Next Article in Journal
Punicic Acid: A Potential Nutraceutical Compound in Pomegranate Seed Oil and Its Cardiovascular Benefits
Previous Article in Journal
Selection of Fructophilic Yeast from Sun-Dried Pedro Ximénez Grape Must for the Development of New Vinegars Containing Gluconic Acid
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Foods
Volume 14
Issue 14
10.3390/foods14142411
foods-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Credence Signals in Beef Consumption: The Strategic Role of the “100% Autochthonous Breed” Label in Spain

by
Miguel A. Cantarero-Aparicio
1,
José Manuel Perea
1,
Alfonso Carbonero
2,*,
Jennifer Claros-Zafra
1,
Manuel Luque
3 and
Elena Angón
1
1
Departamento de Producción Animal, Universidad de Córdoba, 14071 Cordoba, Spain
2
Departamento de Sanidad Animal, Universidad de Córdoba, 14071 Cordoba, Spain
3
Real Federación Española de Asociaciones de Ganado Selecto (RFEAGAS), C/Castelló 45, 2° Izda, 28001 Madrid, Spain
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Foods 2025, 14(14), 2411; https://doi.org/10.3390/foods14142411
Submission received: 10 June 2025 / Revised: 1 July 2025 / Accepted: 4 July 2025 / Published: 8 July 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Meat and Meat Products: Quality, Safety, and Consumer Perception)
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

This study evaluates the perceived value of the “100% Autochthonous Breed” label in beef purchasing decisions, comparing its influence with two well-established official certifications: organic and Protected Geographical Indication (PGI). A face-to-face survey was conducted with 900 consumers across Spain, using a choice-based conjoint experiment and hierarchical cluster analysis. The results indicate that although price is the primary determinant at the aggregate level, segmentation revealed distinct consumer profiles for whom the “100% Autochthonous Breed” label generated higher utility than other attributes. Specifically, four clusters were identified: Group I (18.6%) preferred the organic label; Group II (46.6%) prioritized low price; Group III (22.9%) valued the combination of PGI and the autochthonous breed label; and Group IV (11.9%) showed a preference for high-priced products featuring the “100% Autochthonous Breed” label. The findings highlight the strategic potential of this certification as a differentiation tool for sustainable, extensive, and territorially embedded livestock systems.

1. Introduction

Meat production and consumption are currently at the forefront of global debates concerning environmental sustainability, economic viability, and social equity [1,2]. Despite increasing criticism of the environmental footprint of the dominant food system, meat consumption remains high in developed countries and continues to rise in many developing economies [3]. Within this context, extensive livestock systems based on autochthonous breeds have re-emerged as a more sustainable alternative to prevailing intensive production models [4,5,6]. These systems are deeply rooted in rural territories and contribute to biodiversity conservation, ecosystem balance, and the maintenance of rural populations [7,8,9,10].
Local breeds are particularly well adapted to challenging environments and exhibit greater resistance to disease, thereby reducing dependency on external inputs due to more efficient use of local resources and increasing the resilience of production systems [7,11]. These attributes are strategically relevant in the context of climate change and the growing uncertainty regarding resource availability and input prices [5]. However, these production models face significant economic constraints, primarily due to higher cost structures and limited competitiveness in markets dominated by undifferentiated, low-cost meat products [12].
In response, quality signaling through product differentiation has become a key strategy for enhancing the competitiveness of sustainable livestock products [13,14]. Labelling enables the communication of credence attributes—such as animal welfare, production method, or geographical proximity—that are not directly observable by consumers, while also fostering trust, ensuring transparency, and addressing increasing ethical and environmental concerns [15,16].
In the European context, certification schemes such as Protected Geographical Indication (PGI), Protected Designation of Origin (PDO), and organic labels have become prominent tools for product valorisation and market segmentation [17,18]. However, in Spain, organic meat certification has not achieved the same level of market penetration as in other European countries. This limited uptake has been attributed to a combination of factors, including lower consumer trust, limited perceived sensory differences compared to conventional products, and price premiums that often exceed market acceptance thresholds [19,20].
In this context, the official “100% Autochthonous Breed” label—promoted by the Spanish Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food—represents a distinctive national initiative aimed at enhancing the value of Spain’s genetic livestock heritage [21]. This certification guarantees both the genetic purity and geographical origin of the breeds used in production and is typically associated with extensive grazing systems, environmental sustainability, territorial rootedness, and high animal welfare standards. With one of the most diverse catalogues of native breeds in Europe, Spain may find in this label a strategic opportunity to differentiate its meat products and strengthen consumer identification with regional values and traditional practices.
This study aims to analyze the perceived value of the “100% Autochthonous Breed” label in Spanish beef purchasing decisions. Using a choice-based conjoint analysis, the relative impact of the national label is assessed in comparison with two widely recognized European certifications: organic and PGI. Consumer profiles are subsequently segmented based on preferences and willingness to pay for each attribute, enabling the identification of consumer groups that are particularly responsive to the national label and providing insight into its positioning relative to established schemes.
This approach offers empirical evidence to inform more effective differentiation strategies for extensive livestock producers, thereby enhancing their competitiveness in a market increasingly shaped by demands for sustainability, traceability, and authenticity.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Design and Data Collection

This study was conducted in Spain between 2022 and 2023 with the objective of analyzing consumer preferences in beef purchasing decisions, with a specific focus on the perceived value of different quality certifications. To this end, a structured questionnaire was developed and administered in person by trained interviewers.
A non-probabilistic convenience sample was used, consisting of 900 consumers distributed across six Spanish geographic areas: Córdoba (n = 120), Jerez (n = 140), Madrid (n = 150), Santander (n = 110), Salamanca (n = 200), and Seville (n = 180). The sampling strategy aimed to approximate the demographic distribution of the national population in terms of key variables such as gender, age, and educational attainment [22]. Although this approach limits the statistical generalizability of the findings, it is deemed appropriate for exploratory research focused on identifying behavioural patterns and consumer profile differences [23,24,25]. To enhance the practical validity of the results, only participants with regular responsibility for household food purchases were included.
Surveys were conducted through face-to-face interviews in high-traffic locations, including shopping centres and supermarkets located in both urban and peri-urban areas. This broader territorial coverage allowed for a more realistic representation of the socioeconomic context in each study area and helps explain the relatively high percentage of respondents who reported living in rural areas. Interviews lasted an average of 15 min. Prior to full deployment, the questionnaire was pre-tested with 25 consumers to ensure clarity of language and comprehension of the experimental design, leading to minor adjustments.
The questionnaire was structured into two sections. The first collected sociodemographic data and information on meat consumption habits. The second included a choice-based conjoint experiment designed to estimate the relative importance of various beef certifications and consumers’ willingness to pay (WTP) for each.
Regarding demographic characteristics (Table 1), the sample showed a distribution broadly comparable to the Spanish population [22].

2.2. Conjoint Experiment Design

A discrete choice-based conjoint analysis was employed to deconstruct consumer preferences based on observable product attributes. Four key attributes were included: organic certification (present/absent), Protected Geographical Indication (PGI) (present/absent), the “100% Autochthonous Breed” label (present/absent), and price (with three levels: EUR 18, EUR 25, and EUR 32 per kilogram).
Price levels were derived from actual market prices observed shortly before data collection and represented a realistic range for beef loin cuts. The lowest price (EUR 18/kg) corresponded to uncertified products, the highest (EUR 32/kg) corresponded to products with at least one certification, and the intermediate value (EUR 25/kg) represented an average between both extremes. Rounded values were selected to facilitate comprehension and cross-profile comparisons.
Combining all attribute levels produced a total of 24 possible product profiles. To reduce cognitive load and eliminate multicollinearity among attributes, an orthogonal fractional factorial design was applied, resulting in a reduced and statistically efficient set of 8 profiles (Table 2). Such designs are commonly used in discrete choice studies to estimate main effects with fewer combinations [26,27].
Each participant completed 10 forced-choice tasks, selecting their preferred option among three alternative beef labels. This format, which excluded a “none of the above” option, allowed for more accurate estimation of relative preferences by simulating a realistic purchasing environment.
Before beginning the experiment, respondents were provided with a brief written explanation of each attribute and its levels, accompanied by visual examples. Responses were analyzed using conditional utility models.

2.3. Statistical Analysis

Data were analyzed using the conjoint analysis module in XLSTAT [28]. This tool estimates part-worth utilities for each attribute level via ordinary least squares (OLS) regression, with coefficients interpreted as the relative value assigned by consumers to each product characteristic [27]. From these results, individual-level utility scores were generated to reflect personal preferences across the tested attributes.
Willingness to pay (WTP) for each attribute was calculated by dividing the utility estimate of the attribute by the price coefficient. This method yields a monetary estimate of the premium consumers are willing to pay for the presence of a given certification [29].
To identify homogenous consumer segments based on their preference patterns, a hierarchical cluster analysis was performed using individual-level utilities. Squared Euclidean distance was used as the proximity metric, and Ward’s method was employed for clustering, which minimizes within-group variance [30,31].
The optimal number of clusters was determined using the elbow criterion, examining the plot of explained inertia relative to the number of clusters. The point at which the marginal gain from adding additional clusters diminished was selected. This decision was further validated using the Calinski–Harabasz index, which compares between- and within-cluster variance and confirmed the appropriateness of the selected clustering solution [26,32,33].
Once clusters were defined, differences in preference patterns across groups were examined. Variations in relative utilities, attribute importance, and WTP were analyzed using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA). When ANOVA results were significant, the Student–Newman–Keuls (SNK) post hoc test was applied to identify pairwise differences between clusters. Additionally, the sociodemographic characteristics of each cluster were examined using chi-square (χ2) independence tests to explore whether segmentation by preferences was also associated with structural demographic differences. All statistical analyses were conducted using XLSTAT software (Version 2024.2) [28].

3. Results

3.1. Aggregate Results of the Conjoint Analysis

The conjoint analysis results reveal that Spanish beef consumers exhibit a clear preference for products carrying differentiated quality attributes, such as those included in this study (Table 3). In terms of part-worth utilities, the three certifications analyzed—“100% Autochthonous Breed”, PGI, and organic production—produced positive utilities when present and negative utilities when absent, indicating that they contribute positively to perceived consumer value.
Price emerged as the most influential attribute in consumer choice, with a relative importance of 33.8%. As expected, lower price levels were strongly preferred, while higher-priced options were penalized. This price sensitivity suggests that, although consumers appreciate differentiating attributes, cost remains the primary determinant in beef purchasing decisions.
On a secondary level, and with very similar weightings, the three certifications showed comparable importance: organic certification (22.6%), “100% Autochthonous Breed” label (22.6%), and PGI (21.0%). In all cases, the presence of the respective label resulted in positive utility values and was preferred over its absence.
In terms of WTP, consumers expressed a moderate but non-negligible willingness to pay a premium of approximately EUR 1/kg for each of these three quality attributes. The organic and PGI labels generated slightly higher utility values than the autochthonous breed label, although the differences were not statistically significant at the aggregate level.

3.2. Consumer Segmentation Through Cluster Analysis

Based on the individual utility patterns obtained from the conjoint analysis, a hierarchical cluster analysis was performed to identify distinct consumer segments according to their preference structures. This procedure yielded four homogeneous groups, each exhibiting statistically significant differences in the relative importance attributed to the various attributes (Table 3). One-way ANOVA revealed statistically significant differences (p < 0.05) across clusters for all attributes analyzed. In contrast, the analysis of sociodemographic characteristics across segments (Table 4) showed no significant differences, suggesting that the segmentation reflects attitudinal rather than demographic variables.
Cluster I—Green-oriented consumers
This segment prioritized the organic certification attribute, assigning it a relative importance of 39.4% (the highest among all attributes for this group). Price (26.3%) and PGI (22.5%) followed in relevance, while the “100% Autochthonous Breed” label was the least valued attribute (11.7%). Consumers in this group demonstrated a particularly high WTP for organic certification (EUR 2.56/kg), which was the highest across all clusters, and a near-negligible WTP for the autochthonous breed label (EUR 0.47/kg). This profile aligns with environmentally and health-conscious consumers who are moderately price-sensitive and prioritize production methods over origin or breed.
Cluster II—Price-sensitive consumers
This group showed a clear preference for low-priced products (EUR 18/kg), with a relative importance of 42.8%, the highest among all groups. The remaining attributes (autochthonous breed, organic, and PGI) were valued similarly, with relative importance values between 18% and 20%. WTP for quality certifications was low or nearly null: EUR 0.43/kg for both organic and autochthonous breed labels, suggesting a pragmatic attitude in which price is the principal decision criterion. This profile represents functional consumers who value quality only when it does not entail a significant price premium.
Cluster III—Local-oriented consumers
Consumers in this group strongly valued the “100% Autochthonous Breed” label (34.1%) and the PGI certification (24.9%), reflecting a preference structure centered on geographical origin and ties to traditional livestock practices. Their WTP was particularly high for the autochthonous breed (EUR 5.89/kg) and PGI (EUR 3.52/kg), making them the cluster with the highest WTP for these attributes. Conversely, they showed lower price sensitivity. This segment likely represents consumers committed to local production, authenticity, and territorial support.
Cluster IV—Premium consumers
Members of this group favored high-priced products (EUR 32/kg) and the autochthonous breed attribute (32.7%), both of which had high relative importance values. In contrast, organic and PGI certifications were rated as low priority, making this the cluster that valued these two attributes the least. Their WTP for the “100% Autochthonous Breed” label was relatively high (EUR 1.62/kg), while their WTP for other attributes was marginal. This profile corresponds to high-end consumers who are less price-sensitive and associate autochthonous breeds with prestige, tradition, and premium differentiation.

4. Discussion

This study examined the preferences of Spanish beef consumers in relation to various extrinsic attributes: price, organic certification, PGI, and the “100% Autochthonous Breed” label. Through conjoint analysis and subsequent cluster segmentation, the results highlight, on the one hand, the predominant influence of price in consumer choices and, on the other, the existence of clearly differentiated consumer segments based on the relative importance assigned to each attribute and their corresponding WTP. While the three credence attributes showed similar aggregate value, the cluster analysis revealed that preference hierarchies vary significantly across segments, with the autochthonous breed label emerging as the most valued attribute for some groups. Although the overall WTP was modest, certain segments (particularly those sensitive to territorial identity) exhibited notably high premiums for this label.
Consistent with previous studies on meat and other food products [34,35,36], price was the most influential attribute, with a relative importance of 33.8%, well above that of the other factors. This price sensitivity was particularly evident in the “price-sensitive” cluster, wherein certifications had minimal impact. However, the presence of consumer segments that prioritize non-price attributes underscores the feasibility and necessity of differentiation strategies in a heterogeneous market.
At the aggregate level, the three certifications (organic, PGI, and “100% Autochthonous Breed”) displayed similar levels of importance (between 21% and 23%). This apparent equilibrium suggests that there is no single dominant attribute in shaping consumers’ perception of quality. Rather, each certification signals a distinct but complementary dimension: organic certification conveys environmental sustainability and animal welfare [13,37,38,39]; PGI guarantees geographic origin and production tradition [40,41]; and the autochthonous breed label affirms genetic purity and a connection to local livestock biodiversity [21,42]. Although these are distinct credence attributes, they often converge in the consumer’s perception, forming a signaling system that reinforces product authenticity and differentiation [20,43,44,45,46].
Nonetheless, the cluster analysis shows that this global symmetry conceals distinct hierarchies within each segment, where one or another attribute may assume a dominant role. This finding underscores the importance of market segmentation and the need to tailor communication strategies to the priorities and sensitivities of specific consumer profiles [47].
Cluster analysis identified four clearly differentiated consumer segments. The green-oriented segment prioritized production methods and preferred organic meat, though without a correspondingly high WTP [40], reinforcing previous observations in Spain that the symbolic value of the organic label does not always translate into economic behavior [18,20].
In contrast, the “localist” group exhibited a strong WTP for the autochthonous breed label, along with high valuations for PGI and organic attributes. This pattern suggests heightened sensitivity to products with territorial and traditional ties [14]. The “premium” segment combined a preference for high-priced products with a clear appreciation for the autochthonous breed label, suggesting that this certification may function as a marker of prestige and exclusivity.
Conversely, the price-sensitive group largely disregarded quality certifications, highlighting the importance of adapting commercial strategies to different levels of economic sensitivity. Across all segments, no statistically significant differences were found in sociodemographic variables, aligning with previous studies that indicate that attitudes, values, and beliefs are more explanatory than conventional demographic profiles [48,49].
One of this study’s main contributions is the empirical analysis of the “100% Autochthonous Breed” label, an official certification by the Spanish Ministry of Agriculture [21], which had not previously been assessed from the consumer perspective. The results demonstrate that this label can generate both utility and willingness to pay, especially among segments that value origin, authenticity, and traditional livestock systems.
In the “localist” cluster, the label was the most important attribute, surpassing even price, while in the “premium” group, it functioned as a symbol of distinction. These findings contrast with the marginal treatment that breed-related factors typically receive in food labelling [25,50] and support the view that breed can act as a credible marker of quality, tradition, and sustainability when communicated effectively.
However, some methodological limitations must be acknowledged. In the experimental design, respondents were given a clear and concise explanation of each label’s meaning, including the autochthonous breed logo. This artificially increases the level of information compared to real-world shopping environments, where consumers often lack knowledge or confuse certification schemes [20]. Under real market conditions, the impact of this label might be lower unless supported by effective communication campaigns.
Moreover, although the label certifies the genetic purity of specific breeds, the experiment did not specify any particular breed, allowing respondents to project their own associations (e.g., familiar, local, or idealized breeds) [51]. While this may have increased the label’s perceived value through “positive ambiguity”, it also introduces uncontrolled interpretive variability, suggesting that the results might differ if the same label were evaluated in association with specific breeds.
Another relevant insight from this study concerns the conceptual overlap among the extrinsic attributes assessed. PGI, organic, and autochthonous breed certifications share overlapping associations with origin, sustainability, and product differentiation [6,14,52,53]. In some segments, particularly the “localist” group, these attributes appear to function as complementary or even partially substitutable cues [54], complicating the consumer’s ability to discern the unique value each one adds.
This overlap has strategic implications. On the one hand, combining multiple labels on the same product may generate synergistic effects that enhance overall quality perception [14,53,55,56,57]. On the other, it may dilute the individual effectiveness of each certification if consumers struggle to clearly differentiate their meaning [58,59,60,61]. These findings underscore the need for differentiated, clear, and educational communication by all actors involved in quality certification.

5. Conclusions

This study advances understanding of consumer behavior in relation to extrinsic attributes in beef purchasing decisions by providing the first empirical analysis of the official “100% Autochthonous Breed” label. The findings highlight the strategic potential of this certification as a differentiation tool in a market currently dominated by more established schemes such as PGI and organic labels. Although its market penetration remains limited, the label demonstrates an ability to generate perceived value and willingness to pay among specific consumer segments, positioning it as a key asset for enhancing the value of sustainable, extensive, and territorially rooted livestock systems.
At the aggregate level, price was the dominant determinant of consumer choice, whereas the three evaluated quality labels (organic, PGI, and “100% Autochthonous Breed”) were perceived as less influential and relatively similar in importance, without any one standing out markedly above the others. However, segmentation of the sample through cluster analysis revealed four distinct consumer profiles, each with specific preference patterns. Group I (18.6%) displayed a clear inclination toward organic certification. Group II, the largest segment (46.6%), prioritized low price as their main purchasing criterion. Group III (22.9%) placed higher value on the combined presence of the “100% Autochthonous Breed” label and the PGI certification, suggesting an appreciation for origin-based and culturally rooted quality indicators. Finally, Group IV (11.9%) showed a preference for premium-priced products, also demonstrating interest in the “100% Autochthonous Breed” label, highlighting a niche segment motivated by perceived exclusivity and product differentiation. The main practical implication of these results lies in the need to develop more segmented and pedagogical communication strategies capable of clearly conveying the specific value associated with each certification. Perceived overlaps between labels (such as PGI, organic, and autochthonous breed) may reduce their effectiveness if their distinct meanings are not clearly articulated. Moreover, the results reinforce the notion that the consumer base is not homogeneous, but rather composed of diverse profiles with varying motivations, priorities, and barriers. This heterogeneity necessitates tailored marketing approaches in terms of messaging, language, and distribution channels for each target segment.
Future research could explore how consumer perceptions of the “100% Autochthonous Breed” label vary when it is explicitly linked to specific breeds, as well as its interaction with other co-occurring certifications on the same product. Additionally, evaluating its impact on actual purchase behavior in real commercial settings (both physical and digital) would offer valuable insights. Lastly, further investigation is warranted into the role of territorial narratives, emotional attachment to origin, and institutional trust in shaping the perceived value of public certifications.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, J.M.P. and E.A.; methodology, M.A.C.-A.; formal analysis, J.M.P. and E.A.; investigation, M.A.C.-A., J.C.-Z., M.L., and E.A.; data curation, M.A.C.-A. and J.C.-Z.; writing—original draft preparation, M.A.C.-A., J.M.P., A.C., J.C.-Z., M.L., and E.A.; writing—review and editing, A.C.; visualization, M.A.C.-A. and J.M.P.; supervision, J.M.P. and E.A.; project administration, J.M.P.; funding acquisition, J.M.P. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by MAPA and FEADER within the framework of the Spanish National Program for Rural Development (PNDR) 2014–2020 under the name of the research, development, and innovation project “Eco-efficient systems of differentiated quality: enhancing the sustainability of Lidia livestock farming”, grant number O00000226e2000044385. Miguel Ángel Cantarero-Aparicio holds a predoctoral contract (Submodality 2.2 “Predoctoral research staff”) funded by the University of Cordoba, Spain.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the Ethics Committee for Human Research (CEIH) of the University of Cordoba, under the approval code CEIH-24-01, dated 12 January 2024.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available from the corresponding author upon request. The data are not publicly available due to project IP rules.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Nungesser, F.; Winter, M. Meat and social change: Sociological perspectives on the consumption and production of animals. Osterr. Z. Soziologie 2021, 46, 109–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Godfray, H.C.J.; Aveyard, P.; Garnett, T.; Hall, J.W.; Key, T.J.; Lorimer, J.; Pierrehumbert, R.T.; Scarborough, P.; Springmann, M.; Jebb, S.A. Meat consumption, health, and the environment. Science 2018, 361, eaam5324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Parlasca, M.; Qaim, M. Meat consumption and sustainability. Annu. Rev. Resour. Econ. 2022, 14, 17–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Bernués, A.; Ruiz, R.; Olaizola, A.; Villalba, D.; Casasús, I. Sustainability of pasture-based livestock farming systems in the European Mediterranean context: Synergies and trade-offs. Livest. Sci. 2011, 139, 44–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Perea, J.; Arias, R. Competitiveness of Spanish Local Breeds. Animals 2022, 12, 2060. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Resano, H.; Sanjuán, A.I. Exploring the Role of Mountain Origin and Autochthonous Breed on Urban Consumers’ Acceptability. Sustainability 2018, 10, 4423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Coutinho, P.; Simões, M.; Pereira, C.; Paiva, T.; Rama, D.R.; Figueroa, G.; García, J.Á. Sustainable Local Exploitation and Innovation on Meat Products Based on the Autochthonous Bovine Breed Jarmelista. Sustainability 2021, 13, 2515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Domínguez-Torreiro, M. Alternative experimental design paradigms in choice experiments and their effects on consumer demand estimates for beef from endangered local cattle breeds: An empirical test. Food Qual. Prefer. 2014, 35, 15–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Humada, M.J.; Serrano, E.; Sañudo, C.; Rolland, D.C.; Dugan, M.E.R. Production system and slaughter age effects on intramuscular fatty acids from young Tudanca bulls. Meat Sci. 2012, 90, 678–685. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Tomşa, M.M.; Romonţi-Maniu, A.I.; Scridon, M.A. Is Sustainable Consumption Translated into Ethical Consumer Behavior? Sustainability 2021, 13, 3466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Hoffmann, I. Climate change and the characterization, breeding and conservation of animal genetic resources. Anim. Genet. 2010, 41, 32–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Zander, K.K.; Signorello, G.; De Salvo, M.; Gandini, G.; Drucker, A.G. Assessing the total economic value of threatened livestock breeds in Italy: Implications for conservation policy. Ecol. Econ. 2013, 93, 219–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Bernabéu, R.; Rabadán, A.; El Orche, N.E.; Díaz, M. Influence of quality labels on the formation of preferences of lamb meat consumers. A Spanish case study. Meat Sci. 2018, 135, 129–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Resano, H.; Olaizola, A.M.; Dominguez-Torreiro, M. Exploring the influence of consumer characteristics on veal credence and experience guarantee purchasing motivators. Meat Sci. 2018, 141, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Aboah, J.; Lees, N. Consumers use of quality cues for meat purchase: Research trends and future pathways. Meat Sci. 2020, 166, 108142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Wen, P.; Zhu, N.; Jia, M. Changes in food consumption and nutrition intake of rural residents in central China. Heliyon 2024, 10, 16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. European Union. Eurobarometer Europeans, Agriculture and the CAP; European Union: Brussels, Belgium, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  18. Lami, O.; Mesías, F.J.; Balas, C.; Díaz-Caro, C.; Escribano, M.; Horrillo, A. Does Carbon Footprint Play a Relevant Role in Food Consumer Behaviour? A Focus on Spanish Beef. Foods 2022, 11, 3899. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Blanco-Penedo, I.; Perea-Muñoz, J. Organic beef farming: Key characteristics, opportunities, advantages and challenges. In Improving Organic Animal Farming; Vaarst, M., Roderick, S.I., Eds.; Burleigh Dodds Series in Agricultural Science: Cambridge, UK, 2019; pp. 245–267. [Google Scholar]
  20. Rodríguez-Bermúdez, R.; Fouz, R.; Miranda, M.; Orjales, I.; Minervino, A.H.H.; López-Alonso, M. Organic or conventional dairy farming in northern Spain: Impacts on cow reproductive performance. Reprod. Domest. Anim. 2019, 54, 902–911. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Ministerio de Agricultura, Pesca y Alimentación (MAPA). Logotipo Raza Autóctona. Available online: https://www.mapa.gob.es/es/ganaderia/temas/zootecnia/razas-ganaderas/arca/raza-autoctona.aspx (accessed on 5 February 2024).
  22. INE National Statistics Institute. España en Cifras. 2024. Available online: https://www.ine.es/ss/Satellite?L=es_ES&c=INEPublicacion_C&cid=1259924856416&p=1254735110672&pagename=ProductosYServicios%2FPYSLayout&param1=PYSDetalleGratuitas (accessed on 6 February 2024).
  23. Di Vita, G.; Strano, A.; Maesano, G.; La Via, G.; D’Amico, M. The Role of Individual Knowledge in Functional Olive Oil Preferences: Does Self-Coherence Lead to Different Health Attributes Perception? Foods 2020, 9, 1428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Di Vita, G.; Zanchini, R.; Falcone, G.; D’Amico, M.; Brun, F.; Gulisano, G. Local, organic or protected? Detecting the role of different quality signals among Italian olive oil consumers through a hierarchical cluster analysis. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 290, 125795. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. García-Gudiño, J.; Blanco-Penedo, I.; Gispert, M.; Brun, A.; Perea, J.; Font-i-Furnols, M. Understanding consumers’ perceptions towards Iberian pig production and animal welfare. Meat Sci. 2021, 172, 108317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Annunziata, A.; Vecchio, R. Consumer perception of functional foods: A conjoint analysis with probiotics. Food Qual. Prefer. 2013, 28, 348–355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Wong, D.W.; Chan, F.; Da Silva Cardoso, E.; Lam, C.S.; Miller, S.M. Rehabilitation Counseling Students’ Attitudes Toward People with Disabilities in Three Social Contexts. Rehabil. Couns. Bull. 2004, 47, 194–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Lumivero. XLSTAT, version 2024.2; Addinsoft: Paris, France, 2024. Available online: https://www.xlstat.com/solutions/standard (accessed on 8 June 2025).
  29. Li, S.; Kallas, Z. Meta-analysis of consumers’ willingness to pay for sustainable food products. Appetite 2021, 163, 105239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Shan, L.C.; De Brún, A.; Henchion, M.; Li, C.; Murrin, C.; Wall, P.G.; Monahan, F.J. Consumer evaluations of processed meat products reformulated to be healthier—A conjoint analysis study. Meat Sci. 2017, 131, 82–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Strauss, T.; Von Maltitz, M.J. Generalising Ward’s Method for Use with Manhattan Distances. PLoS ONE 2017, 12, e0168288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Hailu, G.; Boecker, A.; Henson, S.; Cranfield, J. Consumer valuation of functional foods and nutraceuticals in Canada. A conjoint study using probiotics. Appetite 2009, 52, 257–265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Wajrock, S.; Antille, N.; Rytz, A.; Pineau, N.; Hager, C. Partitioning methods outperform hierarchical methods for clustering consumers in preference mapping. Food Qual. Prefer. 2008, 19, 662–669. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Font i Furnols, M.; Realini, C.; Montossi, F.; Sañudo, C.; Campo, M.M.; Oliver, M.A.; Nute, G.R.; Guerrero, L. 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 Qual. Prefer. 2011, 22, 443–451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Mesías, F.J.; Martínez-Carrasco, F.; Martínez, J.M.; Gaspar, P. Functional and organic eggs as an alternative to conventional production: A conjoint analysis of consumers’ preferences. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2011, 91, 532–538. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Meyerding, S.G.H.; Gentz, M.; Altmann, B.; Meier-Dinkel, L. Beef quality labels: A combination of sensory acceptance test, stated willingness to pay, and choice-based conjoint analysis. Appetite 2018, 127, 324–333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. García-Torres, S.; López-Gajardo, A.; Mesías, F.J. Intensive vs. free-range organic beef. A preference study through consumer liking and conjoint analysis. Meat Sci. 2016, 114, 114–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Gaspar, P.; Díaz-Caro, C.; del Puerto, I.; Ortiz, A.; Escribano, M.; Tejerina, D. What effect does the presence of sustainability and traceability certifications have on consumers of traditional meat products? The case of Iberian cured products in Spain. Meat Sci. 2022, 187, 108752. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Sepúlveda, W.S.; Maza, M.T.; Pardos, L. Aspects of quality related to the consumption and production of lamb meat. Consumers versus producers. Meat Sci. 2011, 87, 366–372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Dudinskaya, E.C.; Naspetti, S.; Arsenos, G.; Caramelle-Holtz, E.; Latvala, T.; Martin-Collado, D.; Orsini, S.; Ozturk, E.; Zanoli, R. European Consumers’ Willingness to Pay for Red Meat Labelling Attributes. Animals 2021, 11, 556. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Monteiro, A.C.G.; Gomes, E.; Barreto, A.S.; Silva, M.F.; Fontes, M.A.; Bessa, R.J.B.; Lemos, J.P.C. Eating quality of “Vitela Tradicional do Montado”-PGI veal and Mertolenga-PDO veal and beef. Meat Sci. 2013, 94, 63–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Gracia, A.; de-Magistris, T. Consumer’s willingness to pay for indigenous meat products: The case of a Spanish sheep breed. Span. J. Agric. Res. 2016, 14, 2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Angón, E.; Requena, F.; Caballero-Villalobos, J.; Cantarero-Aparicio, M.; Luís Martínez-Marín, A.; Perea, J.M. Beef from Calves Finished with a Diet Based on Concentrate Rich in Agro-Industrial By-Products: Acceptability and Quality Label Preferences in Spanish Meat Consumers. Animals 2021, 12, 6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Becker, T. Defining Meat Quality. In Meat Processing: Improving Quality, 1st ed.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2002; Volume 2. [Google Scholar]
  45. Bernués, A.; Olaizola, A.; Corcoran, K. Extrinsic attributes of red meat as indicators of quality in Europe: An application for market segmentation. Food Qual. Prefer. 2003, 14, 265–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Boito, B.; Lisbinski, E.; Campo, M.D.M.; Guerrero, A.; Resconi, V.; de Oliveira, T.E.; Barcellos, J.O.J. Perception of beef quality for Spanish and Brazilian consumers. Meat Sci. 2021, 172, 108312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Sahmer, K.; Vigneau, E.; Qannari, E.M. A cluster approach to analyze preference data: Choice of the number of clusters. Food Qual. Prefer. 2006, 17, 257–265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Bryla, P. The impact of EU accession on the marketing strategies of Polish food companies. Br. Food J. 2012, 114, 1196–1209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Juric, B.; Worsley, A. Consumers’ attitudes towards imported food products. Food Qual. Prefer. 1998, 9, 431–441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Mennecke, B.E.; Townsend, A.M.; Hayes, D.J.; Lonergan, S.M. A study of the factors that influence consumer attitudes toward beef products using the conjoint market analysis tool. J. Anim. Sci. 2007, 85, 2639–2659. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  51. Mitchell, V.W.; Papavassiliou, V. Marketing causes and implications of consumer confusion. J. Prod. Brand Manag. 1999, 8, 319–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Sanjuan, A.I.; Khliji, S. Urban consumers’ response to the EU food mountain labelling: An empirical application in Southern Europe. New Medit 2016, 15, 72–81. [Google Scholar]
  53. Scozzafava, G.; Casini, L.; Contini, C. Analysis of Italian consumer preferences for beef. New Medit Mediterr. J. Econ. Agric. Environ. 2014, 13, 66. [Google Scholar]
  54. Costanigro, M.; Kroll, S.; Thilmany, D.; Bunning, M. Is it love for local/organic or hate for conventional? Asymmetric effects of information and taste on label preferences in an experimental auction. Food Qual. Prefer. 2014, 31, 94–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Janßen, D.; Langen, N. The bunch of sustainability labels—Do consumers differentiate? J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 143, 1233–1245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Menozzi, D.; Yeh, C.H.; Cozzi, E.; Arfini, F. Consumer Preferences for Cheese Products with Quality Labels: The Case of Parmigiano Reggiano and Comté. Animals 2022, 12, 1299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Isabel Sonntag, W.; Lemken, D.; Spiller, A.; Schulze, M. Welcome to the (label) jungle? Analyzing how consumers deal with intra-sustainability label trade-offs on food. Food Qual. Prefer. 2023, 104, 104746. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Dufeu, I.; Ferrandi, J.-M.; Gabriel, P.; Gall-Ely, M. Le Socio-environmental multi-labelling and consumer willingness to pay. Rech. Appl. Mark. 2014, 29, 35–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Henson, S. The role of public and private standards in regulating international food markets. J. Int. Agric. Trade Dev. 2008, 4, 63–81. [Google Scholar]
  60. Kaczorowska, J.; Rejman, K.; Halicka, E.; Szczebylo, A.; Górska-Warsewicz, H. Impact of Food Sustainability Labels on the Perceived Product Value and Price Expectations of Urban Consumers. Sustainability 2019, 11, 7240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Macready, A.L.; Hieke, S.; Klimczuk-Kochańska, M.; Szumiał, S.; Vranken, L.; Grunert, K.G. Consumer trust in the food value chain and its impact on consumer confidence: A model for assessing consumer trust and evidence from a 5-country study in Europe. Food Policy 2020, 92, 101880. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Table 1. Demographic characteristics of consumers and the Spanish population (n = 900).
Table 1. Demographic characteristics of consumers and the Spanish population (n = 900).
VariableGlobal (%)Spanish National
Population a (%)
Gender
Female 34.751.0
Male 65.349.0
Area of Residence
Urban zone 56.481.2
Rural zone 43.618.8
Age group (in years)
18–24 9.37.8
25–34 9.312.5
35–49 20.324.7
50–64 37.322.9
≥65 23.732.1
Family size
1 6.826.3
2 26.330.4
3 22.917.3
4 33.017.1
5 or more 11.08.9
Employment status
Student 9.46.1
Public employee 19.716.5
Retired 15.422.4
Private employee35.074.6
Self-employed 20.516.1
Monthly family net income
<1000 EUR3.714.3
1001–2000 EUR14.724.5
2001–3000 EUR17.419.8
3001–4000 EUR24.814.2
>4000 EUR 39.427.2
Education
No studies 0.97.8
Basic education 6.026.5
Professional14.724.3
University 77.629.1
Superior0.912.3
Meat consumption
1 time per week 14.38.9
2/3 times per week 51.814.7
4/5 times per week 20.421.3
Every day 3.655.1
3001–4000 EUR 24.814.2
>4000 EUR39.427.2
a National Statistics Institute, 2024 [22].
Table 2. Card profile obtained from the orthogonal design.
Table 2. Card profile obtained from the orthogonal design.
OptionPrice
(EUR/kg)		Geographical Indication (PGI)Production Method
(Organic Label)		Breed Label (100% Autochthonous Breed)
1 25YesNoYes
232YesYesNo
318YesYesYes
425NoYesNo
518NoNoNo
632NoNoYes
718NoYesYes
818YesNoNo
Table 3. Relative importance (%), utility values, and changes in willingness to pay (EUR/kg) for each attribute for groups of consumers obtained after clustering.
Table 3. Relative importance (%), utility values, and changes in willingness to pay (EUR/kg) for each attribute for groups of consumers obtained after clustering.
VariableGlobalGroup
IIIIIIIV
100% Autochthonous-breed label
Yes 0.90 ± 0.75 0.37 a 0.86 b 1.59 c 0.60 ab
No −0.90 ± 0.75 −0.37 a −0.86 b −1.59 c −0.60 c
Relative importance (%) 22.55 ± 13.79 11.73 a 18.62 b 34.11 c 32.69 c
WTP (EUR/kg) −0.91 ± 0.14 −0.47 −0.43 5.89 1.62
PGI label
Yes 1.17 ± 0.55 1.17 b 0.98 b 1.19 b −0.20 a
No −1.17 ± 0.55 −1.17 b −0.98 b −1.19 b 0.20 a
Relative importance (%) 21.01 ± 10.80 22.51 ab 19.60 ab 24.90 b 16.71 a
WTP (EUR/kg) −1.18 ± 1.05 −2.56 −0.43 3.52 0.16
Organic label (%)
Yes 1.00 ± 0.88 2.02 c 0.86 b 0.95 b 0.06 a
No −1.00 ± 0.88 −2.02 c −0.86 b −0.95 b −0.06 a
Relative importance (%) 22.60 ± 14.81 39.41 b 19.03 a 20.92 a 13.46 a
WTP (EUR/kg) −1.01 ± 0.03 −2.56 −0.43 3.52 0.16
Price (EUR/kg)
18 0.83 ± 1.18 −0.05 a 1.65 b 0.36 a −0.07 a
25 0.16 ± 0.74 0.84 d 0.38 c −0.63 c −0.29 b
32 −0.99 ± 1.27 −0.79 b −2.02 a 0.27 c 0.37 c
Relative importance (%) 33.83 ± 14.83 26.35 a 42.75 c 20.06 a 37.13 b
Size of cluster (%) 18.646.622.911.9
a, b, c, d: means with different letters are significantly different between clusters (SNK test, p < 0.05).
Table 4. Sociodemographic characteristics for groups of consumers.
Table 4. Sociodemographic characteristics for groups of consumers.
VariableGlobalIIIIIIIVp-Value
Gender ns
Female 34.7 40.9 38.2 25.9 21.4
Male 65.3 59.1 61.8 74.1 78.6
Area of Residence ns
Urban zone 56.4 59.1 60.0 51.8 50.0
Rural zone 43.6 40.9 40.0 48.1 50.0
Age group (in years) ns
18–24 9.3 9.1 10.9 11.1 0.0
25–34 9.3 4.5 12.7 7.4 7.1
35–49 20.3 18.2 20.0 29.6 7.1
40–64 37.3 36.4 40.0 29.6 37.3
65 23.7 31.8 16.4 22.2 42.9
Family size ns
1 6.8 4.5 10.9 3.7 0.0
2 26.3 31.8 18.2 22.2 57.1
3 22.9 22.7 27.3 22.2 7.1
4 33.0 27.3 30.9 44.4 28.6
5 or more 11.0 13.6 12.7 7.4 7.1
Employment status ns
Student 9.4 14.3 9.1 11.1 0.0
Civil servant 19.7 19.1 18.2 33.3 0.0
Retired 15.4 23.8 10.9 14.8 21.4
Businessman 35.0 38.1 34.5 22.2 57.1
Self-employed 20.5 4.8 27.3 18.5 21.4
Monthly family net income ns
<1000 EUR 3.7 5.0 1.9 8.3 0.0
1001–2000 EUR 14.7 10.0 19.2 8.3 15.4
2001–3000 EUR17.4 20.0 13.5 25.0 15.4
3001–4000 EUR 24.8 25.0 25.0 33.3 7.7
>4000 EUR 39.4 40.0 40.4 25.0 61.5
Education ns
No studies 0.9 0.0 1.8 0.0 0.0
Basic education 6.0 4.8 7.4 3.7 7.1
Professional14.7 14.3 16.7 14.8 7.1
University 77.6 80.9 74.1 77.8 85.7
Superior0.9 0.0 0.0 3.7 0.0
Meat consumption ns
1 time per week 14.3 4.8 11.8 14.8 38.5
2/3 times per week 51.8 61.9 49.0 55.6 38.5
4/5 times per week 30.4 23.8 37.2 25.9 23.1
Every day 3.6 9.5 2.0 3.7 0.0
ns = non-significant (p > 0.05).
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Cantarero-Aparicio, M.A.; Perea, J.M.; Carbonero, A.; Claros-Zafra, J.; Luque, M.; Angón, E. Credence Signals in Beef Consumption: The Strategic Role of the “100% Autochthonous Breed” Label in Spain. Foods 2025, 14, 2411. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods14142411

AMA Style

Cantarero-Aparicio MA, Perea JM, Carbonero A, Claros-Zafra J, Luque M, Angón E. Credence Signals in Beef Consumption: The Strategic Role of the “100% Autochthonous Breed” Label in Spain. Foods. 2025; 14(14):2411. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods14142411

Chicago/Turabian Style

Cantarero-Aparicio, Miguel A., José Manuel Perea, Alfonso Carbonero, Jennifer Claros-Zafra, Manuel Luque, and Elena Angón. 2025. "Credence Signals in Beef Consumption: The Strategic Role of the “100% Autochthonous Breed” Label in Spain" Foods 14, no. 14: 2411. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods14142411

APA Style

Cantarero-Aparicio, M. A., Perea, J. M., Carbonero, A., Claros-Zafra, J., Luque, M., & Angón, E. (2025). Credence Signals in Beef Consumption: The Strategic Role of the “100% Autochthonous Breed” Label in Spain. Foods, 14(14), 2411. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods14142411

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop