2015
DOI: 10.1007/978-3-662-46789-3
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The Role of Biotechnology in Improvement of Livestock

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

1
1
0

Year Published

2015
2015
2018
2018

Publication Types

Select...
2

Relationship

0
2

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 2 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 134 publications
1
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…According to the conjoint analysis (Table 3) for the entire sample, the attribute of greatest importance during the purchase process was the production technology, followed by the price, brand, fat content, and finally the package. The signs of the utility values indicate preference for milk from a conventional animal in keeping with previous studies that have evaluated the acceptance of GM foods (International Food Information Council, 2014;Lähteenmäki et al, 2003;Mucci et al, 2004;Siegrist, 2008;Schnettler et al, 2010Schnettler et al, , 2012 in both developed and developing countries, and cloned (Aizaki et al, 2011;Creative Research, 2008;International Food Information Council, 2008;Brooks & Lusk, 2010, 2011Saeed et al, 2015) in developed countries. Nevertheless, in the case of GM foods, it contradicts the results of studies carried out both in developing (Costa et al, 2000;Kimenju & De Groote, 2008;De Steur et al, 2010) and developed countries (Cox et al, 2011).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 81%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…According to the conjoint analysis (Table 3) for the entire sample, the attribute of greatest importance during the purchase process was the production technology, followed by the price, brand, fat content, and finally the package. The signs of the utility values indicate preference for milk from a conventional animal in keeping with previous studies that have evaluated the acceptance of GM foods (International Food Information Council, 2014;Lähteenmäki et al, 2003;Mucci et al, 2004;Siegrist, 2008;Schnettler et al, 2010Schnettler et al, , 2012 in both developed and developing countries, and cloned (Aizaki et al, 2011;Creative Research, 2008;International Food Information Council, 2008;Brooks & Lusk, 2010, 2011Saeed et al, 2015) in developed countries. Nevertheless, in the case of GM foods, it contradicts the results of studies carried out both in developing (Costa et al, 2000;Kimenju & De Groote, 2008;De Steur et al, 2010) and developed countries (Cox et al, 2011).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 81%
“…New food technologies enable innovations in the food sector, though consumers do not equally accept all technologies (Saeed et al, 2015;Siegrist, 2008). Consumers may express concerns and fears about novel technologies such as genetically modified (GM) foodstuffs, nanotechnology and animal cloning, rejecting those technologies (Bánáti, 2011) which otherwise may provide useful solutions that are also in the consumers' interest (Bánáti, 2011;Mandaci et al, 2014;Ghazaei et al, 2015).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%