Wudpecker Journal of Agricultural Research Vol. 2(3), pp. 073 - 079, March 2013
ISSN 2315-7259 2013 Wudpecker Journals
Determinants of consumer preference for safe beef in Delta state, Nigeria 1
N.C. Ehirim, 2L.O.E. Nwauwa, 3E.E. Ikheloa
1
Dept. of Agric. Economics, Federal University of Technology, Owerri 2 Dept. of Agric. Economics, University of Ibadan, Ibadan, Nigeria. 3 Dept. of Agric. Economics, Ambrose Alli University, Ekpoma.
*Corresponding author. E-mail:
[email protected]. Tel: +2347063633502. Accepted 11 April 2012 This study was carried out to determine the factors that affect consumer’s preference for safe beef using survey instrument specially designed with images of safe and unsafe food guides to aid consumer preference for safety. Data collected were analyzed using simple descriptive statistical tools, cross tabular contingency analysis and a dichotomous choice probability model. A mean age and educational level of 28 and 15years respectively shows that the consumers are relatively young and can understand the implications of health risks associated with unsafe food consumption. Majority (57.5%) of the consumers are actually aware of what beef safety is all about 30.9% are unaware while 11.7% are indifference to beef safety. Age was found to be significant at 10% level of probability while educational level, marital status, household income and monthly expenses on other animal protein were significant at 5%level of probability. Other explanatory variables such as sex, household size, and expenditure on beef were found to be totally insignificant. The study showed that economic reasons rather than health factors can increase the probability of preference for safe beef over unsafe beef. Consumer protection agencies should guide beef producers and sellers to channel their efforts towards building in safety measures in the beef at a reduced cost and restrict the sale of beef at unsafe outlets. Government should also make education easily achievable, as an increase in the educational status of a consumer leads to an increased awareness of food safety. Key words: Consumer’s preference, safety, beef, food and probit model.
INTRODUCTION Products from livestock provide a vital source of food, income, employment, trade and economic well-being to developing countries. These products, including beef, are the primary source of protein for some 950million people worldwide and represent an important part of the diet of many more (FAO, 2006). In Delta State, Nigeria, beef is sold either in open market stalls where it is exposed to dust, flies and other environmental pollutants or in meat (butcher) shops where it is less exposed to these contaminants. Consumers are neither sure of the source nor of the hygienic condition of the beef they consume, considering the fact that most of the beef outlets do not have any identification labels nor registration and so are not liable to any consequences of food poisoning and other environmental problems (Ehirim et al., 2007). Also, they do not undergo thorough supervision and inspection by the consumer food protection agencies in the state (CPC, 2004; Son, 2004). Agricultural products are prone to disease contamination during production, processing
and distribution of the product. Quagrainie (1998), observed that some human diseases such as typhoid fever and parasitic worms like tape worm could be transmitted from the livestock products consumed and most of them originated from the feed used during production. Nwufor (2004), further observed that wounds sustained through mechanical injuries during transportation of harvested agricultural products provides good site for disease penetration. The marginal value of the product due to safely consciousness can create its own problems in the marketing system. Consumers may neither be safety conscious, nor do they know with certainty the level of safety precautions taken in the production of the products (Ehirim et al., 2007). Another issue of major concern is the way the beef is handled. The level of cleanliness of the cutting boards, knives, the display tables and even the hands of the delivery and sales men play an important role in determining the safety level of beef
Ehirim et al.
purchased by the final consumer (Schafferna et al., 2003). Contaminated beef is hazardous to public health and can serve as a vehicle for disease transaction if not handled hygienically, as is rampant in the Nigerian market, or if the meat is not properly cooked before consumption. Food safety refers to the level in which food (any material of plant or animal origin which is ingested and can be digested), is free from danger, injury or damage (Graham, 1982). It is the practical certainty that injury, ill health and consequently death will not result from the food which is taken into the body. It explains the level of reliability and or certainty to which a unit measure of food taken into the body is free from both organic and inorganic contaminants which may lead to food poisoning, ill health and consequently death (Ehirim et al., 2007). Food production, processing, distribution and consumption have major environmental impacts (e.g. high energy and material damage, emission, endangerment and reduction of biodiversity, etc) as well as serious socioeconomic and health implications (Griffith et al., 1995). All these keep consumers at alert on issues of food safety. Consumers develop attitudes towards food which is the basis for their motives in buying food. These attitudes lead to acceptance/rejection of food and to preference ratings. Throughout the centuries, there have been basic attitudes towards food and health, food and safety, food and work, food and value for money and food enjoyment. Many factors affect consumer behavior, from physiological hunger pangs to culture and nationality. The wider aspects of the environment that affect consumer food behavior include nationality, culture, social groups, technology and food availability (Schaffner et al., 2003). The increasing environmental impact on processed beef in addition to poor socio-economic disposition of an average consumer have posed a serious question on economic value of food safety in Delta state. Considering these basic safety problems, it is very important that some pertinent questions be addressed in this study. They are: Are consumers safety conscious especially in relation to beef? 2. What are the determinants of beef safety preference in the area? 3. How much can consumers be willing to pay for beef rather than not having it in the area?
074
McCluskey, 2000; Schupp and Gillespie, 2001). The study becomes relevant in guiding the concerned food protection agencies in enforcement of safety rules in the area. The testable hypothesis is there is no significant relationship between consumers’ socio-economic circumstances and preference for safety in the area in Delta state, Nigeria. MATERIALS AND METHODS Sample selection Delta state is divided into three agricultural zones, the north, the south and the central. Each of the zones is sub-divided into 10 local government areas except the northern zone, which is comprised of 9 local government areas. A multi-stage sampling technique was used to draw samples across the state. The first stage is a purposive sampling of three developed/urban areas in Oshimili south local government area (Asaba), Warri south local government area (Warri), and Ika south local government area (Agbor) for the study. This is because of the patronage of meat in both the open market stalls and the closed market shops in those areas. The second stage involved a random selection of forty (40) beef consumers from either of these two distribution channels in each area selected. A total of a hundred and twenty questionnaires were distributed across the state but only ninety four (94) were found useful for the study. Sources of data Primary data was collected through the use of well structured questionnaires administered to the respondents. The questionnaire is made up of open and close-ended questions with photographs displaying sample of both safe and unsafe of beef. This would aid the respondents’ choice between the safe and the unsafe products.
1.
Based on these pertinent questions, two-fold objectives were addressed in this study; examine the level of awareness of consumers and the factors affecting consumers’ preference for safe beef in the study area. No study has focused on consumer behaviors towards food safety nor determine factors of safety preference for food safety in Africa but some survey on economic impact of accepting food safety measures in America and Europe has been studied (Quarrainie, et al. 1998; Loureiro and
Method of data collection The primary instrument used in data collection for this study is the questionnaire which was followed up by personal interview to ensure that information supplied was consistent. The questionnaire contains some questions specifically formulated to generate only relevant information on the preference of consumers for safe food. Determinants of willingness to pay are sociodemographic and attitudinal behavior. Among the factors and their measurements include factors like age and educational level measured from the number of years spent in formal education by the respondent. Non-formal education was assigned a maximum of two (2) years.
075
Wudpecker J. Agric. Res.
Primary school, secondary school and higher institutional level of education were assigned 0, 12 and 15 years respectively. The household size was obtained from the number of people living under the same roof with and sharing the income of the respondents, while the level of income was the household head’s income, measured in naira value. Sex and marital status were measured as dummy variables with the male and married groups of respondents assigned a value of one (1) and other wise zero (0). The quantity bought and prices at which they were bought were measured in kilograms (kg) and naira (N) values respectively. Analytical techniques The analytical tools adopted for study were statistical and econometric tools. Descriptive statistical tools such as the mean and relative (Percentage) frequency were used to describe the various socio-economic factors affecting consumers of beef in the area. The level of consumer awareness of safe beef consumption was analyzed using descriptive statistics on a three point rating scale of aware, not aware and indifferent to ascertain the degree of awareness of safe beef. The determinants of the preference of consumers for safe beef were estimated using a dichotomous probit model. This model was adopted by Loureiro and Umberger (2003). The use of logit in this study was based on the following logistic probability that a consumer will make a certain choice “Yes” given his socio-economic features and random bid amount for safety. In dummy regression models, it is assumed implicitly that the dependent variable “Y” is quantitative whereas the explanatory variables are either qualitative or qualitative. There are certain types of regression models in which the dependant or response variable is dichotomous in nature, taking a 0 or 1 value. There are several special estimation/inference problems associated with such models. The most commonly used approaches to estimating such models are the linear probability model, the logit model, the tobit model and the probit model. There are certain problems associated with the estimation of linear probability models such as:
model because it assumes that: Pi = (Y = 1/x) ……………………………….…..(1) increases linearly with X, that is, the marginal or incremental effects of X remains constant throughout. This seems very unrealistic. Therefore, there is a need of a probability model that has 2 features. As x increases, Pi = E (Y=1/x)…… ………….(2) increases but never steps outside the 0 to 1 interval. The input is z and the output is F(z). The logistic function is useful because it can take an input value from negative infinity to positive infinity whereas the output is confined to values between 0 and 1. The variable z represents the exposure to some set of independent variables while F(z) represents the probability of a particular outcome, given that set of explanatory variables. The variable Z in the model is known as the logit. The variable z is usually defined as: Z = β0 + β1X1+ β2X2+ β3X3 + βkXk…………..(3) Where β0 is called the intercept and β1, β2, β3, and so on are intercept is the value of Z when the value of the independent variables is zero (e.g the value of Z in someone with no risk factors). Each of the regression coefficients describes the size of the contribution of that risk factor. A positive regression coefficient means that explanatory variable increases the probability of that outcomes, while a negative regression coefficients means that variable decreases the probability of that outcomes; a large regression coefficient means that the risk factor strongly influences the probability of that outcomes, while a near zero regression coefficient means that risk factor has little influence on the probability of that outcome. Logistic regression is a useful way of describing the relationship between one or more independent variables (e.g. age, independent variable Xj is observable. A common variation of the Tobit model is censoring at a value Y1 different from zero. Y1 = Y1* if YL*> YL ……………………………..…….(5) * YLif Yi ≤ YL ……………………………………………(6)
i. Non-normality of the disturbances ii. Heteroscedastic variances of the disturbances (Es) iii. Non-fulfillment of 0
