In Search of the Niche—Targeting Lamb Meat Consumers in North-East Germany to Communicate the Ecosystem Services of Extensive Sheep Farming Systems
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This study attempts to explain the “In search of the niche - targeting lamb meat consumers in Germany to valorise the ecosystem services of extensive sheep 3 farming systems”. Despite that the number of respondents is limited, the manuscript is interesting and within the scope of the journal. A well orientated manuscript can help the sheep industry, particularly the producers. The manuscript itself has many opportunities for improvement. I consider that the Introduction, Results, Discussion, and Conclusion need to be edited. The Introduction is too long. In the Results section, it is important to separate the “discussion”. In the Discussion section, it is important to separate the “results”.I recommend to the authors to state their recommendation to the producers in the conclusion section.
I listed my other concerns below in the order I found them in the manuscript.
Abstract
I acknowledge that the abstract is limited in words; however, the authors need to provide more details regarding the survey. Summary of the questions asked in the survey. What was the target group? Age? Gender? Social status? Race? Only lamb meat consumers? Was the internet connection a limited factor? Was the living location (city vs. country) a limited factor? Notably, the area where the online survey was conducted has a population of 6.2 million. An online survey of 387 respondents is very limited.
- L14 – L17. As a consumer, the intrinsic factors are more important than the extrinsic ones. Indeed, intrinsic factors are influenced by extrinsic factors. Extrinsic factors play an important role in organic farms, and the consumers of organic products are limited. Organic products are not within reach of all meat lovers. As a consumer, is it important to know the ecosystem surrounding the production system? Beyond color, marbling, and breed?
- L22 – L23. Such as?
- L23 – L26. The results of these clusters do not make sense without knowing the background of the consumers. Were the results biased because of the limited number of respondents?
Introduction
The Introduction is long and needs to be edited. More clarity is necessary. The idea of providing information goes back and forth. I got lost in the information provided, and in the end, the Introduction did not lead to the study’s objectives.
- L38 – L39. Is the grassland similar across Germany? If not, please state the main differences in vegetation among areas (plain, hill, plateau, etc).
- L39 – L40. Why has sheep farming declined in the last decade? Please briefly state the main reasons (weather climate change, reduced available vegetation, lack of interest from sheep producers, reduced reproductive efficiency, etc).
- L43 – L45. Are you sure about this statement? Continuing and unlimited grazing increases soil degradation. How is grazing controlled in Germany? Is extensive grazing on private property or government-regulated property? Please edit the sentence to improve clarity.
- L46 – L51. While the idea of the strategy is to find a balance between animal production and the blueprint for environmental impact. How environmentally conscious meat consumption will be aligned with the strategy is unclear.
- L53 – L55. Please describe “extrinsic quality attributes”.
- L58 – L60. Are the authors referring to lamb meat products? Or products in general?
- L60 – L62. Same comment as before. Regarding meat production, please be more specific and describe intrinsic and extrinsic attributes.
- L64 – L68. Agree, but an extensive grazing system increases the methane blueprint. The ecological damage of intensive systems is because of the number of animals in confinement, but in theory, they produce less methane than animals eating only forage. A consumer prefers meat from a grazing animal because it is raised naturally. In contrast, meat from a confinement animal is fed with pelleted feed, which is “considered” with hormones or something related.
- L69 – L71. I do not see the relevance of comparing sheep vs. cattle.
- L71 – L77. The information sounds repetitive.
- L78 – L91. Perhaps this information is more relevant in the M&M section.
- L92 – L143. Although the information is relevant, it is too long and can be synthesized. The authors need to provide the most relevant information.
Material and Methods
Well described.
Results
Although the results are well described; I am unsure if most of the describing information belongs to the discussion section. The results must be concise.
- L240 – 241. Interestingly independent of income, price orientation was not significant.
- L342 – L357. This section can be moved to the discussion section.
Discussion
In the discussion section is important to do not repeat the information from the results section.
- L360 – L361. The described objective does not match the objective in lines 15-17.
- L360 – L364. The idea of the paragraph is not clear, please edit it. The conclusion goes to the conclusion section.
- L379 – L399. This section is very similar to section L342 – L357. Yet, it is not discussing the results observed in the analysis with others reported elsewhere.
- L395 – L396. Price orientation was not significant; yet, it is important in this cluster. Perhaps a further discussion about price orientation is needed.
- L396 – L397. You need to describe and discuss more other results. What are the similitudes between your study and the study conducted in Spain? What differed between both studies?
- L401 – L402. Once again, results belong to the result section. Here you need to discuss your results with the reported elsewhere. For example, “Figure 2 shows…”
Conclusion
The conclusion needs to be more concise and precise about the message the authors want to deliver. In the conclusion section you need to highlight your results and report the most important findings of your study; you cannot have a reference in this section. Based on your study what are you recommending? What is the recommendation to the producers? How can you improve the perception of the consumers?
Table and Figure
- .
-
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank you very much for reviewing our paper! We benefited greatly from your valuable recommendations on how to improve the paper.
Please find below our responses to your specific comments in Italics (sometimes with reference to the new corresponding page numbers).
We are looking forward to hearing from you.
the authors
This study attempts to explain the “In search of the niche - targeting lamb meat consumers in Germany to valorise the ecosystem services of extensive sheep 3 farming systems”. Despite that the number of respondents is limited, the manuscript is interesting and within the scope of the journal. A well orientated manuscript can help the sheep industry, particularly the producers. The manuscript itself has many opportunities for improvement. I consider that the Introduction, Results, Discussion, and Conclusion need to be edited. The Introduction is too long. In the Results section, it is important to separate the “discussion”. In the Discussion section, it is important to separate the “results”.I recommend to the authors to state their recommendation to the producers in the conclusion section.
I listed my other concerns below in the order I found them in the manuscript.
I thank you very much for your precise recommendations to better structure our paper and to clarify the study`s objective, producers challenges and potential solutions (marketing approaches) to make the paper more useful for the producers.
Abstract
I acknowledge that the abstract is limited in words; however, the authors need to provide more details regarding the survey. Summary of the questions asked in the survey. What was the target group? Age? Gender? Social status? Race? Only lamb meat consumers? Was the internet connection a limited factor? Was the living location (city vs. country) a limited factor? Notably, the area where the online survey was conducted has a population of 6.2 million. An online survey of 387 respondents is very limited.
Thank you for this comment. We added the missing information on the methodology and the sample in the abstract. Due to the limited word number, our answers to your other questions are as follows.
Summary of the questions asked in the survey:
L20ff: The abstract includes a summary of the sections of the questionnaire. Table 8 in the Appendix A lists the Question Items behind the Classifications.
What was the target group? Only lamb meat consumers?
L17: This is now specified in the abstract. Respondents were only lamb meat consumers in Berlin-Brandenburg.
Age? Gender? Social status? Race?
L18ff: We added information on representativity of the online survey.
Was the internet connection a limited factor? Was the living location (city vs. country) a limited factor?
Thank you for provoking this reflection! The sample is representative in terms of respondents form cities or the countryside. Therefore, we can`t confirm concerns about a limited internet connection in rural areas as exclusion criteria.
Notably, the area where the online survey was conducted has a population of 6.2 million. An online survey of 387 respondents is very limited.
Germany has an average lamb meat consumption of 0,6 kg per capita and year. Due to the missing cultural culinary background and the predominant production system in the region (diverse extensive grazing systems), the number of lamb meat consumers in Germany is limited. Thus it is difficult to find funding for larger sample sizes. Related cluster analysises in Spain (Aragon; 1,6 Mio. inhabitants, with a per capita consumption of 3,6 kg) relied on similar sample sizes.
- L14 – L17. As a consumer, the intrinsic factors are more important than the extrinsic ones. Indeed, intrinsic factors are influenced by extrinsic factors. Extrinsic factors play an important role in organic farms, and the consumers of organic products are limited. Organic products are not within reach of all meat lovers. As a consumer, is it important to know the ecosystem surrounding the production system? Beyond color, marbling, and breed?
Thank you for making us aware. Our focus was on regionally produced lamb meat. However, it is interesting to note that in Germany most lamb meat consumers consider “pasture-raised sheep” similar/parellel to “organic production”.
Extrinsic quality attributes beyond color, marbling and breed become increasingly important to certain consumer segments. The missing adaptation of their attitudes towards natural, extensive animal husbandry deserves attention, in particular the Attitude-Behaviour-Gap. Consumers prefer gras-fed lamb meat, thus displaying a clear preference for a certain production system. Extrinsic quality attributes are transported through additional information and are therefore depend on marketing. We refer to relevant sources in the text.
- L22 – L23. Such as?
L26: Thank you for this question! I specified the marketing term by target group specific communication.
- L23 – L26. The results of these clusters do not make sense without knowing the background of the consumers. Were the results biased because of the limited number of respondents?
We consider this point related to your general comment on the abstract and added information of the representativity and limitations of the sample. The overquotation of academics and high age of respondents is now mentioned as limitation in the conclusion section.
Introduction
The Introduction is long and needs to be edited. More clarity is necessary. The idea of providing information goes back and forth. I got lost in the information provided, and in the end, the Introduction did not lead to the study’s objectives.
Thank you for this clear statement. We restructured the introduction and added added a clarification of the study`s objectives.
- L38 – L39. Is the grassland similar across Germany? If not, please state the main differences in vegetation among areas (plain, hill, plateau, etc).
L41ff: Sheep production systems in Germany are very diverse. Traditionally, there is a low specialisiation of sheep farming, the more productive grassland is used for cattle. I described production systems in Germany more in detail to highlight that all systems face the same problems of economic viability.
- L39 – L40. Why has sheep farming declined in the last decade? Please briefly state the main reasons (weather climate change, reduced available vegetation, lack of interest from sheep producers, reduced reproductive efficiency, etc).
L45ff: I added this important information in.
- L43 – L45. Are you sure about this statement? Continuing and unlimited grazing increases soil degradation. How is grazing controlled in Germany? Is extensive grazing on private property or government-regulated property? Please edit the sentence to improve clarity.
Thank you for this question! The restructuring of the introduction lead to the omission of this phrase.
- L46 – L51. While the idea of the strategy is to find a balance between animal production and the blueprint (footprint) for environmental impact. How environmentally conscious meat consumption will be aligned with the strategy is unclear.
L51ff: Thank you for this reflection. We highlighted the most important aspects of the Farm to Fork Strategy as policy developments are usually a picture of demands mentioned by society. We restructured the introduction and hope to have improved the logic of this section
- L53 – L55. Please describe “extrinsic quality attributes”.
L68: We have now included an introduction to “extrinsic quality attributes” in the introductory section, leading to more clearity for the reader.
- L58 – L60. Are the authors referring to lamb meat products? Or products in general?
L64: Unfortunately, there is very limited literature on lamb. We therefore used the common Total Food Quality Model of K. Brunsø, T. A. Fjord, and K. G. Grunert (2002) to structure the expectations of lamb meat consumers.
- L60 – L62. Same comment as before. Regarding meat production, please be more specific and describe intrinsic and extrinsic attributes.
L66: We now described intrinsic quality attributes more specifically. Extrinsic quality attributes are now introduced in the introductory section.
- L64 – L68. Agree, but an extensive grazing system increases the methane blueprint. The ecological damage of intensive systems is because of the number of animals in confinement, but in theory, they produce less methane than animals eating only forage. A consumer prefers meat from a grazing animal because it is raised naturally. In contrast, meat from a confinement animal is fed with pelleted feed, which is “considered” with hormones or something related.
L78: I agree with your statement on the higher methane footprint of lamb from extensive production systems. Ecological friendliness is a complex concept with hidden information like the methane footprint. Therefore, I used the term “improved ecosystem services”, which is more specific and excludes the foot print (e.g. Conner et. al 2008).
- L69 – L71. I do not see the relevance of comparing sheep vs. cattle.
Due to the restructuring of the introduction, the sentence no longer contains a comparison between sheep and cattle.
- L71 – L77. The information sounds repetitive.
Thank you for highlighting this. We adapted the text accordingly.
- L78 – L91. Perhaps this information is more relevant in the M&M section.
We agree. The introduction of extrinsic and intrinsic quality attributes and consumers expectations are relevant to explain our objectives, whereas the consumers theories are more relevant for the conceptual framework.
- L92 – L143. Although the information is relevant, it is too long and can be synthesized. The authors need to provide the most relevant information.
We appreciate your clear recommendations for a new structure of the introduction. We therefore moved the consumer theories to the M&M section and the justification of using alphabet theory as a conceptual framework. We apologize to not have shortened the reflections of the consumer theories, but we consider them relevant to understand the diverse resources of the Alphabet theory.
Results
Although the results are well described; I am unsure if most of the describing information belongs to the discussion section. The results must be concise.
- L240 – 241. Interestingly independent of income, price orientation was not significant.
L364ff: Yes, that is correct. In the discussion section, we highlight this observation with a focus on life style of the cluster groups instead of on sociodemographics.
- L342 – L357. This section can be moved to the discussion section.
Thank you for this recommendation. We agree! We deleted this information here.
Discussion
In the discussion section is important to do not repeat the information from the results section.
- L360 – L361. The described objective does not match the objective in lines 15-17.
Thank you for highlighting this important mistake. We corrected the sentence with the right study objective.
- L360 – L364. The idea of the paragraph is not clear, please edit it. The conclusion goes to the conclusion section.
We agree! The idea was to introduce the discussion section and repeat the study`s objective for the readers. We now deleted this paragraph.
- L379 – L399. This section is very similar to section L342 – L357. Yet, it is not discussing the results observed in the analysis with others reported elsewhere.
Thank you for drawing our attention to this aspect. We deleted the section L342-357. Furthermore, we introduced results from two cluster analysis with lamb meat.
- L395 – L396. Price orientation was not significant; yet, it is important in this cluster. Perhaps a further discussion about price orientation is needed.
The sentence was not correct. There is no significance and Uninvolved showed a small price orientation. We corrected the statement to not overvalue price orientation. Furthermore, we discussed price orientation in 4.1 target groups .
- L396 – L397. You need to describe and discuss more other results. What are the similitudes between your study and the study conducted in Spain? What differed between both studies?
Thank you for this comment. We added more information on two studies with cluster analysis in Spain on lamb meat, including the number of participants in their surveys to show the participant rate in related studies.
- L401 – L402. Once again, results belong to the result section. Here you need to discuss your results with the reported elsewhere. For example, “Figure 2 shows…”
We agree and tried to discuss more of our results in this section, especially similarities to two studies in Spain.
Conclusion
The conclusion needs to be more concise and precise about the message the authors want to deliver. In the conclusion section you need to highlight your results and report the most important findings of your study; you cannot have a reference in this section. Based on your study what are you recommending? What is the recommendation to the producers? How can you improve the perception of the consumers?
Your questions were a good guideline to provide more precise conclusion. Thank you for this.
Reviewer 2 Report
The strengthof this paper can be said to be its search of extrinsic quality attributes of niche marketing of lamb meat in Berlin-Brandenburg, Germany. The explorative analysis is commendable. However, this reviewer has following comments/questions.
1) A better explanation of Alphabet theory will be needed to make the readers understand what is it and how it is applicable in this paper to clarify/explain the objectives. According to the writings in the introduction, attitudes make a difference (impacts) behavioural acts, but this could not be found in the conceptual framework shown in Fig. 1. It is also not clear how attitudes are associated with habits, and attitudes impact behaviour directly or through habits. This clarification will be needed to support the findings of the paper summarized in Fig. 2, as well.
2) It seems the research framework was developed based on a systematic literature review, however, the details of the systematic literature review is missing. This reviewer finds it hard to understand the research framework and how different is it from conceptual framework or how these two frameworks are related. A separate section on systematic literature review, with the outocme of the review and developing of research framework based on it will be necessary.
3) Clear definition of clusters, its identification process, vis-a-vis the existing literature will be necessary to understand the clusters used for analysis in this paper.
4) All together how many variables were there from the survey is not clear. Due to lack of complete descriptive statistics this reviewer cant check and assess the figures given in percentage, like female/male respondents, major cities respondetns and so on.
5) In discussion, authors say that primary target groups (cooking enthusiasts and foddies) "may be empowered to contribute to valorisation of ecosystem services.....". However, this reviewer couldnt find in the paper how they can be empowered. Deeper analysis, better with causal inference, will be needed to make this statement more meaningful and present the foundation (research outcome) to not only support the title of the paper but also make the paper more robust.
6) Some mentions on the clusters of passionless cooks and uninvolved in the discussion and conclusion sections dont seem to have much siginificance, to contribute to valorisation of ecosystem services. More explanationations will be needed to contextualize them.
7) This study is done in Berlin-Brandenburg regions (the mega city region in the heart of the country?), how far will it be possible to generalize the findings to whole Germany; say for example Saarland, or sheep farming/herding region in the south and so on.
8) Consumption of the sheep meat for both the primary target groups is 4-6 times a year leading to maximum 12 times a year. This frequency of consumption (no idea the amount and or the value in Euro) makes this author to doubt valorisation of ecosystem services of sheep farming using the words, prosumers and post-materialism. More logical explanations with evidence are needed to relate the two.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank you very much for reviewing our paper! We benefited greatly from your valuable recommendations on how to improve the paper.
Please find below our responses to your specific comments in Italics.
We are looking forward to hearing from you.
The authors
The strength of this paper can be said to be its search of extrinsic quality attributes of niche marketing of lamb meat in Berlin-Brandenburg, Germany. The explorative analysis is commendable. However, this reviewer has following comments/questions.
1) A better explanation of Alphabet theory will be needed to make the readers understand what is it and how it is applicable in this paper to clarify/explain the objectives. According to the writings in the introduction, attitudes make a difference (impacts) behavioural acts, but this could not be found in the conceptual framework shown in Fig. 1. It is also not clear how attitudes are associated with habits, and attitudes impact behaviour directly or through habits. This clarification will be needed to support the findings of the paper summarized in Fig. 2, as well.
We agree! We tried to embed alphabet theory more visible in our conceptual framework by moving the explanation of the consumer theories and alphabet theory to the Material and Methods section. We explained Figure 1 and the visualised effects and dependencies of the showed factors more specifically.
We do not mention the explorative part of our study (literature review and focus group discussion) anymore. Instead, we reference the key findings from own earlier work in the introductory section.
2) It seems the research framework was developed based on a systematic literature review, however, the details of the systematic literature review is missing. This reviewer finds it hard to understand the research framework and how different is it from conceptual framework or how these two frameworks are related. A separate section on systematic literature review, with the outocme of the review and developing of research framework based on it will be necessary.
Thank you for this important hint. We described and structured the conceptual framework in an own section 2.1. conceptual framework. The word research framework is not used anymore. As explained in 1) due to the result that extrinsic quality attributes are important for purchasing decisions Alphabet theory came in our focus and is embedded in our questionaire. This can be seen in table 8 in the appendix. Table 8 shows the content of our items and the classification reflecting Alphabet theory.
3) Clear definition of clusters, its identification process, vis-a-vis the existing literature will be necessary to understand the clusters used for analysis in this paper.
The process of definition and labelling of the cluster groups is described in section 3.2. After the principal component analysis, all participants were clustered according the resulting factors. Table 3 shows the regression factor scores and the factors. The four factors are conscious consumption and post materialism, cooking aversion, knowledge about sheep farming and price orientation. We added the decisive factors in text form and, to prevent misunderstanding, I described the term Foodies in a foot note.
Literature regarding existing cluster groups for lamb meat are discussed in the discussion section.
4) All together how many variables were there from the survey is not clear. Due to lack of complete descriptive statistics this reviewer cant check and assess the figures given in percentage, like female/male respondents, major cities respondents and so on.
The questions, classification and content of the questions are in Table 8 in the Appendix. We used the common Games Howell Output and descpritive statistics of Kruskal Wallis for the cluster groups. According the respondents in percentage female/male, major cities, I add the descriptive statistics of the sociodemographics of all cluster types (table 7).
5) In discussion, authors say that primary target groups (cooking enthusiasts and foddies) "may be empowered to contribute to valorisation of ecosystem services.....". However, this reviewer couldnt find in the paper how they can be empowered. Deeper analysis, better with causal inference, will be needed to make this statement more meaningful and present the foundation (research outcome) to not only support the title of the paper but also make the paper more robust.
Thank you for your clear read. Through the review process we noticed that some sentences were not precise enough. The empowerment of Foodies and Cooking enthusiats need to be proven through further research. Our outcome are the target groups and the highlighting of the importance of the communication of extrinsic quality attributes for lamb meat.
6) Some mentions on the clusters of passionless cooks and uninvolved in the discussion and conclusion sections dont seem to have much siginificance, to contribute to valorisation of ecosystem services. More explanations will be needed to contextualize them.
We agree. In the discussion and conclusion section we now set a focus on the primary target groups. The passionless cooks and uninvolved are shortly named, but due to their missing support for economic viability of the sheep farmers, there is now deeper analysis of them.
7) This study is done in Berlin-Brandenburg regions (the mega city region in the heart of the country?), how far will it be possible to generalize the findings to whole Germany; say for example Saarland, or sheep farming/herding region in the south and so on.
We specified the study region in the header with North-East Germany. Furthermore we described the grassland types in Germany and their diverse production systems. The low added value of lamb is a national problem. On the consumer level, the results can be transfered to the whole of Germany if the socio-demographic data match.
8) Consumption of the sheep meat for both the primary target groups is 4-6 times a year leading to maximum 12 times a year. This frequency of consumption (no idea the amount and or the value in Euro) makes this author to doubt valorisation of ecosystem services of sheep farming using the words, prosumers and post-materialism. More logical explanations with evidence are needed to relate the two.
We are thankful, that you put the finger on our wide formulations and gave us the opportunity to specify the paper. Therefore we deleted the aspects of prosuming and specified the clear outcome of our study.
Reviewer 3 Report
I thank the authors for giving me the opportunity to read their interesting work; I have no relevant comments. The theoretical conceptual framework appears to be strongly related to the Theory of planned behavior (Ajzen). Perhaps only this aspect could, if corrected, be included.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank you very much for reading and reviewing our paper!
Please find below our responses to your specific comments in Italics.
We are looking forward to hearing from you.
The authors
I thank the authors for giving me the opportunity to read their interesting work; I have no relevant comments. The theoretical conceptual framework appears to be strongly related to the Theory of planned behavior (Ajzen). Perhaps only this aspect could, if corrected, be included.
We are thankful for your invested time to read our paper and comment. The conceptual Framework has due to a restructuring of the introduction a new chapter in the M&M section. We tried to embed the Alphabet theory more with our research objective and the observed extrinsic quality attributes of lamb meat.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript has been improved.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
again I thank you very much for your invested time and for the ideas to restructure a lot of my sections. I am happy to see the paper has improved in many ways.
With kind regards
Anne Wiedemann
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper is well revised and became more readable and understandable. After the revision, is the title of the paper to be kept same or revise it as well to suit the revised paper. There is no word "valorise" anymore in the context.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Again I thank you very much for your invested time and your sharpe view on my wording. You are totally right, that valorisation is one step ahead, this paper observes the communication of ecosystem services embedded in extrinsic quality attributes. I corrected the headline "communicate" instead of "valorise".
With kind regards
Anne Wiedemann
