<%BANNER%>

Evaluation of Consumer Preferences Regarding Goat Meat in Florida

xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID E20101130_AAAADG INGEST_TIME 2010-11-30T17:50:44Z PACKAGE UFE0010284_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES
FILE SIZE 24403 DFID F20101130_AACCRH ORIGIN DEPOSITOR PATH knight_e_Page_027.QC.jpg GLOBAL false PRESERVATION BIT MESSAGE_DIGEST ALGORITHM MD5
92b4759bdaea60c7be927a52979e2f4b
SHA-1
47ae2d62e9f4216c325e587b7b7f56b3f5349188
22820 F20101130_AACCQS knight_e_Page_019.QC.jpg
bf46f28f234152cf504eb79f7c560ed4
cf9f4cb4f68604b0658551efbb9c9e467e35fc57
6653 F20101130_AACCRI knight_e_Page_027thm.jpg
a4e2f3a9ee1f674784db58ed7e09cc79
fd761be33f7e0b3aedfba3a1954c591da9851486
6462 F20101130_AACCQT knight_e_Page_019thm.jpg
8acd0fc5dc57670374a0ca7a6b9f5261
9d59908e579b175d118b234c6d9d9b94b8e11429
14547 F20101130_AACCRJ knight_e_Page_028.QC.jpg
f0009e6da5c76d9439ccfb805e853ed5
30b9ccde4f2fb9f54cd8e491f461bb3af4148225
4045 F20101130_AACCQU knight_e_Page_020.QC.jpg
724ac6d3e1eb5edaf3ba0037f1cc56b3
595fc1b06f2c48316ed51c2a268303e07f6bd29d
4257 F20101130_AACCRK knight_e_Page_028thm.jpg
33f6aae4ce8754b645c1a722bc9ea144
f09f89a8f86aeb7f3614051b126c055f8e6c4fbf
1549 F20101130_AACCQV knight_e_Page_020thm.jpg
4735fccdc836e3bf43c91bca71c13d86
5d6aae3c5caa42cdf88698e82d898f4c43190afe
20375 F20101130_AACCRL knight_e_Page_029.QC.jpg
6242c264ba685dd4788ebd5d1326e681
329dc2372118b8d3dfc615865bf9449d45a865e0
21172 F20101130_AACCQW knight_e_Page_021.QC.jpg
adb4b5d1958dc454cdc52368c9f7c0d4
7ec03c299288d3da8e5375b70d6574372de1bedb
23258 F20101130_AACCRM knight_e_Page_030.QC.jpg
f69a5b0ed6a11b0f10b5e7382c095b3b
f65aa98dd06e9499010267cf6d26367cf802fea4
5975 F20101130_AACCQX knight_e_Page_021thm.jpg
19b1de911bd63b19e0dea6b54ea7f78b
5b417b8b431dbb5d030ff4bfc7db15816d46fd0f
5416 F20101130_AACCSA knight_e_Page_038thm.jpg
2f1e0ec0181a9cbf510d989bbfa72474
adbd7d3444279770659a42e542648c9e4fab357a
6366 F20101130_AACCRN knight_e_Page_030thm.jpg
2272059ed4a4874cfc7d5007698fa287
03e782493a88b03addcc3301a82b213d5c10405d
22548 F20101130_AACCQY knight_e_Page_022.QC.jpg
fb14d0d10fc759fe21cfcb93331b93f7
3f790cae5d551b5d35fa900fb3e526e8926dc94d
23419 F20101130_AACCSB knight_e_Page_039.QC.jpg
aa49c00a6a2ac3494205adda9b0fa304
5900979873a1c4c4c4959c195a0b6d80a26139e9
22271 F20101130_AACCRO knight_e_Page_031.QC.jpg
46a0f4bc75054720914461b75d3a9956
533ee2223ab57c1b3e3fc02bace1c7bf6326c19d
6421 F20101130_AACCQZ knight_e_Page_022thm.jpg
43fbe8ee1f5c1f135bd63f74b3b9d64e
bfb89ee60d4cea55048b273afd838b20339d2365
6378 F20101130_AACCSC knight_e_Page_039thm.jpg
261a5d9ee5c2e5c2a64278d2b3ea2c8e
0f946c952420f4f877fea8fd2b2df60e9ec7cf4c
6404 F20101130_AACCRP knight_e_Page_031thm.jpg
65623c0d7f57a58b6789aa9e78df4edb
2914cf0f4476d2b73fba08ee4275e579e7886ec8
14527 F20101130_AACCSD knight_e_Page_040.QC.jpg
ec1f09b6f63101f3fef99aa8713b10d8
191c82f8817aafc10aa780cf2256fb151e709e16
23610 F20101130_AACCRQ knight_e_Page_032.QC.jpg
57fd8667b1673b26d3080eb18b20b873
0f950ae31637ce0b87ecde252c8bcbce0a4f4754
4554 F20101130_AACCSE knight_e_Page_040thm.jpg
75faeeff55412480af3d83cc99636255
9a7cd18bbd68f0e745a8bd2e2f43a2a8860e6a2c
6454 F20101130_AACCRR knight_e_Page_032thm.jpg
1f25b011c6055459c6e06269fdbf16b1
8de941c67557ceee197c67c0864bbcf936eb70b5
21794 F20101130_AACCSF knight_e_Page_041.QC.jpg
dd445f05c283214ea1334e0aba24a880
a8e7d29c4e7ba5e0cebe01308d3cf6066f7f2b19
5997 F20101130_AACCSG knight_e_Page_041thm.jpg
8f31571c5bc6ec3f77d750db68f46cf8
aa83a1f1f9a56f9e91ebeacf26229667f02dc628
22610 F20101130_AACCRS knight_e_Page_033.QC.jpg
b920e88514e836105470c4bedce8d35c
30251d98b29b10bf0833cad9c68e0122f1bf469b
19568 F20101130_AACCSH knight_e_Page_042.QC.jpg
e13571027a9966213c6d58a9c390b3c6
9d6d1fd18424f5ef2f161487ddcb2b58f4cf9120
6392 F20101130_AACCRT knight_e_Page_033thm.jpg
9b9a2624bdfbb9a6ad07ee84e2ebe063
67ba2dde798042345c0e68cd8eab9526d23a987a
5560 F20101130_AACCSI knight_e_Page_042thm.jpg
e0dacbd13ceeeb0b16a3a45eb164d1e7
93616414ff03ed37e6ab09aadaca554174ac775f
22392 F20101130_AACCSJ knight_e_Page_043.QC.jpg
061baa380631845e767577f7d34b86b3
b4161331802c3aa08f0936757ab8349140a5da1a
21195 F20101130_AACCRU knight_e_Page_034.QC.jpg
e289c0182aec29df761f7a047e08a189
4ac2e455428e5fd1755abe58d8e0845e22a52c63
6381 F20101130_AACCSK knight_e_Page_043thm.jpg
6171a86fb25a2324fe690137c4121536
d70fc64417b827dce0fb20ea111bd3d5aa1b31be
6036 F20101130_AACCRV knight_e_Page_034thm.jpg
b5dd944491f08c5786b19a8e9617ce4d
4e450c819e24faacce68867bf670c9b809f0d8e6
20186 F20101130_AACCSL knight_e_Page_044.QC.jpg
38a69b5baf1e9014a51807203908921c
1d44261f7fab961ae063388c9f309fc7cbf06148
6606 F20101130_AACCRW knight_e_Page_035thm.jpg
5428d04254be1e398f50fe9c0a964640
cbbfbaa5c2ae53acbd6f1aa1da45ab9752d1517b
6558 F20101130_AACCTA knight_e_Page_053thm.jpg
96744d07d6cf4c38fa4cb22b3c042295
d936c18c5d5d284f4ab9948939dd8aa5f56b361e
5785 F20101130_AACCSM knight_e_Page_044thm.jpg
9c06fdb838da635c491440465ca8eb0a
22e509dba09df6423b9277921177a8851a60d8cb
22928 F20101130_AACCRX knight_e_Page_036.QC.jpg
c1e7b621d6dbb76898c4bfd0e51650ab
09b0126a3bed0d80720ce61d24f8ad713de63437
22822 F20101130_AACCTB knight_e_Page_054.QC.jpg
c93a8fc96b19dcdf19f99b579fb4d0e0
2c8c2ad7c4e522b39f79eb8a8b06443fad5a29b8
6536 F20101130_AACCSN knight_e_Page_045thm.jpg
21a7c714e23ebfb078f0332d5d060f94
99ab4ea15e9873768b055dd2d4e1895cbe0c5d75
6453 F20101130_AACCRY knight_e_Page_036thm.jpg
dce8ec72134a082c224a18d0f0ab4fd2
8bd6ab1da21f1bd021043cfd35185f0642f94731
6281 F20101130_AACCTC knight_e_Page_054thm.jpg
54656ae64cc58c4ce762180916d1bc0b
a4049151f764c3cf3ec45ac722ad794cb59524ac
23818 F20101130_AACCSO knight_e_Page_046.QC.jpg
d62cb01524384823bdd23e77421e67ba
71e5b0029638827808d7b1bf6a480a84fc0e4444
5347 F20101130_AACCRZ knight_e_Page_037thm.jpg
c4bdc4341ed3a78a68c4b292910aac71
ef4230e4c1635f4100031c3fe078d80eed876c75
5805 F20101130_AACCTD knight_e_Page_055thm.jpg
099a345c91724705a4ccc5225181430f
dff5d564035f58c3a2763c399a03e5b0c017d8de
6715 F20101130_AACCSP knight_e_Page_046thm.jpg
18110a196133f56ce09aeaad9acdb81e
db647cb6ce95c05fe78ce5f2aebc8fc37eae1866
16126 F20101130_AACCTE knight_e_Page_056.QC.jpg
a363764202709d2a8832bb8ff7b1ed1c
fc09bf9081113b1e690eb3c9c538ea8e1b844383
21996 F20101130_AACCSQ knight_e_Page_047.QC.jpg
c10e0ba834e804b021bdc6577537b3da
59c743339c78ad3f273c50ace586f2bace4f6f4c
4829 F20101130_AACCTF knight_e_Page_056thm.jpg
8d4ce90ec1b17c714496ab84c2141d30
b9b6ada365935c3181fd3da00ca562d3ccc006d4
F20101130_AACCSR knight_e_Page_047thm.jpg
d04eae59cd456f96ee231a2746df55f1
a707389458a5fc4865dfdbdafdbf8f0acb086b0f
23549 F20101130_AACCTG knight_e_Page_057.QC.jpg
58a6bddca45f92c9be31c5ac7d122fb8
55f2e8dda9c61f65a6418cce96df1633618f2e84
6825 F20101130_AACCSS knight_e_Page_048.QC.jpg
542ef1be7b7bf361ba56e914cd8bc53c
a32c8270a93c7bfc2b71e05254ffcb78f126f3e5
6556 F20101130_AACCTH knight_e_Page_057thm.jpg
88ae1cacbb27ac6a0dab88ac69df78b5
3291a4aace2fa43457d7996d5b89824cd5b2f76d
22061 F20101130_AACCTI knight_e_Page_058.QC.jpg
6699b6708ee19c95ca5b14e5e0007755
9f8539934eede59356f18b715c25e08d301f8013
2305 F20101130_AACCST knight_e_Page_048thm.jpg
0f5ea5e46b19f02043d60ba11728cdcc
627a3ffdb3551c3185d1ccff5290c7a1cd9c7585
6534 F20101130_AACCTJ knight_e_Page_058thm.jpg
9157577934bf988fe427382b6092e448
b76ceb9f81bcb7f90317358730599175d21bc90f
18464 F20101130_AACCSU knight_e_Page_049.QC.jpg
8823d711fc1b824d586e12b6e764d378
d516efd2a08add35809bd2ea94c7c8f5d9a46393
20705 F20101130_AACCTK knight_e_Page_059.QC.jpg
8740c635dc896adc308fa3d5a31bf6e8
64aa85e77616de155a60a43ddbd9b5107c027e62
20272 F20101130_AACCSV knight_e_Page_050.QC.jpg
5c666f03cccb91ec09369f197f711eed
425437068ff11755ea51d2644928ec2ae8186be0
5789 F20101130_AACCTL knight_e_Page_059thm.jpg
ce1e4679281318eafefb4ceb7d37ce17
19b01dfe16bf26dd03b2568d0964f800de4d58fe
5600 F20101130_AACCSW knight_e_Page_050thm.jpg
81301701af5f06c5cb2e41b4267d19e6
5ea7a035794a6e6fc0a1eecdfb789bf21c8cc40f
24361 F20101130_AACCTM knight_e_Page_060.QC.jpg
3d8c54d70d4bdf3e52b769cf3e4ae794
71bbeb9731f309d112328258a9efcc8acd4ea578
4941 F20101130_AACCSX knight_e_Page_051thm.jpg
5c7ebcf561fe2f4ac6e75449ac8a5f59
7b9d06c85510ff477d02d92da2aa11ac48b66c3d
3159 F20101130_AACCUA knight_e_Page_068thm.jpg
b08088a5495655420a6ff6217edca094
bf25a50c8cd63f49b7910574e60fe7ba08f103fe
22294 F20101130_AACCTN knight_e_Page_061.QC.jpg
7c152177b50356f6dccf76e95483715b
2119b278612e87c4e8513ecee5958f009b39c9a8
23588 F20101130_AACCSY knight_e_Page_052.QC.jpg
fe8d8d0a924ac976e088f80feb69c839
234985d37f63a91397d7b39d8ac7e417c064a9e2
9981 F20101130_AACCUB knight_e_Page_069.QC.jpg
3694d8ece1a882a119b2dfb6f6cacb3a
d64021e5120d631912dee546134ba68986b97fb8
6330 F20101130_AACCTO knight_e_Page_061thm.jpg
c79af0b78f51d89056c52c3fb88a45a2
dc02bdbf633ef0daa7bd2f767d10b5e62c85ea99
6541 F20101130_AACCSZ knight_e_Page_052thm.jpg
b6264232d02c387fb1ee5d9932dd851a
06af2941a1842c7cfedeff1f259add655ee9d162
3290 F20101130_AACCUC knight_e_Page_069thm.jpg
efe156d9f261cf81ba219ef00c7f5926
b8b0777886b4b5fca2f98106aad54315b54ad415
23540 F20101130_AACCTP knight_e_Page_062.QC.jpg
85daf02eda6252cdb5de7a53d2196a26
c46fd741a99b163d44ccbaccb5ba4597cf770439
11580 F20101130_AACCUD knight_e_Page_070.QC.jpg
8d5070f1080a6c4396291d8552a83c65
335570e203c4b384e30854151bf2fd3da4704e68
23978 F20101130_AACCTQ knight_e_Page_063.QC.jpg
b0b68c3986164d337631cee086361fa5
7bc3bc455ba419f59ec2c0b0f31284689918d5a8
13545 F20101130_AACCUE knight_e_Page_071.QC.jpg
fcb901b3daa914500ed9eb103c6d6d9b
1d5ca4a8be0da1b0d5acb8046b8b55abe3e40968
6661 F20101130_AACCTR knight_e_Page_063thm.jpg
1cb6abf7cceceaeaa2418fd0645e925a
67d8e92a8c49dd3bf73e9b25591ffc3e7dee08f7
4001 F20101130_AACCUF knight_e_Page_071thm.jpg
6d27bc7ff59b2948e7a7f98006009be9
ce5ca7aa5dea55e56dcb474bd5944f960f391849
21936 F20101130_AACCTS knight_e_Page_064.QC.jpg
84a395243b03332257da03928a6a3017
4b409e409b6ff8246970e6893b7ade48aeea4e74
10693 F20101130_AACCUG knight_e_Page_072.QC.jpg
dc06d7b392ecc5cc7bb920e31be96706
5776031bcc44278e2bf6ed5c13d48511354dd76c
6364 F20101130_AACCTT knight_e_Page_064thm.jpg
f2af8ce1af5fed2b90834cb5228fcddd
d9bf449ac5e38b894e4829f7e1d9787af4a200c8
3223 F20101130_AACCUH knight_e_Page_072thm.jpg
90d914b45e4092705f4e0fe0d1c76efd
18a82b753ca7a4fbeaf002b15087018878dafdb5
11333 F20101130_AACCUI knight_e_Page_073.QC.jpg
913b597aaf0f710e5a15a04f87a82f77
9c57e3de1038a0fbfd314b1194c2fd94e8196071
4393 F20101130_AACCTU knight_e_Page_065.QC.jpg
0842cdfd92a54e55ab6c05d648108f07
2b0139778e0a26c3bf73ee215a9cdcea7621cec4
3445 F20101130_AACCUJ knight_e_Page_073thm.jpg
fb9585677370c7ce7494ab0d8e8aac50
9c6ebd88b1607f7f8517253d8d15232f41542ca7
1628 F20101130_AACCTV knight_e_Page_065thm.jpg
97e95bbd27d03dbb5a19cd9737642aa5
478f9b836c35279677c192777bd191c6aa1efc99
11156 F20101130_AACCUK knight_e_Page_074.QC.jpg
56d07226459cce16f2f09dfd24b52bb0
59deff917bbedab06035193c0716c158f5929db4
20116 F20101130_AACCTW knight_e_Page_066.QC.jpg
a8b83858f6030c669cb2b2fb100f624b
ab2274f1585ae26b45e98788b44a36d770a54204
11829 F20101130_AACCUL knight_e_Page_075.QC.jpg
e80736f290071b4dd64d5757750d1b73
330414b3fe12874b605339df6f31606ec296a0a2
5937 F20101130_AACCTX knight_e_Page_066thm.jpg
8123f91d8c64b1440b0b15e501308edf
b7190a4890cb4c77d71fea556f5adb78e14ff648
4073 F20101130_AACCVA knight_e_Page_086thm.jpg
6e08b3753268c449056e1b5755e524a0
840d4b8ba2c54778f9224d2361090b167f3ab914
14045 F20101130_AACCUM knight_e_Page_076.QC.jpg
b72d25cf7bdfdc88cc167f7e0be914f9
78b6e8accbe87c530822989e1f56910efb750224
3671 F20101130_AACCTY knight_e_Page_067thm.jpg
254d3dda6f29ce702b89a65ce045733e
73b5eda555f3b0ec92be3dc2fc88016f3d0cdf58
11977 F20101130_AACCVB knight_e_Page_087.QC.jpg
393d7ab9fc9259f140dbcc9e2b7a8272
c9cb1a94904fd785f28bf00c72ba068fe987d9cb
4107 F20101130_AACCUN knight_e_Page_076thm.jpg
ab5b70e516ba2ff88c6f81da596efcde
5f07744d04484a6b37742720d8c3c6432d1e6b51
10633 F20101130_AACCTZ knight_e_Page_068.QC.jpg
89a428634083363cd0c0c61326d6f9d9
b6696cc47fbcf86777d44e0e4b23d270c86ad2a8
3680 F20101130_AACCVC knight_e_Page_087thm.jpg
ee89564fcf41bc99449d89e777d6ade8
8e1cf8f1bf4d3d5e5b7c6bd2c1f11480c7a723f1
13708 F20101130_AACCUO knight_e_Page_078.QC.jpg
e792ce462cdeb4e0f342155615c7e830
719e1ff997f72c9ec0fcc6c7b916bf0e9493eebf
14493 F20101130_AACCVD knight_e_Page_089.QC.jpg
37a936db4dcb1d5cb37d781de89ce8d3
0d4ea9549f8f957c8abb729cd1920613f7235530
3992 F20101130_AACCUP knight_e_Page_078thm.jpg
297c7a9d60f37b7e211dd35e73bf1540
f86deebda443b473d32cea8f35d375b5e73f819e
4285 F20101130_AACCVE knight_e_Page_089thm.jpg
3eeebcb1390849073163d6d0c93275b0
0cacec800f92bc0ec5252f9a18e7e04b6f0f40ba
14569 F20101130_AACCUQ knight_e_Page_079.QC.jpg
ac1922b803a78d3d4acff7674e21c3ae
78e6ce89722674ce560f546ad8902c99be85e4f1
6290 F20101130_AACCVF knight_e_Page_090.QC.jpg
66a1cd868ae37c81aa15357e858b9686
41f43b4cc895c8c6fbc85557bf859b6a7e24e6ae
4549 F20101130_AACCUR knight_e_Page_079thm.jpg
305983e49eba1b36139ffe17ba454a38
95990439de0aa6c439aaaa5d8b0f5332c5a0a2b8
2170 F20101130_AACCVG knight_e_Page_090thm.jpg
617bf99af0a18f4025cbd0209e89ddc7
de027e5a672d087d57744723be56fee59e022df6
14094 F20101130_AACCUS knight_e_Page_081.QC.jpg
b27b7d3021ef9076a488c2c39788d367
0443b7ce1c9331b4e9b2ca8cbe41548c19b809bc
4536 F20101130_AACCVH knight_e_Page_091thm.jpg
e7627a9cc9a35aa1feaef118f551dd40
413d1e40f2ec109f2cf630221309864309d67fc9
4015 F20101130_AACCUT knight_e_Page_081thm.jpg
307ea012f0bbff9364bbe807b1b19177
a16bcf2bd1436eddb52cef3a178dd293cb30e39b
13246 F20101130_AACCVI knight_e_Page_092.QC.jpg
85e1900c979be1bcb5d031b5ca7af2c1
73b6e4113774e3dd6ba586f7f90d5aac0f99b1f6
3867 F20101130_AACCUU knight_e_Page_082thm.jpg
e2fdea111b2bee7af330f9a511e9e803
8b189035c669ff325f3e815b64c765d840b630df
4576 F20101130_AACCVJ knight_e_Page_092thm.jpg
12183f14f74c863a0d52b276922b3f32
3ccdb946b0fa09a4e7d06b39cf21255844aee709
14284 F20101130_AACCVK knight_e_Page_093.QC.jpg
47d784c3d62bebb3c9d97bc51f558564
25bc3d5eb8ca71f55efed2a68676f8e4960cdffb
13803 F20101130_AACCUV knight_e_Page_083.QC.jpg
331d6f57553a0a3709708b83c6611ede
c084df5bf4aaba77a6e60e062172874d91a2f027
4531 F20101130_AACCVL knight_e_Page_093thm.jpg
25ab4f36b5d2903f4db6b24e62fd745d
5793a7da192dce9e391e9446e307f6dd6f647274
10203 F20101130_AACCUW knight_e_Page_084.QC.jpg
a01e7ab53e38ae11eb0b597c5d2b946c
14195c75b4743de2a2da4c9d0dbf4f9fdb0bb86f
7823 F20101130_AACCVM knight_e_Page_094.QC.jpg
88c7203657c7f67b57935e69108958be
86bf0e41c6dd00376db3e32e1ba6f81ba02ae999
16761 F20101130_AACCUX knight_e_Page_085.QC.jpg
5fbf3f3c44317a7f665f37483d279847
def88fc69a1064124aaa4e0394bcb395903d7224
2618 F20101130_AACCVN knight_e_Page_094thm.jpg
2289fe565700be397ef233b0ab9e8a73
87b168833d4528de4f98c8307ce4a7f9333af1e3
5174 F20101130_AACCUY knight_e_Page_085thm.jpg
d8177d75a810d0e9c9db5124a1d0d929
28229719a0c4fbe26c4b32b7283c88923b512997
24121 F20101130_AACCVO knight_e_Page_095.QC.jpg
698f2702ae2a30c344433735f91df1a3
41c98b2526195b2b80117dda7dbb0877670c161f
12510 F20101130_AACCUZ knight_e_Page_086.QC.jpg
cbb078ff7e6ff4894837598be4428935
5d73fa9a239a682f55e04d2a64d825a1f9ec65d8
6436 F20101130_AACCVP knight_e_Page_095thm.jpg
1cd0fd930f497a28d44c0db3a96966d0
97061ff3ab117b70d0484b173ccf49138439a999
6597 F20101130_AACCVQ knight_e_Page_096thm.jpg
dce3612fdc0b25e82dfea33923fc9a54
93f330cfd4f138258cd4e5a7d0b1f069b0b62273
24577 F20101130_AACCVR knight_e_Page_098.QC.jpg
e53e290339a64b02156500b2f5545a8a
a13dd16132c39bd2dfeda31594c3110d85e5e71f
6790 F20101130_AACCVS knight_e_Page_098thm.jpg
de0a1e87bc9c4834e00e5e8df3dad5d1
8c2454dbb6207ed8126cfc104df96bea97f58207
7436 F20101130_AACCVT knight_e_Page_099.QC.jpg
395c8888335e1ac71afc0fb7ddbc1ed9
64395fd858c921627056cef6ea1fc622f46c1084
2584 F20101130_AACCVU knight_e_Page_099thm.jpg
9cf5ef98ce96dd576645618ecad0e2c6
71af2ed3e4c266d17f05ce43f10121b287751f4d
7045 F20101130_AACCVV knight_e_Page_100.QC.jpg
c412e3d985da5d23d0cbba6fd4d5a635
9ba2e1464f55a64f76cf946555e3e38dbdd84c95
2218 F20101130_AACCVW knight_e_Page_100thm.jpg
5b670c4888b03dbcb1490252630da63f
4af211777bb176d02eb6d84a25d2c00672d784da
116385 F20101130_AACCVX UFE0010284_00001.mets FULL
234def8581ee56e624a9a70e434ded3a
0ebf682ccd3fc3e2aa729739b47a3c580d5d0890
75874 F20101130_AACCAA knight_e_Page_016.jpg
8af14d6d4e3df7d9f6807c4ed190fd26
741826dbf940deeaec5078d9565a204c5d5454b5
72969 F20101130_AACCAB knight_e_Page_017.jpg
79b66bee40164d11fce1b7389c185571
04c740dfc520ab50ef842628b1f638aafab8954b
66855 F20101130_AACCAC knight_e_Page_018.jpg
40d8cbd7ae75b3d0c883894b3e116424
b6a1d293fed5d8af2217a5d9940c46c9834be0ba
72874 F20101130_AACCAD knight_e_Page_019.jpg
e7ae802c186dbdea5377f2983a4c84f3
2ee40d944de3f6d7fc76ccb7bf1d45ba52ace3f2
12165 F20101130_AACCAE knight_e_Page_020.jpg
16624d8df160183d4380d350356b8fb3
05698f38919f36a38f2e3de08eb16c3710b74a5f
65598 F20101130_AACCAF knight_e_Page_021.jpg
d75246649d40ad3ce39e96d8052e380c
b5362cfcd09661ccf16ddc79ef64e145d39786e1
110528 F20101130_AACBVA knight_e_Page_014.jp2
f94b3b3aed014c98ba3ba602f8cae760
e27c3784e5fa9d2bf40ebd418c7e1199cdff1c87
69796 F20101130_AACCAG knight_e_Page_022.jpg
a054b3702081d78b4a7d140f48388564
71a5b4f1d5210f366763c891fede4e96c1a2b8aa
74455 F20101130_AACBVB knight_e_Page_027.jpg
ca986dad57400048c861d9ebb8708993
b1e71c2d0968576d92da5140780e5af2f1c5a08c
71742 F20101130_AACCAH knight_e_Page_023.jpg
f1f1989643ed74ce1fdf8e48b7aa5f6b
55676d0824899f33d58cb9342769c3bac669c33d
1798 F20101130_AACBVC knight_e_Page_049.txt
9d5385c6734784bad7d8108dbd11a311
71e09761ab54b414f84a2e514a02fab428728fbc
72316 F20101130_AACCAI knight_e_Page_025.jpg
65e1d389053b3b69da9422a32959cac1
63fa1fe990e695615861ea44d0079944da4bce45
13359 F20101130_AACBVD knight_e_Page_077.QC.jpg
2f82249a448684407b6af6697a351f85
3d6139266fa8047151cff01a9e7c147ddb8bf4d5
70053 F20101130_AACCAJ knight_e_Page_026.jpg
6188db70fd53de1a472048d8788b0c57
ef17563196ad86818fb33fa69eb5735d5c35bcde
148 F20101130_AACBVE knight_e_Page_002.txt
a16517691f9d13e11ebb4281452f414e
c6c9b5ea90487144ddbe2320dcb40c3bfeac61a0
63100 F20101130_AACCAK knight_e_Page_029.jpg
c6bfe13b1648257f8fe1850faddcd96b
d1c0f53e167653c4f6698bc9a2d9144f44ed23a2
1053954 F20101130_AACBVF knight_e_Page_046.tif
2b1bff0e330df6b98946ee4f544651b6
bd03b20607fe8e8589def5a35be1b73171d49571
68625 F20101130_AACCBA knight_e_Page_047.jpg
ef6f47cff226249d979a5f567fd2dca2
baae5b1db87e582e40963b627f89eabf5fc119e7
71971 F20101130_AACCAL knight_e_Page_030.jpg
a78089ca4572030131beb877aa5b1b7f
94c85f7f2b6c8626ebd344f2d482c1bee51794b3
F20101130_AACBVG knight_e_Page_054.tif
ad7b190cec0bee425879ff102085424b
286be724fd2c8a2937f1d9d7519d6b66add33991
22154 F20101130_AACCBB knight_e_Page_048.jpg
8640e01b203308f9d6120873457e2ecd
95f87e5100971d2bb03e34546fda23a8f5e8bb85
69405 F20101130_AACCAM knight_e_Page_031.jpg
df347ab2842bf69f90a7b6279feba771
b926bc3c4f62037f98d3be41d57131c749c61639
7118 F20101130_AACBVH knight_e_Page_097thm.jpg
fef38fee3e76ce32793c609a8d65a7be
e96ae19494955a345ca7eac5bc8df0c3d1d3bd2c
72045 F20101130_AACCAN knight_e_Page_032.jpg
93b8754fd54a41295b37daee55421589
c43596021118a4807b69390a3c52b9029f574f0a
40647 F20101130_AACBVI knight_e_Page_007.jpg
6ebc44ee00ad1a622ebfafcd49055f76
90a7b71a3bbc18b621b19a2694ff1e1b84aad6d6
65375 F20101130_AACCBC knight_e_Page_049.jpg
176d61ce6f48295b2763c2415f018c92
b4a6ee43d822f0f8e072d385d39fbddd515361cb
70537 F20101130_AACCAO knight_e_Page_033.jpg
00e3374ba493203597d3502a1a827acc
2b2fd342f3e9954f0d8383704fc97c020c971cab
103554 F20101130_AACBVJ knight_e_Page_012.jp2
29fb08e32e577d3661812c31eef9e866
ac941f07e91ff1588b1851178a8f8129a899767d
25990 F20101130_AACBUV knight_e_Page_097.QC.jpg
101e84ec3e2e95c6f4a699a8be2f058c
d9737cd36076543d9b7f0e21c5e1a2e2df6c047a
61985 F20101130_AACCBD knight_e_Page_050.jpg
211a109cc175647f2b43194b78d83477
f5eac1011b7eb0624bec81193edbed04642da20b
65012 F20101130_AACCAP knight_e_Page_034.jpg
a7656233c29d065c7e648fd3cf6e71fb
77f09be0a0481d95fc9fdf6a8d680f02fc40ad8e
107403 F20101130_AACBVK knight_e_Page_033.jp2
19fd20dd4f48948735a85de7881e0e38
8575a17f6fbd5c709982dfddeb2f50dcbf7d11a6
59952 F20101130_AACCBE knight_e_Page_051.jpg
dd3274c86a8eb1df691038c01472e836
6751e78658ca5777f8f928e5a3f3f3f012ae7ac2
69437 F20101130_AACCAQ knight_e_Page_035.jpg
372aaf62855f6478b7709b9b2030edd8
8004b8d3c664298914b8dc8368c8e5a10003b700
F20101130_AACBVL knight_e_Page_064.tif
4005074d819669e10034f7f6ae14ac44
16a26340a9b66579299fc29fb8051c1b814adcaa
22519 F20101130_AACBUW knight_e_Page_053.QC.jpg
688281c091f0812b042074615449ed2f
35b4590e20c30dafedc861765091356a4a531d0b
72615 F20101130_AACCBF knight_e_Page_052.jpg
dca69a7442f39c24b553230d381a3811
34552769be7ed004ca3fc97ec10c3b83da9548d3
71540 F20101130_AACCAR knight_e_Page_036.jpg
2f764280decab7d73660f5a7fbce5c26
c1d7669128810aa4ddd09e96d9a6f5ccb48e8e4e
73037 F20101130_AACBVM knight_e_Page_063.jpg
2fc63ccd40c17f095904f0eb7b18c895
ad7d5d5fc2dfd00c615fd004a6a6257ad29dfa1e
78023 F20101130_AACBUX knight_e_Page_060.jpg
d406267fae6ac9e6514f1dfe829bc619
321adceb42169b0bd42dadfad3579de2a545acd9
70713 F20101130_AACCBG knight_e_Page_053.jpg
2fd8b7680e47844e142aed9f056e79d1
3771ff98cad1b59bd76b7d9cbf3611588eef28c4
1245 F20101130_AACBWA knight_e_Page_007.txt
bcf89f0035adb27abd3cedb50bf18aa9
40be207ea9e38859acfe2b3248c961fd4d3db005
54302 F20101130_AACCAS knight_e_Page_037.jpg
7e451f5f02232d85f1df9ec71a662ede
5e1bbf1b6dec20d208c89d853395323f72fc9ccb
17741 F20101130_AACBVN knight_e_Page_051.QC.jpg
e46dfa172217d1462d57e1106aa40b5e
4ce1a07b9d5b53e641527236240bc9c7be7ac104
47272 F20101130_AACBUY knight_e_Page_012.pro
14f4a730dbf4214d87d1a26f72b261fc
009becabfe12efdd287574d479c33ff8e7df1a03
62886 F20101130_AACCBH knight_e_Page_055.jpg
f60f639d5c3f252d15efac3c98002574
b05845ba3776e6f15ec4b157bce6c556d1cf33eb
6376 F20101130_AACBWB knight_e_Page_024thm.jpg
00848e2e18306a5fc3a839a95b574ecd
a61784182c510fca915ae078feabcfaa02c995b6
58762 F20101130_AACCAT knight_e_Page_038.jpg
52fa9a55b84e62c4f6996e078326a87f
5a19c9af4c63a4c2217aa9d2b48bf8edfd854095
18410 F20101130_AACBVO knight_e_Page_038.QC.jpg
b069b0797d4d5752f5f4152407bff5d4
64868db5276c58c75872e9fdf1beb24349184fd1
6564 F20101130_AACBUZ knight_e_Page_062thm.jpg
b8d6aad4585f1d102191399af0381415
e6955ebe8d0f1ed913e5d1d4ee85d5c125f6b2a0
71848 F20101130_AACCBI knight_e_Page_057.jpg
13343b47e576bfe1a810c3b3251bcaf5
858a19762fd3e320ffa7643f845511cb6554f48e
19317 F20101130_AACBWC knight_e_Page_072.pro
76ed6c5de437261771363ebe75cb2813
f02926de9162453f1fe35fe92eb916010aee41e7
46870 F20101130_AACCAU knight_e_Page_040.jpg
0cc7cd619338e1f22e15923381c1835f
36aef7c615e281aa93ee0bc00ec3cf39846e5bb5
70963 F20101130_AACBVP knight_e_Page_024.jpg
aec6458cedc162e65a753e2a06c1141b
3c05808ddb8c7ddba7722ed9e3cdf9abf6e0744e
67928 F20101130_AACCBJ knight_e_Page_058.jpg
fcc0a161786a66b7542788a53bd9a815
850f479f183b1f0acd17fbae7f3568c9b748db59
68791 F20101130_AACBWD knight_e_Page_054.jpg
5423cb1e35dc6849835757d9c04dd544
18a78548a8f96c1841ab427c6300b082ad3a3165
70703 F20101130_AACCAV knight_e_Page_041.jpg
fccdd6e2bb9191319c72df8c2202e480
4c8cb27bde157e35f9eeb3ee7c60cf0f458ec529
F20101130_AACBVQ knight_e_Page_048.tif
d1b6376690a05044d1f7a4a4d21483d5
d4ddd1a1ef8d197bed36ff067812ee7c83f08595
64703 F20101130_AACCBK knight_e_Page_059.jpg
6c5767df0887d752238ede9990f0482d
067420a17a764501841b56c469555964b1db68ce
46688 F20101130_AACBWE knight_e_Page_018.pro
91c6bd63049cf2155a659fd842164cde
f3a19c75bc28bbc074c3775e397ec5974535e739
68269 F20101130_AACCAW knight_e_Page_043.jpg
f3588693569968a563dfb1096f70b8f3
213e3660b4e7c6613c88bdd78a196a53cf479ba4
40326 F20101130_AACBVR knight_e_Page_088.jp2
41728d927a809b18e6454c44a49d8bf9
74452880bbe93b39a967276f02fa5744e0d51663
48173 F20101130_AACCCA knight_e_Page_079.jpg
284645694b99b984d6a200f24a378ba4
2b23f3c7a79eac933091140131cb41520a824707
68533 F20101130_AACCBL knight_e_Page_061.jpg
a6fb11325fb84a53fbf97a7b9f94814c
5c9a33292628ee924e4cd4191e8fb8a2963a8b8f
3144 F20101130_AACBWF knight_e_Page_020.pro
38a9af4c60643730b6da248bafb77437
0ee26df0c40f4a110d22b078ff0e649c5c634cfd
59498 F20101130_AACCAX knight_e_Page_044.jpg
1f77555263b10e5d6209825b1f202ae6
097e5ab6fdd63c592afc70712831b0355285f4c0
F20101130_AACBVS knight_e_Page_090.tif
a36799e8d2636748ef845e4d21b2662f
8c53ef6fe8b357063cc740f7f7450230257b5a6a
44801 F20101130_AACCCB knight_e_Page_080.jpg
c2c5e24438afcf2f5464128ae9b9ff09
5e3614967186d80a3692face3b8e21367624a683
68175 F20101130_AACCBM knight_e_Page_064.jpg
bd644433df778eeb214489c347f0f0cd
fc8f5f1bcfcc2b05211e2e7497fa97eb9ac90a6d
5506 F20101130_AACBWG knight_e_Page_003.jp2
2c3eb0f1359661afacdc8535a5950c16
f71d6aa25312346b78d4cdc5c7251e9f9d098925
71526 F20101130_AACCAY knight_e_Page_045.jpg
03057b98e4bbfd6cf01533ac40e0d720
86e91703e437141062bb4e2033d052726eb309fb
25271604 F20101130_AACBVT knight_e_Page_006.tif
551887f38ddac697c89ca622a0559725
f7855b406d7d3d889e9fc101dc1487210e318d97
44363 F20101130_AACCCC knight_e_Page_081.jpg
f7791ee6edd39c16c799135327c8ef08
03a47c762ca8c8432714c824615791c2df0eca5c
12900 F20101130_AACCBN knight_e_Page_065.jpg
54822fff567f4ff03be9a29ff0c19aef
b0d2ab4f3c02ce3fbf593851055aa1f57f7f377c
22814 F20101130_AACBWH knight_e_Page_045.QC.jpg
536be71b3f69d09405c4d964cdb4dd46
702f33223853c0eebedec051bf554c63aafa9c11
73864 F20101130_AACCAZ knight_e_Page_046.jpg
d3a8d9aab44126fc2e80bba671924a39
912c48421c717a6d46f2eaead87dfc78c16eb5e9
3510 F20101130_AACBVU knight_e_Page_074thm.jpg
e0629d13b4643af710251657653f1ce2
5017e8108847506c9bc08249d382472efe02d306
70766 F20101130_AACCBO knight_e_Page_066.jpg
9116b8554a3b7251540c3314607df229
99d16e4fa1cbb8d443db829cbb1afdf9a92603c1
24938 F20101130_AACBWI knight_e_Page_078.pro
6b4c477fe15330c6364aeab45bd2291b
525bdf4876d702e5267faadbdf61d1a6f4986751
15089 F20101130_AACBVV knight_e_Page_091.QC.jpg
f1e2e599b26ba6ff8b8c70ac0deb41b8
3278fea52d50bb639590cbfd25c81513ee87eb09
38863 F20101130_AACCCD knight_e_Page_082.jpg
05aca2aaf3414a6cd1a95095aa85d38a
75b945fd12fc52e417e8ab67480cb93a23a8f74e
36038 F20101130_AACCBP knight_e_Page_067.jpg
42da2107f6f748d64c6d40bb0c727e60
d44c744314c670551de561e55b428569f5349c6b
41523 F20101130_AACBWJ knight_e_Page_083.jpg
6e4c63c02eb760469ab70bd7a10b5193
5b9c14b51a6717c0e84d257acd8fbcb02160447c
F20101130_AACBVW knight_e_Page_041.tif
91744d6ee6cc3c31c0bc764ceb4489f8
d5f27d739792b862f299f95592ed110a4d737b1e
31526 F20101130_AACCCE knight_e_Page_084.jpg
d22900bd9b3abdcf5e2652831ba6fbb0
5999a9142d28914cda0244bc2c1c901bc9831526
32591 F20101130_AACCBQ knight_e_Page_068.jpg
d3b7fe9f2c2b77d73902465b67762451
658b646a1ee6d32a7483fa0a2bc0b01e552811f4
2445 F20101130_AACBWK knight_e_Page_002.pro
0e4bd0dc290b65dac57694d382200478
eebb224689aca46575403c394f01b0fb642f8b28
40666 F20101130_AACCCF knight_e_Page_086.jpg
35d6a96c42a66f3137ea856548fbca36
363b19f68035dc4172588b3c96d663d7b5f5abd6
30947 F20101130_AACCBR knight_e_Page_069.jpg
0acabbc3f6e2997490873375f4c89e2d
94cbab0a5276ccd95417865b739f6c8360448b78
25526 F20101130_AACBWL knight_e_Page_099.jpg
dbeca713d895bf7fff9e6ffeb0710ff9
2dd42a22c4d445e9aba96f14c1853a8556bfca1d
3968 F20101130_AACBVX knight_e_Page_077thm.jpg
30d15c2310e162889d7020a1b27e2369
3e42a77bd5836ec5bd63f244f9c312cea96d886e
37083 F20101130_AACCCG knight_e_Page_087.jpg
e1110cba685044f8a9de063d01656f9e
042214cc2b9479fc23fb1977e3ee3d52f89d6746
1339 F20101130_AACBXA knight_e_Page_081.txt
b0a9f5cf695eaafed2edb21e825ce472
852eed445a8d31dc566fc9f7f262ef4f9c8c91fa
37706 F20101130_AACCBS knight_e_Page_070.jpg
5643980377a3bc5fbf13da755c33050d
96499ce8252b8f791cb9bf7afce588fdfd20d802
15377 F20101130_AACBWM knight_e_Page_004.QC.jpg
f8801103ab59044aba684619c814c0e8
8afc0c3543c04b154512c4ae158b76701b0c9db4
108748 F20101130_AACBVY knight_e_Page_019.jp2
a7eb353181c9f8e820f5e40e7cb6136f
c87e0aed6a4ce9e5a9a78b28a9529ed227a6183c
31130 F20101130_AACCCH knight_e_Page_088.jpg
32d25a25a972d7dc370cb8811a69adf5
fdd0a5dd5e64fef580eae4918c03837899d3404d
21412 F20101130_AACBXB knight_e_Page_080.pro
879a8898628e6668b91d45c60740f1c8
d86f8e38557915cb798a871501ad9946566bc68a
42958 F20101130_AACCBT knight_e_Page_071.jpg
4abe66229e765ab4fc5224f59b128deb
22ad79d0d01844d3f04cbc210a388e03b4d6033a
57395 F20101130_AACBWN knight_e_Page_041.pro
689aac2df76a8ff92a7e614a2874dc77
585e7c734ae03a63ab7183d4e1bd16eb6ca368fa
61882 F20101130_AACBVZ knight_e_Page_042.jpg
11ef555aed8dcc23a38b2e103ae7c0cd
cc0b26a6314bc759e00880a897353bc0ce240c3f
19372 F20101130_AACCCI knight_e_Page_090.jpg
f97f2a63496b8b26c524be354a4a9fd4
0482ca95983d0da111086582bb02d2d42a45c89a
6943 F20101130_AACBXC knight_e_Page_060thm.jpg
c6a22b9bd39247b3dfdd4d32daad68c7
c61df3390b9bceeeb12bbd3ee91476988cb1edd6
33007 F20101130_AACCBU knight_e_Page_072.jpg
48340dc45bcf61d07cc8e6ea81427ec6
d41f6c63abe494c9aec0d0e726861309458df4a1
15941 F20101130_AACBWO knight_e_Page_008.QC.jpg
d89980bd080ec86d6443e9111a0c525a
1cc6922edd4618b69dfde793ecb107dcf2bf31fa
44730 F20101130_AACCCJ knight_e_Page_091.jpg
a246532bd48c90c8c94b4d5d2c41c5e9
bb181ecaf8177e0fee647a307f1d03e6b850ec56
12985 F20101130_AACBXD knight_e_Page_082.QC.jpg
c9023b0fe75b478460c5a73738a7a6a9
7167db7874728a8ba2cd31ed45725cf7fe44b6f6
34811 F20101130_AACCBV knight_e_Page_073.jpg
5c99f5718c679e16d3eee12a9d0edffe
ff39921ae9bc937f83b5ff5e488f13caeabad335
86677 F20101130_AACBWP knight_e_Page_096.jpg
2c2de0fc24e302b54cec1fc023ccef8b
458d45fae8f73d74e603552f0e79dce150e8fee3
43227 F20101130_AACCCK knight_e_Page_093.jpg
e164243c71e14eea6f69ec82873adda5
e6b1bf5a831c0212ba93b5ad31477bcc1653cbd7
1978 F20101130_AACBXE knight_e_Page_060.txt
b5426102ed7a62fb3ff83e080448a783
8f1060b6e2627b4e1c5cf14451293b0b91d8070d
35654 F20101130_AACCBW knight_e_Page_074.jpg
5310551487ff608a12e5d1b1d553cb79
382955ce3e84637a305807256d2626564be47ac0
3667 F20101130_AACBWQ knight_e_Page_070thm.jpg
6eee7bf81c245942226985380bb87f3f
6138f638268f84e9f5a2ccf37a229dbf7c5b6e12
24583 F20101130_AACCCL knight_e_Page_094.jpg
8ed614cb320c22d648e6070c5a463cbc
689026338abc588ad3508a0bc6a8ecf1a32f460e
420 F20101130_AACBXF knight_e_Page_100.txt
0433fc01b79c3e4ec497c0eb7b4d5852
253278ff69e5ee67ab89c8175b391331ae1df5d8
37804 F20101130_AACCBX knight_e_Page_075.jpg
fd0f4bed83be289bb5056c1c66d814bc
40b80cd916178c8125653662ab3572c619159b5b
112176 F20101130_AACBWR knight_e_Page_063.jp2
56094dba4be9a68fd76110d86b2275e9
a7ac6c93ad7b5d245f2fa875fcf6e956ee365fca
1051957 F20101130_AACCDA knight_e_Page_016.jp2
bbaed0f64781bc41a524736196207b6f
892034830005f66246fe21878c37d0c8e9e409e7
86715 F20101130_AACCCM knight_e_Page_095.jpg
70e06ead311bb0b9227aa154f6af3d61
dad641c5763ae94b12e101298fb3f9510c7855f3
105150 F20101130_AACBXG knight_e_Page_054.jp2
eab638747b6b1123c1ce14d653f870c3
c2a7b736a382676db6cf0c20cd0ddf4406b8a168
46152 F20101130_AACCBY knight_e_Page_077.jpg
b4f504313d076638bab7e078e10bf925
620b2b8efe5690d649bd929daae51d79e28f6450
3150 F20101130_AACBWS knight_e_Page_088thm.jpg
157597361267d3691c6e2541de29913a
dad8d3c9df9731fdc901543d4eb5b5a7a09b4a8c
111061 F20101130_AACCDB knight_e_Page_017.jp2
ff1043c303a3bd400c7904ae8c496a1e
8fbe169f9131d01f0fa1cf55d9b993670cd4872d
94856 F20101130_AACCCN knight_e_Page_097.jpg
6e5fc0c336937280c5296f55c0df071e
cc4b947241b1dce4141ce0726211e79563c1d1a3
10278 F20101130_AACBXH knight_e_Page_088.QC.jpg
36401020601ec6189f7c3de26d565cf1
c58cc4b6bc762d21fca97ba44c15767aa8284c76
47100 F20101130_AACCBZ knight_e_Page_078.jpg
1b8cfabe26311b33794437f398452386
c069a93c47e9f0af11b2e20f5de92ea93b439c8d
13664 F20101130_AACBWT knight_e_Page_093.pro
3be091ea06ea0b67cb53fddf1d9e5890
7fb1a1c2cf60611432f1bea15025b6ca710f41d6
101642 F20101130_AACCDC knight_e_Page_018.jp2
eba3a8cdc64050a8746dbbaa4b1ff172
ebf33b2daabd15c23171b42e659d1e8a0018a4d9
87030 F20101130_AACCCO knight_e_Page_098.jpg
48bee5d433c973c51c1f4fc588d3c025
41059ff0bbbfbc187c3b3cec7183e44ec21f8115
F20101130_AACBXI knight_e_Page_071.tif
5a125aa8e6ac4af8b484ff7d5a57a6eb
934d9034a7a183eaeeb7de174403942a3d5f6814
42725 F20101130_AACBWU knight_e_Page_092.jpg
ced2a71012c852583372d0588b6505b7
5e0a2d7062babda551479d4ffea10798cde73415
9733 F20101130_AACCDD knight_e_Page_020.jp2
e27f4c6587b866861a00fcbfd76c4e79
821483652baa4ec1ae536027b13da836c5d1a488
22022 F20101130_AACCCP knight_e_Page_100.jpg
598f771f3c887528b8b90101ea1f899d
2e288784b173c6064c33150ba3d6879f200c4f07
44678 F20101130_AACBXJ knight_e_Page_028.jpg
82334c92106da2e6a3a3dc54655de6fe
f7792e4ca43e70d654d6ad178d7f8c90731384fd
52516 F20101130_AACBWV knight_e_Page_082.jp2
1a8d6386ecac09181b2d467061fea3ee
1be0fae14db9a1271a191c49a30dcd74b9ea7771
22563 F20101130_AACCCQ knight_e_Page_001.jp2
80d6c7a919da68c32f06a0d9330f9e53
4897bb5e2e987809c7b2225b77b6c3fc5e9990dd
5160 F20101130_AACBXK knight_e_Page_049thm.jpg
ac9edfca11a18a25b691eba65e1eb69e
6719a468b04a11ddd7619985c76662253b69cdcb
49074 F20101130_AACBWW knight_e_Page_074.jp2
925e43876b3e42314511b4a2a104142c
7efcb83282b6c3abf4c5c0dd3ebfbe1362f239a9
99959 F20101130_AACCDE knight_e_Page_021.jp2
39c4c76c4f135991dd43fe665270ac6e
6e719d21348353101af51783bd612a4adb58ebe2
8839 F20101130_AACCCR knight_e_Page_002.jp2
88d3b084bcde81bd6026b8d7eba80382
4cd64bf411f74394c551d26e59c92dac9a3d72e1
F20101130_AACBXL knight_e_Page_018.tif
27ad8a4b67109e8e68e7f28598ddc5fa
dff76fa694257884aafcc939df2ace255745c47d
1048126 F20101130_AACBWX knight_e_Page_007.jp2
a1fded54eaff4b51dce91792ac6f18d9
c908ed48b36346ed39b2dc6b5cf7c3d7c0d49d5a
107119 F20101130_AACCDF knight_e_Page_022.jp2
64be2f17f9b934a68bbbd6734b92758d
11e43578cd93308ac970ac26167d1f90145d9192
2597 F20101130_AACBYA knight_e_Page_005.txt
22e8feda6eaa4c0f49c0408a4cf988b1
7444a0548b4bdefa10fe8d75965d8455c3452fc9
66802 F20101130_AACCCS knight_e_Page_004.jp2
9bdf35990104e0a52fc123dedd3c5736
51f37f45b2797bb622fbf472d9a1e70a3ad0fa4c
1371 F20101130_AACBXM knight_e_Page_085.txt
414380fe3ffe830d916ce69d05b7d387
ded5a686bfc3607b77d21f1516e20c317e4ea402
109265 F20101130_AACCDG knight_e_Page_023.jp2
3a7546c9fdcce476cee5f35256bba10b
230a97bab1031a2c3aeabf569c807b430bc7dbd0
17739 F20101130_AACBYB knight_e_Page_037.QC.jpg
f8ac804c084bd3ae2b41176777954ea2
4536a043ff6bad911bce2f5e4d9d331e3b9e99c8
532522 F20101130_AACCCT knight_e_Page_006.jp2
5a288f7998d36b1a0a58d1bcb181c1bc
b1252cb6587ae742cbe3478ec102af762804c2ce
24506 F20101130_AACBXN knight_e_Page_079.pro
f1f1879e9f891238defd572c23c85e04
4bcabd605bb3980ae48d8bf5f544408398497e94
23737 F20101130_AACBWY knight_e_Page_096.QC.jpg
86b5bb993b546ec7e30d8fad2b95ad3e
c245a11a68cda41b9e941ddf77ad129dc8ffeb47
108829 F20101130_AACCDH knight_e_Page_024.jp2
54537e7482e94bf4c8599344d9cd3f5f
1849a5b8701542abb409cf9332088121644c1509
2139 F20101130_AACBYC knight_e_Page_019.txt
f27b3a708be53b933fd6de20bb913ee9
146bd3fe7d89903eb9bf8e1d16a498e1a4db611a
1051960 F20101130_AACCCU knight_e_Page_008.jp2
a30ee4ef9f3a8e8a223a6cd4842457f6
5325806febe1e8244b32251b52548aaec6156975
56869 F20101130_AACBXO knight_e_Page_056.jpg
434423b048e3fbfe0fb79aba6e910ffb
88b549c5d0d5462a9f982e678e96b2ce01bc732b
70751 F20101130_AACBWZ knight_e_Page_062.jpg
297b3a6cf65334891d5ce70261f856cb
7e18c616b2cc720770439def8db3638b2bbbf78c
109932 F20101130_AACCDI knight_e_Page_025.jp2
57865f4d6c707e945dbcf41a45070622
3c4d1f70ad79726ef47d1d49866d77fad6b4dcd4
F20101130_AACBYD knight_e_Page_080.tif
30c237f3402401e742a1a16e4acdb67b
b9fca236287db2b394ec36d16199fc4af01cd39a
84384 F20101130_AACCCV knight_e_Page_009.jp2
08887f20279203b1e9022d86e06dc539
12b8e017d67f69844a24530915694a6df382e3d6
5664 F20101130_AACBXP knight_e_Page_029thm.jpg
127234fe0aeb31783411c23933e967a3
6fcbff0d4f3d3526c211bfb1a5735840a51f2cdb
107670 F20101130_AACCDJ knight_e_Page_026.jp2
9509bc7e93d5c69b77596bc61361e9a9
ac6041e31fbe71e8924b8a3070ad18dba9794b56
45267 F20101130_AACCCW knight_e_Page_010.jp2
c8be39ee8c814b4cd58ba982b3bf711b
d8b0b8eeb92d9444df9aa15ae2b39874ae753de1
772 F20101130_AACBXQ knight_e_Page_088.txt
4b2ea7add5332c5afcc1088d4e74f002
3ed8c6ce13c7a4ee4fb389e85dcc4d001db329e3
114177 F20101130_AACCDK knight_e_Page_027.jp2
f7578a864100fe7cbc17b698afdff2f2
94d62989cce3a0b094dc6314fd134f5cbaf42493
3794 F20101130_AACBYE knight_e_Page_065.pro
727a766e9d48edf256239ce8aa3f3495
2841b064c4694782aa9c5acb56be2117a9f779f0
90787 F20101130_AACCCX knight_e_Page_011.jp2
668f275673a921fafd0ae48c0a1c1dc3
3abe74959f5ad08308d257da765f57c741a5e827
2004 F20101130_AACBXR knight_e_Page_017.txt
bd2de125cc128d8572d56734be62626a
68b1062183de3dcaa8061ad4c19ba42ce2c1c7f8
88419 F20101130_AACCEA knight_e_Page_044.jp2
7e469ab60414c1dae69fe0544cf849a0
10bbb95c99da04b102e5fa6ede7d8739096441e8
64840 F20101130_AACCDL knight_e_Page_028.jp2
274ff49158672f15fd4a7a68beb96ea9
4846a79102b8066497a9042a9420d6791931fa50
28480 F20101130_AACBYF knight_e_Page_089.pro
3f0e09bf50768b3dea128c371eebdf05
e08c0c737601c3c90a18cf02bcd1f18254d7074b
1051973 F20101130_AACCCY knight_e_Page_013.jp2
509be705b357d18fc45f12aa34636123
105b616dfa7485e9386e056bf7087d89202987ff
4235 F20101130_AACBXS knight_e_Page_083thm.jpg
2f74b05d72746144ab08beff29032914
58f97d530c95d2543c6fcc76beecc046f3f4637f
109601 F20101130_AACCEB knight_e_Page_045.jp2
afe8fb0f59bc701fd5485298cb66a011
d191592150b4d27e3936ddffc44da33722c38987
94159 F20101130_AACCDM knight_e_Page_029.jp2
641ab443b70f478a59f73c96cae8a875
1d0f12b3abc3ddda27b8d8797b97b1baf48ed32a
571016 F20101130_AACBYG knight_e_Page_091.jp2
3b9a723a04fe391275500deb6c201d2e
0dec247ba3228edb1694baec4c1324623fe44df5
110137 F20101130_AACCCZ knight_e_Page_015.jp2
dbf382b40692f4b7cccf915df9fb0d2e
cd0239405bccc0c622ad8ef6338d938e3bebea4c
1051872 F20101130_AACBXT knight_e_Page_005.jp2
89634ba9b327a9440e0792283703bc5c
57cabb395ad82900860f0f487df816ae6d5b1b22
113301 F20101130_AACCEC knight_e_Page_046.jp2
127718562b537cdd822ea56813aa0516
393801d637cdc5ee9c18684536d448cc7a410de1
108857 F20101130_AACCDN knight_e_Page_030.jp2
c09b2b135d05e116401a1b18e74309b4
99a9d84c91cced87dc224f6e5406b422309e9baa
1923 F20101130_AACBYH knight_e_Page_022.txt
9fd99bdc0e945ea6cef2c5349e73f384
740a52c598fdd88394c9d844798407d7f4dcfd33
1919 F20101130_AACBXU knight_e_Page_026.txt
40b94e18a18a31fd49fbcac1ce2e0e93
a9af163c9f6044e0255516157d57722594bff733
97886 F20101130_AACCED knight_e_Page_047.jp2
9fe27219ddd283a83d3e106715af3c87
11dff410a52257772c4bda3b66671666200e97c9
104328 F20101130_AACCDO knight_e_Page_031.jp2
c10d8ba21258d6c4738861a062e2f8d4
af74eb4b734591bb8b41255a43abd49f9323b9ec
47856 F20101130_AACBYI knight_e_Page_089.jpg
e607f5404e3ef048f3f054cb4503fb54
f0bbfd1b0b66493ced19f16547cecb21bab2b9a8
49078 F20101130_AACBXV knight_e_Page_036.pro
37125ff75b811bce02dfa307f694d9b2
b76e615e0a314905d34c3c0d0af1ef260089ca23
26386 F20101130_AACCEE knight_e_Page_048.jp2
fde42bafe1c9647ecd0fad47f0cc1fce
2c36972858eb0fdcffa33c524aeeecefca0e7820
110711 F20101130_AACCDP knight_e_Page_032.jp2
1053c5a5b23678c3dce4e21db1615de4
dbf727e50a4bb9a6f242083c536a4b1f52fb03f2
901 F20101130_AACBYJ knight_e_Page_068.txt
d010d0fd2246eb7d845b95594a88325b
6ac49e17b22c73336939f9fa14d4cec3db92dc2b
100 F20101130_AACBXW knight_e_Page_003.txt
14d3348ccec7062b9fceff94e6689aae
bd461593d659d6fda6f4cf9deb62481afb1e98c4
97605 F20101130_AACCDQ knight_e_Page_034.jp2
5c47e789cbea907d3522f6ce829150de
1ce4a11d2b4885883912e52a93eeb778d1723918
55640 F20101130_AACBYK knight_e_Page_086.jp2
19596375b8b56312c92c2bc6d942b23f
5df0abab0695572dd479a91046d53d0c62dc8487
58522 F20101130_AACBXX knight_e_Page_085.jpg
341a8ef91e7558a2a4990cfab35f6a23
8f8c53cb03f21d40e024c22b832f6f6cd3892abe
91214 F20101130_AACCEF knight_e_Page_049.jp2
bff2eae7b67b2fd4720e5161aca43d3e
0af35bed39793c500d0e43f7512a23bfe2b9ac17
106166 F20101130_AACCDR knight_e_Page_035.jp2
c4f0c18eee78a68999cb0565bdb423eb
09a37b99b8909df6c5f64e25b0d64244d7b045ae
F20101130_AACBYL knight_e_Page_039.tif
7caf86a40c177e455286635f10cdad21
baf9600e714b935c9efed1980a506e136922a582
76356 F20101130_AACBXY knight_e_Page_039.jpg
0790801c4e84de742370893c1ad29164
82bc7f230bbc5d216337326556537577cf692a58
91882 F20101130_AACCEG knight_e_Page_050.jp2
104c67b4c44c138466f10bf2edfe1ed7
d565a19d98ae9f97e27119424d9031b46efc8403
F20101130_AACBZA knight_e_Page_061.tif
07f6208611e9512c5fa2aa88f04b2d76
7d185250bb0ed24cc6e466cfc4d32cc8e9dcfbc8
107872 F20101130_AACCDS knight_e_Page_036.jp2
df595d4de261ac2cf88f70b73310a296
171f92006aa32496204f6e6d9dfc9ccfd36a5a48
168 F20101130_AACBYM knight_e_Page_020.txt
35df300c01f412e613cdbd3ac731e030
63f4f4e097415cf3a21c5aabcecaa6a24e5f965c
86824 F20101130_AACCEH knight_e_Page_051.jp2
9d486ec4a682bde12fbb999a6d6c319a
0f54b1adeaa59c6506e9c8ba74ce18d065f4ba25
13666 F20101130_AACBZB knight_e_Page_080.QC.jpg
45798c9e513920db565b452f72edf12b
9848a766a3cded4494dec4000648f0817f4a98b5
653501 F20101130_AACCDT knight_e_Page_037.jp2
e8342e9655a09199b7411d819f1eefd1
849829454603e69cbde820be9f0160c6f22c466a
6716 F20101130_AACBYN knight_e_Page_013thm.jpg
b957337f90e1938e76724ec840accef7
9a14c9388a84e1da3b5a2911940eb69669b16581
3685 F20101130_AACBXZ knight_e_Page_075thm.jpg
4ba79f4671dfeb9112653142d3e665dc
b4feb81e3de528249647cd2098c06a43cc0339a9
111190 F20101130_AACCEI knight_e_Page_052.jp2
d0b02b115b58b1f72f505cf5e0ed273a
093d4dfca68d95b45f83166f615330612ddb1bfd
F20101130_AACBZC knight_e_Page_013.tif
981cf0936022e3ed8872c0ce08e6fce3
6cbf3901d462c8a166b03bb2ee1f4b4aa195bcc8
662618 F20101130_AACCDU knight_e_Page_038.jp2
c3e86ae9dcf0216bb310d91744fa2380
09f1bee4fe7104a59019fb711e10641b6f4d71d5
2207 F20101130_AACBYO knight_e_Page_016.txt
6ae25ac35939a7ba951ac9eb464a26bf
91cc373c689ba104a433dc9661c35ffe01562731
947542 F20101130_AACCEJ knight_e_Page_053.jp2
09545c521fbd38732a4bb411af88ae54
9c7ce59ed7313c1511fa6139d52c049f7b2adfaf
F20101130_AACBZD knight_e_Page_050.tif
d169b038f9c850458ff4a644e9b1b55f
3b80ba249f0c814842053017dc9f15f06a556a27
93754 F20101130_AACCDV knight_e_Page_039.jp2
562a8a110a8bdc62c5f76bfb44feb8f4
d49da8e0c63ad1909ec20c0f3061b67a3dec14b5
25689 F20101130_AACBYP knight_e_Page_100.jp2
a47d8e031f1ec06e0afb7829ec617fbc
57de5929bba274b7596295c7ed607cbb35f981cf
93782 F20101130_AACCEK knight_e_Page_055.jp2
185396b7fe42585b903dbec30686599c
db52fd9dbec4dec6cb7fd5e8baa3cf00de55c437
1503 F20101130_AACBZE knight_e_Page_002thm.jpg
23a08ebdeaef731bae099eadbdbd0b88
be60087493ed4a7e380bd6bd703d690551d04fe5
53816 F20101130_AACCDW knight_e_Page_040.jp2
27cd0ca14501739a425de93d52039f3c
81f8e0a4e4fba5a74ea4c9115e3f35aeba353072
F20101130_AACBYQ knight_e_Page_096.tif
4586e96d82b4746605140be3f568ecca
1b2a74a4267ebbcdab7ace055d869dd65d2241a4
43067 F20101130_AACCFA knight_e_Page_072.jp2
94ef0d4070c75e04b961bd56ef2c96ea
15ee54bdd74f5b2004d8a0fde38914a99e9c22d4
80789 F20101130_AACCEL knight_e_Page_056.jp2
7c66812d9857161f9a2844dfd6cd6e98
573bb731323a04c624e2c39bf2565c94072dec33
3200 F20101130_AACBZF knight_e_Page_084thm.jpg
94bf10579a7786bbe0572b8eeefa5e47
f62e5fd8310b7f880e25529137a27eb9bcc3a9b8
87093 F20101130_AACCDX knight_e_Page_041.jp2
fc45c8794771bc1c5f54eaef2838e731
3f0ad89777b45435fe8d0576d80762acb1f38aaf
11478 F20101130_AACBYR knight_e_Page_067.QC.jpg
72c85fecbe8744fa5d0b7a4c93ad6480
7067e8b56ab56bf971f34fed061bc645ae0e27a0
484597 F20101130_AACCFB knight_e_Page_075.jp2
e06a649477e05dcc993983359c8bc0ef
0fd35f5ac51edba904f76db9b61d19a2b34c0cd8
110157 F20101130_AACCEM knight_e_Page_057.jp2
301fb648a1897b0b6ff39222cbda717b
94a66b0d94e3e2e5f9f23bab00d736f016eddc20
4405 F20101130_AACBZG knight_e_Page_080thm.jpg
5c772d1093d58d580ab0176a2a7165cd
b64e9ee4c57fe8e6d928f5f9a093c3f39a554c52
91902 F20101130_AACCDY knight_e_Page_042.jp2
b2af589f06168b2bf485e8103044f22c
5b8015160349011f0dd030920652169111132093
48044 F20101130_AACBYS knight_e_Page_076.jpg
43be15b9101cc52076c27e79f1700096
7f8f4b846dabac0dcbae5ca46a540be8a17f0edc
104100 F20101130_AACCEN knight_e_Page_058.jp2
a15220781174328dcbd5ddf631d16e7e
f571e679b819857c93c540cccb84181ea0825065
50957 F20101130_AACBZH knight_e_Page_025.pro
dfc245a5cba4f6d08b0b684f62eb017e
8c776d6d8c6353201fd93e71b492ffddcfc82a8a
103284 F20101130_AACCDZ knight_e_Page_043.jp2
fa4492cbd944d5453a61f779ff726d7f
fc9f601fbd342f988062d8b1bab71faf2c1607eb
20265 F20101130_AACBYT knight_e_Page_055.QC.jpg
9a70c4892beaf605e89a7945ae39b297
129d669ce2e732f120626ec2ae0024cc759790fc
631959 F20101130_AACCFC knight_e_Page_076.jp2
ade280296ae6ddaa830e27d3744c39d7
15ba65c8e04bdf0459b4f7eeb4332429b3814a90
95329 F20101130_AACCEO knight_e_Page_059.jp2
985434fdfcab7ed564d59e591b8f2628
83f35e9db44007ab04036dbadc1f46b796a48479
41975 F20101130_AACBZI knight_e_Page_050.pro
aae2439e15afbb92abf63495f74f9758
34862912a9b8f2bcd48bedab0b0d84ac1eb8b974
22722 F20101130_AACBYU knight_e_Page_035.QC.jpg
986da82431c4a268c7da6fa0629c509e
23293bd295a8b984822328df4c9fd867870837ed
592490 F20101130_AACCFD knight_e_Page_077.jp2
aabb3a83727c56ea3da1db6c362b739d
edd01bed224d8fd9265f4466687a3517387a7f76
1051967 F20101130_AACCEP knight_e_Page_060.jp2
8ec0e58f6e99688748554f2198379ced
f2c930a025f2842c9ba19f57272202127e95f8b7
150606 F20101130_AACBZJ UFE0010284_00001.xml
901d53cd5000e4019dc72c747ace7e44
83116d20d8e2604a760401ab70c48e384a8c685d
23199 F20101130_AACBYV knight_e_Page_016.QC.jpg
4449cf47fa5fce7ba3ff34c8b155c6cf
0e2744b3377ba420e4c7401e688b127bf75ea25e
622989 F20101130_AACCFE knight_e_Page_078.jp2
e1a1542500382f29ea9fefe430d2fff6
a3a43fa802392ba5062eb6aef8691183c5b8425f
105431 F20101130_AACCEQ knight_e_Page_061.jp2
ecdaf2c878052faeb1c591b561773389
6b167d588808f006819592ee3b3acdd9d34f6abd
F20101130_AACBYW knight_e_Page_051.tif
d0d25440472c46cdbdd32f56e8686144
35516ddf82326bb216e3fe62e9819d885e45a06f
711697 F20101130_AACCFF knight_e_Page_079.jp2
474c71bd8a2841a3e893076fbe303fd0
734ab12f9ef471487847311e452381c05f77422a
108561 F20101130_AACCER knight_e_Page_062.jp2
caa0c8166f05e5dec941818a7e60030e
e0590fb3bf8d4070b13cdd4fc120bbf07e43927c
45465 F20101130_AACBYX knight_e_Page_073.jp2
d892c7e73f9af1675965e18b8cb8590b
355527a3ce236b0680082179cb320777d5c26806
103958 F20101130_AACCES knight_e_Page_064.jp2
1f2224265ed8d358df97ac2a756030c2
c6de635bb8dc991f786ccb26792f8a06ba91b5ab
21536 F20101130_AACBZM knight_e_Page_001.jpg
72a6952673873452e939ddfbefcd2de6
76c2cf94e3b293773c1f4313be3e16ba924beae9
F20101130_AACBYY knight_e_Page_027.tif
f6b2056d75d81bda5d1c369e28fa5206
4e8b2472c4753a43cc86132259bbbabc89320232
556265 F20101130_AACCFG knight_e_Page_080.jp2
6c6b2ef0a29be07fe1deef20577b4a7a
b0085be8891778ec3d4f38294831cad8de522da9
11557 F20101130_AACCET knight_e_Page_065.jp2
af3fa0c3396cca8b6e5f4112043b7775
76e69a050e04c2275e0813926ff1c8f80d5e5313
12212 F20101130_AACBZN knight_e_Page_002.jpg
60011bc3de58d949c7e97c1011913ac7
283ba9a5e0ceb2eb367a289cb16c287f24e985df
F20101130_AACBYZ knight_e_Page_033.tif
afd5fa565c25524f3ff92e85bfac82bb
f3a1daed6e1695f51fc2766b997481b956345490
60152 F20101130_AACCFH knight_e_Page_081.jp2
ce9a57ac847b036ba8b8f3c84ae1981c
5e7095a3f331b5c6872e1e359beb0d17eb9a40e4
1051985 F20101130_AACCEU knight_e_Page_066.jp2
5ad34f7fd41213945247ac8d544ab8c1
ca35a2426f898555e7384b936aa52d2861bdaf99
10113 F20101130_AACBZO knight_e_Page_003.jpg
575cd0d69389e41d62ee02aa77aad696
d663653dbab9d599952028f9f809672d8affb077
57453 F20101130_AACCFI knight_e_Page_083.jp2
dbf0d7ef74df64a908aea2fdce9834a8
af024fe268c69e2dc90a660b2a12f3969de8b6cd
47877 F20101130_AACCEV knight_e_Page_067.jp2
e5357f2b77202112b2c85ae43b483e8d
fdb8357dfe272115f565c0e86bc19676b7e09a80
46174 F20101130_AACBZP knight_e_Page_004.jpg
161db47d9b356fc6ddfd3ad2c4230fa1
d8e09862ab4d5daca656e7d983ba8db052104eac
39947 F20101130_AACCFJ knight_e_Page_084.jp2
313cc7e2e07c00aeb53252346efd820b
3d7b372c7df7b650b612aba76f6b9548cab705a0
41850 F20101130_AACCEW knight_e_Page_068.jp2
3197abfbdeabc415b6b5422baeadcd0e
a7f2d81f07b1d2092caba96b6a57d91500fdd254
54886 F20101130_AACBZQ knight_e_Page_005.jpg
cc2866f7f14672dd25aa45992c2636ed
535b4ab094f57a46375f2b197e41056c71132906
936536 F20101130_AACCFK knight_e_Page_085.jp2
b3e86955f1687cdc8bf00935655b9e37
fb7e455c99bd8da7e05421658332545a42010cfc
40601 F20101130_AACCEX knight_e_Page_069.jp2
557235ab57a92b558b421c68328444ac
d0a5e54ff9e8118e650649b69d3ffd6c0b5b5825
26778 F20101130_AACBZR knight_e_Page_006.jpg
a8cdcc327abb06ecf9fc13035a1a4215
cf06463009d27cc72b564a37ce921dd4674f0fe7
F20101130_AACCGA knight_e_Page_005.tif
2fefff86be05e17070a8346e41a7b631
aeb5b7c67ed970ddd28ec5eb57a62638dd305bd3
49177 F20101130_AACCFL knight_e_Page_087.jp2
e476f16c0f1930e90939438260edd8fa
fefdac88003f488609e0b8f6909a1d873b7e267d
49445 F20101130_AACCEY knight_e_Page_070.jp2
c0bd96a937f249897c2ed8543e6c0304
154cb5ff7f2622c667a6810254a8e8405a7db644
54386 F20101130_AACBZS knight_e_Page_008.jpg
f6035e775096ce8739d328290543827a
e8091cdd4ef9b3b30486d9278cc999ae76733186
F20101130_AACCGB knight_e_Page_007.tif
49b6c3f20d42befa501b1b21063447da
29325f1abedad354603e2aef24468cc204d76fd6
67344 F20101130_AACCFM knight_e_Page_089.jp2
3721aea783a81a3bb97976110cb927ea
4f3ec07040cfdec911a3fe96a60d8887770455bf
58619 F20101130_AACCEZ knight_e_Page_071.jp2
238800464f643541e5835ab91e0343b9
2b9ef22b11f83463de92a3bc18038ea38c0520d8
58420 F20101130_AACBZT knight_e_Page_009.jpg
b19031d4fbe192e5d83726e14bbb0004
aa64e4742fcd255f315c3f292b56ff882f1ed7a1
F20101130_AACCGC knight_e_Page_008.tif
86a451c2d19ed44f5cd67e29807aabf8
057f0b0b2bda88674440f4286e3972c4f3796215
19425 F20101130_AACCFN knight_e_Page_090.jp2
3e7fe68a54d39367f58e8d3ad7b9474e
538bd5c30b57c3949a19e0959f3efc7b5fc36da9
32921 F20101130_AACBZU knight_e_Page_010.jpg
846fbc3a82bc2f06c52484036f1dec7e
fce2a4d0a0e1758ffe9b2911a06fae0b5474ab66
F20101130_AACCGD knight_e_Page_009.tif
99e70c83e9568ca6babfaea561f9ffd9
242c54b2ff023cabe9662733bfcd39b8c79b1cb1
513313 F20101130_AACCFO knight_e_Page_092.jp2
0bd0d9d06a6773e919f7d6e4dd92059a
f9ab587c0d1d25d1c8dcc7ed732073bf9d296a62
61209 F20101130_AACBZV knight_e_Page_011.jpg
968975e209edafa63bb43407078fca90
f5e4f2929e17ad0b3544a51e3c0fb3428deb0280
F20101130_AACCGE knight_e_Page_010.tif
a6be04b7a30fca78a35a9afb66248d4b
9d8127df5ac6f3d444bc953e3ea90471e051a4fc
501931 F20101130_AACCFP knight_e_Page_093.jp2
a77011907b7402919861cd9527c6680f
f941a125cbf855b5713f0ac68dad6bc5acdcc6c7
68747 F20101130_AACBZW knight_e_Page_012.jpg
a9f1371a5be4b277d607bcf0e5b29525
718e18aab6a42bdbaddddb84e975973b390a0cfa
F20101130_AACCGF knight_e_Page_011.tif
13e12953c90705672c912e18638e2f2e
2b109628627bd79e841792a5220939de2eb2e0c4
248245 F20101130_AACCFQ knight_e_Page_094.jp2
3cd04b8726792adc7bc730608c73d2e1
dfe087e7bd3fc1310c7a117a162004ae2cb63da7
84251 F20101130_AACBZX knight_e_Page_013.jpg
2469156d32520e673d53acc740413c3d
1ad3ea3bc14c59e9dfb63c01512a4ee733f27080
F20101130_AACCGG knight_e_Page_012.tif
c09e9e3b4be84297488547841083e29e
2785bd68bc796753f8a84236eec984236238531d
1051907 F20101130_AACCFR knight_e_Page_095.jp2
f5ae17f6ba60ef849e366bb2f7a4f488
271ec2c8f6c4bf947f53e8759a6bde45b7935871
72489 F20101130_AACBZY knight_e_Page_014.jpg
69e9ba151b4ee3f710cdc22cd025e314
9da1185c03dddb2265c2fe90920e85b7fac91317
1051966 F20101130_AACCFS knight_e_Page_096.jp2
f366a1eb16eb1b855a8d66cdb396a2fb
15e32bce5c10d64f0885cd1abd50d03a10d72e28
71850 F20101130_AACBZZ knight_e_Page_015.jpg
9611877af15b3a0c450343f8b608ef54
2da8c0bf99e5930ad114cd5c5a1f42b0c1ead0c3
F20101130_AACCGH knight_e_Page_014.tif
8b69339598aaf21d865607155b4b3e73
a9f74ed9d44e57b2cf44d5dc286040ed60271918
F20101130_AACCFT knight_e_Page_097.jp2
d2a22d088f8e85b13d6bf34e29ee8dfa
a95d8f11d27e20f8f023dcc3d7142d5b414a813e
F20101130_AACCGI knight_e_Page_015.tif
3ebf337c846f2b1438117a4b0676cbef
390cd8a843a1cbaf55a440c5bae26802401233e6
F20101130_AACCFU knight_e_Page_098.jp2
e6dfef8016ec5dfe54e5f85e1054c62e
09403442da7c3456275053dc7bc8a2a717d4a356
F20101130_AACCGJ knight_e_Page_016.tif
d4546cf523822642464f9a87440ab085
946544f5b0f574a1495882d694c22984e625d549
31518 F20101130_AACCFV knight_e_Page_099.jp2
7c7e4c56a9f055751c0796dde616c03c
38ed69b477df9259f1d04d5ae7c44cedee0a9d03
F20101130_AACCGK knight_e_Page_017.tif
9877849cf7a3ee1d559baa0cebf77ba5
95414bfd1570733f66332d5fbef7a43606373fe5
F20101130_AACCFW knight_e_Page_001.tif
f613a6919aac1c2499a15aaa4ac9181d
3e100f55042b0a5261ab4d2e7480791c4e40abc1
F20101130_AACCHA knight_e_Page_036.tif
5e2317b3fccef1dd4838e02563969c58
175c82b5f53cac10197f5dd83f6520e2fd22acf8
F20101130_AACCGL knight_e_Page_019.tif
c9d5f663c372b11c5ca59752232aa746
f461920e53e33f0d75346273c5a1272e49002607
F20101130_AACCFX knight_e_Page_002.tif
708ffb53a5076548bf7be1a961111d35
7e9fd89ddc3c11d2f2c5632090c3499502354740
F20101130_AACCHB knight_e_Page_037.tif
68e2453d667b578fe8e6235d063add81
a269b89aef5392b32f43576cb67f2317d4262763
F20101130_AACCGM knight_e_Page_020.tif
f6dcd89075030b41b59b8434180ebbb0
1ad45853056038977ffaaf47bece3f0a6d2d684e
F20101130_AACCFY knight_e_Page_003.tif
93cb844fe902ead585bf667987a119fd
f09409e75dcbd12061df3911ff1f5cdca1deebbe
F20101130_AACCHC knight_e_Page_038.tif
873be1929583380aa3d6901934b8b66d
abd51b4c64151ddc5329ff513406970e6b03048a
F20101130_AACCGN knight_e_Page_021.tif
610240f66a655844413204d92f4fca89
c5727ea474ea2b1ffda612934c8bda89d0bf22e3
F20101130_AACCFZ knight_e_Page_004.tif
33e021438278304528c989be89341495
3e7ffbee5fea7fb448ced05eddad65dea37e7148
F20101130_AACCHD knight_e_Page_040.tif
e6a92e6bd20d1936dbbd8be121127618
357e26aca12fa6a1b504d62038610b06aa7b3ae2
F20101130_AACCGO knight_e_Page_022.tif
510742a6d70c5c491af95c21a437c46a
d388a914c111df517cf398d1945e7fb5b3b888cf
F20101130_AACCHE knight_e_Page_042.tif
06af01dbf3bcc05867400bb1c264dad8
2402c08d324c4852d46e2b55e522c239e5d23079
F20101130_AACCGP knight_e_Page_023.tif
c7305d2d4834af1129831e4206650e9b
1ec79c570fd8f03d78d4fde0e6ec09b098edc347
F20101130_AACCHF knight_e_Page_043.tif
2d82e26ba0d99baa81300715282a5305
5af08c5e64103cc7040b35fb74543e3e40bb26f2
F20101130_AACCGQ knight_e_Page_024.tif
6220833d205b2d69830f8558da3ad58c
b72664a2b48a3925358bfb7799fec565d1779104
F20101130_AACCHG knight_e_Page_044.tif
211de22e6957d40a2428a51bca83c0cc
43cc1f98da9ad5c04409349d639a898d1707e2f5
F20101130_AACCGR knight_e_Page_025.tif
87536102e292d8233ec71172ebb190db
d3acde56e2cf3defac2fb6977a3734b664b37cfc
F20101130_AACCHH knight_e_Page_045.tif
7deadd4cc8628ea7f732554d958b4075
d7a3a7cf3a31ec50ebd02e8df79f73a9efd0cec4
F20101130_AACCGS knight_e_Page_026.tif
142f7a42ad337d8ca2de1982a30d4300
422a2450af574834c220453235b916ee10b0afb7
F20101130_AACCGT knight_e_Page_028.tif
45d4b1175689c7fbf698220861e79596
103a118af9cc7b7ea85d120a58ccadf15fb2904b
F20101130_AACCHI knight_e_Page_047.tif
2e5b53c9e1ba980cb2877815c7602d1c
599aa3cb5fb66c8cc1a7924529d29ec4b914645b
F20101130_AACCGU knight_e_Page_029.tif
118854b412df51dad32c39f2f0df6fab
3b3e2d4a0375255f4f0c8b6d13069a00b17ba39b
F20101130_AACCHJ knight_e_Page_049.tif
815b6397d9ab308fad0c9b7be0dd3cc2
c6436c98f53d8f5491c35931fb5194547ef12917
F20101130_AACCGV knight_e_Page_030.tif
da06ee7caab5ded84ea5f7807fd81616
72f37cbd228c8bd8b636133542e035987fd50417
F20101130_AACCHK knight_e_Page_052.tif
504d3dd5f6bcd39f69e729863859dd99
9eb4c14f9d72826fc41c4171529d64ebf53bdddb
F20101130_AACCGW knight_e_Page_031.tif
03ccef4f45b2d151d6888ee9e0389e6f
984d24ff8bd73515de7f6a920ce39a4fc84bc32c
F20101130_AACCHL knight_e_Page_053.tif
ba203222ee7469b3c62cbb0311130152
ebadee78f3744f29b967b7b4ffa023c0d1727405
F20101130_AACCGX knight_e_Page_032.tif
9b639fd006b2b3a75f99192cef00448e
fd04ea052f7282cd7c0c97270d9b3a81740cba09
F20101130_AACCIA knight_e_Page_072.tif
4d8dafa9d781eeff835507faee34eb13
b6d069ea2f728255df48ade5d23641291e2bbdd4
F20101130_AACCHM knight_e_Page_055.tif
ce36009ed46da039af8e23d2f67bef7d
df713e8b43579b8d92d69d45812923283cb0f995
F20101130_AACCGY knight_e_Page_034.tif
200716041ef3cc49be1b4320b3767d2f
9a67ea5edab039fe1ce567fd76730946b1631066
F20101130_AACCIB knight_e_Page_073.tif
1da690d551e24d161056cf7926ea659b
ced2b54922f777c1c50d016b2c3b6a57d37ba02e
F20101130_AACCHN knight_e_Page_056.tif
5879b6c914007be8a6c77cbf43925cb7
0cb9f1b87267eb5a74075b4ad02903f4dba15555
F20101130_AACCGZ knight_e_Page_035.tif
65388772fe3ad92ccc867dbb335a2af3
69c5281d442b5a41e1864aee6f6a5e6a647503d2
F20101130_AACCIC knight_e_Page_074.tif
7fc245ce76cd5bf05559e94616c2c9f4
96a16e629424fc0745c9a804b56af5075e9cb298
F20101130_AACCHO knight_e_Page_057.tif
2839f2ea3343d5fb802ae9f05274553a
b20e5488078fda31bfd31d66852fd5ce0e7738f6
F20101130_AACCID knight_e_Page_075.tif
45dc8f56d1e93ed299f16e2a22944e72
22143a4ec602ab4f4fd7a9d93ae531724307e72c
F20101130_AACCHP knight_e_Page_058.tif
e670b80e6a616feb69245d7fadf42887
8934bf2b0c5ab9cf1d3b28737d3e3755097ec9e2
F20101130_AACCIE knight_e_Page_076.tif
32be78cd4425532a340fd6d3c8153bc9
2f304f233f38fb36350edc1422d71291096a0785
F20101130_AACCHQ knight_e_Page_059.tif
2a1e16e1cbd0812ad8eae63756203d46
bb35e5fef4245a45ea0e5c6f1cff11637c5a5e01
F20101130_AACCIF knight_e_Page_077.tif
79a7b07aa0bd96a13325c5483b14b1ce
ffab8e52d9124a67123ffb00d9b01b49754d9d6f
F20101130_AACCHR knight_e_Page_060.tif
772eea35dfff1bc81e3e313809e6e3f2
62ebe210329c99fd8473e08b2e4b6c09c43c2d51
F20101130_AACCIG knight_e_Page_078.tif
540f35cce8e8a50d243587a8f09b2323
aa43cae088c8f7cf609a8f887253bc5402a94faf
F20101130_AACCHS knight_e_Page_062.tif
033de9888317a3a32a468c1b048f63de
f8f66379041d2907de9561c257b0fbc5d09299e3
F20101130_AACCIH knight_e_Page_079.tif
63a957930332378f7ae1b5280ac2b621
c91722e5ca64c42a6d0fb3d71c0cc9d68d6aa8eb
F20101130_AACCHT knight_e_Page_063.tif
e28b23f9a2d779cd2b86339a805bc87f
d2ab1e28d2cf6478322fba3ce00f945978924242
F20101130_AACCII knight_e_Page_081.tif
499c6b512f88e21489227bcada34f469
71042d57e2dd63ef2d1a967f75d612f3a55387ae
F20101130_AACCHU knight_e_Page_065.tif
64216886acf1e72002b597d9297ba65e
de720cf422915928299dfa0eefc0e649caf23aff
F20101130_AACCHV knight_e_Page_066.tif
03b102b5114c5b20ea6f5567dc60348a
6021d336918ed3431e9bbb9096d315d1d34a5fcd
F20101130_AACCIJ knight_e_Page_082.tif
b64d5cd02bc2afbafe9688aaaa034c2e
7b74a2c003d770e04c1467f50f623389aa639c55
F20101130_AACCHW knight_e_Page_067.tif
e356317332a040bbe203f3f88892632d
968e0c4bc9f7f0059255729a252d5daa8f5f3f8c
F20101130_AACCIK knight_e_Page_083.tif
cab21f19500b7ccbe2b27e8e3630c995
6aac2b25478980e7b28034ae30e6e1138a14e3b6
F20101130_AACCHX knight_e_Page_068.tif
cc93f785ff6119a4d27254c00ab77c3b
3451f7b234e7e23cdb3826f701f30d586c904436
7622 F20101130_AACCJA knight_e_Page_001.pro
be39441f96bf72f068ddc5264812d5d5
912ba9a43f616ab2ffa0ba258c11d1c00fbb895d
F20101130_AACCIL knight_e_Page_084.tif
358591ce3e5d46b0a26437b3785b5851
aaa57cfa219834afe52bec94195097abb93252d5
F20101130_AACCHY knight_e_Page_069.tif
8e47f3247c92aa5ed93bf3a298172c45
00d51e07ae69125758870e1db393e16477e4fc86
1097 F20101130_AACCJB knight_e_Page_003.pro
67f32629617776d25821396ea7c1670c
d3445c017debb7020fd13cb8f76b317b8566ef54
F20101130_AACCIM knight_e_Page_085.tif
812ff94221e15717ff3e7d1150e8dcb9
b6eaafae27d2aa8e323d5f77ce0f19248a5ee067
F20101130_AACCHZ knight_e_Page_070.tif
fc78b4849030f623191715a486478022
c12ca01f03c080412322a9e3b71839745c342955
29477 F20101130_AACCJC knight_e_Page_004.pro
e3bae0979662457be320bf8d3028a6d9
0ed0bc559dcbd4739743011b8c78281dfbe06446
F20101130_AACCIN knight_e_Page_086.tif
f2a79cfee6cc5e86c103d2111cd53111
9efc6cc3b640c348d9bb9dbcf511c367264cf789
63247 F20101130_AACCJD knight_e_Page_005.pro
43fa25555ec846c1f82d5065cf63f46c
7c47b40bb0d174e719879baebf8006b381d8dba0
F20101130_AACCIO knight_e_Page_087.tif
3c9a00c363f3603b97a1a6cf93d0e9f8
5c1e69cfc5b237abe64526aba28780def69e0712
21534 F20101130_AACCJE knight_e_Page_006.pro
bc03db5a016c41a5bb3c188d295f4e8a
10c7397cc6cdb8682a316a3975ccb754cf250e2f
F20101130_AACCIP knight_e_Page_088.tif
1f817fe3e83d3a0fdb693fcf5c25be36
aeb6d1efdd4f66f2560087b1523388c3c70355e5
29787 F20101130_AACCJF knight_e_Page_007.pro
ad5b83c78a3ff3355879b7fc37d24a2d
d1fd57ff3d3c540492b76df68ff48572697c0f68
F20101130_AACCIQ knight_e_Page_089.tif
e7092ce2abf77da2aa14036f1e702530
e7369ce4d6692bb037f3edb63ee45c6dc1adf626
40510 F20101130_AACCJG knight_e_Page_008.pro
5b489de06c379e41e5ad724916c11d75
eecb2d56f6e3771c9c720d35157d60027e453672
F20101130_AACCIR knight_e_Page_091.tif
bf92f593d33dc2511473a42e21846f75
c13c3c1cb17f4c66d5ed5579bf3dc9675e39691c
38159 F20101130_AACCJH knight_e_Page_009.pro
7cf0038ff3f294c6fb2edcf6f4043627
ddf58c379f40450aa85e880b93a06800f00c7c84
F20101130_AACCIS knight_e_Page_092.tif
340ae887ee2df08241b2b0058e8008e2
13ba3fa98d4a4a9b60b5dd229cbae41d99e95aeb
19153 F20101130_AACCJI knight_e_Page_010.pro
b5be585924ae6eecd1e7fe47320eff49
a3b0ef6331241a263285cbf05dad162df15c7d51
F20101130_AACCIT knight_e_Page_093.tif
78ab6e92cc64205cda77dbb965e9db55
c24b12ba84e977a67260ebbda403e3cfe236294a
41491 F20101130_AACCJJ knight_e_Page_011.pro
371e795148b65c0d30545d05f4692911
5e8f1cac954f6b84c3c52a994104ac4aa14d12eb
F20101130_AACCIU knight_e_Page_094.tif
e6b35a1947829cafa278c23b478fe634
4ea7c893316e856ce99bd41d2c1fca860e8bc470
F20101130_AACCIV knight_e_Page_095.tif
a7dba62885a29e61cc0ed9828388d1a6
8fa4b2e4f7f8583a7bbb2e6ed286141b6a280fcb
52952 F20101130_AACCJK knight_e_Page_013.pro
1163ac5e622953189d6d5d4708c71e45
832b222a0ae72f260187f934c6b6e7c0b0b63cbc
F20101130_AACCIW knight_e_Page_097.tif
b6c51e450dd079b6299d637159be7884
c0ed74eba9afcd8d785d8be4395f802998f2e29f
50733 F20101130_AACCJL knight_e_Page_014.pro
9534d6ae44c1870fe6d1358e2d046dbf
24ab40fd7eb6d8337c661c43a580b8731494c0c1
F20101130_AACCIX knight_e_Page_098.tif
7fcee1e7dd6f36606f5a3c33af834ccf
efd5f5f1b4884da2128c352c235bbe4dcd6cb328
50305 F20101130_AACCKA knight_e_Page_032.pro
471df285fc4e45e60fce7eaabed441b3
e93da8f31e68f723e40dd608d6c7463142bdc361
50149 F20101130_AACCJM knight_e_Page_015.pro
fdc1a400db44186045507c417a81588e
6bf30ea19eb189ecda0c27047b7803c09b0d45be
F20101130_AACCIY knight_e_Page_099.tif
f13332482f159f80caeb9121c1533e64
3a3949b23ada7e440be15baf40f9aec0d73f5640
48731 F20101130_AACCKB knight_e_Page_033.pro
f813eae7f0781f780b283854fdcf699b
b246aafa9030c7bdc4756a7601eeeb3f933f3787
49800 F20101130_AACCJN knight_e_Page_016.pro
ade059228b63c16ac50dd6d4e422c1d8
6c03ecd10787d8252956e44aacb5f03d0f061c94
F20101130_AACCIZ knight_e_Page_100.tif
288faa935b0c3703da9dd52ba8c2c432
8be70cdb60413c6e5bdddb962f7caf3b89b2d4ad
44342 F20101130_AACCKC knight_e_Page_034.pro
2885ead2130e70fefa7d1333957fb2dc
efc8849ab22d987dceb4d3fb370f0bc57533cf3b
51080 F20101130_AACCJO knight_e_Page_017.pro
2171bfdb9f854abc62682db3589c0e88
50dca80e9fa4228c4b9c4c9de33ce122dd1fd1fe
47987 F20101130_AACCKD knight_e_Page_035.pro
fe98783b2fe84c3ae877bfc0cf6f4f7f
c458d635fac81200b0d5fa9ebd6aa9cae35c0dd2
51895 F20101130_AACCJP knight_e_Page_019.pro
ea978137849cc79b3528eeae4d73158a
ed8a64e1ecb76d29e5867db9b0572d679a344228
21796 F20101130_AACCKE knight_e_Page_037.pro
a781a30e9e297ab3c907ccaa5bf19fd2
0ce9abf47223a3c9881c5eedccf73c0d25d392e2
45411 F20101130_AACCJQ knight_e_Page_021.pro
ef44acc2ce910c53961b71377e99e8cd
40fa948313fea464d8c835d9f7f3adfaf71620b7
31718 F20101130_AACCKF knight_e_Page_038.pro
b708cd309de86bfb7f23b241fb496798
9ccf80102e741eda2a486a10004acf5c9978a36f
48670 F20101130_AACCJR knight_e_Page_022.pro
ded7acdb422c3fcaec764226c0f58c15
821e762505515f54dbc5b94014fbeda399b4d7b1
56172 F20101130_AACCKG knight_e_Page_039.pro
85497f1a1497eba3e7ae556142ca3b80
ef2e50ddabc243f129febf70ab9e7b24d7f70233
49799 F20101130_AACCJS knight_e_Page_023.pro
6ef2cc0fcc318e11c62605fb8f0cb396
eda001255403e5b4a8578b2ebfbb92c2d5ce3cad
31352 F20101130_AACCKH knight_e_Page_040.pro
aa0dd340438819bd95c45f0c5fa98545
78cd1cf2c12e18657cd4afcf94f71b18244b1365
49536 F20101130_AACCJT knight_e_Page_024.pro
0cabda7bb33a5d12010cbd57ff510435
c636f8f98cacb618e23002cdae29d47d850d99ef
42447 F20101130_AACCKI knight_e_Page_042.pro
af796321f1dea25acbb63f525a8ab70c
e6931ebaa7e1b62a9aed12c7906eb7829df6b284
48560 F20101130_AACCJU knight_e_Page_026.pro
180794b1a390b619b366e00d520160aa
a306ea86bd12fcfe1e7da16eaec22466d1df7dca
48145 F20101130_AACCKJ knight_e_Page_043.pro
96967d4c538e6f97a46164aec03f3b4a
2d40156281b0654c47eb5877476fecdd32373230
52606 F20101130_AACCJV knight_e_Page_027.pro
e2f5212ab3046ecd60002f4c4ffa54dc
be377de996ceed7458cc1cff5e39b9a9317914e4
40892 F20101130_AACCKK knight_e_Page_044.pro
e706971863e133225e9d97c622888216
9cc19197f94f501f6cdb8100ae609649e0cebc39
28392 F20101130_AACCJW knight_e_Page_028.pro
e99617a0172365013757069128fd8edc
8507850e5a27a6fe06268f6638494189a870c206
43073 F20101130_AACCJX knight_e_Page_029.pro
66e2d36d8849ead6da93a2c88f6d8e12
152071aa18f5d40352dfac3b62f84e413e7aa84e
48418 F20101130_AACCLA knight_e_Page_061.pro
86830f761cde19067847453e7fcb89ce
58619a126bf872cf2308a8b4ee6980efd65ecc8c
50363 F20101130_AACCKL knight_e_Page_045.pro
47bb4cc21cede53b68f8b54638d4b7e6
cc5eefacace3cb2c0d8c639a5afecffbe0598313
50407 F20101130_AACCJY knight_e_Page_030.pro
02445ed9ddbc5d45c57ddcba224a8212
23069e22a7b69a178629485dd962960debf4e20a
50383 F20101130_AACCLB knight_e_Page_062.pro
cbbefc00d4f069a6185854f646588bfd
cf7f1f2912d5a92b9d9b5be236b4c364055455fd
52193 F20101130_AACCKM knight_e_Page_046.pro
cab7bc770ddeb7fae4a61624b05fa5d2
83a4b0f1d732ed20e707830f2458a66335fbe80e
47457 F20101130_AACCJZ knight_e_Page_031.pro
dabda6082c5ee4691da2e67d680df6e8
a6ecf1d29db3c36ac653ab13d966df9c1dc59cad
52317 F20101130_AACCLC knight_e_Page_063.pro
839e242c84cac1022cd940918ac1c991
dbe18e1485ce092928a33b817c0c19e846ac61ec
F20101130_AACCKN knight_e_Page_047.pro
cc617fbf8a894c7cd92d0196921cb528
33f9ef376d0966c344a32a5746f9c5dc66c34fab
48066 F20101130_AACCLD knight_e_Page_064.pro
e9948bda66ea12745f3f208516edf38b
e220b11cb65b64fd411115acfee5394c78c5c845
11240 F20101130_AACCKO knight_e_Page_048.pro
38bdb3d435c3a43260bf2c5bf4be6cd9
b99698edf134188a0a0dc538df16b80611b151da
36429 F20101130_AACCLE knight_e_Page_066.pro
2938ea2d11c87513b35aa9df8ff572de
102e202e06fab9f29445d80b806ee911d6e59b58
43046 F20101130_AACCKP knight_e_Page_049.pro
a737fb8b85d58bef481406227d717330
8f1d683150464301f13812fdd777956d0611f2b1
20297 F20101130_AACCLF knight_e_Page_067.pro
aa320bc5fdf852a2aa3b999c70659a9a
f8c9c9c7c66271ae2ded58ff2e5d927cb250a5cb
49505 F20101130_AACCKQ knight_e_Page_051.pro
e914b95fb2fabdaefdf12a3b2a978b27
6df8696c25aad7fcef64781282d40b08bbb6c2fa
17945 F20101130_AACCLG knight_e_Page_068.pro
0a9c133533b592a32f947ef67dbca174
3b6d8fc9dd37b4126080c6fca579fccfa1668c72
51021 F20101130_AACCKR knight_e_Page_052.pro
125860a900d5689562f22985e539fa80
d6d9a167b41673cfbc2b557984ee2f6e77f43a20
16615 F20101130_AACCLH knight_e_Page_069.pro
604ab8d48f74547db8b5d18f008b82de
877aa19ef8ab2c7cb8a1f34755ac8d921a60ec11
38024 F20101130_AACCKS knight_e_Page_053.pro
707d5fdc1b499dbcad020c8dc0c68013
fdb6727985173c3931390b3be1f9c75b563b2992
20267 F20101130_AACCLI knight_e_Page_070.pro
606782ebe0ba89c1494b3e39d482fd35
6a2dd90eda24bcd9c43712fa7919df3e2ca8ca5e
48204 F20101130_AACCKT knight_e_Page_054.pro
5cd88fac6600328d3845e974fdc50890
5c0511ae80f8498cf3fc8461dc1bc345ba11830a
26055 F20101130_AACCLJ knight_e_Page_071.pro
a8f050b7a3330ea6b703c2b8a0c9006f
24560cbe3332dba5131fb8cf8080c7fa6fc9b50c
42947 F20101130_AACCKU knight_e_Page_055.pro
8470bad5d67320df9b0d2a15f6920f50
f274b0682d468077f8e8665b09d224471fac6aad
19779 F20101130_AACCLK knight_e_Page_073.pro
d85f916a20222fc9da61a4e134803660
b46030f5a6ce1a3b4ec2ee2af206c93b2aa089f9
46751 F20101130_AACCKV knight_e_Page_056.pro
c4879b5296a1ebd455b2014bb9ebaf91
20fdf691aa01a64b2fefe0418d25ea93a5331dd7
20187 F20101130_AACCLL knight_e_Page_074.pro
e1ebc3154401e70cccdb981848bbcbf5
040e35cbf202e215beeaa8b908f68755f93a43d8
50718 F20101130_AACCKW knight_e_Page_057.pro
6d2f71c38181ed77110a7ba6be639a72
b8bf4f57195248e163f58e596aad965a605fd35c
2954 F20101130_AACCMA knight_e_Page_094.pro
18ef4195232d0e076c614456a77e6453
9d7acf9bd2b74547f2ec4034c5d57d71f1819379
47283 F20101130_AACCKX knight_e_Page_058.pro
b39fd787a539dafd269a25e741a3b07e
b6bc6ae09235e6e262fde3a6cb9377937be70785
53220 F20101130_AACCMB knight_e_Page_095.pro
6a44f42a4f996309ac12bede58cc392c
4d826520446a5a97f1c8b144f249808beca07fbe
20460 F20101130_AACCLM knight_e_Page_075.pro
1c42053d7bee6e29981d6d2c22504b6c
b8ca7a9ed248259576de2ad26c1a73b064a377b2
43949 F20101130_AACCKY knight_e_Page_059.pro
ceb57371b6264beff3865a73002d4a97
f0fe1cda1eed2ed30067699a6771e11f3ae39d75
52078 F20101130_AACCMC knight_e_Page_096.pro
8fad1c5435c29bd904a98f207c2f82b5
24f3762d1f3bd19d54417879265574bbc7c5e588
25390 F20101130_AACCLN knight_e_Page_076.pro
94be5ab746f0a2b7b91214e5540ba9d8
1868bcdc0fb1388cb667ba5f005b13ef04bfb10f
50253 F20101130_AACCKZ knight_e_Page_060.pro
ebf001ff8423945f1083f3f39f7cb1a7
819f9372c790ad7bd9b4dc9458b21ef37bbe26e7
58675 F20101130_AACCMD knight_e_Page_097.pro
898961bbfa2e057051b0093301176d21
ee2dc374ff0b1690a1503b67c1d64b7e6dfdc982
24615 F20101130_AACCLO knight_e_Page_077.pro
374a0a699b4a8cc1219e7f0f2f00d98e
598ab3ae241a997d2296c0ff1141c9d7f21b7c1f
53018 F20101130_AACCME knight_e_Page_098.pro
5c1154b84e803adb6921621e0e0a96f3
6d4829a7fe82b7fa8c4b7f571e17ed41569d4b9a
27468 F20101130_AACCLP knight_e_Page_081.pro
d4f72db92d06b8da08db0948a520bca0
6b68e86c77d7166ae9f3725dc4bf674926e79bf9
12579 F20101130_AACCMF knight_e_Page_099.pro
efa29e5c71a136dfbdcdbbadcbeeb27c
81ed2fb94271cdd4359cc3abb9c1717836c235f1
24426 F20101130_AACCLQ knight_e_Page_082.pro
5877539d5c301235228bc2c0b768be67
a023b7959f3af915327f5d5e6471c2f39303d947
9447 F20101130_AACCMG knight_e_Page_100.pro
61792deebcbe953ed8644be4e190d605
cacd02af246d0dacfc434ea3a4ed746b0fc040d6
26431 F20101130_AACCLR knight_e_Page_083.pro
63c8ef710ca87d326819c120c96cf168
a14fad562bd4144bff8af3ccf7c84f9e378676c3
452 F20101130_AACCMH knight_e_Page_001.txt
29560f9f46e0a85f9d69157b9d4e953c
f4d3f033c1ea4294aa111e8473151cd62ff7823f
18453 F20101130_AACCLS knight_e_Page_084.pro
c854c04a258b70484b880b63d6fee677
2f18c7a78c551859c87f0ae37887ed3f28ac982c
1232 F20101130_AACCMI knight_e_Page_004.txt
55cdcbcf9cdc58bdddb591a86e24cc8d
1fcaa958296fe6b61207c9fa23621486781eb2af
30768 F20101130_AACCLT knight_e_Page_085.pro
aaec707ee52065682c12560e6b814782
2048108b3d33203432161b0324f6f583fa3b5392
804 F20101130_AACCMJ knight_e_Page_006.txt
7ce62de4455891a7dc2074755dcefce9
a897cac2b36ab47d1f7632bc7801a4a96b6ed009
26187 F20101130_AACCLU knight_e_Page_086.pro
63f9b03e541bc3ab572a6cf36537271f
84bcb73bac0a933465dd57f2bd8f4775801e565e
1683 F20101130_AACCMK knight_e_Page_008.txt
227348db27c0155cf809acc6c4276a6e
966365e5490cdaf60b2471e5ec670f8b44668986
19862 F20101130_AACCLV knight_e_Page_087.pro
0d92e5c54ca6042976322046c2806f87
503afba0523fe1ad753265835cce6f9d588858e1
1717 F20101130_AACCML knight_e_Page_009.txt
5836f35de1c8fd5dc51b611f4340c2ed
a0760a84e8fa8e3c46a89682cc359e17694018d3
15636 F20101130_AACCLW knight_e_Page_088.pro
681e706acf1dc6239ddfdc21e6bf1345
b74e5e565b2953d84cd28ea65bb49148e17ab7a6
768 F20101130_AACCMM knight_e_Page_010.txt
3e053d87f6876c414c8e09a33d5749fb
9e22fcfd8dfed49e7aa366c594327083c4674eed
7318 F20101130_AACCLX knight_e_Page_090.pro
e0c219cd81989413fa0d849162d2d2d1
8f8cfabbf62df5d62beb2d215b80fa5a9f2462c1
1985 F20101130_AACCNA knight_e_Page_030.txt
ad79c8add69bd26baed749c4877b9e3f
984a3e3bcc3112318da11f74150a0ec9b5350226
12992 F20101130_AACCLY knight_e_Page_091.pro
3e31055936eed21a525c26994758ecc0
eca0752ee134315e698c44777ac5d070af1a437d
1911 F20101130_AACCNB knight_e_Page_031.txt
15ba55565893adca4342acbcc93bed32
f96f147e0b72c3685d3b264ba59b4883e6e31398
1786 F20101130_AACCMN knight_e_Page_011.txt
89dbf0e5304f7aee60a81d47dd7f5167
11ce9abe6e38c64f3e3154d260421a8a825d7cd1
13600 F20101130_AACCLZ knight_e_Page_092.pro
f7241b02aac50195cce1c8fee6eae61b
221f1d8e49c206b0e0f9fd57e4e92e5331f765fc
1981 F20101130_AACCNC knight_e_Page_032.txt
92aa7bf9ea1fb924225e3f8b1608661a
e624f4d5b3af039b44a2c235324d5a0328fd25fb
1873 F20101130_AACCMO knight_e_Page_012.txt
62bae6c68c13130a53b2b689a7c83ffe
f625f2c688a5949cba70e036b5ca2077141becdb
1925 F20101130_AACCND knight_e_Page_033.txt
4ed3aa4fc6d2c7e0b24af43b4b1e5e83
2be7fb3735675e6d88d8dc6c006b0479ff59ca55
2394 F20101130_AACCMP knight_e_Page_013.txt
2ac9aa99a676d16f853313d1b3c25c78
ecfad9eed5e824ee6f332e04e2e34f4d72ee4f8d
1829 F20101130_AACCNE knight_e_Page_034.txt
33d78ed78a1630a0f43cfb970212d7fc
0dafa414c90a8fba353c6b891dc7c20cec42b75e
2001 F20101130_AACCMQ knight_e_Page_014.txt
4f9a02dacf50046ff6d0c0a05bf6a3f9
996f3bfdc4a09993b2a646e0f7ba659dcfe2ed62
1895 F20101130_AACCNF knight_e_Page_035.txt
885bde0ed2caf9c2eadf9b7ccc55add3
8f448a14776300dbc3eceb32184d363542ef7363
1970 F20101130_AACCMR knight_e_Page_015.txt
571cb4539a925a535ed5f74a7de3032e
e4c49004c6ac9ec16b5b7a00445c7a058bb61da0
1939 F20101130_AACCNG knight_e_Page_036.txt
d8dbd7b2c9a1e0864ef85afae6e98059
b0f55ee27997bfccc6cd1a64b1d3d3b824933ea9
1922 F20101130_AACCMS knight_e_Page_018.txt
536b0ad3a49f5fca88511a491e6a02a7
5cc0b90057464696729e87b04abe781dcc847bea
967 F20101130_AACCNH knight_e_Page_037.txt
5c82f52f118168b7e934eba78ecaba72
a431e442b1285cba08d08418589beb5f43392899
1858 F20101130_AACCMT knight_e_Page_021.txt
800a9efa75e93715b8d06d43285cf262
94ec48929bc6765559cc414be7842dfb2d0f8267
1796 F20101130_AACCNI knight_e_Page_038.txt
3433d06f99de9e9dad8e3d382704c8b4
f8e854520f3654028ef72423b7fa62a353a12689
1957 F20101130_AACCMU knight_e_Page_023.txt
567a0363f11540e406c7de3b4d79f093
d3ea67177c1485890987294c0baec1581661f3ad
2985 F20101130_AACCNJ knight_e_Page_039.txt
887695eb683675aec9362eee7647bd9f
8fbe4276b47739f6987023647750767026d02356
1961 F20101130_AACCMV knight_e_Page_024.txt
cc436f858b6507a77f0cf936b4d1a028
1aafa3b78c95787ba866b559675cceff825ae053
1836 F20101130_AACCNK knight_e_Page_040.txt
f6914cd88271d4346c667f9ba389d90f
a0d311931e14bedbaa10a697af5594db28d8e655
2006 F20101130_AACCMW knight_e_Page_025.txt
df0b8f11c93d0a4a26c53e35dd7994b6
e6072e0969618847ef77d0d64e5dee97fd02a708
3146 F20101130_AACCNL knight_e_Page_041.txt
d92b33aeca6aab2a4dbb36922029b964
e1247d0b82a00b04ef55d8a27d290312125b72e3
2002 F20101130_AACCOA knight_e_Page_057.txt
9ec8c45c9c0da364df1e423e153ffab0
59fe0e6786add87442bf252634b918cf58f70cb8
1780 F20101130_AACCNM knight_e_Page_042.txt
4d3793c32f020007267676a43437d72b
cd70c46cf42584e60a3857de73d0edb18acee213
2062 F20101130_AACCMX knight_e_Page_027.txt
1b4e461a79aa37857c6a8a6af79ab4ee
74f61ea339dbe458b20a9ee4f3722f602c241005
1869 F20101130_AACCOB knight_e_Page_058.txt
cbb7cc2bcd4921f46021faf1682794b1
af861c230b204f9a5eab875426514e7bf10b5412
1941 F20101130_AACCNN knight_e_Page_043.txt
22a8f683101f1426875b4bdd1c27e61b
f557983f5b45efda54be1bfe94fe781593d347d6
1133 F20101130_AACCMY knight_e_Page_028.txt
c86a8738728dbf70f4d107dc433fe74c
6f4a96879a6619bd0867ef99bdd39170c2b809ea
1834 F20101130_AACCOC knight_e_Page_059.txt
eecea81fd486b1f09c298e0cdce0f1fa
0c53e200c6b5c04a24ced2428245db12887d5b82
1806 F20101130_AACCMZ knight_e_Page_029.txt
813e0056aad5d6f5e2d6a89b6e3e2eb1
587a634c457b3a2870f6bc5f52f12c812badc475
1915 F20101130_AACCOD knight_e_Page_061.txt
22a1872650940887e0343f587de477ba
27974b9b3ccecb56a6aa560185b26d2ccb61263b
1696 F20101130_AACCNO knight_e_Page_044.txt
79fc68d12c677629f56d677678cd5590
bebdd4fa347df84ef4ab9476e9d1e9d6f7bd63e6
2022 F20101130_AACCOE knight_e_Page_062.txt
a3108e484344ad0641ec7f1852cf90d2
05182d184ece5c6bec905ddf56a98342337ca467
1990 F20101130_AACCNP knight_e_Page_045.txt
23db8c6b0ad23b6cb33e8caa2905fd30
ee54dcfd8f9a55f9109dba94e357b14053aef3e2
2091 F20101130_AACCOF knight_e_Page_063.txt
b3bb9182762b153ff0de60fc423692e9
789a33332652ae8e6d68988207880f82ef767396
2076 F20101130_AACCNQ knight_e_Page_046.txt
5e5dc0f4d5ca6c08f8ca6fee07c4265d
e84c1675e1c7778ea528a826307fc060d2dd0d2c
1900 F20101130_AACCOG knight_e_Page_064.txt
6dd72f4dd0ee094e291b2b0b406307f5
8cf76cecc2b04d969c666e9bb5d91a2a38c1f072
1917 F20101130_AACCNR knight_e_Page_047.txt
12e56a5b9c63cd80a8fe26e8e0a5cf56
cdd841281fa0fc657005740bd91ed4613a3c54ff
194 F20101130_AACCOH knight_e_Page_065.txt
8f4a46db97790ee0cb45bffe1cb2d589
411283b885560da72c2fd505e03efba521e11551
529 F20101130_AACCNS knight_e_Page_048.txt
de646d10e67db3a0df53699d5885ae12
eeea443fdae83ab1d51694ad18a76cf6ebe31b47
1564 F20101130_AACCOI knight_e_Page_066.txt
63311e00cf20cb0449d150351aa6d7ed
b7f49094417698ea02aa09c765686842cdc4091d
1757 F20101130_AACCNT knight_e_Page_050.txt
b369ebc981eb4481f1dcb79fc58b1a00
0240b5ef70aa93e5330e76f5de552b76ff19478a
999 F20101130_AACCOJ knight_e_Page_067.txt
1bd2edb77e8fea30d08423f28a424ed8
377b3156c6770df994778ac31bb082926858bf09
2514 F20101130_AACCNU knight_e_Page_051.txt
5fa5f610cefa81af640b645f6f90188d
94f409d174e1960cdd6ae3b57ec1e7629a431139
822 F20101130_AACCOK knight_e_Page_069.txt
17cf3f73a58df530bfb3491cd63755b5
78d071b4d8424a7e932387485ac58b3415f4a52b
2016 F20101130_AACCNV knight_e_Page_052.txt
ec62f2d2960e8eb045a84b49d9a2b4d6
e764cf1c81ae464e680f63445890347edc22bb9b
981 F20101130_AACCOL knight_e_Page_070.txt
50d89691492885e1dc31dcb2da55ad8f
5d58b6a1bab912e20e5a209f57ff43d8092be404
1622 F20101130_AACCNW knight_e_Page_053.txt
ac04ace49e64658f7bad4b5bc8b2c855
83ff2c55ff59af7be5e49964ac93053da320cbba
1234 F20101130_AACCOM knight_e_Page_071.txt
aa55e837dda91002adb4a07f3fa45582
88fb4e6ec6cf095a04e5753cec75bd4e408f4c1c
1899 F20101130_AACCNX knight_e_Page_054.txt
04f9aa9d0ca03a02a55f936a0e9c0f11
f7cb2e4331e0d5fd978f66b89fcec027d2f9fb96
930 F20101130_AACCPA knight_e_Page_087.txt
a5312fd5165ace81e6da5f65870ef8ee
3b0dc66ba67b5d275277bda02b25a81dbf9244e1
979 F20101130_AACCON knight_e_Page_072.txt
c588af4edb2d4a9ebd5472c7a138892b
c1eaf35494f9eb5d3d0d6fcfe20778ccc511f750
1746 F20101130_AACCNY knight_e_Page_055.txt
d31cd39cdb91eb3d6738fe6f8a92a737
bbb7184bd90b94393d1b53969b580b5842036a7c
1182 F20101130_AACCPB knight_e_Page_089.txt
1edfd099854a036e29bb8b3583c1f939
c41a68cf3c3a52403a0f22f9188b127e422f877b
868 F20101130_AACCOO knight_e_Page_073.txt
d64b35d0d904362800f247d0b03d89c0
34926b5911603e202c17e2c843371796ff46c773
2350 F20101130_AACCNZ knight_e_Page_056.txt
556adb7b36411fd036e9a5c2d6152755
a4da1e2a1998e95aa16a5d165bb50d0a0d1fe337
365 F20101130_AACCPC knight_e_Page_090.txt
29a399b8b2bd7400f8e0b45aff8b4404
b60fdbb7f166b3efa876fdb803505ebe35d984ae
648 F20101130_AACCPD knight_e_Page_091.txt
d748a31cfc6fc827783284ffb4964984
5b7b5e5b657c8d50f7243f6b0eaba41b42ed17af
910 F20101130_AACCOP knight_e_Page_074.txt
5022b1ec93d2b4d29d8954dcefa67e3f
cf5683dc8e9b0eee7deba5ddaef9c2aaf23b1bdd
769 F20101130_AACCPE knight_e_Page_092.txt
ad7d822aaaace41d58a46b41edc4cbf0
dbfedfbfa4eb9afa6211f384dc0328595b2c7c83
951 F20101130_AACCOQ knight_e_Page_075.txt
a685d646dc3d50b8f01c7c81f90fe702
9ec502f7c35d8528006e186a3a3a547edac6a687
861 F20101130_AACCPF knight_e_Page_093.txt
48c965dac48ecb0d5a528d18bedc2b9d
cd5037e8bd019de5bd3e0837d0aee3b3190c6540
1100 F20101130_AACCOR knight_e_Page_076.txt
c254805104fd6a5b75d11a0d99f089a9
f3e8c4b302f32ac7860526efbb96d22f29f132b9
166 F20101130_AACCPG knight_e_Page_094.txt
d21687f7acc01843bb05fda7eba724dc
cf2acbc70359a6343d641944cc1738ae39b94c23
1106 F20101130_AACCOS knight_e_Page_077.txt
6d4503fb440b7e3cd798e69a5135e72d
fa1a7c9613cfdad5fa56ae70aff7ef797073d8dc
2205 F20101130_AACCPH knight_e_Page_095.txt
1cf1b7be2d2aa45f05ac9f4be2531925
846230aafb415f57da0b3c4b775af67adb60c66e
1082 F20101130_AACCOT knight_e_Page_078.txt
c84574187e657c08420e754d1ba9321b
f7a9eee7ca7f661d6472876b3155561ddfb5d46d
2167 F20101130_AACCPI knight_e_Page_096.txt
d4ffff9b786ef029626e0e6350d13e31
fe9460424ea60153c48af1441864f0d3bbcacbd0
1104 F20101130_AACCOU knight_e_Page_079.txt
d1e021807b620bbd92ec79a9034748e6
daf8d3d5f9866f7329eccc1692f5202734a2e004
2440 F20101130_AACCPJ knight_e_Page_097.txt
85a49912b19126bc7deb6118e8a6603a
e3079acd7cfcf7f536b32509f106c73fec3265c7
982 F20101130_AACCOV knight_e_Page_080.txt
2019eb611034e497a7dfcc1b07ac4e2d
1e29b91210ec43cb312b07bb3dc0954dc9fa8b59
2177 F20101130_AACCPK knight_e_Page_098.txt
fbfe0441027662838d5dd8b8c483ace7
491ca8780770a6e94f90549c3ef89cfc14db1feb
F20101130_AACCOW knight_e_Page_082.txt
615d8739dd039e9a6e78cad5246fffe6
c752a5f7129f253317e88467ebb4fdf24f577a43
558 F20101130_AACCPL knight_e_Page_099.txt
55343b18d4a0a4268bffd9ba858865ed
494f31fdb437853dc8f78d63fe8dfd49cbf6deed
1346 F20101130_AACCOX knight_e_Page_083.txt
272e75b2dc3bc43d026d96c4d0bcc31c
f521a21665f2252e45e126b379c0a077c7de29f7
18584 F20101130_AACCQA knight_e_Page_009.QC.jpg
d6421132a9ac92b73d7b3ccd819347b5
e71a34c84b0f16b3467214afb5ec3d73687c55f3
2415 F20101130_AACCPM knight_e_Page_001thm.jpg
b537511c82d57f0936f3dd1330a8fdb7
c8b1ae24abd813b51b61e893b16a986181894108
978 F20101130_AACCOY knight_e_Page_084.txt
9e94da21c3eb2697e211320a243c78fa
a887f84babd4b67dc665ea6a7c239fe0c9982895
5232 F20101130_AACCQB knight_e_Page_009thm.jpg
f16c3fccf0f3fa14eee1841735c051b1
ac9f052220ed254f2f7afee96375692e2baa0862
1278337 F20101130_AACCPN knight_e.pdf
f6958fbe7f5db67881d09e720e4745ce
2ffceeb866791fb5cccdb1c3792acff6feac05ba
1332 F20101130_AACCOZ knight_e_Page_086.txt
dd2d8f9e58e2afbbe24b97df9a8d2a27
85d1c63d5a49d873a181e622bd91c7f5ec23da33
10593 F20101130_AACCQC knight_e_Page_010.QC.jpg
9c92306dd2a8af440a49bb3d4d971022
14da262d2469205a6f5456a23656693c8289ce32
6471 F20101130_AACCPO knight_e_Page_001.QC.jpg
5662183fde9b7b3c324de06a452c69ba
f1ebdb9e1ea5280df814e6e844b23c2002d7a8d6
3283 F20101130_AACCQD knight_e_Page_010thm.jpg
54211516c89da49435d820d3a75f7c9a
c6ba0a577f2527e214a6c54f75f42b8e3ea0bb48
3624 F20101130_AACCPP knight_e_Page_002.QC.jpg
ee6f81e60fc7a5596b80a08d4d581fda
8e0f526a57e66e44a78ea7c157f56be5090a80c5
19804 F20101130_AACCQE knight_e_Page_011.QC.jpg
9edd51ad070d3beeb538fabe954316be
9389121583d0742392bc228ace08002d65cad728
5718 F20101130_AACCQF knight_e_Page_011thm.jpg
c7b3cc3239939f72f554c7c7ffece1b0
f4d335322e3e9b2eabdc796e616169cfb9c02773
3273 F20101130_AACCPQ knight_e_Page_003.QC.jpg
f19a756a8c9411824881e6756e4e5ce3
58d7df893190616ede2c2e146d50126cee787e98
22382 F20101130_AACCQG knight_e_Page_012.QC.jpg
4145bffb89ba193eebb3b931ac07a4c3
3c99aaa3e6731c12adc259b825c88bfba69ad230
1372 F20101130_AACCPR knight_e_Page_003thm.jpg
f883d9abf5c72cd2e47d113994f5bc63
60d0114ba62dd88623c2e227a9d26adb551a99d7
6276 F20101130_AACCQH knight_e_Page_012thm.jpg
bce02d2a84568d84a5797e23b78a1565
323384a2fb3db92f5e51f7e2f942ce40bb983e58
4789 F20101130_AACCPS knight_e_Page_004thm.jpg
ae10293178161e62428fab14f0697606
344897647519fddd183a2ac70b41babb56f45395
25085 F20101130_AACCQI knight_e_Page_013.QC.jpg
02066a004d3bb87a161e71364a5e446b
1358134baf82a9e93fd157778a60a7d0db4a2acc
14670 F20101130_AACCPT knight_e_Page_005.QC.jpg
d1cf6b8f400e5c3968eca6ecb2b313e5
283ff4c01cf8f66ae74ec85b09188d2fd1e2517d
23363 F20101130_AACCQJ knight_e_Page_014.QC.jpg
771845e79987685741509d979821fea2
02f444e9f190cc8d43c6782b11682e4d20743ee5
4057 F20101130_AACCPU knight_e_Page_005thm.jpg
017088c95603d4dc9bce4ff3aaf27228
f54a7668c2105c5c6d2bd4b2a8753c32fd28da84
6542 F20101130_AACCQK knight_e_Page_014thm.jpg
9161c9b7138603e002bd2cc2f7edac81
cd5818e5057f14bd8f6a9345934622a1587f080f
7692 F20101130_AACCPV knight_e_Page_006.QC.jpg
0ee45faa7cc4a028384ef86b2ed88a5f
5179284062a267b202ff07bddd441c5a032a44c2
23055 F20101130_AACCQL knight_e_Page_015.QC.jpg
86638a68c404903c6d575c977c05af6c
58150bcc5920bdda90d00e2f4a97586d9691a4d7
2537 F20101130_AACCPW knight_e_Page_006thm.jpg
0cd123f70cbe332d495fa8f7ba1ac2fd
f4cb65441269b0b2889a750c6740ead8fca7d6b3
23667 F20101130_AACCRA knight_e_Page_023.QC.jpg
57324dcc5d6ab4338b8f00ed693a7732
07b2a737f47918cb10127b3f6459115f89988644
6448 F20101130_AACCQM knight_e_Page_015thm.jpg
fc969807570b0f31f41105df17c099c7
8d6d38f68deb526e8d594829c3d08c74295a9aa4
11975 F20101130_AACCPX knight_e_Page_007.QC.jpg
bd08726f0e9c9f6ed3e035398266c548
2f87e8263d2f0a0054f9d698ccd9698d0ee12ee3
6398 F20101130_AACCRB knight_e_Page_023thm.jpg
1dc5c16c8af4dfae28171e13369bd17c
086bf349f9db4ad52815942ecdbbbf1d3388a544
6357 F20101130_AACCQN knight_e_Page_016thm.jpg
fb53b5b782f0b59b1b59e96286a05d53
24af3649c48a1eb50b0c991f1fd2de0b63fa11e1
3390 F20101130_AACCPY knight_e_Page_007thm.jpg
5507a9bcea34047121662fe0349c671b
eccfd198c16cff9b2f597401d8d75fab3894ee78
23270 F20101130_AACCRC knight_e_Page_024.QC.jpg
9263f784cc05045726fe91c0f8884d72
ab44048bc2cbcdaecc0ede64bdb88a30f04b51fa
23794 F20101130_AACCQO knight_e_Page_017.QC.jpg
b64f048feae06afea5a7e50502d5f365
12ded1e66f7a75a57581c8e2a3442938487f462d
4567 F20101130_AACCPZ knight_e_Page_008thm.jpg
2ef1e984cf2b3c2cfe3defcfc1739a02
9bcc1b4ac80d38f004b995f06e5140bf19e437a4
F20101130_AACCRD knight_e_Page_025.QC.jpg
0f926bbd920a0e84b7c013420678dafe
dfb487f143143fd7b1a20a23aadfbfc56b8b47d5
6438 F20101130_AACCQP knight_e_Page_017thm.jpg
ef27efb5d42ebb0ff390c5faefbdf6ab
0361efe8941358969442de23fd7ef68eedd277b2
6498 F20101130_AACCRE knight_e_Page_025thm.jpg
636526695a2457d123c2cb495498f0ee
0d695e51d9b161e82e9f7a5e1b09791a858bbdfd
22567 F20101130_AACCQQ knight_e_Page_018.QC.jpg
48edad1143c7aaaca85189636324ab00
6bd49281c4dcdb167f120301dedd7e40eb2869b9
22956 F20101130_AACCRF knight_e_Page_026.QC.jpg
a2e5ab8defd952c61e054f64c11e9496
b32157b6a63814fceb795a532e2b52e99e373719
6341 F20101130_AACCRG knight_e_Page_026thm.jpg
fa489e7cad8375be7467773f19993d71
def3f1882615c230f29acee0d11030ca14c5d641
6254 F20101130_AACCQR knight_e_Page_018thm.jpg
50db5e2d6f07d1a953e601b4ad7755f5
be67fe39e01cf511b5e6f887e6ada3a7dbe4a999



PAGE 1

EVALUATION OF CONSUMER PREFERENCES REGARDING GOAT MEAT IN FLORIDA By ERIKA KNIGHT A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLOR IDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2005

PAGE 2

This document is dedicated in loving memory of my grandmother, Mattie Hugley Dixon.

PAGE 3

Copyright 2005 by Erika Knight

PAGE 4

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS First and foremost, I thank God for giving me the strength I needed to successfully complete this masters program. I know that He is the reason I have made it this far in life. I thank family and friends for the encouragement, support, and patience throughout the past two years. These individuals are another reason I have made it to this point of my life. I express my deepest appreciation to my committee, Drs. Lisa House, Robert Degner and Mack Nelson, for the interest and support given while preparing my thesis. I would especially like to thank my committee chair, Dr. Lisa House, for her advisement, guidance and the knowledge she shared while completing my masters program. I am truly grateful to my committee for all of their assistance and I would like to express my gratitude once again. Finally, I would like to thank my fellow graduate students in the Food and Resource Economics Department and members of the Black Graduate Student Organization (BGSO) for their support and encouragement. I thank them for the memories; each of them has made this graduate experience unforgettable. iv

PAGE 5

v TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS.................................................................................................iv LIST OF TABLES............................................................................................................vii LIST OF FIGURES.........................................................................................................viii ABSTRACT....................................................................................................................... ix CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................1 Preamble....................................................................................................................... 1 Problematic Situation....................................................................................................1 Researchable Problem..................................................................................................8 Objectives..................................................................................................................... 8 Hypotheses....................................................................................................................9 2 LITERATURE REVIEW...........................................................................................11 3 SUREVEY CONTENTS............................................................................................19 Survey Instrument.......................................................................................................19 Survey Contents..........................................................................................................21 4 DATA......................................................................................................................... 24 5 THEORETICAL MODEL AND MODEL SPECIFICATIONS................................32 Theoretical Model.......................................................................................................32 Probit Model...............................................................................................................33 Model Specification....................................................................................................36 6 EMPIRICAL RESULTS............................................................................................40 Entire Survey Sample Probit Estimates......................................................................40 Hispanic Model...........................................................................................................45

PAGE 6

vi 7 CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS.................................................................49 Summary.....................................................................................................................49 Conclusions.................................................................................................................52 Implications................................................................................................................53 APPENDIX A SOUTHERN REGION GOAT CONSUMPTION SURVEY....................................56 B SUMMARY OF DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION..............................................81 LIST OF REFERENCES...................................................................................................85

PAGE 7

LIST OF TABLES Table page 1-1. Florida farms with goats, goat numbers and goats sold, goat production region, and United States: 2002 and 1997..............................................................................3 1.2. United States meat goat imports and exports.............................................................6 4-2. Summary of demographic information....................................................................28 4-3. Descriptive statistics on additional factors that influence the willingness to try.....29 4-4. Summary of demographic information for Hispanic respondents...........................30 4-5. Descriptive statistics on additional factors that influence the Hispanic respondents willingness to try.................................................................................31 5-1. Probit model variables and description....................................................................39 6-1. Empirical results from the whole survey probit model............................................41 6-2. Empirical results from the Hispanic probit model...................................................46 vii

PAGE 8

LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 4-1. Comparison of Florida census data and survey respondents by age........................27 4-2. Comparison of Florida census data and Hispanic survey respondents by educational attainment levels...................................................................................28 6-1. Changes in the probability of trying goat meat with respect to household size. (All household sizes are compared to the base, households containing five or more individuals)......................................................................................................43 B-1. Respondents consumption preference for goat meat by ethnicity/race...................81 B-2. Respondents consumption preference for goat meat by gender..............................81 B-3. Respondents consumption preference for goat meat by educational attainment levels.........................................................................................................................82 B-4. Hispanic respondents consumption preference for goat meat by origin.................82 B-5. Hispanic respondents consumption preference for goat meat by gender................83 B-6. Hispanic respondents consumption preference for goat meat by educational attainment levels.......................................................................................................83 B-7. Hispanic respondents consumption preference for goat meat by generation in United States............................................................................................................84 viii

PAGE 9

Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science EVALUATION OF CONSUMER PREFERENCES REGARDING GOAT MEAT IN FLORIDA By Erika Knight May 2005 Chair: Lisa House Major Department: Food and Resource Economics Florida is a part of the United States goat production region and its goat inventory increased sixty-three percent between 1992 and 1997. Goat meat has always been a minor food item in the United States, but the importance of meat goats to farm income has increased in recent years. The rapid growth of ethnic populations has led to increased consumption since Hispanics, Muslims, and individuals with African ancestry are major consumers of goat meat products. Florida has a strong potential for a meat goat market; however, the lack of consumer information has hindered producers, processors, and marketers ability to fully delineate the profitability and viability of the industry. The overall objective of this research project is to identify the factors that influence goat meat consumption among Hispanic and non-Hispanic consumers. This information can be used by goat meat industry officials to better understand who their consumer is and further develop their markets. The data for this study were obtained using telephone surveys that targeted Florida residents. The Institute for Behavior ix

PAGE 10

Research and the Survey Research Center at the University of Georgia in Athens, GA, collected the data using the random digit dialing probability technique to minimize bias. The questionnaire sought information on demographic as well as consumer preferences towards goat meat. According to the results from a probit analysis, consumption of other meats and various demographic and psychographic characteristics influenced the willingness to try goat meat. Respondents from households with 5 or more people were most likely to try goat meat, and as household size decreased the willingness to try tended to decline. The results also suggest individuals who had previously consumed lamb were more inclined to try goat meat. x

PAGE 11

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Preamble Columbus introduced goats to North America in the area that is presently known as Texas during the 1600s and goat production in the South has flourished ever since their introduction (Walsh, 1995). In the past decade, meat goat production has dramatically increased throughout the Southeastern region of the United States, Florida in particular. The meat goat industry in Florida has evolved and producers who once viewed their animals as a sideline operation now consider it a serious business (Simpson, 1995). Consumption of goat meat and goat meat products has become more popular in the United States and the strongest demand for goat meat is along the eastern coast, Southern California, Florida, Detroit, and the northeast region stretching from Washington, D.C. to Boston (McKenzie-Jakes, 2004). The lack of consumer information poses a barrier in goat meat marketing and it has prevented producers, processors, and marketers from fully ascertaining the profitability and viability of the industry. This thesis will use cross-sectional survey data to assist in identifying and understanding the factors that influence the consumption of goat meat in Florida. Problematic Situation A 2000 study by McLean-Meyinsse identified meat goat production as a new enterprise that is believed to enhance farm incomes for small farmers. Goat meat is an extremely popular food item in the Mediterranean, the Middle East, Africa, South America, Central America, the West Indies, and Southeastern Asia. However, goat meat 1

PAGE 12

2 consumption in the United States has been historically low. In recent years, U.S. domestic demand for goat meat has increased with the largest demand along the eastern coast of the United States, especially in Florida. Floridas, goat meat consumption exceeds production (McKenzie-Jakes, 2004) creating a need to import live goats or goat meat in order to satisfy demand (Gipson, 1999). Despite the products increase in popularity, the lack of availability of goat meat in Florida hampers the industrys profitability. Florida is a part of the eleven state southern goat production region stretching from Texas to North Carolina (TX, LA, OK, AK, MS, AL, FL, GA, TN, SC, and NC). In 2002, this region accounted for 80 percent of meat-type goat production in the United States, and Florida contributed three percent of the regions meat goat inventory (USDA-NASS, 2002). During the past few decades, Floridas meat goat industry has transformed from one in which goats were raised as a minor part of subsistence level farm system into a more structured industry oriented approach that is viewed as a business (Simpson, 1995). According to the 2002 Census of Agriculture, 1,764 meat goat farms existed in Florida, a six percent decrease from the total number of meat goat farms in 1997. However, during the same time period, the states meat goat inventory increased twenty-five percent (Table 1-1). In addition between 1997 and 2002, the number of goats sold increased 47. Meat goat farms accounted for over eighty-eight percent of the goat farms within the state in 2002. Growth in Floridas meat goat industry is attributed to a number of factors. Historically, the majority of U.S. immigrants were from European countries, but changes in immigration patterns have occurred.

PAGE 13

3 Table 1-1. Florida farms with goats, goat numbers and goats sold, goat production region, and United States: 2002 and 1997. Geographical Area 2002 1997 Percent Change Florida's Contribution Florida Number of Goat Farms 1,992 2,114 (5.8) Number of Meat Goat Farms 1,764 1,931 (8.6) Numbers of Meat Goats on Farms 36,020 28,737 25.3 Number of Meat Goats Sold 18,769 13,700 37.0 Percent of Meat Goat Farms 88.6 91.3 Percent of Meat Goat Sold 52.1 47.7 Goat Production Region Number of Goat Farms 42,487 37,303 13.9 4.7 Number of Meat Goat Farms 1,729,158 1,727,978 0.1 4.6 Numbers of Meat Goats on Farms 1,433,589 975,931 46.9 2.5 Number of Meat Goats Sold 765,622 407,078 88.1 2.5 Percent of Meat Goat Farms 91.2 88.7 Percent of Meat Goat Sold 53.4 41.7 United States Number of Goat Farms 91,462 76,543 19.5 2.2 Number of Meat Goat Farms 74,980 63,422 18.2 2.4 Numbers of Meat Goats on Farms 1,938,924 1,231,762 57.4 1.9 Number of Meat Goats Sold 1,109,619 532,792 108.3 1.7 Percent of Meat Goat Farms 82.0 82.9 Percent of Meat Goat Sold 57.2 43.3 Source: USDA-NASS, 2002. The majority of current immigrants are people from Hispanics, Caribbean Islanders, Muslims, and Asian populations, as opposed to the historical pattern of immigration from Europe. These changes in immigration patterns from European countries to those from regions of the world that are perceived to have a dietary preference for goat meat have increased the demand for the product (McKenzie-Jakes, 2003; Pinkerton et al., 1994; Sherman, 2002; Walsh, 1995). People from these populations tend to retain food preferences and religious affiliations in an effort to maintain their ethnic identity when merging with a dominant group (Harwell, 1995). Thus, the demand for goat meat among

PAGE 14

4 target consumers is expected to be inelastic (Harwell, 1995; Pinkerton et al., 1994). It is projected that by the year 2025, the U.S. population will increase 44 million due to the increase of foreign populations, many of which consume goat meat. Therefore, the demand for this product in the United States is expected to expand as population increases and as minority purchasing power increases (Russell, 2000). Health conscious consumers and members of the yuppie community who consume the meat as a gourmet item create an additional demand for goat meat products (Harwell, 1995; McKenzie-Jakes, 2004; McLean-Meyinsse, 2003; Pinkerton et al., 1994; Sherman, 2002). Members of the health food sector consume goat meat because of the products nutritional attributes. Goat meat is a naturally lean meat that is low in cholesterol, low in fat and high in proteins (Johnson, 1995). Advancements in Floridas food distribution infrastructure allow for refrigerated goat meat to be delivered from Texas in an inexpensive and quick manner to consumers. Additionally, low ocean freight rates have permitted goat imports from Australia to occur more frequently (Simpson, 1995). Previously, goat meat has previously been viewed as an unusual food item in the United States; however it is now more mainstream. Researchers have found it difficult to accurately estimate per capita consumption levels of goat meat due to discrepancies in goat inventories, auction runs, and slaughter numbers (Gipson, 1999; Harwell, 1995). Therefore, it is popular for researchers to use indirect methods to approximate per capita consumption. Degner and Moss (1999) surveyed wholesalers in Fort Lauderdale, Miami, and Tampa, Florida. These markets are considered to consist of significant populations with preferences for goat meat. Using estimated wholesale sales, the researchers quantified the annual per capita goat meat

PAGE 15

5 consumption to be a mere 0.21 pounds, nearly 20 percent less that per capita consumption levels in 1986. However, a 1999 study conducted by Putnam and Allshouse estimated that the national per capita goat meat consumption significantly increased to about one pound per capita in 1997. Gipson (1999) utilized National Statistical Service data and Foreign Agricultural Service import/export data as two indicators to measure goat meat demand. In 1998 almost 450,000 goats were slaughtered which was a 1,000 percent increase over a 20-year period. It is worth mentioning that the estimates do not include goats slaughtered in non-United States Department of Agricultural facilities or state inspection facilities and farm slaughter or personal slaughter. It is commonly accepted that demand for goat meat is underestimated because the bulk of goat meat consumed is undocumented, i.e. the majority of the slaughtering occurs in non-UDSA inspected facilities (Davis and Willard, 1996). According to the Foreign Agricultural Service data, the United States has been a net importer of goat meat product since 1991 (Gipson, 1999). Table 1-2 illustrates the quantity of goat meat imported to the U.S. and the quantity exported by the United States from 1989 through 1994. Based on the data, the United States does not have an adequate supply of goat meat production to keep up with demand. In 1998, imports rose to 4,500 metric tons, which is equivalent to over 600,000 pounds. The United States imports the majority of its goat meat from Australia and New Zealand. Available research suggests the demand for goat meat is influenced by consumers age, gender, race, household sized, and martial status (McLean-Meyinsse, 2003; Nelson et al., 1999). Additionally, carcass weight and carcass size preferences differ among target populations within the niche market (Pinkerton et al., 1994).

PAGE 16

6 Table 1.2. United States meat goat imports and exports. Year U.S. Imports* U.S. Exports* Balance* 1989 86,067 122,056 35,989 1990 99,353 115,413 16,060 1991 122,932 53,246 -69,686 1992 172,280 60,444 -111,836 1993 136,364 a 3,504 b -132,860 1994 138,481 a None b -138,481 *Values are expressed in metric tons. a These figure probably reflect reduced Australians in exports of goat due to serve drought conditions. b The steep drop in exports as imports fell markedly in 1993 and 1994, thus conserving domestic supplies. Source: Ohio Cooperative Development Center, 2004 Hispanics tend to prefer young kids, weighing 15-25 pounds live weight and young goats weighing about 50 pounds live weight. Hispanics are the fastest growing ethnic group and the largest minority group in the United States. An emphasis on understanding the factors that influence consumption should be placed on Hispanics because they are the only group that has an expected year round demand for goat meat products (Spaugh, 1997). Muslims favor heavier goats than Hispanics and consume goats that are about 70 pounds live weight, male, and intact. Additionally, Jamaicans, Haitians, West Africans, African Americans have a preference for mature goats (Pinkerton et al., 1994). There is a relatively thin body of published literature regarding the marketing of goats and meat goat, but researchers seem to agree on the barriers surrounding the marketing of goat meat. Pinkerton et al. (1992) found that the marketing constraints that hinder the demand for goat meat include an unorganized marketing infrastructure, lack of quality grades, seasonal demand, inconsistent supply, negative consumer attitudes, inconsistent quality, and insufficient research to identify new market and expand existing

PAGE 17

7 markets. Pinkerton et al. (1994) suggest that a lack of marketing information is a result of inadequate interest by many state departments of agriculture and the structure of the industry. Pinkerton et al. (1994) also suggested that in niche markets, located primary in urban centers, demand for goat exceeds domestic supply, with the shortages caused by inefficiencies in markets. Studies by Degner and Moss (1999) and Degner and Locascio (1988) identified the constraints commercial retailers suggest hamper ability to sell goat in Florida as insufficient demand, supply problems, cheaper substitutes, and product form. Growth in Floridas meat goat inventory has been encouraged by numerous factors, particularly in that Americans are becoming more ethnically diverse and health-conscious, and more are revealing greater willingness to try new exotic food products such as rabbit and goat (McLean-Meyinsse, 2000). Many consumers lack knowledge and exposure to goat meat products, creating an additional barrier faced by the industry (Zachery and Nelson, 1992). Studies suggest that once consumers are informed on the products nutritional attributes and preparation methods, consumer interest in consuming the product increases (Miller, 1995; Rhee et al. 2000). For instance, Rhee et al. (2000) found that after participants were educated on goat meats nutritional values more than 60 percent of the respondents reversed their previous perception of the product. Existing research also identifies the carcass size preferred by populations within the niche market, but fails to identify the specific cuts of goat meat that are preferred by populations in the niche market. However, little inductive research has been completed to identify the characteristic of goat meat consumers or the characteristics of the product that influence consumption. Therefore, information that describes the factors that influence

PAGE 18

8 consumption is needed in order to fully understand the marketing and advertising approaches that will assist in increasing the presence of goat meat in the U.S. food industry as well as impacting the goat meat industry. Researchable Problem The meat goat industry has experienced substantial gains in recent years due to the increase in demand for goat meat products. The demand for goat meat products in Florida is expected to continue growing as target populations within the niche market increase. Researchers believe Florida has the potential for a meat goat market that is profitable. However, lack of consumer information has hindered producers, processors, and marketers ability to delineate fully the profitability and viability of Floridas meat goat industry. Consumer information is a critical component to completely understanding the possible economic impact of goat meat productions and marketing in Florida. A relatively thin body of empirical research is available that evaluates the impact of demographic and socioeconomic characteristics on consumers preferences and perception for goat meat products. This research will assist in filling the voids in research by assessing the factors that influence the willingness to try goat meat within the Hispanic and general markets. This study will identify the barriers that restrict consumption and make recommendations for opportunities to increasing consumption of goat meat products within the state of Florida. Objectives The overall objective of this research project is to identify the factors that influence and the barriers that reduce consumption, with a special focus on the Hispanic population. We will collect information for existing and potential goat meat consumption

PAGE 19

9 in Florida and study the effects of perception, consumer preferences, and demographic and socioeconomic characteristics on willingness to try goat meat. The specific objectives for this project are: To develop an understanding of the factors that influences the willingness to try goat meat products for Hispanics and non-Hispanics. To disseminate the results from this study and make recommendations for opportunities of increased consumption of goat meat products to producers and potential producers. Hypotheses Hispanics are the primary consumers of goat meat products and compose the majority of this developing niche market. There are numerous factors that impact preferences, perceptions, and willingness to try goat meat. In previous red meat studies, attributes other than price found to influence a consumers decision to buy the product included safety, availability, advertisement, and government labels (Hui et al., 1995). Thus, these attributes may also be important in the consumer purchase decision of goat meat. Given these considerations, several hypotheses will be tested. The hypotheses are: Increases in household size and educational attainment will positively affect the consumers willingness to try goat meat. Respondents that associate a positive product image with goat meat will be more inclined to express a willingness to try the product. Consumers that rate safety, convenience and cholesterol and fat content as important factors in purchasing meat will be more likely to try goat meat. Ethnicity, age, and gender will influence the probability of trying goat meat. For instances Hispanics are more likely to try goat meat whereas females are less likely to try goat meat. Consumers that rate price specials as important factors in purchasing meat will be least likely to try goat meat products. Lamb consumption will have a positive influence on the willingness to try goat meat.

PAGE 20

10 Hispanics from different geographic origins will have differing levels of willingness to try goat meat.

PAGE 21

CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW The body of literature regarding the marketing of goat meat is relatively thin. Numerous sensory evaluation studies have been conducted revealing the overall palatability of goat meat is acceptable among consumers, but their lack of knowledge about the product limits the demand and decreases its profitability within the meat industry (Degner, 1991; James and Berry, 1997; Rhee et al., 2003; Smith et al., 1974). Few studies have focused on the factors that influence goat meat consumption, and none of the available research appears to investigate the attributes that were important to goat meat consumers. Understanding consumers preferences for goat meat is essential so that marketing strategies can be developed to increase the demand for the product. Two previous studies, McLean-Meyinsse (2003) and Degner and Lin (1993) examined consumption of goat meat in the South. McLean-Meyinsse (2003) identified that demographic, socioeconomic, and geographic factors that influenced previous consumption, willingness to try goat eat, and interest in purchasing various goat meat products. The studys sample consisted of 1,421 respondents from Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia. A binomial logit was used to estimate the relationship between prior consumption and the selected explanatory variables. Additionally, ordered probit models were used to estimate the probabilities of nonconsumers willingness to eat goat meat and the likelihood of this individual to make future purchases for goat nuggets, patties, roast, or marinated ready-to-cook goat meat 11

PAGE 22

12 products. The study found that goat meat consumption was the highest among older respondents, households with more than three persons, among African-Americans, other non-Caucasian races, men and Texas residents. According to the marginal probabilities, individuals from other races were 15 percent more inclined to consume goat meat products than their Caucasians counterparts and women were 14 percent less likely than men to have previously consumed goat meat. The results from the ordered probit suggested that amongst non-triers, women and residents of Arkansas, Florida, Kentucky, Louisiana, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Virginia were more likely to consume goat meat within the next month. Younger consumers, households containing less than three persons, African-Americans, or other races were less likely to try goat meat within the next month. Women and residents from Florida, Kentucky, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Virginia were more willing to try goat meat at restaurants. Respondents least likely to try free goat meat samples in supermarkets were younger, lived in smaller households, and were non-Caucasian. In summary, age, race, household size, religion, gender, and state residency were found to affect consumption. Consumers most likely to eat goat nuggets, patties, or roasts were individuals from larger households, non-Caucasians, men, or Texas residents. Additionally, respondents living in larger households, other races, men or Texas residents were more likely to be willing to purchase marinated, ready to cook goat meat. The results of McLean-Meyinsse (2003) research were consistent with the outcomes of a study conducted by Degner and Lin (1993) that analyzed willingness to consume goat meat at restaurants or home. Data for their study consisted of responses

PAGE 23

13 from consumer surveys conducted in Jacksonville and Tampa, Florida. Three-hundred interviews were conducted in each city and participants were 18 years of age or older. A probit model was utilized to evaluate the impact of demographic, geographic, and socioeconomic factors on the willingness to consume goat meat at home and in restaurants. The study found that if the respondent possessed a positive attitude or perception of the product, they were more likely to order goat meat at a restaurant or purchase the meat for at home consumption. The study found that household income, gender, and household size effected participants willingness to consume goat meat. Respondents from households with annual incomes of less than $10,000 were more likely to order goat at a restaurant than individuals from households with a yearly income between $10,000 and $19,000. Also, consumers between the ages of 35-49 were more inclined to order goat meat in a restaurant than any other age group, but age had no significant affect on purchase intentions. An empirical study conducted by Hui et al. (1995) rated the importance of 12 selected meat attributes among various demographic, geographic, or socioeconomic characteristics. The data for the survey were obtained using a telephone survey that was administered to 1002 randomly selected households in Louisiana and Texas. The primary shopper of each household was interviewed. The Kruskal-Wallis test was used to determine whether the level of importance for each attribute differed amongst the respondents. The simultaneous multiple comparison model ranked the attributes in order of importance. An ordered-probit model was used to estimate the impact of the consumers demographic, geographic, and socioeconomic characteristics on the importance of each attribute. The dependent variables were the 12 selected attributes,

PAGE 24

14 which included low fat content, low sodium content, low in cholesterol, lack of chemical additives, taste, red meat, white meat, appearance, price, freshness, USDA labels, and tenderness and their relative importance while the dependent variables consisted of the demographic, geographic, or socioeconomic characteristics. The results from the ordered-probit model suggest that older consumers were more concerned with prices, a stated preference for red meat, appearance of meat, USDA labels and tenderness of meat. Larger households considered low sodium levels and lack of chemical additives as influential attributes. Low-income households indicated that low sodium content and red meat as valuable characteristics that influence meat purchases. Respondents from high-income households were more concerned about sodium levels and USDA labels and were worried least about fat, cholesterol, and prices. The results from the Huis (1995) study suggest that freshness and taste were the most important attributes to consumers, followed by appearance. The next tier of attributes consumers deemed important by included USDA labels, tenderness, and lack of chemical additives. The last group consisted of nutritional attributes, which included low levels of fat, sodium, and cholesterol. The results indicated that females were more concerned than males about attributes such as fat, sodium, cholesterol, chemical additives, prices, appearance, freshness, tenderness, and USDA labels when making buying decisions. Non-white respondents were more worried about fat, cholesterol, and price than white respondents. According to the results, retailers, wholesalers, and processors should develop a marketing plan that emphasizes the tastiness, appearance, and freshness of the meat and include recipes when promoting meats. In addition, the marketing channels should

PAGE 25

15 minimize transportation and holding time to ensure freshness. This study provided knowledge on the relationship between consumer characteristics and the significance of various meat attributes that may assist in creating effective marketing opportunities for farmers, processors, wholesalers, and retailers in the meat industry. Melton et al. (1996) conducted experimental auctions to evaluate the significance of attributes and how to develop effective marketing plans for pork. The willingness to pay results suggests that the appearance of the meat is most important for first-time buyers and repeat purchasers were interested in the pork chops taste. Melton et al. (1996) concluded that first-time buyers of fresh pork chops may be misled by relying on appearance when making purchases, selecting chops that were less desirable when eaten. As a result, theses consumers were unlikely to make repeat purchases, hampering the products long term market success. Similar to the studies conducted by Hui et al. (1995) and Melton et al. (1996), Chen et al. (2002) examined the relative importance of fresh pork attributes among Asian-origin consumers in San Francisco, California. The results from the Kruskal-Wallis test suggest that freshness is the most important attribute followed by attributes of the color of meat, lowness in fat, and whiteness of fat. The price of fresh pork is also an attribute of considerable importance. The empirical results for the ordered-probit model indicate that particular demographic and socioeconomic characteristics influence the ranking of attributes among consumers. For instance, fat content was more important to highly educated males. They study also found differences within segments of Asian-origin populations; for example, Chinese origin respondents were more price sensitive than other Asian consumers. This final finding is important because one can infer that

PAGE 26

16 Hispanic origin consumers were heterogeneous group and that the significance of various product attributes may differ amongst each identifiable subgroup. In the United States, goat meat is viewed as specialty food item. The study conducted by Schupp et al. (1998), found that consumers expressed resistance to meats that they believed came from exotic animals. Species that respondents in the study considered exotic included but were not limited to deer, alligator, rabbit, goat, emu, and wild duck. Therefore, meat attributes that were deemed significant to consumers may differ for alternative meats. McLean-Meyinsse (2000) conducted a study that utilized ordered probit models to evaluate the impact of socioeconomic, demographic, and geographic characteristics on the primary grocery shoppers attitude toward rabbit; and previous consumption or intent of consuming the product. The data for the study were obtained from a random telephone survey that sought information regarding the meat purchasing and consumption decisions. The sample of consisted of 1,002 primary food shoppers from Louisiana and Texas. As previously mentioned, rabbit meat and goat meat both tend to be considered exotic amongst consumers. The independent variables in the study were various socioeconomic, demographic, and geographic characteristics such as age, income gender, educational attainment, and race, to name a few. McLean-Meyinsse (2000) used an ordered probit model to determine whether the explanatory variables effect the probability of shoppers attitudes towards rabbit meat and the likelihood of consumption or interest in eating it in the future consumption. The results from the attitudinal model suggest that gender, religion, and employment status have a statistically significant effect on shoppers attitude towards

PAGE 27

17 rabbit meat. The marginal effects suggest that men, Catholics, and white-collar workers are more positive about goat meat than their counterparts. Forty-eight percent of male shoppers possessed a positive opinion about rabbit meat, while 54 percent of women held a unfavorable opinion about the meat. The consumption model suggests that gender and employment status impact the likelihood of consuming or interest in consuming rabbit meat. For instance, if the grocery shopper was a male rather a female, the probability of rabbit meat consumption increased by 12.33 percentage points. Females were more willing to express a willingness to try rabbit meat. Also, if shoppers had a positive opinion about rabbit meat, they were more likely to have consumed it. McLean-Meyinsse (1999) also evaluated the marketing outlook for specialty meats such as alligator, goat, and/or rabbit meat in southern states. The objectives of the study were to determine the percentage of individuals shopping at outlets offering specialty products, identify the demographic, socioeconomic, and geographic characteristics influencing shoppers likelihood of buying from these stores, and profile of the consumers most likely to purchase specialty meats. The study analyzed various explanatory variables (i.e. age, household size, education, gender, income, martial status, religion and occupation) that were expected to affect likelihood of non-triers, late-triers, and early triers of specialty foods to shop at specialty stores using an ordered probit model. According to the results, a 42-year old grocery shopper or a shopper from a three person household was more likely to shop at stores offering specialty meats. Shoppers with less than a high school diploma were 18 percent more likely visit these outlets than individuals with higher level of education. Shoppers indicated that price effected their decisions to make purchases at stores offering specialty meats. In fact, there was a 22

PAGE 28

18 percent difference between the early triers and nontriers on the relevance of prices to the meat purchasing decision. It is worth mentioning that the price of specialty meats is usually more expensive than traditional meats such as beef, pork, and chicken. In conclusion, very few empirical studies that focus on goat meat consumption are available in literature. Existing studies conducted by McLean-Meyinsse (2003) and Degner and Lin (1993) identify target consumers for goat meat marketing and promotional efforts, but the studies stop short of identifying the underlying factors that encourage individuals to purchase or be willing to purchase the product. The meat goat industry is still in its developing stages, and before this industry experiences economic success, additional information explaining the demand characteristics for goat meat consumers is needed. Understanding these factors, as well as consumers preferences and perceptions towards goat meat, is important when developing marketing strategies and increasing the presence of goat meat in supermarket.

PAGE 29

CHAPTER 3 SUREVEY CONTENTS Survey Instrument Telephone surveying is a method of collecting data from respondents that is more cost efficient than conducting personal interviews (Dillman, 1978). The primary advantage of telephone surveying is that it provides the researcher the opportunity of controlling and monitoring the data collection process to ensure that data gathered is of high quality, thus providing accurate estimates. For instance, the researcher has the ability to regulate sampling, respondent selection, and questionnaire contents (Lavarakas, 1993). Telephone surveying is more cost efficient when compared to personal interviews because it allows a larger number of interviews in a short period of time. Telephone surveys are usually more expensive than mail surveys but due to the fact that telephone surveys have the potential of minimizing total survey error, this method is generally preferred. Additional advantages associated with telephone surveys include: (1) the scheduling of call-backs to contact hard to reach, but critical respondents, (2) the ability to minimize biased responses, and (3) the capability of the interviewer to clarify questions (Lavarakas, 1993). Despite the advantages associated with telephone surveying, a few disadvantages exist. A major drawback with the telephone surveying technique is that surveyors are unable to reach the cell-phone-only population, making the sample statistically unbalanced because it does not contain both cell phone and land line users. The Associated Press (2005) found that the cell-phone-only population is growing rapidly and 19

PAGE 30

20 it currently accounts for approximately 7 percent of the population. In fact, nearly one in every five individuals between the ages of 15 and 24 had only cell phones. Other limitations are related to the limitations with complexity of the questions asked and the length of the survey. Respondents may grow tired if kept on the telephone for longer than 20-30 minutes. However, respondents tend not to suffer from fatigue when participating in personal interviews and this issue is not applicable to mail surveys because the questionnaire is completed at the respondents leisure (Lavarakas, 1993). Similarly, complicated questions are impossible to ask via telephone. In spite of the disadvantages associated with this surveying technique, the advancements in telephone technology and infrastructure give the researcher accessibility to nearly any population via telephone, making this surveying approach more attractive than other methods (Frey, 1989). The Institute for Behavioral Research, Survey Research Center at the University of Georgia has a history of successfully conducting telephone surveys. This center was used to collect the data for this study. The trained research staff utilized the random digit dialing technique ensuring that all adult Florida residents with landline telephone service had an equal chance of selection for inclusion in the sample, regardless of whether the number is unlisted, which reduces the sampling error (Salant and Dillman, 1994). The telephone survey in this study was administered twice, first to the general population and secondly to Hispanic households. An emphasis was placed on Hispanic households because previous research suggested that these individuals provide a steady year round demand for goat meat products (Spaugh, 1997). Two hundred thirty-seven households participated in the general population survey. For the latter survey, a

PAGE 31

21 telephone directory data base was obtained that consisted of households with Hispanic surnames and it consisted of 198 observations. The surveyed Hispanic households were randomly selected from the directory database. The original survey was translated to Spanish to better serve the Hispanics consumers. Once the potential participants were contacted, the objective of the study was explained to the respondents and they were asked to participate in the study. The surveyor spoke with the primary grocery shopper as they were expected to be primary decision maker in purchasing goat meat. The respondent was asked to complete the survey, which sought information on demographics and consumers shopping preferences for goat meat products. Survey Contents The purpose of the telephone survey was to collect information on consumer shopping preferences for goat meat. The survey sought three categories of information: (1) demographics, (2) family linkages with an emphasis on the introduction to goat meat products and the transmission of food habits from generation to generation including consumption levels, and consumer perception and (3) identifications of factors influencing consumption or the willingness to consume. All survey participants had to be 18 years old or older. If the respondent was unavailable to complete the interview, a callback was scheduled. The questionnaire used in this study is included in the Appendix. The dependent variable in this study was the willingness to try goat meat. To estimate this variable, respondents were placed in one of three categories: respondents that had previously consumed goat meat, respondents willing to try, and respondents that have not consumed and are unwilling to try goat meat. Respondents were first asked if

PAGE 32

22 they had ever consumed goat meat. If the respondents had previously consumed goat, they were then asked a series of questions regarding the size, age, cut, etc of the meat consumed. These questions were asked to develop an understanding of the type of product desired by different ethnic groups. Previous research suggested Hispanics, Muslims, African-Americans, Haitians, and Jamaicans consume goat meat product, but carcass preferences differs among each group. To estimate current consumption levels, respondents that had previously consumed goat were asked to quantify how many pounds their family consumed each year. To identify potential consumption, respondents that had never consumed goat meat were asked if they were willing to consume if it was available in stores. Research suggests that availability is a major obstacle faced by the goat meat industry, thus, restricting consumption. Locascio and Degner (1988) surveyed supermarket representatives in Florida and found that 28 of 168 or16.7 percent, of the stores run by six chains sold goat meat. A more recent study conducted by Degner and Moss (1999) found that 18 percent of meat wholesalers in Florida sold goat meat. As previously mentioned the dependent variable for the study is the willingness to try goat meat; therefore, respondents that had previously consumed or willing to try if available in grocery stores are considered those willing to try goat meat and all other respondent are non-triers. The next section of the questionnaire solicited information on the psychographic factors that consumers believed to have importance when making decisions to purchase meats. Previous meat studies indicated freshness, convenience, and sodium and cholesterol content influence meat consumption. However, because goat meat is a specialty food item, it is unknown if these characteristics are equally important to goat

PAGE 33

23 consumption. Psychographic factors are needed because they provide information necessary to develop an understanding of how of consumers feel and think about the product (Peter and Donnelly, 2003). Respondents were asked to rate the relative importance of factors such as price specials, convenience, safety, cholesterol, and fat to meat purchases. Participants were also asked how they viewed goat meat. The responses could have ranged from very positive to very negative. It was expected that this portion of the survey would reveal consumers knowledge about goat meat. Information regarding respondents consumption of other meats such as chicken, beef, and seafood was also collected because according to demand theory, consumption is expected to be affect by substitutable and complementary products. Participants were asked the frequency and then quantity of the alternative meat consumed. First, respondents were asked to specify if the selected food item was consumed everyday, more than once a week, once a week, more than monthly, monthly, on special occasions, or never. If the respondent indicated he/she had consumed the meat, respondent was then asked to identify the quantity consumed per sitting. When consumers make a decision to try or consume a product, they usually evaluate the alternative products available. This study incorporated a variable that captured the consumption of other meats to evaluate the relationships between other selected meats and the willingness to try goat meat. The final section of the questionnaire solicited socio-economic and demographic information, such as household income, household size, educational attainment, gender, and race. Based on previous empirical studies, this information is expected to be significant when analyzing the factors that influence goat meat consumption.

PAGE 34

CHAPTER 4 DATA The data for this study were attained through a telephone consumer survey in conjunction with the SARE #LS502-138, An Investigation of the General Goat Meat Demand and the Sustainability of Goat Production. Adult consumers within the state of Florida were surveyed via telephone to establish consumer preferences for goat meat and the level of consumption and potential levels of consumption. The Survey Research Center at the University of Georgia collected the data during the Spring of 2004. Florida was targeted because the strongest demand for meat goats is found along the East Coast, especially within Florida (McKenzie-Jakes, 2004). In addition, Hispanics were targeted because these consumers are expected to provide a more stable demand for goat meat products throughout the year (Spaugh, 1997). Thus, understanding the factors that effect their demand for goat meat is imperative. Florida households were surveyed utilizing random digit dialing to assess the factors influencing their consumption decisions of goat meat. As previously mentioned, telephone surveying is an effective method of data collection that allows a large amount of data to be collected in a short period of time. Additionally, random digit dialing ensures that all residents with a landline telephone have an equal chance of being included in the sample. Selection response is minimized, and inferences about Floridas adult population can be made with greater assurance from the results obtained in the survey. Four hundred thirty-five consumers participated in the survey, and data is summarized in Appendix B. However, due to incomplete demographic and 24

PAGE 35

25 socioeconomic information such as age, educational attainment, and gender, sample observations were deleted. Thus, the information from 365 responses is summarized in this analysis. When the sample results are compared with US Census data for Florida (US Census Bureau, 2000) Hispanics were over represented within the sample, accounting for 41.4 percent while making up only 16.1 percent Floridas population. However, Caucasians and other races were underrepresented in the sample making up 50.1 percent and 15.5 of the sample, respectively. An emphasis was placed on Hispanic consumers because these individual are perceived to have a historical preferences towards goat meat; therefore, the results were expected to be biased towards Hispanics. Among the Hispanic respondents, few inconsistencies exist between their geographic origins for their respective populations and sample, making the two reasonably comparable. For instance, Cubans represent 31.1 percent of the Hispanic population in Florida and 25.8 percent of the sample, Mexicans account for 13.6 percent of the population and 16.6 percent of the sample, Puerto Ricans represent 18 percent of the population and 16.6 percent of the sample, and all other Hispanics descents account for 37.4 percent of the population and 41.1 percent of the sample. The majority of the survey respondents were female, 70.1 percent. The results are biased towards females because the questionnaire targeted the primary grocery shopper as a means of accurately estimating consumption history, the willingness to try, and psychographic characteristics sought by consumers and potential consumers of goat meat. According to literature, 70 percent of all females in the United States were considered the primary grocery shopper (Progressive Grocer, 2002).

PAGE 36

26 Figure 4-1 illustrates the percentage of Floridas population and survey respondents in various age groups. The sample tolerance for this study is +/5.1 percent. With this in mind, the sample and population are comparable despite the small discrepancies that exist. The samples median age fell in the 35-44 age category, comparing to the median age in Florida, 38.6. The samples average household consisted of three people, which exceeds the states average household size of 2.46 individuals. Additionally, the average household size for Floridas Hispanic population was 3.12 persons, slightly less than that of the sample, 3.32 persons. Finally, survey respondents were more educated than average. According to survey response, 47.7 percent of the respondents possessed either a high school diploma or lower, 26.5 percent had some college education, and nearly 25.8 percent had at least a college degree, which compares to the populations 49.8 percent, 29.6% and 20.6 % for the respective categories. Likewise, 52.3 percent of the Hispanic respondents had more than a high school diploma, only 40.1 percent of the Hispanic population had surpassed this mark. Furthermore, 25.8 percent of the Hispanic sample and 15.6 percent of the population had received degrees from a four year college or more advanced degree (Figure 4-2). Among the 365 respondents, 43.6 percent expressed a willingness to try goat meat if it were available in food stores (159 respondents), whereas, 56.4 percent were uninterested in the product (206 respondents). Male respondents were more likely to try goat than females, 52.3 percent and 39.8 percent, respectively. Hispanics were more likely than Caucasians, but less likely than other races to express a willingness to try goat meat. Over 60 percent of respondents that perceived goat meat in a positive manner

PAGE 37

27 indicated that they would tr y goat meat. However, only 6.1 percent of respondent with a negative view of goat meat were willing to try the product. Other explanatory variables incorporated in the study include the frequency at which goat meat substitutes are consumed, psychographic characteristics, and various demographic and socioeconomic variables. De scriptive statistics fo r the survey sample are found in Table 4-2 and Tabl e 4-3. Since a separate an alysis involving Hispanic respondents will be conducted, reasoning is ex plained in the next chapter, descriptive statistics for only the Hispanic respon dents are shown in Tables 4-4 and 4-5. Figure 4-1. Comparison of Fl orida census data and survey respondents by age.

PAGE 38

28 Figure 4-2. Comparison of Fl orida census data and Hisp anic survey respondents by educational attainment levels. Table 4-2. Summary of demographic information. Triers NonTriers Overall Sample Number of Observations 159 206 365 Ethnicity % % % Hispanic 45.9 37.9 41.4 Caucasian 44.0 54.9 50.1 Other races/ethnicities 10.1 7.3 8.5 Gender Percent Female 64.2 74.8 70.1 Education HS Diploma or less 37.7 37.9 37.8 Some College 26.4 25.2 25.8 College Degree and above 35.9 36.9 36.4 Household Size 1 Only 9.4 11.2 10.4 2 People 34.0 33.0 33.4 3 People 18.2 17.0 17.5 4 People 17.0 25.2 21.6 5 and above 21.4 13.6 17.0 Age of Respondents 18-24 7.6 8.7 8.2 25-34 23.9 17.5 20.3 35-44 13.8 19.9 17.3 45-54 18.9 27.5 18.1 55-64 18.2 12.1 14.8 65 and older 17.6 24.3 22.2

PAGE 39

29 Table 4-3. Descriptive statistics on additional factors that influence the willingness to try. Triers Non-Triers Overall Sample Frequency of Chicken Consumed % % % More than once a week 78.0 79.1 78.6 Once a week 17.6 13.6 15.3 Special Occasions 4.4 5.3 5 Never 0.0 1.9 1.1 Frequency of Beef Consumed More than once a week 52.8 49.0 50.7 Once a week 24.5 30.1 27.7 Special Occasions 18.9 15.1 16.7 Never 3.8 5.8 4.9 Frequency of Pork Consumed More than once a week 23.3 17.0 19.7 Once a week 23.3 24.8 24.1 Special Occasions 41.5 40.3 40.8 Never 12.0 18.0 15.3 Frequency of Fish/Seafood Consumed More than once a week 43.4 36.4 39.5 Once a week 34.6 23.3 28.2 Special Occasions 18.9 31.6 26.0 Never 3.1 8.7 6.3 Frequency of Lamb Consumed Previously Consumed 51.6 25.3 36.7 Never 48.4 74.8 63.3 Frequency of Turkey Consumed Previously Consumed 88.7 85.0 86.6 Never 11.3 15.1 13.4 View of Goat Meat Positive 60.4 16.0 35.3 Neutral 33.3 38.4 36.2 Negative 6.3 45.6 28.5 Importance of Cholesterol to Meat Purchasing Important 83.6 78.9 80.2 Unimportant 16.4 21.2 19.8 Importance of Fat in Purchasing Meat Important 86.6 87.4 86.8 Unimportant 13.8 12.6 13.2 Importance of Convenience in Purchasing Meat Important 67.3 61.7 64.1 Unimportant 32.7 38.4 35.9 Importance of Price to Meat Purchasing Important 83.0 65.1 72.9 Unimportant 17.0 35.0 27.1 Importance of Safety to Meat Purchasing Important 95.6 90.8 92.9 Unimportant 4.4 9.2 7.12

PAGE 40

30 Table 4-4. Summary of demographic information for Hispanic respondents. Triers Nontriers Overall Sample Number of Observation 73 78 151 Descent % % % Mexican 17.8 15.4 16.6 Cuban 28.9 23.1 25.8 Puerto Rican 15.1 18.0 16.6 Other Descents 38.7 43.6 8.5 Generation in U.S. First generation 65.8 60.3 62.9 Other generation 34.2 40.7 37.1 Gender Percent Female 67.1 74.4 70.9 Education HS Diploma or less 49.3 46.2 47.7 Some College 24.7 28.2 26.5 College Degree and above 26.0 25.6 25.8 Household Size 1 Only 5.5 9.0 7.3 2 People 24.7 21.8 23.2 3 People 17.8 24.4 21.2 4 People 23.3 29.5 26.5 5 and above 28.8 15.4 21.9 Age of Respondents 18-24 11.0 5.1 8.0 25-34 28.8 28.2 28.5 35-44 16.4 20.5 18.5 45-54 20.6 16.7 18.5 55-64 11.0 11.5 11.3 65 and older 12.3 18.0 15.2

PAGE 41

31 Table 4-5. Descriptive statistics on additional factors that influence the Hispanic respondents willingness to try. Triers Non-Triers Overall Sample Frequency of Chicken Consumed % % % More than once a week 84.9 83.3 84.1 Once a week 11.0 7.7 9.3 Special Occasions 4.1 5.1 4.6 Never 0.0 3.9 2.0 Frequency of Beef Consumed More than once a week 54.8 38.5 46.4 Once a week 27.4 34.7 31.1 Special Occasions 16.4 15.4 15.9 Never 1.4 11.5 6.6 Frequency of Pork Consumed More than once a week 24.7 18.0 21.2 Once a week 26.0 18.0 21.9 Special Occasions 34.3 32.0 33.1 Never 15.0 32.0 23.8 Frequency of Fish/Seafood Consumed More than once a week 42.5 35.9 39.1 Once a week 37.0 26.9 31.8 Special Occasions 15.0 25.6 20.5 Never 5.5 11.5 8.6 Frequency of Lamb Consumed Previously Consumed 42.5 24.4 33.1 Never 57.5 75.6 66.9 Frequency of Turkey Consumed Previously Consumed 79.5 69.2 74.2 Never 20.5 30.7 25.8 View of Goat Meat Positive 72.6 29.5 50.3 Neutral 23.3 39.7 31.8 Negative 4.1 30.8 17.9 Importance of Cholesterol to Meat Purchasing Important 93.2 88.5 90.7 Unimportant 6.8 11.5 9.3 Importance of Fat in Purchasing Meat Important 89.0 88.5 88.7 Unimportant 11.0 11.5 11.3 Importance of Convenience in Purchasing Meat Important 72.6 60.3 66.2 Unimportant 27.4 40.7 33.8 Importance of Price to Meat Purchasing Important 87.7 62.8 74.8 Unimportant 12.3 37.2 25.2 Importance of Safety to Meat Purchasing Important 98.6 92.3 95.4 Unimportant 1.4 7.7 4.6

PAGE 42

CHAPTER 5 THEORETICAL MODEL AND MODEL SPECIFICATIONS Theoretical Model Neoclassical demand theory indicates that the determinants of demand may be categorized under four headings: (1) population size and its distribution by various demographic and geographical characteristics, (2) consumer incomes, (3) prices and availability of complements and substitutes, and (4) consumer tastes and preferences. The homogeneity condition provides a theoretical basis for consumer behavior. The condition states that the sum of the own-price elasticity, cross-price elasticity and the income elasticity for a given commodity equals zero (Tomek and Robinson, 1990): E ii + E i1 + E i2 + + E iy = 0, where E ii is the own price elasticity, E i1 E i2 are the cross-price elasticities and E iy is the income elasticity. The condition implies that the substitution and the income effect on own-price change must be consistent with the cross-price and income price elasticites for a particular commodity. Goat meat prices are very volatile and have been unavailable for many years; therefore, this research does not attempt to estimate demand nor calculate the elasticities. The prices of substitutes were not included in the study; however, information about the relationship between goat meat and its substitutes may give insight on the cross-price elasticites. The central focus of this study is to develop an understanding of factors influencing goat consumption and the willingness to try goat meat. Sensitivity of willingness to try goat meat with price and income is assessed in qualitative terms. 32

PAGE 43

33 This study will examine factors influencing willingness to try goat meat among Hispanic and non-Hispanic consumers using data obtained from a telephone survey administered in Spring 2004. The survey instrument has been discussed in the previous chapter. This study utilizes a probit analysis to estimate the factors that influence the dependent variable, willingness to try goat meat. Since research suggested Hispanics have a historic preference for goat meat, two models are used: (1) an estimation of factors that influence consumption for the entire sample and (2) one that evaluates the factors that influence the willingness to try goat meat among Hispanics. Probit Model Due to their popularity, linear regressions models may be one of the most misused analytical techniques in the social sciences (Aldrich and Nelson, 1984). Linear regression models assume that the dependent variable is continuous; therefore, when the endogenous variable is qualitative, the estimates from the regression analysis may be robust in errors, causing inaccurate statistical inferences (Aldrich and Nelson, 1984). The endogenous variable in this study is a yes or no variable, the willingness to try goat meat. When the regressand is discrete rather than continuous a different analytical technique is needed. Probit models estimate the probability of the binary dependent variable, y, occurring given K observable, explanatory variables, k = 1,, K. Each of the observations on y, y 1 y 2 ,,y N are statistically independent of each other, ruling out serial correlation. Additionally, the model assumes that data are generated from a random sample of size of N observations, with each sample point indicated by i, i = 1,, N (Aldrich and Nelson, 1984). Probit analysis requires that there is no exact linear

PAGE 44

34 dependence among ik s. This implies the number of observations exceed the number of explanatory variables, N>K, that there is variation among each explanatory variable across the observations, and that no two or more ik s are perfectly correlated. The expected outcomes of the dependent variable, y i are considered to be mutually exclusive and exhaustive (Gujarati, 2003). Probit models assume the dependent variable depends on a latent variable, y i *, which is and observed and determined by one or more independent variables. y i = i + i i ~ NID(0, 2 ) The larger y i *, the greater the probability of an event, y, occurs. An event is assumed to occur if the utility differences exceed a certain threshold level. Probit analysis follows a cumulative normal probability distribution with the same mean and variance, providing information on the nature of the latent variable and its parameters. The dependent variable, y, may take on values of zero or one and if the latent variable is defined as y*, then the probit model is described as follows: y i = i + i i ~ NID(0, 2 ) y i = 1 if y* > 0 = 0 if y* 0, The point of interest relates to the probability of the event occurring, Y=1. Utilizing the information above, we have: P(y i = 1) = P(y i > 0) = P( i + i > 0) = P( i < i ) = ( i ), where denotes the cumulative distribution of i (Verbeek, 2004). Maximum likelihood estimation techniques are used to obtain the value of the parameters, that maximize the probability of observing the outcome, y. The maximum

PAGE 45

35 likelihood estimation model is nonlinear and asymptotic, producing better results as the sample size increases. It produces estimates that are nonbiased (estimates are centered around the true values on average), efficient (no other unbiased estimator has lower sampling variance) and normal (we can know how to perform hypothesis testing and draw other inferences) (Aldrich and Nelson, 1984). Maximizing and then taking the first derivative of the log likelihood function produce the parameters for each explanatory variable. The log likelihood function is as follows: log L() = y i log F( i ) + (1 y i ) log y i log F(1 ( i )), where is included in the probabilities to accentuate that the likelihood function is a function of The parameters derived from the log likelihood function are known as marginal effects or marginal probabilities. The marginal probabilities measure the change in probabilities resulting from a unit change in one of the regressors while holding the other regressors constant. Predicted marginal probabilities assist in understanding the relationship between the dependent and independent variables and the signs of the parameter estimates and their statistical significance indicate the direction of the relationship (Gujarati, 2003; Verbeek, 2004). A goodness of fit measure is a summary statistic suggesting the accuracy with which the model approximates the observed data (Verbeke et al., 2000). When the dependent variable is qualitative the accuracy of the model is determined by comparing the fit between the calculated probabilities and observed response frequencies or through the models ability to forecast observed responses. Goodness of fit measures are usually based on a comparison between a model that contains only a constant as the independent variable. The pseudo R 2 takes into account the two likelihood values, log L 1 and log L 0

PAGE 46

36 where L 1 represents the maximum log likelihood value of the model of interest and L 0 stands for the maximum value of the log likelihood function when the intercept is the only parameter value that is not equal to zero. The difference between the log L 1 and log L 2 serves as an indicator of the explained variation of the underlying latent variable caused by the additional parameters (Laitila, 1993; Verbeek, 2004). In summary, the pseudo R 2 is a tool used to evaluate the explained variation in a model. It is important to mention that this measure has two shortcomings: (1) the pseudo R 2 usually decreases as additional parameters are included in the model and (2) the measure does not adjust for the degrees of freedom of the model (Laitila, 1993). Model Specification Existing empirical studies provide the basis for the variables selected in the model. Earlier studies conducted by McLean-Meyinsse (2003) and Degner and Lin (1993) used a probit analysis to evaluate the factors that influence consumers willingness to consume goat meat and goat meat products. Their studies indicated that race, age, household size, geographical location, and gender affect the willingness to consume or try goat meat. For example, the studies found non-Caucasians, men, and those living in larger households were most likely consumers of goat. Studies conducted to assess the factors that influence the consumption of specialty meats McLean-Meyinsse (1999) and McLean-Meyinsse (2000) found ethnicity, education, household size, and gender influenced consumers attitude toward exotic animal food item and their willingness to consume. Finally, studies by Hui et al. (1995) and Chen et al. (2002) used probit model simulations evaluated the impact selected meat attributes had on meat consumption among various demographic, socioeconomic, and geographical characteristics. The results from the Hui et al. (1995) study suggested that female and non-white consumers

PAGE 47

37 are more concerned with fat, cholesterol, and price. Chen et al. (2002) suggested segments within Asian populations have specific taste and preferences and are not a homogenous group. In this study, probit models are used to estimate the willingness to try goat meat for Hispanic and non-Hispanic populations with respect to several explanatory variables. The entire survey sample model will included demographic and socioeconomic factors (i.e. age, gender, income, household size, and educational attainment), perception of goat meat, frequency of other meat consumption, and consumer characteristics. It is believed that segments within the Hispanic population have different variables affecting their willing to try goat meat. Additional independent variables that will be included only in the Hispanic model are descent and generation in the U.S. Specification of the probit for the entire survey sample is as follows: Y ki = k1 ETH2 + k2 ETH3 + k3 GENDER + k4 AGE1 + k5 AGE2 + k6 AGE3 + k7 AGE4 + k8 AGE5 + k9 HSIZE1 + k10 HSIZE2 + k11 HSIZE3 + k12 HSIZE4 + k13 BEEF1 + k14 BEEF2 + k15 CHICK1 + k16 CHICK2 + k17 FISH1 + k18 FISH2 + k19 PORK1 + k20 PORK2 + k21 TURK + k22 LAMB + k23 VIEW1 + k24 VIEW2 + k25 FAT + k26 SAFETY + k27 CONVEN + k28 PRICE Specification of the Hispanic model is as follows: Y ji = j1 MEXICAN + j2 PTRICAN + j3 OTHERD + j4 GENERA + j5 AGE1 + j6 AGE2 + j7 AGE3 + j8 AGE4 + j9 AGE5 + j10 HSIZE1 + j11 HSIZE2 + j12 HSIZE3 + j13 HSIZE4 + j14 BEEF1 + j15 BEEF2 + j16 CHICJ1 + j17 CHICJ2 + j18 FISH1 + j19 FISH2 + j20 PORJ1 + j21 PORJ2 + j22 TURJ + j23 LAMB + j24 VIEW1 + j25 VIEW2 + j26 FAT + j27 SAFETY + j28 CONVEN + j29 PRICE

PAGE 48

38 1 if respondent is willing to try goat meat 0 if respondent is unwilling to try goat meat The probit model estimates the influence the selected explanatory variables have on consumers preferences of goat meat. The analysis also predicts the probabilities of the consumers willingness to try goat meat under several variable levels. A description of the variables used in this study can be seen in Table 5-1. Y i =

PAGE 49

39 Table 5-1. Probit model variables and description. Variant Variable Name Description Willingness to try goat meat TRY 1 if willing to try goat meat Ethnicity ETH 1 if Hispanic, 0 otherwise Hispanic Origin MEXICAN 1 if of Mexican, 0 otherwise CUBAN 1 if of Cuban, 0 otherwise PTRICAN 1 if of Puerto Rican, 0 otherwise OTHERD 1 if of Mexican, 0 otherwise Gender GENDER 1 if male, Age AGE1 1 if 35 or older, 0 otherwise Education EDU1 High School diploma or less EDU2 Some College EDU3 College 4 year degree and beyond Household Size HSIZE1 1 if one person HSIZE2 1 if two people HSIZE3 1 if three people HSIZE4 1 if four people HSIZE5 1 if five or more people Perception of Goat Meat VIEW1 1 if positive view VIEW2 1 if neutral view VIEW3 1 if negative view Consumer Attributes FAT 1 if fat is important to the consumer SAFETY 1 if safety is important to the consumer CHOLES 1 if convenience is important to the consumer CONVEN 1 if convenience is important to the consumer PRICE 1 if price specials are important to consumer Substitutes Consumed BEEF1 1 if consumed more than once a week BEEF2 1 if consumed once of week BEEF3 1 if consumed during monthly or less frequently BEEF4 1 if never consumed CHICK1 1 if consumed more than once a week CHICK2 1 if consumed once of week CHICK3 1 if consumed during monthly or less frequently CHICK4 1 if never consumed LAMB1 1 if consumed, 0 otherwise PORK1 1 if consumed more than once a week PORK2 1 if consumed once of week PORK3 1 if consumed during monthly or less frequently PORK4 1 if never consumed TURK1 1 if consumed, 0 otherwise

PAGE 50

CHAPTER 6 EMPIRICAL RESULTS Using data collected from a consumer survey, the specification set forth in the previous chapter and maximum likelihood procedures, two independent probit models were estimated with the dependent variable representing the consumers willingness to try goat meat. Due to the nature of the dichotomous dependent variable, a probit analysis was utilized to predict the likelihood of trying goat meat given various exogenous variables. The probit model coefficients and marginal probabilities from the two models one for the survey population and one for only Hispanic respondents are shown in Tables 6-1 and 6-2, respectively. According to Greene (2003), marginal probabilities should be used to draw inferences about the relationship between the dependent and independent variables rather than coefficient estimates. The marginal probabilities measure the change in probability of the willingness try goat meat from a unit change in one of the explanatory variables, while holding the other regressors at their sample means. The results from these models are discussed in this chapter, beginning with the whole population model and followed by the Hispanic only model. Entire Survey Sample Probit Estimates The entire survey sample probit model (Table 6-1) correctly predicted 75.8 percent of consumers responses (incorrectly predicting both a consumers willingness to try goat meat and non-willingness to try 12.1 percent of the time). This compares to a nave, which resulted in correct prediction 56.4 percent of the time. The chi-squared 40

PAGE 51

41 value is 137.0 is statistically significant to the .01 confidence level, which implies good predictive power of the variables included in the model. Table 6-1. Empirical results from the whole survey probit model. Variable Estimated Coefficient Standard Error Marginal Effects ETH2 0.0554 0.2020 0.0217 ETH3 0.0424 0.3031 0.0165 GENDER -0.2985 0.1783 -0.0830 AGE1 0.0404 0.3484 0.0159 AGE2 0.0862 0.2719 0.0317 AGE3 -0.0493 0.2898 -0.1922 AGE4 0.0780 0.2536 0.0307 AGE5 0.4215 0.2606 0.1668*** EDU2 0.0883 0.2006 0.0347 EDU3 0.0761 0.3031 -0.2973 HSIZE1 -0.6960** 0.3234 -0.2235** HSIZE2 -0.4697*** 0.2451 -0.1790** HSIZE3 -0.5380** 0.2606 -0.1984** HSIZE4 -0.6253* 0.2508 -0.2295* VIEW1 1.6244* 0.2286 0.5829* VIEW2 0.7787* 0.2070 0.3019* FAT -0.5495** 0.2818 -0.2165** SAFETY -0.2617 0.3042 -0.1037 CHOLES 0.1972 0.2471 0.0760 CONVEN -0.0671 0.1691 -0.0263 PRICE 0.5373* 0.5376 0.2017** BEEF1 -0.1805 0.2132 -0.0709 BEEF2 -0.2505 0.2305 -0.0967 CHICK1 -0.7486** 0.3215 -0.2918* CHICK2 -0.7544** 0.3728 -0.2662** PORK1 0.0635 0.2136 0.0249 PORK2 -0.1158 0.1955 -0.0451 FISH1 0.3839** 0.1951 0.1505** FISH2 0.4458** 0.2103 0.1756** TURK 0.0635 0.2502 0.0318 LAMB 0.4887** 0.1690 0.1915* LogLikelihood = -181.45 R 2 (Psuedo) = 27.2 % Chi-squared = 137.03 % of corrected predictions = 75.9% *,**,*** indicate significance at .01, .05, and .10 levels, respectively

PAGE 52

42 The results indicate that there is no significant difference between the willingness to try amongst demographic characteristics such as ethnicity, gender, nor educational attainment levels. Caucasians or consumers of other races levels of willingness to try were compared to those of Hispanics consumers, the base. Unexpectedly, the willingness to try goat meat amongst ethnic groups was not statistically different, even though apparent differences existed between each groups responses. Raw statistics indicated that 24.5 percent of Hispanics currently ate goat meat, compared to 12.0 percent of Caucasians. However, 31.6 percent of non-goat meat consuming, Hispanics were willing to goat meat, compared to 29.8 percent of non-consuming Caucasians. Statistically significant demographics variables include household size and age. As hypothesized, if less than five individuals were present in a household the chances of trying goat meat diminishes (Figure 6-1). For example, as the household changes from five or more people to one person, the willingness of trying goat meat decreased by 22.3 percent. Additionally, as household size changes from the base, five or more individuals, to a two, three, or four person household the likelihood of trying goat decreased 17.9, 19.8, and 23 percent, respectively. Respondents age also had a significant effect on the willingness to try goat meat, with respondents between the ages of 55 and 64 more 42.2 percent likely the participants 65 years and older to try goat meat. The study failed to investigate the reasons respondents were willing or not willing to try goat meat and goat meat attribute that influence consumption such as, but not limited to freshness, price, presence of chemical additive, and various nutritional attributes. However, the survey did focus on the psychographic characteristics that are important to consumers when making all meat purchases.

PAGE 53

43 Figure 6-1. Changes in the probability of tryi ng goat meat with respect to household size. (All household sizes are compared to the base, households containing five or more individuals). The psychographic factors were included in the model to provide insight on potential goat meat consumers. Of convenience, price sp ecials, fat content, cholesterol, and safety, price specials and fat content were the only significant variables. The relationships between price specials and fa t content with willingness to try were the opposite of the original hypotheses. Consumer s that viewed price specials as important were 20 percent more likely than consumers that rated price sp ecial as unimportant to be willing to try goat meat. Additionally, consumers that pe rceived fat content as relevant were 21.6 percent less likely to be willing to try goat meat than those that view fat levels as insignificant. These results reveal that many consumers are not knowledgeable of the on the characteristics, of goat meat, including pr ice. As mentioned in previous chapters, goat meat is a lean meat and a high source of proteins. Therefore, consumers that believe fat levels are important should be more inclined to try goat meat. One potential

PAGE 54

44 explanation for the opposite result is that people believe goat meat in high in fat. Also, goat meat prices are usually higher than traditional meats (McLean-Meyinsse (1999) found that goat prices range from $1.79 to $2.79 per pound in Louisiana), suggesting those that believe price specials are important should have been less willing to try goat meat. The same potential explanation, lack of knowledge about goat meat, could explain this result. It is not alarming that convenience was not significant. If respondents lack information on preparation methods, they may be unaware if goat meat is easy to cook or not. The probit model indicated that consumers perception of goat meat had a statistically significant impact on the likelihood of trying goat meat. As the consumers perception changed from negative to positive, the probability of willingness to try goat meat increased 58.3 percent. Likewise, if consumers possessed a neutral view of goat meat rather than a negative view the likelihood of consuming goat meat increased 30.2 percent. Based on the results, one can assume that as the consumers attitude towards goat meat becomes more positive, their chances of trying goat meat increases at significant rates. Finally, the relationship between trying goat meat and the frequency of consumption of other meat substitutes was examined. Chicken, fish, and lamb consumption were found to significantly affect the willingness to try goat meat. Respondents that had previous consumed lamb were more willing to try goat meat. In fact, participants that had consumed lamb were 48.9 percent more likely to be willing try goat meat than individuals that had not eaten lamb. The probit estimates also indicated that fish and other seafood consumption positively effect the likelihood of trying goat

PAGE 55

45 meat. Participants that consumed seafood more than once a week were 15 percent more likely to express a willingness to try goat meat. Whereas, respondents that consumer fish weekly were 17.6 percent more incline to be willing to try goat meat. Respondents that consume chicken more than once a month are less likely to be willing to try goat meat. If a respondent consumed chicken more than once a week, the probability of consumer goat meat decreased by 29.1 percent. Likewise if the respondent consumed chicken at least once a week, the chances of trying goat meat declined 26.6 percent. For the results, one can infer that goat meat consumption will occur less often as the frequency of chicken consumed increases. On the other hand, fish and lamb consumption may serve as an indicator of potential goat consumption. Hispanic Model The probit model that focused on the Hispanic respondents only correctly predicted consumers willingness to try goat meat 76.2 percent of the time (incorrectly predicting a consumers willingness to try goat meat 12.5 percent of the time and non-willingness to try 11.3 percent of the time). This is better than nave prediction, 51.7. The chi-squared value is 64.3 and is statistically significant to the .01 confidence level, which implies this model has good predictive ability of forecasting the willingness to try. Although ethnicity was statistically insignificant in the general population model, a separate probit analysis was conducted using Hispanic respondents to reveal if different factors affected the willingness to consumers between Hispanics and the general population.

PAGE 56

46 Table 6-2. Empirical results from the Hispanic probit model. Variable Estimated Coefficient Standard Error Marginal Effects MEXICAN -0.4283 0.4764 -0.1673 PTRICAN -0.7114 0.4405 -0.2690*** OTHERD -0.2024 0.3570 -0.8056 GENERA -0.1514 0.2801 -0.0603 GENDER 0.1312 0.3171 0.0522 AGE1 2.0406* 0.7452 0.5417* AGE2 0.1318 0.4631 0.0525 AGE3 0.1973 0.5136 0.0785 AGE4 0.3302 0.4392 0.1307 AGE5 0.3676 0.5432 0.1448 EDU2 0.0520 0.3108 0.0275 EDU3 0.1250 0.3545 0.4983 HSIZE1 -0.3877 0.5957 -0.1510 HSIZE2 -0.2943 0.3831 -0.1164 HSIZE3 -0.8757* 0.4041 -0.3267* HSIZE4 -0.5672 0.3782 -0.2206 VIEW1 1.4971* 0.4403 0.5457* VIEW2 0.8390 0.4239 0.1521 FAT -0.6843 0.5699 -0.2603 SAFETY -1.0338 0.7084 0.3605* CHOLES 0.3370 0.6091 0.1321 CONVEN 0.1072 0.2887 0.0427 PRICE 1.2540* 0.3541 0.4469* BEEF1 0.3021 0.3544 0.1201 BEEF2 0.3916 0.3902 0.1551 CHICK1 -1.5846* 0.6051 -0.5132* CHICK2 -1.6177** 0.7845 -0.4825* PORK1 0.5338 0.3672 0.2087 PORK2 0.3141 0.3477 0.1245 FISH1 0.7546** 0.3583 0.2936** FISH2 0.3966 0.3689 0.1570 TURK 0.2715 0.3294 0.1076 LAMB 0.3545 0.299 0.1406 LogLikelihood = -72.41 R 2 (Psuedo) =15% Chi-squared = 64.44 % of corrected predictions = 76.2% *,**,*** indicate significance at .01, .05, and .10 levels, respectively

PAGE 57

47 Additionally, the second probit analysis was conducted to examine if the levels of trying goat meat vary amongst the consumers of various Hispanics origins and as the generations the respondent had spent in the United States (and expected acculturation level) increases. Consistent with the whole survey sample results, there is no significant difference between the willingness to try amongst genders and educational attainment levels. When willingness to try levels for individuals of Puerto Rican, Mexican, and other descents were compared to those of Cuban descent a statistical significant difference was found when the individual are of Puerto Rican descent. The results revealed that if the respondent was of Puerto Rican rather than Cuban descent, the respondents willingness to try levels decreased 25.9 percent. According to probit results there was not a significant difference in the willingness to try goat meat between first generation Hispanics and Hispanics whose families have been in the United States for more than one generation. This may suggest that as acculturation increases, consumption patterns for goat meat remain unchanged, a positive indicator for the goat meat industry. When only considering Hispanic respondents, the results of the demographic variable did change. Household size remained significant, but now only the household size of three was statistically different from the size of five, (32.7 percent less likely to be willing to try), unlike the larger model, where all sizes were significantly different. Again only one age variable was significant, but this time it was the youngest age group (18 and 24). Respondents in this group were 51.4 percent more likely to indicate a willingness to try goat. Psychographic factors were again were slightly different in the Hispanic only model. Safety and price specials were the only significant variables. Consumers that

PAGE 58

48 rated safety as important were 36 percent less likely than individuals that feel safety is unimportant to try goat meat. Similar to the entire sample, as the significance of price specials changed from important to unimportant, the chances of trying goat meat increased 44.7 percent. Respondents perception of goat meat again had a statistically significant impact on the willingness of try goat meat. As the respondents perception changed from negative to positive, the likelihood of willingness try goat meat increased 54.6 percent. Unlike the general population model, there is no significant difference between the levels of trying goat meat as the consumers opinion towards the products change from negative to neutral. Finally, the analysis examined the relationship between trying goat meat and the frequency of consumption of other meat substitutes. Chicken and fish and seafood consumption were found to significantly affect the willingness to try goat meat. Similar to the entire survey sample model, respondents that consume chicken at least once a week were less likely to exemplify a willingness to consume goat meat. Respondents that ate chicken once a week were 48.2 percent less likely to be willing to try goat meat than those that consume chicken on special occasions or less frequently. When the frequency of consuming chicken changed from special occasions to more than once a week the chances of being willing to try goat meat decreased 51.3 percent. Fish and other seafood consumption positively effected goat meat only when they were consumed more than once a week. The willingness to try goat meat increased 29.4 percent as the frequency of fish and seafood consumption varied from more than once a week to on special occasion and less frequently.

PAGE 59

CHAPTER 7 CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS Summary This thesis focuses on developing an understanding of factors that influence willingness to consume goat meat in Florida. Researchers believe Florida has the potential for a meat goat market that is profitable and the demand for goat meat products in Florida is expected to continue growing as target populations within the niche market increase. However, the lack of consumer information has hindered producers, processors, and marketers ability to fully delineate the profitability and viability of Floridas meat goat industry. Consumer information is a critical component to totally understand the possible economic impact of goat meat production and marketing in Florida. Thus, the primary objective of this research is to identify factors that influence and barriers that reduce consumption of goat meat. A probit analysis of willingness to try goat meat indicted that factors influencing willingness try goat meat differed between the whole survey model and the Hispanics model. Hispanic consumers were unaware of the safety standards, which may be a result of the lack of grades and standards in the meat goat industry. The general population sample participants were uninformed of goat meats nutritional attributes (i.e. low levels of fat and cholesterol). Results from a partial nutrient analysis (Johnson, 1995), suggested that goat meat was comparable to chicken in total grams of fat, percent calories from fat and cholesterol. Also, the nutrient profile indicated that goat meat was similar beef in iron content. According to probit model results, safety and fat content had a 49

PAGE 60

50 negative influence on the willingness to try. Indicating that overall, consumer awareness of goat meat attributes in low, and more information should be made available to consumers. Both groups of shoppers indicated that price specials were important when purchasing meat to the grocery store. Price specials increased that likelihood of trying goat meat; however, specialty meat price are usually more expensive than traditional meat prices. Therefore, marketers may want implement various pricing strategies, pricing the meat lower than other meats to increase sales. This study did not identify reasons for not consuming goat meat. Further research should be conducted to identify these factors so that the industry can address and attempt to rectify these issues that restrict consumption. Perception of goat meat influenced respondents willingness to try goat meat. As the respondents view of goat meat became more positive, the likelihood of trying goat meat increased at least 30 percent...Unlike the results the entire survey model, the was not a significant relationship between the willing to try goat meat and the perception as the respondent view changed from negative to neutral. Results show that the frequency of chicken and fish consumption effect the willingness to try goat meat in both models. In addition to those meats, respondents that consumed lamb were also more likely to be willing try goat meat in the model including the entire sample. Prices of substitutes were not included in the model, as price for goat meat were not available either. However the relationship between the willingness to try goat meat and chicken, fish, and lamb indicated that goat meat has substitutes and complements. Therefore, members of the goat meat industry could develop strategies that differentiate goat meat from its competitors in an effort to increase market share. The

PAGE 61

51 likelihood of trying goat meat increased when participants consumed fish on a weekly basis and if consumers had previously consumed lamb; thus, meat marketing strategies should be aimed at these individuals. Income was not included in the model due to a high refusal rate in answering the question; therefore income elasticities were not calculated. However, education was used as a proxy for income and was found to be insignificant. The most unanticipated result from this study was that ethnicity or race was insignificant, which implies that the willingness to try goat meat is the same for Hispanics, Caucasians, and other races is statistically the same. This notion means that marketers should develop marketing strategies that target all consumers, and not focus on one particular group per se Hispanics. Furthermore, our results indicate that there is opportunity for growth in the goat meat industry. Gender was not significant, however, females are usually the primary grocery shoppers; goat meat should be promoted in a manner than accentuates the characteristics that have been identified as important to female shoppers. Other demographic factors that influenced the willingness to try goat meat were household size and age. Consistent with previous research, larger households, those containing five or more individuals were most likely to try goat for the entire sample. Larger households may be more willing to try goat meat because consumers perceive it to be inexpensive; thus, making goat meat an affordable meat alternative when feeding a large family. The consumers in the youngest age group, 18-24, were most likely to express a willingness to try goat meat among Hispanic consumers, where as there was consumes between the age of 55-64 years were most likely for the entire sample. This is

PAGE 62

52 an important finding for the goat meat industry, because if an individual develops a fondness for goat meat at an earlier age, more than likely these individuals will become life long consumers of the product, which may result an overall in goat meat consumption. Conclusions This research suggests opportunities for expanding the goat meat industry exists in Florida, with 43.6 percent of the sample indicating a willingness to try goat meat if it was available in supermarkets. Demographic characteristics such ethnicity, gender, nor educational attainment levels did not affect the dependent variable, but other demographic characteristics did affect the willingness to try. The results revealed that as the descent of the respondent changed from Cuban to Puerto Rican, the willingness to try decreased 25.9 percent. Psychographic factors that effect the willing to try included price specials, fat content, safety, and the consumers perception of the product. Consumers indicated fat content and safety were important to their purchase decisions were less likely to be willing to goat meat, while perception of goat meat and price specials has a positive relationship with the willingness to try. As goat meat is low in fat and often more expensive than other meats, these results seem counter-intuitive. However, this may all be an indicator that knowledge about the attributes of goat meat are low and in industry may benefit from educational efforts. Finally, the analysis describes relationship between the willing to trying goat meat and the frequency of consumption of other meats. Chicken, fish, and lamb consumption were found to significantly effect the willingness to try goat meat. Respondents that had previously consumed lamb were more willing to try goat meat. If the participants consumed fish and seafood a minimum of once a week, the probability of trying goat

PAGE 63

53 meat increases. Consumers that ate chicken more than once a month were less likely to try goat meat. Pork and beef consumption were found to have no significant effect on trying goat meat. One can conclude that goat meat consumption will occur less often as the frequency of chicken consumed increases. On the other hand, fish and lamb consumption may serve as an indicator of potential goat consumption. Implications In recent years the demand for goat meat has increased in the United States and it appears that opportunities for expansion exist for Floridas goat meat industry. The findings from this study can be used by the industry to develop marketing strategies that will provide assistance in increasing the demand for the product. The results also suggest potential consumers that should be targeted by the industry. This study identified new consumers for goat meat. In order for the goat meat industry to expand, market development strategies, which involve targeting new consumers with a present product, can be used to enhance the demand for goat meat. It is easier to target consumers that have an interest in trying goat meat than to market the product to those that are unwilling to try it. If the goat meat industry wishes to increase the demand for goat meat it is necessary to expand its target market beyond ethnic populations and promote the products or all individuals. This study suggests that this opportunity exists because there was no difference in willingness to try among the ethnic/ racial groups suggesting that the industry should tap into the Caucasian market. Research suggests that the industry should direct its marketing efforts to individuals living in larger households and those between the ages of 18-24. It is imperative for the industry to attract long term consumers in order to have long run success and by targeting younger consumers this is possible. If younger consumers develop a preference for goat meat

PAGE 64

54 products at an earlier age, they are more than likely to consumer the product as they grow older. Additionally, since ethnicity/race was an insignificant factor in this study, the industry should also target Caucasian females. Other potential consumers are those that live in larger households and lamb consumers. It seems a major barrier that hinders the prosperity of the goat meat industry is that consumers lack knowledge on goat meat. Consumers are becoming more health conscious and they are consuming products that possess nutritional qualities such as chicken and fish more frequently. Goat meat is very healthy, low in fat and cholesterol and high in proteins, however consumers are unaware of these qualities; therefore, educational information that increases consumers awareness of goat meat. If this information was known by consumers the industry may be able to repositioning the product in consumers mind. It seems that consumers perceive the product as cheap and containing high levels of fat, but the in untrue. In store demonstrates, educational advertising, recipes are promotional strategies that would increase consumers awareness of goat meat, resulting in increased consumption. As a result of this study it is evident that further research that involves knowledge testing is needed. This type of research would reveal the familiarity levels consumers have for goat meat. These results would inform industry official on the subject matter that needs to be discussed in the educational advertisements. Additionally, since ethnicity/race was non-significant and more balance sample, on the does not place an emphasis on Hispanics, should be conducted to investigate the reasons for consuming and not consuming goat meat is needed. The Floridas goat meat industry has the opportunity

PAGE 65

55 to flourish; however, effective marketing strategies are needed to increase consumers awareness and the availability of goat meat.

PAGE 66

APPENDIX A SOUTHERN REGION GOAT CONSUMPTION SURVEY March 15, 2004 Hello, this is (NAME) calling from the University of Georgia in Athens. The Survey Research Center is conducting a study this evening in conjunction with Mack C. Nelson, a professor from Fort Valley State University (GA) concerning the use of goat meat and wed like to talk to the primary food shopper of your household. Do you have a few minutes right now to complete an interview? 1. Yes (CONTINUE) 2. No (GET SRS NAME, ARRANGE CALLBACK; APPLY PERSUADERS. EVEN IF RESPONDENT DOESNT EAT GOAT MEAT, WE WANT THEM TO COMPLETE THE SURVEYIT WILL BE SHORTER. ) [INTERVIEWER NOTE: IF PRIMARY FOOD SHOPPER DID NOT HEAR INITIAL INTRODUCTION BUT DOES COME TO THE PHONE, REPEAT INTRO] S1 Are you 18 years or older? 1. Yes (CONTINUE) 2. No (ASK TO SPEAK TO ADULT 18 YEARS OR OLDER. RETURN TO INTRO. IF NECESSARY, GET SRS NAME AND SET CALLBACK.) Great! Before we begin, I need to let you know that the interview is completely voluntary. All of the information you provide will be kept strictly confidential and you dont have to answer any questions you dont want to. Also, my supervisor may listen to part of the interview to be sure that Im not making any mistakes. Q1. Have you or any member of your immediate family ever eaten goat meat? 1. Yes [SKIP TO Q4] 2. No 3. Dont know 9. Ref/NA Q2. DELETED 56

PAGE 67

57 Q2.1 If goat meat was available in your area food stores, do you think you would try it? 1. Yes 2. No 9. Ref/DK/NA Q2.2 If there were a cooperative that sold the meat of animals grown organically, would you be willing to join? 1. Willing 2. Not willing 9. Ref/DK/NA [ALL ANSWERS SKIP TO Q14] Q3. DELETED Q4. Whats your preference in goat meat? Would it be the kid, small male, small female, wether or something else? 1. Kid 2. Small male 3. Small female 4. Wether (castrated male) 5. Other [Specify] _________________ 9. Ref/DK/NA Q5. What live weight do you prefer? 1. Less than 30 pounds 2. 30 50 pounds 3. 51 69 pounds 4. 70 pounds or more 9. Ref/DK/NA Q6. Do you prefer a certain cut of meat? 1. Yes 2. No [SKIP TO Q7] 9. Ref/DK/NA [SKIP TO Q7]

PAGE 68

58 Q6.1 How much do you prefer the shoulder? Do you prefer the shoulder very much, somewhat, not much or not at all? 1. Very much 2. Somewhat 3. Neutral (Doesnt matter) 4. Not much 5. Not at all 9. Ref/DK/NA Q6.2 How much do you prefer the ribs? Would it be very much, somewhat, not much or not at all? 1. Very much 2. Somewhat 3. Neutral (Doesnt matter) 4. Not much 5. Not at all 9. Ref/DK/NA Q6.3 How much do you prefer the hind leg? 1. Very much 2. Somewhat 3. Neutral (Doesnt matter) 4. Not much 5. Not at all 9. Ref/DK/NA Q6.4 How much do you prefer loin chops? 1. Very much 2. Somewhat 3. Neutral (Doesnt matter) 4. Not much 5. Not at all 9. Ref/DK/NA

PAGE 69

59 Q6.5 How much do you prefer loin cubes? 1. Very much 2. Somewhat 3. Neutral (Doesnt matter) 4. Not much 5. Not at all 9. Ref/DK/NA Q6.6. Are there any other cuts of meat that you prefer to eat? 1. Name cuts of meat ________________________________ 9. No, Ref/DK/NA Q7. Do you normally buy a whole goat? 1. Yes 2. No 3. Dont know 9. Ref/NA Q8. Are there certain seasons of the year that you eat more goat meat? 1. Yes 2. No [SKIP TO Q9] 9. Ref/DK/NA [SKIP TO Q9] Q8.1 What seasons are those? [INTERVIEWER NOTE: CHOOSE ALL THAT APPLY] [PROGRAMMER NOTE: YES/NO TOGGLE] 1. Winter 2. Spring 3. Summer 4. Fall 5. Ref/DK/NA 6. Exit

PAGE 70

60 Q9 Do you eat goat meat on special occasions? 1. Yes 2. No [SKIP TO Q10] 9. Ref/DK/NA [SKIP TO Q10] Q9.1 Which special occasions are those? [INTERVIEWER NOTE: CHOOSE ALL THAT APPLY] [PROGRAMMER NOTE: YES/NO TOGGLE] 1. Christmas 2. 4 th of July 3. Family re-unions 4. Marriages 5. Ramadan 6. Cinco de Mayo 7. Other [Specify] _________________ 8. Ref/DK/NA 9. Exit Q10. About how many pounds of goat meat do you think your family eats each year? [INTERVIEWER NOTE: USE PERSUADERS IF NECESSARY: I JUST NEED A BALLPARK FIGURE.] pounds 998 998 or more 999 Ref/DK/NA [RANGE: 1 999] Q11. Would your family eat more goat meat if it was available in your local grocery stores? 1. Yes 2. No [SKIP TO Q12] 3. Dont know [SKIP TO Q12] 9. Ref/NA [SKIP TO Q12]

PAGE 71

61 Q11.1 Which meat product would you eat less of if you increased the family consumption of goat meat? [INTERVIEWER NOTE: IF NECESSARY, READ: BEEF, PORK, SEAFOOD, LAMB, CHICKEN OR TURKEY?] 1. Enter response 9. Ref/DK/NA Q12. Please tell me how important the following attributes are in your decision to purchase goat meat products. Would you say fresh, never frozen product is very important, important, not very important or not at all important? 1. Very important 2. Important 3. Neutral (Doesnt matter) 4. Not very important 5. Not at all important 9. Ref/DK/NA Q12.1 How important is the color of the meatvery important, important, not very important or not at all important? 1. Very important 2. Important 3. Neutral (Doesnt matter) 4. Not very important 5. Not at all important 9. Ref/DK/NA Q12.2 How important is the government inspection label? 1. Very important 2. Important 3. Neutral (Doesnt matter) 4. Not very important 5. Not at all important 9. Ref/DK/NA

PAGE 72

62 Q12.3 How important is it that the goat meat is organically grown? 1. Very important 2. Important 3. Neutral (Doesnt matter) 4. Not very important 5. Not at all important 9. Ref/DK/NA Q12.4 How important is it that there are a variety of cuts available? 1. Very important 2. Important 3. Neutral (Doesnt matter) 4. Not very important 5. Not at all important 9. Ref/DK/NA Q12.5 How important is it that there are prepackaged cuts? 1. Very important 2. Important 3. Neutral (Doesnt matter) 4. Not very important 5. Not at all important 9. Ref/DK/NA Q12.6 How important are cooking instructions? 1. Very important 2. Important 3. Neutral (Doesnt matter) 4. Not very important 5. Not at all important 9. Ref/DK/NA

PAGE 73

63 Q12.7 How important are marinade cuts? 1. Very important 2. Important 3. Neutral (Doesnt matter) 4. Not very important 5. Not at all important 9. Ref/DK/NA Q12.8 How important are convenience foods, such as sausage? 1. Very important 2. Important 3. Neutral (Doesnt matter) 4. Not very important 5. Not at all important 9. Ref/DK/NA Q12.9 How important is the price in your decision to purchase goat meat products? 1. Very important 2. Important 3. Neutral (Doesnt matter) 4. Not very important 5. Not at all important 9. Ref/DK/NA Q13. When you cook your goat meat, how often do you make soup? Would you say frequently, some of the time, not very often or never? 1. Frequently 2. Some of the time 3. Not very often 4. Never 9. Ref/DK/NA

PAGE 74

64 Q13.1 When you cook your goat meat, how often do you make meat sauce? Would you say frequently, some of the time, not very often or never? 1. Frequently 2. Some of the time 3. Not very often 4. Never 9. Ref/DK/NA Q13.2 How often do you make chili when you cook goat meat? 1. Frequently 2. Some of the time 3. Not very often 4. Never 9. Ref/DK/NA Q13.3 How often do you make meat loaf when you cook goat meat? 1. Frequently 2. Some of the time 3. Not very often 4. Never 9. Ref/DK/NA Q13.4 When you cook your goat meat, how often do you broil it? Would you say . 1. Frequently 2. Some of the time 3. Not very often 4. Never 9. Ref/DK/NA Q13.5 When you cook goat meat, how often do you oven roast it? 1. Frequently 2. Some of the time 3. Not very often 4. Never 9. Ref/DK/NA

PAGE 75

65 Q13.6 When you cook goat meat, how often do you have sausage made? 1. Frequently 2. Some of the time 3. Not very often 4. Never 9. Ref/DK/NA Q13.7 When you cook your goat meat, how often do you barbeque the meat? 1. Frequently 2. Some of the time 3. Not very often 4. Never 9. Ref/DK/NA Q13.8 Are there any other ways that you cook your goat meat? 1. Enter response ________________________ 9. Ref/DK/NA Q14. This section is about which meats you eat most often. Would you say that you eat beef every day, more than once a week, once a week, more than once a month, once a month, on special occasions or never? 1. Every day 2. More than once per week 3. Once per week 4. More than once per month 5. Once per month 6. Special occasions 7. Never [SKIP TO Q15] 9. Ref/DK/NA [SKIP TO Q15]

PAGE 76

66 Q14.1 When you eat beef how much do you usually eat? Would you say less than pound, pound, pound, 1 pound or more than one pound? 1. Less than one-fourth pound 2. One-fourth pound 3. One-half pound 4. One pound 5. More than one pound 9. Ref/DK/NA Q15 And how often would you say that you eat chicken? Would it be . 1. Every day 2. More than once per week 3. Once per week 4. More than once per month 5. Once per month 6. Special occasions 7. Never [SKIP TO Q16] 9. Ref/DK/NA [SKIP TO Q16] Q15.1 When you eat chicken how much do you usually eat? Would you say less than pound, pound, pound, 1 pound or more than one pound? 1. Less than one-fourth pound 2. One-fourth pound 3. One-half pound 4. One pound 5. More than one pound 9. Ref/DK/NA Q16 What about turkey, how often do you eat turkey? 1. Every day 2. More than once per week 3. Once per week 4. More than once per month 5. Once per month 6. Special occasions 7. Never [SKIP TO Q17] 9. Ref/DK/NA [SKIP TO Q17]

PAGE 77

67 Q16.1 When you eat turkey how much do you usually eat? Would you say less than pound, pound, pound, 1 pound or more than one pound? 1. Less than one-fourth pound 2. One-fourth pound 3. One-half pound 4. One pound 5. More than one pound 9.Ref/DK/NA Q17 And how often do you eat lamb? 1. Every day 2. More than once per week 3. Once per week 4. More than once per month 5. Once per month 6. Special occasions 7. Never [SKIP TO Q18] 9. Ref/DK/NA [SKIP TO Q18] Q17.1 When you eat lamb how much do you usually eat? Would you say less than pound, pound, pound, 1 pound or more than one pound? 1. Less than one-fourth pound 2. One-fourth pound 3. One-half pound 4. One pound 5. More than one pound 9. Ref/DK/NA Q18 How often do you eat goat meat or chevon? 1. Every day 2. More than once per week 3. Once per week 4. More than once per month 5. Once per month 6. Special occasions 7. Never [SKIP TO Q19] 9. Ref/DK/NA [SKIP TO Q19]

PAGE 78

68 Q18.1 When you eat goat/chevon how much do you usually eat? Would you say less than pound, pound, pound, 1 pound or more than one pound? 1. Less than one-fourth pound 2. One-fourth pound 3. One-half pound 4. One pound 5. More than one pound 9. Ref/DK/NA Q19 How often do you eat fish or seafood? 1. Every day 2. More than once per week 3. Once per week 4. More than once per month 5. Once per month 6. Special occasions 7. Never [SKIP TO Q20] 9. Ref/DK/NA [SKIP TO Q20] Q19.1 When you eat fish or seafood, how much do you usually eat? Would you say less than pound, pound, pound, 1 pound or more than one pound? 1. Less than one-fourth pound 2. One-fourth pound 3. One-half pound 4. One pound 5. More than one pound 9. Ref/DK/NA Q20 And finally, how often do you eat pork? 1. Every day 2. More than once per week 3. Once per week 4. More than once per month 5. Once per month 6. Special occasions 7. Never [SKIP TO Q23] 9. Ref/DK/NA [SKIP TO Q23]

PAGE 79

69 Q20.1 And when you eat pork how much do you usually eat? Would you say less than pound, pound, pound, 1 pound or more than one pound? 1. Less than one-fourth pound 2. One-fourth pound 3. One-half pound 4. One pound 5. More than one pound 9. Ref/DK/NA Q21 Question deleted (duplicate of Q11) Q22 DELETED Q23. In your household, has your spouse consumed goat meat products? 1. Yes 2. No 3. Do not have spouse 8. Ref/DK/NA [PROGRAMMER NOTE: IF Q23 = 3, SKIP Q36] Q23.1 Have your children consumed goat meat products? 1. Yes 2. No 3. Do not have children [SKIP TO Q26.1] 9. Ref/DK/NA [SKIP TO Q26.1] [PROGRAMMER NOTE: IF Q23.1 = 3, SKIP Q37] Q24. Now Id like to ask you the gender of your children. Remember, this is confidential and the answers will not be connected with your phone number in any way. Q24.1 DELETED Q24.2 Gender of first child under 18? 1. Male 2. Female 9. Ref/DK/NA [SKIP TO Q25]

PAGE 80

70 Q24.3 DELETED Q24.4 Gender of second child under 18? 1. Male 2. Female 3. No more children [SKIP TO Q25] 9. Ref/DK/NA [SKIP TO Q25] Q24.5 DELETED Q24.6 Gender of third child under 18? 1. Male 2. Female 3. No more children 9. Ref/DK/NA Q25. If you and/or your spouse eat goat meat but your children dont, what are the reasons your children dont consume the product? [INTERVIEWER NOTE: CHOOSE ALL THAT APPLY] [PROGRAMMER NOTE: YES/NO TOGGLE] 1. They dont like it 2. They were not reared where it was consumed regularly 3. It wasnt available 4. Their friends dont eat it, so they dont 5. Others (please list) _______________________________________________ 6. Ref/DK/NA 7. Exit Q26. DELETED Q26.1 To your knowledge, have any of the following family members eaten goat meat products? [INTERVIEWER NOTE: READ RESPONSES. CHOOSE ALL THAT APPLY]

PAGE 81

71 [PROGRAMMER NOTE: YES/NO TOGGLE] 1. Mother 2. Father 3. In-Laws 4. Others [Please specify _____________________] 5. Ref/DK/NA 6. Exit Q27 I would like to know how you see goat meat products. Would you say your view is: 1. Very positive 2. Positive 3. Somewhat positive 4. Neutral 5. Somewhat negative 6. Negative 7. Very negative 9. Ref/DK/NA For the next few items, Id like you to rate the importance of several factors in your decision to buy or not to buy a goat meat product. Even if you do not currently consume goat meat, please tell me how important the following items are in your decision to buy goat meat and other kinds of meat. Q28. How important are food page advertisements in your decision to buy goat meat? 1. Very important 2. Important 3. Neutral 4. Not very important 5. Not at all important 10. Ref/DK/NA Q28.1 How important are food page advertisements in your decision to buy other meats? 1. Very important 2. Important 3. Neutral 4. Not very important 5. Not at all important 9. Ref/DK/NA

PAGE 82

72 Q29. How important are store displays in your decision to buy goat meat? 1. Very important 2. Important 3. Neutral 4. Not very important 5. Not at all important 9. Ref/DK/NA Q29.1 How important are store displays in your decision to buy other meats? 1. Very important 2. Important 3. Neutral 4. Not very important 5. Not at all important 9. Ref/DK/NA Q30. How important are price specials in your decision to buy goat meat? 1. Very important 2. Important 3. Neutral 4. Unimportant 5. Not important at all 9. Ref/DK/NA Q30.1 How important are price specials in your decision to buy other meats? 1. Very important 2. Important 3. Neutral 4. Unimportant 5. Not important at all 9. Ref/DK/NA Q31. How important are in-supermarket taste tests in your decision to buy goat meat? 1. Very important 2. Important 3. Neutral 4. Unimportant 5. Not important at all 9. Ref/DK/NA

PAGE 83

73 Q31.1 How important are in-supermarket taste tests in your decision to buy other meats? 1. Very important 2. Important 3. Neutral 4. Unimportant 5. Not important at all 9. Ref/DK/NA Q32. How important are safety assurances such as USDA inspections of goat meat? 1. Very important 2. Important 3. Neutral 4. Unimportant 5. Not important at all 9. Ref/DK/NA Q32.1 How important are safety assurances such as USDA inspections of other meats? 1. Very important 2. Important 3. Neutral 4. Unimportant 5. Not important at all 9. Ref/DK/NA Q33. How important are convenience products such as sausage or ground meat from goat meat? 1. Very important 2. Important 3. Neutral 4. Somewhat unimportant 5. Not important at all 9. Ref/DK/NA Q33.1 How important are convenience products such as sausage or ground meat from other meats? 1. Very important 2. Important 3. Neutral 4. Somewhat unimportant 5. Not important at all 9. Ref/DK/NA

PAGE 84

74 Q34. How important is the fat content in goat meat? 1. Very important 2. Important 3. Neutral 4. Somewhat unimportant 5. Not important at all 9. Ref/DK/NA Q34.1 How important is the fat content in other meats? 1. Very important 2. Important 3. Neutral 4. Somewhat unimportant 5. Not important at all 9. Ref/DK/NA Q35. How important is the cholesterol content of goat meat? 1. Very important 2. Important 3. Neutral 4. Somewhat unimportant 5. Not important at all 9. Ref/DK/NA Q35.1 How important is the cholesterol content of other meats? 1. Very important 2. Important 3. Neutral 4. Somewhat unimportant 5. Not important at all 9. Ref/DK/NA

PAGE 85

75 For each of the following that I read to you, please rate how important each would be in your decision to purchase goat meat products, just as you make decisions to buy beef, poultry, or pork. Please use a scale of 1 to 5 where is very important and is not important at all. Q36. First, how important is your spouses opinion on your decision to purchase or not purchase goat meat products? 1. Very important 2. Important 3. Neutral 4. Somewhat unimportant 5. Not important at all 9. Ref/DK/NA [PROGRAMMER NOTE: IF Q23 = 3, THIS QUESTION IS SKIPPED (Q36)] Q37. How important are your childrens opinions on your decision to purchase or not purchase goat meat products? 1. Very important 2. Important 3. Neutral 4. Somewhat unimportant 5. Not important at all 9. Ref/DK/NA [PROGRAMMER NOTE: IF Q23.1 = 3, THIS QUESTION IS SKIPPED (Q37) Q38. How important is your own opinion on your decision to purchase or not purchase goat meat products? 1. Very important 2. Important 3. Neutral 4. Somewhat unimportant 5. Not important at all 9. Ref/DK/NA [PROGRAMMER NOTE: IF Q1 > 1, SKIP TO Q47] Q39. DELETED Q40. DELETED

PAGE 86

76 Q41. How often does your family eat goat meat? 1. Weekly 5. Quarterly 2. Bi-Weekly 6. Special occasions 3. Monthly 7. Refused 4. Less than quarterly 8. Dont know Q42. Do you get your goat meat from . .? [INTERVIEWER NOTE: READ LIST, CHOOSE ALL THAT APPLY] [PROGRAMMER NOTE: YES/NO TOGGLE 1. Supermarket 2. Farmer 3. A friend not a farmer 4. Farmers Market 5. Grow our own 6. Restaurant 7. Other place (SPECIFY) ____________ 8. Ref/DK/NA 9. Exit Q43. Would you be willing or not willing to join a consumer-farmer cooperative if prices for goat meat were lower? 1. Willing 2. Not willing 9. Ref/DK/NA Q44. Would you be willing or not willing to join a co-op if it had a more dependable source of goat meat? 1. Willing 2. Not willing 9. Ref/DK/NA Q45. Would you be willing or not willing to join a cooperative that grew its animals organically? 1. Willing 2. Not willing

PAGE 87

77 9. Ref/DK/NA 46. Would you be willing or not willing to join a cooperative that sold its members fresh, never frozen goat meat? 1. Willing 2. Not willing 9. Ref/DK/NA Q47. How many people live in your home? ____________ number of people 99 Ref/DK/NA [RANGE: 1 99] Q48 How many of the people are less than 18 years old? _______________ less than 18 years old 99 Ref/DK/NA [RANGE: 0 99] Now I just need to ask a few questions about you personally so that we can compare your answers with different types of people. Q49. What do you consider your race to be? 1. White [SKIP TO Q54] 2. African-American/Black [SKIP TO Q54] 3. Black Non African American [SKIP TO Q54] 4. Hispanic 5. Asian [SKIP TO Q54] 6. Multi-Racial (SPECIFY)( ) [SKIP TO Q54] 9. Ref/DK/NA [SKIP TO Q54]

PAGE 88

78 Q50. Are you of . .? [INTERVIEWER NOTE: READ RESPONSES. CHOOSE ONLY ONE] 1. Mexican descent 2. Cuban descent 3. Puerto Rican descent 4. Spaniard 5. Or Other (Please list) __________________ 7. Ref/DK/NA Q51. Are you the 1 st generation, 2 nd generation or another generation to live in the contiguous U. S. States? 1. 1 st generation 2. 2 nd generation 3. Other 9. Ref/DK/NA Q52. DELETED Q53. Which of your family members are Hispanic? [INTERVIEWER NOTE: CHOOSE ALL THAT APPLY] [PROGRAMMER NOTE: YES/NO TOGGLE] 1. Mother 2. Father 3. Spouse 4. Aunts or uncles 5. Cousins 6. Other 7. Ref/DK/NA 8. Exit

PAGE 89

79 Q54. What is your age range? 1. Less than 20 years 7. 60 64 years 2. 20 24 years 8. 65 74 years 3. 25 34 years 9. 75 84 years 4. 35 44 years 10. 85 years plus 5. 45 54 years 11. Refused 6. 55 59 years Q55. What is the highest grade of school or year of college you completed? 1.
PAGE 90

80 4. GA 5. MS 6. NC 7. OK 8. LA 9. SC 10. TN 11. TX 99 Ref/DK/NA This completes the survey and I want to thank you for taking the time to answer these questions. Have a nice evening. Good bye. IMPORT FIPS IMPORT MSA/NON-MSA QUOTA: 250 FOR EACH STATE

PAGE 91

APPENDIX B SUMMARY OF DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION 010203040506070Percent Had ConsumedWilling to TryHad not Consumedand Unwilling Try Hispanics Cacausians Others Note: Chi-squared probability < .10. Figure B-1. Respondents consumption preference for goat meat by ethnicity/race. 010203040506070Percent Had ConsumedWilling to TryHad not Consumedand Unwilling Try Male Female Note: Chi-squared probability < .05. Figure B-2. Respondents consumption preference for goat meat by gender. 81

PAGE 92

0102030405060 HadConsumedWilling to TryHad notConsumed andUnwilling Try HS Diploma or less Some College College Degree and above Figure B-3. Respondents consumption preference for goat meat by educational attainment levels. 010203040506070Percent Had ConsumedWilling to TryHad notConsumed andUnwilling Try Mexican Puerto Rican Cuban Other Figure B-4. Hispanic respondents consumption preference for goat meat by origin. 82

PAGE 93

83 0102030405060Percent Had ConsumedWilling to TryHad notConsumed andUnwilling Try Male Female Figure B-5. Hispanic respondents consumption preference for goat meat by gender. 0102030405060Percent Had ConsumedWilling to TryHad notConsumed andUnwilling Try HS Diploma or less Some College College Degree and above Figure B-6. Hispanic respondents consumption preference for goat meat by educational attainment levels.

PAGE 94

84 0102030405060Percent HadConsumedWilling to TryHad notConsumed andUnwilling Try First Generation Second Generation or later Figure B-7. Hispanic respondents consumption preference for goat meat by generation in United States.

PAGE 95

LIST OF REFERENCES Aldrich, John H., and Forrest D. Nelson. Linear Probability, Logit, and Probit Models. Edited by Michael S. Lewis-Beck. Vol. 45, Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, Inc., 1984. Associated Press. 2005." Polling the 'Cell Phone Only' Crowd: Pollisters, Researchers Tackle Hard-to-Track Population." In, Cable News Network, http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/02/25/polling.cell.users.ap/index.html (accessed February 25, 2005). Chen, Kevin, Murad Ali, Michele Veeman, Jim Unterschultz, and Theresa Le. "Relative Importance Rankings for Pork Attributes by Asian-Origin Consumers in California: Applying an Ordered Probit Model to a Choice-Based Sample." Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 34 (2002): 67-79. Davis, Ernie and Zane Willard. 1996. "Goat Meat the New Lean Meat." In, Texas A&M University, Texas A&M Agriculture News, http://agnews.tamu.edu/dailynews/stories/AGEC/Dec2096a.htm (accessed May 22, 2003). Degner, L. Robert. "Should You Market Chevon, Cabrito, or Goat Meat." Paper presented at the Regional Small Farm and Trade Show Conference, Tallahassee, FL, November 7, 1991. Degner, L. Robert and J. David Locascio. "Distribution of Goat Meat in Selected Metropolitan Florida Markets." Gainesville, FL: University of Florida, Food Resource Economics Department, Florida Agricultural Market Research Center, 1988. Degner, L. Robert, and C. T. Jordan Lin. "Marketing Goat Meat: An Evaluation of Consumer Perceptions and Preferences." University of Florida, Food Resource Economics Department, Florida Agricultural Market Research Center, 1993. Degner Robert, L., and Susan D. Moss. "The Florida Market for Goat Meat: 1999 Survey of Florida Meat Wholesalers." Gainesville, FL: University of Florida, Food Resource Economics Department, Florida Agricultural Market Research Center, 1999. Dillman, Don. Mail and Telephone Surveys: The Total Design Method. New York: Wiley-Interscience Publication, 1978. 85

PAGE 96

86 Frey, James, A. Survey Research by Telephone. 2nd ed. Vol. 150. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, 1989. Gipson, Terry A. 1999. Demand for Goat Meat: Implications for the Future of the Industry. In Demand for Goat Meat: Implications for the Future of the Industry, Langston University, E(Kika)de la Garza Institute for Goat Research, http://www2.luresext.edu/goats/library/field/goat_meat_demand99.htm (accessed January 20, 2004). Greene, William H. Econometric Analysis. 5th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc., 2003. Gujarati, Damodor. Basic Econometrics. International Edition 2003 ed. New York, NY: McGraw Hill Irwin, 2003. Harwell, Lynn. "Goat Marketing Strategies Along the East Coast." In Florida's Goat Meat Industry, edited by James R. Simpson, 15-21: Florida Cooperative Extension Service, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida, 1995. Hui, Jianguo, Patricia E. McLean, and Dewitt Jones. "An Empirical Investigation of Importance Rating of Meat Attributes by Louisiana and Texas Consumers." Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 27 (1995): 636-43. James, N. A. and B. W. Berry. "Use of Chevon in the Development of Low-Fat Meat Products." Journal of Animal Science 75 (1997): 571-77. Johnson, Dwain. "Composition and Quality of Goat Meat Produced." edited by James R. Simpson, 39-41: Florida Cooperative Extension Service, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida, 1995. Latalia, Thomas. "A Pseudo R 2 Measure for Limited and Qualitative Dependent Variable Models." Journal of Econometrics 56 (1993): 341-56. Lavrakas, Paul J. Telephone Survey Methods: Sampling, Selection, and Supervision. Edited by Leonard Bickman. Vol. 7, Applied Social Research Method Series. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, Inc., 1987. McKenzie-Jakes, Angela. 2004. "Markets for Goat Meat." In, Florida A&M University, http://smallfarms.ifas.ufl.edu/Liverstock/goats.htm (accessed July 18, 2003).

PAGE 97

87 McLean-Meyinsse, Patricia E. "Assessing Factors Affecting Consumers' Decisions to Shop at Stores Offering Specialty Meat." Journal of Food Distribution Research 78 (1999): 134-39. . "Assessing the Market Outlook for Rabbit Meat in Louisiana and Texas." Journal of Food Distribution Research 31 (2000): 139-44. . Factors Influencing Consumption or Willingness to Consume a Variety of Goat-Meat Products." Journal of Food Distribution Research 34 (2003): 72-79. Melton, Bryan, E., Wallace E. Huffman, Jason F. Shogren, and John A. Fox. "Consumer Preferences for Fresh Food Items with Multiple Quality Attributes: Evidence from an Experimental Auction of Pork Chops." American Journal of Agricultural Economics 78 (1996): 916-23. Miller, Pat. "Marketing Strategies for Goat Meat." In Florida's Meat Goat Industry, edited by James A. Simpson, 22-26: Florida Cooperative Extension Service, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida, 1995. Nelson, Mack C., N.B. Brown, Jr., S. Mobini, S. Gelaye, and S. Leak. "Production and Marketing Challenges for Goat Producers: Implication for Supply and Demand." Paper presented at the Professional Ag Workers Conference (PAWC), December 1999. Ohio Cooperative Development Center. "Market Analysis of Meat Goat in Ohio". Ohio Cooperative Development Center. Available at http://ocdc.osu.edu/pdf/anal_proposal.pdf Accessed on. (accessed February 19, 2004). Peter, J. Paul, and James H. Donnelly, Jr. A Preface to Marketing Management. 9th ed. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Irwin, 2003. Pinkerton, Frank, Lynn Harwell, William Drinkwater, Nelson Escobar. "Marketing Meat Goats: Channels, Supply, and Demand." Langston University, OK: Oklahoma Cooperative Extension Service, 1994. Pinkerton, Frank, David Scarfe, and Bruce Pinkerton. "Meat Goat Productions and Marketing." Langston University, E(Kika)de la Garza Institute for Goat Research, 1992. Putnam, Judith Jones, and Jane E. Allshouse. "Food Consumption, Prices, and Expenditures, 1970-97." edited by Economic Research Service (USDA-ERS) U.S. Department of Agriculture, 196, April 1999. Progressive Grocer. Progressive Grocer, 69th Annual Report of the Grocery Industry." April 2002.

PAGE 98

88 Rhee, K. S., C.E. Meyers, and D.F. Waldron. "Consumer Sensory Evaluation of Plain and Seasoned Goat Meat and Beef Products." Meat Science 65 (2003): 785-89. Rhee, K. S., M. Oltman, and J. Han. "A Consumer Survey of Goat Meat: Perception, Knowledge, and Use." Sheep and Goat Research Journal 16 (2000): 111-16. Russell, Jeremy. "Targeting Hispanic Consumers." National Provisioner 216 (2002): 44-53. Salant, Priscilla, and Don A. Dillman. How to Conduct Your Own Survey. New York: Wiley, 1994. Schupp, Alvin, Jeffery Gillespie, and Debra Reed. "Consumer Choice among Alternative Red Meats." Journal of Food Distribution Research 29 (1998): 35-43. Sherman, David. 2002. Current Tends in Goat Production in the United States. In, http://www.neahi.org.nejlah/articles/articles_goatmeat.html (accessed May 22, 2003). Simpson, James. "Introduction to Florida's Meat Goat Industry." In Florida's Goat Meat Industry, edited by James R. Simpson, 1-4: Florida Cooperative Extension Service, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida, 1995. Smith, C. G., M. I. Pike, and Z. L. Carpenter. "Comparison of the Palatability of Goat Meat and Meat from Four Other Animal Species." Journal of Food Science 39 (1974): 1145-46. Spaugh, Beth C. 1997. "Goat Carcass Characteristics." In, Cornell Cooperative Extension, http://www.cce.cornell.edu/clinton/ag/goat-carcass.html (accessed August 20, 2004). Tomek, William G., and Kenneth L. Robinson. Agricultural Product Prices. 3rd ed. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press, 1990. U.S. Census Bureau. 2000. U.S. Census 2000. In, http://factfinder.census.gov/home/saff/main.html?_lang=en (accessed August 20, 2004). U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistical Service (USDA-NASS). 2002. Census of Agriculture 2002. In, USDA-NASS, http://www.nass.usda.gov (accessed December 17, 2004). Verbeek, Marno. A Guide to Modern Econometrics. Southern Gate, Chichester, West Sussex, England: John Wiley & Sons, 2004.

PAGE 99

89 Verbeke, Wim, Ronald W. Ward, and Jacques Viaene. "Probit Analysis of Fresh Meat Consumption in Belgium: Exploring BSE and Television Communication Impact." Agribusiness 16 (2000): 215-34. Walsh, Robb. "Getting Your Goat." Natural History 104 (1995): 48-49. Zachery, Nikki, and Mack C. Nelson. "Consumers Knowledge and Use of Goat Products: An Atlanta Case Study." Paper presented at the Professional Ag Workers Conference (PAWC), Tuskegee University, December 1992.

PAGE 100

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Erika Knight was in Warner Robins, GA. After graduating from Warner Robins High School, she attended Fort Valley State University, Fort Valley, GA, and earned a Bachelor of Science degree in agricultural economics. In August 2004, Erika began the Food and Resource Economics Master of Science program and specialized in marketing. 90


Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0010284/00001

Material Information

Title: Evaluation of Consumer Preferences Regarding Goat Meat in Florida
Physical Description: Thesis
Creator: Knight, Erica ( Dissertant )
House, Lisa ( Thesis advisor )
Degner, Robert ( Reviewer )
Nelson, Mack ( Reviewer )
Publisher: College of Agricultural and Life Sciences, University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2005
Copyright Date: 2005

Notes

Abstract: Florida is a part of the United States' goat production region and its goat inventory increased sixty-three percent between 1992 and 1997. Goat meat has always been a minor food item in the United States, but the importance of meat goats to farm income has increased in recent years. The rapid growth of ethnic populations has led to increased consumption since Hispanics, Muslims, and individuals with African ancestry are major consumers of goat meat products. Florida has a strong potential for a meat goat market; however, the lack of consumer information has hindered producers' , processors' , and marketers' ability to fully delineate the profitability and viability of the industry. The overall objective of this research project is to identify the factors that influence goat meat consumption among Hispanic and non-Hispanic consumers. This information can be used by goat meat industry officials to better understand who their consumer is and further develop their markets. The data for this study were obtained using telephone surveys that targeted Florida residents. The Institute for Behavior Research and the Survey Research Center at the University of Georgia in Athens, GA, collected the data using the random digit dialing probability technique to minimize bias. The questionnaire sought information on demographic as well as consumer preferences towards goat meat. According to the results from a probit analysis, consumption of other meats and various demographic and psychographic characteristics influenced the willingness to try goat meat. Respondents from households with 5 or more people were most likely to try goat meat, and as household size decreased the willingness to try tended to decline. The results also suggest individuals who had previously consumed lamb were more inclined to try goat meat.

Record Information

Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
System ID: UFE0010284:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0010284/00001

Material Information

Title: Evaluation of Consumer Preferences Regarding Goat Meat in Florida
Physical Description: Thesis
Creator: Knight, Erica ( Dissertant )
House, Lisa ( Thesis advisor )
Degner, Robert ( Reviewer )
Nelson, Mack ( Reviewer )
Publisher: College of Agricultural and Life Sciences, University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2005
Copyright Date: 2005

Notes

Abstract: Florida is a part of the United States' goat production region and its goat inventory increased sixty-three percent between 1992 and 1997. Goat meat has always been a minor food item in the United States, but the importance of meat goats to farm income has increased in recent years. The rapid growth of ethnic populations has led to increased consumption since Hispanics, Muslims, and individuals with African ancestry are major consumers of goat meat products. Florida has a strong potential for a meat goat market; however, the lack of consumer information has hindered producers' , processors' , and marketers' ability to fully delineate the profitability and viability of the industry. The overall objective of this research project is to identify the factors that influence goat meat consumption among Hispanic and non-Hispanic consumers. This information can be used by goat meat industry officials to better understand who their consumer is and further develop their markets. The data for this study were obtained using telephone surveys that targeted Florida residents. The Institute for Behavior Research and the Survey Research Center at the University of Georgia in Athens, GA, collected the data using the random digit dialing probability technique to minimize bias. The questionnaire sought information on demographic as well as consumer preferences towards goat meat. According to the results from a probit analysis, consumption of other meats and various demographic and psychographic characteristics influenced the willingness to try goat meat. Respondents from households with 5 or more people were most likely to try goat meat, and as household size decreased the willingness to try tended to decline. The results also suggest individuals who had previously consumed lamb were more inclined to try goat meat.

Record Information

Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
System ID: UFE0010284:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text











EVALUATION OF CONSUMER PREFERENCES REGARDING GOAT MEAT IN
FLORIDA

















By

ERIKA KNIGHT


A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF SCIENCE

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA


2005

































This document is dedicated in loving memory of my grandmother, Mattie Hugley Dixon.





























Copyright 2005

by

Erika Knight















ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

First and foremost, I thank God for giving me the strength I needed to successfully

complete this master's program. I know that He is the reason I have made it this far in

life. I thank family and friends for the encouragement, support, and patience throughout

the past two years. These individuals are another reason I have made it to this point of

my life.

I express my deepest appreciation to my committee, Drs. Lisa House, Robert

Degner and Mack Nelson, for the interest and support given while preparing my thesis. I

would especially like to thank my committee chair, Dr. Lisa House, for her advisement,

guidance and the knowledge she shared while completing my master's program. I am

truly grateful to my committee for all of their assistance and I would like to express my

gratitude once again.

Finally, I would like to thank my fellow graduate students in the Food and

Resource Economics Department and members of the Black Graduate Student

Organization (BGSO) for their support and encouragement. I thank them for the

memories; each of them has made this graduate experience unforgettable.
















TABLE OF CONTENTS

page

A C K N O W L E D G M E N T S ................................................................................................. iv

LIST OF TABLES ......... .......................................... ....... .. ........ ........ vii

LIST OF FIGURE S ........ ........ .......................................... .............. viii

ABSTRACT .............. .......................................... ix

CHAPTER

1 IN TR O D U C T IO N ............................................................. .. ......... ...... .....

P re a m b le ................................................................ 1
Problem atic Situation.............................................. 1
R searchable Problem ..................... .... .......................... .. ........ .............. ...
O bje ctiv e s ..................................................................................................... . 8
Hypotheses............................ .. ..... ..... ......... ...... 9

2 LITERA TU RE REV IEW ............................................................ ............ 11

3 SUREVEY CON TEN TS .............................. ........ ........... ...... ............... 19

Su rv ey In strum ent....... ........................................................................ ...... ........ .. 19
Survey C ontents.................................................. 21

4 D A T A .................................................................................................................... 2 4

5 THEORETICAL MODEL AND MODEL SPECIFICATIONS..............................32

T h eo retical M o d el ............................. ............................................ .. ..................3 2
P ro b it M o d e l ............................................................................................................... 3 3
M odel Specification ........ ....... ............................................................... ... .... .... .. 36

6 EM PIRICAL RE SU LTS ................................................... ............................... 40

Entire Survey Sample Probit Estimates...... ............ ..................40
H isp an ic M o d el............................ ........................................... 4 5




v









7 CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS ...................................... ...............49

S u m m a ry ............................................................................................................... 4 9
C o n c lu sio n s........................................................................................................... 5 2
Im p licatio n s ................................................................5 3

APPENDIX

A SOUTHERN REGION GOAT CONSUMPTION SURVEY............... ................ 56

B SUMMARY OF DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION .............................................81

L IST O F R E F E R E N C E S ........................................................................ .....................85
















LIST OF TABLES


Table p

1-1. Florida farms with goats, goat numbers and goats sold, goat production region,
and United States: 2002 and 1997 ................ .......................................... ... 3

1.2. United States meat goat imports and exports. ...................................................

4-2. Summary of demographic information. ...................................... ............... 28

4-3. Descriptive statistics on additional factors that influence the willingness to try. ....29

4-4. Summary of demographic information for Hispanic respondents .........................30

4-5. Descriptive statistics on additional factors that influence the Hispanic
respondents' willingness to try ....... ..... ......... ................... ... ..... .......... 31

5-1. Probit model variables and description. ...................................... ............... 39

6-1. Empirical results from the whole survey probit model.........................................41

6-2. Empirical results from the Hispanic probit model. .............................................46
















LIST OF FIGURES


Figure p

4-1. Comparison of Florida census data and survey respondents by age......................27

4-2. Comparison of Florida census data and Hispanic survey respondents by
educational attainm ent levels. .............................................................................28

6-1. Changes in the probability of trying goat meat with respect to household size.
(All household sizes are compared to the base, households containing five or
m ore in div idu als)............................................................................ ............... 4 3

B-1. Respondents' consumption preference for goat meat by ethnicity/race .................81

B-2. Respondents' consumption preference for goat meat by gender............................81

B-3. Respondents' consumption preference for goat meat by educational attainment
lev els .............................. ......... .................. .............. ................. 82

B-4. Hispanic respondents' consumption preference for goat meat by origin .................82

B-5. Hispanic respondents' consumption preference for goat meat by gender ..............83

B-6. Hispanic respondents' consumption preference for goat meat by educational
attain ent levels ................... ............ ......... ..........................83

B-7. Hispanic respondents' consumption preference for goat meat by generation in
U united States. ...................................................... ................. 84















Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science

EVALUATION OF CONSUMER PREFERENCES REGARDING GOAT MEAT IN
FLORIDA

By

Erika Knight

May 2005

Chair: Lisa House
Major Department: Food and Resource Economics

Florida is a part of the United States' goat production region and its goat

inventory increased sixty-three percent between 1992 and 1997. Goat meat has always

been a minor food item in the United States, but the importance of meat goats to farm

income has increased in recent years. The rapid growth of ethnic populations has led to

increased consumption since Hispanics, Muslims, and individuals with African ancestry

are major consumers of goat meat products. Florida has a strong potential for a meat goat

market; however, the lack of consumer information has hindered producers', processors',

and marketers' ability to fully delineate the profitability and viability of the industry.

The overall objective of this research project is to identify the factors that

influence goat meat consumption among Hispanic and non-Hispanic consumers. This

information can be used by goat meat industry officials to better understand who their

consumer is and further develop their markets. The data for this study were obtained

using telephone surveys that targeted Florida residents. The Institute for Behavior









Research and the Survey Research Center at the University of Georgia in Athens, GA,

collected the data using the random digit dialing probability technique to minimize bias.

The questionnaire sought information on demographic as well as consumer

preferences towards goat meat. According to the results from a probit analysis,

consumption of other meats and various demographic and psychographic characteristics

influenced the willingness to try goat meat. Respondents from households with 5 or more

people were most likely to try goat meat, and as household size decreased the willingness

to try tended to decline. The results also suggest individuals who had previously

consumed lamb were more inclined to try goat meat.














CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

Preamble

Columbus introduced goats to North America in the area that is presently known as

Texas during the 1600's and goat production in the South has flourished ever since their

introduction (Walsh, 1995). In the past decade, meat goat production has dramatically

increased throughout the Southeastern region of the United States, Florida in particular.

The meat goat industry in Florida has evolved and producers who once viewed their

animals as a sideline operation now consider it a serious business (Simpson, 1995).

Consumption of goat meat and goat meat products has become more popular in the

United States and the strongest demand for goat meat is along the eastern coast, Southern

California, Florida, Detroit, and the northeast region stretching from Washington, D.C. to

Boston (McKenzie-Jakes, 2004). The lack of consumer information poses a barrier in

goat meat marketing and it has prevented producers, processors, and marketers from fully

ascertaining the profitability and viability of the industry. This thesis will use cross-

sectional survey data to assist in identifying and understanding the factors that influence

the consumption of goat meat in Florida.

Problematic Situation

A 2000 study by McLean-Meyinsse identified meat goat production as a new

enterprise that is believed to enhance farm incomes for small farmers. Goat meat is an

extremely popular food item in the Mediterranean, the Middle East, Africa, South

America, Central America, the West Indies, and Southeastern Asia. However, goat meat









consumption in the United States has been historically low. In recent years, U.S.

domestic demand for goat meat has increased with the largest demand along the eastern

coast of the United States, especially in Florida. Florida's, goat meat consumption

exceeds production (McKenzie-Jakes, 2004) creating a need to import live goats or goat

meat in order to satisfy demand (Gipson, 1999). Despite the product's increase in

popularity, the lack of availability of goat meat in Florida hampers the industry's

profitability.

Florida is a part of the eleven state southern goat production region stretching from

Texas to North Carolina (TX, LA, OK, AK, MS, AL, FL, GA, TN, SC, and NC). In

2002, this region accounted for 80 percent of meat-type goat production in the United

States, and Florida contributed three percent of the region's meat goat inventory (USDA-

NASS, 2002). During the past few decades, Florida's meat goat industry has transformed

from one in which goats were raised as a minor part of subsistence level farm system into

a more structured industry oriented approach that is viewed as a business (Simpson,

1995). According to the 2002 Census of Agriculture, 1,764 meat goat farms existed in

Florida, a six percent decrease from the total number of meat goat farms in 1997.

However, during the same time period, the state's meat goat inventory increased twenty-

five percent (Table 1-1). In addition between 1997 and 2002, the number of goats sold

increased 47. Meat goat farms accounted for over eighty-eight percent of the goat farms

within the state in 2002.

Growth in Florida's meat goat industry is attributed to a number of factors.

Historically, the majority of U.S. immigrants were from European countries, but changes

in immigration patterns have occurred.











Table 1-1. Florida farms with goats, goat numbers and goats sold, goat production region, and
United States: 2002 and 1997.
Percent Florida's
Geographical Area 2002 1997 Change Contribution
Florida
Number of Goat Farms 1,992 2,114 (5.8)
Number of Meat Goat Farms 1,764 1,931 (8.6)
Numbers of Meat Goats on Farms 36,020 28,737 25.3
Number of Meat Goats Sold 18,769 13,700 37.0
Percent of Meat Goat Farms 88.6 91.3
Percent of Meat Goat Sold 52.1 47.7
Goat Production Region
Number of Goat Farms 42,487 37,303 13.9 4.7
Number of Meat Goat Farms 1,729,158 1,727,978 0.1 4.6
Numbers of Meat Goats on Farms 1,433,589 975,931 46.9 2.5
Number of Meat Goats Sold 765,622 407,078 88.1 2.5
Percent of Meat Goat Farms 91.2 88.7
Percent of Meat Goat Sold 53.4 41.7
United States
Number of Goat Farms 91,462 76,543 19.5 2.2
Number of Meat Goat Farms 74,980 63,422 18.2 2.4
Numbers of Meat Goats on Farms 1,938,924 1,231,762 57.4 1.9
Number of Meat Goats Sold 1,109,619 532,792 108.3 1.7
Percent of Meat Goat Farms 82.0 82.9
Percent of Meat Goat Sold 57.2 43.3
Source: USDA-NASS, 2002.

The majority of current immigrants are people from Hispanics, Caribbean Islanders,

Muslims, and Asian populations, as opposed to the historical pattern of immigration from

Europe. These changes in immigration patterns from European countries to those from

regions of the world that are perceived to have a dietary preference for goat meat have

increased the demand for the product (McKenzie-Jakes, 2003; Pinkerton et al., 1994;

Sherman, 2002; Walsh, 1995). People from these populations tend to retain food

preferences and religious affiliations in an effort to maintain their ethnic identity when

merging with a dominant group (Harwell, 1995). Thus, the demand for goat meat among









target consumers is expected to be inelastic (Harwell, 1995; Pinkerton et al., 1994). It is

projected that by the year 2025, the U.S. population will increase 44 million due to the

increase of foreign populations, many of which consume goat meat. Therefore, the

demand for this product in the United States is expected to expand as population

increases and as minority purchasing power increases (Russell, 2000).

Health conscious consumers and members of the "yuppie community" who

consume the meat as a gourmet item create an additional demand for goat meat products

(Harwell, 1995; McKenzie-Jakes, 2004; McLean-Meyinsse, 2003; Pinkerton et al., 1994;

Sherman, 2002). Members of the health food sector consume goat meat because of the

product's nutritional attributes. Goat meat is a naturally lean meat that is low in

cholesterol, low in fat and high in proteins (Johnson, 1995).

Advancements in Florida's food distribution infrastructure allow for refrigerated

goat meat to be delivered from Texas in an inexpensive and quick manner to consumers.

Additionally, low ocean freight rates have permitted goat imports from Australia to occur

more frequently (Simpson, 1995). Previously, goat meat has previously been viewed as

an unusual food item in the United States; however it is now more mainstream.

Researchers have found it difficult to accurately estimate per capital consumption

levels of goat meat due to discrepancies in goat inventories, auction runs, and slaughter

numbers (Gipson, 1999; Harwell, 1995). Therefore, it is popular for researchers to use

indirect methods to approximate per capital consumption. Degner and Moss (1999)

surveyed wholesalers in Fort Lauderdale, Miami, and Tampa, Florida. These markets are

considered to consist of significant populations with preferences for goat meat. Using

estimated wholesale sales, the researchers quantified the annual per capital goat meat









consumption to be a mere 0.21 pounds, nearly 20 percent less that per capital consumption

levels in 1986. However, a 1999 study conducted by Putnam and Allshouse estimated

that the national per capital goat meat consumption significantly increased to about one

pound per capital in 1997. Gipson (1999) utilized National Statistical Service data and

Foreign Agricultural Service import/export data as two indicators to measure goat meat

demand. In 1998 almost 450,000 goats were slaughtered which was a 1,000 percent

increase over a 20-year period. It is worth mentioning that the estimates do not include

goats slaughtered in non-United States Department of Agricultural facilities or state

inspection facilities and farm slaughter or personal slaughter. It is commonly accepted

that demand for goat meat is underestimated because the bulk of goat meat consumed is

undocumented, i.e. the majority of the slaughtering occurs in non-UDSA inspected

facilities (Davis and Willard, 1996). According to the Foreign Agricultural Service data,

the United States has been a net importer of goat meat product since 1991 (Gipson,

1999). Table 1-2 illustrates the quantity of goat meat imported to the U.S. and the

quantity exported by the United States from 1989 through 1994. Based on the data, the

United States does not have an adequate supply of goat meat production to keep up with

demand. In 1998, imports rose to 4,500 metric tons, which is equivalent to over 600,000

pounds. The United States imports the majority of its goat meat from Australia and New

Zealand.

Available research suggests the demand for goat meat is influenced by consumers'

age, gender, race, household sized, and martial status (McLean-Meyinsse, 2003; Nelson

et al., 1999). Additionally, carcass weight and carcass size preferences differ among

target populations within the niche market (Pinkerton et al., 1994).













Table 1.2. United States meat goat imports and exports.
Year U.S. Imports* U.S. Exports* Balance*
1989 86,067 122,056 35,989
1990 99,353 115,413 16,060
1991 122,932 53,246 -69,686
1992 172,280 60,444 -111,836
1993 136,364a 3,504b -132,860
1994 138,481a Noneb -138,481
*Values are expressed in metric tons.
a These figure probably reflect reduced Australians in exports of goat due to serve
drought conditions.
b The steep drop in exports as imports fell markedly in 1993 and 1994, thus
conserving domestic supplies.
Source: Ohio Cooperative Development Center, 2004

Hispanics tend to prefer young kids, weighing 15-25 pounds live weight and young goats

weighing about 50 pounds live weight. Hispanics are the fastest growing ethnic group

and the largest minority group in the United States. An emphasis on understanding the

factors that influence consumption should be placed on Hispanics because they are the

only group that has an expected year round demand for goat meat products (Spaugh,

1997). Muslims favor heavier goats than Hispanics and consume goats that are about 70

pounds live weight, male, and intact. Additionally, Jamaicans, Haitians, West Africans,

African Americans have a preference for mature goats (Pinkerton et al., 1994).

There is a relatively thin body of published literature regarding the marketing of

goats and meat goat, but researchers seem to agree on the barriers surrounding the

marketing of goat meat. Pinkerton et al. (1992) found that the marketing constraints that

hinder the demand for goat meat include an unorganized marketing infrastructure, lack of

quality grades, seasonal demand, inconsistent supply, negative consumer attitudes,

inconsistent quality, and insufficient research to identify new market and expand existing









markets. Pinkerton et al. (1994) suggest that a lack of marketing information is a result

of inadequate interest by many state departments of agriculture and the structure of the

industry. Pinkerton et al. (1994) also suggested that in niche markets, located primary in

urban centers, demand for goat exceeds domestic supply, with the shortages caused by

inefficiencies in markets. Studies by Degner and Moss (1999) and Degner and Locascio

(1988) identified the constraints commercial retailers suggest hamper ability to sell goat

in Florida as insufficient demand, supply problems, cheaper substitutes, and product

form.

Growth in Florida's meat goat inventory has been encouraged by numerous factors,

particularly in that Americans are becoming more ethnically diverse and health-

conscious, and more are revealing greater willingness to try new exotic food products

such as rabbit and goat (McLean-Meyinsse, 2000). Many consumers lack knowledge

and exposure to goat meat products, creating an additional barrier faced by the industry

(Zachery and Nelson, 1992). Studies suggest that once consumers are informed on the

product's nutritional attributes and preparation methods, consumer interest in consuming

the product increases (Miller, 1995; Rhee et al. 2000). For instance, Rhee et al. (2000)

found that after participants were educated on goat meat's nutritional values more than 60

percent of the respondents reversed their previous perception of the product. Existing

research also identifies the carcass size preferred by populations within the niche market,

but fails to identify the specific cuts of goat meat that are preferred by populations in the

niche market. However, little inductive research has been completed to identify the

characteristic of goat meat consumers or the characteristics of the product that influence

consumption. Therefore, information that describes the factors that influence









consumption is needed in order to fully understand the marketing and advertising

approaches that will assist in increasing the presence of goat meat in the U.S. food

industry as well as impacting the goat meat industry.

Researchable Problem

The meat goat industry has experienced substantial gains in recent years due to

the increase in demand for goat meat products. The demand for goat meat products in

Florida is expected to continue growing as target populations within the niche market

increase. Researchers believe Florida has the potential for a meat goat market that is

profitable. However, lack of consumer information has hindered producers', processors',

and marketers' ability to delineate fully the profitability and viability of Florida's meat

goat industry. Consumer information is a critical component to completely

understanding the possible economic impact of goat meat productions and marketing in

Florida.

A relatively thin body of empirical research is available that evaluates the impact of

demographic and socioeconomic characteristics on consumers' preferences and

perception for goat meat products. This research will assist in filling the voids in

research by assessing the factors that influence the willingness to try goat meat within the

Hispanic and general markets. This study will identify the barriers that restrict

consumption and make recommendations for opportunities to increasing consumption of

goat meat products within the state of Florida.

Objectives

The overall objective of this research project is to identify the factors that

influence and the barriers that reduce consumption, with a special focus on the Hispanic

population. We will collect information for existing and potential goat meat consumption









in Florida and study the effects of perception, consumer preferences, and demographic

and socioeconomic characteristics on willingness to try goat meat. The specific objectives

for this project are:

* To develop an understanding of the factors that influences the willingness to try
goat meat products for Hispanics and non-Hispanics.

* To disseminate the results from this study and make recommendations for
opportunities of increased consumption of goat meat products to producers and
potential producers.

Hypotheses

Hispanics are the primary consumers of goat meat products and compose the

majority of this developing niche market. There are numerous factors that impact

preferences, perceptions, and willingness to try goat meat. In previous red meat studies,

attributes other than price found to influence a consumers' decision to buy the product

included safety, availability, advertisement, and government labels (Hui et al., 1995).

Thus, these attributes may also be important in the consumer purchase decision of goat

meat. Given these considerations, several hypotheses will be tested. The hypotheses are:

* Increases in household size and educational attainment will positively affect the
consumers' willingness to try goat meat.

* Respondents that associate a positive product image with goat meat will be more
inclined to express a willingness to try the product.

* Consumers that rate safety, convenience and cholesterol and fat content as
important factors in purchasing meat will be more likely to try goat meat.

* Ethnicity, age, and gender will influence the probability of trying goat meat. For
instances Hispanics are more likely to try goat meat whereas females are less likely
to try goat meat.

* Consumers that rate price specials as important factors in purchasing meat will be
least likely to try goat meat products.

* Lamb consumption will have a positive influence on the willingness to try goat
meat.






10


* Hispanics from different geographic origins will have differing levels of
willingness to try goat meat.














CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW

The body of literature regarding the marketing of goat meat is relatively thin.

Numerous sensory evaluation studies have been conducted revealing the overall

palatability of goat meat is acceptable among consumers, but their lack of knowledge

about the product limits the demand and decreases its profitability within the meat

industry (Degner, 1991; James and Berry, 1997; Rhee et al., 2003; Smith et al., 1974).

Few studies have focused on the factors that influence goat meat consumption, and none

of the available research appears to investigate the attributes that were important to goat

meat consumers. Understanding consumers' preferences for goat meat is essential so that

marketing strategies can be developed to increase the demand for the product.

Two previous studies, McLean-Meyinsse (2003) and Degner and Lin (1993)

examined consumption of goat meat in the South. McLean-Meyinsse (2003) identified

that demographic, socioeconomic, and geographic factors that influenced previous

consumption, willingness to try goat eat, and interest in purchasing various goat meat

products. The study's sample consisted of 1,421 respondents from Alabama, Arkansas,

Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South

Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia. A binomial logit was used to estimate the

relationship between prior consumption and the selected explanatory variables.

Additionally, ordered probit models were used to estimate the probabilities of

nonconsumers' willingness to eat goat meat and the likelihood of this individual to make

future purchases for goat nuggets, patties, roast, or marinated ready-to-cook goat meat









products. The study found that goat meat consumption was the highest among older

respondents, households with more than three persons, among African-Americans, other

non-Caucasian races, men and Texas residents. According to the marginal probabilities,

individuals from other races were 15 percent more inclined to consume goat meat

products than their Caucasians counterparts and women were 14 percent less likely than

men to have previously consumed goat meat.

The results from the ordered probit suggested that amongst non-triers, women and

residents of Arkansas, Florida, Kentucky, Louisiana, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South

Carolina, and Virginia were more likely to consume goat meat within the next month.

Younger consumers, households containing less than three persons, African-Americans,

or other races were less likely to try goat meat within the next month. Women and

residents from Florida, Kentucky, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and

Virginia were more willing to try goat meat at restaurants. Respondents least likely to try

free goat meat samples in supermarkets were younger, lived in smaller households, and

were non-Caucasian.

In summary, age, race, household size, religion, gender, and state residency were

found to affect consumption. Consumers most likely to eat goat nuggets, patties, or

roasts were individuals from larger households, non-Caucasians, men, or Texas residents.

Additionally, respondents living in larger households, other races, men or Texas residents

were more likely to be willing to purchase marinated, ready to cook goat meat.

The results of McLean-Meyinsse (2003) research were consistent with the

outcomes of a study conducted by Degner and Lin (1993) that analyzed willingness to

consume goat meat at restaurants or home. Data for their study consisted of responses









from consumer surveys conducted in Jacksonville and Tampa, Florida. Three-hundred

interviews were conducted in each city and participants were 18 years of age or older. A

probit model was utilized to evaluate the impact of demographic, geographic, and

socioeconomic factors on the willingness to consume goat meat at home and in

restaurants. The study found that if the respondent possessed a positive attitude or

perception of the product, they were more likely to order goat meat at a restaurant or

purchase the meat for at home consumption. The study found that household income,

gender, and household size effected participants willingness to consume goat meat.

Respondents from households with annual incomes of less than $10,000 were more likely

to order goat at a restaurant than individuals from households with a yearly income

between $10,000 and $19,000. Also, consumers between the ages of 35-49 were more

inclined to order goat meat in a restaurant than any other age group, but age had no

significant affect on purchase intentions.

An empirical study conducted by Hui et al. (1995) rated the importance of 12

selected meat attributes among various demographic, geographic, or socioeconomic

characteristics. The data for the survey were obtained using a telephone survey that was

administered to 1002 randomly selected households in Louisiana and Texas. The

primary shopper of each household was interviewed. The Kruskal-Wallis test was used

to determine whether the level of importance for each attribute differed amongst the

respondents. The simultaneous multiple comparison model ranked the attributes in order

of importance. An ordered-probit model was used to estimate the impact of the

consumer's demographic, geographic, and socioeconomic characteristics on the

importance of each attribute. The dependent variables were the 12 selected attributes,









which included low fat content, low sodium content, low in cholesterol, lack of chemical

additives, taste, red meat, white meat, appearance, price, freshness, USDA labels, and

tenderness and their relative importance while the dependent variables consisted of the

demographic, geographic, or socioeconomic characteristics.

The results from the ordered-probit model suggest that older consumers were more

concerned with prices, a stated preference for red meat, appearance of meat, USDA labels

and tenderness of meat. Larger households considered low sodium levels and lack of

chemical additives as influential attributes. Low-income households indicated that low

sodium content and red meat as valuable characteristics that influence meat purchases.

Respondents from high-income households were more concerned about sodium levels

and USDA labels and were worried least about fat, cholesterol, and prices.

The results from the Hui's (1995) study suggest that freshness and taste were the

most important attributes to consumers, followed by appearance. The next tier of

attributes consumers deemed important by included USDA labels, tenderness, and lack of

chemical additives. The last group consisted of nutritional attributes, which included low

levels of fat, sodium, and cholesterol. The results indicated that females were more

concerned than males about attributes such as fat, sodium, cholesterol, chemical

additives, prices, appearance, freshness, tenderness, and USDA labels when making

buying decisions. Non-white respondents were more worried about fat, cholesterol, and

price than white respondents.

According to the results, retailers, wholesalers, and processors should develop a

marketing plan that emphasizes the tastiness, appearance, and freshness of the meat and

include recipes when promoting meats. In addition, the marketing channels should









minimize transportation and holding time to ensure freshness. This study provided

knowledge on the relationship between consumer characteristics and the significance of

various meat attributes that may assist in creating effective marketing opportunities for

farmers, processors, wholesalers, and retailers in the meat industry.

Melton et al. (1996) conducted experimental auctions to evaluate the significance

of attributes and how to develop effective marketing plans for pork. The willingness to

pay results suggests that the appearance of the meat is most important for first-time

buyers and repeat purchasers were interested in the pork chop's taste. Melton et al.

(1996) concluded that first-time buyers of fresh pork chops may be misled by relying on

appearance when making purchases, selecting chops that were less desirable when eaten.

As a result, theses consumers were unlikely to make repeat purchases, hampering the

product's long term market success.

Similar to the studies conducted by Hui et al. (1995) and Melton et al. (1996), Chen

et al. (2002) examined the relative importance of fresh pork attributes among Asian-

origin consumers in San Francisco, California. The results from the Kruskal-Wallis test

suggest that freshness is the most important attribute followed by attributes of the color of

meat, lowness in fat, and whiteness of fat. The price of fresh pork is also an attribute of

considerable importance. The empirical results for the ordered-probit model indicate that

particular demographic and socioeconomic characteristics influence the ranking of

attributes among consumers. For instance, fat content was more important to highly

educated males. They study also found differences within segments of Asian-origin

populations; for example, Chinese origin respondents were more price sensitive than

other Asian consumers. This final finding is important because one can infer that









Hispanic origin consumers were heterogeneous group and that the significance of various

product attributes may differ amongst each identifiable subgroup.

In the United States, goat meat is viewed as specialty food item. The study

conducted by Schupp et al. (1998), found that consumers expressed resistance to meats

that they believed came from exotic animals. Species that respondents in the study

considered exotic included but were not limited to deer, alligator, rabbit, goat, emu, and

wild duck. Therefore, meat attributes that were deemed significant to consumers may

differ for alternative meats.

McLean-Meyinsse (2000) conducted a study that utilized ordered probit models to

evaluate the impact of socioeconomic, demographic, and geographic characteristics on

the primary grocery shoppers' attitude toward rabbit; and previous consumption or intent

of consuming the product. The data for the study were obtained from a random telephone

survey that sought information regarding the meat purchasing and consumption

decisions. The sample of consisted of 1,002 primary food shoppers from Louisiana and

Texas. As previously mentioned, rabbit meat and goat meat both tend to be considered

exotic amongst consumers.

The independent variables in the study were various socioeconomic, demographic,

and geographic characteristics such as age, income gender, educational attainment, and

race, to name a few. McLean-Meyinsse (2000) used an ordered probit model to determine

whether the explanatory variables effect the probability of shoppers' attitudes towards

rabbit meat and the likelihood of consumption or interest in eating it in the future

consumption. The results from the attitudinal model suggest that gender, religion, and

employment status have a statistically significant effect on shoppers' attitude towards









rabbit meat. The marginal effects suggest that men, Catholics, and white-collar workers

are more positive about goat meat than their counterparts. Forty-eight percent of male

shoppers possessed a positive opinion about rabbit meat, while 54 percent of women held

a unfavorable opinion about the meat. The consumption model suggests that gender and

employment status impact the likelihood of consuming or interest in consuming rabbit

meat. For instance, if the grocery shopper was a male rather a female, the probability of

rabbit meat consumption increased by 12.33 percentage points. Females were more

willing to express a willingness to try rabbit meat. Also, if shoppers had a positive

opinion about rabbit meat, they were more likely to have consumed it.

McLean-Meyinsse (1999) also evaluated the marketing outlook for specialty meats

such as alligator, goat, and/or rabbit meat in southern states. The objectives of the study

were to determine the percentage of individuals shopping at outlets offering specialty

products, identify the demographic, socioeconomic, and geographic characteristics

influencing shoppers' likelihood of buying from these stores, and profile of the

consumers most likely to purchase specialty meats. The study analyzed various

explanatory variables (i.e. age, household size, education, gender, income, martial status,

religion and occupation) that were expected to affect likelihood of non-triers, late-triers,

and early triers of specialty foods to shop at specialty stores using an ordered probit

model. According to the results, a 42-year old grocery shopper or a shopper from a three

person household was more likely to shop at stores offering specialty meats. Shoppers

with less than a high school diploma were 18 percent more likely visit these outlets than

individuals with higher level of education. Shoppers indicated that price effected their

decisions to make purchases at stores offering specialty meats. In fact, there was a 22









percent difference between the early triers and nontriers on the relevance of prices to the

meat purchasing decision. It is worth mentioning that the price of specialty meats is

usually more expensive than traditional meats such as beef, pork, and chicken.

In conclusion, very few empirical studies that focus on goat meat consumption are

available in literature. Existing studies conducted by McLean-Meyinsse (2003) and

Degner and Lin (1993) identify target consumers for goat meat marketing and

promotional efforts, but the studies stop short of identifying the underlying factors that

encourage individuals to purchase or be willing to purchase the product. The meat goat

industry is still in its developing stages, and before this industry experiences economic

success, additional information explaining the demand characteristics for goat meat

consumers is needed. Understanding these factors, as well as consumers' preferences and

perceptions towards goat meat, is important when developing marketing strategies and

increasing the presence of goat meat in supermarket.














CHAPTER 3
SURVEY CONTENTS

Survey Instrument

Telephone surveying is a method of collecting data from respondents that is more

cost efficient than conducting personal interviews (Dillman, 1978). The primary

advantage of telephone surveying is that it provides the researcher the opportunity of

controlling and monitoring the data collection process to ensure that data gathered is of

high quality, thus providing accurate estimates. For instance, the researcher has the

ability to regulate sampling, respondent selection, and questionnaire contents (Lavarakas,

1993). Telephone surveying is more cost efficient when compared to personal

interviews because it allows a larger number of interviews in a short period of time.

Telephone surveys are usually more expensive than mail surveys but due to the fact that

telephone surveys have the potential of minimizing total survey error, this method is

generally preferred. Additional advantages associated with telephone surveys include:

(1) the scheduling of call-backs to contact hard to reach, but critical respondents, (2) the

ability to minimize biased responses, and (3) the capability of the interviewer to clarify

questions (Lavarakas, 1993).

Despite the advantages associated with telephone surveying, a few disadvantages

exist. A major drawback with the telephone surveying technique is that surveyors are

unable to reach the cell-phone-only population, making the sample statistically

unbalanced because it does not contain both cell phone and land line users. The

Associated Press (2005) found that the cell-phone-only population is growing rapidly and









it currently accounts for approximately 7 percent of the population. In fact, nearly one in

every five individuals between the ages of 15 and 24 had only cell phones. Other

limitations are related to the limitations with complexity of the questions asked and the

length of the survey. Respondents may grow tired if kept on the telephone for longer

than 20-30 minutes. However, respondents tend not to suffer from fatigue when

participating in personal interviews and this issue is not applicable to mail surveys

because the questionnaire is completed at the respondent's leisure (Lavarakas, 1993).

Similarly, complicated questions are impossible to ask via telephone. In spite of the

disadvantages associated with this surveying technique, the advancements in telephone

technology and infrastructure give the researcher accessibility to nearly any population

via telephone, making this surveying approach more attractive than other methods (Frey,

1989).

The Institute for Behavioral Research, Survey Research Center at the University of

Georgia has a history of successfully conducting telephone surveys. This center was used

to collect the data for this study. The trained research staff utilized the random digit

dialing technique ensuring that all adult Florida residents with landline telephone service

had an equal chance of selection for inclusion in the sample, regardless of whether the

number is unlisted, which reduces the sampling error (Salant and Dillman, 1994).

The telephone survey in this study was administered twice, first to the general

population and secondly to Hispanic households. An emphasis was placed on Hispanic

households because previous research suggested that these individuals provide a steady

year round demand for goat meat products (Spaugh, 1997). Two hundred thirty-seven

households participated in the general population survey. For the latter survey, a









telephone directory data base was obtained that consisted of households with Hispanic

surnames and it consisted of 198 observations. The surveyed Hispanic households were

randomly selected from the directory database. The original survey was translated to

Spanish to better serve the Hispanics consumers.

Once the potential participants were contacted, the objective of the study was

explained to the respondents and they were asked to participate in the study. The

surveyor spoke with the primary grocery shopper as they were expected to be primary

decision maker in purchasing goat meat. The respondent was asked to complete the

survey, which sought information on demographics and consumers shopping preferences

for goat meat products.

Survey Contents

The purpose of the telephone survey was to collect information on consumer

shopping preferences for goat meat. The survey sought three categories of information:

(1) demographics, (2) family linkages with an emphasis on the introduction to goat meat

products and the transmission of food habits from generation to generation including

consumption levels, and consumer perception and (3) identifications of factors

influencing consumption or the willingness to consume. All survey participants had to be

18 years old or older. If the respondent was unavailable to complete the interview, a

callback was scheduled. The questionnaire used in this study is included in the

Appendix.

The dependent variable in this study was the willingness to try goat meat. To

estimate this variable, respondents were placed in one of three categories: respondents

that had previously consumed goat meat, respondents willing to try, and respondents that

have not consumed and are unwilling to try goat meat. Respondents were first asked if









they had ever consumed goat meat. If the respondents had previously consumed goat,

they were then asked a series of questions regarding the size, age, cut, etc of the meat

consumed. These questions were asked to develop an understanding of the type of

product desired by different ethnic groups. Previous research suggested Hispanics,

Muslims, African-Americans, Haitians, and Jamaicans consume goat meat product, but

carcass preferences differs among each group. To estimate current consumption levels,

respondents that had previously consumed goat were asked to quantify how many pounds

their family consumed each year.

To identify potential consumption, respondents that had never consumed goat meat

were asked if they were willing to consume if it was available in stores. Research

suggests that availability is a major obstacle faced by the goat meat industry, thus,

restricting consumption. Locascio and Degner (1988) surveyed supermarket

representatives in Florida and found that 28 of 168 orl6.7 percent, of the stores run by six

chains sold goat meat. A more recent study conducted by Degner and Moss (1999) found

that 18 percent of meat wholesalers in Florida sold goat meat. As previously mentioned

the dependent variable for the study is the willingness to try goat meat; therefore,

respondents that had previously consumed or willing to try if available in grocery stores

are considered those willing to try goat meat and all other respondent are non-triers.

The next section of the questionnaire solicited information on the psychographic

factors that consumers' believed to have importance when making decisions to purchase

meats. Previous meat studies indicated freshness, convenience, and sodium and

cholesterol content influence meat consumption. However, because goat meat is a

specialty food item, it is unknown if these characteristics are equally important to goat









consumption. Psychographic factors are needed because they provide information

necessary to develop an understanding of how of consumers feel and think about the

product (Peter and Donnelly, 2003). Respondents were asked to rate the relative

importance of factors such as price specials, convenience, safety, cholesterol, and fat to

meat purchases. Participants were also asked how they viewed goat meat. The responses

could have ranged from very positive to very negative. It was expected that this portion

of the survey would reveal consumers knowledge about goat meat.

Information regarding respondents' consumption of other meats such as chicken,

beef, and seafood was also collected because according to demand theory, consumption is

expected to be affect by substitutable and complementary products. Participants were

asked the frequency and then quantity of the alternative meat consumed. First,

respondents were asked to specify if the selected food item was consumed everyday,

more than once a week, once a week, more than monthly, monthly, on special occasions,

or never. If the respondent indicated he/she had consumed the meat, respondent was then

asked to identify the quantity consumed per sitting. When consumers make a decision to

try or consume a product, they usually evaluate the alternative products available. This

study incorporated a variable that captured the consumption of other meats to evaluate

the relationships between other selected meats and the willingness to try goat meat.

The final section of the questionnaire solicited socio-economic and demographic

information, such as household income, household size, educational attainment, gender,

and race. Based on previous empirical studies, this information is expected to be

significant when analyzing the factors that influence goat meat consumption.














CHAPTER 4
DATA

The data for this study were attained through a telephone consumer survey in

conjunction with the SARE #LS502-138, An Investigation of the General Goat Meat

Demand and the Sustainability of Goat Production. Adult consumers within the state of

Florida were surveyed via telephone to establish consumer preferences for goat meat and

the level of consumption and potential levels of consumption. The Survey Research

Center at the University of Georgia collected the data during the Spring of 2004. Florida

was targeted because the strongest demand for meat goats is found along the East Coast,

especially within Florida (McKenzie-Jakes, 2004). In addition, Hispanics were targeted

because these consumers are expected to provide a more stable demand for goat meat

products throughout the year (Spaugh, 1997). Thus, understanding the factors that effect

their demand for goat meat is imperative.

Florida households were surveyed utilizing random digit dialing to assess the

factors influencing their consumption decisions of goat meat. As previously mentioned,

telephone surveying is an effective method of data collection that allows a large amount

of data to be collected in a short period of time. Additionally, random digit dialing

ensures that all residents with a landline telephone have an equal chance of being

included in the sample. Selection response is minimized, and inferences about Florida's

adult population can be made with greater assurance from the results obtained in the

survey. Four hundred thirty-five consumers participated in the survey, and data is

summarized in Appendix B. However, due to incomplete demographic and









socioeconomic information such as age, educational attainment, and gender, sample

observations were deleted. Thus, the information from 365 responses is summarized in

this analysis.

When the sample results are compared with US Census data for Florida (US

Census Bureau, 2000) Hispanics were over represented within the sample, accounting for

41.4 percent while making up only 16.1 percent Florida's population. However,

Caucasians and other races were underrepresented in the sample making up 50.1 percent

and 15.5 of the sample, respectively. An emphasis was placed on Hispanic consumers

because these individual are perceived to have a historical preferences towards goat meat;

therefore, the results were expected to be biased towards Hispanics. Among the Hispanic

respondents, few inconsistencies exist between their geographic origins for their

respective populations and sample, making the two reasonably comparable. For instance,

Cubans represent 31.1 percent of the Hispanic population in Florida and 25.8 percent of

the sample, Mexicans account for 13.6 percent of the population and 16.6 percent of the

sample, Puerto Ricans represent 18 percent of the population and 16.6 percent of the

sample, and all other Hispanics descents account for 37.4 percent of the population and

41.1 percent of the sample.

The majority of the survey respondents were female, 70.1 percent. The results are

biased towards females because the questionnaire targeted the primary grocery shopper

as a means of accurately estimating consumption history, the willingness to try, and

psychographic characteristics sought by consumers and potential consumers of goat meat.

According to literature, 70 percent of all females in the United States were considered the

primary grocery shopper (Progressive Grocer, 2002).









Figure 4-1 illustrates the percentage of Florida's population and survey

respondents in various age groups. The sample tolerance for this study is +/- 5.1 percent.

With this in mind, the sample and population are comparable despite the small

discrepancies that exist. The sample's median age fell in the 35-44 age category,

comparing to the median age in Florida, 38.6. The sample's average household consisted

of three people, which exceeds the state's average household size of 2.46 individuals.

Additionally, the average household size for Florida's Hispanic population was 3.12

persons, slightly less than that of the sample, 3.32 persons. Finally, survey respondents

were more educated than average. According to survey response, 47.7 percent of the

respondents possessed either a high school diploma or lower, 26.5 percent had some

college education, and nearly 25.8 percent had at least a college degree, which compares

to the populations 49.8 percent, 29.6% and 20.6 % for the respective categories.

Likewise, 52.3 percent of the Hispanic respondents had more than a high school diploma,

only 40.1 percent of the Hispanic population had surpassed this mark. Furthermore, 25.8

percent of the Hispanic sample and 15.6 percent of the population had received degrees

from a four year college or more advanced degree (Figure 4-2).

Among the 365 respondents, 43.6 percent expressed a willingness to try goat meat

if it were available in food stores (159 respondents), whereas, 56.4 percent were

uninterested in the product (206 respondents). Male respondents were more likely to try

goat than females, 52.3 percent and 39.8 percent, respectively. Hispanics were more

likely than Caucasians, but less likely than other races to express a willingness to try goat

meat. Over 60 percent of respondents that perceived goat meat in a positive manner








indicated that they would try goat meat. However, only 6.1 percent of respondent with a

negative view of goat meat were willing to try the product.

Other explanatory variables incorporated in the study include the frequency at

which goat meat substitutes are consumed, psychographic characteristics, and various

demographic and socioeconomic variables. Descriptive statistics for the survey sample

are found in Table 4-2 and Table 4-3. Since a separate analysis involving Hispanic

respondents will be conducted, reasoning is explained in the next chapter, descriptive

statistics for only the Hispanic respondents are shown in Tables 4-4 and 4-5.


Figure 4-1. Comparison of Florida census data and survey respondents by age.


25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%


O Florida
u Survey


18-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65
and
older






















HS Diploma or Some College
LT


O Florida
* Survey


College Grad &
Beyond


Figure 4-2. Comparison of Florida census data and Hispanic survey respondents by
educational attainment levels.

Table 4-2. Summary of demographic information.
Non- Overall
Triers Triers Sample
Number of Observations 159 206 365
Ethnicity % % %
Hispanic 45.9 37.9 41.4
Caucasian 44.0 54.9 50.1
Other races/ethnicities 10.1 7.3 8.5
Gender
Percent Female 64.2 74.8 70.1
Education
HS Diploma or less 37.7 37.9 37.8
Some College 26.4 25.2 25.8
College Degree and above 35.9 36.9 36.4
Household Size
1 Only 9.4 11.2 10.4
2 People 34.0 33.0 33.4
3 People 18.2 17.0 17.5
4 People 17.0 25.2 21.6
5 and above 21.4 13.6 17.0
Age of Respondents
18-24 7.6 8.7 8.2
25-34 23.9 17.5 20.3
35-44 13.8 19.9 17.3
45-54 18.9 27.5 18.1
55-64 18.2 12.1 14.8
65 and older 17.6 24.3 22.2









Table 4-3. Descriptive statistics on additional factors that influence the willingness to
try.
Triers Non-Triers Overall Sample
Frequency of Chicken Consumed % % %
More than once a week 78.0 79.1 78.6
Once a week 17.6 13.6 15.3
Special Occasions 4.4 5.3 5
Never 0.0 1.9 1.1
Frequency of Beef Consumed
More than once a week 52.8 49.0 50.7
Once a week 24.5 30.1 27.7
Special Occasions 18.9 15.1 16.7
Never 3.8 5.8 4.9
Frequency of Pork Consumed
More than once a week 23.3 17.0 19.7
Once a week 23.3 24.8 24.1
Special Occasions 41.5 40.3 40.8
Never 12.0 18.0 15.3
Frequency of Fish/Seafood Consumed
More than once a week 43.4 36.4 39.5
Once a week 34.6 23.3 28.2
Special Occasions 18.9 31.6 26.0
Never 3.1 8.7 6.3
Frequency of Lamb Consumed
Previously Consumed 51.6 25.3 36.7
Never 48.4 74.8 63.3
Frequency of Turkey Consumed
Previously Consumed 88.7 85.0 86.6
Never 11.3 15.1 13.4
View of Goat Meat
Positive 60.4 16.0 35.3
Neutral 33.3 38.4 36.2
Negative 6.3 45.6 28.5
Importance of Cholesterol to Meat Purchasing
Important 83.6 78.9 80.2
Unimportant 16.4 21.2 19.8
Importance of Fat in Purchasing Meat
Important 86.6 87.4 86.8
Unimportant 13.8 12.6 13.2
Importance of Convenience in Purchasing Meat
Important 67.3 61.7 64.1
Unimportant 32.7 38.4 35.9
Importance of Price to Meat Purchasing
Important 83.0 65.1 72.9
Unimportant 17.0 35.0 27.1
Importance of Safety to Meat Purchasing
Important 95.6 90.8 92.9
Unimportant 4.4 9.2 7.12











Table 4-4. Summary of demographic information for Hispanic respondents.
Overall
Triers Nontriers Sample
Number of Observation 73 78 151
Descent % % %
Mexican 17.8 15.4 16.6
Cuban 28.9 23.1 25.8
Puerto Rican 15.1 18.0 16.6
Other Descents 38.7 43.6 8.5
Generation in U.S.
First generation 65.8 60.3 62.9
Other generation 34.2 40.7 37.1
Gender
Percent Female 67.1 74.4 70.9
Education
HS Diploma or less 49.3 46.2 47.7
Some College 24.7 28.2 26.5
College Degree and above 26.0 25.6 25.8
Household Size
1 Only 5.5 9.0 7.3
2 People 24.7 21.8 23.2
3 People 17.8 24.4 21.2
4 People 23.3 29.5 26.5
5 and above 28.8 15.4 21.9
Age of Respondents
18-24 11.0 5.1 8.0
25-34 28.8 28.2 28.5
35-44 16.4 20.5 18.5
45-54 20.6 16.7 18.5
55-64 11.0 11.5 11.3
65 and older 12.3 18.0 15.2








Table 4-5. Descriptive statistics on additional factors that influence the Hispanic
respondents' willingness to try.
Triers Non-Triers Overall Sample
Frequency of Chicken Consumed % % %
More than once a week 84.9 83.3 84.1
Once a week 11.0 7.7 9.3
Special Occasions 4.1 5.1 4.6
Never 0.0 3.9 2.0
Frequency of Beef Consumed
More than once a week 54.8 38.5 46.4
Once a week 27.4 34.7 31.1
Special Occasions 16.4 15.4 15.9
Never 1.4 11.5 6.6
Frequency of Pork Consumed
More than once a week 24.7 18.0 21.2
Once a week 26.0 18.0 21.9
Special Occasions 34.3 32.0 33.1
Never 15.0 32.0 23.8
Frequency of Fish/Seafood Consumed
More than once a week 42.5 35.9 39.1
Once a week 37.0 26.9 31.8
Special Occasions 15.0 25.6 20.5
Never 5.5 11.5 8.6
Frequency of Lamb Consumed
Previously Consumed 42.5 24.4 33.1
Never 57.5 75.6 66.9
Frequency of Turkey Consumed
Previously Consumed 79.5 69.2 74.2
Never 20.5 30.7 25.8
View of Goat Meat
Positive 72.6 29.5 50.3
Neutral 23.3 39.7 31.8
Negative 4.1 30.8 17.9
Importance of Cholesterol to Meat Purchasing
Important 93.2 88.5 90.7
Unimportant 6.8 11.5 9.3
Importance of Fat in Purchasing Meat
Important 89.0 88.5 88.7
Unimportant 11.0 11.5 11.3
Importance of Convenience in Purchasing Meat
Important 72.6 60.3 66.2
Unimportant 27.4 40.7 33.8
Importance of Price to Meat Purchasing
Important 87.7 62.8 74.8
Unimportant 12.3 37.2 25.2
Importance of Safety to Meat Purchasing
Important 98.6 92.3 95.4
Unimportant 1.4 7.7 4.6














CHAPTER 5
THEORETICAL MODEL AND MODEL SPECIFICATIONS

Theoretical Model

Neoclassical demand theory indicates that the determinants of demand may be

categorized under four headings: (1) population size and its distribution by various

demographic and geographical characteristics, (2) consumer incomes, (3) prices and

availability of complements and substitutes, and (4) consumer tastes and preferences.

The homogeneity condition provides a theoretical basis for consumer behavior. The

condition states that the sum of the own-price elasticity, cross-price elasticity and the

income elasticity for a given commodity equals zero (Tomek and Robinson, 1990):

Eii + Eil + Ei2+ ...+ Ey = 0,

where Eii is the own price elasticity, Eil ... Ei2 are the cross-price elasticities and Eiy is the

income elasticity. The condition implies that the substitution and the income effect on

own-price change must be consistent with the cross-price and income price elasticites for

a particular commodity.

Goat meat prices are very volatile and have been unavailable for many years;

therefore, this research does not attempt to estimate demand nor calculate the elasticities.

The prices of substitutes were not included in the study; however, information about the

relationship between goat meat and its substitutes may give insight on the cross-price

elasticites. The central focus of this study is to develop an understanding of factors

influencing goat consumption and the willingness to try goat meat. Sensitivity of

willingness to try goat meat with price and income is assessed in qualitative terms.









This study will examine factors influencing willingness to try goat meat among

Hispanic and non-Hispanic consumers using data obtained from a telephone survey

administered in Spring 2004. The survey instrument has been discussed in the previous

chapter. This study utilizes a probit analysis to estimate the factors that influence the

dependent variable, willingness to try goat meat. Since research suggested Hispanics

have a historic preference for goat meat, two models are used: (1) an estimation of factors

that influence consumption for the entire sample and (2) one that evaluates the factors

that influence the willingness to try goat meat among Hispanics.

Probit Model

Due to their popularity, linear regressions models may be one of the most misused

analytical techniques in the social sciences (Aldrich and Nelson, 1984). Linear

regression models assume that the dependent variable is continuous; therefore, when the

endogenous variable is qualitative, the estimates from the regression analysis may be

robust in errors, causing inaccurate statistical inferences (Aldrich and Nelson, 1984). The

endogenous variable in this study is a yes or no variable, the willingness to try goat meat.

When the regressand is discrete rather than continuous a different analytical technique is

needed.

Probit models estimate the probability of the binary dependent variable, y,

occurring given K observable, explanatory variables, k = 1,..., K. Each of the

observations on y, yi, y2,... ,yN, are statistically independent of each other, ruling out

serial correlation. Additionally, the model assumes that data are generated from a random

sample of size of N observations, with each sample point indicated by i, i = 1,..., N

(Aldrich and Nelson, 1984). Probit analysis requires that there is no exact linear









dependence among 4ik's. This implies the number of observations exceed the number of

explanatory variables, N>K, that there is variation among each explanatory variable

across the observations, and that no two or more 4ik's are perfectly correlated. The

expected outcomes of the dependent variable, yi, are considered to be mutually exclusive

and exhaustive (Gujarati, 2003).

Probit models assume the dependent variable depends on a latent variable, yi*,

which is and observed and determined by one or more independent variables.

yi* =xi' + Ei, si ~ NID(0,o2)

The larger yi*, the greater the probability of an event, y, occurs. An event is assumed to

occur if the utility differences exceed a certain threshold level. Probit analysis follows a

cumulative normal probability distribution with the same mean and variance, providing

information on the nature of the latent variable and its parameters. The dependent

variable, y, may take on values of zero or one and if the latent variable is defined as y*,

then the probit model is described as follows:

yi* = i'1 + Ei, si ~ NID(0,o2)

yi= 1 ify* > 0

= 0 ify* <0,

The point of interest relates to the probability of the event occurring, Y=l. Utilizing the

information above, we have:

P(yi = 1) = P(yi* > 0) = P(i'P1 + Ei > 0) = P(i < i' 3) = D(i'P1),

where D denotes the cumulative distribution of si (Verbeek, 2004).

Maximum likelihood estimation techniques are used to obtain the value of the

parameters, p, that maximize the probability of observing the outcome, y. The maximum









likelihood estimation model is nonlinear and asymptotic, producing better results as the

sample size increases. It produces estimates that are nonbiased (estimates are centered

around the true values on average), efficient (no other unbiased estimator has lower

sampling variance) and normal (we can know how to perform hypothesis testing and

draw other inferences) (Aldrich and Nelson, 1984). Maximizing and then taking the first

derivative of the log likelihood function produce the parameters for each explanatory

variable. The log likelihood function is as follows:

log L(P) = Y yi log F(Li'P) + E (1 yi) log yi log F(1 (i')),

where p is included in the probabilities to accentuate that the likelihood function is a

function of p. The parameters derived from the log likelihood function are known as

marginal effects or marginal probabilities. The marginal probabilities measure the change

in probabilities resulting from a unit change in one of the regressors while holding the

other regressors constant. Predicted marginal probabilities assist in understanding the

relationship between the dependent and independent variables and the signs of the

parameter estimates and their statistical significance indicate the direction of the

relationship (Gujarati, 2003; Verbeek, 2004).

A goodness of fit measure is a summary statistic suggesting the accuracy with

which the model approximates the observed data (Verbeke et al., 2000). When the

dependent variable is qualitative the accuracy of the model is determined by comparing

the fit between the calculated probabilities and observed response frequencies or through

the model's ability to forecast observed responses. Goodness of fit measures are usually

based on a comparison between a model that contains only a constant as the independent

variable. Thepseudo R2 takes into account the two likelihood values, log L1 and log Lo,









where L1 represents the maximum log likelihood value of the model of interest and Lo

stands for the maximum value of the log likelihood function when the intercept is the

only parameter value that is not equal to zero. The difference between the log L1 and log

L2 serves as an indicator of the explained variation of the underlying latent variable

caused by the additional parameters (Laitila, 1993; Verbeek, 2004). In summary, the

pseudo R2 is a tool used to evaluate the explained variation in a model. It is important to

mention that this measure has two shortcomings: (1) the pseudo R2 usually decreases as

additional parameters are included in the model and (2) the measure does not adjust for

the degrees of freedom of the model (Laitila, 1993).

Model Specification

Existing empirical studies provide the basis for the variables selected in the

model. Earlier studies conducted by McLean-Meyinsse (2003) and Degner and Lin

(1993) used a probit analysis to evaluate the factors that influence consumers' willingness

to consume goat meat and goat meat products. Their studies indicated that race, age,

household size, geographical location, and gender affect the willingness to consume or

try goat meat. For example, the studies found non-Caucasians, men, and those living in

larger households were most likely consumers of goat. Studies conducted to assess the

factors that influence the consumption of specialty meats McLean-Meyinsse (1999) and

McLean-Meyinsse (2000) found ethnicity, education, household size, and gender

influenced consumers' attitude toward exotic animal food item and their willingness to

consume. Finally, studies by Hui et al. (1995) and Chen et al. (2002) used probit model

simulations evaluated the impact selected meat attributes had on meat consumption

among various demographic, socioeconomic, and geographical characteristics. The

results from the Hui et al. (1995) study suggested that female and non-white consumers









are more concerned with fat, cholesterol, and price. Chen et al. (2002) suggested

segments within Asian populations have specific taste and preferences and are not a

homogenous group.

In this study, probit models are used to estimate the willingness to try goat meat

for Hispanic and non-Hispanic populations with respect to several explanatory variables.

The entire survey sample model will included demographic and socioeconomic factors

(i.e. age, gender, income, household size, and educational attainment), perception of goat

meat, frequency of other meat consumption, and consumer characteristics. It is believed

that segments within the Hispanic population have different variables affecting their

willing to try goat meat. Additional independent variables that will be included only in

the Hispanic model are descent and generation in the U.S. Specification of the probit for

the entire survey sample is as follows:

Yki* = PklETH2 + Pk2 ETH3 + Pk3 GENDER + Pk4 AGE1 +
Pk5 AGE2 + Pk6AGE3 + Pk7 AGE4 +pk8 AGES + pk9 HSIZE1 +
PkloHSIZE2 + pkll HSIZE3 + pk12 HSIZE4 + Pk13 BEEF1 +
Pk14 BEEF2 + Pk15 CHICK 1 +pk16 CHICK2 +pkl7FISH1 +
Pkl8FISH2 + pk19 PORK1 + Pk20PORK2 + Pk21TURK +
Pk22LAMB + pk23VIEW1 +Pk24VIEW2 + Pk25FAT +
Pk26SAFETY + pk27CONVEN +Pk28PRICE
Specification of the Hispanic model is as follows:

Yji* = PjiMEXICAN + pj2 PTRICAN + Pj30THERD +
pj4 GENERA + Pj5 AGE1 + Pj6AGE2 + Pj7AGE3 + Pj8AGE4 +
Pj9AGE5 + PjloHSIZE1 +Pj3nHSIZE2 + Pj12HSIZE3 +
Pj13HSIZE4 + pj14BEEF1 +Pj15BEEF2 + Pj06CHICJ1 +
Pj17CHICJ2 +Pj3sFISH1 + Pj19FISH2 + Pj2oPORJ1 +
Pj21PORJ2 + Pj22TURJ +Pj23LAMB + Pj24VIEW1 +
pj25VIEW2 + Pj26FAT +pj27SAFETY + Pj28CONVEN +Pj29PRICE






38


Yi= J if respondent is willing to try goat meat
L0 if respondent is unwilling to try goat meat
The probit model estimates the influence the selected explanatory variables have

on consumers' preferences of goat meat. The analysis also predicts the probabilities of

the consumers' willingness to try goat meat under several variable levels. A description

of the variables used in this study can be seen in Table 5-1.








Table 5-1. Probit model variables and description.


Variant
Willingness to try goat
meat
Ethnicity
Hispanic Origin



Gender
Age
Education


Household Size




Perception of Goat
Meat


Consumer Attributes




Substitutes Consumed


Variable NameDescription


TRY
ETH
MEXICAN
CUBAN
PTRICAN
OTHER
GENDER
AGE1
EDU1
EDU2
EDU3
HSIZE1
HSIZE2
HSIZE3
HSIZE4
HSIZE5

VIEW
VIEW2
VIEW
FAT
SAFETY
CHOLES
CONVEN
PRICE
BEEF1
BEEF2
BEEF3
BEEF4
CHICK 1
CHICK2
CHICK3
CHICK4
LAMB1
PORK
PORK2
PORK3
PORK4
TURK1


1 if willing to try goat meat
1 if Hispanic, 0 otherwise
1 if of Mexican, 0 otherwise
1 if of Cuban, 0 otherwise
1 if of Puerto Rican, 0 otherwise
1 if of Mexican, 0 otherwise
1 if male,
1 if 35 or older, 0 otherwise
High School diploma or less
Some College
College 4 year degree and beyond
1 if one person
1 if two people
1 if three people
1 if four people
1 if five or more people

1 if positive view
1 if neutral view
1 if negative view
1 if fat is important to the consumer
1 if safety is important to the consumer
1 if convenience is important to the consumer
1 if convenience is important to the consumer
1 if price specials are important to consumer
1 if consumed more than once a week
1 if consumed once of week
1 if consumed during monthly or less frequently
1 if never consumed
1 if consumed more than once a week
1 if consumed once of week
1 if consumed during monthly or less frequently
1 if never consumed
1 if consumed, 0 otherwise
1 if consumed more than once a week
1 if consumed once of week
1 if consumed during monthly or less frequently
1 if never consumed
1 if consumed, 0 otherwise














CHAPTER 6
EMPIRICAL RESULTS

Using data collected from a consumer survey, the specification set forth in the

previous chapter and maximum likelihood procedures, two independent probit models

were estimated with the dependent variable representing the consumers' willingness to

try goat meat. Due to the nature of the dichotomous dependent variable, a probit analysis

was utilized to predict the likelihood of trying goat meat given various exogenous

variables. The probit model coefficients and marginal probabilities from the two models -

one for the survey population and one for only Hispanic respondents are shown in Tables

6-1 and 6-2, respectively. According to Greene (2003), marginal probabilities should be

used to draw inferences about the relationship between the dependent and independent

variables rather than coefficient estimates. The marginal probabilities measure the

change in probability of the willingness try goat meat from a unit change in one of the

explanatory variables, while holding the other regressors at their sample means. The

results from these models are discussed in this chapter, beginning with the whole

population model and followed by the Hispanic only model.

Entire Survey Sample Probit Estimates

The entire survey sample probit model (Table 6-1) correctly predicted 75.8

percent of consumers' responses (incorrectly predicting both a consumers' willingness to

try goat meat and non-willingness to try 12.1 percent of the time). This compares to a

naive, which resulted in correct prediction 56.4 percent of the time. The chi-squared









value is 137.0 is statistically significant to the .01 confidence level, which implies good

predictive power of the variables included in the model.

Table 6-1. Empirical results from the whole survey probit model.

Variable Estimated Coefficient Standard Error Marginal Effects
ETH2 0.0554 0.2020 0.0217
ETH3 0.0424 0.3031 0.0165
GENDER -0.2985 0.1783 -0.0830
AGE1 0.0404 0.3484 0.0159
AGE2 0.0862 0.2719 0.0317
AGE3 -0.0493 0.2898 -0.1922
AGE4 0.0780 0.2536 0.0307
AGE5 0.4215 0.2606 0.1668***
EDU2 0.0883 0.2006 0.0347
EDU3 0.0761 0.3031 -0.2973
HSIZE1 -0.6960** 0.3234 -0.2235**
HSIZE2 -0.4697*** 0.2451 -0.1790**
HSIZE3 -0.5380** 0.2606 -0.1984**
HSIZE4 -0.6253* 0.2508 -0.2295*
VIEW1 1.6244* 0.2286 0.5829*
VIEW2 0.7787* 0.2070 0.3019*
FAT -0.5495** 0.2818 -0.2165**
SAFETY -0.2617 0.3042 -0.1037
CHOLES 0.1972 0.2471 0.0760
CONVEN -0.0671 0.1691 -0.0263
PRICE 0.5373* 0.5376 0.2017**
BEEF1 -0.1805 0.2132 -0.0709
BEEF2 -0.2505 0.2305 -0.0967
CHICK1 -0.7486** 0.3215 -0.2918*
CHICK2 -0.7544** 0.3728 -0.2662**
PORK1 0.0635 0.2136 0.0249
PORK2 -0.1158 0.1955 -0.0451
FISH1 0.3839** 0.1951 0.1505**
FISH2 0.4458** 0.2103 0.1756**
TURK 0.0635 0.2502 0.0318
LAMB 0.4887** 0.1690 0.1915*
Log- Likelihood = -181.45
R2 (Psuedo) = 27.2 %
Chi-squared= 137.03
% of corrected predictions = 75.9%
*,****** indicate significance at .01, .05, and .10 levels, respectively









The results indicate that there is no significant difference between the willingness

to try amongst demographic characteristics such as ethnicity, gender, nor educational

attainment levels. Caucasians or consumers of other races levels of willingness to try

were compared to those of Hispanics consumers, the base. Unexpectedly, the willingness

to try goat meat amongst ethnic groups was not statistically different, even though

apparent differences existed between each groups responses. Raw statistics indicated that

24.5 percent of Hispanics currently ate goat meat, compared to 12.0 percent of

Caucasians. However, 31.6 percent of non-goat meat consuming, Hispanics were willing

to goat meat, compared to 29.8 percent of non-consuming Caucasians.

Statistically significant demographics variables include household size and age. As

hypothesized, if less than five individuals were present in a household the chances of

trying goat meat diminishes (Figure 6-1). For example, as the household changes from

five or more people to one person, the willingness of trying goat meat decreased by 22.3

percent. Additionally, as household size changes from the base, five or more individuals,

to a two, three, or four person household the likelihood of trying goat decreased 17.9,

19.8, and 23 percent, respectively. Respondents' age also had a significant effect on the

willingness to try goat meat, with respondents between the ages of 55 and 64 more 42.2

percent likely the participants 65 years and older to try goat meat.

The study failed to investigate the reasons respondents were willing or not willing

to try goat meat and goat meat attribute that influence consumption such as, but not

limited to freshness, price, presence of chemical additive, and various nutritional

attributes. However, the survey did focus on the psychographic characteristics that are

important to consumers when making all meat purchases.






43



0o0, 6' -. i_ ,i r ,


-5%/


-10%--

15% /- Household Size
-15?b"


-20%/


-25% /
One person Two people Three people Four people



Figure 6-1. Changes in the probability of trying goat meat with respect to household size.
(All household sizes are compared to the base, households containing five or
more individuals).

The psychographic factors were included in the model to provide insight on potential

goat meat consumers. Of convenience, price specials, fat content, cholesterol, and safety,

price specials and fat content were the only significant variables. The relationships

between price specials and fat content with willingness to try were the opposite of the

original hypotheses. Consumers that viewed price specials as important were 20 percent

more likely than consumers that rated price special as unimportant to be willing to try

goat meat. Additionally, consumers that perceived fat content as relevant were 21.6

percent less likely to be willing to try goat meat than those that view fat levels as

insignificant. These results reveal that many consumers are not knowledgeable of the on

the characteristics, of goat meat, including price. As mentioned in previous chapters,

goat meat is a lean meat and a high source of proteins. Therefore, consumers that believe

fat levels are important should be more inclined to try goat meat. One potential









explanation for the opposite result is that people believe goat meat in high in fat. Also,

goat meat prices are usually higher than traditional meats (McLean-Meyinsse (1999)

found that goat prices range from $1.79 to $2.79 per pound in Louisiana), suggesting

those that believe price specials are important should have been less willing to try goat

meat. The same potential explanation, lack of knowledge about goat meat, could explain

this result. It is not alarming that convenience was not significant. If respondents lack

information on preparation methods, they may be unaware if goat meat is easy to cook or

not.

The probit model indicated that consumers' perception of goat meat had a

statistically significant impact on the likelihood of trying goat meat. As the consumers'

perception changed from negative to positive, the probability of willingness to try goat

meat increased 58.3 percent. Likewise, if consumers possessed a neutral view of goat

meat rather than a negative view the likelihood of consuming goat meat increased 30.2

percent. Based on the results, one can assume that as the consumers' attitude towards

goat meat becomes more positive, their chances of trying goat meat increases at

significant rates.

Finally, the relationship between trying goat meat and the frequency of

consumption of other meat substitutes was examined. Chicken, fish, and lamb

consumption were found to significantly affect the willingness to try goat meat.

Respondents that had previous consumed lamb were more willing to try goat meat. In

fact, participants that had consumed lamb were 48.9 percent more likely to be willing try

goat meat than individuals that had not eaten lamb. The probit estimates also indicated

that fish and other seafood consumption positively effect the likelihood of trying goat









meat. Participants that consumed seafood more than once a week were 15 percent more

likely to express a willingness to try goat meat. Whereas, respondents that consumer fish

weekly were 17.6 percent more incline to be willing to try goat meat. Respondents that

consume chicken more than once a month are less likely to be willing to try goat meat. If

a respondent consumed chicken more than once a week, the probability of consumer goat

meat decreased by 29.1 percent. Likewise if the respondent consumed chicken at least

once a week, the chances of trying goat meat declined 26.6 percent. For the results, one

can infer that goat meat consumption will occur less often as the frequency of chicken

consumed increases. On the other hand, fish and lamb consumption may serve as an

indicator of potential goat consumption.

Hispanic Model

The probit model that focused on the Hispanic respondents only correctly

predicted consumers' willingness to try goat meat 76.2 percent of the time (incorrectly

predicting a consumers' willingness to try goat meat 12.5 percent of the time and non-

willingness to try 11.3 percent of the time). This is better than naive prediction, 51.7.

The chi-squared value is 64.3 and is statistically significant to the .01 confidence level,

which implies this model has good predictive ability of forecasting the willingness to try.

Although ethnicity was statistically insignificant in the general population model, a

separate probit analysis was conducted using Hispanic respondents to reveal if different

factors affected the willingness to consumers between Hispanics and the general

population.










Table 6-2. Empirical results from the Hispanic probit model.

Variable Estimated Coefficient Standard Error Marginal Effects
MEXICAN -0.4283 0.4764 -0.1673
PTRICAN -0.7114 0.4405 -0.2690***
OTHERD -0.2024 0.3570 -0.8056
GENERA -0.1514 0.2801 -0.0603
GENDER 0.1312 0.3171 0.0522
AGE1 2.0406* 0.7452 0.5417*
AGE2 0.1318 0.4631 0.0525
AGE3 0.1973 0.5136 0.0785
AGE4 0.3302 0.4392 0.1307
AGE5 0.3676 0.5432 0.1448
EDU2 0.0520 0.3108 0.0275
EDU3 0.1250 0.3545 0.4983
HSIZE1 -0.3877 0.5957 -0.1510
HSIZE2 -0.2943 0.3831 -0.1164
HSIZE3 -0.8757* 0.4041 -0.3267*
HSIZE4 -0.5672 0.3782 -0.2206
VIEW1 1.4971* 0.4403 0.5457*
VIEW2 0.8390 0.4239 0.1521
FAT -0.6843 0.5699 -0.2603
SAFETY -1.0338 0.7084 0.3605*
CHOLES 0.3370 0.6091 0.1321
CONVEN 0.1072 0.2887 0.0427
PRICE 1.2540* 0.3541 0.4469*
BEEF1 0.3021 0.3544 0.1201
BEEF2 0.3916 0.3902 0.1551
CHICK1 -1.5846* 0.6051 -0.5132*
CHICK2 -1.6177** 0.7845 -0.4825*
PORK1 0.5338 0.3672 0.2087
PORK2 0.3141 0.3477 0.1245
FISH1 0.7546** 0.3583 0.2936**
FISH2 0.3966 0.3689 0.1570
TURK 0.2715 0.3294 0.1076
LAMB 0.3545 0.299 0.1406
Log- Likelihood = -72.41
R2 (Psuedo) =15%
Chi-squared = 64.44
% of corrected predictions = 76.2%
*,**,*** indicate significance at .01, .05, and .10 levels, respectively









Additionally, the second probit analysis was conducted to examine if the levels of trying

goat meat vary amongst the consumers of various Hispanics origins and as the

generations the respondent had spent in the United States (and expected acculturation

level) increases. Consistent with the whole survey sample results, there is no significant

difference between the willingness to try amongst genders and educational attainment

levels. When willingness to try levels for individuals of Puerto Rican, Mexican, and

other descents were compared to those of Cuban descent a statistical significant

difference was found when the individual are of Puerto Rican descent. The results

revealed that if the respondent was of Puerto Rican rather than Cuban descent, the

respondents' willingness to try levels decreased 25.9 percent. According to probit results

there was not a significant difference in the willingness to try goat meat between first

generation Hispanics and Hispanics whose families have been in the United States for

more than one generation. This may suggest that as acculturation increases, consumption

patterns for goat meat remain unchanged, a positive indicator for the goat meat industry.

When only considering Hispanic respondents, the results of the demographic

variable did change. Household size remained significant, but now only the household

size of three was statistically different from the size of five, (32.7 percent less likely to be

willing to try), unlike the larger model, where all sizes were significantly different.

Again only one age variable was significant, but this time it was the youngest age group

(18 and 24). Respondents in this group were 51.4 percent more likely to indicate a

willingness to try goat.

Psychographic factors were again were slightly different in the Hispanic only

model. Safety and price specials were the only significant variables. Consumers that









rated safety as important were 36 percent less likely than individuals that feel safety is

unimportant to try goat meat. Similar to the entire sample, as the significance of price

specials changed from important to unimportant, the chances of trying goat meat

increased 44.7 percent.

Respondents' perception of goat meat again had a statistically significant impact on

the willingness of try goat meat. As the respondents' perception changed from negative

to positive, the likelihood of willingness try goat meat increased 54.6 percent. Unlike the

general population model, there is no significant difference between the levels of trying

goat meat as the consumers' opinion towards the products change from negative to

neutral.

Finally, the analysis examined the relationship between trying goat meat and the

frequency of consumption of other meat substitutes. Chicken and fish and seafood

consumption were found to significantly affect the willingness to try goat meat. Similar

to the entire survey sample model, respondents that consume chicken at least once a week

were less likely to exemplify a willingness to consume goat meat. Respondents that ate

chicken once a week were 48.2 percent less likely to be willing to try goat meat than

those that consume chicken on special occasions or less frequently. When the frequency

of consuming chicken changed from special occasions to more than once a week the

chances of being willing to try goat meat decreased 51.3 percent. Fish and other seafood

consumption positively effected goat meat only when they were consumed more than

once a week. The willingness to try goat meat increased 29.4 percent as the frequency of

fish and seafood consumption varied from more than once a week to on special occasion

and less frequently.














CHAPTER 7
CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

Summary

This thesis focuses on developing an understanding of factors that influence

willingness to consume goat meat in Florida. Researchers believe Florida has the

potential for a meat goat market that is profitable and the demand for goat meat products

in Florida is expected to continue growing as target populations within the niche market

increase. However, the lack of consumer information has hindered producers',

processors', and marketers' ability to fully delineate the profitability and viability of

Florida's meat goat industry. Consumer information is a critical component to totally

understand the possible economic impact of goat meat production and marketing in

Florida. Thus, the primary objective of this research is to identify factors that influence

and barriers that reduce consumption of goat meat.

A probit analysis of willingness to try goat meat indicted that factors influencing

willingness try goat meat differed between the whole survey model and the Hispanics

model. Hispanic consumers were unaware of the safety standards, which may be a result

of the lack of grades and standards in the meat goat industry. The general population

sample participants were uninformed of goat meats nutritional attributes (i.e. low levels

of fat and cholesterol). Results from a partial nutrient analysis (Johnson, 1995),

suggested that goat meat was comparable to chicken in total grams of fat, percent calories

from fat and cholesterol. Also, the nutrient profile indicated that goat meat was similar

beef in iron content. According to probit model results, safety and fat content had a









negative influence on the willingness to try. Indicating that overall, consumer awareness

of goat meat attributes in low, and more information should be made available to

consumers. Both groups of shoppers indicated that price specials were important when

purchasing meat to the grocery store. Price specials increased that likelihood of trying

goat meat; however, specialty meat price are usually more expensive than traditional

meat prices. Therefore, marketers may want implement various pricing strategies,

pricing the meat lower than other meats to increase sales. This study did not identify

reasons for not consuming goat meat. Further research should be conducted to identify

these factors so that the industry can address and attempt to rectify these issues that

restrict consumption.

Perception of goat meat influenced respondents' willingness to try goat meat. As

the respondents' view of goat meat became more positive, the likelihood of trying goat

meat increased at least 30 percent. Unlike the results the entire survey model, the was not

a significant relationship between the willing to try goat meat and the perception as the

respondent view changed from negative to neutral.

Results show that the frequency of chicken and fish consumption effect the

willingness to try goat meat in both models. In addition to those meats, respondents that

consumed lamb were also more likely to be willing try goat meat in the model including

the entire sample. Prices of substitutes were not included in the model, as price for goat

meat were not available either. However the relationship between the willingness to try

goat meat and chicken, fish, and lamb indicated that goat meat has substitutes and

complements. Therefore, members of the goat meat industry could develop strategies

that differentiate goat meat from its competitors in an effort to increase market share. The









likelihood of trying goat meat increased when participants consumed fish on a weekly

basis and if consumers had previously consumed lamb; thus, meat marketing strategies

should be aimed at these individuals.

Income was not included in the model due to a high refusal rate in answering the

question; therefore income elasticities were not calculated. However, education was used

as a proxy for income and was found to be insignificant.

The most unanticipated result from this study was that ethnicity or race was

insignificant, which implies that the willingness to try goat meat is the same for

Hispanics, Caucasians, and other races is statistically the same. This notion means that

marketers should develop marketing strategies that target all consumers, and not focus on

one particular group per se Hispanics. Furthermore, our results indicate that there is

opportunity for growth in the goat meat industry. Gender was not significant, however,

females are usually the primary grocery shoppers; goat meat should be promoted in a

manner than accentuates the characteristics that have been identified as important to

female shoppers.

Other demographic factors that influenced the willingness to try goat meat were

household size and age. Consistent with previous research, larger households, those

containing five or more individuals were most likely to try goat for the entire sample.

Larger households may be more willing to try goat meat because consumers perceive it to

be inexpensive; thus, making goat meat an affordable meat alternative when feeding a

large family. The consumers in the youngest age group, 18-24, were most likely to

express a willingness to try goat meat among Hispanic consumers, where as there was

consumes between the age of 55-64 years were most likely for the entire sample. This is









an important finding for the goat meat industry, because if an individual develops a

fondness for goat meat at an earlier age, more than likely these individuals will become

life long consumers of the product, which may result an overall in goat meat

consumption.

Conclusions

This research suggests opportunities for expanding the goat meat industry exists in

Florida, with 43.6 percent of the sample indicating a willingness to try goat meat if it was

available in supermarkets. Demographic characteristics such ethnicity, gender, nor

educational attainment levels did not affect the dependent variable, but other

demographic characteristics did affect the willingness to try. The results revealed that as

the descent of the respondent changed from Cuban to Puerto Rican, the willingness to try

decreased 25.9 percent. Psychographic factors that effect the willing to try included price

specials, fat content, safety, and the consumers' perception of the product.

Consumers indicated fat content and safety were important to their purchase

decisions were less likely to be willing to goat meat, while perception of goat meat and

price specials has a positive relationship with the willingness to try. As goat meat is low

in fat and often more expensive than other meats, these results seem counter-intuitive.

However, this may all be an indicator that knowledge about the attributes of goat meat

are low and in industry may benefit from educational efforts.

Finally, the analysis describes relationship between the willing to trying goat meat

and the frequency of consumption of other meats. Chicken, fish, and lamb consumption

were found to significantly effect the willingness to try goat meat. Respondents that had

previously consumed lamb were more willing to try goat meat. If the participants

consumed fish and seafood a minimum of once a week, the probability of trying goat









meat increases. Consumers that ate chicken more than once a month were less likely to

try goat meat. Pork and beef consumption were found to have no significant effect on

trying goat meat. One can conclude that goat meat consumption will occur less often as

the frequency of chicken consumed increases. On the other hand, fish and lamb

consumption may serve as an indicator of potential goat consumption.

Implications

In recent years the demand for goat meat has increased in the United States and it

appears that opportunities for expansion exist for Florida's goat meat industry. The

findings from this study can be used by the industry to develop marketing strategies that

will provide assistance in increasing the demand for the product. The results also suggest

potential consumers that should be targeted by the industry.

This study identified new consumers for goat meat. In order for the goat meat

industry to expand, market development strategies, which involve targeting new

consumers with a present product, can be used to enhance the demand for goat meat. It is

easier to target consumers that have an interest in trying goat meat than to market the

product to those that are unwilling to try it. If the goat meat industry wishes to increase

the demand for goat meat it is necessary to expand its target market beyond ethnic

populations and promote the products or all individuals. This study suggests that this

opportunity exists because there was no difference in willingness to try among the ethnic/

racial groups suggesting that the industry should tap into the Caucasian market. Research

suggests that the industry should direct its marketing efforts to individuals living in larger

households and those between the ages of 18-24. It is imperative for the industry to

attract long term consumers in order to have long run success and by targeting younger

consumers this is possible. If younger consumers develop a preference for goat meat









products at an earlier age, they are more than likely to consumer the product as they grow

older. Additionally, since ethnicity/race was an insignificant factor in this study, the

industry should also target Caucasian females. Other potential consumers are those that

live in larger households and lamb consumers.

It seems a major barrier that hinders the prosperity of the goat meat industry is

that consumers lack knowledge on goat meat. Consumers are becoming more health

conscious and they are consuming products that possess nutritional qualities such as

chicken and fish more frequently. Goat meat is very healthy, low in fat and cholesterol

and high in proteins, however consumers are unaware of these qualities; therefore,

educational information that increases consumers' awareness of goat meat. If this

information was known by consumers the industry may be able to repositioning the

product in consumers' mind. It seems that consumers perceive the product as cheap and

containing high levels of fat, but the in untrue. In store demonstrates, educational

advertising, recipes are promotional strategies that would increase consumers' awareness

of goat meat, resulting in increased consumption.

As a result of this study it is evident that further research that involves knowledge

testing is needed. This type of research would reveal the familiarity levels consumers

have for goat meat. These results would inform industry official on the subject matter

that needs to be discussed in the educational advertisements. Additionally, since

ethnicity/race was non-significant and more balance sample, on the does not place an

emphasis on Hispanics, should be conducted to investigate the reasons for consuming and

not consuming goat meat is needed. The Florida's goat meat industry has the opportunity






55


to flourish; however, effective marketing strategies are needed to increase consumers'

awareness and the availability of goat meat.















APPENDIX A
SOUTHERN REGION GOAT CONSUMPTION SURVEY

March 15, 2004


Hello, this is (NAME) calling from the University of Georgia in Athens. The Survey
Research Center is conducting a study this evening in conjunction with Mack C. Nelson,
a professor from Fort Valley State University (GA) concerning the use of goat meat and
we'd like to talk to the primary food shopper of your household. Do you have a few
minutes right now to complete an interview?

1. Yes (CONTINUE)
2. No (GET SR'S NAME, ARRANGE CALLBACK; APPLY PERSUADERS.
EVEN IF RESPONDENT DOESN'T EAT GOAT MEAT, WE WANT THEM TO
COMPLETE THE SURVEY-IT WILL BE SHORTER. )

[INTERVIEWER NOTE: IF PRIMARY FOOD SHOPPER DID NOT HEAR INITIAL
INTRODUCTION BUT DOES COME TO THE PHONE, REPEAT INTRO]

S1 Are you 18 years or older?

1. Yes (CONTINUE)
2. No (ASK TO SPEAK TO ADULT 18 YEARS OR OLDER. RETURN TO
INTRO. IF NECESSARY, GET SR'S NAME AND SET CALLBACK.)

Great! Before we begin, I need to let you know that the interview is completely
voluntary. All of the information you provide will be kept strictly confidential and you
don't have to answer any questions you don't want to. Also, my supervisor may listen to
part of the interview to be sure that I'm not making any mistakes.

Q1. Have you or any member of your immediate family ever eaten goat meat?

1. Yes [SKIP TO Q4]
2. No
3. Don't know
9. Ref/NA




Q2. DELETED






57



Q2.1 If goat meat was available in your area food stores, do you think you would try it?

1. Yes
2. No
9. Ref/DK/NA

Q2.2 If there were a cooperative that sold the meat of animals grown organically,
would you be willing to join?

1. Willing
2. Not willing
9. Ref/DK/NA

[ALL ANSWERS SKIP TO Q14]

Q3. DELETED

Q4. What's your preference in goat meat? Would it be the kid, small male, small
female, wether or something else?

1. Kid
2. Small male
3. Small female
4. Wether (castrated male)
5. Other [Specify]
9. Ref/DK/NA

Q5. What live weight do you prefer?

1. Less than 30 pounds
2. 30 50 pounds
3. 51 69 pounds
4. 70 pounds or more
9. Ref/DK/NA

Q6. Do you prefer a certain cut of meat?

1. Yes
2. No [SKIP TO Q7]
9. Ref/DK/NA [SKIP TO Q7]






58


Q6.1 How much do you prefer the shoulder? Do you prefer the shoulder very much,
somewhat, not much or not at all?

1. Very much
2. Somewhat
3. Neutral (Doesn't matter)
4. Not much
5. Not at all
9. Ref/DK/NA

Q6.2 How much do you prefer the ribs? Would it be very much, somewhat, not much
or not at all?

1. Very much
2. Somewhat
3. Neutral (Doesn't matter)
4. Not much
5. Not at all
9. Ref/DK/NA

Q6.3 How much do you prefer the hind leg?

1. Very much
2. Somewhat
3. Neutral (Doesn't matter)
4. Not much
5. Not at all
9. Ref/DK/NA

Q6.4 How much do you prefer loin chops?

1. Very much
2. Somewhat
3. Neutral (Doesn't matter)
4. Not much
5. Not at all
9. Ref/DK/NA









Q6.5 How much do you prefer loin cubes?

1. Very much
2. Somewhat
3. Neutral (Doesn't matter)
4. Not much
5. Not at all
9. Ref/DK/NA

Q6.6. Are there any other cuts of meat that you prefer to eat?

1. Name cuts of meat
9. No, Ref/DK/NA

Q7. Do you normally buy a whole goat?

1. Yes
2. No
3. Don't know
9. Ref/NA

Q8. Are there certain seasons of the year that you eat more goat meat?

1. Yes
2. No [SKIP TO Q9]
9. Ref/DK/NA [SKIP TO Q9]

Q8.1 What seasons are those?

[INTERVIEWER NOTE: CHOOSE ALL THAT APPLY]

[PROGRAMMER NOTE: YES/NO TOGGLE]

1. Winter
2. Spring
3. Summer
4. Fall
5. Ref/DK/NA
6. Exit









Q9 Do you eat goat meat on special occasions?

1. Yes
2. No [SKIP TO Q10]
9. Ref/DK/NA [SKIP TO Q10]

Q9.1 Which special occasions are those?

[INTERVIEWER NOTE: CHOOSE ALL THAT APPLY]

[PROGRAMMER NOTE: YES/NO TOGGLE]

1. Christmas
2. 4th of July
3. Family re-unions
4. Marriages
5. Ramadan
6. Cinco de Mayo
7. Other [Specify]
8. Ref/DK/NA
9. Exit

Q10. About how many pounds of goat meat do you think your family eats each year?

[INTERVIEWER NOTE: USE PERSUADERS IF NECESSARY: "I JUST
NEED A BALLPARK FIGURE."]

pounds
998 998 or more
999 Ref/DK/NA
[RANGE: 1 999]

Qll. Would your family eat more goat meat if it was available in your local grocery
stores?

1. Yes
2. No [SKIP TO Q12]
3. Don't know [SKIP TO Q12]
9. Ref/NA [SKIP TO Q12]






61


Q11.1 Which meat product would you eat less of if you increased the family
consumption of goat meat?

[INTERVIEWER NOTE: IF NECESSARY, READ: BEEF, PORK, SEAFOOD,
LAMB, CHICKEN OR TURKEY?]

1. Enter response
9. Ref/DK/NA

Q12. Please tell me how important the following attributes are in your decision to
purchase goat meat products. Would you say fresh, never frozen product is very
important, important, not very important or not at all important?

1. Very important
2. Important
3. Neutral (Doesn't matter)
4. Not very important
5. Not at all important
9. Ref/DK/NA

Q12.1 How important is the color of the meat-very important, important, not very
important or not at all important?

1. Very important
2. Important
3. Neutral (Doesn't matter)
4. Not very important
5. Not at all important
9. Ref/DK/NA

Q12.2 How important is the government inspection label?

1. Very important
2. Important
3. Neutral (Doesn't matter)
4. Not very important
5. Not at all important
9. Ref/DK/NA






62


Q12.3 How important is it that the goat meat is organically grown?

1. Very important
2. Important
3. Neutral (Doesn't matter)
4. Not very important
5. Not at all important
9. Ref/DK/NA

Q12.4 How important is it that there are a variety of cuts available?

1. Very important
2. Important
3. Neutral (Doesn't matter)
4. Not very important
5. Not at all important
9. Ref/DK/NA

Q12.5 How important is it that there are prepackaged cuts?

1. Very important
2. Important
3. Neutral (Doesn't matter)
4. Not very important
5. Not at all important
9. Ref/DK/NA

Q12.6 How important are cooking instructions?

1. Very important
2. Important
3. Neutral (Doesn't matter)
4. Not very important
5. Not at all important
9. Ref/DK/NA









Q12.7 How important are marinade cuts?


Very important
Important
Neutral (Doesn't matter)
Not very important
Not at all important
Ref/DK/NA


Q12.8 How important are convenience foods, such as sausage?

1. Very important
2. Important
3. Neutral (Doesn't matter)
4. Not very important
5. Not at all important
9. Ref/DK/NA


Q12.9 How important is the price in your decision to purchase goat meat products?


1. Very important
2. Important
3. Neutral (Doesn't matter)
4. Not very important
5. Not at all important
9. Ref/DK/NA


Q13. When you cook your goat meat, how often do you make soup? Would you say
frequently, some of the time, not very often or never?

1. Frequently
2. Some of the time
3. Not very often
4. Never
9. Ref/DK/NA






64


Q13.1 When you cook your goat meat, how often do you make meat sauce? Would you
say frequently, some of the time, not very often or never?


Frequently
Some of the time
Not very often
Never
Ref/DK/NA


Q13.2 How often do you make chili when you cook goat meat?

1. Frequently
2. Some of the time
3. Not very often
4. Never
9. Ref/DK/NA

Q13.3 How often do you make meat loaf when you cook goat meat?


Frequently
Some of the time
Not very often
Never
Ref/DK/NA


Q13.4 When you cook your goat meat, how often do you broil it? Would you say ...

1. Frequently
2. Some of the time
3. Not very often
4. Never
9. Ref/DK/NA


Q13.5 When you cook goat meat, how often do you oven roast it?


Frequently
Some of the time
Not very often
Never
Ref/DK/NA









Q13.6 When you cook goat meat, how often do you have sausage made?

1. Frequently
2. Some of the time
3. Not very often
4. Never
9. Ref/DK/NA

Q13.7 When you cook your goat meat, how often do you barbeque the meat?

1. Frequently
2. Some of the time
3. Not very often
4. Never

9. Ref/DK/NA

Q13.8 Are there any other ways that you cook your goat meat?

1. Enter response

9. Ref/DK/NA


Q14. This section is about which meats you eat most often. Would you say that you eat
beef every day, more than once a week, once a week, more than once a month,
once a month, on special occasions or never?

1. Every day
2. More than once per week
3. Once per week
4. More than once per month
5. Once per month
6. Special occasions
7. Never [SKIP TO Q15]


9. Ref/DK/NA [SKIP TO Q15]






66


Q14.1 When you eat beef how much do you usually eat? Would you say less than /4
pound, 14 pound, 12 pound, 1 pound or more than one pound?


Less than one-fourth pound
One-fourth pound
One-half pound
One pound
More than one pound
Ref/DK/NA


Q15 And how often would you say that you eat chicken? Would it be ...

1. Every day
2. More than once per week
3. Once per week
4. More than once per month
5. Once per month
6. Special occasions
7. Never [SKIP TO Q16]
9. Ref/DK/NA [SKIP TO Q16]

Q15.1 When you eat chicken how much do you usually eat? Would you say less than 14
pound, 14 pound, 12 pound, 1 pound or more than one pound?


Less than one-fourth pound
One-fourth pound
One-half pound
One pound
More than one pound
Ref/DK/NA


Q16 What about turkey, how often do you eat turkey?


Every day
More than once per week
Once per week
More than once per month
Once per month
Special occasions
Never [SKIP TO Q17]
Ref/DK/NA [SKIP TO Q17]






67


Q16.1 When you eat turkey how much do you usually eat? Would you say less than /4
pound, 14 pound, 12 pound, 1 pound or more than one pound?

1. Less than one-fourth pound
2. One-fourth pound
3. One-half pound
4. One pound
5. More than one pound
9.Ref/DK/NA

Q17 And how often do you eat lamb?

1. Every day
2. More than once per week
3. Once per week
4. More than once per month
5. Once per month
6. Special occasions
7. Never [SKIP TO Q18]
9. Ref/DK/NA [SKIP TO Q18]

Q17.1 When you eat lamb how much do you usually eat? Would you say less than 14
pound, 14 pound, 12 pound, 1 pound or more than one pound?


Less than one-fourth pound
One-fourth pound
One-half pound
One pound
More than one pound
Ref/DK/NA


Q18 How often do you eat goat meat or chevon?


Every day
More than once per week
Once per week
More than once per month
Once per month
Special occasions
Never [SKIP TO Q19]
Ref/DK/NA [SKIP TO Q19]






68


Q18.1 When you eat goat/chevon how much do you usually eat? Would you say less
than 14 pound, 14 pound, 12 pound, 1 pound or more than one pound?


Less than one-fourth pound
One-fourth pound
One-half pound
One pound
More than one pound
Ref/DK/NA


Q19 How often do you eat fish or seafood?

1. Every day
2. More than once per week
3. Once per week
4. More than once per month
5. Once per month
6. Special occasions
7. Never [SKIP TO Q20]
9. Ref/DK/NA [SKIP TO Q20]


Q19.1 When you eat fish or seafood, how much do you usually eat? Would you say less
than 14 pound, 14 pound, 12 pound, 1 pound or more than one pound?


Less than one-fourth pound
One-fourth pound
One-half pound
One pound
More than one pound
Ref/DK/NA


Q20 And finally, how often do you eat pork?


Every day
More than once per week
Once per week
More than once per month
Once per month
Special occasions
Never [SKIP TO Q23]
Ref/DK/NA [SKIP TO Q23]









Q20.1 And when you eat pork how much do you usually eat? Would you say less than /4
pound, 14 pound, 12 pound, 1 pound or more than one pound?

1. Less than one-fourth pound
2. One-fourth pound
3. One-half pound
4. One pound
5. More than one pound
9. Ref/DK/NA

Q21 Question deleted (duplicate of Q 11)

Q22 DELETED

Q23. In your household, has your spouse consumed goat meat products?

1. Yes
2. No
3. Do not have spouse
8. Ref/DK/NA

[PROGRAMMER NOTE: IF Q23 = 3, SKIP Q36]

Q23.1 Have your children consumed goat meat products?

1. Yes
2. No
3. Do not have children [SKIP TO Q26.1]

9. Ref/DK/NA [SKIP TO Q26.1]

[PROGRAMMER NOTE: IF Q23.1 = 3, SKIP Q37]

Q24. Now I'd like to ask you the gender of your children. Remember, this is
confidential
and the answers will not be connected with your phone number in any way.

Q24.1 DELETED

Q24.2 Gender of first child under 18?

1. Male
2. Female
9. Ref/DK/NA [SKIP TO Q25]









Q24.3 DELETED

Q24.4 Gender of second child under 18?

1. Male
2. Female
3. No more children [SKIP TO Q25]
9. Ref/DK/NA [SKIP TO Q25]

Q24.5 DELETED

Q24.6 Gender of third child under 18?

1. Male
2. Female
3. No more children
9. Ref/DK/NA

Q25. If you and/or your spouse eat goat meat but your children don't, what are the
reasons your children don't consume the product?

[INTERVIEWER NOTE: CHOOSE ALL THAT APPLY]

[PROGRAMMER NOTE: YES/NO TOGGLE]

1. They don't like it
2. They were not reared where it was consumed regularly
3. It wasn't available
4. Their friends don't eat it, so they don't
5. Others (please list)
6. Ref/DK/NA
7. Exit

Q26. DELETED

Q26.1 To your knowledge, have any of the following family members eaten goat meat
products?

[INTERVIEWER NOTE: READ RESPONSES. CHOOSE ALL THAT APPLY]






71


[PROGRAMMER NOTE: YES/NO TOGGLE]

1. Mother
2. Father
3. In-Laws
4. Others [Please specify ]
5. Ref/DK/NA
6. Exit

Q27 I would like to know how you see goat meat products. Would you say your view
is:

1. Very positive
2. Positive
3. Somewhat positive
4. Neutral
5. Somewhat negative
6. Negative
7. Very negative
9. Ref/DK/NA


For the next few items, I'd like you to rate the importance of several factors in your
decision to buy or not to buy a goat meat product. Even if you do not currently consume
goat meat, please tell me how important the following items are in your decision to buy
goat meat and other kinds of meat.

Q28. How important are food page advertisements in your decision to buy goat meat?

1. Very important
2. Important
3. Neutral
4. Not very important
5. Not at all important
10. Ref/DK/NA

Q28.1 How important are food page advertisements in your decision to buy other meats?

1. Very important
2. Important
3. Neutral
4. Not very important
5. Not at all important
9. Ref/DK/NA






72


Q29. How important are store displays in your decision to buy goat meat?

1. Very important
2. Important
3. Neutral
4. Not very important
5. Not at all important
9. Ref/DK/NA

Q29.1 How important are store displays in your decision to buy other meats?

1. Very important
2. Important
3. Neutral
4. Not very important
5. Not at all important
9. Ref/DK/NA

Q30. How important are price specials in your decision to buy goat meat?

1. Very important
2. Important
3. Neutral
4. Unimportant
5. Not important at all
9. Ref/DK/NA

Q30.1 How important are price specials in your decision to buy other meats?

1. Very important
2. Important
3. Neutral
4. Unimportant
5. Not important at all
9. Ref/DK/NA

Q31. How important are in-supermarket taste tests in your decision to buy goat meat?

1. Very important
2. Important
3. Neutral
4. Unimportant
5. Not important at all
9. Ref/DK/NA






73


Q31.1 How important are in-supermarket taste tests in your decision to buy other meats?

1. Very important
2. Important
3. Neutral
4. Unimportant
5. Not important at all
9. Ref/DK/NA

Q32. How important are safety assurances such as USDA inspections of goat meat?

1. Very important
2. Important
3. Neutral
4. Unimportant
5. Not important at all
9. Ref/DK/NA

Q32.1 How important are safety assurances such as USDA inspections of other meats?

1. Very important
2. Important
3. Neutral
4. Unimportant
5. Not important at all
9. Ref/DK/NA

Q33. How important are convenience products such as sausage or ground meat from
goat meat?

1. Very important
2. Important
3. Neutral
4. Somewhat unimportant
5. Not important at all
9. Ref/DK/NA

Q33.1 How important are convenience products such as sausage or ground meat from
other meats?

1. Very important
2. Important
3. Neutral
4. Somewhat unimportant
5. Not important at all
9. Ref/DK/NA






74


Q34. How important is the fat content in goat meat?

1. Very important
2. Important
3. Neutral
4. Somewhat unimportant
5. Not important at all
9. Ref/DK/NA

Q34.1 How important is the fat content in other meats?

1. Very important
2. Important
3. Neutral
4. Somewhat unimportant
5. Not important at all
9. Ref/DK/NA

Q35. How important is the cholesterol content of goat meat?

1. Very important
2. Important
3. Neutral
4. Somewhat unimportant
5. Not important at all
9. Ref/DK/NA

Q35.1 How important is the cholesterol content of other meats?

1. Very important
2. Important
3. Neutral
4. Somewhat unimportant
5. Not important at all
9. Ref/DK/NA









For each of the following that I read to you, please rate how important each would be in
your decision to purchase goat meat products, just as you make decisions to buy beef,
poultry, or pork. Please use a scale of 1 to 5 where "1" is very important and "5" is not
important at all.

Q36. First, how important is your spouse's opinion on your decision to purchase or not
purchase goat meat products?

1. Very important
2. Important
3. Neutral
4. Somewhat unimportant
5. Not important at all
9. Ref/DK/NA

[PROGRAMMER NOTE: IF Q23 = 3, THIS QUESTION IS SKIPPED (Q36)]

Q37. How important are your children's opinions on your decision to purchase or not
purchase goat meat products?

1. Very important
2. Important
3. Neutral
4. Somewhat unimportant
5. Not important at all
9. Ref/DK/NA

[PROGRAMMER NOTE: IF Q23.1 = 3, THIS QUESTION IS SKIPPED (Q37)

Q38. How important is your own opinion on your decision to purchase or not purchase
goat meat products?

1. Very important
2. Important
3. Neutral
4. Somewhat unimportant
5. Not important at all
9. Ref/DK/NA

[PROGRAMMER NOTE: IF Q1 > 1, SKIP TO Q47]

Q39. DELETED


Q40. DELETED






76


Q41. How often does your family eat goat meat?

1. Weekly 5. Quarterly
2. Bi-Weekly 6. Special
occasions
3. Monthly 7. Refused
4. Less than quarterly 8. Don't know

Q42. Do you get your goat meat from .. .?

[INTERVIEWER NOTE: READ LIST, CHOOSE ALL THAT APPLY]

[PROGRAMMER NOTE: YES/NO TOGGLE

1. Supermarket
2. Farmer
3. A friend not a farmer
4. Farmer's Market
5. Grow our own
6. Restaurant
7. Other place (SPECIFY)
8. Ref/DK/NA
9. Exit

Q43. Would you be willing or not willing to join a consumer-farmer cooperative if
prices for goat meat were lower?

1. Willing
2. Not willing

9. Ref/DK/NA

Q44. Would you be willing or not willing to join a co-op if it had a more dependable
source of goat meat?

1. Willing
2. Not willing

9. Ref/DK/NA

Q45. Would you be willing or not willing to join a cooperative that grew its animals
organically?

1. Willing
2. Not willing






77


9. Ref/DK/NA

46. Would you be willing or not willing to join a cooperative that sold its members
fresh, never frozen goat meat?


Willing
Not willing
Ref/DK/NA


Q47. How many people live in your home?

number of people

99 Ref/DK/NA

[RANGE: 1 99]

Q48 How many of the people are less than 18 years old?

less than 18 years old

99 Ref/DK/NA

[RANGE: 0 99]

Now I just need to ask a few questions about you personally so that we can compare your
answers with different types of people.

Q49. What do you consider your race to be?


White [SKIP TO Q54]
African-American/Black [SKIP TO Q54]
Black Non African American [SKIP TO Q54]
Hispanic
Asian [SKIP TO Q54]
Multi-Racial (SPECIFY)( )[SKIP TO Q54]
Ref/DK/NA [SKIP TO Q54]









Q50. Are you of...?

[INTERVIEWER NOTE: READ RESPONSES. CHOOSE ONLY ONE]

1. Mexican descent
2. Cuban descent
3. Puerto Rican descent
4. Spaniard
5. Or Other (Please list)

7. Ref/DK/NA

Q51. Are you the 1st generation, 2nd generation or another generation to live in the
contiguous U. S. States?

1. 1st generation
2. 2nd generation
3. Other

9. Ref/DK/NA

Q52. DELETED

Q53. Which of your family members are Hispanic?

[INTERVIEWER NOTE: CHOOSE ALL THAT APPLY]

[PROGRAMMER NOTE: YES/NO TOGGLE]

1. Mother
2. Father
3. Spouse
4. Aunts or uncles
5. Cousins
6. Other
7. Ref/DK/NA
8. Exit









Q54. What is your age range?


Less than 20 years
20 24 years
25 34 years
35 44 years
45 54 years
55 59 years


60 64 years
65 74 years
75 84 years
85 years plus
Refused


Q55. What is the highest grade of school or year of college you completed?


High School Diploma/GED
Associate/Technical Degree
Some College
College Graduate
Post Graduate/Professional
Ref/DK/NA


Q56. INTERVIEWER: (If necessary: I know the answer to this question, but I am
required to ask. Are you:)


1. Male
2. Female
9. N/A


Q57. We're almost finished and I would like to ask what your total gross household
income for 2003 was I don't need an exact figure, just an approximate category.
So, from the list I am about to read to you, could you tell me if your total
household income was:


<$10,000
$10,000- $14,999
$15,000 $19,999
$20,000 $24,999
$25,000 $34,999
$35,000 $49,999
$50,000 $74,999
$75,000 $99,999
$100,000 or more


Don't Know
Refused


Q58. And finally, what state do you live in?

1. AL
2. AR
3. FL









4. GA
5. MS
6. NC
7. OK
8. LA
9. SC
10. TN
11. TX
99 Ref/DK/NA

This completes the survey and I want to thank you for taking the time to answer these
questions. Have a nice evening. Good bye.

IMPORT FIPS

IMPORT MSA/NON-MSA


QUOTA: 250 FOR EACH STATE















APPENDIX B
SUMMARY OF DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION


* Hispanics
E Cacausians
o Others


Had Consumed Willing to Try Had not Consumed
and Unwilling Try


Note: Chi-squared probability < .10.


Figure B-1. Respondents' consumption preference for goat meat by ethnicity/race.


* Male
O Female


Had Consumed Willing to Try Had not Consumed
and Unwilling Try


Note: Chi-squared probability < .05.


Figure B-2. Respondents' consumption preference for goat meat by gender.











60

50

40
40* HS Diploma or less
30 0 Some College

20-X 0 College Degree and above

10


Had Willing to Try Had not
Consumed Consumed and
Unwilling Try




Figure B-3. Respondents' consumption preference for goat meat by educational
attainment levels.


Had Consumed Willing to Try


Had not
Consumed and
Unwilling Try


* Mexican
O Puerto Rican
o Cuban
* Other


Figure B-4. Hispanic respondents' consumption preference for goat meat by origin.































Figure B-5. Hispanic respondents' consumption preference for goat meat by gender.


Figure B-6. Hispanic respondents' consumption preference for goat meat by educational
attainment levels.


40
Male
30
0z- El Female
20

10


Had Consumed Willing to Try Had not
Consumed and
Unwilling Try


8 30-
S* HS Diploma or less
20 O Some College
10-/ U I [O College Degree and above

0
Had Consumed Willing to Try Had not
Consumed and
Unwilling Try



























Figure B-7. Hispanic respondents' consumption preference for goat meat by generation in
United States.















LIST OF REFERENCES


Aldrich, John H., and Forrest D. Nelson. Linear Probability, Logit, and Probit Models.
Edited by Michael S. Lewis-Beck. Vol. 45, Quantitative Applications in the
Social Sciences. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, Inc., 1984.

Associated Press. 2005." Polling the 'Cell Phone Only' Crowd: Pollisters, Researchers
Tackle Hard-to-Track Population." In, Cable News Network,
http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/02/25/polling.cell.users.ap/index.html.
(accessed February 25, 2005).

Chen, Kevin, Murad Ali, Michele Veeman, Jim Unterschultz, and Theresa Le. "Relative
Importance Rankings for Pork Attributes by Asian-Origin Consumers in
California: Applying an Ordered Probit Model to a Choice-Based Sample."
Journal ofAgricultural and Applied Economics 34 (2002): 67-79.

Davis, Ernie and Zane Willard. 1996. "Goat Meat the "New" Lean Meat." In, Texas
A&M University, Texas A&M Agriculture News,
http://agnews.tamu.edu/dailynews/stories/AGEC/Dec2096a.htm. (accessed May
22, 2003).

Degner, L. Robert. "Should You Market Chevon, Cabrito, or Goat Meat." Paper
presented at the Regional Small Farm and Trade Show Conference, Tallahassee,
FL, November 7, 1991.

Degner, L. Robert and J. David Locascio. "Distribution of Goat Meat in Selected
Metropolitan Florida Markets." Gainesville, FL: University of Florida, Food
Resource Economics Department, Florida Agricultural Market Research Center,
1988.

Degner, L. Robert, and C. T. Jordan Lin. "Marketing Goat Meat: An Evaluation of
Consumer Perceptions and Preferences." University of Florida, Food Resource
Economics Department, Florida Agricultural Market Research Center, 1993.

Degner Robert, L., and Susan D. Moss. "The Florida Market for Goat Meat: 1999 Survey
of Florida Meat Wholesalers." Gainesville, FL: University of Florida, Food
Resource Economics Department, Florida Agricultural Market Research Center,
1999.

Dillman, Don. Mail and Telephone Surveys: The Total Design Method. New York:
Wiley-Interscience Publication, 1978.










Frey, James, A. Survey Research by Telephone. 2nd ed. Vol. 150. Newbury Park, CA:
Sage Publications, 1989.

Gipson, Terry A. 1999. Demand for Goat Meat: Implications for the Future of the
Industry. In Demand for Goat Meat: Implicationsfor the Future of the Industry,
Langston University, E(Kika)de la Garza Institute for Goat Research,
http://www2.1uresext.edu/goats/library/field/goatmeatdemand99.htm. (accessed
January 20, 2004).

Greene, William H. Econometric Analysis. 5th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson
Education, Inc., 2003.

Gujarati, Damodor. Basic Econometrics. International Edition 2003 ed. New York, NY:
McGraw Hill Irwin, 2003.

Harwell, Lynn. "Goat Marketing Strategies Along the East Coast." In Florida's Goat
Meat Industry, edited by James R. Simpson, 15-21: Florida Cooperative
Extension Service, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of
Florida, 1995.

Hui, Jianguo, Patricia E. McLean, and Dewitt Jones. "An Empirical Investigation of
Importance Rating of Meat Attributes by Louisiana and Texas Consumers."
Journal ofAgricultural and Applied Economics 27
(1995): 636-43.

James, N. A. and B. W. Berry. "Use of Chevon in the Development of Low-Fat Meat
Products." Journal ofAnimal Science 75 (1997): 571-77.

Johnson, Dwain. "Composition and Quality of Goat Meat Produced." edited by James R.
Simpson, 39-41: Florida Cooperative Extension Service, Institute of Food and
Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida, 1995.

Latalia, Thomas. "A Pseudo R2 Measure for Limited and Qualitative Dependent Variable
Models." Journal ofEconometrics 56 (1993): 341-56.

Lavrakas, Paul J. Telephone Survey Methods: Sampling, Selection, and Supervision.
Edited by Leonard Bickman. Vol. 7, Applied Social Research Method Series.
Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, Inc., 1987.


McKenzie-Jakes, Angela. 2004. "Markets for Goat Meat." In, Florida A&M University,
http://smallfarms.ifas.ufl.edu/Liverstock/goats.htm. (accessed July 18, 2003).









McLean-Meyinsse, Patricia E. "Assessing Factors Affecting Consumers' Decisions to
Shop at Stores Offering Specialty Meat." Journal ofFood Distribution Research
78 (1999): 134-39.

- "Assessing the Market Outlook for Rabbit Meat in Louisiana and Texas."
Journal ofFoodDistribution Research 31 (2000): 139-44.

Factors Influencing Consumption or Willingness to Consume a Variety of
Goat-Meat Products." Journal of Food Distribution Research 34 (2003): 72-79.

Melton, Bryan, E., Wallace E. Huffman, Jason F. Shogren, and John A. Fox. "Consumer
Preferences for Fresh Food Items with Multiple Quality Attributes: Evidence from
an Experimental Auction of Pork Chops." American Journal ofAgricultural
Economics 78 (1996): 916-23.

Miller, Pat. "Marketing Strategies for Goat Meat." In Florida's Meat Goat Industry,
edited by James A. Simpson, 22-26: Florida Cooperative Extension Service,
Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida, 1995.

Nelson, Mack C., N.B. Brown, Jr., S. Mobini, S. Gelaye, and S. Leak. "Production and
Marketing Challenges for Goat Producers: Implication for Supply and Demand."
Paper presented at the Professional Ag Workers Conference (PAWC), December
1999.

Ohio Cooperative Development Center. "Market Analysis of Meat Goat in Ohio".
Ohio Cooperative Development Center. Available at
http://ocdc.osu.edu/pdf/anal_proposal.pdf. Accessed on. (accessed February 19,
2004).

Peter, J. Paul, and James H. Donnelly, Jr. A Preface to Marketing Management. 9th ed.
New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Irwin, 2003.

Pinkerton, Frank, Lynn Harwell, William Drinkwater, Nelson Escobar. "Marketing Meat
Goats: Channels, Supply, and Demand." Langston University, OK: Oklahoma
Cooperative Extension Service, 1994.

Pinkerton, Frank, David Scarfe, and Bruce Pinkerton. "Meat Goat Productions and
Marketing." Langston University, E(Kika)de la Garza Institute for Goat Research,
1992.

Putnam, Judith Jones, and Jane E. Allshouse. "Food Consumption, Prices, and
Expenditures, 1970-97." edited by Economic Research Service (USDA-ERS)
U.S. Department of Agriculture, 196, April 1999.

Progressive Grocer. Progressive Grocer, 69th Annual Report of the Grocery Industry."
April 2002.










Rhee, K. S., C.E. Meyers, and D.F. Waldron. "Consumer Sensory Evaluation of Plain and
Seasoned Goat Meat and Beef Products." Meat Science 65 (2003): 785-89.

Rhee, K. S., M. Oltman, and J. Han. "A Consumer Survey of Goat Meat: Perception,
Knowledge, and Use." Sheep and Goat Research Journal 16 (2000): 111-16.

Russell, Jeremy. "Targeting Hispanic Consumers." National Provisioner 216 (2002): 44-
53.

Salant, Priscilla, and Don A. Dillman. How to Conduct Your Own Survey. New York:
Wiley, 1994.

Schupp, Alvin, Jeffery Gillespie, and Debra Reed. "Consumer Choice among Alternative
Red Meats." Journal ofFood Distribution Research 29 (1998): 35-43.

Sherman, David. 2002. Current Tends in Goat Production in the United States. In,
http://www.neahi.org.nejlah/articles/articles_goatmeat.html. (accessed May 22,
2003).

Simpson, James. "Introduction to Florida's Meat Goat Industry." In Florida's Goat Meat
Industry, edited by James R. Simpson, 1-4: Florida Cooperative Extension
Service, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida, 1995.

Smith, C. G., M. I. Pike, and Z. L. Carpenter. "Comparison of the Palatability of Goat
Meat and Meat from Four Other Animal Species." Journal ofFood Science 39
(1974): 1145-46.

Spaugh, Beth C. 1997. "Goat Carcass Characteristics." In, Cornell Cooperative
Extension, http://www.cce.cornell.edu/clinton/ag/goat-carcass.html. (accessed
August 20, 2004).

Tomek, William G., and Kenneth L. Robinson. Agricultural Product Prices. 3rd ed.
Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press, 1990.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2000. U.S. Census 2000. In,
http://factfinder.census.gov/home/saff/main.html?_lang=en. (accessed August 20,
2004).

U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistical Service (USDA-NASS).
2002. Census of Agriculture 2002. In, USDA-NASS, http://www.nass.usda.gov.
(accessed December 17, 2004).

Verbeek, Marno. A Guide to Modern Econometrics. Southern Gate, Chichester, West
Sussex, England: John Wiley & Sons, 2004.






89



Verbeke, Wim, Ronald W. Ward, and Jacques Viaene. "Probit Analysis of Fresh Meat
Consumption in Belgium: Exploring BSE and Television Communication
Impact." Agribusiness 16 (2000): 215-34.

Walsh, Robb. "Getting Your Goat." Natural History 104 (1995): 48-49.

Zachery, Nikki, and Mack C. Nelson. "Consumers Knowledge and Use of Goat Products:
An Atlanta Case Study." Paper presented at the Professional Ag Workers
Conference (PAWC), Tuskegee University, December 1992.














BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Erika Knight was in Warner Robins, GA. After graduating from Warner Robins

High School, she attended Fort Valley State University, Fort Valley, GA, and earned a

Bachelor of Science degree in agricultural economics. In August 2004, Erika began the

Food and Resource Economics Master of Science program and specialized in marketing.