). The attributes
have been classified into palatability, credence and traceability. However, palatability attributes including tenderness,
juiciness and flavor have been observed to be of greater importance as they offer desirable beef taste and palatability which
appear to offer greater utility to consumers (Warriss, 1996; Issanchou, 1996; Smith et al., 1995; Monson et al., 2004).
At the point of purchase the taste and palatability attributes are determined by the extrisic cues/visual attributes
(Grunnert, 2000; Tatum, 2006). Consumer studies in other countries or states for example Asia and Mexico (MIS, 2006),
USA (Killinger et al., 2004), Ethiopia (Tsegay, 2012) associate such attributes with fat content, fat type, lean and fat color.
They indicate beef taste, palatability, eating quality satisfaction and have in previous studies been considered identified to
determine consumers judgment on quality beef at the point of purchase (smith et al. 1995; Brooks et al. 2000; Lusk et al
2003; Miller et al. 2001; Montgomery and Leheska, 2002; Killinger et al. 2004; Kynda 2008).
However, in Uganda literature on beef quality identifies beef with diverse quality attributes in terms of fat content,
bone content, fat color and lean color (UPBA, 2005). There is missing evidence regarding which beef attributes consumers
prefer and determine their choice on quality of beef to buy. Similarly, quality beef was yet to be defined in the perspective
of consumers preferred attributes. To bridge this gap, an empirical study was conducted for which emanating evidences
are presented in this article. The next sections present the study methodology, results, conclusions and recommendations
respectively.

METHODOLOGY
Study Design
A survey was conducted on a sample of 300 beef consumers in Kampala-Uganda in 2013. Kampala is the capital
city of Uganda and is divided into five divisions/sub counties, 100 parishes and 208 zones/villages. The city has 309,093
households and an average household size of 3.8 members (UBOS, 2008). The district is also the most urbanized in
Uganda and according to national statistics, urban households account for 80% of total beef consumption in Uganda
(UBOS 2011). The study utilized a sample size of 300 households determined with an objective of generating more
precise, reliable and generalizable results while minimizing the cost of time and financial resources. The same magnitude
of sample size was used in the study on fast food consumers in Kampala, Uganda (Ayo et al., 2012).
Purposive sampling was employed to ensure representation of all socio-economic categories of beef consumers.
Four divisions and one zone from each division were purposively selected based on how nearer they were to Makerere
University where the researcher was based when conducting the survey. Basing on the same argument and while ensuring
representation of the three income categories, two parishes were selected from each of the four zones. The low income
households were defined as those households for which the head earned a monthly income of less than Ugshs 0.5 million,
the middle income were those households for which the head earned a monthly income of Ugshs 0.5-1.0 million while the
higher income were those households for which the head earned a monthly income of more than Ugshs 1.0 million. This
was achieved with guidance from the local council officials who were more knowledgeable about the income status of

www.tjprc.org

editor@tjprc.org

What is Quality Beef to Consumers in Uganda?

31

households by residence within their areas of jurisdiction and could therefore identify to the researcher, households by their
income status.
Ideally, decisions on consumption and expenditure in households are mainly dependent on the household head
and therefore assumed to take a key decision role on choice of household expenditures. Thus the head of the house hold
was considered for the interview. In each of the eight parishes, the researcher and the Local Council leader formulated a
list of 37 households for each of the three income categories. From each of the lists, 13 households were selected at a
sampling interval of two households. In total, 39 households were selected from each of the eight parishes summing up to
312 households. Twelve households were dropped during data cleaning due to much missing data.
Data Collection
A field survey using a structured and pre-tested questionnaire was conducted to obtain primary data from the
selected beef consumers. The questionnaire was pretested on a sample of nine beef consumers three from each incomegroup (low, middle and high). Data was collected on the socio-economic characteristics of respondents including the age,
education level, gender, and income status of the household head. Data also entailed beef attribute preferences. Consumers
rated the beef quality attributes on a 5-point hedonic scale of importance (5=Very important, 4= less important, 3=
important, 2= not important, 1= not important at all). A similar approach was used by Akankwasa (2007) in analysis of
consumers attributes preference for introduced dessert bananas in Uganda. The attributes include juiciness of beef, lean
color of meat, fat color meat, fat and bone content in the meat. This data was ordinal in nature, and the rank values were
not independently distributed.
Analysis Framework
The of beef quality preference adopted the consumer utility maximization theory. The theory assumes a good with
a myriad of attributes that combine to form bundles of utility-affecting attributes that a buyer a bases on to make choice
(Ho-Shui et al., 1999). Consumers are therefore assumed to choose among all the available alternatives in such a manner
that the level of satisfaction derived from consuming commodities is highest. Their preference for particular product
attributes depends on the utility derived from the product attributes which subsequently determine their willingness to pay
(Henderson and Quandt, 1980). In the context of beef consumers in Uganda, the attributes e presented in Table 1 were
studied. They were derived from individual perceptions of beef producers and sellers which remained deviant across
individuals calling for empirical evidence to generalize quality from a consumers; perspective.
Table 1: Variables and Their Measurements
Variable
BNCONT
FT CONT
FTCOL
LNCOL
FTCONT_TYPEi
FTCOL_FRESH
SEX

www.tjprc.org

Definition and Measurement

The content of bones in a beef cut. Measured by a dummy variable
(1=Beef with some bones, 0= Deboned)
The level of fat content in a beef cut. Measured by a dummy
variable (1= High fat, 0=Low fat)
The color of fat (visual outlook of the fat in the meat). Measured
by a dummy variable (1=Yellowish, 0=White).
The color of lean (visual outlook of the meat). Measured by a
dummy variable (1=Bright Red fat, 0=Brown)
A combination of fat content and fat type
A combination if fat color and beef freshness
Sex of beef consumer Measured as dummy variable (1=female,
0= male)
editor@tjprc.org

32

Alinda F, Mugisha J, Mpairwe D & Ilukor J

AGE
HHSIZE
INC

EDUC

Table 1: Contd.,
Number of years of the household head
Number of members in a household
Approximate monthly cash earnings of the beef consumer
(household head). Measured on an ordinal scale and expressed in
Million Ugshs (1=less than 0.2M, 2=0.2 -0.5M, 3=0.6-1.0M,
4=above 1.0M).
Highest level of education attained by the beef consumer
(household head). Measured on an ordinal scale (0=never went to
school, 1=primary, 2=Ordinary level, 3= Advanced level,
4=tertiary and university)

To establish the specific beef quality attributes preferred by consumers, the percentage of consumers who
preferred a specific level of attribute for instance beef cut mixed with bones or de-boned were obtained. The percentages
were compared using the Z-test statistic at 5% significance level to determine those significantly higher, an indicator for
the specific level of beef quality attribute most preferred by consumers. The hypothesis tested was that, the percentage of
consumers on one of the specific levels of the attribute was significantly higher. The same analysis was done for all the
beef quality attributes including bone content, fat content, and type of fat, fat color, lean color and beef freshness.
Preference for the beef quality attributes were again estimated by gender, income and education levels to compare
preference of the attributes across consumers socio-economic status. The hypothesis tested was that, the percentage of
consumers on one of the specific levels of the attributes for instance high fat content was significantly higher across
gender, income or education levels. Quality beef was finally defined and categorized by the socio-economic status of
consumers who preferred it. This was based on the attributes consumers consider when choosing the beef to buy and the
attributes for which preference varied significantly across consumers socio-economic characteristics.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

Description of the Sample
Descriptive statistics of the studied sample were obtained to understand the socio-economic composition of the
studied sample. The average household size was 5.8 people, higher than the estimated 3.8 average in Kampala city in 2002.
The higher household size could be attributed to the fast growing population in the city and with more dependants than
working class of people. At least every household head had attained some level of education with the majority (66%)
having attained at least ordinary Level. The majority (50.8%) earned a monthly income of less than 0.5 million (twice the
0.2 Million Ugshs-average household monthly expenditure reported for Uganda in 2009/2010 (UBOS, 2011). 54% were
female while 47% were male. Overall, the sample fairly represented all socio-economic (household size, income, gender
and education level) categories of beef consumers.
Beef Quality Attributes Consumers Consider When Buying Meat
The attributes that most importantly determine consumers decision on beef quality to buy were established and
these are: fat content, bone content, fat and lean color. Table 2 presents the mean scores tested for statistical significances
of differences and the percentage distribution of consumers on importance of the attributes in influencing their choice of
beef quality to buy.

www.tjprc.org

editor@tjprc.org

What is Quality Beef to Consumers in Uganda?

33

Table 2: Beef Attribute Rating and Comparison of Scores

Beef Quality
Percentage of Mean Score on a
Attribute
Consumers
5-Point Scale
Fat content
61.3
4.2b
Bone content
24.0
3.2c
Fat color
7.0
1.9a
Lean color
5.0
1.3a
Scores with different subscripts indicate significantly different at 5% level
Fat content had the highest mean score (4.2) and was rated by 61% of the consumers as the most important
attribute in determining choice on beef quality to buy. The second most determinant was bone content with a mean score of
3.2 and rated most important by 24% of the consumers. The argument in account of this result is based on the cooking
behavior of meat and great desire for palatability of cooked meat among surveyed consumers. The surveyed consumers
mainly prepare beef as stew that requires a desired level of fat and bones for a natural delicious taste of soup even without
seasoning. This consumers argument is consistent with the literature on cooking behavior of meat which considers that
stewing is more compatible with beef cuts with some bones and fat (NCBA, 2006). Besides, consumers believe that the
cooking palatability of beef is highly dependent on bone and fat content given their traditional cooking method (stewing).
Beef Quality Attributes Preference by Consumers
Results on attributes of beef preferred by consumers (Table 3) indicated that irrespective of socio-economic
status, consumers preferred beef mixed with bones, with low fat content, bright red lean, marbled and yellowish fat.
Table 3: Overall Preference for Beef Quality Attributes are Presented in Table Below
Beef Quality Attribute
Fat content
High fat level
Low fat level
Type of fat
Marbled fat
Fat covering Carcass
Fat color
Yellowish
White
Bone content
Meat cut mixed with bones
De-boned
Lean color
Brown
Bright red
Freshness
Fresh (not chilled)
Chilled

Overall
(n=300)

Z-Statistic
-5.76*

34
66
6.09*
66.7
33.3
16.27*
87.7
12.3
26.64*
94.6
5.4
-6.42*
33.1
66.9
21.06*
93.0
7.0

Combination of quality attributes

Boney, low fat content and marbled

73.4

7.13*

Boney, high fat, & covering carcass

26.6
Fresh, yellowish fat & bright red
81.6
lean
* Proportions significantly different at 5% significant level (Z-statistic> Z-tabulated or 1.96)
www.tjprc.org

editor@tjprc.org

34

Alinda F, Mugisha J, Mpairwe D & Ilukor J

Considering fat content and type significant differences were observed. The proportion (66%) of consumers
preferred beef cut with low fat significantly higher than 34% which preferred beef with high fat content. Regarding type of
fat, the majority (66.7%) of the consumers preferred beef with marbled fat significantly higher than the 33.3% of those
who preferred beef with fat covering carcass. Consumers prefer beef with low fat content to circumvent the health hazards
associated with over consuming too much fat. Consistent with scientific literature on the effect of fat on health, consumers
indicated that too much fat raises cholesterol in the blood exposing ones life to the risk of heart diseases. The argument is
consistent with the findings by Salim et al. (2013) that beef consumers in Tanzania preferred beef with medium adipose fat
(less fatty beef) due to fear of health diseases associated with consumption of too much fat. Similarly Brooks et al. (2000)
and Killinger et al. (2004) considers marbling among the beef attributes that contributes to overall palatability and eating
satisfaction of beef while Warriss (2000) establishes beef with higher content of intramuscular as juicier, tender and
ultimately hence good quality.
Regarding bone content, the proportion (94.6%) of consumers beef cut with some bones than significantly higher
than 5.4% that preferred de-boned meat. In account, consumers consider bones to have a positive impact on palatability of
soup in the meat traditionally prepared as stew. Consequently, such meat tastes naturally delicious even without seasoning.
This consumers argument is consistent with the literature on cooking behavior of meat which considers that stewing is
more compatible with beef cuts with some bones and fat (NCBA, 2006).
Regarding color of lean and fat significant differences were also observed. The proportion (66.9%) of consumers
that preferred bright red lean was significantly higher than 33.1% that preferred dark lean. Similarly, the proportion of
consumers (87.7%) that preferred beef cut with yellowish fat was significantly higher than 12.3% that preferred beef cut
with white fat. In account, the studied consumers percieved beef with bright red lean to indicate fresh beef that is more
tasty when cooked. Consistently, Viljoel et al. (2002) observes that the normal red-coloration of meat, due to poor or over
storage, may turn dark, firm and dry muscle (DFD) and less likely acceptable by consumers. The dark color of lean was
percieved to indicate less tender meat that was not preffered. Regarding fat color, consumers perceived yellowish fat to
indicate beef that has been naturally grazed on grass and when cooked, is more palatable which was consistent with the
scientific characterization of beef with yellowish fat. Killinger et al. (2004) observes that yellow color of fat indicates beef
obtained from grass-fed steers. It is leaner and tender, hence quite delicious.
Comparing between preferences for meat from carcasses obtained on the same day of slaughter (fresh or not
chilled) and chilled beef, the proportion of consumers (93%) that preferred fresh beef was significantly higher than the
proportion (7.0%) that preferred chilled beef. Consumers in this study considered meat obtained on the same day of
slaughter to be more palatable and safe to consume than chilled meat. They were generally not aware that chilled meat is
more tender than meat prepared and consumed on the same day. This perception among consumers is however contrary to
the scientific fact that chilled meat is more juicy and tender than unchilled meat. According to Savell et al., (2005), chilling
meat at the right temperature and time extends its shelf-life and renders it more tender. Consumers limited awareness
about chilling beef can be attributed to their limited awareness and utilization of meat cold storage facilities particularly at
household level (MAAIF, 2012).
Comparing Beef Attributes Preferences across Consumers Socio-Economic Characteristics
The z-statistics comparing preference for beef attributes across consumers socio-economic characteristics were
statistically significant only for comparisons between preference for fat content and fat type across income and education
www.tjprc.org

editor@tjprc.org

What is Quality Beef to Consumers in Uganda?

35

levels as indicated in table 4. This indicate that preference for fat content and fat type rather than other attributes (bone
content, beef freshness, color of fat and lean) varied significantly across consumers income and education levels.
Consequently, an elaborate on significant differences in consumers preference of fat content and fat type across
consumers income and education is provide
Table 4: Percentage Distribution of Consumers by Quality Type Preferred
across Gender, Income and Education Levels
Beef Quality
Attribute

Education Level

Income

Gender

Prima
ry
(n=10
3)

Advanced
(n=57)

> advanced
(n=140)

Z-stat.

<0.5
Million
Ugshs
(n=153)

0.5-1.0
Million
Ugshs
(n=80)

>1.0
Million
Ugshs
(n=67)

Z-stat.

Male
(n=164)

Female
(n=135)

Zstat.

High fat level

81.2

30.4

22.3

11.29

67.1

4.8

12.0

10.03*

46

33.7

1.76

Low fat level

18.8

69.6

77.7

11.29

32.9

95.2

88.0

10.25*

54

66.3

1.76

Marbled fat

33.0

53.2

84.6

0.54

36.1

48.3

76.5

8.34*

63.6

65.1

0.27

Fat covering
Carcass

67.0

46.8

15.4

0.54

63.9

51.7

23.5

8.31*

36.4

34.9

0.26

Yellowish

80.1

72.0

81.0

0.17

84.6

86.0

79.3

0.92

89.9

84.5

1.38

White

19.9

28.0

19.0

0.02

15.4

14.0

21.7

0.90

11.1

15.5

1.11

Mixed with
bones

96.3

98.9

97.2

0.38

98.6

97.3

95.7

1.09

98.7

100

1.45

De-boned

3.7

1.1

2.8

0.39

1.4

2.7

4.3

1.09

1.3

0.0

1.47

Brown

29.9

31.7

38.0

1.33

26.4

24.7

39.0

1.81

32.7

32.5

0.04

Bright red

70.1

69.3

62.0

1.33

73.6

75.3

71.0

0.55

67.3

68.5

0.22

Fresh (not
chilled)

92.8

92.6

91.9

0.26

93.1

93.6

93.0

0.03

93.7

93.1

0.20

Chilled

7.2

7.4

8.1

0.26

6.9

6.4

7.0

0.03

6.3

6.9

0.21

30.3

61.2

63.3

0.07

31.5

95.2

93.4

12.82*

69.6

61.0

1.56

69.7

38.8

36.7

0.06

68.5

4.8

6.6

12.28*

30.4

39.0

1.55

82.7

81.2

80.4

0.47

83.3

80.2

81.4

0.41

84.3

83.1

0.49

Fat content

Type of fat

Fat color

Bone content

Lean color

Freshness

Combination of
quality
attributes
Boney, low fat
and marbled
Boney, high fat
& covering
carcass
Fresh, yellowish
fat & bright red
lean

* Proportions significantly different at 5% significant level (Z-statistic> Z-tabulated or 1.96)

Income Effect on Preference for Fat Content and Fat Type
The majority of high income consumers preferred low fat beef while the low income consumers preferred beef
with high fat content. In statistical terms, the proportion (88.0%) of the high income earners who preferred low fat beef was
significantly higher than the proportion (32.9%) of the lowest income earners who preferred this same quality type. In
contrast, the proportion (67.1%) of the lowest income earners who preferred beef with high fat content was significantly
higher than the proportion (12%) of the highest income consumers who preferred this same quality type. Regarding the
www.tjprc.org

editor@tjprc.org

36

Alinda F, Mugisha J, Mpairwe D & Ilukor J

income effect on preference for type of fat, 76.5% of the highest income earners preferred beef with marbled fat,
significantly higher than 36.1% of the lowest income earners who preferred the same quality type. In contrast, many of the
lowest income earners preferred beef with fat covering carcass, significantly higher than the lowest income earners who
preferred fat covering carcass.
The difference in preference for fat content and fat type between the high and low income consumers can be
attributed to the difference in satiety determined by frequency of meat consumption between the two consumer categories.
The high income consumers are able to buy and consume beef more frequently that they have high beef consumption
satiety. Consequently, they have no desire to consume beef with high fat content or fat covering carcass. In contrast the low
income consumers rarely buy and consume beef that they have low beef consumption satiety and hence great desire for
beef with high fat content and covering carcass.
Education Effect on Preference for Fat Content and Fat Type
The majority of the highly educated consumers preferred beef with marbled fat while the low income consumers
preferred beef with fat covering carcass. In statistical terms, the proportion (81.2%) of the less educated consumers that
preferred beef with high fat was significantly higher than the proportion (22.3%) of the highly educated consumers who
preferred the same quality type. In contrast, the proportion (77.7%) of the highly educated consumers who preferred low
fat beef was significantly higher than the proportion (18.8%) of the least educated consumers who preferred the same
quality type. Regarding the education effect on preference for type of fat, the proportion (84.6%) of the highly educated
consumers preferred beef with marbled fat, significantly higher than the proportion (33.0%) of the low educated consumers
who preferred the same quality type.
The argument in account of the observed difference in fat content preference between the highly and low educated
consumers is twofold. First, educated consumers are more likely than the least educated ones, to earn high incomes that
they are more able to buy and consume beef more frequently. Consequently, as already highlighted, such consumers are
likely to have high levels of beef consumption satiety that they have no desire for highly fatty beef. Secondly, the highly
educated unlike the low educated consumers, opt for less fatty beef because they are more aware of health risks associated
with overconsumption of fat that contain high cholesterol levels. Consistently, a study by Salim et al. (2013) established
that the high income consumers in Tanzania were concerned about the risks associated with consumption of highly fatty
beef, one of the major reasons they often opted for beef with less fat content.
Defining Quality Beef to Consumers in Uganda
Generally, results on beef quality attributes preference indicated a significant difference in preference of fat
content and fat type across consumers income and education levels. Preference for other attributes did not significantly
vary across consumers socio-economic variables. The high income earners and highly educated consumers preferred beef
with low fat content and marbled, while the low income and low educated consumers preferred beef with high fat and
covering carcass. Hence quality beef was defined and differentiated by socio-economic category of consumers as indicated
in Table 4.

www.tjprc.org

editor@tjprc.org

What is Quality Beef to Consumers in Uganda?

37

Table 5: Summary of Type of Beef Preferred by Consumer Category

Category of Consumers
Low income and low educated,
male or female
High income earners and highly
educated male or female
All consumers irrespective of their
income, education level and
gender

Type of Beef Preferred

Beef cut with bones, high fat
content and covering carcass
Beef cut with bones, low fat
content and marbled
Beef cut with bones, fresh,
with yellowish fat and bright
red lean

In other words, beef cut with bones, high fat content and covering carcass would more likely be bought by the low
income earners, less educated male or female consumers. On the other hand, beef cut with bones, low fat content and
marbled would more likely be bought by the high income earners, highly educated male or female consumers. However,
beef cut with bones, fresh (not chilled) with yellowish fat and bright red lean would more likely be bought by all
consumers irrespective of their gender, income and education levels.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This study establishes fat content and bone content as underlying determinant attributes for consumer choice on
beef quality to buy. In general terms, consumers prefer beef cut mixed with bones, with low fat content, bright red lean,
marbled and yellowish fat. The study further establishes significant differences in preference for fat content and fat type
across consumers income and education levels. While the high income and highly educated consumers prefer and will
more likely buy beef with low fat content and high fat marbling, the low income and low educated consumers prefer and
will more likely buy beef with high fat content and fat covering carcass. The difference in beef attribute preference
between the two categories of consumers is attributed mainly to the desire for satiety linked with the frequency of beef
consumption. Results demonstrate the significance of beef quality attributes and consumers characteristics in influencing
consumers beef buying decisions.
Government and beef traders should collaborate with researchers to design measures particularly feeding
strategies to produce both low fat and high fat beef, with yellow fat and bright red lean. Beef traders should target to offer
low fat beef to the market segments that are highly concentrated with the high income and highly educated class of
consumers. In contrast, the high fat beef should be offered in market segments concentrated by the low income and less
educated class of consumers. However, as the income and education status of the Ugandans improve in the future, they will
more likely demand beef with low fat and marbled, hence long-term beef production strategies could focus on production
of this type of beef. Consequently, the market will meet consumers beef quality demands and with potential to increase
beef demand.
REFERENCES
1.

Aaker, D. A. (1991). Managing Brand Equity. In: Prospects for after 1993. The Free Press. New York.

2.

Akankwasa k., (2007). Consumer Acceptability and Willingness To Pay for the Introduced Desert Bananas. An Msc. Thesis,
Makerere University Kampala, Uganda.

3.

Ayo, S. A. Bonabana, W. J. and Sserunkuuma D. (2012). Determinants of Fast Food Consumption in Kampala, Uganda.
African Journal of Agriculture, Nutrition & Development: 12(5) 1684-5358.

4.

Brooks, J. C., Belew, J. B., Griffin, D. B., Wartney, B. L., Hale, D. S., Henning, W. R., Johnson, D. D., Morgan, J. B., Reagan,

www.tjprc.org

editor@tjprc.org

38

Alinda F, Mugisha J, Mpairwe D & Ilukor J

J. O and Savell, J. W. (2000). National Beef Tenderness Survey. Journal of Animal Science 78:1852-1860.
5.

Embassy of the Kingdom of Netherlands (2012). Identification of Livestock Investment Opportunities in Uganda: A study
undertaken with financial support of the Embassy of the Kingdom of the Netherlands in Uganda. Available at
https://www.agriterra.org/assets/uploads/15820/Livestock%20market%20study.pdf

6.

Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN (2007). FAO Statistical Year Book Country Profiles. Available on:
http://www.fao.org/es/ess/yearbook/vol_1_2/pdf/malaysia.pdf on 5/02/2010.

7.

Greene, W. H (2000). Econometric Analysis. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

8.

Grunert, K. G. (2000). What is in a steak? A cross-cultural study on the quality perception of beef. Journal of Food Quality
and Preference, 3: 157-174.

9.

Henderson, J. M & Quandt, R. E. (1980). Microeconomic Theory: A Mathematical Approach. Third Edition. New York:
Mcgraw-Hill, Inc.

10. Ho-Shui, L. & Houston, J. E. (2001). Factors Affecting Consumer Preferences for Major Food Markets inTaiwan. Journal of
Food Distribution Research. 32 (1).
11. Issanchou, S. (1996). ``Consumer expectations and perceptions of meat and meat product quality'', Journal of Meat Science,
43: S5-S19.
12. Killinger, K. Calkins, C, Umberger, W, Feuz, D & Eskridge, K. (2004). Consumer Visual Preference And Value for Beef
Steaks Differing in Marbling Level and Color. Journal of Animal Science. 82:3288-3293.
13. Kynda, C. Margaret, W. & Thomas, R. (2008). Consumer Preference for Meat Attributes. University of Nevada Cooperative
Extension Fact Sheet-08-11.
14. Lusk, J. L., Rosen, J. & Fox, J. (2003). Demand for Beef from Cattle Administered Hormones or Fed Genetically Modified
Corn: A Comparison of Consumers in France, Germany, the United Kingdom and the United States. American Journal of
Agricultural Economics 85: 16-29.
15. Meristem Information Science (2006). Beef quality perceptions audit of key market influencers in Asia & Mexico sets the stage
for strengthening the position of Canadian beef. http://www.meristem.com/beef/bfs07 06.html. Accessed Feb. 2010
16. Miller, M. F., Carr, M. A., Ramsey, C. B., Crockett, C. R. and Hoover, L. V. (2001). Consumer thresholds for establishing the
value of beef tenderness. Journal of Animal Science, 79: 3062-3068.
17. Ministry of Agriculture, Animal, Industry and Fisheries (2008). Overview of the Livestock Sub sector Entebbe, Uganda.
18. Ministry of Agriculture, Animal, Industry and Fisheries and Delegation of European Union (2012), Study on Promoting a
Commercial Beef Industry in Uganda. Final Report, Entebbe, Uganda
19. Monsn F., Saudo C. and Sierra I. (2004). Influence of cattle breed and ageing time on textural meat quality. Journal of
Meat Science, 68, 595-602.
20. Montgomery, J. L, Galyean, M. L., Horst, R. L., Miller, M. F., Carr, M. A., Kerth, C. R., Hilton, G. G. (2002). Effect of vitamin
D3 supplementation level on postmortem tenderization of beef from steers. Journal of Animal Science, 80: 971-981.
21. National Cattlemens Beef Association (2006). Confident cooking with beef, USA.
22. Salim, W. N., Elibariki, M. and Louis, A. M. (2013). Assessment of the influence of consumer characteristics on the choice of
beef quality attributes in Tanzania: An experimental economic approach. Journal of Agricultural Economics and
Development, 2(3): 111-119.
www.tjprc.org

editor@tjprc.org

What is Quality Beef to Consumers in Uganda?

39

23. Savell J. W., Mueller S. L. Baird B. E., 2005. The chilling of carcasses. Journal of Meat Science, 70, 449459.
24. Schroeder, T. C. & Mark, D. R. (2000). How Can the Beef Industry Recapture Lost Consumer Demand? Department of
Agricultural Economics, Kansas State University, Manhattan.
25. Smith, G. C., Savell, J. W., Dolezal, H. G., Field, T. G., Gill, D. R., Griffin, D. B., Hale., D. S., Morgan, J. B., Lambert, C. and
Cowman, G. (1995). Improving the consistency and competitiveness of beef: Second blueprint for total quality management in
the fed-beef industry. Final report of the National Beef Quality Audit, National Cattlemens Beef Association, Denver.
26. Tatum, J. D. (2006). Pre-harvest cattle management practices for enhancing beef tenderness. Executive summary prepared for
the NCBA. http://www.beefresearch.org/executivesummaries.aspx. Accessed Jan. 2010
27. Tey, Y., Mad, N. S., Alias, S., Zainalabidin, R. and Amin, M. (2008). Demand for beef in Malaysia: Preference for quantity,
quality or lean. Faculty of Agriculture, Universiti Putra, Malaysia.
28. Thonney, M. L., Perry, T. C., Armbruster, G., Beermann, D. H. & Fox, D. G. (1991). Comparison Of Steaks From Holstein
and Simmental X Angus Steers. J. Animal Science 69: 4866-4870.
29. Tsegay, T. (2012). Consumer perceptions and preferences of meat types in Harar and Haramaya towns, Ethiopia. Journal of
Microbiology, Biotechnology and Food Science, (3): 959-969.
30. Uganda Beef Producers Association (2005). An Expert Sub Sector Study Report on the Beef Sub sector in Uganda, Kampala,
Uganda.
31. Uganda Bureau of Statistics (2008). Animal livestock census
32. Uganda

Bureau

Of

Statistics

(2011),

Statistical

Abstract

http://Www.Ubos.Org/Onlinefiles/Uploads/Ubos/Pdf%20documents/2010statabstract.Pdf
33. Viljoen, H. F., De Kock, H. L. and Webb, E. C. (2002). Consumer acceptability of dark, firm, dry and normal pH beef stakes.
Journal of Meat Science, (61): 181-185.
34. Warriss, P. D (1996). What is Meat Quality? In: Taylor SA, Rimundo A, Severini M & Smulders FJ (Eds) Meat Quality and
Meat Packaging. ECCEAMST, Utrecht.

www.tjprc.org

editor@tjprc.org