Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Meat Science
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/meatsci
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history:
Received 5 February 2012
Received in revised form 25 February 2013
Accepted 4 April 2013
Keywords:
Beef
Price
Origin
Feed
Consumer
Conjoint
a b s t r a c t
The effect of country of origin (local, Switzerland, Argentina, Uruguay), nishing diet (grass, grass plus
concentrate, concentrate), and price (low, medium, high) on consumer's beef choice and segmentation
was evaluated in Spain, France and United Kingdom. Sensory acceptability of Uruguayan beef from different
production systems was also evaluated and contrasted with consumers' beef choices. Origin was the most
important characteristic for the choice of beef with preference for meat produced locally. The second most
important factor was animal feed followed by price with preference for beef from grass-fed animals and
lowest price. The least preferred product was beef from Uruguay, concentrate-fed animals and highest
price. Sensory data showed higher acceptability scores for Uruguayan beef from grass-fed animals with or
without concentrate supplementation than animals fed concentrate only. Consumer segments with distinct
preferences were identied. Foreign country promotion seems to be fundamental for marketing beef in
Europe, as well as the development of different marketing strategies to satisfy each consumer segment.
2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
Beef production in Uruguay has been targeted to export markets,
which account for approximately 70% of total production, with the
main destinations during June 2010July 2011 being EU (29%), rest
of Europe (27%), MERCOSUR (Brazil, Chile and Argentina: 13%),
NAFTA (USA and Canada: 8%), Middle East (Israel, Saudi Arabia,
Oman and others: 8%), and the rest of the world (15%) (Instituto
Nacional de Carnes, INAC; http://www.inac.gub.uy). Uruguay is focused on becoming more competitive in the world beef market
through increasing beef production and quality according to market
needs with concentrated efforts in high value markets such as the
EU market. Uruguayan beef cattle production systems are based on
pasture feeding, but more recently livestock producers have been
investing on improved pastures and supplementation with concentrate leading to cattle with different carcass and meat quality attributes (Realini et al., 2009). Umberger, Feuz, Calkins, and Killinger
(2004) and Sitz, Calkins, Feuz, Umberger, and Eskridge (2005)
showed that consumers could differentiate between the avor of
steaks when comparing US corn-fed vs. international grass-fed beef,
suggesting that country-of-origin labeling as well as niche marketing
may need to be considered to provide consumers with a consistent
beef product that meets their palatability expectations. Oliver et al.
(2006) conducted consumer evaluations of the eating quality of
Corresponding author. Tel.: +34 972 63 00 52.
E-mail address: carolina.realini@irta.es (C.E. Realini).
0309-1740/$ see front matter 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2013.04.004
15
Table 1
Factors and levels considered in the conjoint analysis by country and across countries.
Factors
Country
Country of origin
Feeding system
Price
Spain
Argentina
Uruguay
Switzerland
Spain
Grass
Concentrate
Grass and concentrate
/kg
13
16
18
France
Argentina
Uruguay
Switzerland
France
Grass
Concentrate
Grass and concentrate
/kg
13
15
18
United Kingdom
Argentina
Uruguay
Switzerland
United Kingdom
Argentina
Uruguay
Switzerland
Local+
Grass
Concentrate
Grass and concentrate
/kg
9
11
12
Grass
Concentrate
Grass and concentrate
Low+
Medium+
High+
All countries
+
Country of origin: Local corresponds to Spain, France, and United Kingdom for
Spanish, French, and British consumers, respectively. Price: Low corresponds to
13 /kg in Spain, 13 /kg in France and 9 /kg in United Kingdom; Medium corresponds to 16 /kg in Spain, 15 /kg in France and 11 /kg in United Kingdom; and
High corresponds to 18 /kg in Spain, 18 /kg in France and 12 /kg in United
Kingdom.
16
Table 2
Demographics of the consumers by country, and for all countries and their clusters.
n
Gender (%)
Men
Women
Age (%)
1825
2640
4160
6175
Country (%)
Spain
France
UK
a, b, c
Spain
France
United Kingdom
All countries
Cluster 1
Cluster 2
Cluster 3
100
99
93
292
174
71
47
47.0
53.0
44.4
56.6
45.2
54.8
45.6
54.5
37.4b
62.6a
50.7
49.3
68.1a
31.9b
18.0
31.0
34.0
17.0
14.1
30.3
33.3
22.2
16.1
23.7
47.3
12.9
16.1
28.4
38.0
17.5
16.7b
26.4ab
37.9a
19.0b
7.04c
29.6ab
45.1a
18.3b
27.7
34.0
27.7
10.6
100.0
100.0
100.0
34.3
33.9
31.9
27.6b
42.0a
30.5ab
49.3a
16.9b
33.8a
36.2
29.8
34.0
Switzerland, and the country where the test was conducted (Spain,
France, and United Kingdom individually or local when data were
presented across countries). The relative preference of Uruguayan
beef to the other origins is important to develop marketing strategies
of this product for the export markets. Argentina was chosen because
of the similarities with Uruguay in terms of production systems, regional position, export markets, culture, etc., and in particular, it's larger and
long experience in exporting beef to the EU. Argentina is also well
known in EU given its positive image as a high quality meat producing
country. Although Switzerland is not a major producer or exporter of
beef, it is an EU country with a central geographical location for the consumers with an image of natural and environmentally friendly food
production. The objective of this study was not to create a market simulation, but rather to offer the consumer choices including a wellknown EU country with a green and natural image. Finally, a local
beef was also included (control), because it is the most common beef
that can be found in each country. Three levels were evaluated for the
animal feeding attribute which corresponded to the type of beef
assessed in the sensory evaluation (grass: A, grass and concentrate: B
and C, and concentrate: D). Uruguayan beef cattle production systems
are based on pasture feeding (grass: A), but more recently livestock producers have been investing on improved pastures and supplementation
with concentrate on pasture (grass and concentrate: B and C) or concentrate only (concentrate: D) leading to cattle with different carcass
and meat quality attributes (Realini et al., 2009). For this reason, consumers' perceptions towards beef from animals fed on these three different feeding systems were considered. The third evaluated attribute
was beef price with three levels including a low, medium and high
price. The low price was determined based on the average price of
beef in each country at the moment of the study in for France
(12.50) and Spain (12.96), and in United Kingdom (8.89). The medium and high prices were calculated as the low price plus the 20 and
40% of the average price, respectively, and all nal prices were rounded
with no decimal points. The 36 possible combinations of the selected attributes and levels were reduced to 15 proles which were presented to
participants as cards in a randomized order. Consumers were asked to
carefully read the cards, and rank them from 1 (the most preferred) to
15 (the least preferred) according to their purchase intention. Ranking
was chosen over rating as suggested by Harzing et al. (2009) for studies
across countries.
2.4. Statistical analysis
Data analysis was conducted for each country individually (Spain:
n = 100, France: n = 99, United Kingdom: n = 93), and globally for
all countries (n = 292). Selected attributes and levels in this study
resulted in 36 (4 3 3) possible product scenarios and the conjoint module of SPSS (SPSS v. 12) was used to reduce the number of
proles to 15 using an orthogonal fractional factorial design. Conjoint
n
Intercept
MSE
Relative importance (%)
Origin
Feed
Price
Utilities
Country of origin
Argentina
Uruguay
Switzerland
Spain, France or United Kingdom
Animal feeding
Grass
Grass and concentrate
Concentrate
Beef price (/kg)
13
16
18
Spain
France
100
8.05
2.18
99
8.15
2.02
93
7.93
2.18
58.86ax
22.44by
18.71bx
50.98axy
29.05by
19.97cx
45.70ay
37.87bx
16.44cx
United Kingdom
0.46
2.54
0.16
2.85
1.37
3.40
0.71
4.06
1.01
2.68
0.42
3.26
1.84
0.55
2.38
0.42
0.58
1.00
1.63
0.37
2.00
0.48
0.18
0.66
0.18
0.19
0.37
1.03
0.09
0.93
Factors with different superscript letters in columns (a, b, c), and countries with
different superscript letters in rows (x, y, z) differ (P b 0.05).
MSE: Mean Square Error.
The most important factor for French consumers was also country of
origin, followed by animal feed and beef price with similar and lower importance (59, 22, and 19%, respectively) for beef purchasing decisions.
French consumers preferred beef from France (utility 4.06), animals
fed grass and concentrate (utility 0.58), and medium (utility 0.19) to
low (utility 0.18) price, while beef from Uruguay, concentrate-fed animals and highly priced was least preferred (utilities 3.40, 1.00, and
0.37, respectively).
The relative importance of each factor for British consumers
showed a similar pattern of preference to Spanish and French consumers with beef origin (51%) being the most important attribute
followed by animal feed (29%) and meat price (20%). Positive utility
values showed a preference for beef from United Kingdom (3.26),
grass-fed animals (1.63), and lowest priced (1.03). Negative utilities
indicate that beef from Uruguay ( 2.68), concentrate-fed animals
( 2.00), and highly priced ( 0.93) was least preferred.
France and UK did not differ (P > 0.05) in the relative importance
assigned to the three evaluated factors (origin, feed, price), while
Spanish consumers assigned lower importance to country of origin
and higher importance to animal feed type than French and British
consumers (P b 0.05). All evaluated countries assigned similar importance to meat price for their choice of beef (P > 0.05).
3.2. Consumers' beef choice for all countries and their clusters
The relative importance of each factor and the utilities for each
level of the factors are presented for all consumers and for each consumer cluster in Table 4. Country of origin (52%) was the most important attribute assessed for beef purchase intention by all evaluated
consumers (n = 292) followed by animal diet (30%) and meat price
(18%). Beef produced locally, from grass-fed animals and low price
was the ideal product, while beef from Uruguay, animals fed concentrate, and high meat price was the least preferred combination.
All consumers (=292) were segmented in three distinct clusters
which gave different importance to the evaluated factors when expressing their beef purchase intentions. Country of origin (69%), animal
feeding (62%), and meat price (49%) were the most important factors
for consumers in clusters 1 (n = 174), 2 (n = 71) and 3 (n = 47),
respectively. Clusters 1 and 2 assigned lowest and similar importance
to price (about 12%) with feed being of second importance (18 and
17
Table 4
Relative importance of each factor (country of origin, animal feeding, beef price) and
utilities for each level of the factors for all consumers and for each cluster.
All consumers
Global
Cluster 1
n
Intercept
MSE
Relative importance (%)
Origin
Feed
Price
Utilities
Country of origin
Argentina
Uruguay
Switzerland
Local+
Animal feeding
Grass
Grass and concentrate
Concentrate
Beef price
Low+
Medium+
High+
292
8.05
1.26
174
8.21
0.82
51.84a
29.83b
18.33c
Cluster 2
69.34ax
18.05bz
12.61cy
Cluster 3
71
7.97
1.12
47
7.55
2.55
25.51by
62.41ax
12.08cy
26.83by
24.22by
48.95ax
0.94
2.88
0.43
3.39
1.37
4.03
0.81
4.59
0.34
1.28
0.02
1.64
0.25
1.02
0.32
1.59
1.29
0.50
1.79
0.53
0.49
1.02
4.08
0.57
4.65
0.08
0.41
0.33
0.55
0.10
0.65
0.10
0.02
0.08
0.45
0.07
0.52
2.38
0.58
2.96
+ Country of Origin: Local corresponds to Spain, France, and United Kingdom for
Spanish, French, and British consumers, respectively. Price: Low corresponds to
13 /kg in Spain, 13 /kg in France and 9 /kg in United Kingdom; Medium
corresponds to 16 /kg in Spain, 15 /kg in France and 11 /kg in United Kingdom;
and High corresponds to 18 /kg in Spain, 18 /kg in France and 12 /kg in United
Kingdom.
Factors with different superscript letters in columns (a, b, c), and clusters with different
superscript letters in rows (x, y, z) differ (P b 0.05).
MSE: Mean Square Error.
26%, respectively), while the importance of origin and feed was similar
for cluster 3 (27 and 24%, respectively). Positive and high utilities indicate that beef produced locally (4.59), from grass-fed animals (4.08),
and low meat price (2.38) were preferred by consumers in clusters 1,
2, and 3, respectively. The least preferred beef types were from Uruguay
(4.03), concentrate-fed animals (4.65), and high price (2.96) for
clusters 1, 2, and 3, respectively.
3.3. Sensory acceptability of Uruguayan beef
Acceptability of beef from animals fed different diets with increasing
levels of concentrate is shown in Table 5 for all consumers by country
and across countries and their clusters. Although sensory scores were
numerically higher for overall acceptability of beef from grass-based production systems (A, B, C) than concentrate (D), Spanish consumers did
not nd signicant sensory differences among beef types (P > 0.05). Animal feed type was an important attribute when evaluating beef purchase intentions for some Spanish consumers who showed preference
for beef from grass-fed animals (Table 3). Sensory acceptability of beef
steaks by French consumers was similar for beef from animals fed
Table 5
Overall acceptability of beef from animals fed different diets by consumers from Spain,
France and United Kingdom individually and across countries.
Diets
Spain (n = 100)
France (n = 99)
United Kingdom (n = 93)
All countries (n = 292)
Cluster 1 (n = 174)
Cluster 2 (n = 71)
Cluster 3 (n = 47)
SE
5.66
5.53ab
5.48a
5.55a
5.55a
5.55
5.62
5.83
5.63a
5.67a
5.71a
5.75a
5.62
5.72
5.59
5.69a
5.62a
5.63a
5.70a
5.64
5.43
5.43
5.11b
4.98b
5.18b
5.21b
5.17
5.11
0.13
0.14
0.15
0.08
0.11
0.16
0.19
Diets: A: grass; B: grass plus concentrate (0.6% of animal live weight); C: grass plus
concentrate (1.2% of animal live weight); D: concentrate plus hay.
18
grass-based diets with or without supplementation (A, B and C). Consumers assigned higher (P b 0.05) acceptability scores to beef from
treatments B and C than beef from concentrate-fed animals (D). Similarly, beef purchase intentions of French consumers showed preference
for beef from animals fed grass and concentrate compared with concentrate only (Table 3). Beef acceptability was higher for treatments A, B,
and C compared with D for British consumers. Animal feed was the
second most important attribute inuencing beef choice of British consumers and there was a clear preference for beef from grass-fed animals
(Table 4). Sensory data for all countries show higher scores for beef
from production systems based on grass compared with concentrate
only for all consumers (n = 292) and for consumers in cluster 1
(n = 174). Although beef from grass-fed animals (A, B, C) showed
higher numerical scores than beef from concentrate-fed animals (D),
consumers from clusters 2 (n = 71) and 3 (n = 47) found similar acceptability of beef from all feed types (Table 5). Animal feeding was
the most important attribute for consumers in cluster 2 with preference
for beef from grass-fed animals when indicating their beef purchasing
choices.
4. Discussion
Bernus et al. (2003b) indicated that the most important extrinsic
attributes of red meat as indicators of quality in Europe were animal
feeding and origin. Other studies conducted in Spain showed that
price, origin, production system and labeling were the main attributes
affecting preferences for beef in Extremadura (Mesas et al., 2005),
and animal feeding and welfare, origin, storage time and slaughter
conditions in Aragn (Olaizola Tolosana et al., 2005). Three of these
factors (origin, animal feeding, and price) at different levels were
evaluated in three European countries in this study to determine
their relative importance as well as beef purchasing consumer preferences. Consumers were segmented according to their beef choices,
and the study was completed by assessing the sensory acceptability
of Uruguayan beef from different feeding systems corresponding to
the three levels of the evaluated animal feeding factor.
The most important cue driving the majority of consumers' beef
purchase decisions was origin, followed by animal feed and price. The
relative importance of the three evaluated factors was similar for consumers from France and United Kingdom, while for Spanish consumers
the relative importance of origin of beef was lower (P b 0.05) compared
with France and animal feeding higher (P b 0.05) compared with
France and United Kingdom.
Origin is a signicant attribute when purchasing beef in many countries with consumer preference for domestic beef (Alfnes, 2004; Bernus
et al., 2003a; Henson & Northen, 2000; Mesas et al., 2005; Quagrainie,
Unterschultz, & Veeman, 1998; Unterschultz, Quagrainie, & Vincent,
1997). Results from this study also showed that the highest utility for
the consumers resulted from beef produced locally. Origin of meat
has been pointed out as an indicator of meat safety (Cowan, 1998;
Latouche, Rainelli, & Vermersch, 1998) and Verbeke, Prez-Cueto, de
Barcellos, Krystallis, and Grunert (2010) indicated that one of the cues
perceived by EU consumers to signal safe beef was origin and that foreign origin was one of the most relevant cues perceived to signal that
beef was not safe. Origin has also been linked to the value of locality
and the consumer sense of belonging (Bernus et al., 2003b; De Cicco,
Van der Lans, & Loseby, 2001), and other authors found that consumers
were willing to pay a premium for locally produced meats (Jekanowski,
Williams, & Schiek, 2000; McGarry-Wolf & Thulin, 2000; Thilmany,
Grannis, & Sparling, 2003; Umberger, Feuz, Calkins, & Sitz, 2003). Beef
from Switzerland was the second preferred origin followed by Argentina
with Uruguay being the least preferred. Switzerland is not a major beef
producer or exporter, but may be perceived as a more reliable source of
beef than Argentina and UR being a neighboring and developed European country with a green image associated with environmentally friendly
food products. Alfnes (2004) reported that consumers preferred beef
from neighboring and developed countries than beef from more distant
and undeveloped countries. Argentina and Uruguay are both South
American countries and main producers and exporters of beef. Although
the production systems in these countries are primarily based on pastures with free-range animals, consumers did not select them over
their own country or Switzerland. Argentina is a well recognized country worldwide as a beef producer; however, consumers do not seem to
identify Uruguay as a good source of beef compared with the other 3
choices. Most evaluated consumers may not be familiar with Uruguay
and unaware of the country's export-oriented agricultural sector, with
agriculture producing 70% of the exports and beef as the main export
commodity. The lower preference for Uruguayan beef could be explained by the consumers' limited knowledge of the country and its export products, as indicated by Font i Furnols et al. (2011) for lamb.
The second most important attribute for the choice of beef was animal feed type. Most of the evaluated consumers indicated that they
preferred beef from grass-fed animals, followed by the combination
of grass and grain, and showing least preference for beef from
grain-fed animals. There is increasing importance of ethical concerns
of consumers in relation to the impact of intensive livestock production on the environment and the animal welfare (Harrington, 1994;
Steenkamp, 1997), and the quest for more sustainable agricultural
practices is being driven by citizens' environmental and societal concerns (Vermeir & Verbeke, 2006). Petit and van der Werf (2003), and
Pomar, Dubeau, Letourneau-Montminy, Boucher, and Julien (2007)
indicated that intensive meat production often generates large volumes of waste with detrimental effects on the environment. Thus,
the interest in grass-based production systems is growing since they
are perceived as low-input systems with reduced feed costs and improved animal health and welfare, providing a wholesome product
to consumers (Rinehart, 2011; Russell, Diez-Gonzalez, & Jarvis, 2000).
The increased transparency about the nutritional content of food
products may also induce changes in consumer demand, and has
already led producers to reformulate some meat products with lower nitrate, lower fat or higher polyunsaturated fatty acid content (Verbeke
et al., 2010). Grass-fed beef contains higher content of polyunsaturated
fatty acids and conjugated linoleic acid than concentrate-fed animals
(Nuernberg et al., 2005; Ponnampalam, Mann, & Sinclair, 2006;
Realini, Duckett, Brito, Dalla Rizza, & De Mattos, 2004; Yang, Lanari,
Brewster, & Tume, 2002). European consumers are interested in how
food is produced and a preference is shown towards free-range systems
(Mesas et al., 2005). Verbeke et al. (2010) showed that healthy beef was
associated with the production system, with a certain bias towards traditional farming involving grass-fed beef, cattle fed with natural food
and raised outdoors, highlighting that healthiness depended on how animals were fed and kept in the eyes of the consumers. Spanish and British consumers from this study showed highest utility for beef from
animals fed grass only, and French consumers chose beef from cattle
fed grass and the combination of grass and concentrate. These beef
choices agree with the general trend of consumers' preference for
meat from animals reared under open sky associated with higher animal
welfare standards, better-kept animals, natural feeding source, and environmentally friendly production systems.
Previous studies have shown that quality characteristics of grass-fed
beef are different from concentrate-fed beef in terms of color, marbling,
and texture, and sensory attributes such as tenderness, juiciness and
avor (Duckett et al., 2007; Kerth, Braden, Cox, Kerth, & Rankins,
2007; Mandell, Buchanan-Smith, & Campbell, 1998). Realini et al.
(2004) found that Uruguayan beef from pasture-fed steers was darker
in color, with yellower fat, lower fat thickness, and lower shear force
values indicating more tender meat after 7 and 14 d of aging compared
with beef from concentrate-fed animals. When consumers from the
current study evaluated the overall acceptability of beef from four production systems in a blind test, most of them rated higher scores for
beef from grass-fed animals and animals fed both grass and concentrate
compared with beef from cattle fed concentrate only showing a sensory
19
20
Grunert, K. G. (2001). Current issues in the analysis of consumer food choice. Proceedings
71st EAAE Seminar: The food consumer in the early 21st century. 1920 April 2001,
Zaragoza, Spain.
Grunert, K. G., & Valli, C. (2001). Designer-made meat and dairy products: Consumer-led
product development. Livestock Production Science, 72(12), 8398.
Guerrero, L. (1999). Estudios de consumidores: Anlisis de los errores ms habituales.
In T. C. A. Almeida (Ed.), Avances en anlisis sensorial (pp. 121129). Sao Paulo: Ed.
Varela.
Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1998). Multivariate data analysis.
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall (5).
Harrington, G. (1994). Consumer demands: Major problems facing industry in a consumerdriven society. Meat Science, 36(12), 518.
Harzing, A. W., Baldueza, J., Barner-Rasmussen, W., Barzantny, C., Canabal, A., Davila, A.,
Espejo, A., Ferreira, R., Giroud, A., Koester, K., Liang, Y. -K., Mockaitis, A., Morley, M. J.,
Myloni, B., Odusanya, J. O. T., O'Sullivan, S. L., Palaniappan, A. K., Prochno, P.,
Choudhury, S. R., Saka-Helmhout, A., Siengthai, S., Viswat, L., Soydas, A. U., & Zander, L.
(2009). Rating versus ranking: What is the best way to reduce response and language
bias in cross-national research? International Business Review, 18(4), 417432.
Henson, S., & Northen, J. (2000). Consumer assessment of the safety of beef at the point of
purchase: A pan-European study. Journal of Agricultural Economics, 51(1), 90103.
Issanchou, S. (1996). Consumer expectations and perceptions of meat and meat product quality. Meat Science, 43(Supplement 1 (0)), 519.
Jekanowski, M. D., Williams, D. R., II, & Schiek, W. A. (2000). Consumers' willingness to
purchase locally produced agricultural products: An analysis of an Indiana survey.
Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, 29(1), 4353.
Kerth, C. R., Braden, K. W., Cox, R., Kerth, L. K., & Rankins, D. L. (2007). Carcass, sensory,
fat color, and consumer acceptance characteristics of Angus-cross steers nished
on ryegrass (Lolium multiorum) forage or on a high-concentrate diet. Meat
Science, 75(2), 324331.
Latouche, K., Rainelli, P., & Vermersch, D. (1998). Food safety issues and the BSE scare:
Some lessons from the French case. Food Policy, 23(5), 347356.
Latvala, T., & Kola, J. (2001). Measuring consumers benets of credence characteristics
of beef: Ex ante valuation. Proceedings 71st EAAE Seminar: The food consumer in the
early 21st century 1920 April 2001, Zaragoza, Spain.
Lusk, J. L., & Fox, J. A. (2001). Regional differences in consumer demand for rib-eye steak
attributes. Mississippi State University Agricultural and Forestry Experiment
Station Bulletin 1111 (12 pp.).
Mace, H. J., Bratchell, N., Greenhoff, K., & Vallis, L. V. (1989). Designs to balance the effect of order of presentation and rst-order carry-over effects in hall tests. Journal
of Sensory Studies, 69, 571578.
Mandell, I. B., Buchanan-Smith, J. G., & Campbell, C. P. (1998). Effects of forage vs grain
feeding on carcass characteristics, fatty acid composition, and beef quality in
limousin-cross steers when time on feed is controlled. Journal of Animal Science,
76(10), 26192630.
Mannion, M. A., Cowan, C., & Gannon, M. (2000). Factors associated with perceived
quality inuencing beef consumption behaviour in Ireland. British Food Journal,
102(3), 195210.
Maughan, C., Tansawat, R., Cornforth, D., Ward, R., & Martini, S. (2012). Development of
a beef avor lexicon and its application to compare the avor prole and consumer
acceptance of rib steaks from grass- or grain-fed cattle. Meat Science, 90(1),
116121.
McCarthy, M., de Boer, M., O'Reilly, S., & Cotter, L. (2003). Factors inuencing intention
to purchase beef in the Irish market. Meat Science, 65(3), 10711083.
McGarry-Wolf, M., & Thulin, A. J. (2000). A target consumer prole and positioning for
promotion of a new locally branded beef product. Journal of Food Distribution
Research, 32, 193197.
Mesas, F. J., Escribano, M., de Ledesma, A. R., & Pulido, F. (2005). Consumers' preferences for beef in the Spanish region of Extremadura: A study using conjoint analysis. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, 85(14), 24872494.
Milligan, G. W., & Cooper, M. C. (1985). An examination of procedures for determining
the number of clusters in a data set. Psychometrika, 50(2), 159179.
Moloney, A. P., Mooney, M. T., Troy, D. J., & Keane, M. G. (2011). Finishing cattle at pasture at 30 months of age or indoors at 25 months of age: Effects on selected carcass
and meat quality characteristics. Livestock Science, 141(1), 1723.
Nuernberg, K., Dannenberger, D., Nuernberg, G., Ender, K., Voigt, J., Scollan, N. D., Wood, J.
D., Nute, G. R., & Richardson, R. I. (2005). Effect of a grass-based and a concentrate
feeding system on meat quality characteristics and fatty acid composition of
longissimus muscle in different cattle breeds. Livestock Production Science, 94(12),
137147.
Olaizola Tolosana, A. M., Whebi, Z., & Manrique Persiva, E. (2005). Quality perception
and consumer attitudes to specic quality beef in Aragon, Spain. Spanish Journal
of Agricultural Research, 3(4), 418428.
Oliver, M. A., Nute, G. R., Font i Furnols, M., San Julin, R., Campo, M. M., Saudo, C.,
Caeque, V., Guerrero, L., Alvarez, I., Daz, M. T., Branscheid, W., Wicke, M., &
Montossi, F. (2006). Eating quality of beef, from different production systems,
assessed by German, Spanish and British consumers. Meat Science, 74(3), 435442.
Petit, J., & van der Werf, H. M. G. (2003). Perception of the environmental impacts of
current and alternative modes of pig production by stakeholder groups. Journal
of Environmental Management, 68(4), 377386.
Pomar, C., Dubeau, F., Letourneau-Montminy, M. P., Boucher, C., & Julien, P. O. (2007). Reducing phosphorus concentration in pig diets by adding an environmental objective
to the traditional feed formulation algorithm. Livestock Science, 111(12), 1627.
Ponnampalam, E. N., Mann, N. J., & Sinclair, A. J. (2006). Effect of feeding systems on
omega-3 fatty acids, conjugated linoleic acid and trans fatty acids in Australian beef
cuts: Potential impact on human health. Asia Pacic Journal of Clinical Nutrition,
15(1), 2129.
21