<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<collection xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim http://www.loc.gov/standards/marcxml/schema/MARC21slim.xsd" xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim">
 <record>
  <leader>00000nam a22000004a 4500</leader>
  <controlfield tag="001">UP-1685594773860413566</controlfield>
  <controlfield tag="003">Buklod</controlfield>
  <controlfield tag="005">20240117100957.0</controlfield>
  <controlfield tag="006">t     r    |||| u|</controlfield>
  <controlfield tag="007">ta</controlfield>
  <controlfield tag="008">240117s2023    xx     grb    00| 0     d</controlfield>
  <datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
   <subfield code="a">DCHE</subfield>
   <subfield code="e">rda</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
   <subfield code="a">eng</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="042" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
   <subfield code="a">DMLUC</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="090" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
   <subfield code="a">LG 993.5 2023 F66</subfield>
   <subfield code="b">B36</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" ">
   <subfield code="a">Banawa, Roselle Niña F.</subfield>
   <subfield code="e">author.</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0">
   <subfield code="a">Consumer behavior towards rabbit meat and its potential as pork alternative </subfield>
   <subfield code="c">Roselle Niña F. Banawa.</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="0">
   <subfield code="a">Quezon City</subfield>
   <subfield code="b">College of Home Economics, University of the Philippines Diliman</subfield>
   <subfield code="c">2023.</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="300" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
   <subfield code="a">xiii, 58 leaves</subfield>
   <subfield code="b">illustrations</subfield>
   <subfield code="c">28 cm.</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
   <subfield code="a">text</subfield>
   <subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
   <subfield code="a">unmediated</subfield>
   <subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
   <subfield code="a">volume</subfield>
   <subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="502" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
   <subfield code="a">Thesis</subfield>
   <subfield code="b">Bachelor of Science in Food Technology</subfield>
   <subfield code="c">University of the Philippines Diliman</subfield>
   <subfield code="d">2023.</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="504" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
   <subfield code="a">Includes bibliographical references (pages 30-35)</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="506" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
   <subfield code="a">Thesis classification: P</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="520" ind1="3" ind2=" ">
   <subfield code="a">The study aimed to determine the consumer behavior towards rabbit meat (RM) and its potential as a pork alternative through online and traditional surveys. Regular meat consumers (n=247) from Batangas aged 20-59 yrs old were surveyed regarding: (1) consumer knowledge about RM, (2) drivers of and (3) deterrents to RM consumption, (4) perception of RM compared to pork, (5) meat quality preferences (MP), (6) intentions to purchase RM as pork alternative (IP), and (6) suggestions to boost the local RM market. Frequency analysis showed that curiosity, health benefits, and recommendation from others mainly encourage RM consumption, whereas rabbit’s pet image, high cost, and unavailability inhibit its consumption. Using a 5-pt Likert Scale, five meat qualities such as (1) healthiness, (2) taste, (3) price, (4) tenderness, and (5) leanness were determined to be important in buying meat (from 1 = not important to 5 = extremely important) and the respondents are willing to purchase RM as pork alternative based on these characteristics (from 1 = extremely unwilling to 5 = extremely willing). RM was perceived to be as healthy as pork, but is less tasty, leaner, more expensive and more tender based on a 3-pt scale. In addition, MP was positively associated with IP for all the attributes (.41 &lt; rs &lt; .55, p &lt; .05). Household income was also significantly related with IP in terms of healthiness (rs = .15, p &lt; .05). Knowledge scores (62.75-83.81% correct rate) had a weak, positive association with education (rs = .21, p &lt; .05). To uplift the local RM market, the respondents proposed to promote its nutritional benefits, give free tastes, and raise awareness about rabbits as a food to address their usual pet image. These findings on the current status of Batangas consumers can aid both private and public entities in managing the country’s RM.</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="0">
   <subfield code="a">Rabbit meat</subfield>
   <subfield code="z">Philippines.</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="0">
   <subfield code="a">Rabbit meat industry</subfield>
   <subfield code="z">Philippines.</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="0">
   <subfield code="a">Meat industry and trade</subfield>
   <subfield code="z">Philippines.</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="0">
   <subfield code="a">Consumer behavior </subfield>
   <subfield code="z">Philippines.</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="0">
   <subfield code="a">Consumers' preferences  </subfield>
   <subfield code="z">Philippines.</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" ">
   <subfield code="a">Pagulayan, Jin Mark DG.</subfield>
   <subfield code="e">thesis adviser.</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="905" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
   <subfield code="a">FI</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="905" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
   <subfield code="a">UP</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="852" ind1="0" ind2=" ">
   <subfield code="a">UPD</subfield>
   <subfield code="b">DCHE</subfield>
   <subfield code="h">LG 993.5 2023 F66</subfield>
   <subfield code="i">B36</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="942" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
   <subfield code="a">Thesis</subfield>
  </datafield>
 </record>
</collection>
