A study of perception towards high-quality beef and ...

A STUDY OF PERCEPTION TOWARDS HIGH-

QUALITY BEEF AND RELATED HEALTH

CONCERN OF THAIS IN BANGKOK

URBAN AREA

BY

MR. TRIT SIRIPORNTANAKUL

AN INDEPENDENT STUDY SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL

FULFILLMENT OF

THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF

MASTER OF SCIENCE PROGRAM IN MARKETING

(INTERNATIONAL PROGRAM)

FACULTY OF COMMERCE AND ACCOUNTANCY

THAMMASAT UNIVERSITY

ACADEMIC YEAR 2017

COPYRIGHT OF THAMMASAT UNIVERSITY

Ref. code: 25605902040277ORC

A STUDY OF PERCEPTION TOWARDS HIGH-

QUALITY BEEF AND RELATED HEALTH CONCERN

OF THAIS IN BANGKOK URBAN AREA

BY

MR. TRIT SIRIPORNTANAKUL

AN INDEPENDENT STUDY SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL

FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE

OF MASTER OF SCIENCE PROGRAM IN MARKETING

(INTERNATIONAL PROGRAM)

FACULTY OF COMMERCE AND ACCOUNTANCY

THAMMASAT UNIVERSITY

ACADEMIC YEAR 2017

COPYRIGHT OF THAMMASAT UNIVERSITY

Ref. code: 25605902040277ORC

(1)

Independent Study Title A STUDY OF PERCEPTION TOWARDS

HIGH-QUALITY BEEF AND RELATED

HEALTH CONCERN OF THAIS IN

BANGKOK URBAN AREA

Author Mr. Trit Siriporntanakul

Degree Master of Science Program in Marketing

(International Program)

Major Field/Faculty/University Faculty of Commerce and Accountancy

Thammasat University

Independent Study Advisor Professor Kenneth E. Miller, Ph.D.

Academic Year 2017

ABSTRACT

In recent years, Thai consumers has become increasingly interested in

beef consumption. They are looking for high-quality beef but the market seems to be

inadequate in meeting their demand. As a result, there is an opportunity for the beef

industry to be addressed, such as introduction of high-quality added value beef to be

offered to Thai market. Most importantly, health trend has become an inevitable topic

in the Thai society and whether beef is healthy or not has raised concern for the

health-conscious.

This study brings the behavior and perception of the Thai beef consumer

to understanding and how businesses can fill the gap of serving Thai consumers.

Furthermore, the study looks at three different value-added beef product line of dry-

aged, organic and marinated beef to find out how consumer perceived them with

rating and willingness to pay for the products. Additionally, the study looks at

Ref. code: 25605902040277ORC

(2)

whether health concern in the society will have a positive or negative impact on the

future of Thai beef industry.

The research result shows an outstanding interest in organic beef

category. This could be the result of a flourishing macro-trend on health-conscious

organic food category that raised local consumer awareness and interest on organic

beef product. With support from the research result of actual related health-concern

by Thai consumer, organic beef has been set to take off in the near future.

Keywords: Beef, Dry-Aged, Organic, Marinated, Premium Beef, Health, Thai

Consumers

Ref. code: 25605902040277ORC

(3)

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to express my appreciation and gratitude to Professor

Kenneth E. Miller, who has been my advisor throughout this project, for his kind

support and advice on this independent study project. Professor Miller has been very

accessible for face-to-face meeting in his every visit to Thailand. His guidance on the

initial stage of this research topic has been very helpful, he has brought much of his

experience from Australia to share around this study topic.

I would like to thank all the respondents, both that took part in qualitative

and quantitative studies, for their valuable time and comments. They have contributed

a significant portion of this research study.

Lastly, my thanks are to my friends and colleagues that have helped in

completing this research. Thank you for all your support.

Mr. Trit Siriporntanakul

Ref. code: 25605902040277ORC

(4)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

ABSTRACT (1)

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS (3)

LIST OF TABLES (7)

LIST OF FIGURES (9)

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS (10)

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1

1.1 Introduction 1

1.2 Objectives 2

1.3 Overview 3

1.3.1 Situation Analysis 3

1.3.2 Research Purpose 4

CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE 5

2.1 Beef as positive and negative diet perception 5

2.2 General beef consumption and risk of health-related issue 5

2.3 Thais general beef consumption trend 6

2.4 Thais perception on beef consumption 7

2.5 Summary 8

CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 9

Ref. code: 25605902040277ORC

(5)

3.1 Key Research Variables 9

3.2 Target Population 9

3.3 Exploratory Research 9

3.3.1 Secondary Data 10

3.3.2 In-depth Interview 10

3.3.2.1 Interview Discussion 11

3.4 Descriptive Research 13

3.4.1 Survey Questionnaire 13

3.5 Data Analysis 14

3.5.1 Frequency analysis 15

CHAPTER 4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 16

4.1 Sample Analysis 16

4.2 Demographic of Beef Consumer 18

4.3 Beef Consumer Behaviour 21

4.4 Beef Consumer Perception 27

4.5 Price perception and willingness to pay 31

4.6 Health-related concern on beef consumption 37

4.7 Why some people do not consume beef 41

CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 44

5.1 Conclusion 44

5.2 Recommendation 46

5.2 Limitation 47

5.2.1 Research Specific 47

5.2.1 Study Topic Specific 47

REFERENCES 48

Ref. code: 25605902040277ORC

(6)

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A: Dry-Aged Beef Production 51

APPENDIX B: Socio-Economic status scale in Bangkok 2017 53

APPENDIX C: Online Survey Questionnaire 54

BIOGRAPHY 73

Ref. code: 25605902040277ORC

(7)

LIST OF TABLES

Tables Page

4.1.1 Beef & Non-beef Consumer 16

4.1.2 Consumer of beef in the past 3 months 16

4.2.1 Active & Non-Active Beef Consumers 18

4.2.2 Active Beef Consumer Psychology & Attitude Study 20

4.3.1 The frequency that beef consumption occurs 21

4.3.2 The people and places where beef consumption occurs 22

4.3.3 The meal where beef consumption occurs 22

4.3.4 The preference on how beef is cooked 23

4.3.5 The type of beef cooking method that have ever been tried 24

4.3.6 The perceived quality of each beef part 25

4.3.7 Consumer preference on beef with high fat marbling content 26

4.3.8 Consumer preference on beef with large fat section 26

4.3.9 Reasons behind fat consumption 26

4.4.1 Importance of beef country of origin over choosing a beef 27

4.4.2 Preference for imported beef over local beef 28

4.4.3 Perceived quality of each beef country of origin 28

4.4.4 Awareness on premium beef 29

4.4.5 Ever tried premium beef 29

4.4.6 Likely to try premium beef in the next 1 year 30

4.5.1 General beef too expensive price perception 31

4.5.2 General beef expensive but still considerable price perception 32

4.5.3 General beef reasonable price perception 33

4.5.4 The 3-price points perception of general beef 33

4.5.5 Dry-aged beef reasonable price perception 34

4.5.6 Organic beef reasonable price perception 35

4.5.7 Marinated beef reasonable price perception 36

4.5.8 The price points perception of premium beef 36

4.6.1 Perception on consuming beef and risk of short term health disease 37

Ref. code: 25605902040277ORC

(8)

4.6.2 Perception on consuming beef and risk of short term health disease broken

down into beef consumer & non-beef consumer 38

4.6.3 Perception on short-term health associated risk 38

4.6.4 Perception on consuming beef and risk of long term health disease 39

4.6.5 Perception on consuming beef and risk of long term health disease broken

down into beef consume & non-beef consumer 39

4.6.6 Perception on long-term health associated risk 40

4.7.1 Consumer who would consider consuming beef in the future 41

4.7.2 Reason for not consuming beef at all, or in the past 3 months 42

Ref. code: 25605902040277ORC

(9)

LIST OF FIGURES

Figures Page

4.1.1 Segmentation of Beef Consumer Study (n=94) 17

Ref. code: 25605902040277ORC

(10)

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

Symbols/Abbreviations Terms

SES Socio-Economic Status

Ref. code: 25605902040277ORC

1

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Introduction

This research study aims to understand the Thai urban society perception of

beef and high-quality beef, which are thought to have a strong influence with the

culture. The study looks at the Thai consumers beef consumption behavior. The study

hope to provide useful consumer insights for the Thai beef industry on value-added

products or services that can command high price. Additionally, the study will take

into consideration what are some health-related concerns on beef consumption and

how business should take into consideration the perception of health by consumers.

The research study focuses on a contemporary topic in applied marketing

study field to gain knowledge of Thai consumers attitudes to beef products. Firstly,

this study can support the value chain members in the beef industry from cattle

farmers, butchers, processors, distributors, importers, retailers to restaurant owners to

understand Thai consumers and suitably provide related product or service. Secondly,

it will determine the correct value-added process of beef that can serve Thai

consumers demand. Finally, it will also provide a preliminary warning for beef

industry to prepare and how to best embrace the rising concern on health-related issue

of Thai beef consumers.

Ref. code: 25605902040277ORC

2

1.2 Objectives

The purpose of this study is to understand how businesses can add-value to

their beef related product and services. The research objectives are as below.

1. To understand the behavior of beef consumption.

a. Identify what is the driver of beef consumption.

b. Identify general behavior of beef consumption.

c. Identify the occasion of beef consumption.

2. To understand the perception of beef

a. Identify the perception of general beef

b. Identify the perception of high-quality beef

3. To understand the consumer’s willingness to pay for beef

a. To identify acceptable price range of general beef

b. To identify acceptable price range of high-quality beef

4. To determine perception on health-related issue with beef consumption.

a. Identify short term health such as obesity, cholesterol and saturated fat.

b. Identify long term health perception such as carcinogenicity, obesity

and others.

5. To examine reasons why some people do not eat beef.

Ref. code: 25605902040277ORC

3

1.3 Overview

1.3.1 Situation Analysis

Today, we have seen many revolutions in the Thai food and beverage industry,

for instance, the birth of microbrewery, healthy-drink alternatives, local coffee

roasters, demand for organic produce and launch of local boutique food brands.

Thailand food and beverage sector are catching up with the modern world and this

present a big opportunity for businesses. However, the beef industry in Thailand has

not been through much change, beef-related product and service has remained very

consistent over the past decade.

On the one hand, beef seem to have caught a lot of attention recently by some

group of consumers pursuing high quality beef. These consumers tended to travel

away to country like Japan or elsewhere on a beef eating tour. This could be that local

beef businesses are not offering the right things to Thai consumers. Additionally, Thai

consumer have limited knowledge about beef as the Thai society has a wide variety of

food culture and so understanding of beef menu have been very mixed.

The beef industry in Thailand is very diversified, compared to the west, with

many styles, types and grades of beef offered in diverse range of restaurant from Thai

self-prepared barbeque (MK, BBQ Plaza), Korean barbeque, Western steak-house

(Neil’s Tavern, El Gaucho), Japanese Shabu-Shabu (Nabezo, Momo Paradise), to

local street restaurant (Jim Jum type). Consequently, the behavior of beef

consumption is not well understood and can be concluded that beef is not the main

reason that attract people to these restaurants or retail shop, it is other offering such as

Ref. code: 25605902040277ORC

4

convenience, occasions or just routine eating habit. Opportunity for these restaurant

lies in understanding consumer preference on beef that will increase spending on beef

and attract consumers to visit more frequently.

This opportunity means educating consumers on a value-added beef, for

instance, dry-aged beef (see Appendix A). Moreover, there are many ways to increase

the value to a beef which can easily be offered as additional upgrade from the typical

beef already offered to consumers.

1.3.2 Research Purpose

The value chain of beef industry in Thailand can benefit if the whole value

chain can come together and work towards similar goal of meeting Thai consumer

demand. In turns, the Thai beef consumer will benefit from the development of

products and services that could ultimately bring the Thai beef industry to the

forefront. Thai beef industry has the potential to become a major player in the South-

East Asia region and can be achieved when both the consumer and business are aware

and educated on this matter.

Ref. code: 25605902040277ORC

5

CHAPTER 2

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

2.1 Beef as positive and negative diet perception

Beef contains a rich source of dietary requirement, but its consumption has

been linked to health issues such as cardiovascular diseases and cancers and receives

a global attention (McAfee, 2010). Consequently, there has been a rising health

concern on the consumption of beef by Thais.

2.2 General beef consumption and risk of health-related issue

Research around the health-related issue of beef consumption in published

scientific papers found an association between consuming red meat and health

diseases. The research of this type was usually conducted over a period of ten or

twenty-year span to observe the outcome of health in beef eating population.

A research in the US concluded that beef consumption is linked to higher

mortality rate resulting from higher risk of cardiovascular disease and certain cancer

type, most commonly colorectal cancer (Hu, et al., 2012). Although whether beef

consumption and health issue have a direct effect or not would require further detailed

study, the population that consume higher amount of beef tends to be less physically

active, smoke cigarette, drink alcohols and thus have a higher Body Mass Index.

Additionally, when performing a control study by substituting beef serving to fish,

Ref. code: 25605902040277ORC

6

poultry and other low-fat diet result in lower the risk of cardiovascular disease and

cancer in the population.

The research paper also suggests a general trend that men and women have

consumed less amount of beef as they are grow older. This could have been the result

of a normal trend in aging process that makes consumption of beef less preferred.

On the contrary, there are published scientific papers that raise argument on

the adverse impact of red meat consumption on human’s health (McCulloch, 2016).

This is due to the inconsistency of result across research, for instance, association

between beef consumption and risk of chronic diseases are more profound in the US

than Europe or Asia. One study strongly suggests that adding lean meat and restrict

saturated fat intake give a heart-healthy diet which can result in a decrease total

cholesterol level over time.

2.3 Thais general beef consumption trend

Although, beef does not have a majority role in the Thai food culture and

some sub-cultural beliefs such as Hinduism and some Thai-Chinese do not allow the

consumption of beef, demand of high quality beef has been increasing every year

(Osothongs, 2016). The annual beef consumption in Thailand is around 2.6 kilograms

per person and is still considered relatively low (Suwunnamek).

There is also one interesting insight that Thais do not know how to cook beef

at home and tend to only eat at restaurants. Beef cooking at home is not the kind of

activity that Thai will normally do and as a result supermarket are not participating in

beef promotion as much (Banks, Boys, Ewen, Gibbens, & Kelly, 1999). Without

Ref. code: 25605902040277ORC

7

demand from consumer buying beef at supermarket, the beef trade is more dominated

by the business to business channel and thus more research need to be conducted on

this aspect.

2.4 Thais perception on beef consumption

Many interesting insights of beef consumption habit in Thai community can

be found from a Thai online discussion forum. The writer has discovered several

attitudes and beliefs that support why Thais do not consume beef.

(angel_sugar_white, 2014). The reasons for non-beef consumption are listed below.

Firstly, Thais who have specific religious belief of Buddhist Goddess Guanyin

(Goddess of Mercy) will not consume beef. This ground tends to be the Thai-Chinese

community which are abundant in Bangkok urban area. Second, the strong scent of

beef when consumed is another reason why Thais do not consume beef, this usually

occurs at younger age when first trying beef products. Third, as people consume beef

they will come up to a point where they feel that beef is causing difficulty in digestive

system as they grew older and so many decided to limit beef intake. Lastly, health

related concern such as carcinogenicity of beef limited the intake.

Beef eating is one of the heavily debated topic for Thais as perception of cows

have rooted to older time when Thai were using cows and buffalos as tools for

agriculture, and since rice growing have been the main driver of Thailand’s economy.

Moreover, as Thailand is a Buddhist nation, killing animals are believe as doing

Karma. Although the kind of animal killed and relation to karma is not taught or

categorized, majority will agree that killing bigger animals is doing more karma than

Ref. code: 25605902040277ORC

8

smaller animal. This belief which is not official to any institution are heavily debated

between Thais who eat beef and does not eat beef.

One interesting insight that is worth mentioning for further analysis which is

extracted from one of the discussion thread with topic of “Does all meat eaters end up

having cancer?” (998114, 2013). This insight is related directly to health-related issue

for beef consumption. People say that cows in Thailand are not slaughtered in a

controlled standards and environment, causing the animal to be stressed. Stressed

animal releases a hormone that is belief to cause cancer as well as deteriorate the meat

quality and color. This idea is commonly aware and belief by most Thais because it

has been circulating for many years.

2.5 Summary

Secondary research has provided significant insights that are useful for

developing a survey questionnaire. For example, the reason why Thai people chooses

not to consume beef explained in high level of details. These will prove valuable

when designing a questionnaire to gain in-depth insight and generalization of the

research population.

Ref. code: 25605902040277ORC

9

CHAPTER 3

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

This study primarily focuses on the insight of behavior, perception,

willingness to pay and health on consumption of beef product in urban Thais living in

Bangkok Metropolis. A secondary objective is to find out why some Thai do not

consume beef. To achieve all research objectives stated, data collection and analysis

methodology are proposed as per below.

3.1 Key Research Variables

Key variables that is included in the study is as followed

Beef consumption behavior, perception on high quality beef, health-related concern.

3.2 Target Population

• Gender: Male & Female

• Age: 18 – 64 years old

• Socio-Economic Status (SES): A B C

• Consume beef products in the past 3 months

3.3 Exploratory Research

Exploratory research allowed researcher to explore general insights relating to

the objective of the research topic. The findings will be useful for later use as a basis

to develop the survey questionnaire for the larger sample size.

Ref. code: 25605902040277ORC

10

3.3.1 Secondary Data

Objectives: To understand beef and its market in more details.

Secondary research was taken from information on the internet and has

collected information around the area of research objectives. This helped researcher to

understand more about the overview of the beef market and industry in Thailand. The

result is used to create a discussion guide for use in in-depth interview.

3.3.2 In-depth Interview

Objectives: To get detailed consumer insight on knowledge, behavior,

perception on high-quality beef and health-concern for beef consumption.

Additionally, reason why they do not consume beef.

Data collection: The target respondents are both male and female aged 18 – 64

years old. The data collection is proposed as below.

• Sampling method: Convenience sampling

• Collection method: face-to-face interview (20 minutes each)

• Sample size: 8 respondents

An in-depth interview discussion guide is prepared to collect answers where the

questions are extracted from the secondary research.

Data analysis: Interpretation on the discussion are extracted for important key words

and insights that are used to develop the survey questionnaire.

Ref. code: 25605902040277ORC

11

3.3.2.1 In-dept Interview Discussion

A total of 5 interviews were completed using convenient sampling. It was

conducted on 4 respondents during 22nd & 23rd October 2017. The respondents have

passed the sampling criteria of person living in Bangkok Greater area and have

consumed beef in the past 3 months.

Interviewees include 3 females and 1 male respondents (approximate ages 50,

45, 35 and 25) who work as a waitress, assistant chef, bartender and business owner,

respectively. The objective is to explore their beef consumption patterns, perception

on quality of beef and awareness of health-related concern with beef consumption.

Additionally, another in-depth interview was conducted on 1 female

respondent (approximate age 40) during 21st October, who is a seller in butcher

section at Villa Supermarket. The objective is to explore how consumers purchase

beef.

Villa market butcher station staff interview on 22nd October gave insight that

dry aged beef used to be sold in Villa as one of the most expensive beef product

available (starting price 3,000 Baht per kilogram) which is sold in requested portion.

Other ordinary non-dry-aged beef are priced at around 800 - 2,000 Baht per kilogram.

Dry-Aged beef was delisted after few months when first introduced due the unpopular

demand.

Sample result:

1) All interviewees said that their consumption of beef has declined

dramatically over

time, some have even stop consuming beef without any reason.

Ref. code: 25605902040277ORC

12

2) All interviewees said that they do not have much idea about beef quality,

except one respondent who is an assistant chef claimed to know about beef type (in

terms of

price and quality). However, the assistant chef truthfully said that he himself cannot

differentiate the taste of these beef types or has developed a liking for any beef type.

3) All interviewees said that they have not known or heard of any health-

related issues. One comment from assistant chef worth mentioning is that he thinks

consuming beef is a benefit for health because of the natural nutrients in beef.

Problems:

1. Interviewees do not have reason for decline consumption of beef over time,

some insight extracted were that fewer people around them are eating or that they

think beef is becoming harder for them to digest.

2. Interviewees have very limited knowledge on beef and so their perception

on beef quality is unclear when spoken around this topic.

3. There was no known or talked about issues on health with beef

consumption.

Solutions:

1. It could be that the respondents are mostly from the Socio-Economic Status

(SES) C-, D or below (see Appendix B) where beef is considered a high value

product. Therefore, the respondents in SES C-, D or below do not have much interest

in consuming beef, whereas higher SES may be a more suitable target respondent as

they have a higher disposable income.

Ref. code: 25605902040277ORC

13

2. Again, similar problem with the previous point of lower SES may have less

interest and the “need to know more” attitude about beef so the solution may be

targeting to talk to higher social-economic class who is fonder of beef to understand

the perception on the quality of beef.

3. The health issue around beef eating is still under consideration and will

require more interview before enabling the writer to develop a solution for health-

related search.

3.4 Descriptive Research

The descriptive research was conducted using a survey questionnaire. It was

designed to be based on exploratory research results.

3.4.1 Survey Questionnaire

This method was employed by using paid online survey questionnaire tools.

The questionnaire is separated into 8 different sections. The full survey questionnaire

can be found in Appendix C.

• Section 1: Screening questions

• Section 2: Beef consumption rejecters

• Section 3: Beef consumption behavior

• Section 4: Beef perception & wiliness to pay

• Section 5: Premium beef perception & willingness to pay

• Section 6: Consumer psychology

• Section 7: Health concerns

• Section 8: Demographic survey

Ref. code: 25605902040277ORC

14

Sample Selection:

• Gender: Male / Female

• Age: 18 – 64

• Location: Live in Greater Bangkok Area (Bangkok, Nonthaburi, Pathumthani,

Samut Prakarn)

• Special Condition: Previously consumed any beef product in the past 3

months.

Data Collection:

• Sampling method: Convenience sampling

• Collection method: Online survey platform

• Sample size: 100 respondents

Convenience sampling will be the main method of sampling in quantitative research

due to time and budget constraint.

3.5 Data Analysis

The completed questionnaires were analyzed by the statistical package

software for the social sciences (SPSS) and Microsoft Excel to interpret findings that

answer the proposed research objectives. The analysis methods are proposed as per

below.

Ref. code: 25605902040277ORC

15

3.5.1 Frequency analysis

Frequency, percentage and mean were used to analyze and display the result

of all variables to represent urban Thais living in Bangkok metropolis. Subgroup

analysis is conducted to compare frequency, percentage and mean among the group of

different specification.

Ref. code: 25605902040277ORC

16

CHAPTER 4

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

4.1 Sample Analysis

Table 4.1.1 Beef & Non-beef Consumer

Q1. Do you consume beef products?

n=94 Frequency Valid Percent

Yes 66 70.2%

No 28 29.8%

Total 94 100%

There are a total of 94 respondents that fully completed this questionnaire,

other that do not finish the whole questionnaire are left out of the analysis. From table

4.1.1, around 70.2% of the total sample consume beef product, whereas the other

29.8% do not consume beef product.

Table 4.1.2 Consumer of beef in the past 3 months

Q2. Have you consumed beef in the past 3 months?


Yes 61 92.4%

No 5 7.6%

Total 66 100%

From table 4.1.2, out of the 66 sample that consume beef product, result shows

that 92.4% has consume beef during the past 3 months. This group (n=61) are the

Ref. code: 25605902040277ORC

17

active beef consumer and is the target respondent for this study to understand the

primary objectives of this research. The other 7.6% are non-active beef consumer

(n=5) because they have not consumed beef in the past 3 months and will be grouped

with the non-beef consumer who do not consume beef at all from table 4.1 (n=33),

this group result will be studied to find result for secondary objectives (objective 5.0)

to examine reason why some people do not eat beef. The result of non-beef consumer

& non-active beef consumer is discussed in section 4.7

From the result of sample analysis, the study has segmented the sample into 3

categories.

1) Active Beef Consumer (n=61)

2) Non-Active Beef Consumer (n=5)

3) Non-Beef Consumer (n=28)

Figure 4.1.1 Segmentation of Beef Consumer Study (n=94)

Ref. code: 25605902040277ORC

18

4.2 Demographic of Beef Consumer

Table 4.2.1 Active & Non-Active Beef Consumers

n=66 Count Column

N %

D1. Where do you live Bangkok 58 87.9%

Nonthaburi 2 3.0%

Samut Prakarn 4 6.1%

Samut Sakhon 1 1.5%

Pathum Thani 1 1.5%

Total 66 100%

n=66 Count Column

N %

D2. What is your gender Male 41 62.1%

Female 25 37.9%

Total 66 100%

n=66 Count Column

N %

D3. What is your age 18 – 25 5 7.6%

26 – 30 22 33.3%

31 – 35 5 7.6%

36 – 40 0 0.0%

41 – 45 1 1.5%

46 – 50 2 3.0%

51 – 55 1 1.5%

56 – 60 2 3.0%

Over 60 28 42.4%

Total 66 100%

Ref. code: 25605902040277ORC

19

n=66 Count Column

N %

D4. What is your highest

education

Secondary

Education (Senior) 1 1.5%

Vocational School 2 3.0%

Bachelor’s Degree 28 42.4%

Master’s Degree or

above 35 53.0%

Total 66 100%

n=66 Count Column

N %

D5. What is your monthly

income 10,000 or less 0 0.0%

10,001 - 18,000 0 0.0%

18,001 - 24,000 0 0.0%

24,001 - 35,000 4 6.1%

35,001 - 50,000 8 12.1%

50,001 - 70,000 8 12.1%

70,001 - 160,000 21 31.8%

more than 160,000 25 37.9%

Total 66 100%

Table 4.2.1 shows the active beef consumer group demographic, some key

point worth noting is that there are two big respondent group differ in age of 33.3% in

the age range of 26 – 30 and 42.4% in the age range of over 60. For other

demographic dimension such as monthly income we can see a same trend with mid to

higher income range and high educational level with almost 95% at least Bachelor’s

degree or above.

Ref. code: 25605902040277ORC

20

Table 4.2.2 Active Beef Consumer Psychology & Attitude Study

n=66 Mean

I am a true beef lover 4.0

I choose beef over any other meat 3.8

I have a lot of knowledge about beef in general 2.8

I know all the cut of beef in detail 2.7

I know the quality of beef I purchased or served 3.5

I cook the beef by myself 2.2

I believe Bangkok offers wide variety of beef 4.5

I believe Bangkok offers beef at a reasonable price 4.1

I prefer to consume high-quality beef 4.7

My friend view at me as a beef expert and always ask

for my recommendation 2.3

From table 4.2.2, active beef consumers are asked to rate themselves on how

much they agree on each of the attribute on a Likert Scale of “1-Strongly Disagree” to

“6-Strongly Agree”. A mean is computed, and we can understand the psychology of

the research sample respondents.

The result can say that this group is a beef lover (mean 4.0) and they chose

beef over other meat (mean 3.8). They also prefer high-quality beef (mean 4.7).

However, this group lack understanding in general knowledge of beef (mean

2.8) and the cut of beef (mean 2.7), and they do not cook beef by themselves (mean

2.2) could be because they do not have the passion in beef to want to cook it by

themselves.

On the contrary, they believe they know the quality of beef purchased or

served (mean 3.5) and believe Bangkok currently has a wide variety of beef being

Ref. code: 25605902040277ORC

21

offered (mean 4.5) and at a reasonable price (4.1). Finally, with the result they know

that they are not viewed as a beef expert by others (mean 2.3).

This group can be generalized as a typical Thai consumer that likes to eat beef,

they find beef exciting and with the market in Bangkok offering diverse type and style

giving making it even more attractive. But, they lack the ability of understanding beef

in detail, not enough to have a deep conversation around this topic. They are not

highly passionate about beef and evaluate beef quality based on taste of reference and

price.

4.3 Beef Consumer Behaviour

This section address objective 1, to understand the behavior of beef

consumption.

Table 4.3.1 The frequency that beef consumption occurs

Q5. How often do you consume beef?


Daily or almost daily 3 4.9%

2 – 3 times a week 11 18%

Once a week 15 24.6%

2 – 3 times a month 21 34.4%

Occasionally or once

a month 11 18%

Ref. code: 25605902040277ORC

22

From table 4.3.1, result shows that Thais are not consuming beef on a daily

basis, only 4.9% are consuming on a daily or almost daily basis. The majority are

consuming around once a week (24.6%) or 2 – 3 times a month (34.4%).

Table 4.3.2 The people and places where beef consumption occurs

Q6. Where do you usually consume beef?


At home, alone 8 13.1%

At home, with a lover 12 19.7%

At home, with a family 18 29.5%

At home, with friends 12 19.7%

At a café / restaurant, serving A LA CARTE 48 78.7%

At a café / restaurant, serving Buffet 23 37.7%

From table 4.3.2, the result from this multiple answered question highlighted

eating beef at a café / restaurant that serve A la carte menu is as high as 78.7%,

dominating all other occasion of beef consumption. Consumption at café / restaurant

serving buffet at 37.7% is a consistent number as Bangkok is widely known for beef

buffet places. Home dining with beef menus are mainly for a family setting at 29.5%.

Table 4.3.3 The meal where beef consumption occurs

Q7. Which meal do you usually consume beef?


Breakfast 4 6.6%

Brunch 2 3.3%

Ref. code: 25605902040277ORC

23

Lunch 39 63.9%

Dinner 37 60.7%

Late Night Meal 14 23.0%

From table 4.3.3, beef consumption are happening during Lunch and Dinner

meals, at 63.9% and 60.7% respectively. Additionally, late night meal is occurring for

23% of the sample size.

Table 4.3.4 The preference on how beef is cooked

Q8. How do you often like your beef to be cooked?


Well-done 1 1.6%

Medium-well 16 26.2%

Medium 24 39.3%

Medium-rare 16 26.2%

Rare 4 6.6%

From table 4.3.4, shows a single answer for how respondent like their beef

cooked, result is clear that show a normal distribution with the peak for medium. It

could be concluded that beef is enjoyed with medium cook and depending on the taste

of the individual whether he/she prefer is more or less cooked from this average.

Ref. code: 25605902040277ORC

24

Table 4.3.5 The type of beef cooking method that have ever been tried

Q9. Which of the following cooking method have you ever consume beef by?


Grilled 52 85.2%

Fried 25 41.0%

Roasted 28 45.9%

Stir-fried 32 52.5%

Stewed 48 78.7%

Boiled 28 45.9%

Curry 39 63.9%

Steak 50 82.0%

Raw 2 3.3%

From Table 4.3.5, top cooking method ever tried is grilled (85.2%), one

assumption is because in the past decade Japanese Bar-B-Que has pick up popularity

and are widely available that do beef on the grill. Often consumers are preparing /

cooking the beef on a grilling platform available in front of them. Second cooking

method ever tried is the steak (82%), also widely available in local restaurant and

street vendors. Third cooking method ever tried is the stewed (78.7%), as this is the

main cooking method of beef in Thai traditional cuisine and additionally noodle

menus uses stewed beef which are very common for Thais. Other less tried cooking

method like stir-fried, boiled, curry, fried and roasted are more common for an

international dish, such as Chinese, Malaysian, Western which may be for a smaller

niche segment in the Thai community.

Ref. code: 25605902040277ORC

25

Table 4.3.6 The perceived quality of each beef part

Q11. In your opinion, please rate the quality for each part of a beef.

n=61 Mean

Std.

Deviation

Chuck 4.18 1.28

Rib 5.66 1.04

Striploin 5.51 0.97

Tenderloin 6.08 0.82

Sirloin 5.53 0.95

Topside 4.83 1.02

Knuckle 4.69 1.16

Brisket 4.73 1.34

Flank 4.31 1.05

Shank 4.73 1.27

Round 4.33 1.07

From table 4.3.6, a Likert scale was used to rate from 1 for worst to 7 for best

quality of beef. A mean is computed and result shows tenderloin as the highest rated

for quality with minimal standard deviation, this is consistent with the actual quality

of beef widely accepted elsewhere and also is the most expensive part of a cattle. The

mean of the rated beef quality does follows an actual price point of that specific part

of beef in this study. To conclude, respondents have acquired understanding in price

and taste of specific parts of beef and are able to list out the best to worst beef quality.

Ref. code: 25605902040277ORC

26

Table 4.3.7 Consumer preference on beef with high fat marbling content

Q12. In your opinion, please rate the quality for each part of a beef.


Yes 44 72.1%

No 17 27.9%

From table 4.3.7, result shows 72.1% of Thai beef consumers prefer beef with

high fat marbling content over a lean beef.

Table 4.3.8 Consumer preference on beef with large fat section

Q13. Do you prefer beef with large fat section?


Yes 25 41%

No 36 59%

From table 4.3.8, result shows 59% of Thai beef consumers does not prefer

beef with high fat section.

Table 4.3.9 Reasons behind fat consumption

Q14. What would be some reason behind fat consumption?

n=61 Frequency Valid

Percent

I consume fat because it tastes good 24 39.3%

I consume fat because I do not want to waste this part 1 1.6%

Ref. code: 25605902040277ORC

27

I partly consume fat because I am worry about gaining

weight 5 8.2%

I partly consume fat because I am worry about some health

issue 23 37.7%

I do not consume fat because it is bad for my weight control 1 1.6%

I do not consume fat because it is bad for my health 5 8.2%

I do not consume fat because I do not like its taste 2 3.3%

From table 4.3.9, result shows that beef consumer are not worry about

consuming fat as result shows limited percentage for “I do not consume fat because

…” but result are more towards “I consume fat because …” and “I partly consume fat

because …”. The result of “I partly consume fat because I am worry about some

health issue” (37.7%) show that there is a correlation in the believe of eating fat and

health issue but are not strong enough to stop the consumption of fat.

4.4 Beef Consumer Perception

This section address objective 2, to understand the perception of beef

consumption.

Table 4.4.1 Importance of beef country of origin over choosing a beef

Q15. When choosing beef, do you look at the country of origin for that beef?


Yes 40 65.6%

No 21 34.4%

Ref. code: 25605902040277ORC

28

From table 4.4.1, beef consumer would say yes (65.6%) that the beef country

of origin is important criteria in choosing beef. The country of origin is related to the

quality dimension of beef.

Table 4.4.2 Preference for imported beef over local beef

Q16. How much do you prefer imported beef to local beef?

n=61 Mean Std. Deviation

prefer local - 1

prefer imported - 7 4.00 1.39

Respondent were given a 7 Likert scale to rate their preference for imported

beef over local beef, where 1 is for “I prefer local beef” and 7 is for “I prefer imported

beef”. The result shows a mean of 4 which is exactly in the middle.

From previous table 4.4.1, the beef country of origin may be important in

consumer perception but table 4.4.2 concluded that the people may not have chosen

imported beef over a local beef.

Table 4.4.3 Perceived quality of each beef country of origin

Q18. In your opinion, please rank beef quality in terms of country of origin?

n=61 Mean Std. Deviation

Japan 6.31 1.39

Australia 5.26 1.08

New Zealand 4.21 1.49

USA 5.34 1.18

Ref. code: 25605902040277ORC

29

South Korea 2.32 1.06

European Union 3.24 1.32

Thailand 2.79 1.53

Respondent were given a 7 Likert scale to rate the quality of beef from a

specific country of origin, where 1 is “Low Quality” and 7 is “High Quality”. By

analyzing the mean, the highest ranked quality is Japanese beef which has gained high

perceived value in Thai beef consumer. Second highest is US beef, followed closely

by Australian beef

Table 4.4.4 Awareness on premium beef

Q22. Which of the following premium beef you aware or ever heard about?


Dry-Aged beef 45 73.8%

Organic beef 30 49.2%

Marinated beef 42 68.9%

From table 4.4.4, Dry-Aged beef are most widely known (73.8%) followed by

Marinated beef (86.9%) and Organic beef are the least known (49.2%).

Table 4.4.5 Ever tried premium beef

Q23. Which of the following premium beef you have ever tried?



Ref. code: 25605902040277ORC

30



From table 4.4.5, Marinated beef is the most tried out of all other premium

beef. From table 4.4.4, almost everyone who is aware about marinated beef (68.9%)

have tried marinated beef (70.5%).

The result suggest that Dry-Aged beef may be the most well-known (73.8%)

but it is not widely available so that lesser people have tried it (65.6%). For Organic

beef, only 32.8% of respondents have ever tried the beef.

Table 4.4.6 Likely to try premium beef in the next 1 year

Q24. How likely you try the following premium beef in the next 1 year?





Table 4.4.6 suggest popularity of each premium beef that respondent would

like to try in the next 1 year. Organic beef has a high chance for people to try it in the

next year at 68.9% as compared to the number of people who are initially aware about

Organic beef at only 49.2%.

Ref. code: 25605902040277ORC

31

4.5 Price perception and willingness to pay

This section address objective 3, to understand the consumer’s willingness to

pay for beef.

Table 4.5.1 General beef too expensive price perception

Q19. At what price would you consider Beef to be too expensive to purchase?

n=61 Frequency Weighted

100 0 0

300 12 3600

500 10 5000

700 6 4200

900 9 8100

1100 10 11000

1300 2 2600

1500 4 6000

1700 2 3400

1900 2 3800

2100 4 8400

Total 56100

Weighted

Mean 920

Ref. code: 25605902040277ORC

32

Table 4.5.2 General beef expensive but still considerable price perception

Q20. At what price would you consider Beef to be expensive, but you would still

consider buying it?


100 3 300

300 9 2700

500 12 6000

700 13 9100

900 7 6300

1100 9 9900

1300 1 1300

1500 3 4500

1700 2 3400

1900 1 1900

2100 1 2100

Total 47500

Weighted

Mean 779

Ref. code: 25605902040277ORC

33

Table 4.5.3 General beef reasonable price perception

Q21. At what price would you consider Beef to be reasonable?


100 4 400

300 16 4800

500 18 9000

700 8 5600

900 8 7200

1100 5 5500

1300 0 0

1500 0 0

1700 0 0

1900 0 0

2100 1 2100

Total 34600

Weighted

Mean 567

Table 4.5.4 The 3-price points perception of general beef

Perception Price point

(Thai Baht)

Expensive 920

Considerable 780

Reasonable 570

From table 4.5.1, 4.5.2, 4.5.3 we can conclude the result into table 4.5.4. This

3-price points perception is for willingness to pay for an average 1 serving size

general beef steak weight 250 grams. The pricing upper limit would be at 920 Thai

Ref. code: 25605902040277ORC

34

Baht and the lower limit would be at 570 Thai Baht. A middle point where consumer

believe the price is high but still are willing to purchase is at 780 Thai Baht.

Table 4.5.5 Dry-aged beef reasonable price perception

Q25. At what price would you consider Premium Beef to be reasonable?


100 1 100

300 9 2700

500 17 8500

700 8 5600

900 12 10800

1100 9 9900

1300 1 1300

1500 0 0

1700 0 0

1900 2 3800

2100 2 4200

Total 46900

Weighted

Mean 769

Ref. code: 25605902040277ORC

35

Table 4.5.6 Organic beef reasonable price perception



100 1 100

300 6 1800

500 15 7500

700 13 9100

900 5 4500

1100 10 11000

1300 5 6500

1500 2 3000

1700 0 0

1900 0 0

2100 1 2100

Total 45600

Weighted

Mean 748

Ref. code: 25605902040277ORC

36

Table 4.5.7 Marinated beef reasonable price perception



100 3 300

300 20 6000

500 16 8000

700 5 3500

900 5 4500

1100 4 4400

1300 2 2600

1500 0 0

1700 0 0

1900 0 0

2100 0 0

Total 29300

Weighted

Mean 480

Table 4.5.8 The price points perception of premium beef

Perception Price point

(Thai Baht)

Dry-Aged beef 770

Organic beef 750

Marinated beef 480

This price point represents the lower limit as question asked to respondents are

for reasonable price perception for each type of premium beef with the same

condition of an average 1 serving size beef steak weight 250 grams.

Ref. code: 25605902040277ORC

37

This shows that respondent value dry-aged beef and organic beef similarly.

Additionally, marinated beef is valued at a very low price point and may convey a

message that marinated beef is not categorized as premium in consumer’s mind. This

price point at 480 Thai Baht is even lower than the reasonable price point for a

general beef at 570 Thai Baht.

4.6 Health-related concern on beef consumption

This section address objective 4, to determine perception on health-related

issue with beef consumption. The health-related issue is differentiated into short and

long-term problems.

For health-related concern, questions are asked to both group of respondents,

beef consumer and non-beef consumer, to understand how both group perceived

health issue as a result of beef consumption.

In later section 4.7, researcher has discussed and analyzed the reasons behind

why people do not consume beef and have clearly concluded from result gathered that

health concern is not the primary reason for non-consumption of beef.

Table 4.6.1 Perception on consuming beef and risk of short term health disease

Q27. Do you think consuming beef has an association to risk of short term health

disease?


Yes 34 36.2%

No 60 63.8%

Ref. code: 25605902040277ORC

38

Table 4.6.2 Perception on consuming beef and risk of short term health disease

broken down into beef consumer & non-beef consumer

n=94

Beef Consumer (n=66) Non-Beef Consumer (n=28)

Count Column N % Count Column N %

Short

term

health

risk

Yes 21 31.8% 13 46.4%

No 45 68.2% 15 53.6%

From table 4.6.1 and 4.6.2, the result can be concluded that respondents are

less worried about short-term health issue as less than half (36.2%) perceive short-

term health is associated with beef consumption. To look into more detail,

respondents who do not consume beef has higher perceived risk of short term health

(46.4%) compared to respondent who consumer beef (31.8%).

Table 4.6.3 Perception on short-term health associated risk

Q28. If research shows that consuming beef is associated with short-term health risk,

which of the following would you think is likely to occur?


Obesity 33 35.1%

High blood cholesterol 46 48.9%

High blood pressure 16 17.0%

Indigestion 33 35.1%

Diarrhea 8 8.5%

Food poisoning 11 11.7%

Ref. code: 25605902040277ORC

39

Short term health diseases listed are extracted from secondary data and in-

depth interview. From table 4.6.3, we can see high blood cholesterol ranked the

highest perceived short-term health risk from beef consumption.

Table 4.6.4 Perception on consuming beef and risk of long term health disease

Q29. Do you think consuming beef has an association to risk of long term health

disease?


Yes 59 62.8%

No 35 37.2%

Table 4.6.5 Perception on consuming beef and risk of long term health disease broken

down into beef consume & non-beef consumer

n=94 Beef Consumer (n=66) Non-Beef Consumer (n=28)

Count Column N % Count Column N %

Long-

term

health

risk

Yes 37 56.1% 22 78.6%

No 29 43.9% 6 21.4%

From table 4.6.4 and 4.6.5, result can be concluded that respondents are

concern for long-term health risk associated with beef consumption as more than half

(62.8%) perceived long-term health risk. For non-beef consumer, we see a high

number of 78.6% who perceive long-term health risk associated with beef

Ref. code: 25605902040277ORC

40

consumption. This long-term health risk could be one of the reason they choose not to

consume beef.

Table 4.6.6 Perception on long-term health associated risk

Q30. If research shows that consuming beef is associated with long-term health risk,

which of the following would you think is likely to occur?


Obesity 33 35.1%

Colorectal Cancer 46 48.9%

Heart disease 16 17.0%

Stroke 33 35.1%

Liver disease 8 8.5%

Long term health diseases listed are extracted from secondary data and in-depth

interview. From table 4.6.6, result show colorectal cancer as the highest ranked long-

term health risk at 48.9%.

Ref. code: 25605902040277ORC

41

4.7 Why some people do not consume beef

This section addresses objective 5 to examine reasons why some people do not

eat beef.

Table 4.7.1 Consumer who would consider consuming beef in the future

Q3. In the future, will you consider consuming beef?


Yes 5 15.2%

No 28 84.8%

Total 33 100%

From table 4.7.1, this question was asked to both group of non-active beef

consumer and non-beef consumer. The result show consistency in their decision from

table 4.1.1 and table 4.1.2, those who do not consume beef will not consider

consuming beef in the future (n=28), whereas those who has not consume beef in the

past 3 months will consider consuming beef again in the future (n=5), respectively.

The result suggests that those who do not consume beef are unlikely to

consume beef in the future.

Ref. code: 25605902040277ORC

42

Table 4.7.2 Reason for not consuming beef at all, or in the past 3 months

Q4. Which of the following statements best describes the reason that you do not

consume beef or have not consumed in the past 3 months?

n=33 Frequency Valid

Percent

I have limited occasion to consume beef 2 6.1%

I limit consumption of beef because I want to

have a healthy diet 4 12.1%

I believe that beef is not a necessity as part of

a diet 2 6.1%

I believe in Karma and beef consumption is

against this believe 10 30.3%

I am a vegetarian 0 0%

I personally do not like beef 1 3%

I believe in religious reason that forbit the

consumption of beef 11 33.3%

I believe consuming beef has a negative

effect for health 3 9.1%

Total 33 100%

Religious reasons – totaled to 63.6%

From table 4.7.2, this question was asked to both group of non-active beef

consumer and non-beef consumer. There are 2 major reasons for Thais who do not

consume beef, they believe in religion that forbit the consumption of beef at 33.3%

Ref. code: 25605902040277ORC

43

and they believe in Karma where consuming beef is like making Karma at 30.3%. The

two reasons stated previously are rooted from the same nature and could be

considered as a Buddhist believe.

Health & Diet reasons - totaled to 21.2%

The second reason people do not consume beef is health-related, with limited

consumption for a healthier diet at 12.1% and believe consuming beef has a negative

effect on health at 9.1%.

The result of this shows that health reasons may not be the main factor for

those who chose not to consume beef. However, trend in having a healthy diet has

become more popular in the past years, and correlation in consuming beef may lead to

health issue will become more dominant as the health trend grows. Whereas, the

religious reason is in the decline as new generation like millennials are becoming less

susceptible to religion.

Interestingly, the choice of “I am a vegetarian” did not appear in this study.

Researcher believe one of the reason could be that vegetarian are not commonly

practice in Thai society, but more common for a partial or periodical vegetarianism.

Ref. code: 25605902040277ORC

44

CHAPTER 5

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 Conclusion

The sample taken from the quantitative study of this research is able to

represent the general Thai beef consumers in Bangkok urban area. From the

demographic study, it shows that more than two third of the sample respondent

consume beef. The behavioral study found a pattern for consumption among Thai

beef consumer; they consume beef at a restaurant, beef is preferred during lunch or

dinner meals. They like their beef cooked at medium, where grilled, stewed and steak

are the top three serving/preparing method of beef.

The main drivers of beef consumption are rooted to the respondent attitude

study (see Table 4.2.2) that show they are generally fond of beef, as they view beef as

a higher tier food category and are always looking out for high-quality beef offers.

They prefer beef over other animal meats but are not an expert about beef. Generally,

they believe Bangkok city has got a variety of beef offering at a reasonable price.

The perception of beef (see Table 4.3.6) can be concluded that the respondents

shows a good understanding of quality for each part of beef. They are able to

differentiate higher quality parts from lower quality parts. The country of origin for

beef is viewed as important, where Japanese, U.S. and Australian beefs (see Table

4.4.3) are the top three most highly rated in terms of quality.

High-quality beefs (dried-aged, organic, marinated) studied found respondents

are aware with dry-aged (73.8%) and marinated beef (68.9%). For organic beef,

awareness is lowest at 49.2% and even less when asked whether they have ever tried

Ref. code: 25605902040277ORC

45

at 32.8%, however, the respondent would like to try organic beef in the next 1 year at

68.9%. In contrary, marinated beef did not gain popularity among respondents and

50.8% of respondents will try it in the next 1 year (see Table 4.4.6).

The research has extracted a price range for the consumer’s willingness to pay

on beef. The price range is found to be on a scale from 920 to 570 Thai Baht for an a

1 serving size general beef steak weight 250 grams. This price range is for general

beef steak and when asked about high-quality beefs (dried-aged, organic, marinated),

we can benchmark the price point for these high-quality. The result shows interesting

insights, dry-aged beef and organic beef command a greater price at 35% and 31%

compared to general beef in the reasonable price perception comparison, respectively.

On the other hand, marinated beef command a lower price than general beef at 16%

lower price and can be concluded that marinated beef is not viewed by the respondent

as a premium high-quality beef.

In terms of health-related concern from beef consumption, research see

significant concern for long-term health disease much more than short-term heath

disease. Long-term health risk is mainly believed that consuming beef may be the

cause of colorectal cancer. In a detailed analysis between beef consumer and non-beef

consumer, we can see that non-beef consumer generally believes that there is an

association between consuming beef and health-related risk at 46.4% for short-term

and 78.6% for long-term health risk.

Lastly, the study on why non-beef consumer do not consume beef can be said

that religious belief is the main reason that they do not eat beef.

Ref. code: 25605902040277ORC

46

5.2 Recommendation

The research shows that Organic beef category represents a big opportunity for

Thai beef market, as study shows that respondents have a highly positive response on

the term “Organic Beef”. The major area for improvement in organic beef category is

the availability of the product as only 32.8% of beef consumer have ever tried it. The

opportunity exists in making organic beef more widely available through retail

distribution, that would generate a positive feedback as 68.9% said that they would

like to try organic beef in the next 1 year.

In terms of health risk, although the result does not clearly show that

respondents decided not to eat beef because of potential health-related risk, they

perceived a long-term health risk of colorectal cancer as the biggest possibility

associated with beef consumption. A further study may be beneficial, to see how

Thais perceive the premium organic beef category in association with health-related

concern, as the term organic are perceived a healthier food alternative.

The study on willingness to pay provides a basis for setting price of dry-aged

beef and organic beef starting at 770 Thai Baht and 750 Thai Baht, respectively.

These prices are the minimum recommended selling price for these premium segment

beef, for 1 serving size beef steak weight 250 grams. The beef supply chain in can

capitalize on this price point and with additional value-added feature may allow much

higher uplift in retail selling price.

Ref. code: 25605902040277ORC

47

5.3 Limitation

5.3.1 Research Specific

The research findings cannot be generalized to the entire population due to the

following reason:

- Sample in the research will be selected using a convenience sampling method.

- Time and budget is the major constraint in this research

5.3.1 Study Topic Specific

The research findings may not receive adequate insights as concept of beef

consumption may not be well understood by consumers.

- Beef consumption are not usually a pre-planned activity by the consumer, so

respondent may lack ability to respond appropriately as it has been sub-

consciously considered topic.

- General population may lack understanding of beef due to it is a widely

available product that is serve in many forms and conditions which have cause

confusion of information.

- Respondent who is knowledgeable about this study topic may be a strong

opinion leader which cannot generalize to the population.

Ref. code: 25605902040277ORC

48

REFERENCES

Electronic Media

998114, m. (2013, December 21). Pantip.com. Retrieved from Pantip.com:

https://pantip.com/topic/31416272

angel_sugar_white. (2014, March 19). Pantip.com. Retrieved from Pantip.com:

https://pantip.com/topic/31803872

Ref. code: 25605902040277ORC

49

REFERENCES

Banks, S., Boys, C., Ewen, C., Gibbens, S., & Kelly, M. (1999). Reviewing the cattle

livestock industry in Thailand. Sydney: University of Technology.

Hu, F. B., An, P., Sun, Q., Bernstein, A. M., Schulze, M. B., Manson, J. E., . . .

Willett, W. C. (2012). Red Meat Consumption and Mortality: Results from

Two. Arch Intern Med., 555–563.

McAfee, A. J. (2010). Red meat consumption: An overview of the risks and benefits.

Meat Science, Volume 84, Issue 1, pp. 1-13.

McCulloch, M. (2016). Benefits and Risks of Red Meat. In M. McCulloch, Today's

Dietitian (p. Vol. 18 No. 1 P. 20).

Osothongs, M. (2016). Current Situation of Beef Industry in Thailand. Proceeding of

International Symposium "Dairy Cattle Beef up Beef Industry in Asia:

Improving Productivity and Environmental Sustainability, (pp. Volume: 5-8).

Bangkok, Thailand.

Suwunnamek, O. (n.d.). Buying behavior of premium beef products in Bangkok. King

Mongkut's Institute of Technology Ladkrabang & Tokyo University of

Agriculture and Technology.

Ref. code: 25605902040277ORC

50

APPENDICES

Ref. code: 25605902040277ORC

51

APPENDIX A

Dry-Aged Beef Production

Ref. code: 25605902040277ORC

52

Ref. code: 25605902040277ORC

53

APPENDIX B

Socio-Economic status scale in Bangkok 2017

Lower than 7,500 baht SES E

7,501 – 18,000 baht SES D

18,001 – 24,000 baht SES C-

24,001 – 35,000 baht SES C

35,001 – 50,000 baht SES C+

50,001 – 85,000 baht SES B

85,001 or above SES A

Ref. code: 25605902040277ORC

54

APPENDIX C

Online Survey Questionnaire

Perception towards high-quality beef and related health concern of Thais in Bangkok

urban area.

แบบส ำรวจควำมเขำใจตอคณภำพเนอววและควำมคดเหนตอผลกระทบทำงสขภำพจำกกำรรบประทำนเนอวว ของประชำกรในเขต

กรงเทพและปรมณฑล

Introduction

Welcome to the Perception towards beef by Thais in Bangkok urban area

customer survey. The researcher is a graduate student from the Master’s Degree in

marketing Program (MIM), Thammasat University. Research purpose of this survey is

purely for academic reason.

The primary purpose of this study is to understand how businesses can add-

value to their beef related product and services. The findings will allow us to gain a

better understanding of beef consumers and create product improvements for them.

Importantly, your personal information and response will be strictly kept confidential.

You are only allowed to take the survey once and it should take around 15 minutes of

your time. Questions marked with an asterisk (*) require an answer to proceed to the

next question.

The researcher highly appreciates your input and kind support. If you have any

questions about the survey, please email the researcher at: [email protected]

Ref. code: 25605902040277ORC

55

PART 1: SCREENING QUESTIONS

This survey is about Beef Consumption. For Beef, the researcher means any

beef product that is derived from cattle. Beef product includes but not limited to all

kind of beef menu ranging from Fresh Beef, Beef Steak, Beef Burger, Beef Sausage,

Beef Sandwich, Processed Beed, Beef as part of a menu in Western Cuisine, Asian

Cuisine, Exotic Cuisine etc.

กำรส ำรวจนเกยวของกบกำรรบประทำนเนอวว เนอววในควำมหมำยของผส ำรวจหมำยถงผลตภณฑตำง ๆ ทท ำมำจำกเนอวว รวมถง

แตไมจ ำกดอำหำรเชน เนอสด เนอบด สเตกเนอ เบอเกอรเนอ ไสกรอกเนอ แซนดวชเนอ เนอววแปรรป หรอ เนอววในอำหำรตำง ๆ

S1. (Q1) Do you consume beef products?* [SA]

S1. (Q1) คณรบประทำนเนอวว หรอ ไม?

ใช Yes 1 Continue

ไมใช No 2 Skip to Part 2

S2. (Q2) Have you consume beef in the past 3 months?* [SA]

S2. (Q2) คณรบประทานเนอววในระยะเวลา 3 เดอนทผานมาหรอไม?

ใช Yes 1 Skip to Part 3

ไมใช No 2 Skip to Part 2

PART 2: BEEF CONSUMPTION REJECTERS

Instruction: Ask this section only for those who answer “No” in S2

Q3. In the future, will you consider consuming beef?* [SA]

Q3. ในอนำคต คณคดวำคณอำจจะรบประทำนเนอวว หรอ ไม

ใช Yes 1 Continue

ไมใช No 2 Continue

Q4. Which of the following statements best describes the reason that you do not

consume beef or have not consumed in the past 3 months? * [SA]

Ref. code: 25605902040277ORC

56

Q4. ขอควำมใดตอไปนอธบำยเหตผลทคณ ไมรบประทำนเนอวว หรอ ไมไดรบประทำนเนอววในระยะเวลำ 3 เดอนทผำนมำ ของคณไดดทสด

ฉนไมมโอกำศไดรบประทำนเนอวว I have limited occasion to

consume beef 1

ฉนเลอกทจะไมรบประทำนเนอ เพรำะฉนทำนอำหำรเพอสขภำพ

I limit consumption of beef

because I want to have a

healthy diet

2

ฉนเชอวำไมมควำมจ ำเปนในกำรรบประทำนเนอวว I believe that beef is not a

necessity as part of a diet 3

ฉนเชอในเรองบญและบำป ซงกำรรบประทำนเนอววขดตอควำมเชอฉน

I believe in Karma and beef

consumption is against this

believe

4

ฉนรบประทำนอำหำรมงสวรต I am a vegetarian 5

ฉนไมชอบรบประทำนเนอวว I personally do not like beef 6

ฉนเชอในศำสนำหรอนกำยทหำมกำรรบประทำนเนอวว

I believe in religious reason

that forbit the consumption of

beef

7

ฉนเชอวำกำรรบประทำนเนอววสงผลเสยตอสขภำพรำงกำย

I believe consuming beef has

a negative effect for health 8

อนๆ โปรดระบ Others (specify) X

Skip to Part 7

Ref. code: 25605902040277ORC

57

PART 3: BEEF CONSUMPTION BEHAVIOR

Next, we would like to understand your beef consumption.

ตอไป เราอยากจะเขาใจการบรโภคเนอววของคณ

Q5. How often do you consume beef? [SA]

Q5. คณรบประทำนเนอววบอยแคไหน?

a. Daily or almost daily (ทกวนหรอเกอบทกวน)

b. 2 – 3 times a week ( 2 - 3 ครงตอสปด ำห)

c. Once a week (สปดำหละครง) d. 2 – 3 times a month ( 2 - 3 ครงตอเดอน )

e. Occasionally or once a month (บำงครงหรอเดอนละครง)

Q6. Where do you usually consume beef? [MA]

Q6. ปกตคณรบประทำนเนอววทไหน? [ตอบไดมำกกวำ 1 ขอ] a. At home, alone (ทบำน, คนเดยว) b. At home, with a lover (ทบำน, กบคนรก) c. At home, with a family (ทบำน, กบครอบครว) d. At home, with friends (ทบำน, กบเพอน ๆ)

e. At a café / restaurant, serving A LA CARTE (ทคำเฟ / รำนอำหำร , ใหบรกำรแบบจำนเดยว) f. At a café / restaurant, serving Buffet (ทคำเฟ / รำนอำหำร , ใหบรกำรแบบบฟเฟต) g. Others (specify) ___________________ อน ๆ (โปรดระบ)

Q7. Which meal do you usually consume beef? [MA]

Q7. ปกตคณรบประทำนเนอววในอำหำรมอใด? [ตอบไดมำกกวำ 1 ขอ] a. Breakfast อำหำรมอเชำ b. Brunch อำหำรมอระหวำงเชำและกลำงวน

c. Lunch อำหำรมอกลำงวน

d. Dinner อำหำรมอเยน

e. Late Night Meal อำหำรมอค ำ

Q8. How do you often like your beef to be cooked? [SA]

Q8. คณชอบรบประทำนควำมสกของเนอระดบไหน?

a. Well-done สกมำกทสด

b. Medium-well สกมำก c. Medium สกปำนกลำง d. Medium-rare สกนอย

Ref. code: 25605902040277ORC

58

e. Rare สกนอยทสด

Q9. Which of the following cooking method have you ever consume beef by? [MA]

Q9. คณเคยรบประทำนเนอทถกเตรยมมำแบบใดบำง? [ตอบไดมำกกวำ 1 ขอ]

a. Grilled ยำง (1)

b. Fried ทอด (2)

c. Roasted อบ (3)

d. Stir-fried ผด (4)

e. Stewed ตน (5)

f. Boiled ตม (6)

g. Curry แกง (7)

h. Steak สเตก (8)

i. Raw สด (9)

Q10. Which of the following retail outlet have you ever purchase beef from? [MA]

Q10. ปกตคณเคยซอเนอววจำกทใดบำง? [ตอบไดมำกกวำ 1 ขอ] a. Villa Supermarket วลลำ ซปเปอรมำเกต b. Foodland Supermarket ฟดแลนด ซปเปอรมำเกต c. Tops Supermarket ทอปส ซปเปอรมำเกต d. Max Value แมกซแวล e. Tesco Lotus เทสโกโลตส

f. Big C Supercenter บกซ ซ

g. Makro แมคโคร h. Local Butcher (Local Market) ตลำดสด

i. Never purchase by myself ไมเคยซอเนอดวยตวเอง j. Online Seller ซอจำกออนไลน

Ref. code: 25605902040277ORC

59

PART 4: Beef Perception

Next, we would like to understand your opinion and attitude towards beef.

ตอไป เรำอยำกเขำใจควำมรสกและควำมคดเหนตอเนอววของคณ

*ภำพประกอบนเปนเพยงสอเพอชวยเหลอในกำรตอบค ำถำมเนอววสวนตำงๆ ในขอ 11 เทำนน ขอมลจะไมครบถวน

ขอใหผตอบใชประสบกำรณสวนตวในกำรตดสน

Q11. In your opinion, please rate the quality for each part of a beef

Q11. ในควำมคดเหนของคณ โปรดใหคะแนนคณภำพของเนอแตละสดสวน (ค ำตอบเดยวส ำหรบแตละขอควำม(

Wor

st

แย

ทสด

Ver

y

Bad

แย

Bad

คอนข

ำงแย

Ave

rage

ปำน

กลำง

Goo

d

คอนข

ำงด

Ver

y

Goo

dด

Exc

elle

nt

ดทสด

I do

not

kno

w

ไมรจก

Chuck/Blade/Should

er

เนอสวนไหล

Rib/Ribeye

เนอสวนซโครง เนอรบอำย

Striploin

เนอสนนอก

Ref. code: 25605902040277ORC

60

Tenderloin

เนอสนใน

Sirloin/Rump

เนอสนสะโพก

Topside/Outside

เนอสะโพกบน/ลำง

Knuckle

เนอลกมะพรำว

Brisket

เนอเสอรองไห

Flank/Plate

เนอสวนทอง

Shank

เนอนอง

Round

เนอพนนอก

Q12. Do you prefer beef with high fat marbling content? [SA]

Q12. คณชอบเนอทมปรมำณไขมนแทรกมำกหรอไม?

a. Yes ใช

b. No ไมใช

Q13. Do you prefer beef with large fat section? [SA]

Q13. คณชอบเนอทมสวนไขมนตดเนอหรอไม?

a. Yes ใช

Ref. code: 25605902040277ORC

61

b. No ไมใช

Q14. What would be some reason behind fat consumption? [SA]

Q14. เนองจำกเหตใดทท ำใหคณเลอกทจะรบประทำนหรอไมรบประทำนไขมนตดเนอ?

a. I consume fat because it tastes good

ฉนรบประทำนไขมนเพรำะรสชำตอรอย b. I consume fat because I do not want to waste this part

ฉนรบประทำนไขมนเพรำะฉนเสยดำยไมอยำกทง c. I partly consume fat because I am worry about gaining weight

ฉนรบประทำนบำงสวนเปนบำงครงเพรำะฉนระวงเรองน ำหนก d. I partly consume fat because I am worry about some health issue

ฉนรบประทำนบำงสวนเปนบำงครงเพรำะฉนกงวลปญหำสขภำพ

e. I do not consume fat because it is bad for my weight control

ฉนไมรบประทำนไขมนเพรำะไขมนท ำใหน ำหนกขน

f. I do not consume fat because it is bad for my health

ฉนไมรบประทำนไขมนเพรำะไขมนไมดตอสขภำพ

g. Other, please specify______________ อนๆ โปรดระบ

Q15. When choosing beef, do you look at the country of origin for that beef? [SA]

Q15. คณสนใจถงประเทศแหลงก ำเนดของเนอววหรอไม?

a. Yes ใช

b. No ไมใช

Q16. How much do you prefer imported beef to local beef?

Q16. คณสนใจรบประทำนเนอทมำจำกตำงประเทศมำกกวำเนอในประเทศมำกแคไหน?

I

prefer

local beef

I

prefer

imported

beef

Ref. code: 25605902040277ORC

62

1

1

2

2

3

3

4

4

5

5

6

6

7

7

Q17. Which beef country of origin have you ever tried? [MA]

Q17. คณเคยรบประทำนเนอววจำกประเทศใดบำง? [ตอบไดมำกกวำ 1 ขอ] a. Japan ประเทศญป น

b. Australia ประเทศออสเตรเลย c. New Zealand ประเทศนวซแลนด d. USA ประเทศสหรฐอเมรกำ e. South Korea ประเทศเกำหลใต f. European Union สหภำพยโรป

g. Thailand ประเทศไทย h. Brazil ประเทศบรำซล

Q18. In your opinion, please rank beef quality in terms of country of origin?

Q18. ในควำมคดเหนของคณ โปรดเรยงล ำดบคณภำพเนอววจำกแตละประเทศดำนลำง จำดคณภำพนอยทสด [1] ไปจนถง คณภำพสงทสด [7]

L

1-Low

Quality

2

2

3

4

4

5

6

6

H

7-High

Quality

J

Japan

ประเทศญป น

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

A

Australia

ประเทศออสเตรเลย

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

N

New

Zealand

ประเทศนวซแลนด

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Ref. code: 25605902040277ORC

63

U

USA ประเทศสหรฐอเมรกำ

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

S

South

Korea

ประเทศเกำหลใต

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

E

European

Union

สหภำพยโรป

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

T

Thailand

ประเทศไทย

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Average serving size of beef 250 gram

Figure 1: A typical beef steak for 1 serving size

Q19. At what price would you consider Beef to be too expensive to purchase? [SA]

Q19. รำคำใดทคณรสกวำสงเกนกวำทคณจะรบได?

a. 100

b. 300

Ref. code: 25605902040277ORC

64

c. 500

d. 700

e. 900

f. 1100

g. 1300

h. 1500

i. 1700

j. 1900

k. 2100

Q20. At what price would you consider Beef to be expensive, but you would still

consider buying it? [SA]

Q20. รำคำใดทคณรสกวำสงแตยงคงซอ?

a. 100

b. 300

c. 500

d. 700

e. 900

f. 1100

g. 1300

h. 1500

i. 1700

j. 1900

k. 2100

Q21. At what price would you consider Beef to be reasonable? [SA]

Q21. รำคำใดทคณรสกวำเหมำะสม?

a. 100

b. 300

c. 500

d. 700

e. 900

f. 1100

g. 1300

h. 1500

i. 1700

j. 1900

k. 2100

Ref. code: 25605902040277ORC

65

PART 5: Premium beef perception

Next, we would like to understand your opinion and attitude towards premium beef.

ตอไป เรำอยำกเขำใจควำมรสกของคณตอเนอววทมคณภำพ

In this survey, we will raise 3 types of quality beef

เนอววคณภำพในแบบส ำรวจน เรำจะยกขนมำ 3 ชนด

1. เนอวว ดรำย-เอจ Dry-Aged Beef

2. เนอวว ออแกรนค Organic Beef

3. เนอวว หมก Marinated Beef

Premium Beef Description

ค ำนยำมของเนอคณภำพสง

A. Dry-Aged Beef เนอดรำย-เอจ

เนอวว ดรำย เอจ คอเนอววทผำนกำรบมแหงเปนเวลำ-30 – 120 วน แลวแตผผลต ยงบมนำนยงมรสชำตทดมำกยงขน

ผลของกำรบมแหงคอ

A1. ควำมนมทเพมขน โดยกำรยอยสลำยไฟเบอรกลำมเนอโดย เอนไซม ทอยตำมธรรมชำตในเนอ

A2. รสชำตทเขมขนขน เนองจำกควำมชนทระเหยหำยไประหวำงกำรบมแหง

Beef preserved in a dry and chilled storage ranging from 30 – 120 days.

Changes in taste result from:

A1. Tenderization by natural beef enzymatic reaction breaking down meat muscle

fiber.

A2. Intensification of taste due to moisture loss.

B. Organic beef เนอออแกรนค

เนอวว ออแกรนค คอเนอววทไดรบกำรยนยนจำกสถำบนออแกรนควำววตวนนถกเลยงผำนเกณฑออแกรนค

B1. ววทเกดและเตบโตในฟำรมทผำนเกณฑออแกรนคตลอดระยะเวลำกำรเตบโตและเลยงแบบระบบเปด

Ref. code: 25605902040277ORC

66

B2. ไมไดรบยำปฏชวนะทเกนขนำด หรอ ฮอรโมนสงเสรมกำรเจรญเตบโต ตลอดระยะเวลำกำรเตบโต

B3. เลยงดวยอำหำรทผำนเกณฑออแกรนคตลอดระยะเวลำกำรเตบโต

Beef must be certified by organic institution by meeting the following criteria.

B1. Born and raised on certified organic pasture

B2. Never receive antibiotics or growth-promoting hormones

B3. Are fed only certified organic grains (corn is a grain) and grasses

Change in taste result from the criteria described above, taste is relative to non-

organic cattle.

C. Marinated beef: Beef is marinated and aged. เนอหมก

เนอวว หมก คอเนอววทผำนกระบวนกำรหมกเปยกกบวตถดบตำงๆ

C1. ควำมนนทเพมขน เนองจำกกำรหมกในซอสและสมนไพรหลำกชนด

C2. รสชำตทดขน เนองจำกกำรหมกในซอสและสมนไพรหลำกชนด

C3. รสชำตทเปนเอกลกษณ ตำงจำกเนอววทไมไดผำนกำรหมก

Change in taste result

C1. Ingredients used

C2. Type and amount of herb and sauce used in the marinate

C3. Time duration beef is in the marinate

Ref. code: 25605902040277ORC

67

Q22. Which of the following premium beef you aware or ever heard about? [MA]

Q22. เนอววคณภำพชนดใดบำงท คณทรำบหรอเคยไดยน?

a. Dry-Aged Beef เนอดรำย-เอจ b. Organic beef เนอออแกรนค

c. Marinated beef เนอหมก

Q23. Which of the following premium beef you have ever tried? [MA]

Q23. เนอววคณภำพชนดใดบำงท คณเคยไดลองรบประทำน?



Q24. How likely you try the following premium beef in the next 1 year? [MA]

Q24. คณคดวำคณจะมโอกำสไดลองเนอคณภำพชนดใดบำงตอไปนในอก 1 ปขำงหนำ?



Average serving size of beef 250 gram

Figure 1

DRY AGE BEEF

Figure 2

ORGANIC BEEF

Figure 3

MARINATED BEEF

Ref. code: 25605902040277ORC

68

Q25. At what price would you consider Premium Beef to be reasonable? [SA]

Q25. คณรสกวำเนอคณภำพรำคำใดจงเหมำะสม )ค ำตอบเดยวส ำหรบแตละขอควำม(

For Dry-Aged Beef

เนอดรำย-เอจ

For Organic beef

เนอออแกรนค

For Marinated beef

เนอหมก

a. 100

b. 300

c. 500

d. 700

e. 900

f. 1100

g. 1300

h. 1500

i. 1700

j. 1900

k. 2100

l. 100

m. 300

n. 500

o. 700

p. 900

q. 1100

r. 1300

s. 1500

t. 1700

u. 1900

v. 2100

w. 100

x. 300

y. 500

z. 700

aa. 900

bb. 1100

cc. 1300

dd. 1500

ee. 1700

ff. 1900

gg. 2100

Ref. code: 25605902040277ORC

69

PART 6: Psychological & Attitude Survey

Q26. To what extent do you agree on each following attribute? (single answer for

each attribute)

Q26. คณเหนดวยกบขอควำมดำนลำงมำกนอยเพยงใด )ค ำตอบเดยวส ำหรบแตละขอควำม(

Stron

gly

disag

ree

ไมเหน

ดวย

อยำงยง

Disag

ree

ไมเหน

ดวย

Sligh

tly

disag

ree

คอนขำง

ไมเหน

ดวย

Sligh

tly

agree

คอนขำง

เหนดวย

Agre

e

เหนดวย

Stron

gly

agree

เหนดวย

อยำงยง

I am a true beef lover

ฉนเปนคนรกเนอทแทจรง

1 2 3 4 5 6

I choose beef over any other

meat

ฉนเลอกรบประทำนเนอววเหนอเนออน ๆ

1 2 3 4 5 6

I have a lot of knowledge about

beef in general

ฉนมควำมรเกยวกบเนอววมำกกวำคนทวไป

1 2 3 4 5 6

I know all the cut of beef in

detail

ฉนรจกสวนตำงๆของเนอววโดยละเอยด

1 2 3 4 5 6

I know the quality of beef I

purchased or served

ฉนรถงคณภำพของเนอววทฉนจะซอหรอจะ

รบประทำน

1 2 3 4 5 6

I cook the beef by myself 1 2 3 4 5 6

Ref. code: 25605902040277ORC

70

ฉนเปนคนปรงและท ำเนอววดวยตวเอง

I believe Bangkok offers wide

variety of beef

ฉนเชอวำกรงเทพฯมเนอววทหลำกหลำย

ใหบรกำร

1 2 3 4 5 6

I believe Bangkok offers beef

at a reasonable price

ผมเชอวำกรงเทพฯมเนอในรำคำทเหมำะสม

1 2 3 4 5 6

I prefer to consume high-

quality beef

ฉนชอบบรโภคเนอววทมคณภำพสง

1 2 3 4 5 6

My friend view at me as a beef

expert and always ask for my

recommendation

เพอนของฉนเหนฉนเปนผเชยวชำญดำนเนอวว

และมกจะขอค ำแนะน ำจำกฉน

1 2 3 4 5 6

PART 7: Health Concerns

Q27. Do you think consuming beef has an association to risk of short term health

disease? [SA]

Q27. คณคดวำกำรรบประทำนเนอววมสวนเกยวของกบปญหำสขภำพระยะสนหรอไม (ค ำตอบเดยว) a. Yes ใช

b. No ไมใช

Q28. If research shows that consuming beef is associated with short-term health risk,

which of the following would you think is likely to occur? [MA]

Q28. ถำกำรวจยแสดงวำมสวนเกยวของกบปญหำสขภำพระยะสน คณคดวำเกยวของกบโรคสขภำยใดบำง (หลำยค ำตอบ)

Obesity โรคอวน

Ref. code: 25605902040277ORC

71

a. High blood cholesterol โรคไขมนในเลอดสง b. High blood pressure โรคควำมดนสง c. Indigestion โรคทองผก

d. Diarrhea โรคทองเสย e. Food poisoning โรคอำหำรเปนพษ

Q29. Do you think consuming beef has an association to risk of long term health

disease? [SA]

Q29. คณคดวำกำรรบประทำนเนอววมสวนเกยวของกบปญหำสขภำพระยะยำวหรอไม (ค ำตอบเดยว) a. Yes ใช

b. No ไมใช

Q30. If research shows that consuming beef is associated with long-term health risk,

which of the following would you think is likely to occur? [MA]

Q30. ถำกำรวจยแสดงวำมสวนเกยวของกบปญหำสขภำพระยะยำว คณคดวำเกยวของกบโรคสขภำยใดบำง (หลำยค ำตอบ)

a. Obesity โรคอวน

b. Colorectal Cancer โรคมะเรงล ำไส c. Heart disease โรคหวใจ d. Stroke โรคเสนเลอดในสมองอดตน

e. Liver disease โรคตบ

PART 8: Demographic Survey

D1. (Q31) Where do you live? (SA)

D1. (Q31) กรณำเลอกจงหวด ทคณอำศยอย )ค ำตอบเดยว(

a. Bangkok กรงเทพ

b. Nonthaburi นนทบร c. Samut Prakarn สมทรปรำกำร d. Samut Sakhon สมทรสำคร e. Pathum Thani ปทมธำน

D2. (Q32) What is your gender? (SA)

D2. (Q32) กรณำระบเพศ )ค ำตอบเดยว(

a. Male ชำย b. Female หญง

Ref. code: 25605902040277ORC

72

D3. (Q33) What is your age? (SA)

D3. (Q33) คณอำยเทำไหร )ค ำตอบเดยว(

a. 18 – 25

b. 26 – 30

c. 31 – 35

d. 36 – 40

e. 41 – 45

f. 46 – 50

g. 51 – 55

h. 56 – 60

i. Over 60

D4. (Q34) What is your highest education? (SA)

D4. (Q34) ขอทรำบระดบกำรศกษำขนสงสดของคณ )ค ำตอบเดยว(

Highschool or below ไมไดรบกำรศกษำเลย

a. Primary Education ประถมศกษำ b. Secondary Education (Junior) มธยมศกษำตอนตน

c. Secondary Education (Senior) มธยมศกษำตอนปลำย d. Vocational School ปวช./ ปวส.

e. Bachelor’s Degree ปรญญำตร f. Master’s Degree or above ปรญญำโท หรอสงกวำ

D5. (Q35) What is your monthly income? (SA)

D5. (Q35) ครอบครวของคณมรำยไดโดยเฉลย เดอนละเทำไร ) รำยไดครอบครว หมำยถง รำยไดของสมำชกทหำ / มรำยได

แลว ทกคนรวมกน และสมำชกในครอบครวตองพกอยในบำนเดยวกนอยำงนอย 5 คนตออำทตย ) (ค ำตอบเดยว(

a. 10,000 บำท หรอนอยกวำ b. 10,001 - 18,000 บำท

c. 18,001 - 24,000 บำท

d. 24,001 - 35,000 บำท

e. 35,001 - 50,000 บำท

f. 50,001 - 70,000 บำท

g. 70,001 - 160,000 บำท

h. มำกกวำ 160,000 บำท

END OF SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE

สนสดค ำถำม

Ref. code: 25605902040277ORC

73

BIOGRAPHY

Name Mr. Trit Siriporntanakul

Date of Birth June 27, 1991

Educational Attainment

2010 - 2013: Bachelor of Science in

Biotechnology (University College London)

Ref. code: 25605902040277ORC

A study of perception towards high-quality beef and ...

Documents

Transcript of A study of perception towards high-quality beef and ...