A survey of Kansas beef producers and consumers who participate in business-to-consumer marketing of beef

Abstract Following the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, producer and consumer interest in business-to-consumer (B2C) beef sales increased. The objective of the current study was to assess current B2C beef producer and consumer attitudes and understandings of the B2C beef marketing process in order to identify knowledge gaps and strategies to improve producer/consumer interactions. Both producers and customers of local beef were recruited using a large online platform (https://shopkansasfarms.com), and descriptive statistics were used to summarize the data. In total, 41 B2C beef producers and 174 consumers who had either previously participated in B2C marketing or intended to participate were surveyed. Most producers (69.8%) only produced beef and produced only a small number (1 to 20 head) of animals per year. Many (43.9%) reported selling 100% of beef directly to consumers, while 29.3% reported selling less than 20% through this channel. Almost all (97.3%) of the producers indicated that increased sales directly to consumers would be desirable, with most (87.1%) considering this marketing channel as the most profitable. Marketing beef in smaller portions, including portioned cuts, was popular, reported by more than 62% of producers, while whole carcass sales were lower. Word-of-mouth (91.3%) and social media (65.8%) were the most popular forms of advertisement used by producers and more than one-third of producers (38.9%) reported having trouble with customers regarding a sale. Over 60% of consumers indicated they had purchased B2C beef less than 5 times, with more than 73% indicating that more than 75% of their beef purchased was local. Low take-home weights, portion sizes, and quality were among consumers’ most cited troubles. Lack of freezer space (25%), price (24.9%), and quantity of product (41.7%) were reported as the largest barriers to consumer participation in B2C marketing. Both consumers and producers indicated that consumer testimonials would be the most beneficial in improving producer/consumer interactions, with educational materials from government sources viewed as the least beneficial. These results provide a baseline for B2C beef marketing and provide insight into impactful strategies to use to assist in this process.


Introduction
Business-to-consumer (B2C) marketing refers to businesses selling their products directly to end-product consumers as opposed to other businesses (Kumar and Raheja, 2012).From an agricultural products standpoint, this type of marketing is commonly found in farmers' markets, on-farm stores, roadside stands, pick-your-own operations, and online marketplaces.Consumers' interest in local foods is robust, with direct-marketed agricultural food product sales totaling over $9 billion nationally and over $166 million for the region consisting of Kansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota in 2020 (USDA-NASS, 2022).In the meat industry, such B2C marketing has traditionally been more limited due to the added challenges associated with animal harvest and the need for carcass processing and cold-chain management.Despite this, consumer and food service interests in and demand for direct-marketed beef have been growing (Telligman et al., 2017;McKay et al., 2019).

Participant Selection
The participants for this study were beef producers and customers with direct B2C beef purchasing experience in Kansas.Both groups were invited to complete the survey to share their experience, knowledge, and challenges toward B2C beef markets.The participants were recruited in two channels.First, the researchers identified 113 farmers and ranchers listed as sellers of beef at the Shop Kansas Farms website (https://shopkansasfarms.com/) and sent the survey invitation via email.In addition, the organizer of the Shop Kansas Farm group posted the invitation to the survey on their social networking site.The Shop Kansas Farm group was developed in the midst of COVID-19 to help farmers and ranchers sell meat and other agricultural products directly to consumers.Including more than 160,000 members, Shop Kansas Farms has become one the most trusted online platforms in providing a link for direct-to-consumer marketing for both farmers and consumers.Using these two recruitment protocols, a total of 43 beef producers and 174 consumers completed the survey and were included in the survey.It is recognized that using such a recruitment method may have not included consumers and producers who do not participate in the Shop Kansas Farms website; however, no method to identify and reach such producers and consumers existed and was available.

Questionnaire Development, Data Collection, and Data Analysis
The questionnaire was developed based on the study objectives.Participants were asked to indicate their experience and their attitudes toward/satisfaction with B2C beef marketing experience.The survey only asked producers and consumers questions that directly related to their individual experiences; thus a varied number of participants were included for each question set.Data were collected online using Qualtrics, an online survey system.Descriptive statistics such as frequency, percentages, means, and standard deviation were used to summarize the data using SPSS (Version 27.0).

Beef Producer Survey
In total, 43 producers participated in the survey, with 41 indicating they sold beef (Table 1) and stating they had previously participated in B2C beef marketing.Of the beef producers surveyed, only 30.2% sold livestock species in addition to beef, with the majority (69.8%) selling only beef.Half (50%) of the surveyed producers indicated they sold between 1 and 20 total animals in 2020, followed by 15.8% who sold 21 to 40, with 21% selling more than 80 heads (Table 2).This indicates two populations of producers who participated in B2C beef sales-those who had small numbers of animals produced and sold primarily through B2C channels and those who had larger animal numbers and sold a smaller portion of animals through B2C channels.This was further supported by the reported customer basis for beef sales.Beef sales directly to individual customers represented 100% of cattle sold for 43.9% of producers surveyed, but another 22% of producers indicated only 1% to 20% of their animal sales were directly sold to individuals.This helps to support the idea of the 2 main populations of producers who sell into B2C markets.
Additionally, sales to large beef packers represented 81% to 99% of sales for 14.6%, and 61% to 80% of sales for 7.3% of producers, with the majority (70.7%) reporting selling 0% of cattle to these companies (Table 2).It is also noteworthy that the overwhelming majority of surveyed beef producers reported not selling beef to supermarkets (92.7%) or to foodservice (92.7%).Whether these marketing channels are not available to, have potential limitations, or have just not been explored by these producers is unclear.Previous work has indicated selling local products through an intermediate such as a supermarket or restaurant results in 3 times the value compared to selling directly to consumers (Low and Vogel, 2011).Additionally, larger farms are more likely to sell through an intermediate, with close to 70% of large farms selling locally sourced foods through an intermediate, compared to less than 30% of small farms (Low and Vogel, 2011).Thus, selling products to local restaurants or supermarket chains may offer an overlooked opportunity for greater profitability for Kansas B2C beef producers.Other marketing channels including live auctions and beef raised for personal consumption were also practiced by the surveyed producers.
When asked about their perceptions regarding beef marketing channels, producer opinions varied based on channel (Table 3).When asked about the desirability of increased sales of beef directly to individuals, 97.3% of producers indicated such increases would be either somewhat or very desirable, with none indicating that increased B2C sales would be undesirable.The reverse trend was true when asked about sales to large beef processors.A total of 40.6% of producers indicated that increased sales of beef to large processors would be at least somewhat undesirable, with only 25% indicating it would be desirable.Though most producers indicated they did not sell directly to restaurants or foodservice operators, 62.5% indicated increased sales to these customers would be desirable.However, in another marketing channel where producers indicated low involvement, only 29% indicated increased sales to supermarkets would be desirable.This  difference between perceptions related to foodservice and supermarkets is interesting, as the vast majority of producers indicated they did not sell beef to these customer bases, but yet had very different opinions on the desirability of such sales.Some of these differences in opinions related to preferred marketing channels can be supported by the producers' opinions related to the profitability of each (Table 4).Local branding of beef products has been shown to be advantageous, with local ground beef previously shown to generate premiums of $2.82/ kg (Stutzman, 2020) and resulting in improved consumer perceptions of eating quality (Harr et al., 2022).In the current study, when asked to rank the profitability of the various marketing channels, 87.1% of producers indicated sales directly to individual customers or B2C as the most profitable, with all producers ranking B2C marketing in the top 3 for profitability.Conversely, 74.2% of producers identified other channels (including live auctions and personal consumption) in the bottom 2 for profitability, with more than half (51.6%) identifying it as the least profitable.However, few producers (<20%) had indicated they sold beef through these channels.It is also noteworthy that 83.9% of producers indicated sales to restaurants in the top 3 for profitability, with 6.5% considering it the most profitable, highlighting the previously discussed perceptions related to desirability for increased sales through this channel.This belief is justified, as local food on menus drives consumer demand when sold at premium prices compared to selling local foods at the same price as commodity foods (Alfnes and Sharma, 2010) and are thus more profitable for restaurants.
Sales to supermarkets were not viewed as profitable by producers, with 64.5% classifying such sales in the bottom 2 markets based on profitability.Again, sales to large beef processors seemed to divide producers, with 35.5% indicating sales through this channel in the top 2 for profitability, but 45.2% classifying it in the bottom 2 for the same trait.This is likely due to the large differences in beef marketing programs currently available to producers by large processors.Beef producers selling to large packers as part of an alternative marketing arrangement often are eligible to market cattle on quality-based premium grids or formula-based marketing in which animals that produce the most desirable, and thus profitable, traits are rewarded with higher premiums (Muth et al., 2008).However, in most cases, this requires beef producers to have sufficient animal numbers and consistent supply for negation of such marketing arrangements with packers.As reported, many of the producers who participated in the current survey had smaller numbers of heads, thus likely limiting their ability to negotiate with packers for the highest premiums and thus likely influencing their profitability in selling cattle through this channel.Text responses can be found in Table 2 Finally, although no reported producers in the current study indicated sales through farmers' markets, farmers' markets are a common form of B2C marketing of agricultural goods, including meat items.However, challenges related to cold-chain management of frozen meat items may make such marketing channels difficult for beef producers selling meat.Additionally, consumers have shown an unwillingness to pay premiums for food products sold at farmers' markets (Printezis and Grebitus, 2018), thus providing some economically related justification to the surveyed producers avoiding this marketing channel.
Table 5 details producer responses to questions specifically regarding their sales of beef to individual customers in the B2C format.It is clear that the number of producers who sell beef directly to individual customers has increased over time, with 50% of the surveyed producers selling in the B2C format for less than 5 yr and only 22.3% selling beef directly to individual customers for more than 10 yr.Of sales, more than 55% of producers indicated that 75% or more of their sales were from returning customers, compared to only 13.9% of producers who reported no returning customers.The high level of repeat customers is not surprising, as consumers who participate in local food purchases often have a high level of trust in the quality of local beef and an established trust with local producers through the relationships such B2C marketing brings (Telligman et al., 2017).
In terms of beef products sold, most (48.6%)producers sold beef in forms that offered the most flexibility for marketing and sales, including selling as a whole carcass, side, quarter, portion cuts, or the same with the added option of a butcher bag (Table 5).Relatively few (8.6%) sold beef only as a whole carcass, and fewer (5.7%) reported selling only as carcass halves.Overall, varied methods of selling beef cuts were reported, with no single grouping or option of cuts comprising more than roughly a third of producers surveyed.In terms of marketing methods utilized, the vast majority (91.3%) of producers indicated they marketed using multiple methods.Word of mouth (91.3%) was the most popular, followed by social media (65.8%), other marketplaces (54.5%; such as Shop Kansas Farms and Facebook Marketplace), stand-alone websites (17.2%), and farmers' markets (14.4%).It is noteworthy that the producers surveyed were in part recruited using a list of producers who had previously utilized the Shop Kansas Farms marketplace, and therefore, this marketing channel may have been overrepresented within the surveyed population.Previous work in Oklahoma showed word-ofmouth marketing and the use of social media have been highly effective and have resulted in increased sales of local beef for producers (Langusch, 2021).Overall, these results indicate a variety of marketing methods were utilized by producers to help attract individual customers to their B2C beef offerings.
As the prevalence of B2C beef sales has increased, there is an increased likelihood of negative consumer interactions and complaints to producers.Table 6 outlines producer responses related to negative consumer interactions, complaints, and concerns.Of the producers surveyed, almost 40% (38.9%) reported a consumer complaint/ trouble.Of these, 42.6% reported the customer had problems with the product yield or take-home weight from the animal.Product price or extra charges (such as processing costs) were cited as the reason for the complaints by 49.8% of producers.Only 7.1% of producers indicated customers' complaints were about product quality.A total of 42.6% of producers included more than one reason for previous customer complaints.Of the 14.3% of producers who indicated "other" consumer complaints, the most commonly identified troubles were associated with order cancelations, lack of knowledge of the process, workmanship, and inspection status.When faced with a complaint, 92.9% of producers indicated they worked to try and resolve the issue, with providing customer education or explanation, and providing a discount as the most common attempts made.Though most producers attempted to resolve the issues, only 75% reported that their attempt resulted in satisfaction for their customers.This number of complaints associated with various parts of the B2C beef process coupled with the number of customers who ended their process unsatisfied (25% of those with complaints) highlights the need for increased education, communication, and resources for those involved with B2C marketing of beef.When asked to rate the perceived effectiveness of resources to improve customer experience and prevent future complaints, producers reported widely different opinions related to effectiveness (Table 7).Most of the producers indicated improved consumer knowledge (79.5%) and processor knowledge (65.7%) would be either very or extremely effective at preventing complaints as compared to only 59.4% who indicated improved producer knowledge would be at least very effective.A large majority (78.8%) of producers indicated they thought improved communication between consumers and producers would be at least very effective in preventing future complaints, with 69.7% indicating improved processor and consumer communication would be as effective.In terms of resources to improve customer knowledge, only 31.3% to 45.2% of producers indicated they thought prepared resources provided by state extension sources, USDA or KDA, or non-government sources would be at least very effective, with more than 20% of producers classifying resources from such sources as either only slightly or not effective at all.Producers were much more positive about the impact of customer testimonials, with >77% of producers indicating they thought such resources would be very or extremely effective for improving consumer knowledge.The exact same trends were observed when asked about educational resources to improve processor and producer knowledge, with educational resources from government and non-government entities viewed as very effective or more by only 51% to 56% of producers and testimonials from customers viewed as very or extremely effective by 77% of producers.These results are insightful to the way beef producers who participate in B2C marketing both receive information as well as how they believe their customers receive similar information.Testimonials from customers who have gone through the B2C process were widely viewed more favorably than resources prepared by outside entities to help educate both producers and consumers.Efforts to create such resources to help bridge the knowledge gap should highlight customers' previous experiences to be most impactful for future customer/producer interactions and sales in the B2C format.Including processing fees and disposal fees.
3 Question appeared only to producers who responded yes to attempted to resolve issue.
Producer and consumer survey of business-to-consumer marketing

7
As previously discussed, the COVID-19 pandemic resulted in large interest in B2C beef marketing, with increased interest in B2C marketing across multiple Midwestern states (Langusch, 2021).A large number of producers in the current study reported the short amount of time they had been selling B2C beef, due in part to increased demands from the pandemic.Table 8 outlines producer responses to questions related to their businesses post-2020 to gauge the change the pandemic may have had.The majority (61%) of producers indicated sales directly to individual customers had increased since 2020, with most (75% to 87%) reporting sales to large beef packers, foodservice, and supermarkets were about the same.More than a third (35%) of producers indicated that they first started selling beef in a B2C format in response to increased beef sales to consumers following 2020.An additional 30% of producers indicated they increased the amount of beef they produced to help meet the increased demand for direct-marketed beef following 2020.
Finally, Table 9 shows details regarding the business operation of the surveyed B2C beef producers.More than 78% of producers indicated they were either very or extremely interested in increasing sales of beef in the B2C format, with only 3.1% indicating they were not interested at all.In terms of finances, almost all producers (90.6%) indicated they tracked their finances using either a ledger with manual calculation or using a tax software, with 84.4% being somewhat or very satisfied with using these methods.Close to 20% of producers indicated they were at least somewhat dissatisfied with their ability to detect financial opportunities and challenges within their business, but 61.3% were satisfied with their ability to maximize their profit potential.Only one beef producer (3.3%) utilized a benchmarking service to compare the performance of their operations, although all who did not use the benchmarking service reported they would use such services if they were developed.These results underscore the importance of providing assistance to B2C beef producers in relation to their business model and profitability.
Currently, no such benchmarking services exist for B2C beef producers as they do for other agricultural commodities.Our results would indicate that if such services were created, they would potentially be highly utilized and relied upon by this group of producers.

Consumer Survey
A separate survey was conducted in order to assess consumer perceptions about the B2C beef marketing process.In total, 174 consumers participated, of which 93.1% indicated they had previously purchased beef directly from beef producers.Consumers who indicated they had previously purchased beef were provided one set of questions, while consumers who indicated they had yet to purchase beef were directed to a different set of questions.Of the consumers who had previously purchased beef from producers, the majority (67.8%)Text responses can be found in Table 2 2 Question appeared only to producers who responded an increase in individual consumer and foodservice sales in 2020.
3 Business-to-consumer (B2C) is a business model in which consumers purchase products directly from a business.reported purchasing other animal products in addition to beef, with a total of 10 different non-beef meats and animal products reported (Table 10).Of the consumers, 52.9% reported purchasing beef in a B2C format only 1 to 5 times, while 21.9% had purchased beef directly from the producers >10 times (Table 11).Most (63.1%) of the consumers indicated they had purchased beef in a B2C format for a period of <5 yr, providing further evidence of the growth and interest in this form of beef marketing during and following the COVID-19 pandemic.Of particular note, 79.4% of consumers identified their knowledge level of the purchasing process as less than or equal to moderately knowledgeable, indicating that though they were participating in the market, they felt like there was more to know and understand than what they felt at their current level.Moreover, the vast majority (96.2%) of consumers indicated they had only purchased products from 1 to 5 different producers, providing additional evidence of the high level of repeat purchases through the same customer/producer relationship that was highlighted in the producer survey and provides further evidence of the level of trust that consumers gain through their relationships with local producers (Telligman et al., 2017).
The forms of beef purchased by consumers varied widely and were reflective of the producers' survey responses (Table 11).The most popular form of purchase was portion cuts, reported by 47.2% of customers, with beef sides (29.5%), quarters (26.5%), and whole carcasses (8.8%) also purchased.These data seem to indicate that customers preferred the ability to purchase fewer pounds of product in the form of cuts, quarters, and sides compared to whole carcasses.Whole beef carcasses typically produce a relatively large quantity of product for customers, with a typical 363 kg carcass producing 202 kg of retail product (McKillip et al., 2018).Many customers may not have the freezer storage space to store such an amount, and therefore have sought out opportunities to purchase lower quantities of beef, and thus portion cuts or quarters may better fit their needs.
The majority (73.2%) of consumers indicated that more than 75% of the beef they purchase is through local B2C beef producers.Of the consumers who indicated they had previously purchased beef in a B2C format, 63.1% indicated it was their first purchase (Table 12).Consumers reported a varied number of ways that they were able to locate producers, including by personal recommendation (36.2%), through social media (23.9%), other marketplaces (28.5%), and through stand-alone websites (2.5%).These are very similar to the marketing channels identified by producers, with word-ofmouth marketing being reflected in the recommendation response of consumers.Social media was also a very common channel, and one that producers had indicated putting efforts into as well.Again, the other marketplace included Shop Kansas Farms, which was used to help recruit consumers for the survey and thus would be expected to be represented in the data, with the possibility of this estimate being inflated.Of the other methods identified, most (66.7%) consumers reported a personal relationship with the producer for beef purchases.
A high percentage (94.3%) of consumers indicated that they had never experienced trouble or had a complaint regarding their beef purchase (Table 13).Of those that did, reasons were varied and included issues related to take-home weight, product quality, portion size, tenderness, and processor issues.Of the consumers who identified low take-home weights, 66.7% reported not requesting organ meat and requesting boneless products, both of which would reduce the total amount of product yield from an animal, with bone and fat weight typically representing between 20% and 22% of the overall carcass weight and ordering all cuts boneless typically resulting in an additional 2% of carcass weight lost through discarded bones (McKillip et al., 2018).Interestingly, only 44.4% of customers who said they had previously experienced an issue reported the producer attempted to resolve the issue, which is a much lower rate than what was identified in the producer survey.Of those who did attempt to help, strategies included providing additional beef or providing an explanation/education for the customer, with 75% of consumers reporting they were satisfied with the producer's response.This is reflected in the 100% of consumers who reported that despite the trouble, they intended to continue to purchase B2C beef due to multiple reasons including they were overall pleased with the product quality, wanted to support the local economy, or intended to switch producers.
Of the consumers who identified not purchasing local beef yet (Table 14), most (91.7%) reported they probably or definitely would.When asked about the barriers to purchasing beef in the B2C format, cost was identified by 24.9% of consumers.This is in-line with previous studies that have identified the high up-front cost as a major barrier for consumers to enter the B2C market (Langusch, 2021).Moreover, a lack of freezer space or product quantity was identified by 66.7% of consumers as the major barrier.This is in agreement with the responses of customers who had purchased B2C beef and identified purchasing portion cuts at a greater rate than whole carcasses or carcass halves.The Table 13.Summary of responses from consumers who previously purchased beef in a business-to-consumer (B2C) 1 format regarding complaints or concerns (N = 174) ability for producers to offer smaller portions in the form of portion cuts or beef quarters may offer an opportunity for greater sales and new customers if the storage quantity demands of B2C beef can be reduced through innovative marketing strategies by producers.
When asked about strategies on how to improve the B2C system and strategies to avoid future complaints and concerns, consumer responses did not differ much from the producer responses (Table 15).Overall, 56% to 62% of consumers identified improved knowledge of consumers, producers, and processors would be either very or extremely effective, though only 61.6% identified improved consumer knowledge would be this beneficial, a much lower percentage than was identified by producers.Improved communication between consumers and beef producers (71.9%) and between consumers and processors (73.8%) were also believed to be either very or extremely effective at preventing future complaints.This was slightly lower for the producer and consumer communication question than what was identified by producers, in which more than 78% felt improved communication between consumers and producers would be at least very effective.This shows a discrepancy between how producers and consumers feel about this relationship, with producers feeling as if communication needs to be better between the two groups, while consumers have lesser concerns about this communication.
Interestingly, consumers had similar feelings about the effectiveness of resources generated through government and non-government resources as producers (Table 15).Less than 44% of consumers felt additional resources from state extension sources, the USDA or KDA, or non-governmental sources would be either very or extremely effective.More than 30% of consumers identified resources from USDA and KDA as either only slightly effective or not effective at all.But, similar to producers, personal testimonials were viewed very favorably.75% of consumers thought additional consumer testimonials would be either very or extremely effective at preventing future issues.The strong agreement between both producer and consumer responses related to the need for greater numbers of consumer testimonials and the perceived value of these in preventing future issues is noteworthy.Such consumer testimonials have been shown to be highly effective marketing tools, but can negatively influence sales if the consumer reviews appear to be exaggerated (Shimp et al., 2007).Nonetheless, efforts to improve the B2C model and the relationship between consumers and producers in marketing beef through this channel should focus on consumer testimonials and the individual customer's experience through all aspects of the process from identification of producers, understanding the processing of the animal, through end-product yield and storage.Such testimonials would provide a valuable link between consumers and producers that can help build understanding and trust and ultimately provide a successful foundation for B2C beef marketing.

Conclusion
Interest from both consumers and producers in B2C marketing of beef has increased in recent years.A lack of a full understanding of the process by consumers coupled with producers not fully understanding how to enter and grow within this market has created unique demands on the system.Data from the current work underscores the importance of continued and improved communication between producers and consumers for success, with needs for educational materials to help eliminate potential problems.Both consumers and processors identified personal testimonials among the most impactful, and future educational efforts should focus on their inclusion.Moreover, the large amount of beef from a single animal and the required storage space were viewed as barriers for new consumers to participate in B2C marketing.Thus, producers should increase their ability to market smaller portions and lower volumes of cuts, such as the sale of portion cuts as opposed to sides or whole carcasses, in order to increase consumer ease and willingness to participate in the B2C model.Business-to-consumer marketing of beef offers both consumers and producers the ability to participate in the local food system.Therefore, efforts are needed and should continually be made in order to help facilitate positive interactions for such B2C beef sales.

Table 1 .
Summary of business-to-consumer (B2C) beef producers responses regarding food animal production(N = 43)

Table 2 .
Summary of responses related to beef sales practices from business-to-consumer (B2C) beef producers(N = 41) 1IncludingCargill, Tyson, National Beef, etc.   2Question appeared only to producers who responded an estimate of cattle sold through other market channels.

Table 5 .
Summary of responses from business-to-consumer (B2C) beef producers regarding sales to individual consumers(N = 41)

Table 6 .
Summary of responses from business-to-consumer (B2C) beef producers regarding complaints or concerns(N = 41) 1Question appeared only to producers who responded yes to experiencing trouble. 2

Table 7 .
Summary of responses from business-to-consumer (B2C) beef producers regarding complaints or concerns regarding options to prevent future complaints and concerns (N = 41) 2 United States Department of Agriculture.3KansasDepartment of Agriculture.4IncludingNational Cattlemen's Beef Association and Kansas Beef Council.5Questionappeared only to producers who responded extremely effective and very effective to improved producer knowledge and improved locker knowledge.

Table 8 .
Summary of responses from business-to-consumer (B2C) beef producers regarding estimation of changes in sales in 2020 compared to previous years(N = 41)

Table 9 .
Summary of responses from business-to-consumer (B2C) beef producers regarding business operations(N = 41)

Table 10 .
Summary of consumer responses regarding purchase of animal products from a local rancher or locker(N = 174)

Table 11 .
Summary of responses from consumers who previously purchased beef in a business-to consumer (B2C) 1 format (N = 174)

Table 12 .
Summary of responses from consumers who previously purchased beef in a business-to-consumer (B2C) 1 format regarding most recent purchase (N = 174) 1 Business-to-consumer is a business model in which consumers purchase products directly from a business, such as meat/livestock for slaughter directly from livestock producers.

Table 14
Summary of responses from consumers who have no experience purchasing beef in a business-to-consumer (B2C) 1 format (N = 174) 1 Business-to-consumer is a business model in which consumers purchase products directly from a business, such as meat/livestock for slaughter directly from livestock producers.

Table 15 .
Summary of responses from consumers who previously purchased beef in a business-to-consumer (B2C) 1 format regarding options to prevent future complaints and concerns (N = 174) Business-to-consumer is a business model in which consumers purchase products directly from a business, such as meat/livestock for slaughter directly from livestock producers.Question appeared only to consumers who responded extremely effective and very effective to improved consumer knowledge.
2 3 United States Department of Agriculture.4 Kansas Department of Agriculture.5 Including National Cattlemen's Beef Association and Kansas Beef Council.