Factors Affecting the Domestic and Imported Cattle Meat Consumption Probability of Consumers in Turkey

Authors
A. Uzmay 1
G. Cinar 2
1 Department of Agricultural Economics. Faculty of Agriculture, Ege University, 35100 Bornova-Izmir Turkey
2 Department of Agricultural Economics, Faculty of Agriculture, Adnan Menderes University, Aydin, Turkey.
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to determine the socio-economic and intellectual factors affecting the imported meat preferences of consumers and to reveal the personal prioritized preferences of buyers consuming domestic meat and imported meat. The study was carried out in Izmir, the third city of Turkey, where face-to-face interviews were conducted in 300householdswhose occupants shop at hypermarkets where domestic and imported meat is sold. 28.7% of those participating in the study prefer imported meat. As a result of logistic regression, the approach related to the share of cattle meat in the total meat spend, the age factor and the belief that the price of imported cattle meat is low positively affect the probability of consuming imported meat. The consumption of chicken and lamb and marital status has negative effects. The religious belief factor and the perception of taste in those consuming imported meat take priority in the personal preferences of domestic meat consumers. Long-term policies that will ensure stability in the market as a whole are needed in the livestock sector in Turkey. Improvement of meat quality, classification and the rising awareness of consumers regarding quality and farming according to nutritional requirements and the development of certification also have significant importance.

Keywords

1. Akçay, Y. and Vatansever, O. 2013. A Research on Red Meat Consumption: A Case Study of Urban Area in Kocaeli Province. Çankırı Karatek Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 4: 43-60.
2. Aydın, E., Aral, Y., Can, M. F., Sakarya, E. and İşbilir, S. 2011. Analysis of The Red Meat Price Changes Over The Last 25 Years And Effects of Import Decisions in Turkey. Vet. Hekim Der. Derg., 82: 3-13.
3. Aydın, E., Can, M.F., Aral,Y., Cevger, Y.and Sakarya, E. 2010. The Effects of Livestock and Red Meat Import Decisions on The Cattle Fatteners in Turkey. Vet. Hekim Der. Derg., 81: 51-57.
4. Cankurt, M., Miran, B. and Şahin, A. 2010. Determining of The Effective Factors on Cattle Meat Preferences: The Case of Izmir. Hayvansal Üretim, 51: 16-22.
5. Cevger, Y. and Sakarya, E. 2006. Meat Prices and Factors Affecting Them in Turkey. Turk. J. Vet. Anim. Sci., 30: 1-6.
6. Cukur F., Demirbas N., Cukur T., Dayan, V and Uzun A. C. 2015. Evaluation of Attitudes and Behaviors on Food Safety and Quality Management Systems of Firm Owners in Olive Oil Enterprises: The Case Study of Mugla Province-Turkey. J. Agr. Sci. Tech., 17: 1653-1668.
7. Dursun, M. Ö. And Azabağaoğlu E. 2008. Tüketicilerin Modern Gıda Perakendecilerine Karşı Davranışının Analizi. JOTAF/Tekirdağ Ziraat Fakültesi Dergisi, 5: 01-12.
8. Ergönül, B. 2011. Meat Consumption and Buying Behaviors of Consumers Living in Manisa city Center, Turkey. J. Anim. Vet. Adv., 10: 286-290.
9. FAO Statistical Yearbook. 2014. Asia and the Pasific Food and Agriculture. http://www.fao.org/3/a-i3590e.pdf,
10. Garson, G. D. 2008. Logistic Regression. Available Online with Updates at: http://wtgrantmixedmethods.com/sites/default/files/literature/Garson_2008_Logistic%20Regression.pdf.
11. Glynn, T. T. and Schroeder, T. C. 2003. European Consumer References For US and Domestic Beef: Value of Source Verification and Beef Produced Without Use of Synthetic Hormones or GMO Feed Grains. Kansas State University, 50 PP. Available Online with Updates at: http://www.agmanager.info/livestock/marketing/ bulletins_2/ industry/demand/EUReport.pdf.
12. Gujarati, D. N. 1995. Basic Econometrics. 3rd Edition, Mc Graw Hill Inc, NY, USA, 570 PP.
13. Hersleth, M., Naes, T., Rodbotten, M., Lind V. and Monteleone, E. 2012. Lamb Meat Importance of Origin and Grazing System for Italian and Norwegian Consumers. Meat Sci., 90: 899-907.
14. Hill, J. İ. 2013. Consumers’ Preferences for Goat Meat in The United States: an Applicatıon Of Choice-Based Conjoint Analysis. PhD. Diss., The Department of Agricultural Economics and Agribusiness, Louisana State University, 106 PP. (Available online with updates athttp://etd.lsu.edu/docs/available/etd-04152013-15414/unrestricted/Hill__Dissertation.pdf).
15. Imami D., Chan-Halbrendt, C. , Zhang, Q. and Zhllima, E. 2011. Conjoint Analysis of Consumer Preferences For Lamb Meat in Central and Southwest Urban Albania. Int. Food Agribusiness Manage. Rev., 14: 111-126.
16. Karabaş, S. 2013. Assessing Consumer Preference and Attitudes Toward Imported Animal Product, and The Estimated Logistic Regression Analysis. KMÜ Sosyal ve Ekonomi̇k Araştırmalar Dergi̇si, 15: 59-64.
17. Karakuş, K. 2011. An Overview to Live Animal and Red Meat Imports of Turkey. Iğdır Üni. Fen Bilimleri Enst. Der./Iğdır Univ. J. Inst. Sci. Tech., 1: 75-79.
18. Karakuş, K., Aygün, T. and Arslan, E. 2008. Consumption Habits of Meat in Centre Town of Gaziantep Province. Ziraat Fakültesi Tarım Bilimleri Dergisi, 18: 113-120.
19. Karlı, B. and Bilgiç, A. 2007. Factors Affecting Meat and Meat Products Consumption Quantities in Sanliurfa Province. Akdeniz Üniversitesi Ziraat Fakültesi Dergisi, 20: 127-136.
20. Kaur, B. 2010. Consumer Preference For Goat Meat in Malaysia: Market Opportunities and Potential. J. Agribusiness Market., 3: 40-55.
21. Kızıloglu, S. and Kızıloglu, R. 2013. A Study Investigation The Status Related to The Meat And Imported Meat Consumption in The Center District of Erzurum. Iğdır Üni. Fen Bilimleri Enst. Der./Iğdır Univ. J. Inst. Sci. Tech., 3: 61-68.
22. Lorcu, F. and Bolat, B. A. 2012a. The Analysis of The Preferences of The Consumption of Red Meat in The Province of Edirne. Tekirdağ Ziraat Fakültesi Dergisi, 9: 71-85.
23. Lorcu, F. and Bolat, A. B. 2012b. Imported Red Meat in Turkey. Hayvansal Üretim, 53: 14-20.
24. Meas, T. 2014. The Effects of Country of Origin Image and Patriotism on Consumer Preference for Domestic Versus Imported Beef. PhD. Diss. Agricultural Economics, University of Kentucky, 27: 81, Available Online with Updates at: http://uknowledge.uky.edu/ agecon_etds/27.
25. Moschini, G. and Meilke, K. D. 1989. Modeling The Pattern of Structural Change in US Meat Demand. Am. J. Agr. Econ., 71: 253–261.
26. Newbold, P. 1995. Statistics for Business and Economics. Prentice-Hall International, New Jersey, 867 PP.
27. OECD-FAO, 2014, Agricultural Outlook 2013-2022, Highlights. Available Online with Updates at: http://www.agri-outlook.org/highlights-2013-en.pdf.
28. Schnettler, B., Ruiz, D., Sepúlveda, O. and Sepúlveda, N. 2008. Importance of the Country of Origin in Food Consumption in a Developing Country. Food Quality Preference, 19: 372–382.
29. Schnettler, B., Sepúlveda, N., Sepúlveda, J., Orellana, L., Miranda, L., Lobos, G., and Mora, M. 2014. Consumer Preferences Towards Beef Cattle in Chile: Importance of Country of Origin, Cut, Packaging, Brand and Price. Rev. FCA UNCUYO, 46: 143-160.
30. Schupp A., and Gillespie, J. 2001. Consumer Attitudes Toward Potential Country-of-Origin Labeling of Fresh or Frozen Beef. J. Food Distribut. Res., 32: 34-44.
31. Şeker, İ., Özen, A., Güler, H., Şeker, P. and Özden, İ. 2011. Red Meat Consumption Behavior in Elazığ and Consumers’ Opinion in Animal Welfare. Kafkas Üniversitesi Vet. Fak. Dergisi, 17: 543-550.
32. Tosun, Ö. O. and Hatırlı, S. A. 2009. An Analysis of Red Meat Purchasing Preferences of Households in Antalya. Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 14: 433-445.
33. TÜİK (Turkisch Statistical Institute). 2014. LiveAnimals and MeatTrade. Available Online with Updates at: http://www.turkstat.gov.tr/.
34. Umberger, W. J. 2004. Will Consumers Pay a Premium for Country-of-Origin Labeled Meat? Choices, 4: 15-19.
35. Umberger, W., Feuz, D., Calkins, C. and Killinger, K. 2001. U.S. Consumer Preference for Domestic Corn-Fed Versus International Grass-fed Beef. International Agricultural Research Consortium Trade in Livestock Products Conference, 18-19 April, Auckland, New Zealand.
36. Vukasovič, T. 2009. Consumer Perception of Poultry Meat and The Importance of Country of Origin in a Purchase Making Process. World's Poult. Sci. J., 65: 65-74.
37. Vukasovič, T. 2011. The Importance of National Chicken Meat Origin in Central and South-Eastern Europe. World's Poult. Sci. J., 67: 237-242.
38. Vukasovič, T. 2012. Correlations Between The Country of Origin (COO), Marketing Mix Elements and The Brand Value. World's Poult. Sci. J., 68: 627-636.
39. Vukasovič, T. 2016. Consumers' Sensorical Product Evaluation and Perception. J. Food Prod. Market., 22(8):863-871.
Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology
Volume 19, Issue 3
May and June 2017
Pages 501-510