| Livestock Research for Rural Development 28 (3) 2016 | Guide for preparation of papers | LRRD Newsletter | Citation of this paper |
The present study investigates the consumer attitude and behavior of meat consumption in India. The study is carried out by using primary survey from Delhi and Hyderabad, two metropolitan cities of India. The result shows that poultry meat is more regularly consumed compared to other meat items. For more than half of the respondents, mutton is the most preferred meat product, mostly for its perceived nutritional value and health benefits. However, high price of mutton/chevon prevents accessibility to it. Though the meat consumption outside home is regularly practiced by the consumers, the habit of purchasing processed meat products is gradually evolving only. The purchase of meat from registered meat shop is quite low (22%). Also about, 15% of the consumers taste meat outside home only. The consumers have indicated that the consumption of all the meat items have increased over years. Also indicated is that there is a likely increase in the consumption of all the meat items in future too. This point to the need to increase production of all the meat items to ensure access to meat products by majority of the consumers.
Keywords: consumption pattern, demand, preference, purchase behaviour, quality
The consumption pattern in India is gradually getting diversified to high value commodities (Birthal, 2008). The livestock products, especially meat and meat products are of paramount importance in this diversified menu (Delgado et al. 1999). This is contributing to an increase in the share of livestock sector in the total value of output of agricultural sector - from 28.2% to 30.1% during 2004-05 to 2012-13 (CSO, 2014). Further, the export of meat and meat products from India is also on rise (Suresh and Kavita, 2012; Suresh et al.2012). The information system development in this regard is key determinant in improving the value chain of meat items (Legese et al., 2008). However, the attitude of consumers towards meat consumption is relatively an under-researched topic in India. In this context, a consumer survey was conducted to examine the consumers’ attitude towards meat consumption.
The survey is carried out in Delhi and Hyderabad, two major meat consumption centers of India. Both are metropolitan cities, and therefore represent diversified population. The information is collected through face to face interaction with the respondent from the households using structured survey schedules. The information with regard to monthly consumption expenditure, background social and economic information regarding the household, non-vegetarian consumption pattern, perception regarding various attributes of the small ruminant meat, etc were collected. The total number of consumers covered in the survey was 350, consisting of 150 from Delhi and 200 from Hyderabad. However, due to data paucities, 12 from Delhi and 4 from Hyderabad were not included in the analysis. Therefore, the total number of consumers in the analysis was 334 consisting of 138 from Delhi and 196 from Hyderabad.
The mean age of the respondent was 36 years, with a standard deviation of 10 (Table 1). The overall average family size was 5.6, consisted of 7.1 in Delhi and 4.6 in Hyderabad. The median family size was 5.0.
|
Table 1. Descriptive statistics of age and family size of the consumers |
|||
|
Variable |
Descriptive statistics |
Delhi |
Hyderabad |
|
Age (years) |
Mean |
34.9 |
36.2 |
|
Standard deviation |
9.30 |
10.5 |
|
|
Coefficient of variation |
86.6 |
110 |
|
|
Median |
37.0 |
35.0 |
|
|
Family Size (No) |
Mean |
7.13 |
4.57 |
|
Standard deviation |
2.59 |
1.83 |
|
|
Coefficient of variation |
6.73 |
3.35 |
|
|
Median |
7.00 |
4.00 |
|
|
Source: Field data |
|||
Table 2 illustrates the distribution of education of the consumers. The majority of the consumers are of high school to graduate level in both Delhi and Hyderabad, with a slightly higher proportion of graduate level consumers in Hyderabad. The Chi-square test indicates that there is no statistical difference in the distribution of the households among various categories of education in both the metros.
|
Table 2. Distribution of education standard for Head of Household (%) |
||
|
Education level |
Delhi |
Hyderabad |
|
Illiterate |
2.19 |
11.11 |
|
Primary (up to 4th) |
7.30 |
2.65 |
|
Secondary (4-7th) |
4.38 |
7.41 |
|
High school |
22.63 |
12.70 |
|
Senior secondary |
33.58 |
18.52 |
|
Graduate |
24.09 |
27.51 |
|
Post graduate |
5.84 |
20.11 |
|
Source: Field data |
||
More than half (52%) of the main earning member of the family were employed in organized sector. Another 20% consumers (14% consumers in Delhi and 24% in Hyderabad) are eking out a livelihood from business sector; followed by 16% of the consumers as casual laborer and another 7% as skilled laborers. The distribution pattern of employment is statistically independent of the city.
The pattern of consumption of meat differs across different commodities. The major non-vegetarian items included in the analysis are mutton/chevon, poultry meat (mostly chicken), pork, and buffalo meat. The information is collected through a Lykert scale, viz. regularly, very often, sometimes, rarely and never (Table 3). It has emerged that ‘’regular’’ category has a level of inclusion 35% poultry meat consumers and 20% of mutton consumers (average considering both the cities). However, there is considerable level of variation between Delhi and Hyderabad that the regular consumption of meat items is reported significantly low in Delhi compared to that in Hyderabad. Pork is the least regularly consumed item (hardly 2%, all from Hyderabad). It has emerged that Hyderabad has higher level of regular consumers of all the livestock meat items. However, Delhi has higher level of consumers falling in the ‘’very often” category, for all the livestock products. The highest number of consumer who have “never” tasted meat item was buffalo meat.
|
Table 3. Distribution of meat across different categories of consumption (%) |
||||||
|
Meat item |
Location |
Regularly |
Very often |
Sometimes |
Rarely |
Never |
|
Mutton |
Delhi |
7.30 |
55.47 |
28.47 |
8.76 |
- |
|
Hyderabad |
29.26 |
30.85 |
31.38 |
7.98 |
0.53 |
|
|
Poultry meat |
Delhi |
6.62 |
34.56 |
58.09 |
0.74 |
- |
|
Hyderabad |
55.85 |
23.40 |
17.02 |
0.53 |
3.19 |
|
|
Pork |
Delhi |
- |
12.50 |
59.38 |
5.21 |
22.92 |
|
Hyderabad |
6.15 |
6.15 |
3.08 |
9.23 |
75.38 |
|
|
buffalo meat |
Delhi |
1.19 |
1.20 |
2.60 |
3.57 |
92.14 |
|
Hyderabad |
14.63 |
7.32 |
8.54 |
6.10 |
63.41 |
|
|
Source: Field data |
||||||
The consumers’ preference for meat items varies across different categories (Table 4). For more than half of the respondents, mutton has emerged as the most preferred meat product, whereas close to 36% of respondents ranked poultry meat as the most preferred choice. While buffalo meat was ranked as the most preferred choice by 3.6%, pork was figured at the bottom end. Almost 35% has indicated mutton as the second most preferred choice. There is not systematic variations in the preference among consumers of Delhi and Hyderabad (Table 5). The consumers of both the cities prefer mutton over poultry meat, the next important competitor. Consumers believe that the small ruminant meat produced in India contain less chemicals are they are mainly grown in an extensive management system depending on common pastures, with least application of chemicals (Singh et al., 2005 and Suresh et al., 2008). Some consumers has not ranked buffalo meat and pork at all, and their consumption basket of meat consists of mutton and poultry meat only.
|
Table 4. Rank of preference of different meat products |
||||
|
Rank |
Mutton |
Poultry |
Pork |
Buffalo meat |
|
1 |
51.2 |
36.4 |
1.2 |
3.6 |
|
2 |
34.8 |
42.7 |
7.6 |
3.3 |
|
3 |
8.8 |
14.5 |
10.9 |
8.8 |
|
Source: Field data |
||||
|
Table 5. Rank of preference for non-vegetarian commodities in Delhi and Hyderabad |
||||||||
|
Rank |
Delhi |
Hyderabad |
||||||
|
Mutton |
Poultry |
Pork |
Buffalo meat |
Mutton |
Poultry |
Pork |
Buffalo meat |
|
|
1 |
52.9 |
40.6 |
2.9 |
3.6 |
50.0 |
43.8 |
0.0 |
3.6 |
|
2 |
34.1 |
42.7 |
18.1 |
5.1 |
35.4 |
45.8 |
0.0 |
2.1 |
|
3 |
8.0 |
64.5 |
18.1 |
9.4 |
9.4 |
4.7 |
5.7 |
8.3 |
|
Source: Field data |
||||||||
The market for processed/packaged meat is gradually evolving in India. The processed meats involve various forms of processing includes pickles, nuggets, sausage and kebab. However, this market in India is very nascent. In a study, Raju and Suryanarayana in Andhra Pradesh of India has also reported that the processed items are not preferred by about 65% consumers. Majority of the consumers have never purchased any packaged meat products (Table 6). Close to 68% consumers in Delhi and 59% in Hyderabad have never purchased any processed meat items. Only less than 10% consumers have purchased the processed meat items often or ‘’very often’’. However, 21% of the consumers have purchased the packaged meat products at least sometimes. This could be probably because the habit of purchasing processed meat products is gradually evolving. Many outlets of organized meat shops and emergence of many processed chicken products are providing momentum to this process. This would have impacts on value chain for meat and meat products, notably in case of mutton.
|
Table 6. Distribution of frequency of purchase of processed/packaged meat products |
|||||
|
Location |
Very often |
Often |
Some times |
Rarely |
Never |
|
Delhi |
0.0 |
5.26 |
17.29 |
9.02 |
68.42 |
|
Hyderabad |
3.26 |
5.43 |
23.91 |
8.15 |
59.24 |
|
Source: Field data |
|||||
Consumers’ assessment on the quality of meat items is an important factor while purchasing the meat product. Generally there are no scientific information regarding the quality of the meat available with the vendor. The consumers have to rely on their own expertise to assess the quality including the microbial contamination, and for the desirability of consumption of the product. Most of the time the consumers purchases whatever is available with the vendor, with a minimal level assessment, usually through visual observation of the product (Table 7). Consumers use a multitude of methods to assess the meat quality. Lion’s majority of consumers always rely on their own visual observation (90% in Delhi and 79% in Hyderabad). Touch of the meat item are also reported by close to one fifth of the consumers. However, 15% consumers, never touch meat products at the time of purchasing. Smelling is another way of testing the quality, but it has been practiced by only a few. Vendors’ opinion regarding the meat is one of the important sources of information on quality; but almost a quarter of consumer never attempt this method.
|
Table 7. Distribution of consumers adopting various methods to assess meat quality (%) |
||||||
|
Method |
Location |
Always |
Very often |
Sometimes |
Rarely |
Never |
|
Visual |
Delhi |
89.63 |
10.37 |
- |
- |
- |
|
Hyderabad |
79.37 |
2.65 |
6.88 |
4.23 |
6.88 |
|
|
Touch |
Delhi |
20.00 |
49.63 |
21.48 |
- |
8.89 |
|
Hyderabad |
29.47 |
18.95 |
24.21 |
8.42 |
18.95 |
|
|
Vendor's opinion |
Delhi |
11.11 |
25.93 |
59.26 |
- |
3.70 |
|
Hyderabad |
14.52 |
12.90 |
22.04 |
11.83 |
38.71 |
|
|
Any other |
Delhi |
3.13 |
- |
- |
- |
96.88 |
|
Hyderabad |
2.35 |
- |
3.53 |
1.18 |
92.94 |
|
|
Source: Field data |
||||||
The purchase behaviour of the consumers is elicited using a Lykert type of scales with five options ranging from always to never. The purchase behavior is analyzed with respect to fresh and cooked meats (Table 8). Almost 20% consumers always purchase meat from registered meat shops only. In case of Hyderabad close to one third never purchase meat from registered shops, whereas close to 65% purchase most often from registered shops in Delhi. One probable reason for this difference is that the meat is large number of registered meat shops in Delhi compared to that in Hyderabad. Close to two thirds of the consumers purchase most often (always+ very often) from known shops only, where they frequent to get the meat. This constitutes one way of ensuring the quality of meat.
|
Table 8. Distribution of consumers based on behaviour on sources of meat purchase (%) |
||||||
|
Item |
Location |
Always |
Very often |
Sometimes |
Rarely |
Never |
|
Registered shop |
Delhi |
21.32 |
65.44 |
13.24 |
- |
- |
|
Hyderabad |
20.00 |
8.95 |
26.84 |
11.58 |
32.63 |
|
|
Road side shop |
Delhi |
- |
36.03 |
44.85 |
2.21 |
16.91 |
|
Hyderabad |
38.30 |
9.04 |
26.06 |
8.51 |
18.09 |
|
|
Previously known shop |
Delhi |
13.97 |
32.35 |
36.03 |
- |
17.65 |
|
Hyderabad |
73.14 |
9.71 |
6.86 |
9.14 |
1.14 |
|
|
Source: Field data |
||||||
Outside home consumption of meat is not regularly practiced by the consumers. Only about 20% consumed meat usually (always + very often) outside home (Table 9).
|
Table 9. Distribution of consumer behavior on outside home consumption of meat and practices of ensuring meat quality (%) |
||||||
|
Item |
Location |
Always |
Very often |
Sometimes |
Rarely |
Never |
|
Consume non-vegetarian dish from outside home |
Delhi |
2.22 |
24.44 |
55.56 |
6.67 |
11.11 |
|
Hyderabad |
4.35 |
10.56 |
44.72 |
21.74 |
18.63 |
|
|
Source: Field data |
||||||
The likely trend in the consumption of various meat items for the coming 5 years is ascertained by using the choice set of increased, decreased, did not change and cannot say, for mutton, poultry meat and total meat. Overall there is a likely trend that the meat consumption would increase in the forthcoming years as well. This is so in case of both poultry meat and mutton. This indicates that unless, the production of the meat items is not increased in accordance with the demand, there would be an overall increase in the prices, in the domestic market, particularly so in the context of limited imports of meat items. The domestic production needs to respond to the external demand as well. However, the growth in the population of different livestock is slow (Government of India, 2013), and that may affect the quantity of meat production in India.
The consumption pattern of meat in India indicated that the poultry meat is more regularly consumed compared to other meat items. For more than half of the respondents, mutton has emerged as the most preferred meat product in both the cities whereas close to 36% of respondents ranked poultry meat as the most preferred choice. Mutton is preferred over other meat items, mostly for its perceived nutritional value and health benefits. However, the high price of mutton limits the consumers from accessing it compared to poultry meat. Majority of the consumers have never purchased any packaged meat products (63%). Though the meat consumption outside home is regularly practiced by non-vegetarian consumers, the habit of purchasing processed meat products is gradually evolving.
About one-fifth of the consumers always purchase meat from registered meat shops only. About 47% always purchase from known shops, where they frequent to get the meat. Also, most of the consumers avoid home-away consumption of meat products. About 15% of the consumers taste meat outside home only.
The consumers have indicated that the consumption of meat would most likely increase in the forthcoming years as well, for both mutton and poultry meat. This indicates that unless, the production of the mutton is not increased in accordance with the demand, there would be an overall increase in the prices. The domestic production needs to respond to the external demand as well. The policy towards livestock production in India has accorded higher priority towards milk production, with far less focus for meat production. However, considering the fast growth of the meat sector in India, meat production warrants greater policy focus. Various livestock development agencies need to focus on accelerating production of quality meat items to cater to the demand.
The article is based on a project titled ‘’Strengthening value chain for economic efficiency: The case of small ruminant meat marketing in India’’ funded by Indian Council of Agricultural Research, New Delhi, carried out by the author at National Centre for Agricultural Economics and Policy Research (NCAP), Pusa, New Delhi. The author gratefully acknowledges the funding support for the study. Also, the author expresses sincere gratitude to Dr Baswa Reddy, Senior Scientist, National Research Centre on Meat, Hyderabad for his helps in collecting the data from Hyderabad.
Birthal P S 2008 Linking small holder livestock producers to markets: Issues and approaches. Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics, 63: 19-37.
Central Statistical Office 2014. National Accounts Statistics 2014. Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation, Government of India.
Delgado C, Rosaegrant M, Steinfeld H, Ehui S and Courbois C 1999. Livestock 2020: The New Food Revolution: International Food Policy Research Discussion Paper EPTD 28, Washington DC.
Government of India 2013. Livestock Census. Department of Animal Husbandry, Dairying and Fisheries, Ministry of Agriculture, New Delhi.
Legese G, Teklewold H, Alemu D and Negassa A 2008. Live animal and meat export value chains for selected areas in Ethiopia. Constraints and opportunities for enhancing meat exports. Improving Market Opportunities. Discussion Paper No. 12. ILRI (International Livestock Research Institute), Nairobi, Kenya.
Raju D T and Suryanarayana M VA N 2005. Meat consumption in Prakasam district of Andhra Pradesh: An analysis, Livestock Research for Rural Development, 17(11)
Singh V K, Suresh A, Gupta D C and Jakhmola R C 2005 Common property resources, rural livelihood and small ruminants in India: A review, Indian Journal of Animal Sciences, 75(8): 1027-1036.
Suresh A and Kavita B 2012. Production and export of meat of small ruminants in India: an overview. Indian Journal of Small Ruminants 18: 163-172.
Suresh A, Gupta D C and Mann J S 2008 Adoption of Improved Management Practices of Sheep in the Semi-Arid Region of Rajasthan, Indian Journal of Extension Education, 44 (1)
Suresh A, Kavita B and Chaudhary K R 2012 India’s meat export: structure, composition and future prospects. Indian Journal of Animal Sciences 82: 87-94.
Received 22 December 2015; Accepted 14 February 2016; Published 1 March 2016