Perception and Preference of Meat Among

J. Sylhet Agril. Univ. 6(1&2): 19-26, 2019 ISSN: 2308-1597

PERCEPTION AND PREFERENCE OF MEAT AMONG CONSUMERS AT SYLHET AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY M Famous1, MN Hossain1, SA Belal2 and MN Uddin1* 1 Department of Livestock Production and Management, Sylhet Agricultural University. 2Department of Poultry Science, Sylhet Agricultural University

(Available online at www.jsau.com.bd)

Abstract

With a view to study consumers preference and perception of the different types of meat among teacher, staff and students at Sylhet Agricultural University (SAU), a well-structured questionnaire was constructed and total respondents were 400 including faculty members, staff and students of the SAU. The respondents belong to different categories within the university: faculty members 10%, Academic Staff 15%, Undergraduates 45% and Postgraduates 30%. Out of 400 respondents 45.25% respondents prefer chicken as their first choice of meat followed by beef 33.25%, chevon 11.25%, duck 6.5% and quail 3.75%. But in case of most consumption meat per month, 52.25% respondents consumed chicken meat, 25.75% beef, 9.25% chevon, while 8.5% and 3.75% mostly eat duck and quail meat respectively. Chicken meat is in the first level of priority either it is preference or consumption. Availability 55%, price 18.75%, income 12.5% and taste 7.5% were the factors that influenced respondent’s consumption of meat. 90% respondent’s preferred lean meat with moderate fat and remaining percentage prefer meat from young or middle-aged animals. According to the respondents, beef is comparatively most delicious in taste and chicken meat was believed to be the most nutritious as well as easiest to cook.

Keywords: Meat, Consumption, Perception.

Introduction

Meat is any flesh of animal that is used for human consumption. Demand for meat has been increasing swiftly in Bangladesh alike in other developing countries, driven by income and population growth and urbanization. Meat is the most precious livestock product and for many people, aids as their foremost choice as basis of animal protein (Tsegay, 2012). Meat is a good source of proteins, zinc, iron, selenium, and phosphorus followed by vitamin A and B-complex vitamins. Average value of meat protein is about 23% that varies from higher to lower value according to the type of meat source (Rabia et al., 2018). Varnam and Sutherland (2015) reported that main constituents of meat is approximately water 75%, protein 19%, intramuscular fat 2.5%, carbohydrate 1.1%, soluble non protein substance 2.3%. Meat is nutritious and highly attention-grabbing in appearance at post rigor stage (Akinwumi et al., 2011). There are different categories of meat are available in Bangladesh and they are obtained from different sources, for example, mutton from sheep, chevon from goat, beef from cattle, and chicken from birds (Soniran and Okubanjo, 2002). Consumer’s perception and preferential consumption exists in spite of the importance of meat as a basis of protein with high biological value. Factors that inspire the consumption of meat are categorized as economic, social and cultural (Ojewola and Onwuka, 2001). More precisely emphasized factors in Bangladesh are religion, age, sex, socio-economic aspects, individual variation and income of consumers. For instance, pork is not accepted to the whole Muslim community in Bangladesh. Beef (cattle meat), mutton (goat meat)1 and chicken consumptions appear to predominate throughout in Bangladesh while buffalo meat (buffen), sheep meat consumption appear to lower level. Beef is a food high in protein and is one of the main nutrient sources for humans, since it consists of edible muscle, connective tissue

*Corresponding author: MN Uddin, Department of Livestock Production and Management, Faculty of Veterinary, Animal and Biomedical Sciences, Sylhet Agricultural University, Sylhet, Bangladesh, Email: [email protected]

Famous et al. (2019) and associated fat. The most important meat quality attributes include tenderness, taste, juiciness, leanness, nutrient quantities, safety and convenience (Webb, 2006). Goat meat has a somewhat darker red color, coarser texture, and characteristically different flavor and aroma compared with lamb or mutton (Casey et al. 2003). Poultry meat has many desirable nutritional characteristics, such as low lipid content and relatively high concentrations of polyunsaturated fatty acids, which are considered as a positive and healthy aspect by consumers (Babic et al., 2014). Quail meat is recommended for the low-fat diet because it contains low amount of fat and cholesterol especially thanks to its thin skin and low-fat accumulation between its tissues (Alarslan, 2006). Studies on consumer’s preference are superior appreciated by the food industry since they can elucidate consumer’s verdicts and should be pondered how commercial policies should be planned (Diez et al., 2006). The present study was however anticipated to analyze the nature of preferences and perception of the different types of livestock meat among faculty members, staffs and students on the basis of income, age, sex and religion at Sylhet Agricultural University, Sylhet, Bangladesh.

1 Goat meat is sometimes described as chevon and sheep meat as lamb meat. In Bangladesh, mutton usually refers to goat meat and sheep meat is usually called as such.

Materials and Methods

The study was conducted at the Sylhet Agricultural University, Sylhet, Bangladesh. A total of 400 respondents were sampled using simple random sampling techniques and interviewed through a well structural questionnaire and personal contact. The data collection included personal profile of the respondents, meat consumption level in the study area, relative importance of meat to respondents, preference to various types of meat, their perception and expectations to various meat types. Percent wise data were calculated on the basis of meat consumption, consumers’ preference for the diverse meat categories (e.g. beef, chevon, mutton, chicken, duck, and quail). Percentage was analyzed using excel software package.

Results & Discussion

Meat consumption level of consumers at SAU

Table 1 shows that all respondents of the study consumed meat and among them 59.25% respondents preferred meat to fish. When respondents at SAU were asked if they could eat without meat, 71.25% capitulated they could eat without meat, whereas 28.75% acknowledged they cannot eat without meat. This indicated that the prominence of meat consumption cannot be under-highlighted because all the respondents interviewed consumed meat and a greater proportion preferred meat to fish. However, certain components could be accredited to the non-consumption of meat by more or less respondents during their meals; this could range from non-obtainability of meat to the existence of substitutes such as egg and fish. With esteems to the regularity of meat consumption (Table 2); 7% respondents eat meat once in a week, 33.75% respondents at least twice a week, 22.25% respondents once in a while, 36.5% respondents daily and 0.5% respondents consumed meat during festive times. Figure 1 shows the number of respondents who purchase meat. A total of 92.5 % respondents buy meat while 7.5% respondents do not buy meat. The respondents indicating, they do not buy meat were those who do not eat in restaurant, cafeterias but eat only at home. A greater number of respondents 75% purchased meat from the market place meat shop like as Shibgonj, Kazitula, Amber Khana bazer, 20% respondent purchased meat from super shop like as Agora and Shwapno, 5% respondent purchased meat from specialized meat shop like as Bengal meat and deshi meat (Figure 2). From this result the modern way of buying meat from designated meat shops was ahead than the antique ways of meat purchase from the slaughter house. This might be credited to the pursuit for convenience and the fact that consumers were becoming more sensible to their health. This is also supported by Akinwumi et al., (2011) that better customary of living and changing of life styles has led to the swing towards more convenience in receiving meat for food preparation.

Consumer Perception and Preference of Meat at SAU

Table 1: Essentiality of meat towards respondents

Elements Affirmative response no Negative response no

Eat meat 400 -

Eat without meat 285 115

Prefer meat to fish 237 163

Buy meat 370 30

Eat all types of meat 234 166

Table 2: Meat consumption percentage in respondents

Elements No of respondents (%)

Meat consumption once a week 7

Meat consumption twice a week 33.75

Meat consumption once in a while 22.25

Daily meat consumption 36.5

Meat consumption during festive time 0.5

100.00% 92.50% 5% 80.00% 20%

60.00% 75% 40.00%

20.00% 7.50% 0.00% Yes No Market Place Figure 1: Number of respondents who purchase meat Figure 2: Purchasing place of meat

Preference of meat at SAU

Figure 3 reveal the consumption of various categories of livestock meat by different sorts of respondents at SAU. Chicken is the most preferable meat stood first position with 45.25% respondent consumed chicken meat than any other meat types, followed by beef with respondents (33.25%), chevon (11.25%), duck meat (6.5%) and quail meat (3.75%) respectively. This result ratified with some researcher (Akinwumi et al., 2011; Emakoro and Adamasun, 2012) that chicken was the most consumed meat at SAU in Bangladesh. Researchers referred that chicken and quail meat is more proteinaceous than other meat (Pereira PM and Vossen E, 2013). Protein percentage of chicken and quail meat is about 21.48% and 21.93% (Fakolade, 2015). Low fat content and better nutritive value of chicken was one of the causes for high consumption rate. The high degree of variation in meat consumption might be due to availability, cost, sensory attributes of meat, consumer’s income level, religious faith and sociocultural elements (Tsegay, 2012) and study revealed that availability 55%, price 18.75%, income 12.5%, taste 7.5% are the factors that reduce the preference percentage of meat among respondents at SAU.

Famous et al. (2019)

Nutritious, likeness and accessibility were top reasons given for the choice of consumer most preferred meat. However, Akinwumi et al. (2011) stated that cost, availability and income were declared as the most limiting factors of meat preferences.

3.75% 3.07% 11.25% 12.30%

45.20% 13.84% 50.76% 33.25% 20.70% 6.50%

Chicken Duck Beef Chevon Quail Chicken Beef Chevon Quail Duck

Figure 3: First choice of meat among respondent at SAU Figure 4: Meat consumption percentage among female respondent at SAU

Meat consumption level among female consumers

During data collection, it was appraised on proportion of meat consumption among female consumers. Among the different categories of meat, chicken was found as first and most popular choice in case of female respondents. Figure 4 in a pie chart states, female consumers preferences of meat consumption. Among all respondents 16.25% were female consumers. Among them 50.76% respondent preferred chicken meat, 20.7% respondent preferred beef, 13.84% respondent preferred chevon, 12.30% respondent preferred quail and 3.07% respondent preferred duck meat. Most of them choose chicken meat due to its taste, availability and easy cooking nature.

Preference based on form of meat purchase and consumption

As shown in figure 5, 58.5% of the respondents preferred to purchase their meat as fresh, 19.5% of the respondents preferred it frozen state while 22% were not particular as they preferred both forms. Figure 6 stated that a high number (56%) of the respondents preferred consuming their meat fried, 27% as roasted, 11% as fried while a few numbers (6%) preferred it as barbecued.

6% 22% 11% 56% 19.50% 58.50% 27%

Fresh Frozen Both Fried Roasted Boiled Barbecued

Figure 5: Forms of meat purchase among respondents at SAU Figure 6: Forms of meat consuption preference among respondents at SAU

Consumer Perception and Preference of Meat at SAU

Preference based on age and sex of livestock

Preference of respondents with respect to age and sex of livestock are shown in figures 7 and 8. As shown in figure 7; 11% of the respondents preferred meat from young animals, 29% preferred meat from middle aged animals, 32% from old animals while 28% consume meat regardless of the age of the animal from which it was obtained. The high percentage of respondents associated with the consumption of meats from older animals possibly might be as a consequence of preference for tough meat which characterizes older animals. Tsegay (2012) stated that meat from male animals was preferred to meat from male animals. A high proportion of the respondents (38.8%) preferred meat from male animals, 15.6% respondents preferred meat from female animals while majority of the respondents (45.6%) were not specific about the sex of animals from which their meats were obtained. The variance in preferences could be deviation of mass and sensory attributes of meat produced from diverse sexes of livestock. The color of meat is an important attribute towards consumer’s preference of meat. The distinctive color of meat is a function of its pigment content and lights scattering properties of meat (Ledward, 1992). The protein myoglobin exist in tissues combines with oxygen to form oxymyoglobin which provides a bright red color of fresh meat (Priolo et al., 2001). The meat color preference of respondents revealed 38% of the respondents preferred to red colored meat to white color meat (26%) as shown in figure 9; while 36% preferred both color meat. This is due to red meat color is more appealing at fresh state. Brewer et al. (2001) pertinently exemplified that consumers expressed a greater extent of purchase devoted for leaner meat in terms of preference of meat fat. This was supported by the findings in this study as shown in figure 10, where 42% respondent preferred lean meat, 39.5% preferred meat with moderate fat and 18.5% preferred with fat. The justification for this might be because lean meat has a comparatively low-fat content, moderate in cholesterol (Williams et al., 2006) and also the statistic that meat consumers are becoming more health conscious as excess amount of fat consumption has been attributed to cause cardiovascular diseases and accumulation of body fat that could lead to obesity (Iwanegbe and Igene, 2012). Chicken meat contain preferred amount of fat that does not show any detrimental effect on meat acceptability by consumers, perhaps more of the reasons the chicken meat reported a high preference in the study area.

28% 11% 29% 45.60% 38.80% 32% 15.60%

Meat From Young Animal Meat From Middle Aged Animal Male Animal Meat From Old Animal Female Animal Regardless of the Animal Age Regardlees sex specific

Figure 7: Preference of meat based on animal age by respondents at SAU. Figure 8: Animal Sex based meat preference by respondents at SAU

36% 18.50% 38% 42% 26% 39.50%

Red meat White meat Both Lean meat Moderate fat meat Fat meat

Figure 9: Meat color preference by respondents at SAU Figure 10: Meat fat preference by respondents at SAU

Famous et al. (2019)

Responsible factors for consumers’ choice of meat

It is clear that, meat consumption trend of the respondents was influenced towards some livestock species. However, many potential meat producing animals were hardly utilized. This may result to over utilization of the previously existing livestock and underutilization, disregard of other food animals. Table 3 shows the various factors inducing consumers’ choice of their most preferred, most consumed and none consumed meats. As observed in table 4, most of the respondents claimed availability (55%), price (18.75%) and income (12.5%) among others were the factors restrictive their choice of meat types. Adetunji and Rauf (2012) in their study explain that respondents’ preference for meat was influenced by their taste perception and level of income. In relation with income in this study 48.5% respondents self-confessed they would consume more meat if income increased while 42% respondent would not consume meat if their income increased, also 52.75% respondents acknowledged they would consume more meat if the price of meat decreases which strongly asserted the study of Adetunji and Rauf (2012) that a percentage increase in price of meat will reduce its demand while 39% respondents would not consume more meat even if price reduces.

Table 3: Factors affecting the consumption percentage of meat at SAU

Factors Most consumed respondents % Most preferred % no respondents no Availability 150 37.5 52 13 Proteinous 87 21.75 211 52.75 Cheap 28 7 17 4.25 Delicious 56 14 28 7 Only for satisfaction 79 19.75 92 23 Total 400 100 400 100

Table 4: Factors reducing the preference of meat among respondents at SAU

Factors Number of respondents (%)

Availability 220 55.00 Price 75 18.75 Income 50 12.50 Delicious 30 7.50 Others 25 6.25 Total 400 100

Perception of respondents to various meat types

As shown in Table 5, chicken and chevon were the tastiest as perceived by 40.9%, and 30.7% of the respondents respectively. 58.1% of the respondent said that chicken was the most affordable and 35.6% listed it as the most nutritious. Chicken was the easiest to cook, most palatable and also most convenient to access whereas the chevon was considered most expensive. Akinwumi et al (2011) stated that chicken was the most convenient to availability, most affordable, tastiest and easiest to cook. Among the different types of meat, chicken was the first most convenient to availability, most affordable, and easiest to cook while beef was the second most affordable and available, tastiest and easier to cook as perceived by respondents. It can be concluded that chicken meat and beef was clearly preferred to other meat types in terms of all the attributes in this study that agreed with Eyo (2007) and Akinwumi et. al. (2011).

Consumer Perception and Preference of Meat at SAU

Table 5: Reason behind the preference level of meat among respondents at SAU

Traits Chicken (%) Beef (%) Chevon (%) Quail (%)

Tastiest 40.9 19.1 30.7 9.3 Most affordable 58.1 23.8 5.9 12.2 Counting as nutritious 35.6 24.7 18.4 21.3 Easiest to cook 43.2 15.5 17.90 23.40 Most suitable to carry 54.8 12.4 8.20 24.60 Most palatable 46.4 15.3 18.20 20.10

This study revealed that chicken was the most commonly preferred by consumers, followed by beef, chevon, duck and quail. Beef were not affordable by the consumers as for its low availability in local market. Chicken was the most affordable, easiest to cook, most convenient to access and rated the most consumed meat followed by beef, chevon, quail and duck. Consumer preferences and consumption were influenced by availability, income, price and taste of meat. This was also documented that better standard of living and changing lifestyles has led to the perception and consumption percentage of meat.

Acknowledgements

The authors thank to the personnel of Department of Livestock Production and Management, Faculty of Veterinary, Animal and Biomedical Sciences, Sylhet Agricultural University for their valuable assist to conduct the research.

References

Adetunji MO and Rauf MO. 2012. Analysis household Demand for meat, in Southwest, Nigeria. International Global Journal of Frontier Research Agriculture and Biology. 12 (1): 15-22. Akinwumi AO, Odunsi AA, Omojola AB, Aworemi JR and Aderinola OA. 2011. Consumer perception and preference for meat types in Ogbomoso area of Oyo State, Nigeria. International Journal of Applied Agriculture and Apiculture Research. 7(1-2): 96-106. Alarslan OF. 2006. Modern quail manufacturing and basic nutrition principles. Babic J, Milicevic D, Vranic D, Lukic M, Petrovic Z and Mesa T. 2014. The effect of season of transportation on the welfare of broilers and selected parameters of broiler meat quality. 55(1): 46-53 Brewer MS, Zhu LG and Mckeith FK. 2001. Marbling effects on quality characteristics of pork loin chops: Consumer purchase intent, visual and sensory characteristics. Meat Science. 59: 153-163. Casey NH, Van Niekerk WA and Webb EC. 2003. Goats meat. In: Caballero B., Trugo L., Finglass P. editors, Encyclopedia of food sciences and nutrition. Academic Press, London. p. 2937-2944. Diez J, Del JJ, Bahamonde A, Olleta JL, Macie S, Campo MM, Panea B and Albetri P. 2006. Identifying market segments in beef: Breed, slaughter weight and ageing time implication. Meat Science 74: 667-675. Emakoro CO and Amadasun OJ. 2012. Analysis of beef marketing in Benin-city, Nigeria. Nigerian Journal of Animal Production 8 (3): 26-31. Eyo EO. 2007. Consumer’s preference for meat from food animals in Nigeria Delta, Nigeria. Nigerian Journal of Animal Production 34 (1): 113-120. Fakolade PO. 2015. Effect of age on physico-chemical, cholesterol and proximate composition of chicken and quail meat." African Journal of Food Science, 4: 182-186. Iwanegbe I and Igene JO. 2012. Survey on the consumers acceptability, preference to snail and its meat in Edo state (case: Ordeo, Esan West and Etasko West Local Government areas) Continental Journal of Food Science and Technology 6 (2): 25-33. Ledward DA. 1992. Color of raw and cooked meat. J. Food Chemistry 10: 75-82. Ojewola GS and Onwuka GI. 2001. Evaluation of the organoleptic properties of suya produced from various sources of meat. Nigerian Journal of Animal Production 28 (2): 199-201. Pereira PM and Vossen E. 2013. Meat nutritional composition and nutritive role in the human diet. Meat Science. 93 (3): 586-592.

Famous et al. (2019)

Priolo A, Micol D and Agabriel J. 2001. Effects of grass feeding systems on ruminant meat color and flovour: A review. Animal Research 50: 185-200. Rabia SA, Ali I and Muhammad BH. 2018. Nutritional Composition of Meat, Meat Science and Nutrition, Muhammad Sajid Arshad, Intech Open. Soniran OG and Okubanjo AO. 2002. Physioco-chemical and sensory characteristics of pork loin roast cooked to three internal temperatures. Nigerian Journal of Animal Production. 29 (1): 138-141. Tsegay H. 2012. Consumer perception and preferences of meat types in Harare and Haramaya province, Ethiopia. Journal of Microbiology, Biotechnology25 and Food Science. 2(3): 959-969. Varnam A and Sutherland JM. 2015. Meat and Meat product: Technology, Chemistry and Microbiology. Chapman & Hall, 2-6 Boundary Row, London, SEI 8HN, UK. Webb EC. 2006. Manipulating beef quality through feeding. South African Journal of Animal Science 7: 5–15. Williams PG, Droulez V, Levy G and Stobaus T. 2006. Nutrient composition of Australian red meat. In Gross composition, Food Australia. 58 (4):173-181.