You are on page 1of 8

Meat Science 95 (2013) 1421

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Meat Science
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/meatsci

Spanish, French and British consumers' acceptability of Uruguayan beef,


and consumers' beef choice associated with country of origin, nishing diet
and meat price
C.E. Realini a,, M. Font i Furnols a, C. Saudo b, F. Montossi c, M.A. Oliver a, L. Guerrero a
a
b
c

IRTA Monells, Finca Camps i Armet, E-17121 Monells (Girona), Spain


University of Zaragoza, Miguel Servet 177, 50013 Zaragoza, Spain
INIA Tacuaremb, Ruta 5 km 386, C.P. 45000 Tacuaremb, Uruguay

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

Uruguayan beef compared with beef produced nationally in Germany,


Spain and United Kingdom. Although national beef was generally
preferred, results showed that Uruguayan beef raised traditionally
would be an acceptable product in the evaluated countries. Realini
et al. (2009) evaluated the effect of nishing diet (pasture vs. different levels of concentrate feeding) on consumer acceptability of
Uruguayan beef in the European market. The authors indicated that
low levels of concentrate supplementation on pasture produced
beef with the highest consumer acceptability followed by beef from
pasture-fed animals, and that feeding cattle with concentrate only
may not be necessary to satisfy the EU market. Sensory preferences
for national and Uruguayan beef, and for Uruguayan beef from different feeding systems were evaluated in four European countries
(Oliver et al., 2006; Realini et al., 2009). However, European
consumers' beef choice associated with extrinsic cues and its relationship with sensory preferences for Uruguayan beef were not
evaluated in those studies.
Consumers have difculties in forming meat quality expectations
(Grunert, 2001) and the perception of food quality, including meat,
changes over time (Grunert & Valli, 2001; Issanchou, 1996; Mannion,
Cowan, & Gannon, 2000). Lusk and Fox (2001) highlighted the importance of dening the relevance of the different types of information
(origin, diet, age, safety, animal welfare, etc.) to identify the major aspects impacting consumer behavior, as well as dening the relative importance of these factors to increase consumer demand for beef through
product differentiation when developing marketing or branding strategies. Becker (2000) indicated that extrinsic cues are the dominant

C.E. Realini et al. / Meat Science 95 (2013) 1421

means of informing the consumer on the credence quality attributes of


meat, and if credence quality attributes are conrmed by trusted
extrinsic cues (e.g. label information) they become the search quality
attributes available at the time of purchase (Bernus, Olaizola, &
Corcoran, 2003a). Increasing concerns about food safety, health, convenience, origin, and ethical factors among others, give rise to increasing
importance of credence quality attributes for consumers (Anwander &
Badertscher, 2001; Corcoran et al., 2001; Harrington, 1994; Issanchou,
1996; Latvala & Kola, 2001; Wandel & Bugge, 1997). According to
Becker (1999), these credence quality attributes are mainly focused on
the quality of the production process (extrinsic characteristics of meat)
and not on the intrinsic characteristics of the product, and often there
are no relevant cues available (Bernus, Olaizola, & Corcoran, 2003b).
Bernus et al. (2003b) indicated that consumer-led product development should incorporate the emerging credence quality attributes that
are important for an increasing number of consumers. Bernus et al.
(2003a) reported that the most important information cues for European
consumers to appear in the label were related to origin of production and
product shelf life (consume by date) for beef and lamb. Other important
cues were related to system of production, traceability of animals and
products, and quality controls implemented by industry (Bernus et al.,
2003a). Olaizola Tolosana, Whebi, and Manrique Persiva (2005) evaluated the importance of beef quality attributes in Spain, and indicated that
animal feeding regime, origin/region of production, animal welfare, and
slaughter conditions were considered most important by consumers.
Mesas, Escribano, de Ledesma, and Pulido (2005) showed that product
origin was the most important attribute for the choice of beef, followed
by quality labeling, production system and price in a different region of
Spain.
The objectives of this study were to evaluate the relative importance of origin, animal feed, and meat price on purchasing decisions
of beef in Spain, France and United Kingdom, and to identify groups
of consumers according to the importance that the extrinsic quality
attributes and their levels have for them. In addition, the sensory acceptability of Uruguayan beef from different feeding systems was
evaluated and contrasted with purchasing intentions of beef by the
evaluated consumers and their segments.

15

2.2. Consumer sensory evaluation


The study was carried out during the Spring of 2006 at one location in
each country: Monells in the North-East of Spain, Caen in the North-West
of France, and Langford in the South-West of United Kingdom. Twohundred and ninety-two consumers, between 18 and 75 years old participated in the study: 100 consumers in Spain, 99 in France and 93 in United
Kingdom. Consumers were selected by means of a probabilistic sampling
per quotas within each country according to the national distribution by
gender and age. Table 2 shows the distribution of the selected consumers
in each country.
Ten sensory sessions were conducted in each country with ten consumers per session and beef samples from four animals were evaluated
per session. Consumers evaluated in a blind condition the acceptability
of four different grilled L. lumborum samples of Uruguayan beef (4 diets:
A, B, C, and D) under white lights in the order printed on the recording
sheet which was established to avoid the effect of sample order presentation, rst-order or carry-over effects (Mace, Bratchell, Greenhoff, &
Vallis, 1989). Consumers ate unsalted toasted bread and drank mineral
water to rinse their palate between samples. Each consumer rated overall acceptability using 8-point category scales (1 dislike extremely, 2
dislike very much, 3 dislike moderately, 4 dislike slightly, 6 like
slightly, 7 like moderately, 8 like very much, 9 like extremely). The
intermediate point corresponding to 5 neither like nor dislike was excluded from the scale to force consumers a specic response (Guerrero,
1999).
2.3. Conjoint analysis
Conjoint analysis was used to determine the relative importance of
various attributes in purchasing decisions of beef in Spain, France and
United Kingdom. The study was carried out in these countries because
they are important beef markets for Uruguayan beef. The three attributes evaluated in this study (country of origin, animal feeding, beef
price) were chosen because of their importance in consumer purchasing decisions reported by other authors (Bernus et al., 2003a; Mesas
et al., 2005; Olaizola Tolosana et al., 2005). Selected attributes and
their levels are listed in Table 1 for each country and across countries.
Country of origin had four levels which involved Uruguay, Argentina,

2. Materials and methods


2.1. Sampling procedure
Uruguayan beef was obtained for sensory analysis from Hereford
steers (n = 40) nished on one of the following diets with increasing
amounts of concentrate: (A) grass, (B) grass plus concentrate (0.6% of
animal live weight), (C) grass plus concentrate (1.2% of animal live
weight), and (D) concentrate plus hay. Animals were slaughtered
when the average live weight of each treatment reached 500 kg in a
commercial meat plant licensed for export following standard procedures. The Longissimus lumborum muscle was removed from each
carcass at 48 h post mortem and cut into three (6-cm thick) pieces
between the L1L5 vertebrae corresponding to samples evaluated in
France, United Kingdom, and Spain. Samples were vacuum packaged,
aged at 4 C during 20 d, frozen and shipped to France, United Kingdom and Spain for consumer sensory evaluation. Samples were
thawed at 4 C for 24 h, cut into 2-cm thick steaks, and cooked in a
double hot-plate grill pre-heated to 200 C until nal internal temperature reached 72 C (65 C in France) determined using individual
thermocouples inserted into the geometric center of the muscle.
Steaks were trimmed of external fat and connective tissue, cut into
2 2 2 cm samples, wrapped individually in coded aluminum foil
and kept warm in a heater until tasting. Beef from one animal was
evaluated by 10 consumers from each of the 3 European countries,
and consumers evaluated beef from 10 animals per dietary treatment
in each country.

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

C.E. Realini et al. / Meat Science 95 (2013) 1421

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

means within columns with different superscript letters differ (P b 0.05).

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

analysis was carried out by means of the XLSTAT software (Addinsoft,


Paris) using the conjoint module and ranking response type. The relative importance that consumers gave to the different attributes and
the utility values obtained for each level of the selected factors were
determined.
Agglomerative Hierarchical Cluster Analysis (PROC CLUSTER,
WARD method, SAS Inst. Inc., Cary, NC) was carried out to determine
the existence of consumer segments showing similar preference
proles. Previously, and in order to transform the original ordinal
data into continuous data, a proximity matrix was obtained (PROC
DISTANCE, GOWER option, SAS Inst. Inc., Cary, NC). The selection of
the nal number of clusters was aimed to get the simplest structure
possible that still represents homogeneous groupings (parsimony
rule). According to Hair, Anderson, Tatham, and Black (1998) a balance was made between dening the most basic structure (fewer
clusters) that still achieves an acceptable level of heterogeneity between the clusters. The stopping rule selected (number of clusters
to retain) was based on the empirical judgment and complemented
with a heterogeneity measure for each cluster solution, after applying
the cubic clustering criterion of SAS (Milligan & Cooper, 1985). The
number of clusters was selected from the dendrogram, trying to
nd a compromise between homogeneity within clusters and heterogeneity between clusters. Differences between gender and age groups
for each cluster were obtained with the chi-square test calculated two
by two using SAS (SAS Inst. Inc., Cary, NC, USA).
Overall acceptability data were analyzed using the MIXED procedure
of SAS (SAS Inst. Inc., Cary, NC), and mean separation was carried out
using the Tukey test. The statistical model for each individual country
included dietary treatment as a xed effect, consumer as random, and
session as a block effect. The statistical model for all countries included
dietary treatment and country as xed effects, consumer within country
as random, and session within country as a block effect. In addition, for
each cluster obtained previously by conjoint analysis, acceptability
mean values were calculated and analyzed using the same statistical
model as for all countries.
3. Results
3.1. Consumers' beef choice by country: Spain, France and United Kingdom
The relative importance of each factor and the utilities for each level
of the factors are presented for Spanish, French and British consumers in
Table 3. Country of origin was the most important factor in the beef
choice of Spanish consumers, followed by animal feeding, with price
being the least important attribute (46, 38, and 16%, respectively).
Spanish consumers preferred beef from Spain, grass-fed animals, and
lowest priced (utility values of 2.85, 1.84, and 0.48, respectively),
while the least preferred beef was from Uruguay, concentrate-fed animals, and highest priced (utilities 2.54, 2.38, 0.66, respectively).

C.E. Realini et al. / Meat Science 95 (2013) 1421


Table 3
Relative importance of each factor (country of origin, animal feeding, beef price) and
utilities for each level of the factors for Spanish, French, and British consumers.

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

C.E. Realini et al. / Meat Science 95 (2013) 1421

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

C.E. Realini et al. / Meat Science 95 (2013) 1421

preference for beef from pasture-based systems. Realini et al. (2009)


evaluated the acceptability of Uruguayan grass-fed beef in the European
market working with a larger number of consumers and countries
(n = 786). Their study also showed that consumers in France and United
Kingdom rated grass-fed beef with or without supplementation higher
on overall acceptability scores than beef from animals fed concentrate
only. These results are in line with the study of Evans et al. (2008)
where 74 and 82% of the participants preferred steaks and ground beef
from grass-fed animals, respectively. Moloney, Mooney, Troy, and
Keane (2011) indicated that nishing cattle at pasture did not affect the
sensory characteristics of tenderness, juiciness or chewiness of beef.
However, numerous studies have found the opposite results with clear
sensory preferences for beef from concentrate-fed animals (Duckett et
al., 2007; Kerth et al., 2007; Mandell et al., 1998; Maughan, Tansawat,
Cornforth, Ward, & Martini, 2012). Xue, Mainville, You, and Nayga
(2010) indicated that consumers generally possess positive attitudes towards the visual appearance of grass-fed beef but not towards its taste
and that ultimately they tend to prefer conventional beef over grass-fed
beef. Bernus et al. (2003b) indicated that the link between consumers'
attitudes and behavior seems to be quite weak, and that the expressed
concerns of consumers in relation to the environmental and animal welfare issues do not mean that behavior has changed accordingly. Font i
Furnols et al. (2011) reported lack of agreement between consumer purchase decisions towards grass-fed lamb and sensory preferences for
grain-fed animals when tasting lamb from different feeding systems.
Most consumers in this study chose beef from animals fed on grass
followed by the combination of grass and concentrate, and at the same
time they preferred this type of beef in the blind sensory test.
The price of meat was the least important factor accounting for consumers' beef purchasing decisions. According to Acebrn and Dopico
(2000), price appears as a relevant cue when consumers lack information about intrinsic quality cues or when it is the only available cue.
McCarthy, de Boer, O'Reilly, and Cotter (2003) highlighted that while
price is important it alone cannot explain changes in meat consumption,
and indicated that the percent contribution of price and income to
change in beef and veal consumption had reduced. Results showed
that as the price increased the utility decreased for most of the evaluated
consumers. Other consumer studies evaluating food products including
beef have also shown a decrease in utility as the price increased (Gil &
Sanchez, 1997; Mesas et al., 2005). In this study, the lowest price was
chosen over the medium and high priced beef by most of the Spanish
and British consumers, while the French consumers preferred the medium price. A positive relationship between price and expected quality has
been reported indicating that a greater price is associated to a higher
quality product (Acebrn & Dopico, 2000). French consumers preferred
beef from animals fed grass and concentrate and a medium price. Since
concentrate feeding and a high price are both associated to a higher
quality product, French consumers may be willing to pay more and select the combination of grass and concentrate feeding expecting a higher
quality beef.
Lusk and Fox (2001) highlighted the importance of identifying
those consumer segments that are more responsive to changes in a particular beef attribute. Schnettler, Vidal, Silva, Vallejos, and Sepulveda
(2009) also indicated that consumer segmentation must be taken into
account when studying consumption habits and attitudes towards certain meat attributes. Consumer groups with common preferences for
the choice of beef were identied across countries in this study showing
that the importance that consumers assign to each attribute of beef is
different in each consumer segment. Other authors evaluating consumer purchase intentions of beef (Bernus et al., 2003a; Mesas et al., 2005;
Sasaki & Mitsumoto, 2004) and lamb (Font i Furnols et al., 2011) also
found consumer segments with distinct meat purchasing motives. The
groups of consumers from all countries (3 clusters) could be proled
as consumers focused on origin, animal feeding, or price of beef,
with preferences for local production, grass feeding, and low price,
respectively.

19

The origin cluster is characterized by a greater proportion of


women and French consumers compared with men (63 vs. 37%, respectively) and Spanish or British consumers (42 vs. 28 vs. 31%, respectively). Font i Furnols et al. (2011) also reported that women were
more inuenced by country of origin of the meat than men and Alfnes
(2004) suggested that women are more cautious and prefer the local
products, which are more familiar, compared with men. Verbeke and
Ward (2006) indicated that other demographic characteristics, especially age of consumers, also modify country of origin effect on beef
preference, being younger consumers (b 30 years old) the least interested. However, in this study the age distribution of consumers in cluster 1 was very similar to the average for all countries set for this study.
French consumers showed a clear preference for country of origin relative to animal feeding and meat price in their beef purchase choices, and
consequently result in a greater proportion in this consumer segment.
Spanish consumers who assigned higher importance to animal feed
type than British and French consumers are more represented in the
animal feeding cluster which is also characterized by a higher proportion of consumers in the age range of 4160 years old than the average
for all countries. Font i Furnols et al. (2011) indicated that men and
young consumers are more inuenced by the price of meat in their purchase intentions of meat. Sasaki, Aizaki, Motoyama, and Mitsumoto
(2006) also found that the segment of consumers that preferred the
lowest price was represented by younger-aged consumers. Results
from this study also show that the meat price consumer segment
is characterized by a greater proportion of men (68% men vs. 32%
women) and younger consumers (higher proportion of consumers
than the average in the 1825 and 2640 year old ranges) with preference for low priced beef. Mesas et al. (2005) also found that consumer
clusters presented the lowest preferences for the high priced beef, while
other studies showed that some segments of consumers preferred the
highest prices and some others the lowest prices of beef (Sasaki &
Mitsumoto, 2004). Since all consumers assigned lower but similar importance to meat price, consumers' nationalities were equally represented in cluster 3.
It becomes clear that meat origin is the main attribute determining beef purchase intentions for most evaluated consumers but especially for French and female consumers. However, other relevant
consumer segments are focused on animal feed with more relevance
to Spanish consumers, and lastly meat price which is more represented by younger and male consumers. Results indicate that consumer
segmentation according to preferences for the choice of beef can assist in the development of different marketing strategies for each segment of the market through consumer-driven product promotion.
These results have important implications for the development of
marketing strategies for promoting grass-fed beef from Uruguay
suggesting that current campaigns like Uruguayan grass-fed beef
and Uruguay Natural are well focused, but need to establish a premium brand label for Uruguayan beef. These campaigns may be useful tools for creating awareness about the country and its food
products. Although meat price has been considered the least important factor in consumers' beef choice, one consumer segment based
their beef purchase decisions on its price. Thus, there is a group of
consumers who would buy meat from low cost production systems
with lower attention to meat origin or animal feed type (if this information is available), and marketing efforts to target these consumers
should also be encouraged. It should be noted, however, that a larger
number of consumers would be needed to draw denite conclusions,
but results from this study provide valuable information about beef
acceptability and consumer preferences showing signicant trends
that are important for the development of marketing strategies.
5. Conclusions
Country of origin was the most important characteristic for the
choice of beef with preference for meat produced locally. The second

20

C.E. Realini et al. / Meat Science 95 (2013) 1421

most important factor inuencing beef choice of most consumers was


animal feed followed by meat price with preference for beef from
grass-fed animals and lowest price. However, some French consumers may choose a medium price and beef from animals fed grass
and concentrate which are both associated with a higher quality
beef. Consumers were not homogeneous regarding purchase intentions and their segmentation showed that country of origin was especially important for French consumers and women; type of animal
feed was more relevant to Spanish consumers, while meat price was
most valued by younger and male consumers. Thus, consumer segmentation results support the development of different marketing
strategies to satisfy each segment of the European market. The least
preferred product by most consumers was beef from Uruguay,
concentrate-fed animals and highest price. Sensory acceptability of
beef indicates that grass feeding with or without concentrate supplementation involving low input and free-range production systems
from Uruguay is suitable for the production of beef for the EU market.
Results from this study have important implications for the development of marketing strategies suggesting that current campaigns like
Uruguayan grass-fed beef and Uruguay Natural are well focused
to establish a premium brand of Uruguayan beef. These campaigns
may be promising tools for promoting the country, the production
system, and the quality of meat in the EU beef market.
Acknowledgments
The authors wish to acknowledge the nancial support of the
Agencia Espaola de Cooperacin Internacional para el Desarrollo
(AECID), the INIA Uruguay, and the INIA Espaa.
References
Acebrn, L. B., & Dopico, D. C. (2000). The importance of intrinsic and extrinsic cues to
expected and experienced quality: An empirical application for beef. Food Quality
and Preference, 11(3), 229238.
Alfnes, F. (2004). Stated preferences for imported and hormone-treated beef: Application
of a mixed logit model. European Review of Agricultural Economics, 31(1), 1937.
Anwander, P. S., & Badertscher, F. R. (2001). The Swiss market of meat from animalfriendly production. Proceedings 71st EAAE Seminar: The food consumer in the early
21st century 1920 April 2001, Zaragoza, Spain.
Becker, T. (1999). Country of origin as a cue for quality and safety in fresh meat. Proceedings 67th EAAE Seminar: The socio-economics of origin labelled products in
agri-food supply chains: spatial, institutional and co-ordination aspects October 1999,
Le Mans.
Becker, T. (2000). Consumer perception of fresh meat quality: A framework for analysis.
British Food Journal, 102(3), 158176.
Bernus, A., Olaizola, A., & Corcoran, K. (2003a). Labelling information demanded by
European consumers and relationships with purchasing motives, quality and safety
of meat. Meat Science, 65(3), 10951106.
Bernus, A., Olaizola, A., & Corcoran, K. (2003b). Extrinsic attributes of red meat as indicators of quality in Europe: An application for market segmentation. Food Quality
and Preference, 14(4), 265276.
Corcoran, K., Bernus, A., Manrique, E., Pacchioli, M. T., Baines, R., & Boutonnet, J. P.
(2001). Current consumer attitudes towards lamb and beef in Europe. Options
Mditerranennes, A46, 7579.
Cowan, C. (1998). Irish and European consumer views on food safety. Journal of Food
Safety, 18(4), 275295.
De Cicco, A., Van der Lans, I. A., & Loseby, M. (2001). The role of EU-certication of
region of origin in consumer evaluation of food products. Proceedings 71st EAAE
seminar: The food consumer in the early 21st century 2001, Zaragoza, Spain.
Duckett, S. K., Neel, J. P. S., Sonon, R. N., Fontenot, J. P., Clapham, W. M., & Scaglia, G.
(2007). Effects of winter stocker growth rate and nishing system on: II. Ninthtenth- eleventh-rib composition, muscle color, and palatability. Journal of Animal
Science, 85(10), 26912698.
Evans, J. R., Brown, C., Collins, A. R., D'Souza, G. E., Rayburn, E. B., & Sperow, M. (2008).
Determining consumer perceptions of and willingness to pay for appalachian
grass-fed beef, an experimental economics approach. Selected paper prepared for
presentation at the American Agricultural Economics Association Annual Meeting,
Orlando, FL, July 2729.
Font i Furnols, M., Realini, C. E., Montossi, F., Saudo, C., Campo, M. M., Oliver, M. A., Nute,
G. R., & Guerrero, L. (2011). Consumer's purchasing intention for lamb meat affected
by country of origin, feeding system and meat price: A conjoint study in Spain, France
and United Kingdom. Food Quality and Preference, 22(5), 443451.
Gil, J. M., & Sanchez, M. (1997). Consumer preferences for wine attributes: A conjoint
approach. British Food Journal, 99(1), 311.

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.

C.E. Realini et al. / Meat Science 95 (2013) 1421


Quagrainie, K. K., Unterschultz, J., & Veeman, M. (1998). Effects of product origin and
selected demographics on consumer choice of red meats. Canadian Journal of
Agricultural EconomicsRevue Canadienne D Agroeconomie, 46(2), 201219.
Realini, C. E., Duckett, S. K., Brito, G. W., Dalla Rizza, M., & De Mattos, D. (2004). Effect of pasture vs. concentrate feeding with or without antioxidants on carcass characteristics,
fatty acid composition, and quality of Uruguayan beef. Meat Science, 66(3), 567577.
Realini, C. E., Font i Furnols, M., Guerrero, L., Montossi, F., Campo, M. M., Saudo, C.,
Nute, G. R., Alvarez, I., Caeque, V., Brito, G., & Oliver, M. A. (2009). Effect of
nishing diet on consumer acceptability of Uruguayan beef in the European market. Meat Science, 81(3), 499506.
Rinehart, L. (2011). Organic and grass-nished beef cattle production. : National Sustainable Agriculture Information Service (ATTRA) (IP305).
Russell, J. B., Diez-Gonzalez, F., & Jarvis, G. N. (2000). Potential effect of cattle diets on
the transmission of pathogenic Escherichia coli to humans. Microbes and Infection,
2(1), 4553.
Sasaki, K., Aizaki, H., Motoyama, M., & Mitsumoto, M. (2006). Segmentation of japanese
consumers' beef choice according to results of conjoint analysis. Proceedings 52nd
International Congress of Meat Science and Technology. 13th18th August 2006,
Dublin, Ireland.
Sasaki, K., & Mitsumoto, M. (2004). Questionnaire-based study on consumer requirements for beef quality in Japan. Animal Science Journal, 75(4), 369376.
Schnettler, B., Vidal, R., Silva, R., Vallejos, L., & Sepulveda, N. (2009). Consumer willingness to pay for beef meat in a developing country: The effect of information regarding country of origin, price and animal handling prior to slaughter. Food Quality and
Preference, 20(2), 156165.
Sitz, B. M., Calkins, C. R., Feuz, D. M., Umberger, W. J., & Eskridge, K. M. (2005). Consumer
sensory acceptance and value of domestic, Canadian, and Australian grass-fed beef
steaks. Journal of Animal Science, 83(12), 28632868.
Steenkamp, J. -B. E. M. (1997). Dynamics in consumer behaviour with respect to agricultural and food products. In B. Wierenga, A. van Tilburg, K. Grunert, J. -B. E. M.

21

Steenkamp, & M. Wedel (Eds.), Agricultural marketing and consumer behaviour in


a changing world (pp. 143188). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Thilmany, D., Grannis, J., & Sparling, E. (2003). Regional demand for natural beef products in Colorado: Target consumers and willingness to pay. Journal of Agribusiness,
21(2), 149165.
Umberger, W. J., Feuz, D. M., Calkins, C. R., & Killinger, K. M. (2004). U.S. consumer preference and willingness-to-pay for domestic corn-fed beef versus international
grass-fed beef measured through. Agribusiness, 18(4), 491504.
Umberger, W. J., Feuz, D. M., Calkins, C. R., & Sitz, B. M. (2003). Country-of-origin labeling
of beef products: U.S. consumers' perceptions. Journal of Food Distribution Research,
34, 103116.
Unterschultz, J., Quagrainie, K. K., & Vincent, M. (1997). Evaluating Quebec's preference
for Alberta beef versus US beef. Agribusiness (New York), 13(5), 457468.
Verbeke, W., Prez-Cueto, F. J. A., de Barcellos, M. D., Krystallis, A., & Grunert, K. G.
(2010). European citizen and consumer attitudes and preferences regarding beef
and pork. Meat Science, 84(2), 284292.
Verbeke, W., & Ward, R. W. (2006). Consumer interest in information cues denoting
quality, traceability and origin: An application of ordered probit models to beef
labels. Food Quality and Preference, 17(6), 453467.
Vermeir, I., & Verbeke, W. (2006). Sustainable food consumption: Exploring the consumer
attitudebehavioral intention gap. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics,
19(2), 169194.
Wandel, M., & Bugge, A. (1997). Environmental concern in consumer evaluation of
food quality. Food Quality and Preference, 8(1), 1926.
Xue, H., Mainville, D., You, W., & Nayga, R. M. (2010). Consumer preferences and willingness to pay for grass-fed beef: Empirical evidence from in-store experiments.
Food Quality and Preference, 21(7), 857866.
Yang, A., Lanari, M. C., Brewster, M., & Tume, R. K. (2002). Lipid stability and meat colour
of beef from pasture- and grain-fed cattle with or without vitamin E supplement.
Meat Science, 60(1), 4150.

You might also like