Participants and procedures

A cross-sectional study was conducted using non-probability sampling directed at the entire student community of the Facultad de Medicina Veterinaria y Zootecnia (FMVZ) “Dr. Norberto Treviño Zapata” of the Universidad Autónoma de Tamaulipas (UAT), from March to April 2021. All students were invited to participate voluntarily by e-mail. All responses were confidential with informed consent.

The questionnaire, validity, and reliability

The questionnaire was constructed with Google Forms, with access through the web link (https://drive.google.com/open?id=1f5S1dNoYEmSqJnzBPBWNedrdvdgDdBqMZtzQ3_gkSuI) and QR codes from a Gmail account, based on reported studies (^{Kjaernes & Lavik 2007}; ^{Mazas et al., 2013}).

In the first block of questions (n=9), socioeconomic information was obtained from the surveyed students: gender (Fe: female and Ma: male), desired area of interest in professional practice (AP: production and AM: medicine), parental economic dependence, number of family members, monthly family income, family expenditure for meat consumption, the person who buys meat. By counting the participating students according to their professional advancement, the training nucleus (TN) was obtained. Basic: (first to third semester); Disciplinary: (fourth to sixth semester) Professionalization: (seventh to tenth semester). The second block consisted of questions (n=20) on the perception of AW as an attribute to be incorporated in meat during the production process on a Likert-type scale (1: totally disagree; 2: partially disagree; 3: neither agree nor disagree; 4: partially agree and 5: totally agree). The third block (n=9) included questions on the perception of AW as an attribute to be included in the meat during the labeling process on a Likert-type scale (1: strongly disagree to 5: strongly agree). The fourth block (n= 9) consisted of questions on the knowledge of production units certified in Mexico with animal welfare (1: low, 2: medium, 3: high). The fifth block (n= 23) dealt with the preference for meat consumption due to the attributes or characteristics present on a Likert scale (1: totally disagree to 5: totally agree).

Content validity

The questionnaire items were evaluated by expert judgment (^{Escobar-Pérez & Cuervo-Martínez 2008}; ^{Mazas et al., 2013}). Each expert answered nine questions related to the content of the questionnaire with a Likert scale from 1 to 5 (1: strongly agree; 2: disagree; 3: not sure; 4: agree; 5: strongly agree), as described by ^{Marquez-Sandoval et al. (2014}). Then, the content validity index was calculated, as indicated by ^{Hernández-Nieto (2002}) using the formula proposed by ^{Pedrosa et al. (2014}).

CVC = CVC i-Pei

CVCi = Validity coefficient for each reagent

Pei = error assigned to each reagent

The method of ^{Hernández-Nieto (2002}) assesses the degree of agreement between the judges for each item and requires a minimum of three (^{Pedrosa et al., 2014}); likewise, these authors recommend maintaining the content validity coefficient (CVC) higher than 0.80, according to the proposed formula.

The validation process

Reproducibility, validity, and internal consistency was completed with the application of the peer-reviewed instrument to a pilot group (n=50). Validity was calculated as a measure of sampling adequacy with the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) test (^{Mazas et al., 2013}). The KMO contrasts the partial correlations between variables and can be used to determine whether the variables have an invariant dimensional structure. The KMO statistic varies between 0 and 1. A value less than 0.5 indicates that the correlation between these variables is not sufficiently significant. Bartlett's sphericity test was performed (Mazas et al., 2013), which contrasts the null hypothesis of the correlation matrix of the variables, in which case said variables are not correlated. The analysis of internal consistency or reliability was carried out using Cronbach's α coefficient (^{Ledesma et al., 2002}; Mazas et al., 2013), considering an index higher than 0.70 as respectable.

Data Analysis

Exploratory factor analysis was used to describe the total sample variation by reducing the original data set dimension, minimizing the loss of information by transforming a set of correlated response variables into a new set of uncorrelated variables (^{Herrera-Haro & García-Artiaga, 2019}). The obtained responses in Google Forms were downloaded to a database (csv) and saved as an Excel spreadsheet, xlsx, Microsoft package, version 2016. SPSS v.25 statistical software was used for data analysis, and significance was declared with a p-value < 0.05. In the descriptive analysis, quantitative variables were expressed as mean (standard deviation) and the t-test was used to assess differences between these variables. Qualitative variables were expressed as frequencies (percentages).

Socioeconomic characteristics and meat preference of FMVZ students

The total enrollment of students was 508. A total of 244 (48%) participated in the study: of which 56% were female and 44% male (Table 3). There was no difference in participation according to gender ((2, p = 0.073). The percentage distribution of area of occupational interest (AOI) was also not different ((2, p = 0.073). The training core (TN) was different among the three groups ((2, p = 0.0001). Economically dependent students were 54% and independent students were 46% ((2, p > 0.05). The values of who buys meat: parents (71%), self (20%), and relatives (7%) ((2, p < 0.05).

On the other hand, household income was: 71% earned less than 480.7 USD; followed by 24% who reported an income between 480.7 and 961.5 USD per month and only 5% had a household income higher than 961.5 USD per month ((2, p = 0.0001). The number of household members was 4.5 ± 1.4. Fifty-four percent of the students were dependent on their parents for economic support. The frequency of meat consumption by species showed that chicken meat was the most consumed, more than three times a week (50%), followed by beef, consumed less than twice a week (48%). Sixty-five percent of the students reported in two years not having eaten turkey ((2, p = <0.0001). 53% ((2, p = <0.0001) sheep meat and goat meat 65% ((2, p = <0.0001).

Obtained data suggest that, if meat were equally priced per kilogram, meat consumption preference would have the following hierarchy, from highest to lowest: beef, chicken, pork, fish, sheep, goat, and turkey.

Perception of animal welfare during the production process. The results on AW showed that 46% of the students had a positive perception (Figure 3A). However, 39% considered a negative one and 15% were neutral ((2, p = 0.0083). In the occupational area of interest, it was observed that 25% of students in the area of medicine (AM) considered it harmful to incorporate AW as an attribute, these agreed with 14% of respondents in the area of animal production (AP). The neutral response of students with interest in the AM area was lower (5%) compared to the AP group (10%) ((2, p = 0.0083). Both groups (AP 21% and AM 25%) had a positive response totaling 46%. Both GE and TN had significant differences in the perception of well-being ((2, p = 0.2014 and (2, p = 0.5537). The perception in the factor analysis by components is shown in Table 4. The female gender favored the incorporation of AW as an attribute of the meat for the production process, compared to the male gender (Wilcoxon, p = 0.048). The students that formed the basic NT agreed (Kruskal-Wallis, p = 0.0076) with respect to the other cores in the incorporation of AW as an attribute.

Animal welfare during the labeling process. Students were largely positive about the inclusion of AW information as an attribute of meat in the labeling process (Figure 3B). Seventy-seven percent were positive, followed by 15% negative, and 7% neutral ((2, p = 0.0001). No differences were observed in relation to GE ((2, p = 0.2581) or by NT (p > 0.05). Nor in relation to AOI ((2, p = 0.4506). In the factor analysis by components, no differences were observed for GE (Wilcoxon, p = 0.999) or TN (Kruskal-Wallis, p = 0.166), but differences were observed for AOI (Wilcoxon, p = 0.0152; Table 4). Most students considered the incorporation of AW into the labeling process to be positive.

Knowledge about production units certified in Mexico with animal welfare. The results of knowledge of certified production units in Mexico with AW are shown in Figure 3C. Most students had high knowledge (82%), followed by medium knowledge (11%) and only 7% obtained low knowledge ((2, p = <0.0001). No differences were observed by GE ((2, p = 0.8922), TN ((2, p = 0.2410), or AOI ((2, p = 0.1351). There were no differences by component (p ≥ 0.05, Table 5).

Figure 3 . Perception of the students about animal welfare as an attribute to incorporate into the meat during the process of A) production, B) labeling, and C) knowledge. Based on the GE (gender, F: Female and M: Male); TN (training core, B: Basic, Disciplinary, and P: professionalizing) and AOI (area of occupational interest, AP: Production and AM: Medicine. T: total population). *** p < 0.001. 

Meat consumption preference by meat attributes

Preference for meat consumption by attributes: nutritional, meat sensory (flavor, odor, color, fat content, and juiciness), and market (brand, packaging, cut selection, label, advertising, product seasonality, and animal welfare practices) was better valued by the female gender (CI, Wilcoxon p = 0.0293). This is shown in Figures 1 and 2. It was also observed that there were no differences in the valuation of meat consumption preference, due to meat attributes as a function of AOI, nor by NT (p > 0.05 Table 6).

Figure 1. Meat consumption frequency. 

Figure 2. Preference of meat consumption by species if it had the same price per kilogram. 

Socioeconomic Characteristics and Meat Preferences of FMVZ Students

The students of the basic and disciplinary core were more participative compared to those of the professionalizing core. ^{Ceballos-Olvera et al. (2021)} reported that this was due to the greater empathy of the students for the AW topic, in the first semesters of the veterinary career. Similarly, most students in the first semesters rely on their parents to buy meat for family consumption. Forty-six percent are not economically dependent. The family income of the majority is less than USD 480.7 per month. This figure is considered low-income (^{Alvarado-Lagunas et al., 2012}). The majority of FMVZ-UAT students come from low-income families, and some may have to seek income-generating activities while studying.

The number of family members was 4.5, similar to that reported by ^{INEGI (2021)}. On the other hand, ^{Núñez-López et al. (2012}) concluded that the size of the family (2 to 5 members, 79.5%) influenced the amount and frequency of meat consumed per week. The lower the income, the inclusion of other less preferred species was observed. In low-income families, chicken and pork were consumed. ^{Alvarado-Lagunas et al. (2012}) found that in the Valley of Mexico, the purchase and preference of chicken were influenced by the number of family members (the more people, the lower the consumption), income (only 11.6% had a high income, USD 913.39 per month), and price (the higher the price, the lower the purchase). In the present study, it was observed that the consumption of chicken meat was higher compared to other meats. However, beef would be the most consumed meat if the cost per kilogram did not differ among the different types of meat (Figure 2). Alvarado-Lagunas et al. (2012) reported that the preference for chicken meat was high, showing that the main motivation was its nutritional content. On the other hand, beef was ranked second in terms of preference, and this result is similar to that observed in the present research (Figure 1).

^{Schnettler et al. (2008}) showed that consumers in the Bio-Bio and Araucanía regions of Chile had a preference for beef and chicken, and therefore had higher consumption. Similarly, a national trend for chicken consumption was observed in Mexico. Per capita consumption was 33 kg in 2020, making it the most consumed meat by the Mexican population (UNA, 2021). The consumption preference for beef is consistent with that reported by ^{Alvarado-Lagunas et al. (2016}), where the consumption preference of young people aged 14 to 21 years in the city of Monterrey is preferably beef. Consumption by students takes place outside the home, and it is also considered a healthy food.

Perception of Animal Welfare During the Production Process

^{Segovia et al. (2005}) found that psychological factors and intrinsic and extrinsic attributes of the meat determine beef consumption behavior. On the other hand, ^{Mondragón-Ancelmo et al. (2018}) found that the type of animal was important for the type of finished product. Barbacoa, a regional Mexican dish, was created by the influence and customs of the region. ^{Núñez-López et al. (2012}) reported that the purchase of beef was related to: family tradition (46.3%), ease of preparation (42.7%), and price (28.9%). ^{Ortega-Gutiérrez et al. (2020}) showed that consumption in Ciudad Cuauhtémoc and Delicias Chihuahua (Mexico) was 1 to 2 kg of beef/week. This practice is related to ease of preparation and family tradition, but not to income level. In general, the veterinary and zootechnical student population in northeastern Mexico has a preference for chicken and beef consumption, due to ease of access and family tradition.

AW is positively associated with the quality of meat products (^{De Aluja, 2011}) because it minimizes animal suffering, as animals are considered sensitive beings, and enriches the marketing strategies of meat products (^{Del Campo, 2006}). In Italy, 48% of consumers accept the social responsibility of AW and therefore there is a demand for products with AW attributes (^{Vecchio & Annunziata, 2012}). In the Papaloapan region of Veracruz, Mexico, 42% of consumers would be willing to pay 5% more for beef with certified quality and safety (^{Vilaboa-Arroniz et al., 2009}). For their part, ^{Miranda de la Lama et al. (2017}) showed that consumers in self-service stores are willing to pay for a product certified with good AW practices. Therefore, it can be shown that the perception of AW will be positioned with a greater boom in the coming years and will be a value-added attribute in meat products in the domestic market.

In the context of veterinary and zootechnical students, PAs, compared to MEs, promote the implementation of AW practices in the production process. This can be explained by the fact that jobs in PA depend on the sale of live animals or meat products. They also depend on the sale of feed, feedlots, or TIF (Federal Inspection Type) slaughterhouses.

Animal Welfare During the Labeling Process

Similarly, Jiménez (2011) reported that students from the three university faculties of medicine, engineering, and agronomy in Santiago de Chile considered it positive that the label of the meat product should have an animal welfare seal. If it existed, they would pay more for it, in addition to the intrinsic qualities of the meat and the price. Customers in the state of Mexico, Mexico want the label to show information on health, environmental protection, AW, or benefits for local producers (^{Santurtún-Oliveros et al., 2012}). ^{Alonso et al. 2020} point out that in the last two decades, the number of consumers has increased. They demand more ethical production systems and refuse to buy products that do not comply with AW concerns. Therefore, there is an interest among students to obtain information on the treatment of animals and thus have a higher quality product label. This is reflected in the establishment of AW policies. In this study, a discrepancy was observed between the desire for the inclusion of AW in product labeling (total 77%) and the positive perception of the implementation of AW in production (total 46%). More emphasis may be needed in the basic courses to clarify the aspects related to production and labeling with AW.

Knowledge of Certified Animal Welfare Production Units in Mexico

^{Alvarado-Lagunas et al. (2016}) found that students of the Faculty of Accounting and Administration in Monterrey, Mexico, in their majority (91%), indicated that they did not know the meaning of AW, production systems, or feedlots. These results may be because students of veterinary medicine and animal husbandry have subjects related to AW: Bioethics Seminar, Animal Management, and Behavior, while this is not the case with careers in the field of exact sciences: Engineering and Accounting.

The majority of students had high knowledge (82%), followed by medium knowledge (11%) and only 7% were low. In this sense, Jimenez, (2011) found a segmentation of 33% of informed students and the rest had no knowledge or were indifferent to pork attributes: product traceability and product origin.

Preference of Meat Consumption by Meat Attributes

The difference by gender was because they have a high level of emotional empathy for animals compared to male students (^{Paul & Podberscek, 2000}). Another explanation may be that women are in charge of shopping for food preparation at home. They check the labels at the time of purchase. ^{Ortega-Gutiérrez et al. (2020}) reported that in the cities of Cuauhtémoc (74%) and Delicias (78%) in Chihuahua, Mexico, women are the ones who decide on the type of meat consumed at home.

Obtained data show that chicken is consumed more than three times a week, followed by beef, twice a week. This is in agreement with ^{Alvarado-Lagunas et al. (2012}), who reported that the preference for chicken meat was high. The main reason for its consumption was the consideration of high nutritional value, with beef in second place (^{Schnettler et al., 2008}; UNA, 2021). The preference for beef consumption is also consistent with that reported by Alvarado-Lagunas et al. (2016) where beef consumption was through grilled beef tacos, hamburgers, or stews. These authors mention that this student consumption is frequently carried out outside the home, and young people consider it to be a healthy food. ^{Segovia et al. (2005}) suggest that psychological factors and consumer characteristics determine beef consumption behavior. Also, ^{Núñez-López et al. (2012}) suggest that beef purchase was related to family tradition (46.3%), ease of preparation (42.7%), and price (28.9%). Similarly, ^{Ngapo et al. (2017}) mentioned that the Mexican market is influenced by a variety of domestic consumer preferences: Mexico City, Guadalajara, Hermosillo, and Veracruz. They also observed that the most important criterion was fat coverage, with 62% preferring low coverage and marbling, and 59% preferring no marbling. This was followed by dark red meat color (29%) and light red color (24%).

Preference for meat consumption based on meat attributes was better evaluated by the female gender, perhaps because of emotional empathy or because of shopping and observing labels (^{Paul & Podberscek, 2000}; ^{Ortega-Gutiérrez et al., 2020}).