These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

230 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 32271959)

  • 21. Determination of the effect of brand and product identification on consumer palatability ratings of ground beef patties.
    Wilfong AK; McKillip KV; Gonzalez JM; Houser TA; Unruh JA; Boyle EA; O'Quinn TG
    J Anim Sci; 2016 Nov; 94(11):4943-4958. PubMed ID: 27898955
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. An Exploratory Study of the Purchase and Consumption of Beef: Geographical and Cultural Differences between Spain and Brazil.
    Magalhaes DR; Maza MT; Prado IND; Fiorentini G; Kirinus JK; Campo MDM
    Foods; 2022 Jan; 11(1):. PubMed ID: 35010255
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Consumers' perceptions of intrinsic and extrinsic attributes as indicators of safety and quality of chicken meat: Actionable information for public health authorities and the chicken industry.
    Katiyo W; Coorey R; Buys EM; de Kock HL
    J Food Sci; 2020 Jun; 85(6):1845-1855. PubMed ID: 32469089
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. A comparison of consumer sensory acceptance and value of domestic beef steaks and steaks from a branded, Argentine beef program.
    Killinger KM; Calkins CR; Umberger WJ; Feuz DM; Eskridge KM
    J Anim Sci; 2004 Nov; 82(11):3302-7. PubMed ID: 15542477
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Beef quality labels: A combination of sensory acceptance test, stated willingness to pay, and choice-based conjoint analysis.
    Meyerding SGH; Gentz M; Altmann B; Meier-Dinkel L
    Appetite; 2018 Aug; 127():324-333. PubMed ID: 29792892
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Untrained consumer assessment of the eating quality of beef: 1. A single composite score can predict beef quality grades.
    Bonny SPF; Hocquette JF; Pethick DW; Legrand I; Wierzbicki J; Allen P; Farmer LJ; Polkinghorne RJ; Gardner GE
    Animal; 2017 Aug; 11(8):1389-1398. PubMed ID: 27829474
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Health Is Wealth: Study on Consumer Preferences and the Willingness to Pay for Ecological Agricultural Product Traceability Technology: Evidence from Jiangxi Province China.
    Chen X; Shang J; Zada M; Zada S; Ji X; Han H; Ariza-Montes A; Ramírez-Sobrino J
    Int J Environ Res Public Health; 2021 Nov; 18(22):. PubMed ID: 34831514
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. How do human values influence the beef preferences of consumer segments regarding animal welfare and environmentally friendly production?
    Sonoda Y; Oishi K; Chomei Y; Hirooka H
    Meat Sci; 2018 Dec; 146():75-86. PubMed ID: 30103081
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Capturing consumer value and clustering customer preferences in the Indonesian halal beef market.
    Mahbubi A; Uchiyama T; Hatanaka K
    Meat Sci; 2019 Oct; 156():23-32. PubMed ID: 31125944
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Beef consumer segment profiles based on information source usage in Poland.
    Żakowska-Biemans S; Pieniak Z; Gutkowska K; Wierzbicki J; Cieszyńska K; Sajdakowska M; Kosicka-Gębska M
    Meat Sci; 2017 Feb; 124():105-113. PubMed ID: 27865127
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Consumer impressions of Tender Select beef.
    Shackelford SD; Wheeler TL; Meade MK; Reagan JO; Byrnes BL; Koohmaraie M
    J Anim Sci; 2001 Oct; 79(10):2605-14. PubMed ID: 11721839
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Credence quality coordination and consumers' willingness-to-pay for certified halal labelled meat.
    Verbeke W; Rutsaert P; Bonne K; Vermeir I
    Meat Sci; 2013 Dec; 95(4):790-7. PubMed ID: 23688800
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Consumers' preference and willingness to pay for graded beef in Polokwane municipality, South Africa.
    Makweya FL; Oluwatayo IB
    Ital J Food Saf; 2019 Mar; 8(1):7654. PubMed ID: 31008083
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Consumer preferences and willingness to pay for safe pork products in rural Kenya.
    Gichuyia CM; Mtimet N; Fèvre EM; Thomas LF; Gathura PB; Onono JO; Akaichi F
    Meat Sci; 2024 May; 211():109450. PubMed ID: 38350245
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. An overview on production, consumer perspectives and quality assurance schemes of beef in Mexico.
    Parra-Bracamonte GM; Lopez-Villalobos N; Morris ST; Vázquez-Armijo JF
    Meat Sci; 2020 Dec; 170():108239. PubMed ID: 32682175
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Consumer acceptance of calcium chloride-marinated top loin steaks.
    Carr MA; Crockett KL; Ramsey CB; Miller MF
    J Anim Sci; 2004 May; 82(5):1471-4. PubMed ID: 15144088
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Recognition of Consumers' Characteristics of Purchasing Farm Produce with Safety Certificates and Their Influencing Factors.
    Wang J; Gao Z; Shen M
    Int J Environ Res Public Health; 2018 Dec; 15(12):. PubMed ID: 30558279
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Consumer visual preference and value for beef steaks differing in marbling level and color.
    Killinger KM; Calkins CR; Umberger WJ; Feuz DM; Eskridge KM
    J Anim Sci; 2004 Nov; 82(11):3288-93. PubMed ID: 15542475
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Influence of quality labels on the formation of preferences of lamb meat consumers. A Spanish case study.
    Bernabéu R; Rabadán A; El Orche NE; Díaz M
    Meat Sci; 2018 Jan; 135():129-133. PubMed ID: 28968556
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Consumer perception of marbling and beef quality during purchase and consumer preferences for degree of doneness.
    Benli H; Yildiz DG
    Anim Biosci; 2023 Aug; 36(8):1274-1284. PubMed ID: 37170519
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 12.