Meat Science 95 (2013) 14–21

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Meat Science

j ourna l homepage: www.e lsev ie r .com/ locate /meatsc i

Spanish, French and British consumers' acceptability of Uruguayan beef,and consumers' beef choice associated with country of origin, finishing dietand meat price

C.E. Realini a,⁎, M. Font i Furnols a, C. Sañudo b, F. Montossi c, M.A. Oliver a, L. Guerrero a

a IRTA Monells, Finca Camps i Armet, E-17121 Monells (Girona), Spainb University of Zaragoza, Miguel Servet 177, 50013 Zaragoza, Spainc INIA Tacuarembó, Ruta 5 km 386, C.P. 45000 Tacuarembó, Uruguay

⁎ 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. Allhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2013.04.004

a b s t r a c t

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 5 February 2012Received in revised form 25 February 2013Accepted 4 April 2013

Keywords:BeefPriceOriginFeedConsumerConjoint

The effect of country of origin (local, Switzerland, Argentina, Uruguay), finishing diet (grass, grass plusconcentrate, concentrate), and price (low, medium, high) on consumer's beef choice and segmentationwas evaluated in Spain, France and United Kingdom. Sensory acceptability of Uruguayan beef from differentproduction systems was also evaluated and contrasted with consumers' beef choices. Origin was the mostimportant characteristic for the choice of beef with preference for meat produced locally. The second mostimportant factor was animal feed followed by price with preference for beef from grass-fed animals andlowest price. The least preferred product was beef from Uruguay, concentrate-fed animals and highestprice. Sensory data showed higher acceptability scores for Uruguayan beef from grass-fed animals with orwithout concentrate supplementation than animals fed concentrate only. Consumer segments with distinctpreferences were identified. Foreign country promotion seems to be fundamental for marketing beef inEurope, 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 themain destinations during June 2010–July 2011 being EU (29%), restof 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%) (InstitutoNacional de Carnes, INAC; http://www.inac.gub.uy). Uruguay is fo-cused on becoming more competitive in the world beef marketthrough increasing beef production and quality according to marketneeds with concentrated efforts in high value markets such as theEU market. Uruguayan beef cattle production systems are based onpasture feeding, but more recently livestock producers have beeninvesting on improved pastures and supplementation with concen-trate leading to cattle with different carcass and meat quality attri-butes (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 flavor ofsteaks when comparing US corn-fed vs. international grass-fed beef,suggesting that country-of-origin labeling as well as niche marketingmay need to be considered to provide consumers with a consistentbeef product that meets their palatability expectations. Oliver et al.(2006) conducted consumer evaluations of the eating quality of

.

rights reserved.

Uruguayan beef compared with beef produced nationally in Germany,Spain and United Kingdom. Although national beef was generallypreferred, results showed that Uruguayan beef raised traditionallywould be an acceptable product in the evaluated countries. Realiniet al. (2009) evaluated the effect of finishing diet (pasture vs. differ-ent levels of concentrate feeding) on consumer acceptability ofUruguayan beef in the European market. The authors indicated thatlow levels of concentrate supplementation on pasture producedbeef with the highest consumer acceptability followed by beef frompasture-fed animals, and that feeding cattle with concentrate onlymay not be necessary to satisfy the EU market. Sensory preferencesfor national and Uruguayan beef, and for Uruguayan beef from differ-ent feeding systems were evaluated in four European countries(Oliver et al., 2006; Realini et al., 2009). However, Europeanconsumers' beef choice associated with extrinsic cues and its rela-tionship with sensory preferences for Uruguayan beef were notevaluated in those studies.

Consumers have difficulties 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 impor-tance of defining the relevance of the different types of information(origin, diet, age, safety, animal welfare, etc.) to identify the major as-pects impacting consumer behavior, as well as defining the relative im-portance of these factors to increase consumer demand for beef throughproduct differentiation when developingmarketing or branding strate-gies. Becker (2000) indicated that extrinsic cues are the dominant

15C.E. Realini et al. / Meat Science 95 (2013) 14–21

means of informing the consumer on the credence quality attributes ofmeat, and if credence quality attributes are confirmed by trustedextrinsic cues (e.g. label information) they become the search qualityattributes available at the time of purchase (Bernués, Olaizola, &Corcoran, 2003a). Increasing concerns about food safety, health, conve-nience, origin, and ethical factors among others, give rise to increasingimportance of credence quality attributes for consumers (Anwander &Badertscher, 2001; Corcoran et al., 2001; Harrington, 1994; Issanchou,1996; Latvala & Kola, 2001; Wandel & Bugge, 1997). According toBecker (1999), these credence quality attributes are mainly focused onthe quality of the production process (extrinsic characteristics of meat)and not on the intrinsic characteristics of the product, and often thereare no relevant cues available (Bernués, Olaizola, & Corcoran, 2003b).Bernués et al. (2003b) indicated that consumer-led product develop-ment should incorporate the emerging credence quality attributes thatare important for an increasing number of consumers. Bernués et al.(2003a) reported that themost important information cues for Europeanconsumers to appear in the labelwere related to origin of production andproduct shelf life (consume by date) for beef and lamb. Other importantcues were related to system of production, traceability of animals andproducts, and quality controls implemented by industry (Bernués et al.,2003a). Olaizola Tolosana,Whebi, andManrique Persiva (2005) evaluat-ed the importance of beef quality attributes in Spain, and indicated thatanimal feeding regime, origin/region of production, animal welfare, andslaughter conditions were considered most important by consumers.Mesías, Escribano, de Ledesma, and Pulido (2005) showed that productorigin was the most important attribute for the choice of beef, followedby quality labeling, production system and price in a different region ofSpain.

The objectives of this study were to evaluate the relative impor-tance of origin, animal feed, and meat price on purchasing decisionsof beef in Spain, France and United Kingdom, and to identify groupsof consumers according to the importance that the extrinsic qualityattributes and their levels have for them. In addition, the sensory ac-ceptability of Uruguayan beef from different feeding systems wasevaluated and contrasted with purchasing intentions of beef by theevaluated consumers and their segments.

Table 1Factors and levels considered in the conjoint analysis by country and across countries.

Factors

Country Country of origin Feeding system Price

€/kgSpain Argentina Grass 13

Uruguay Concentrate 16Switzerland Grass and concentrate 18Spain

€/kgFrance Argentina Grass 13

Uruguay Concentrate 15Switzerland Grass and concentrate 18France

£/kgUnited Kingdom Argentina Grass 9

Uruguay Concentrate 11Switzerland Grass and concentrate 12United Kingdom

All countries Argentina Grass Low+

Uruguay Concentrate Medium+

Switzerland Grass and concentrate High+

Local+

+ Country of origin: ‘Local’ corresponds to Spain, France, and United Kingdom forSpanish, French, and British consumers, respectively. Price: ‘Low’ corresponds to13 €/kg in Spain, 13 €/kg in France and 9 £/kg in United Kingdom; ‘Medium’ corre-sponds 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 UnitedKingdom.

2. Materials and methods

2.1. Sampling procedure

Uruguayan beef was obtained for sensory analysis from Herefordsteers (n = 40) finished on one of the following diets with increasingamounts of concentrate: (A) grass, (B) grass plus concentrate (0.6% ofanimal live weight), (C) grass plus concentrate (1.2% of animal liveweight), and (D) concentrate plus hay. Animals were slaughteredwhen the average live weight of each treatment reached 500 kg in acommercial meat plant licensed for export following standard proce-dures. The Longissimus lumborum muscle was removed from eachcarcass at 48 h post mortem and cut into three (6-cm thick) piecesbetween the L1–L5 vertebrae corresponding to samples evaluated inFrance, United Kingdom, and Spain. Samples were vacuum packaged,aged at 4 °C during 20 d, frozen and shipped to France, United King-dom and Spain for consumer sensory evaluation. Samples werethawed at 4 °C for 24 h, cut into 2-cm thick steaks, and cooked in adouble hot-plate grill pre-heated to 200 °C until final internal tem-perature reached 72 °C (65 °C in France) determined using individualthermocouples inserted into the geometric center of the muscle.Steaks were trimmed of external fat and connective tissue, cut into2 × 2 × 2 cm samples, wrapped individually in coded aluminum foiland kept warm in a heater until tasting. Beef from one animal wasevaluated by 10 consumers from each of the 3 European countries,and consumers evaluated beef from 10 animals per dietary treatmentin each country.

2.2. Consumer sensory evaluation

The studywas carried out during the Spring of 2006 at one location ineach country:Monells in the North-East of Spain, Caen in the North-Westof France, and Langford in the South-West of United Kingdom. Two-hundred and ninety-two consumers, between 18 and 75 years old partic-ipated in the study: 100 consumers in Spain, 99 in France and93 inUnitedKingdom. Consumers were selected by means of a probabilistic samplingper quotas within each country according to the national distribution bygender and age. Table 2 shows the distribution of the selected consumersin each country.

Ten sensory sessions were conducted in each country with ten con-sumers per session and beef samples from four animals were evaluatedper session. Consumers evaluated in a blind condition the acceptabilityof 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 recordingsheet whichwas established to avoid the effect of sample order presen-tation, first-order or carry-over effects (Macfie, Bratchell, Greenhoff, &Vallis, 1989). Consumers ate unsalted toasted bread and drank mineralwater to rinse their palate between samples. Each consumer rated over-all acceptability using 8-point category scales (1 ‘dislike extremely’, 2‘dislike very much’, 3 ‘dislike moderately’, 4 ‘dislike slightly’, 6 ‘likeslightly’, 7 ‘like moderately’, 8 ‘like very much’, 9 ‘like extremely’). Theintermediate point corresponding to 5 ‘neither like nor dislike’was ex-cluded from the scale to force consumers a specific response (Guerrero,1999).

2.3. Conjoint analysis

Conjoint analysis was used to determine the relative importance ofvarious attributes in purchasing decisions of beef in Spain, France andUnited Kingdom. The study was carried out in these countries becausethey are important beef markets for Uruguayan beef. The three attri-butes evaluated in this study (country of origin, animal feeding, beefprice) were chosen because of their importance in consumer purchas-ing decisions reported by other authors (Bernués et al., 2003a; Mesíaset al., 2005; Olaizola Tolosana et al., 2005). Selected attributes andtheir levels are listed in Table 1 for each country and across countries.Country of origin had four levels which involved Uruguay, Argentina,

Table 2Demographics of the consumers by country, and for all countries and their clusters.

Spain France United Kingdom All countries Cluster 1 Cluster 2 Cluster 3

n 100 99 93 292 174 71 47Gender (%)

Men 47.0 44.4 45.2 45.6 37.4b 50.7 68.1a

Women 53.0 56.6 54.8 54.5 62.6a 49.3 31.9b

Age (%)18–25 18.0 14.1 16.1 16.1 16.7b 7.04c 27.726–40 31.0 30.3 23.7 28.4 26.4ab 29.6ab 34.041–60 34.0 33.3 47.3 38.0 37.9a 45.1a 27.761–75 17.0 22.2 12.9 17.5 19.0b 18.3b 10.6

Country (%)Spain 100.0 – – 34.3 27.6b 49.3a 36.2France – 100.0 – 33.9 42.0a 16.9b 29.8UK – – 100.0 31.9 30.5ab 33.8a 34.0

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

16 C.E. Realini et al. / Meat Science 95 (2013) 14–21

Switzerland, and the country where the test was conducted (Spain,France, and United Kingdom individually or local when data werepresented across countries). The relative preference of Uruguayanbeef to the other origins is important to develop marketing strategiesof this product for the export markets. Argentina was chosen becauseof the similarities with Uruguay in terms of production systems, region-al position, exportmarkets, culture, etc., and in particular, it's larger andlong experience in exporting beef to the EU. Argentina is also wellknown in EU given its positive image as a high quality meat producingcountry. Although Switzerland is not a major producer or exporter ofbeef, it is an EU countrywith a central geographical location for the con-sumers with an image of ‘natural’ and environmentally friendly foodproduction. The objective of this study was not to create a market sim-ulation, but rather to offer the consumer choices including a well-known EU country with a ‘green and natural’ image. Finally, a localbeef was also included (control), because it is the most common beefthat can be found in each country. Three levels were evaluated for theanimal feeding attribute which corresponded to the type of beefassessed in the sensory evaluation (grass: A, grass and concentrate: Band C, and concentrate: D). Uruguayan beef cattle production systemsare based on pasture feeding (grass: A), butmore recently livestock pro-ducers have been investing on improved pastures and supplementationwith concentrate on pasture (grass and concentrate: B and C) or con-centrate only (concentrate: D) leading to cattle with different carcassand meat quality attributes (Realini et al., 2009). For this reason, con-sumers' perceptions towards beef from animals fed on these three dif-ferent feeding systems were considered. The third evaluated attributewas beef price with three levels including a low, medium and highprice. The low price was determined based on the average price ofbeef 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 medi-um and high prices were calculated as the low price plus the 20 and40% of the average price, respectively, and all final prices were roundedwith no decimal points. The 36 possible combinations of the selected at-tributes and levelswere reduced to 15 profiles whichwere presented toparticipants as cards in a randomized order. Consumers were asked tocarefully read the cards, and rank them from 1 (the most preferred) to15 (the least preferred) according to their purchase intention. Rankingwas chosen over rating as suggested by Harzing et al. (2009) for studiesacross 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 forall countries (n = 292). Selected attributes and levels in this studyresulted in 36 (4 × 3 × 3) possible product scenarios and the con-joint module of SPSS (SPSS v. 12) was used to reduce the number ofprofiles 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 rel-ative importance that consumers gave to the different attributes andthe utility values obtained for each level of the selected factors weredetermined.

Agglomerative Hierarchical Cluster Analysis (PROC CLUSTER,WARD method, SAS Inst. Inc., Cary, NC) was carried out to determinethe existence of consumer segments showing similar preferenceprofiles. Previously, and in order to transform the original ordinaldata into continuous data, a proximity matrix was obtained (PROCDISTANCE, GOWER option, SAS Inst. Inc., Cary, NC). The selection ofthe final number of clusters was aimed to get the simplest structurepossible that still represents homogeneous groupings (parsimonyrule). According to Hair, Anderson, Tatham, and Black (1998) a bal-ance was made between defining the most basic structure (fewerclusters) that still achieves an acceptable level of heterogeneity be-tween the clusters. The stopping rule selected (number of clustersto retain) was based on the empirical judgment and complementedwith a heterogeneity measure for each cluster solution, after applyingthe cubic clustering criterion of SAS (Milligan & Cooper, 1985). Thenumber of clusters was selected from the dendrogram, trying tofind a compromise between homogeneity within clusters and hetero-geneity between clusters. Differences between gender and age groupsfor each cluster were obtained with the chi-square test calculated twoby two using SAS (SAS Inst. Inc., Cary, NC, USA).

Overall acceptability datawere analyzed using theMIXEDprocedureof SAS (SAS Inst. Inc., Cary, NC), and mean separation was carried outusing the Tukey test. The statistical model for each individual countryincluded dietary treatment as a fixed effect, consumer as random, andsession as a block effect. The statistical model for all countries includeddietary treatment and country asfixed effects, consumerwithin countryas random, and session within country as a block effect. In addition, foreach cluster obtained previously by conjoint analysis, acceptabilitymean values were calculated and analyzed using the same statisticalmodel 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 levelof the factors are presented for Spanish, French andBritish consumers inTable 3. Country of origin was the most important factor in the beefchoice of Spanish consumers, followed by animal feeding, with pricebeing the least important attribute (46, 38, and 16%, respectively).Spanish consumers preferred beef from Spain, grass-fed animals, andlowest priced (utility values of 2.85, 1.84, and 0.48, respectively),while the least preferred beef was from Uruguay, concentrate-fed ani-mals, and highest priced (utilities−2.54, −2.38, −0.66, respectively).

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

Spain France United Kingdom

n 100 99 93Intercept 8.05 8.15 7.93MSE⁎ 2.18 2.02 2.18Relative importance (%)Origin 45.70ay 58.86ax 50.98axy

Feed 37.87bx 22.44by 29.05by

Price 16.44cx 18.71bx 19.97cx

UtilitiesCountry of origin

Argentina −0.46 −1.37 −1.01Uruguay −2.54 −3.40 −2.68Switzerland 0.16 0.71 0.42Spain, France or United Kingdom 2.85 4.06 3.26

Animal feedingGrass 1.84 0.42 1.63Grass and concentrate 0.55 0.58 0.37Concentrate −2.38 −1.00 −2.00

Beef price (€/kg)13 0.48 0.18 1.0316 0.18 0.19 −0.0918 −0.66 −0.37 −0.93

Factors with different superscript letters in columns (a, b, c), and countries withdifferent superscript letters in rows (x, y, z) differ (P b 0.05).⁎ MSE: Mean Square Error.

Table 4Relative importance of each factor (country of origin, animal feeding, beef price) andutilities for each level of the factors for all consumers and for each cluster.

All consumers Global Cluster 1 Cluster 2 Cluster 3

n 292 174 71 47Intercept 8.05 8.21 7.97 7.55MSE⁎ 1.26 0.82 1.12 2.55Relative importance (%)Origin 51.84a 69.34ax 25.51by 26.83by

Feed 29.83b 18.05bz 62.41ax 24.22by

Price 18.33c 12.61cy 12.08cy 48.95ax

UtilitiesCountry of origin

Argentina −0.94 −1.37 −0.34 −0.25Uruguay −2.88 −4.03 −1.28 −1.02Switzerland 0.43 0.81 −0.02 −0.32Local+ 3.39 4.59 1.64 1.59

Animal feedingGrass 1.29 0.53 4.08 −0.08Grass and concentrate 0.50 0.49 0.57 0.41Concentrate −1.79 −1.02 −4.65 −0.33

Beef priceLow+ 0.55 0.10 0.45 2.38Medium+ 0.10 −0.02 0.07 0.58High+ −0.65 −0.08 −0.52 −2.96

+ Country of Origin: ‘Local’ corresponds to Spain, France, and United Kingdom forSpanish, French, and British consumers, respectively. Price: ‘Low’ corresponds to13 €/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 UnitedKingdom.Factors with different superscript letters in columns (a, b, c), and clusters with differentsuperscript letters in rows (x, y, z) differ (P b 0.05).⁎ MSE: Mean Square Error.

Table 5Overall acceptability of beef from animals fed different diets by consumers from Spain,France and United Kingdom individually and across countries.

Diets⁎

A B C D SE

Spain (n = 100) 5.66 5.83 5.59 5.43 0.13France (n = 99) 5.53ab 5.63a 5.69a 5.11b 0.14United Kingdom (n = 93) 5.48a 5.67a 5.62a 4.98b 0.15All countries (n = 292) 5.55a 5.71a 5.63a 5.18b 0.08

Cluster 1 (n = 174) 5.55a 5.75a 5.70a 5.21b 0.11Cluster 2 (n = 71) 5.55 5.62 5.64 5.17 0.16Cluster 3 (n = 47) 5.62 5.72 5.43 5.11 0.19

⁎ Diets: A: grass; B: grass plus concentrate (0.6% of animal live weight); C: grass plusconcentrate (1.2% of animal live weight); D: concentrate plus hay.

17C.E. Realini et al. / Meat Science 95 (2013) 14–21

The most important factor for French consumers was also country oforigin, followed by animal feed and beef pricewith similar and lower im-portance (59, 22, and 19%, respectively) for beef purchasing decisions.French consumers preferred beef from France (utility 4.06), animalsfed grass and concentrate (utility 0.58), and medium (utility 0.19) tolow (utility 0.18) price, while beef from Uruguay, concentrate-fed ani-mals and highly priced was least preferred (utilities 3.40, −1.00, and−0.37, respectively).

The relative importance of each factor for British consumersshowed a similar pattern of preference to Spanish and French con-sumers with beef origin (51%) being the most important attributefollowed by animal feed (29%) and meat price (20%). Positive utilityvalues showed a preference for beef from United Kingdom (3.26),grass-fed animals (1.63), and lowest priced (1.03). Negative utilitiesindicate 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 importanceassigned to the three evaluated factors (origin, feed, price), whileSpanish consumers assigned lower importance to country of originand higher importance to animal feed type than French and Britishconsumers (P b 0.05). All evaluated countries assigned similar impor-tance 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 eachlevel of the factors are presented for all consumers and for each con-sumer cluster in Table 4. Country of origin (52%) was the most impor-tant attribute assessed for beef purchase intention by all evaluatedconsumers (n = 292) followed by animal diet (30%) and meat price(18%). Beef produced locally, from grass-fed animals and low pricewas the ideal product, while beef from Uruguay, animals fed concen-trate, and high meat price was the least preferred combination.

All consumers (=292) were segmented in three distinct clusterswhich gave different importance to the evaluated factorswhen express-ing their beef purchase intentions. Country of origin (69%), animalfeeding (62%), and meat price (49%) were the most important factorsfor consumers in clusters 1 (n = 174), 2 (n = 71) and 3 (n = 47),respectively. Clusters 1 and 2 assigned lowest and similar importanceto price (about 12%) with feed being of second importance (18 and

26%, respectively), while the importance of origin and feed was similarfor cluster 3 (27 and 24%, respectively). Positive and high utilities indi-cate 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 typeswere fromUruguay(−4.03), concentrate-fed animals (−4.65), and high price (−2.96) forclusters 1, 2, and 3, respectively.

3.3. Sensory acceptability of Uruguayan beef

Acceptability of beef from animals fed different diets with increasinglevels of concentrate is shown in Table 5 for all consumers by countryand across countries and their clusters. Although sensory scores werenumerically higher for overall acceptability of beef fromgrass-basedpro-duction systems (A, B, C) than concentrate (D), Spanish consumers didnotfind significant sensory differences among beef types (P > 0.05). An-imal feed type was an important attribute when evaluating beef pur-chase intentions for some Spanish consumers who showed preferencefor beef from grass-fed animals (Table 3). Sensory acceptability of beefsteaks by French consumers was similar for beef from animals fed

18 C.E. Realini et al. / Meat Science 95 (2013) 14–21

grass-based diets with or without supplementation (A, B and C). Con-sumers assigned higher (P b 0.05) acceptability scores to beef fromtreatments B and C than beef from concentrate-fed animals (D). Simi-larly, beef purchase intentions of French consumers showed preferencefor beef from animals fed grass and concentrate comparedwith concen-trate only (Table 3). Beef acceptability was higher for treatments A, B,and C compared with D for British consumers. Animal feed was thesecond most important attribute influencing beef choice of British con-sumers and therewas a clear preference for beef from grass-fed animals(Table 4). Sensory data for all countries show higher scores for beeffrom production systems based on grass compared with concentrateonly for all consumers (n = 292) and for consumers in cluster 1(n = 174). Although beef from grass-fed animals (A, B, C) showedhigher numerical scores than beef from concentrate-fed animals (D),consumers from clusters 2 (n = 71) and 3 (n = 47) found similar ac-ceptability of beef from all feed types (Table 5). Animal feeding wasthemost important attribute for consumers in cluster 2with preferencefor beef from grass-fed animals when indicating their beef purchasingchoices.

4. Discussion

Bernués et al. (2003b) indicated that the most important extrinsicattributes of red meat as indicators of quality in Europe were animalfeeding and origin. Other studies conducted in Spain showed thatprice, origin, production system and labeling were the main attributesaffecting preferences for beef in Extremadura (Mesías et al., 2005),and animal feeding and welfare, origin, storage time and slaughterconditions in Aragón (Olaizola Tolosana et al., 2005). Three of thesefactors (origin, animal feeding, and price) at different levels wereevaluated in three European countries in this study to determinetheir relative importance as well as beef purchasing consumer prefer-ences. Consumers were segmented according to their beef choices,and the study was completed by assessing the sensory acceptabilityof Uruguayan beef from different feeding systems corresponding tothe three levels of the evaluated animal feeding factor.

The most important cue driving the majority of consumers' beefpurchase decisions was origin, followed by animal feed and price. Therelative importance of the three evaluated factors was similar for con-sumers from France and United Kingdom, while for Spanish consumersthe relative importance of origin of beefwas lower (P b 0.05) comparedwith France and animal feeding higher (P b 0.05) compared withFrance and United Kingdom.

Origin is a significant attribute when purchasing beef in many coun-trieswith consumer preference for domestic beef (Alfnes, 2004; Bernuéset al., 2003a; Henson & Northen, 2000; Mesías et al., 2005; Quagrainie,Unterschultz, & Veeman, 1998; Unterschultz, Quagrainie, & Vincent,1997). Results from this study also showed that the highest utility forthe consumers resulted from beef produced locally. Origin of meathas been pointed out as an indicator of meat safety (Cowan, 1998;Latouche, Rainelli, & Vermersch, 1998) and Verbeke, Pérez-Cueto, deBarcellos, Krystallis, and Grunert (2010) indicated that one of the cuesperceived by EU consumers to signal safe beef was origin and that for-eign origin was one of the most relevant cues perceived to signal thatbeef was not safe. Origin has also been linked to the value of ‘locality’and the ‘consumer sense of belonging’ (Bernués et al., 2003b; De Cicco,Van der Lans, & Loseby, 2001), and other authors found that consumerswere 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). BeeffromSwitzerlandwas the secondpreferred origin followed byArgentinawith Uruguay being the least preferred. Switzerland is not a major beefproducer or exporter, but may be perceived as a more reliable source ofbeef than Argentina andUR being a neighboring and developed Europe-an countrywith a green image associatedwith environmentally friendlyfood products. Alfnes (2004) reported that consumers preferred beef

from neighboring and developed countries than beef frommore distantand undeveloped countries. Argentina and Uruguay are both SouthAmerican countries andmain producers and exporters of beef. Althoughthe production systems in these countries are primarily based on pas-tures with free-range animals, consumers did not select them overtheir own country or Switzerland. Argentina is a well recognized coun-try worldwide as a beef producer; however, consumers do not seem toidentify Uruguay as a good source of beef compared with the other 3choices. Most evaluated consumers may not be familiar with Uruguayand unaware of the country's export-oriented agricultural sector, withagriculture producing 70% of the exports and beef as the main exportcommodity. The lower preference for Uruguayan beef could be ex-plained by the consumers' limited knowledge of the country and its ex-port products, as indicated by Font i Furnols et al. (2011) for lamb.

The secondmost important attribute for the choice of beef was an-imal feed type. Most of the evaluated consumers indicated that theypreferred beef from grass-fed animals, followed by the combinationof grass and grain, and showing least preference for beef fromgrain-fed animals. There is increasing importance of ethical concernsof consumers in relation to the impact of intensive livestock produc-tion on the environment and the animal welfare (Harrington, 1994;Steenkamp, 1997), and the quest for more sustainable agriculturalpractices is being driven by citizens' environmental and societal con-cerns (Vermeir & Verbeke, 2006). Petit and van der Werf (2003), andPomar, Dubeau, Letourneau-Montminy, Boucher, and Julien (2007)indicated that intensive meat production often generates large vol-umes of waste with detrimental effects on the environment. Thus,the interest in grass-based production systems is growing since theyare perceived as low-input systems with reduced feed costs and im-proved animal health and welfare, providing a wholesome productto consumers (Rinehart, 2011; Russell, Diez-Gonzalez, & Jarvis, 2000).

The increased transparency about the nutritional content of foodproducts may also induce changes in consumer demand, and hasalready led producers to reformulate somemeat productswith lower ni-trate, lower fat or higher polyunsaturated fatty acid content (Verbekeet al., 2010). Grass-fed beef contains higher content of polyunsaturatedfatty 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 howfood is produced and a preference is shown towards free-range systems(Mesías et al., 2005). Verbeke et al. (2010) showed that healthy beefwasassociated with the production system, with a certain bias towards tra-ditional farming involving grass-fed beef, cattle fed with natural foodand raised outdoors, highlighting that healthiness depended on how an-imals were fed and kept in the eyes of the consumers. Spanish and Brit-ish consumers from this study showed highest utility for beef fromanimals fed grass only, and French consumers chose beef from cattlefed grass and the combination of grass and concentrate. These beefchoices agree with the general trend of consumers' preference formeat fromanimals reared under open sky associatedwith higher animalwelfare standards, better-kept animals, natural feeding source, and en-vironmentally friendly production systems.

Previous studies have shown that quality characteristics of grass-fedbeef are different from concentrate-fed beef in terms of color, marbling,and texture, and sensory attributes such as tenderness, juiciness andflavor (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 darkerin color, with yellower fat, lower fat thickness, and lower shear forcevalues indicating more tender meat after 7 and 14 d of aging comparedwith beef from concentrate-fed animals. When consumers from thecurrent study evaluated the overall acceptability of beef from four pro-duction systems in a blind test, most of them rated higher scores forbeef from grass-fed animals and animals fed both grass and concentratecomparedwith beef from cattle fed concentrate only showing a sensory

19C.E. Realini et al. / Meat Science 95 (2013) 14–21

preference for beef from pasture-based systems. Realini et al. (2009)evaluated the acceptability of Uruguayan grass-fed beef in the Europeanmarket working with a larger number of consumers and countries(n = 786). Their study also showed that consumers in France andUnitedKingdom rated grass-fed beef with or without supplementation higheron overall acceptability scores than beef from animals fed concentrateonly. These results are in line with the study of Evans et al. (2008)where 74 and 82% of the participants preferred steaks and ground beeffrom grass-fed animals, respectively. Moloney, Mooney, Troy, andKeane (2011) indicated that finishing cattle at pasture did not affect thesensory characteristics of tenderness, juiciness or chewiness of beef.However, numerous studies have found the opposite results with clearsensory preferences for beef from concentrate-fed animals (Duckett etal., 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 to-wards the visual appearance of grass-fed beef but not towards its tasteand that ultimately they tend to prefer conventional beef over grass-fedbeef. Bernués et al. (2003b) indicated that the link between consumers'attitudes and behavior seems to be quite weak, and that the expressedconcerns of consumers in relation to the environmental and animal wel-fare issues do not mean that behavior has changed accordingly. Font iFurnols et al. (2011) reported lack of agreement between consumer pur-chase decisions towards grass-fed lamb and sensory preferences forgrain-fed animals when tasting lamb from different feeding systems.Most consumers in this study chose beef from animals fed on grassfollowed by the combination of grass and concentrate, and at the sametime they preferred this type of beef in the blind sensory test.

The price of meat was the least important factor accounting for con-sumers' beef purchasing decisions. According to Acebrón and Dopico(2000), price appears as a relevant cue when consumers lack informa-tion about intrinsic quality cues or when it is the only available cue.McCarthy, de Boer, O'Reilly, and Cotter (2003) highlighted that whileprice is important it alone cannot explain changes inmeat consumption,and indicated that the percent contribution of price and income tochange in beef and veal consumption had reduced. Results showedthat as the price increased the utility decreased formost of the evaluatedconsumers. Other consumer studies evaluating food products includingbeef have also shown a decrease in utility as the price increased (Gil &Sanchez, 1997; Mesías et al., 2005). In this study, the lowest price waschosen over the medium and high priced beef by most of the Spanishand British consumers, while the French consumers preferred themedi-umprice. A positive relationship between price andexpected quality hasbeen reported indicating that a greater price is associated to a higherquality product (Acebrón & Dopico, 2000). French consumers preferredbeef from animals fed grass and concentrate and a medium price. Sinceconcentrate feeding and a high price are both associated to a higherquality product, French consumers may be willing to pay more and se-lect the combination of grass and concentrate feeding expecting a higherquality beef.

Lusk and Fox (2001) highlighted the importance of identifyingthose consumer segments that aremore responsive to changes in a par-ticular beef attribute. Schnettler, Vidal, Silva, Vallejos, and Sepulveda(2009) also indicated that consumer segmentation must be taken intoaccount when studying consumption habits and attitudes towards cer-tain meat attributes. Consumer groups with common preferences forthe choice of beefwere identified across countries in this study showingthat the importance that consumers assign to each attribute of beef isdifferent in each consumer segment. Other authors evaluating consum-er purchase intentions of beef (Bernués et al., 2003a;Mesías et al., 2005;Sasaki & Mitsumoto, 2004) and lamb (Font i Furnols et al., 2011) alsofound consumer segments with distinct meat purchasing motives. Thegroups of consumers from all countries (3 clusters) could be profiledas consumers focused on ‘origin’, ‘animal feeding’, or ‘price’ of beef,with preferences for local production, grass feeding, and low price,respectively.

The ‘origin’ cluster is characterized by a greater proportion ofwomen and French consumers comparedwithmen (63 vs. 37%, respec-tively) and Spanish or British consumers (42 vs. 28 vs. 31%, respec-tively). Font i Furnols et al. (2011) also reported that women weremore influenced by country of origin of the meat than men and Alfnes(2004) suggested that women are more cautious and prefer the localproducts, which are more familiar, compared with men. Verbeke andWard (2006) indicated that other demographic characteristics, espe-cially age of consumers, also modify country of origin effect on beefpreference, being younger consumers (b30 years old) the least inter-ested. However, in this study the age distribution of consumers in clus-ter 1 was very similar to the average for all countries set for this study.French consumers showed a clear preference for country of origin rela-tive to animal feeding andmeat price in their beef purchase choices, andconsequently result in a greater proportion in this consumer segment.Spanish consumers who assigned higher importance to animal feedtype than British and French consumers are more represented in the‘animal feeding’ cluster which is also characterized by a higher propor-tion of consumers in the age range of 41–60 years old than the averagefor all countries. Font i Furnols et al. (2011) indicated that men andyoung consumers aremore influenced by the price of meat in their pur-chase intentions of meat. Sasaki, Aizaki, Motoyama, and Mitsumoto(2006) also found that the segment of consumers that preferred thelowest price was represented by younger-aged consumers. Resultsfrom this study also show that the ‘meat price’ consumer segmentis characterized by a greater proportion of men (68% men vs. 32%women) and younger consumers (higher proportion of consumersthan the average in the 18–25 and 26–40 year old ranges) with prefer-ence for low priced beef. Mesías et al. (2005) also found that consumerclusters presented the lowest preferences for the high priced beef, whileother studies showed that some segments of consumers preferred thehighest prices and some others the lowest prices of beef (Sasaki &Mitsumoto, 2004). Since all consumers assigned lower but similar im-portance to meat price, consumers' nationalities were equally repre-sented in cluster 3.

It becomes clear that meat origin is the main attribute determin-ing beef purchase intentions for most evaluated consumers but espe-cially for French and female consumers. However, other relevantconsumer segments are focused on animal feed with more relevanceto Spanish consumers, and lastly meat price which is more represent-ed by younger and male consumers. Results indicate that consumersegmentation according to preferences for the choice of beef can as-sist in the development of different marketing strategies for each seg-ment of the market through consumer-driven product promotion.These results have important implications for the development ofmarketing strategies for promoting grass-fed beef from Uruguaysuggesting that current campaigns like “Uruguayan grass-fed beef”and “Uruguay Natural” are well focused, but need to establish a pre-mium brand label for Uruguayan beef. These campaigns may be use-ful tools for creating awareness about the country and its foodproducts. Although meat price has been considered the least impor-tant factor in consumers' beef choice, one consumer segment basedtheir beef purchase decisions on its price. Thus, there is a group ofconsumers who would buy meat from low cost production systemswith lower attention to meat origin or animal feed type (if this infor-mation is available), and marketing efforts to target these consumersshould also be encouraged. It should be noted, however, that a largernumber of consumers would be needed to draw definite conclusions,but results from this study provide valuable information about beefacceptability and consumer preferences showing significant trendsthat are important for the development of marketing strategies.

5. Conclusions

Country of origin was the most important characteristic for thechoice of beef with preference for meat produced locally. The second

20 C.E. Realini et al. / Meat Science 95 (2013) 14–21

most important factor influencing beef choice of most consumers wasanimal feed followed by meat price with preference for beef fromgrass-fed animals and lowest price. However, some French con-sumers may choose a medium price and beef from animals fed grassand concentrate which are both associated with a higher qualitybeef. Consumers were not homogeneous regarding purchase inten-tions and their segmentation showed that country of origin was espe-cially important for French consumers and women; type of animalfeed was more relevant to Spanish consumers, while meat price wasmost valued by younger and male consumers. Thus, consumer seg-mentation results support the development of different marketingstrategies to satisfy each segment of the European market. The leastpreferred product by most consumers was beef from Uruguay,concentrate-fed animals and highest price. Sensory acceptability ofbeef indicates that grass feeding with or without concentrate supple-mentation involving low input and free-range production systemsfrom Uruguay is suitable for the production of beef for the EU market.Results from this study have important implications for the develop-ment of marketing strategies suggesting that current campaigns like“Uruguayan grass-fed beef” and “Uruguay Natural” are well focusedto establish a premium brand of Uruguayan beef. These campaignsmay be promising tools for promoting the country, the productionsystem, and the quality of meat in the EU beef market.

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to acknowledge the financial support of theAgencia Española de Cooperación Internacional para el Desarrollo(AECID), the INIA Uruguay, and the INIA España.

References

Acebrón, L. B., & Dopico, D. C. (2000). The importance of intrinsic and extrinsic cues toexpected and experienced quality: An empirical application for beef. Food Qualityand Preference, 11(3), 229–238.

Alfnes, F. (2004). Stated preferences for imported and hormone-treated beef: Applicationof a mixed logit model. European Review of Agricultural Economics, 31(1), 19–37.

Anwander, P. S., & Badertscher, F. R. (2001). The Swiss market of meat from animal-friendly production. Proceedings 71st EAAE Seminar: The food consumer in the early21st century 19–20 April 2001, Zaragoza, Spain.

Becker, T. (1999). “Country of origin” as a cue for quality and safety in fresh meat. Pro-ceedings 67th EAAE Seminar: The socio-economics of origin labelled products inagri-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), 158–176.

Bernués, A., Olaizola, A., & Corcoran, K. (2003a). Labelling information demanded byEuropean consumers and relationships with purchasing motives, quality and safetyof meat. Meat Science, 65(3), 1095–1106.

Bernués, A., Olaizola, A., & Corcoran, K. (2003b). Extrinsic attributes of red meat as in-dicators of quality in Europe: An application for market segmentation. Food Qualityand Preference, 14(4), 265–276.

Corcoran, K., Bernués, A., Manrique, E., Pacchioli, M. T., Baines, R., & Boutonnet, J. P.(2001). Current consumer attitudes towards lamb and beef in Europe. OptionsMéditerranéennes, A46, 75–79.

Cowan, C. (1998). Irish and European consumer views on food safety. Journal of FoodSafety, 18(4), 275–295.

De Cicco, A., Van der Lans, I. A., & Loseby, M. (2001). The role of EU-certification ofregion of origin in consumer evaluation of food products. Proceedings 71st EAAEseminar: 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 finishing system on: II. Ninth-tenth- eleventh-rib composition, muscle color, and palatability. Journal of AnimalScience, 85(10), 2691–2698.

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 appalachiangrass-fed beef, an experimental economics approach. Selected paper prepared forpresentation at the American Agricultural Economics Association Annual Meeting,Orlando, FL, July 27–29.

Font i Furnols, M., Realini, C. E., Montossi, F., Sañudo, C., Campo, M. M., Oliver, M. A., Nute,G. R., & Guerrero, L. (2011). Consumer's purchasing intention for lamb meat affectedby country of origin, feeding system andmeat price: A conjoint study in Spain, Franceand United Kingdom. Food Quality and Preference, 22(5), 443–451.

Gil, J. M., & Sanchez, M. (1997). Consumer preferences for wine attributes: A conjointapproach. British Food Journal, 99(1), 3–11.

Grunert, K. G. (2001). Current issues in the analysis of consumer food choice. Proceedings71st EAAE Seminar: The food consumer in the early 21st century. 19–20 April 2001,Zaragoza, Spain.

Grunert, K. G., & Valli, C. (2001). Designer-made meat and dairy products: Consumer-ledproduct development. Livestock Production Science, 72(1–2), 83–98.

Guerrero, L. (1999). Estudios de consumidores: Análisis de los errores más habituales.In T. C. A. Almeida (Ed.), Avances en análisis sensorial (pp. 121–129). 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 consumer-driven society. Meat Science, 36(1–2), 5–18.

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 languagebias in cross-national research? International Business Review, 18(4), 417–432.

Henson, S., & Northen, J. (2000). Consumer assessment of the safety of beef at the point ofpurchase: A pan-European study. Journal of Agricultural Economics, 51(1), 90–103.

Issanchou, S. (1996). Consumer expectations and perceptions of meat and meat prod-uct quality. Meat Science, 43(Supplement 1 (0)), 5–19.

Jekanowski, M. D., Williams, D. R., II, & Schiek, W. A. (2000). Consumers' willingness topurchase locally produced agricultural products: An analysis of an Indiana survey.Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, 29(1), 43–53.

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 finishedon ryegrass (Lolium multiflorum) forage or on a high-concentrate diet. MeatScience, 75(2), 324–331.

Latouche, K., Rainelli, P., & Vermersch, D. (1998). Food safety issues and the BSE scare:Some lessons from the French case. Food Policy, 23(5), 347–356.

Latvala, T., & Kola, J. (2001). Measuring consumers benefits of credence characteristicsof beef: Ex ante valuation. Proceedings 71st EAAE Seminar: The food consumer in theearly 21st century 19–20 April 2001, Zaragoza, Spain.

Lusk, J. L., & Fox, J. A. (2001). Regional differences in consumer demand for rib-eye steakattributes. Mississippi State University Agricultural and Forestry ExperimentStation Bulletin 1111 (12 pp.).

Macfie, H. J., Bratchell, N., Greenhoff, K., & Vallis, L. V. (1989). Designs to balance the ef-fect of order of presentation and first-order carry-over effects in hall tests. Journalof Sensory Studies, 69, 571–578.

Mandell, I. B., Buchanan-Smith, J. G., & Campbell, C. P. (1998). Effects of forage vs grainfeeding on carcass characteristics, fatty acid composition, and beef quality inlimousin-cross steers when time on feed is controlled. Journal of Animal Science,76(10), 2619–2630.

Mannion, M. A., Cowan, C., & Gannon, M. (2000). Factors associated with perceivedquality influencing beef consumption behaviour in Ireland. British Food Journal,102(3), 195–210.

Maughan, C., Tansawat, R., Cornforth, D., Ward, R., & Martini, S. (2012). Development ofa beef flavor lexicon and its application to compare the flavor profile and consumeracceptance of rib steaks from grass- or grain-fed cattle. Meat Science, 90(1),116–121.

McCarthy, M., de Boer, M., O'Reilly, S., & Cotter, L. (2003). Factors influencing intentionto purchase beef in the Irish market. Meat Science, 65(3), 1071–1083.

McGarry-Wolf, M., & Thulin, A. J. (2000). A target consumer profile and positioning forpromotion of a new locally branded beef product. Journal of Food DistributionResearch, 32, 193–197.

Mesías, F. J., Escribano, M., de Ledesma, A. R., & Pulido, F. (2005). Consumers' prefer-ences for beef in the Spanish region of Extremadura: A study using conjoint anal-ysis. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, 85(14), 2487–2494.

Milligan, G. W., & Cooper, M. C. (1985). An examination of procedures for determiningthe number of clusters in a data set. Psychometrika, 50(2), 159–179.

Moloney, A. P., Mooney, M. T., Troy, D. J., & Keane, M. G. (2011). Finishing cattle at pas-ture at 30 months of age or indoors at 25 months of age: Effects on selected carcassand meat quality characteristics. Livestock Science, 141(1), 17–23.

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 concentratefeeding system on meat quality characteristics and fatty acid composition oflongissimus muscle in different cattle breeds. Livestock Production Science, 94(1–2),137–147.

Olaizola Tolosana, A. M., Whebi, Z., & Manrique Persiva, E. (2005). Quality perceptionand consumer attitudes to “specific quality beef” in Aragon, Spain. Spanish Journalof Agricultural Research, 3(4), 418–428.

Oliver, M. A., Nute, G. R., Font i Furnols, M., San Julián, R., Campo, M. M., Sañudo, C.,Cañeque, V., Guerrero, L., Alvarez, I., Díaz, 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), 435–442.

Petit, J., & van der Werf, H. M. G. (2003). Perception of the environmental impacts ofcurrent and alternative modes of pig production by stakeholder groups. Journalof Environmental Management, 68(4), 377–386.

Pomar, C., Dubeau, F., Letourneau-Montminy, M. P., Boucher, C., & Julien, P. O. (2007). Re-ducing phosphorus concentration in pig diets by adding an environmental objectiveto the traditional feed formulation algorithm. Livestock Science, 111(1–2), 16–27.

Ponnampalam, E. N., Mann, N. J., & Sinclair, A. J. (2006). Effect of feeding systems onomega-3 fatty acids, conjugated linoleic acid and trans fatty acids in Australian beefcuts: Potential impact on human health. Asia Pacific Journal of Clinical Nutrition,15(1), 21–29.

21C.E. Realini et al. / Meat Science 95 (2013) 14–21

Quagrainie, K. K., Unterschultz, J., & Veeman, M. (1998). Effects of product origin andselected demographics on consumer choice of red meats. Canadian Journal ofAgricultural Economics—Revue Canadienne D Agroeconomie, 46(2), 201–219.

Realini, C. E., Duckett, S. K., Brito, G.W., Dalla Rizza, M., & DeMattos, D. (2004). Effect of pas-ture vs. concentrate feeding with or without antioxidants on carcass characteristics,fatty acid composition, and quality of Uruguayan beef.Meat Science, 66(3), 567–577.

Realini, C. E., Font i Furnols, M., Guerrero, L., Montossi, F., Campo, M. M., Sañudo, C.,Nute, G. R., Alvarez, I., Cañeque, V., Brito, G., & Oliver, M. A. (2009). Effect offinishing diet on consumer acceptability of Uruguayan beef in the European mar-ket. Meat Science, 81(3), 499–506.

Rinehart, L. (2011). Organic and grass-finished beef cattle production. : National Sustain-able Agriculture Information Service (ATTRA) (IP305).

Russell, J. B., Diez-Gonzalez, F., & Jarvis, G. N. (2000). Potential effect of cattle diets onthe transmission of pathogenic Escherichia coli to humans. Microbes and Infection,2(1), 45–53.

Sasaki, K., Aizaki, H., Motoyama, M., & Mitsumoto, M. (2006). Segmentation of japaneseconsumers' beef choice according to results of conjoint analysis. Proceedings 52ndInternational Congress of Meat Science and Technology. 13th–18th August 2006,Dublin, Ireland.

Sasaki, K., & Mitsumoto, M. (2004). Questionnaire-based study on consumer require-ments for beef quality in Japan. Animal Science Journal, 75(4), 369–376.

Schnettler, B., Vidal, R., Silva, R., Vallejos, L., & Sepulveda, N. (2009). Consumer willing-ness to pay for beef meat in a developing country: The effect of information regard-ing country of origin, price and animal handling prior to slaughter. Food Quality andPreference, 20(2), 156–165.

Sitz, B. M., Calkins, C. R., Feuz, D. M., Umberger, W. J., & Eskridge, K. M. (2005). Consumersensory acceptance and value of domestic, Canadian, and Australian grass-fed beefsteaks. Journal of Animal Science, 83(12), 2863–2868.

Steenkamp, J. -B. E. M. (1997). Dynamics in consumer behaviour with respect to agri-cultural and food products. In B. Wierenga, A. van Tilburg, K. Grunert, J. -B. E. M.

Steenkamp, & M. Wedel (Eds.), Agricultural marketing and consumer behaviour ina changing world (pp. 143–188). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Thilmany, D., Grannis, J., & Sparling, E. (2003). Regional demand for natural beef prod-ucts in Colorado: Target consumers and willingness to pay. Journal of Agribusiness,21(2), 149–165.

Umberger, W. J., Feuz, D. M., Calkins, C. R., & Killinger, K. M. (2004). U.S. consumer pref-erence and willingness-to-pay for domestic corn-fed beef versus internationalgrass-fed beef measured through. Agribusiness, 18(4), 491–504.

Umberger, W. J., Feuz, D. M., Calkins, C. R., & Sitz, B. M. (2003). Country-of-origin labelingof beef products: U.S. consumers' perceptions. Journal of Food Distribution Research,34, 103–116.

Unterschultz, J., Quagrainie, K. K., & Vincent, M. (1997). Evaluating Quebec's preferencefor Alberta beef versus US beef. Agribusiness (New York), 13(5), 457–468.

Verbeke, W., Pérez-Cueto, F. J. A., de Barcellos, M. D., Krystallis, A., & Grunert, K. G.(2010). European citizen and consumer attitudes and preferences regarding beefand pork. Meat Science, 84(2), 284–292.

Verbeke, W., & Ward, R. W. (2006). Consumer interest in information cues denotingquality, traceability and origin: An application of ordered probit models to beeflabels. Food Quality and Preference, 17(6), 453–467.

Vermeir, I., & Verbeke,W. (2006). Sustainable food consumption: Exploring the consumer“attitude–behavioral intention” gap. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics,19(2), 169–194.

Wandel, M., & Bugge, A. (1997). Environmental concern in consumer evaluation offood quality. Food Quality and Preference, 8(1), 19–26.

Xue, H., Mainville, D., You, W., & Nayga, R. M. (2010). Consumer preferences and will-ingness to pay for grass-fed beef: Empirical evidence from in-store experiments.Food Quality and Preference, 21(7), 857–866.

Yang, A., Lanari, M. C., Brewster, M., & Tume, R. K. (2002). Lipid stability and meat colourof beef from pasture- and grain-fed cattle with or without vitamin E supplement.Meat Science, 60(1), 41–50.