<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<article article-type="research-article" dtd-version="2.3" xml:lang="EN" annotation-version="1.0"><front><journal-meta><journal-id journal-id-type="hwp">mmb</journal-id><journal-id journal-id-type="publisher-id">mmb</journal-id><journal-title>Meat and Muscle Biology</journal-title><abbrev-journal-title abbrev-type="full">MMB</abbrev-journal-title><issn pub-type="epub">2575-985X</issn><publisher><publisher-name>American Meat Science Association</publisher-name></publisher></journal-meta><article-meta><article-id pub-id-type="publisher-id">rmc2016.010</article-id><article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.221751/rmc2016.010</article-id><article-categories><subj-group subj-group-type="heading"><subject>2016 Reciprocal Meat Conference – Consumer Topics</subject></subj-group></article-categories><title-group><article-title>Survey of Attitudes for Non-Millennial Lamb Consumers</article-title></title-group><contrib-group><contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="yes" contact-id="0" contact-type="auto"><name><surname>Wall</surname><given-names>K.</given-names></name><aff>Texas A&amp;M University, College Station, TX, USA</aff></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" contact-id="0" contact-type="auto"><name><surname>Kerth</surname><given-names>C.</given-names></name><aff>Texas A&amp;M University, College Station, TX, USA</aff></contrib></contrib-group><pub-date pub-type="ppub"><month>09</month><year>2018</year></pub-date><volume>1</volume><issue>2</issue><fpage>9</fpage><lpage>9</lpage><permissions><copyright-year>2018</copyright-year><copyright-holder>American Meat Science Association</copyright-holder><license license-type="open-access"><p>This is an open access article distributed under the CC BY-NC-ND license (<ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/</ext-link>)</p></license></permissions><abstract><sec><title>Objectives</title><p>The lack of interest in consuming lamb is evident among the non-millennial population. Our objective was to determine the attitudes of millennial consumers of lamb products by conducting an online survey.</p></sec><sec><title>Materials and Methods</title><p>The survey was constructed using Qualtrics software and distributed using the university’s alumni email list. Participants were selected within the non-millennial population (ages 35 and older) and residing in the U.S. Chi Square was used to analyze the responses with ɑ set at 0.05.</p></sec><sec><title>Results</title><p>Participants (<italic>n</italic> = 7,081) reported consumption of the following protein sources either away from or at home: 99.1% chicken, 98.6% beef, 94.0% pork, 96.7% fish, 77.2% lamb, 96.9% eggs, and 31.1% soy-based products. 17.2% of participants eat lamb at least once every 2 wk (<italic>P</italic> &lt; 0.0001), 25.2% eat lamb once a year, 28.0% eat lamb once every 6 mo, 30.0% eat lamb once every 3 mo. Participants reported eating lamb most frequently (<italic>P</italic> &lt; 0.0001) in the spring (March to May) and winter (December to February) at 34.0 and 30.0%, respectively, and 21.0% consume the most lamb in the month of April (<italic>P</italic> &lt; 0.0001). When asked where consumers consume the most lamb, 55.0% responded away from home (<italic>P</italic> &lt; 0.0001), and 32.0% responded at home. On a 5-point scale, 90.0% selected their experience consuming lamb has been “excellent” or “good” (<italic>P</italic> &lt; 0.0001), and 91.0% answered being satisfied with the eating quality of lamb at least 3 out 5 times (<italic>P</italic> &lt; 0.0001). Only 33.0% of the consumers reported growing up eating lamb (<italic>P</italic> &lt; 0.0001), and 90.0% selected having a positive first experience consuming lamb (<italic>P</italic> &lt; 0.0001). Consumers declared choosing lamb over other protein sources 62.0% of the time due to flavor. When asked what origin of lamb consumers preferred, 66.0% selected no preference and only 21.0% selected American lamb (<italic>P</italic> &lt; 0.0001). Consumers were prompted to distinguish between lamb and mutton, and 41.0% were “uncertain, they never tried both” (<italic>P</italic> &lt; 0.0001); whereas, only 13.0% selected that there are distinct differences. 91% of consumers felt less than “okay” about preparing meat (<italic>P</italic> &lt; 0.0001). If lamb flavor were to be improved, 27.0% of the participants would definitely and 54.0% might consume more lamb (<italic>P</italic> &lt; 0.0001). If lamb tenderness were to be improved, 28.0% of the participants would definitely and 52.0% might consume more lamb (<italic>P</italic> &lt; 0.0001). If eating quality of lamb were to be more consistent, 30.0% of the participants would definitely and 51.0% might consume more lamb (<italic>P</italic> &lt; 0.0001). If lamb were to be implemented into the fast food industry, 35.0% of the participants would definitely and 38.0% might consume more lamb (<italic>P</italic> &lt; 0.0001). While 53.0% of the participants selected they had never looked to buy lamb at their local grocery store, 42.0% selected lamb is hard to find or that it was hit or miss.</p></sec><sec><title>Conclusion</title><p>These data can be used to guide further research and developments within the lamb industry to increase consumption among the non-millennial population.</p></sec></abstract><kwd-group><title>Keywords: </title><kwd>consumer</kwd><kwd>lamb</kwd></kwd-group></article-meta><custom-meta-wrap><custom-meta><meta-name>author</meta-name><meta-value>Wall K.</meta-value></custom-meta><custom-meta><meta-name>author</meta-name><meta-value>Kerth C.</meta-value></custom-meta></custom-meta-wrap><ar:concepts xmlns:ar="http://appliedrelevance.com"/></front><custom-meta-container><journal-date-data><jdate>2018-09-13</jdate></journal-date-data><journal-year>2018</journal-year><journal-month>09</journal-month><journal-title>Meat and Muscle Biology</journal-title><journal-issue>2</journal-issue><journal-fpage>9</journal-fpage><journal-volume>1</journal-volume><journal-lpage>9</journal-lpage><insert-date>September 13, 2018</insert-date></custom-meta-container></article>
