Determinants of Choice of Pork Consumption by Agryk

VIEWS: 701 PAGES: 71

BSc Dissertation, 2009

More Info
									 DETERMINANTS OF CHOICE OF PORK CONSUMPTION IN THE JAMAN


                       SOUTH DISTRICT




                             BY




                   ISAAC ANKAMAH-YEBOAH




A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURAL


ECONOMICS AND AGRIBUSINESS, COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE AND


CONSUMER SCIENCES, UNIVERSITY OF GHANA, LEGON, IN PARTIAL


FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENT FOR THE AWARD OF BACHELOR OF


SCIENCE (HONOURS) DEGREE IN AGRICULTURE (AGRIBUSINESS)




DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS AND AGRIBUSINESS


COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE AND CONSUMER SCIENCES


UNIVERSITY OF GHANA


LEGON




                                                    JUNE, 2009
                                  DECLARATION




I, ISAAC ANKAMAH-YEBOAH, author of this dissertation do hereby declare that


except for the references which have been duly cited, the work presented in this


dissertation, „„DETERMINANTS OF CHOICE OF PORK CONSUMPTION IN THE


JAMAN SOUTH DISTRICT‟‟ was done entirely by me in the Department of


Agricultural Economics and Agribusiness, College of Agriculture and Consumer


Sciences, University of Ghana, Legon from September, 2008 to June, 2009.


This work has never been presented either in whole or in part for any other degree of


this University or elsewhere.


                                              ………………………………………


                                                         Isaac Ankamah-Yeboah


                                                                   (STUDENT)




This dissertation has been submitted with my approval as supervisor.


                                                    …………………………………..


                                                           Dr. Daniel Bruce Sarpong


                                                                       (SUPERVISOR)




                                          i
                                 DEDICATION




I dedicate this piece of work to my grandmother Madam Esi Nyanta.




                                        ii
                               ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

My foremost thanks go to the almighty God, who made it possible for me to complete

the first degree successfully and also helped me to write this dissertation.



My profound gratitude goes to my supervisor, Dr. Daniel Bruce Sarpong whose

constructive criticism, dedication and guidance helped me massively during this study.

May God richly bless him and replenish him with whatever he might have lost during

his time of supervision.



I wish also to acknowledge my parents for their immense support in kind, cash and

prayer during my entire educational life. The financial assistance by Finatrade

Foundation throughout the successful completion of my Bachelor of Science degree is

deeply appreciated.



I would also like to express my appreciation to all the lecturers at the Department of

Agricultural Economics and Agribusiness who in one way or the other contributed to

the success of this study.



I also appreciate the service and hospitality accorded me by the staff of DADU

(Jaman South District) and all the respondents in my study area for the relevant

information they provided.



                                                              …………………………..

                                                                 Isaac Ankamah-Yeboah




                                           iii
                                     ABSTRACT

The purpose of this study was to identify the factors that determine the choice of pork

consumption in the Jaman South District. The study also describes the trend in pig

production in the Jaman District and estimate consumers mean premium amount

(extra above market price) they are willing to pay per kg of certified pork. Primary

data was collected by interviewing 118 consumers using a structured questionnaire.

Secondary data was obtained from the District Agricultural Development Unit of the

Jaman South District Assembly for the trend analysis of pig production. The data was

analyzed using descriptive statistics and the binary logistic estimation method. The

result from the trend analysis showed that in the Jaman District, the exotic breed of

pigs (Large White) had a significant growth rate of 18.8 percent per annum as against

0.6 percent growth rate per annum for the local breed of pigs (Ashanti Black) from

1992 to 2000. It is estimated from the binary logistic model that age, sex, number of

children in a household, religion, system of production, type of breed, traceability and

branding showed significant influence on the choice of pork consumption in the

Jaman South District. On the average, respondents are willing to pay GH₵ 1.10 per

kg of certified pork as price above the current market price. It is recommended,

among others, that farmers should be encouraged to adopt the production of the exotic

breeds (has significant growth rate and less susceptible to African Swine Fever

Disease) and adhere to consumers‟ sensitivity to the type of production system.




                                           iv
                       TABLE OF CONTENTS

CONTENT                                                                  PAGE



DECLARATION                                                          i

DEDICATION                                                           ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT                                                      iii

ABSTRACT                                                             iv

TABLE OF CONTENT                                                     v

LIST OF TABLES                                                       vii

LIST OF FIGURES                                                      vii

ABBREVIATIONS                                                        viii



CHAPTER ONE

      1.0          INTRODUCTION                                      1

      1.1          Background                                        1

      1.2          Problem Statement                                 6

      1.3          Objectives of the Study                           9

      1.4          Relevance of the Study                            9

      1.5          Organization of the Study                         10



CHAPTER TWO

      2.0          LITERATURE REVIEW                                 11

      2.1          Introduction                                      11

      2.2          Determinants of Choice                            11

      2.3          Factors Influencing the Demand for Meat Product   15


                                   v
     2.4        Approaches to Evaluating Willingness to Pay         20



CHAPTER THREE

     3.0        METHODOLOGY                                         24

     3.1        Introduction                                        24

     3.2        The Study Area                                      24

     3.3        Data and Sampling Procedure                         26

     3.4        Number of Respondents used for the Study            26

     3.5        Methods of Analysis                                 26

     3.5.1      Describing the Trends in Pig Production in the Jaman

                District                                            27

     3.5.2      Estimating Empirically the Factors that Influence

                the Choice of Pork Consumption in the Jaman

                South District                                      27

     3.5.2.1    Empirical Model Estimation                          29

     3.5.2.2    Statement of Hypotheses                             31

     3.5.2.3    Marginal Effects Estimation                         32

     3.5.3      Estimation of Mean WTP Premium                      32

     3.5.3.1    Procedure for Eliciting Willingness to Pay          33



CHAPTER FOUR

     4.0         RESULTS AND DISCUSSION                             34

     4.1         Introduction                                       34

     4.2         Socio-Economic Description of Respondents          34

     4.3        Analysis of Trends in Pig Production in the

                                 vi
               Jaman District                                       36

     4.4       Empirical Results of the Determinants of Choice

               of Pork Consumption in the Jaman South District      39

     4.5       Estimation of Extra Price Consumers are Willing

               to Pay for   Certified Pork under Hygienic Conditions 45



CHAPTER FIVE

     5.0         INTRODUCTION                                       49

     5.1         Summary                                            49

     5.2         Conclusion                                         49

     5.3         Recommendation                                     51

     5.4         Limitation of the Study                            51



REFERENCES                                                          52

APPENDICES                                                          58




                                 vii
                            LIST OF TABLES



Table 1.1   World Meat Productions and Consumption, 2003             2

Table 3.1   Description of Variables                                 30

Table 4.1   Description of Socio-Economic Background                 34

Table 4.2   Logit Results                                            39

Table 4.3   Estimated Mean willingness to pay premium amount

            for pork meat (on 1 kg) if certified as produced

            under hygienic conditions                                45




                            LIST OF FIGURES



Fig 1.1     Livestock and Poultry Population of Ghana, 2000-2007     6

Fig 3.1     A Map of Jaman South District                            25

Fig 4.1     Some Socio-Economic Characteristics of the Respondents   35

Fig 4.2     Pig production figures in the Jaman District

            from 1992 to 2000                                        36

Fig 4.3     Pig Population Figures for Jaman South District

            in 2007 and 2008                                         37

Fig 4.4     Willingness to Pay Premium Amount Distribution           46

Fig 4.5.1   Shifts in Pork Consumers and Non consumers               47

Fig 4.5.2   Shifts in Pork Consumers and Non consumers               47




                                    viii
               ABBREVIATIONS

CE      Choice Experiment

CVM     Contingent Valuation Method

DADU    District Agricultural Development Unit

DFID    Department for International Development

ISID    International Society for Infectious Diseases

ISSER   Institute for Statistical, Social and Economic Research

MoFA    Ministry of Food and Agriculture

NOAA    National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

WTP     Willingness to Pay

WTPPA   Willingness to Pay Premium Amount




                        ix
                                  CHAPTER ONE


1.0     INTRODUCTION


1.1     Background

In 2003, pig producers around the world produced 98.5 million tons of pork, with a


herd of approximately 1 billion animals. Asia was the largest producer (55 percent of


the world production), with 54.4 million tons. The European continent was in second


place, with 26 percent of the production (25.9 million tons). The Americas followed


with 17 percent (16.7 million tons), Africa with 0.78 percent (0.77 million tons), and


Oceania with 0.56 percent (0.55 million tons), (Roppa, 2005).



As at 2003, the total pork consumption in the world was estimated at 15.6 kg per


capita and since 1976 pork has enjoyed the privilege of being the most consumed


meat in the world. Chicken consumption was in the second place, with 10.31 kg, and


beef was third, with 9.34 kg per capita (see table 1.1). Chicken reached second place,


exceeding beef, only in 1996. Chicken consumption has grown at a higher rate than


pork consumption, but it is not expected that chicken will surpass pork, at least for


decades due to the growth of the economy in China, a country which traditionally

prefers foods based on pork (Roppa, 2005).




                                          1
Table 1.1        World Meat Productions and Consumption, 2003
Meat                                                      Consumption       (kg   per
                             Production (million tons)    person)
Pork                                      98.5                                 15.62
Chicken                                  65.0                                  10.31
Beef                                     58.9                                  9.34
Others                                   31.09                                 4.93
Source: Roppa, 2005.


Relative to Ghana, as at 2004 the estimated total meat consumed was 19.25 kg/head, a

rise from 18.35 kg/head in 2003.



Pork has a higher digestibility than beef, chicken or lamb, more calories per pound


(2825 cal) than beef, chicken, fish or lamb, an excellent amino acid profile, a unique


protein source, very palatable and one of only two meats naturally high in L-Carnitine


(chemical in muscle: an amino acid that transports fatty acids into muscle cells for


energy production).



Agriculture remains the largest sector in the Ghanaian economy in terms of its


contribution, although this was slightly down from 39.3 percent in 2006 to 38 percent


in 2007. One of the sectors of agriculture with very weak policy support is the


livestock sector. Projections by the Ministry of Food and Agriculture suggest that


cattle, sheep and goat production increased in 2007 by about 0.7 percent, 3.3 percent


and 4.8 percent respectively. The cattle population grew from 1.39 million in 2006 to


about 1.40 million in 2007 while sheep and goats went up from 3.31 million to 3.42
                                          2
million and 4.12 million to 4.32 million respectively over the same period. Pig


production figures suggested a decrease in population from 320,000 heads in 2000 to


about 270,000 heads in 2007, representing a 15.6 percent decline over the period.


Poultry production continued to increase in 2007 after the decline in 2005. The total


bird population was estimated at about 37 million in 2007 compared to 34 million in


2006, an increase in about 8.85 percent. The livestock sector therefore needs a lot


more policy attention to enable it to compete with relatively cheap imported meat


products, particularly poultry (ISSER 2007).




According to MoFA (2004), after the pork population hit an all time peak in 1989, the


population figures for pig have declined drastically. Consequently in Ghana, pork


production is characterized by several factors including the incidence of diseases and


poor husbandry. The systematic decline in the reported annual figures is due to a lot of


factors of which the most prominent is the outbreak of the African Swine Disease. In


2005, the African Swine Fever Disease was reported to have killed more than 4,000


pigs at Dwenem in the Jaman South District of Brong Ahafo Region. Farmers who


depended mainly on pig production for their source of income had to withdraw their


children from school due to lack of funds. A farmer lost as much as 145 pigs from the

African Swine Fever Disease outbreak (ISID 2005). Another factor affecting the

                                           3
production of pig is the high feeding cost involved, coupled with the fact that the pig


market is not that comparatively lucrative. A kilogram of pork costs less than that of


mutton, chevon and beef. As a result, a lot of the producers who did not have enough


capital to catch up with this high feeding cost opted out of the pig industry and this


has subsequently resulted in the declining figures being reported. Barnes and


Fleischer (1998) identified the major constraints in the pig industry in the Greater


Accra Region to be related to non-availability of feed or high priced feed, water


problem especially in the dry season and non-availability of credit facility.




An issue of concern to agribusiness of production and consumption is the impact on


consumer well-being from new product standards through voluntary certification and


labeling programs. The certification program provides a pre-specified range of


credence attributes, which are product quality attributes that are unverifiable from the


consumer‟s perspective but verified in a third-party independent auditing scheme


(Darby and Karni, 1973). The certification program controls the presence of credence


attributes as the product passes through the market stages. For example, the program


may regulate or prohibit the usage of antibiotics, growth-promoting hormones, feed


ingredients, regulate slaughtering practices and control   retail shelf location.

Certification programs have become increasingly popular in most economies

                                            4
especially in the live animal industry foremost because of two factors. First, crucial


food attributes are unverifiable and unobservable but important in the minds for some


consumer segments.       There is immense pressure from the public and consumer


interest groups on agribusinesses to meet concerns regarding credence qualities such


as environmental degradation, food safety and animal welfare issues. Secondly,


certification presents an opportunity for upstream suppliers, that is, live animal


producers to secure market access to profitable marketing opportunities and


potentially eliminate buyers trying to form prices by reducing profits in the pork


market.




Although there is    concern about food safety, environmental degradation and animal


welfare, not all    consumers are willing to pay for a credence certification program


that alleviates these   concerns. Hence, the certified products may be imperfectly


substitutable to the existing conventional food products on aggregate. The problem for


the consumer that prefers the certification program is whether the new product


enhances consumer welfare. The problem for the consumer that prefers the


conventional product is whether the certification causes adverse price movements and


therefore worsens consumer welfare in          the conventional market. From the

perspective of the live animal producer and the intermediary firm, the problem is that

                                           5
the certification may cause a consumer demand expansion or contraction. Specifically,


the supplier problem is to choose to supply either in the conventional or the certified


market or in both markets (Nilsson and Foster 2005).




1.2      Problem Statement

A major observation in the Ghanaian livestock industry is that although livestock and


poultry industries are seeing growth that of pork production is decreasing at an


increasing rate. Pig production figures in Ghana suggest a decrease in population from


320,000 heads in 2000 to about 270,000 heads in 2007, representing a 15.6 percent


decline over the period (ISSER, 2007). The decline over the past seven years is


indicated in figure 1.1.


Figure 1.1        Livestock and Poultry Population in Ghana, 2000-2007




Source: Computed from Data of the Veterinary Services Directorate, Ministry of
Food and Agriculture.

                                          6
Subsequently, there has been an increase in pork imports into the country over the


past few years. In 2006, the imports for pork through Tema Harbor were 13,290.54


MT which was a rise from about 1,200 MT in 2001 (MOFA, 2007).




Pork safety can be enhanced by practices throughout the pork supply chain designed


to decrease risk from both microbial pathogens and drug residues. Pork is a potential


source of several economically important pathogens, including Clostridium


perfringens, Staphylococcus aureus, Listeria monocytogenes, Campylobacter jejuni,


and Salmonella (Jensen and Unnevehr, 2000). These biological hazards can occur at


any point along the pork supply chain, from production through processing, and


finally at the consumer end, either in the restaurant or at home (Miller and Unnevehr,


2001). This issue threatens consumers thereby damping pork consumption. The


consumption of unwholesome foods is a challenge to human development. It is both a


cause and consequence of underdevelopment since the nutritive value and


wholesomeness of the food consumed is a key instrument in determining our health


status and consequently the level of economic growth in the nation as a whole (Asare,


2008).




As people realize higher incomes in both the developed and developing world, they

                                          7
acquire the ability to purchase higher quality foods. For many people, this means a


turning from traditional, low cost food such as traditional pork to more hygienic pork


products. This has therefore become a challenge to pork producers. Lack of consumer


information has impeded producers, processers and marketers ability to fully identify


the pork industry‟s profitability and viability. Notwithstanding, insufficient research to


identify new markets and suggest strategies for expanding existing markets is a barrier


that restricts the pork industry‟s growth (Rhee, Oltman and Han, 2000). Also of


importance is the impact on consumer well-being from new product standards through


voluntary certification and labeling programs (Nilsson and Foster, 2005). In Ghana,


the declining production levels in pork coupled with the aforementioned factors have


combined to affect pork consumption. In the Jaman South District, several factors


have combined to slow the growth of the pork industry.


The questions that arise therefore are;


   1. what has been the trend in pig production in the Jaman District from 1992 to


       2008?


   2. what factors determine the choice of pork consumption in the District?


   3. what price premium are consumers willing to pay for certified pork meat per


       kilogram?

     These are the issues addressed by the study.

                                            8
1.3      Objectives of the Study

The main objective of the study is to determine the factors that determine the choice


of pork consumption in the Jaman South District. The specific objectives are:


1. to describe the trend in pig production in the Jaman District from 1992 to 2008


2. to identify and estimate empirically the factors that determines the choice of pork


consumption in the Jaman South District.


3. to estimate mean consumers‟ premium amount they are willing to pay per kilogram


of certified pork.




1.4      Relevance of the Study

Growth of meat markets will depend on the consumption behaviour of consumers,


among other factors. Consumer tastes and preferences will act as the deciding factor


for the development of the livestock sector in general and pigs in particular. Although


the importance of livestock is well recognized, the importance has not been well


quantified. One contributing factor is lack of data and information on the marketing of


these animals. The study aims at contributing to filling this information gap by


collecting and analyzing data on consumption and buyer preferences of pork and


estimate the price premium consumers are willing to pay for meat quality.




                                           9
1.5      Organization of the Study

The study is organized into five chapters. Chapter one forms the introduction and


contains a brief background of the study, the objectives of the study and justification


of the study. Chapter two reviews existing literature relevant to the study whiles


chapter three outlines the methodology employed to accomplish the objective of the


study and a brief description of the study area. The results and discussion of the study


are presented in chapter four. Finally, the summary, conclusions, recommendations


and the limitations of the study are presented in chapter five.




                                           10
                                  CHAPTER TWO


2.0     LITERATURE REVIEW


2.1     Introduction

This chapter reviews literature related to the study. The first section examines the


determinants of choice. The second section reviews the factors that influence the


demand for a product whiles the last section reviews related approaches to evaluating


willingness to pay for goods and services.




2.2     Determinants of Choice

According to Rozin (1990), preference implies choice. To prefer a food is to choose it


over another designated food (or other activity). In more affluent cultures, as


availability and cost recede in importance, preference is more in line with use.


Marshall (1995) counter-argues saying „people like what they eat‟ rather than „eat


what they like‟ and food choice is moulded by cultural representation, which dictates


what is eaten long before food reaches the mouth. According to Lefkoff-Hagius and


Mason (1993), a preference judgment is typically defined as the outcome of a


consumer‟s evaluation process. Preference is an expression of the emotional state or


reaction of an assessor which leads to the choice of a preferred product. Marreiros and

Ness (2009), argue in the study of conceptual framework of consumer food choice

                                             11
behaviour that, consumers apply a four-stage process when making choice of a


product: first, they determine the evaluative criteria to use; second they decide which


alternatives to consider; third, they assess the performance of the considered


alternatives; and fourth, they select and apply a decision rule to make a final choice.


Grunert, Bredahl and Brunso (2004) also argue that in order to make a choice, the


consumer will develop expectations about quality, but it is only after consumption that


experienced quality can be determined, and even this is limited in the case of credence


characteristics like the healthiness of a product. Consumers tend to use multiple


attributes to determine their preference for one food product over another.




Marshall (1995) indicates that while there is recognition of external influences such as


product availability and economic factors, most food choice models focus on the


interaction between the individual and the food product. The decision process is


facilitated by information processing mechanisms and conditioned by psychological,


cultural, and social influences that usually, are afforded a peripheral role. For Engel et


al. (1995), consumers apply evaluative criteria such as the standards and


specifications of products in comparing alternative products. Evaluative criteria are


the desired outcomes from purchase and consumption, and are expressed in the form

of preferred attributes. They are shaped and influenced by individual differences and

                                           12
environmental influences. As such, they become product-specific manifestations of an


individual‟s motives, values, and attitudes.




According to Engel et al. (1995), consumers may employ a number of different


evaluative criteria in making choice, and these criteria will usually vary in their


relative importance or salience. The salience of evaluative criteria depends on a host


of situational, product, and individual factors. Steenkamp (1997), reporting on a study


involving 100 products in seven European countries, found that the five most


important criteria used to evaluate food products are product quality, price, brand


name/reputation, freshness, and guarantee. Garber, Hyatt, and Starr (2003) state that it


is important to stress the notion that product performance alone is not the sole


determinant of consumer preference and choice, but that all elements of the entire


marketing-mix interact to influence consumer preference and choice.        Asp (1999)


qualifies this argument by indicating that food preferences must be related both to


psychological and physiological perceptions of the sensory attributes of food. Bell and


Marshall (1995) adds that perception and acceptance of foods by humans is mediated


by several factors, including expectation, sensory specific satiety, perceived risks,


perceived ethnic origin, hunger, expectations of reward, and the level of uncertainty

about a product‟s identity and sensory characteristics.

                                           13
Much research into food preference is focused on sensory preference as the


determinant of choice.     According to Asp (1999) and Nigel, MacFie, and Sheperd


(1994), of the sensory attributes, taste is the one considered most important in food


selection. Also, Raats et al. (1995) state it is clear that the taste of a food is a crucial


parameter in determining food acceptability.




Engel et al, (1995) add that the similarity of choice alternatives has impact on the


evaluation criteria and their salience. For these authors, motivation, involvement, and


knowledge are individual factors that can determine the type of evaluative criteria


likely to be used during alternative evaluation and the relative salience of these


criteria. A greater number of evaluative criteria are likely to enter into the decision as


involvement increases. Knowledge can also determine consumer‟s use of particular


evaluative criteria. Knowledgeable consumers will have information stored in


memory about the dimensions that are most useful for comparing choice alternatives.


Consequently, they will make evaluations more easily, look less for external sources


of information and therefore it is more difficult to influence their decision. On the


other hand, some consumers may be limited in their ability to accurately evaluate


choice alternatives. These consumers may rely much more heavily on brand name or

others‟ recommendations, because they lack the knowledge necessary for directly

                                            14
evaluating the product.




2.3     Factors Influencing the Demand for Meat Product

Gossard and York (2003) argue meat production to be a major hidden cause of many


critical environmental problems, indicating that individual dietary habits are a form of


environmentally significant consumption (ESC). Building upon growing literature on


ESC, they analyzed the effects of social structural factors on the total meat and beef


consumption among United States residents. In this study, gender, race, ethnicity,


location of residence (region and urban vs. non-urban), and social class all appeared


to affect dietary habits even when physiological variables such as body weight and


age were controlled. With the strong influence of gender on meat consumption, the


only physiological reason attributed to this was due to the average differences in


weight, that men require more meat than women (thus, women consume 74 grams of


meat less in a day than men). Besides physiological reasons, differences in the dietary


norms of people from different age cohorts caused people to eat both less beef and


total meat as they grow older. Education was also found to be inversely related to beef


and total meat consumption, that is, people with more education eat less beef and total


meat whiles respondents in labourer occupations eat both more beef and total meat


than those in either service or professional occupation. Supporting Gossard and York


(2003), a choice modeling estimate by Karli and Bilgic (2007) revealed that the
                                          15
demand for red meat is elastic with respect to total food expenditure, the age of


household head, household size, households with kids, price of meat and the


educational level among respondents in Sanliurfa city (Turkey). Karli and Bilgic


(2007) indicate that, a higher educational attainment diminishes with the probability


of red meat consumption because a higher human capital endowment provides more


information to a consumer about the red meat to be a source of cholesterol and some


other chronic diseases whiles households having many kids are more likely to


consume red meat than households having fewer kids. However, price had significant


impact on the quantity demanded of red meat, indicating that as the price of red meat


increases, people tend to substitute red meat for white meat and vice versa.




Pouta et al, (2008) also suggest that, among consumers, there is an increasing interest


and concerns about the ways food is produced. This calls for the poultry industry to


differentiate their products and production methods to directions valued by the


consumers. In their study, Pouta et al, (2008) used choice experiment to analyze the


importance of broiler production method and the country of origin for consumers. In


the experiment, they offered several alternatives for regular broiler, including


products that have been produced using organic methods, as well as products

produced by emphasizing animal welfare or consumer health aspects. The conditional

                                          16
logit model of consumer preferences for broiler meat in Finland revealed a negative


effect on price and a strong positive relationship with domestically produced broiler


products. The effect on production method also had an impact on the probability of


consumer choice since it emphasized animal welfare in production process.




Sepulveda et al, (2008) determined the factors associated with the purchase of


quality-labeled beef between regular, occasional and non buyer consumers of Madrid,


Zaragoza and Leon in Spain. A logistic regression analysis was used to estimate the


differences between the groups. The results show that, when discriminating between


regular buyers and occasional buyers of quality-labeled beef, variables such as


frequency of purchase, frequent place of purchase, level of importance given to the


production region, value placed on production systems and a more positive attitude


towards beef with a quality label offering greater guarantees compared to beef without


the said quality label, were seen to have a significant influence. There is also a more


positive attitude towards quality–labeled beef being a traditional product that provides


greater guarantee to regular buyers. In the study of consumer choice of fresh produce


purchase location by Bond et al, (2009), consumers frequently associate


locally-grown produce with greater freshness, less spoilage, and increased safety. As

such, local producers who sell direct may benefit from the increasingly common

                                          17
consumer perception that, locally grown foods are safer alternative to nonlocal and


imported substitutes.




Oyewumi and Jooste (2005) also investigated the determinants of households‟ pork


consumption using a logistic regression model in South Africa. The factors found to


influence pork consumption among South African consumers were household


monthly income, current household monthly expenditure on meat, relative price of


pork, preference for value added pork products, price of substitutes (the most


preferred household meat type), and response of household to change in pork quality.


Further analysis of partial effects of the most influential factors revealed that quality


assurance and value-adding lead to much greater probability of pork consumption by


households. However, though response to change in pork quality showed a greater


significance, the work failed to estimate if households were willing to pay an extra


amount to reflect the accuracy of this factor.




Banterle and Stranieri (2008) indicate that, as part of European food safety measures,


mandatory traceability (information like traceability code, the country of animal


origin and the country in which the slaughterhouse and cutting are located) and

relevant labeling has been introduced into the beef sector. They therefore collected

                                           18
data by a survey conducted in the Lombardy region of northern Italy and employing


the binary logit model, assessed the interest of consumer for some mandatory and


voluntary information cues and identified the determinants affecting the use of them.


The findings revealed that the most important information for the European meat


consumer was the origin and the expiry date of the meat, while other important


elements concern nutritional features, type of cut, traceability and quality controls.


Among the voluntary information, the system of cattle breeding was related to a


consumer who pays particular attention in general to quality indicators whereas cattle


feeding appeared to interest young consumers with high level of education.




Martinez et al, (2007) argue that, with health and convenience being the initial driving


factors in the demand for beef, more recent changes have occurred due to palatability


preferences and safety concerns of consumers. Therefore, consumers today purchase


many branded products because of the perceived value and quality they receive from


it. According to Martinez et al, (2007), in today‟s agriculture world, “value added” is a


key term used by many individuals to describe the current marketing state of products.


Value added is a very broad term that encompasses a wide range of attributes such as


packaging, pre-cooked and serving size. The term “value added” is often synonymous

with the term “branded.” Beef branding programs offer a means for satisfying

                                           19
consumer demand for high quality, differentiated beef products. Because of the


emphasis on value, interest in brand marketing and recognition has increased greatly.


This is clearly evident where brands such as Certified Angus Beef, Omaha Steaks, and


Nolan Ryan Beef have evolved through distinct desirable characteristics of their beef


products. Consumers search out these specific branded beef products as they expect a


higher quality and are willing to pay a premium for it. Companies are using their


brand to increase the value of their goods. Moreover, most attributes cannot be


detected till after consumption, this can lead to market failure that may prevent


consumers and producers from engaging in what would otherwise be a mutually


beneficial transaction. The use of brand names and firm reputation to assure food


product performance and safety is one possible private solution to this market failure


problem. In general there are 3 types of branded beef (Washington State Beef


Commission, 2006). Breed-specific branded beef selects beef from a specific breed.


Company-specific branded beef selects beef from all breeds but includes other criteria,


such as no antibiotics or hormones, source verified, and grass-fed. Store-branded beef


is branded by a grocery store company and producers comply with the company‟s


standards for beef quality, including marbling and aging.




                                          20
2.4      Approaches to Evaluating Willingness to Pay

According to Kuchler and Golan (1999), economists have advocated the


willingness-to-pay (WTP) approach since it is based on the theory of welfare


economics. Welfare economics lays the foundation for estimating the value of risk


reduction. People value risk reduction if it leads to a greater level of utility or welfare.


The welfare change is measured by the maximum that the average person would be


willing to pay to reduce risk or the minimum compensation he or she would be


willing to accept for an increase in risk. Therefore, willingness to pay or accept is


used to estimate the implied value of life. Although far from perfect, Kuchler and


Golan indicate that, the willingness-to-pay approach is preferable to the alternative –


many believe it is better to have a rough estimate of a well-grounded theory than a


precise estimate of a questionable one. Contingent Valuation Method, Experimental


Auction and Choice Experiment have been used in the evaluation of willingness to


pay studies.




In the Contingent Valuation Method (CVM), the researcher creates a hypothetical


market in a non-market or new good, invites a group of subjects to operate in that


market, and records the results. The values generated through the use of the

hypothetical market are treated as estimates of the value of the non-market good or

                                            21
service, contingent upon the particular hypothetical market (Mitchell and Carson


1989). The origins of contingent valuation are the estimation of non-market goods,


but it is now widely used to evaluate willingness to pay for new products. Researchers


(Miller and Unnevehr, 2001; Kaneko and Chern, 2007) have used the contingent


valuation method to evaluate consumer willingness to pay for certain food attributes.


Experimental auction is an   alternative data collection method that allows real budget


constraint to be imposed upon respondents. They create an active market environment


with feedback where subjects exchange real goods and real money, and exact WTP


measures are obtained. Auction outcomes are therefore considered closer to true WTP,


but unfortunately these auctions are more difficult to organize, and require more time


and resources. In the domain of meat       consumption, several experimental auctions


have been conducted to elicit   WTP for irradiated produce (Fox et al., 1998; Shogren


et al., 1999) and   hormone-treated beef (Alfnes and Rickertsen, 2003). These studies


share   the common feature, that participants are well informed and extensively


trained in the course of the experiment.




Choice experiments provide methodological tools for a joint product evaluation


and additionally force respondents to trade off one attribute against   another. Hence,


respondents are not aware of which attributes researchers     are interested in. Choice

                                           22
experiments are increasingly being used in non-market valuation (e.g. Hanley et al.,


1998; Bennett and Blamey, 2001), and recently a number of choice experiments       on


food attributes have been published. For example, Burton et al. (2001)     calculated


WTP for several food attributes, namely a reduction in chemical    use, a reduction in


food risk, a reduction in transportation distance and a   label indicating a voluntary


ban on genetically modified ingredients. Alfnes   (2004) used a choice experiment to


analyze Norwegian consumers‟           preferences for domestic, imported and


hormone-treated beef whiles Chang, Moon and Balasubramanian (2009) analyzed


health concerns and consumer preferences for soy foods in the United States.




                                         23
                                  CHAPTER THREE


3.0     METHODOLOGY


3.1     Introduction

This chapter presents the methodology employed to accomplish the objectives of the


study. It also describes the study area and the data collection method.




3.2     The Study Area

The Jaman South District is one of the twenty two (22) administrative districts in the


Brong- Ahafo Region of Ghana. It shares common borders with Berekum Municipal


to the south-east, Jaman North District to the North, Dormaa District to the south and


La Cote d‟Ivoire in the west. The District population according to the 2000 population


and Housing census was 75,163 made up of 35,163 males and 40,000 females and a


total land area of 1,500 square kilometers (Ghana Districts, 2009).




The District lies within the semi-equatorial region with a mean annual rainfall ranging


between 1200mm-1780mm. The two types of vegetation in the District are the


semi-deciduous and the savanna woodland. The economy is mainly rural and agrarian


with agriculture employing about 80 percent of the labour force. Most farmers operate

near subsistence level and depend heavily on rain-fed agriculture. Production levels

                                           24
are relatively low, consequently making income levels very low. The average income


level is very low, about GH¢150 per annum (that is, US$ 432.70 as at the year 2000).


Livestock raised in the district are mainly sheep, goats and pigs with few possessing


cattle (Ghana Districts, 2009).


Figure 3.1         Map of Ghana showing Jaman South District




             Jaman South District




Source: Ghana Travel, 2009.


3.3     Data and Sampling Procedure

The study was conducted in the two major towns in the Jaman South District namely


Drobo (the District capital) and Dwenem (a major town notable for pig production).


Primary and secondary data were used for the study. The primary data were collected

using structured questionnaire. The questions were administered to randomly selected

                                         25
respondents by means of personal interview. Secondary data were obtained from the


District Agricultural Development Unit on pig production figures from 1992 to 2008


for trend analysis.




3.4      Number of Respondents used for the Study

A total of 118 respondents were used in the study. Out of this size, 40 and 78


respondents were selected from Dwenem and Drobo respectively through a random


selection.




3.5      Methods of Analysis

This section discusses the various methods used in analyzing the objectives stated in


this study.




3.5.1    Describing the Trends in Pig Production in the Jaman District

The trend in pig production was analyzed from 1992-2008 using descriptive statistics.


Variations in cycles were explained and the growth rate was computed using the


equation;


Log Q = αo + b1 t                                                             (1)

Where, b1 represents growth rate over the period and tcalc on b1 was used as an

                                         26
indication of how significant the growth is over the period. Q represents the


population of pig in the District, t represents the years and αo is the intercept.




3.5.2    Estimating Empirically the Factors that Influence the Choice of Pork


         Consumption in the Jaman South District

The study is based on the theory of random utility. The random utility framework


assumes that an individual n maximizes his utility when choosing between i and j

alternatives. However, since the researcher is not completely informed about all


elements considered important by respondents, hence utility observed from a


researchers perspective can be broken down into two components; V and Ɛ.


Uin = (Vin+ Ɛ in)                                                                    (2)


Where Uin is the overall utility of choice i for individual n,

Ɛin is the random utility component which comprises of unobserved individual


observations, measurement errors and unobserved attributes. Vin is the systematic or


measurable utility with a function comprising of Xin and Bi (an unknown parameter


vector to be estimated). Xin defines a matrix that may include; (a) attributes that


pertain to choice options; (b) characteristics that pertain to individuals; (a) interactions


between attributes and individual characteristics (Swait and Louviere 1993). In most

practical applications, Vin takes a linear- in- parameter additive form. However an

                                            27
individual consumes choice i when

Ui > Uj for all j#i Є A                                                        (3)


The probability that individual n chooses i from set A is given by

Pin = P [{Ɛin –Ɛin} < {Vin –Vjn}], for all j, I                               (4)


To determine the effects of various factors on the decision to consume pork, a


qualitative response model is appropriate. Qualitative response model relate the


probability of the occurrence of an event to various independent variables and such


models are often useful in assessing consumer characteristics that are associated with


purchase decisions (Capps et al, 1999). The commonly used models in empirical


analysis of discrete choice are the linear probability model, the logit model and the


probit model. Following from Oyewumi and Jooste (2005), Banterle and Stranieri


(2008) and Sepulveda et al. (2008) the logit model is used.




3.5.2.1 Empirical Model Estimation

A dichotomous random variable PC, for which PC is 1 for the choice of Pork


Consumption and 0 otherwise, is used as the dependent variable.


Assuming the probability to consume pork PCi depends on a vector of independent


variables associated with consumer i, Xi, and a vector of unknown parameters B, then

PCi   can be denoted by the equation;

                                              28
                 1
PCi   =                                                                          (5)
          (1  exp(  X i B)


 Since Pork Consumption depends on a variety of socio-economic factors such as age,


 education and product attributes, the empirically estimatable form of equation (5)


 following from Oyewumi and Jooste (2005), Chang, Moon and Balasubramanian


 (2009) and Sepulveda et al, (2008) is:



In (PCi/1-PCi) = ßo + ß1AGE + ß2SEX + ß3RELIGION + ß4NEDU + ß5PEDU +


ß6EMPLOY + ß7NCHH + ß8RPPP + ß9PRODSYS + ß10BREED+ ß11TRAC +


ß12PACK + ß13BRAND + ɛ                                                           (6)

Where; In (PCi/1-PCi) is log odd of a respondent making the choice of consuming


pork; PC1 is a dummy = 1 when respondent makes the choice to consume pork, 0


otherwise; ßo     is the constant; ß1, ß2   … ß13 are the respective coefficients of the


explanatory variables and ɛ is the error term.

The variables included in the logit model are defined in table 3.1 below:


 Table 3.1:         Description of Variables

VARIABLES         DESCRIPTION                           MODE OF MEASUREMENT
                                                        Dummy: 1 if respondent
PCi               Choice of Pork Consumption            makes the choice to consume
                                                        pork, 0 otherwise
AGE               Age of respondent in years            Continuous
SEX               Sex of respondent                     Dummy: 1 for male, 0 otherwise
                                                        Dummy: 1 if respondent is a
RELIGION          Religion of respondent
                                                        Christian, 0 otherwise
                                               29
                 Educational level of the               Dummy: 1 if respondent has no
NEDU
                 respondent                             education, 0 otherwise
                                                        Dummy: 1 if the educational
                 Educational level of the
PEDU                                                    level is primary education, 0
                 respondent
                                                        otherwise
                 Employment status of the               Dummy: 1 if respondent is
EMPLOY
                 respondent                             formally employed, 0 otherwise
NCHH             Number of children in a household Continuous
                                                        Dummy: 1 if less than substitute
RPPP             Relative price of pork
                                                        meat, 0 otherwise
                 Type of production system              Dummy: 1 if respondent prefers
PRODSYS
                 respondent prefers                     intensive system, 0 otherwise
                 Type of breed of pig respondent        Dummy: 1 if respondent prefers
BREED
                 prefers                                local breed, 0 otherwise
                                                        Dummy: 1 if respondent knows
                 Traceability of the source of
TRAC                                                    the source of production, 0
                 production
                                                        otherwise.
                                                        Dummy: 1 if respondent prefers
PACK             Preference for packaging               how packaging is done, 0
                                                        otherwise
                                                        Dummy: 1 if respondent prefers
BRAND            Preference for branded pork
                                                        branded pork, 0 otherwise




3.5.2.2 Statement of Hypotheses

The hypotheses tested are, where Ho is the null and Hi the alternative:
   1. Age:                        Ho: ß1 = 0                            H1 : ß 1 ˂ 0


   2. Sex:                          Ho: ß2 = 0                           Hi : ß 2 ˃ 0


   3. Religion:                     Ho: ß3 = 0                           Hi :   ß3 ˃ 0


   4. Education:                    Ho: ß4, ß5 = 0                       Hi: ß4 , ß5 ˃ 0


   5. Employment:                   Ho: ß6 = 0                           Hi : ß 6 ˃ 0


   6. Number of children in household: Ho: ß7 = 0                        Hi : ß 7 ˃ 0
                                            30
   7. Relative Price of Pork:        Ho: ß8 = 0                         Hi : ß 8 ˂ 0


   8. Production System:            Ho: ß9 = 0                          Hi : ß 9 ˃ 0


   9. Type of Breed:                Ho: ß10 = 0                         Hi: ß10 ˃ 0


   10. Traceability:                Ho: ß11 = 0                         Hi: ß11 ˃ 0


   11. Packaging:                   Ho: ß12 = 0                         Hi: ß12 ˃ 0


   12. Branding:                    Ho: ß13 = 0                         Hi: ß13 ˃ 0




3.5.2.3 Marginal Effects Estimation

The marginal effect is the change in predicted probability associated with the changes


in the explanatory variables. Unlike the linear regression model, the   marginal effects


in the binary-choice model (logit model) are nonlinear functions of the parameter


estimates and the levels of the explanatory variables, so they cannot generally be


directly inferred from the parameter estimates (Anderson and Newell, 2003). The


predicted probability from a binary choice model is given by;


E[y|x] = F(BX)                                                                    (7)


Where y is a choice variable, x is a vector of explanatory variables, B is a vector of


parameter estimates and F is an assumed cumulative distribution function. The


marginal effect in logit is therefore given as;

dE(y|x)
        = p ( BX ) [ 1 – p ( BX )] B                                              (8)
  dX

In other words, given BX which defines a probability of an event occurring p(BX),
                                            31
the marginal effect is just the probability of the event occurring times the probability


of the event not occurring times the coefficient of the X under consideration (Franklin,


2005).




3.5.3          Estimation of Mean WTP Premium



 The mean WTP Premium is the average of the difference between the price


 consumers are willing to pay for a product and the prevailing market price of that


 commodity. The estimation of the mean premium amount over and above the market


 price is computed using the arithmetic mean formula;
           n
 X=       X
          i 1
                 i                                                               (9)


 Where; X is the estimated mean premium; Xi is the individual premium consumers

 are willing to pay over and above the current market price and n is the observed


 number of respondents willing to pay a price premium above the current market


 price.




3.5.3.1 Procedure for Eliciting Willingness to Pay

The current market price of pork was introduced to the respondent. Followed by an


open-ended question, the respondent was asked how much extra he/she is willing to


                                          32
pay for pork produced under the hygienic conditions. The price stated by the


respondent was used as the starting point upon which bidding is made. This starting


price was then increased by the researcher where the respondent accepts or rejects it


and depending on the respondents‟ choice, it is increased or decreased until the


maximum price the consumer is willing to pay is achieved. The mean extra amount


respondents are willing to pay was then estimated using the arithmetic mean formula


in equation (9) above. This approach was adopted to allow the respondent to give the


starting point which eliminates starting point bias.




                                           33
                                   CHAPTER FOUR


4.0      RESULTS AND DISCUSSION


4.1      Introduction

This chapter presents and discusses the results of the study. The first section describes


the socio-economic background characteristics of the respondents. The second section


discusses the trend analyzes of pig production in the Jaman District, followed by the


discussion of the factors influencing pork consumption in the Jaman South District.


The final section estimates the mean premium price consumers are willing to pay


above the current market price.




4.2      Socio-Economic Description of Respondents

The total numbers of respondents interviewed were 118. The average age of


respondents is approximately 34 years. The average household has 6 people and the


average number of children present in a household was 3. These are shown in the


table 4.1.

Table 4.1        Descriptive of Socio-Economic Background
                                                                          Std.
                              N     Minimum Maximum          Mean
                                                                        Deviation
Age of respondent            118         18         76       33.78        11.608
Household Size               118         1          15        6.35        3.125
Number of children (≤
                             118         1          9         2.77        1.804
18 yrs) in household
Source: Authors computation from field

                                             34
Figure 4.1 presents further description of some socio-economic characteristics of the


respondents. The largest numbers of respondents were females (59.3 percent) whiles


males were 40.7 percent. With educational level of the respondents, the largest


numbers of respondents (50.8 percent) had Junior High School level whiles the least


(0.9 percent) had Technical and Vocational levels. Those who were self-employed


constituted 67.8 percent of the respondents. Out of the self-employed, 38.9 percent


were farmers. The youth (18-30 years) and middle aged (31-60 years) showed


percentages of 48.3 percent each whiles Christians dominated with 86.4 percent of the


respondents.

Figure 4.1 Some Socio-Economic Characteristics of the Respondents




Source: Author’s computation from field.




                                           35
4.3          Analysis of Trends in Pig Production in the Jaman District

The data used for the trend analysis was for two different groups of years. These are


data for the whole of the Jaman District (which comprised Jaman South and Jaman


North) from 1992 to 2000 whiles the other data covered 2007-2008 for Jaman South


District only. There was a break in data collection from 2001 to 2006 by the District


Agricultural Development unit (DADU).


The main breeds of pig reared in the district were the local Ashanti Black and the


exotic Large White. The total pig production in the District showed a general increase


from 1992 to 1996 and then a slight decline in 1997. However, there was a very sharp


decrease in total pig production from 1997 to 1998 where it began to increase again to


2000.

Figure 4.2                  Pig production figures in the Jaman District from 1992 to 2000




Source: Data from the District Agricultural Development Unit (DADU), Jaman South.
(a) LOG (TOTAL PIG PRODUCTION) = -70.90867 + 0.039179T           (b) LOG (EXOTIC PIG PRODUCTION) = -369.9922 + 0.188199T

                                (-1.229842)    (1.356313)                                     (-2.939321)   (2.984226)**

(c) LOG (LOCAL PIG PRODUCTION) = -4.168538 + 0.005619T

                                 (-0.096926)   (0.260784)


                                                            36
Figure 4.3       Pig Population Figures for Jaman South District in 2007 and 2008.




Source: Data from the District Agricultural Development Unit (DADU), Jaman South.

Source: Data from the District Agricultural Development Unit (DADU), Jaman South.




The total pig production in the Jaman District (Figure 4.2) showed a positive growth


in these years, with an average growth of 3.9 percent per annum. This was however


not statistically significant. The exotic breeds showed a positive trend in production


with an average significant growth rate of 18.8 percent per annum at a 5 percent


significant level. The local pig breed also showed a positive trend in production with


an insignificant average growth rate of 0.6 percent per annum.




In figure 4.2 the exotic breeds showed an increase in production from 1992 to 1997

                                         37
whiles the local breeds also increased to 1996 and remained steady to 1997.


According to DADU, pig production in exotic breeds sprung up due to the campaign


the office mounted in 1994-1995 advising farmers on the lucrativeness in pig-rearing.


However DADU attributed the decrease in the exotic breed population in 1997-1998


to poor management and high cost of feeding. The Local Ashanti Black population


also decreased due to the severe outbreak of African Swine Fever Disease found to be


mostly associated with the local breeds. Both breeds in pigs increased in production


from 1998 to 2000 and this was attributed to the increase in veterinary extension


activities (both preventive and curative) in the district during the years under review.


These activities included improved housing for pigs, the educational programs carried


out by the veterinary unit of DADU sensitizing the livestock farmers that rearing pig


is a business, not a part time job. Comparing pig production in the Jaman South


District for 2007-2008 (see Figure 4.3) it can be observed that production of exotic


breeds far exceeded that of the local breeds. The exotic breed of pig production


increased from 543 heads to 652 heads representing 20.1 percent change in growth


whiles the local breeds production also increased from 134 heads to 188 heads


showing a 40.3 percent change in growth for 2007 and 2008.




                                          38
4.4        Empirical Results of the Determinants of Choice of Pork Consumption


in the Jaman South District

Table 4.2 presents the logit results of the determinants of choice of pork consumption.


Table 4.2         Logit Results


Dependent Variable: CHOICE OF PORK CONSUMPTION
Variable                          Coefficient Std. Error z-Statistic        Marginal Effects
C                                 -3.056705     1.944741 -1.571780               -
AGE                               -0.100470     0.042893 -2.342327** -0.023270313
SEX                               2.027641      0.949299 2.135936**         0.469631134
RELIGION                          2.270903      1.081148 2.100455**         0.52597415
NO EDUCATION                      2.443615      1.573273 1.553205                -
PRIMARY EDUCATION                 1.146115      1.111385    1.031249             -
EMPLOYMENT                        0.521546      1.240733 0.420353                -
NO CHILD IN HOUSEHOLD             0.495234      0.201228 2.461055**         0.114703394
PORK RELATIVE PRICE               0.739650      0.897900 0.823755                -
SYSTEM OF PRODUCTION              6.687357      1.574027 4.248564*** 1.548889104
TYPE OF BREED                     4.313506      1.344387 3.208529*** 0.999070701
TRACEABILITY                      -5.896730     1.932062 -3.052039*** -1.365768397
PACKAGING                         1.837417      1.328636 1.382935                -
BRANDING                          1.756086      0.936258 1.875643*          0.406735048
Mean dependent var                0.635593         Probability(LR stat)     3.85E-14
LR statistic (13 df)              92.92130         McFadden R-squared       0.600286
***, **, * are significant at 1 percent, 5 percent and 10 percent respectively
Source: Author’s computation from field.




In general, most of the estimated coefficients of the explanatory variables are


statistically significant. The log-likelihood ratio test shows that the estimated model is


statistically significant at 1 percent, indicating that at least one of the parameters of


                                           39
the determinants of choice of pork consumption shown in the equation is significant.


The McFadden R-square is 60 percent and it measures the overall strength of


association of choice of pork consumption to the independent variables. Therefore,


the independent variables explain 60 percent of the variations in the choice of pork


consumption and the model is considered satisfactory and acceptable for the model


given that the data are cross-sectional in nature and collected from survey.




The estimated coefficient for age is statistically significant at 5 percent significance


level with the expected negative relationship with the choice of pork consumption.


The marginal effect of a unit change in age, computed at the sample mean of age is


0.023. This means that the probability of pork consumption decreases by 0.023 (2.3


percent) for a unit increase in age holding all the other variables constant. This result


is consistent with Gossard and York (2003) that people tend to eat less meat as they


grow older. They indicate it is possible however that this effect is not only or even


primarily due to physiological changes, but rather due to differences in the dietary


norms of people from different age cohorts. Harris and Shiptsova (2007) also indicate


that, as age increases, expenditures decrease; which is consistent with life-cycle


theory where incomes and expenditures rise until mid-age and then decline as

consumers become elderly.

                                           40
Sex also has strong positive influence on the choice of pork consumption and that,


being male influences the choice of pork consumption. The marginal effect suggests


that males are 47 percent more likely to consume pork than males holding the other


variables constant. According to Gossard and York (2003), physiologically, men


require more meat than women due to the average differences in weight. They


determined women to substantially consume 74 grams of total meat and 17 grams of


beef less in a day. Males mostly provide money for at-home food purchases and have


a higher chance to influence the choice of meat for the household‟s meal.




The religion of the respondent showed positive influence on the choice of pork


consumption if the respondent was a Christian. Therefore, the probability of the


choice of pork consumption increases by 0.53 (53 percent) if there is a change of


respondent from non-Christian to a Christian holding the other variables constant.




Education variables though insignificant have positive relationship with pork


consumption. This implies that the choice of pork consumption in the Jaman South


District does not need the attainment of higher education. Gossard and York, (2003)


found education to be inversely related to beef and total meat consumption (that is

people with more education eat less beef and total meat). Consistent with the findings

                                          41
of Karl and Bilgic (2007), a higher educational attainment diminishes the red meat


consumption probability because a higher human capital endowment provides more


information to a consumer about the red meat to be a source of cholesterol and some


other chronic diseases.




The employment status of respondents was insignificant and varied proportionately


with the choice of pork consumption if the respondent was formally employed. From


the study, people formally employed were mostly government workers who earn


reliable source of income to influence the choice of pork consumption.




The number of children in a household significantly increased the probability of the


choice of pork consumption at 5 percent significance level. From the marginal effect,


the probability of pork consumption increases by 11.5 percent if an additional child is


introduced in the household holding other variables constant. Supporting with Karli


and Bilgic (2007), the positive sign of the coefficient indicates that an increase in the


number of children in a household increases the size of consumers resulting in


increasing the consumption of pork. However, this is in contrast with other research


findings which indicate that, households with children were likely to be concerned

about nutritional balance in the diet. For example, zinc deficiency is known to occur

                                           42
in children diets that are low in sources of readily bioavailable zinc such as red meat,


and high in unrefined cereals that are rich in phytate and dietary fibers (Sandstead,


1991).




The relative price of pork was not statistically significant and increases with increase


in pork consumption which is contrary to expectation.




The system of production significantly influenced the choice of pork consumption


positively. The intensive system of pork production was statistically significant at the


1 percent significant level. The estimated marginal effect is 1.55 (155 percent)


holding the other independent variables constant. Pouta et al, (2008) suggest the


production methods, particularly the method that emphasizes animal welfare aspects


has a positive impact on consumer choice behaviour. Banterle and Stranieri (2008)


argue the system of cattle breeding to be important to consumers who pay particular


attention to quality indicators.


The type of breed was very significant at 1 percent probability level. Pork


consumption increases as the local breed (Ashanti Black) production increases. The


probability of the choice of pork consumption will increase by 0.999 (99.9 percent)

for a change to local breed production by producers holding other variables constant.

                                          43
Many researchers including Bond et al, (2009), Pouta et al, (2008) and Sepulveda et al,


(2008) perceive consumers to associate safety, quality and guarantee to local or


domestic products.




Though knowing the source of production (traceability) was expected to positively


influence the choice of pork consumption, the results showed a negative but


significant influence of 1 percent probability level. Packaging appeared to have a


positive relationship with the choice of pork consumption since it prevents the


exposure of the meat to environmental hazards.




Branding (adding value by giving pork a special name) the pork also significantly and


positively influenced pork consumption at a probability level of 10 percent. The

probability of pork consumption increases by 0.407 (40.7 percent) for a change to


branding the pork if all other variables are held constant. This means a branded pork


increases with pork consumption since branding is a time honored tool that has


successfully been used by producers and/or other supply chain members to increase


consumer awareness and loyalty of their product. According to Keller (1993), the goal


of such marketing strategy is to convince consumers that the brand name is a

substitute, or proxy, for quality.

                                         44
4.5      Estimation of Extra Price Consumers are Willing to Pay for Certified


Pork under Hygienic Conditions

The current market price of pork in the Jaman South District is GH₵ 2.00 per kg. A


total of 69 respondents were willing to pay an extra price above the current market


price.




Table 4.3          Estimated Mean willingness to pay premium amount for pork meat
(on 1 kg) if certified as produced under hygienic conditions.


                 N        Minimum         Maximum         Mean      Std. Deviation

  WTPPA          69          0.20            4.00         1.0913        0.64071

Source: Author’s computation from field
NOTE: The minimum, maximum and mean figures indicated are in GH₵.




The minimum extra price stated by a respondent was GH₵ 0.20 per kg and a


maximum of GH₵ 4.00 per kg (see table 4.3). The mean extra price consumers are


willing to pay above the current market price for pork produced under hygienic


conditions is approximately GH₵ 1.10 per kg representing 55 percent extra.


Categorizing the respondents into low (˂30 percent), medium (≥30-60 percent) and


high (˃60 percent) premium willingness to pay consumers, it is shown that 26 percent


of respondents are willing to pay low premium, 55 percent of respondents are willing


                                        45
to pay medium premium whiles 19 percent of respondents are willing to pay high


premium above the current market price (see figure 4.4).




Figure 4.4:      Willingness to Pay Premium Amount Distribution




Source: Author’s computation from field survey.




Before the introduction of the certified pork simulation, the number of respondents


found to be consuming pork was 75 as against 43 respondents who do not consume


pork for various reasons. However, there were shifts in pork consumers and non


consumers after the simulation of the certified pork. The 75 respondents who


consumed pork reduced to 69 respondents whiles there was an increase in the number


of respondents who do not consume pork from 43 to 49 who are still not willing to


consume pork due to the extra cost associated with certified pork.




                                          46
Figure 4.5.1    Shifts in Pork Consumers and Non consumers




Source: Author’s computation from field survey.



Figure 4.5.2




Source: Author’s computation from field survey.

From figure 4.5.2, 32 of the respondents who do not consume pork were still not


willing to consume pork whiles 11 respondents who do not consume pork were

willing to consume pork after the simulation. Again, 17 respondents who consumed

                                        47
pork were not willing to consume pork whiles 58 respondents of pork consumers


remained to be willing to consume pork after the simulation. The shifts in pork


consumers and non consumers were due to the tradeoff between safety and the extra


price constraint because consumers‟ willingness to consume certified pork (pork


produced under hygienic condition) was measured by their willingness to pay.




                                        48
                                  CHAPTER FIVE


5.0      Introduction

This chapter presents the summary, conclusion, recommendation and limitation of the


study.




5.1      Summary

Recognizing the possibility of distortion for consumers‟ choice of pork in the market,


this study developed a choice model to analyze Jaman South District‟s consumers‟


behaviour. This research objective was achieved in three different steps.   In the first


step, this study described the trend in pig production in the Jaman North and Jaman


South Districts from 1992 to 2008. In the second step, this study identified and


estimated empirically the factors that influence the choice of pork consumption in the


Jaman South District using the logistic regression model and finally, the study


estimated the mean consumers‟ premium they are willing to pay per kilogram of


certified pork.




5 .2     Conclusion

Though the national pig production is experiencing a negative growth trend, the

                                         49
Jaman District has experienced a positive growth trend with exotic breed experiencing


a significant average growth rate of 18.8 percent per annum. The production of exotic


breed increased relative to the local breed in the Jaman South District in the years


2007 and 2008. Therefore the problem of the decreasing trend in pig production


nationwide can be addressed by the production of the exotic large white breed.




Age, gender, number of children in household, religion, system of production, type of


breed, traceability and branding are the significant factors affecting pork consumption


in the Jaman South District. However, consumers tend to be much more concerned


about the system of production of pigs in the District since this parameter determines


the feeding habits and susceptibility to disease outbreaks which affects the choice of


pork consumption.




On the average, consumers are willing to pay a 55 percent extra price (GH₵ 1.10)


above the current market price of GH₵ 2.00 per kg if pork is produced under hygienic


conditions and certified. Also, majority of the respondents (55 percent) are willing to


pay between 30 – 60 percent extra price above the current market price per kg of pork


due to their preference for pork produced under hygienic conditions. The shift in pork

consumers after the simulation of the certified pork was due to the tradeoff between

                                          50
the extra cost and hygienic nature of the certified pork.


5.3      Recommendation

Farmers in the district should be encouraged by the District Agricultural Development


Unit to go into the production of the exotic breeds of pig since they have significant


growth rate per annum. Pork producers should again be encouraged to adopt branding


(giving a name to a product to signify certain preferred attribute) pork as marketing


strategy to increase patronage of pork meat consumption to increase their profit


margins. Since the majority of the respondents consume pork and are much concerned


about the type of pig production system, farmers should be encouraged to adopt pig


production under the intensive system to achieve increased incomes and food security.


Farmers again should be motivated to produce pork/pig under hygienic conditions and


certified to attract premium prices consumers are willing to pay per kilogram of


certified pork.




5.4      Limitation of the Study

The study could not capture profitability analysis for the investment in the production


of certified pork under hygienic conditions. The premium consumers are willing to


pay therefore cannot be used to indicate whether such investment will be viable or not.

Standardized measurement for pork in the market is unavailable. This can cause either

                                           51
overestimation or underestimation of the price per kg of pork used in the study.


                                   REFERENCES


Alfnes,   F. and Rickertsen, K. (2003). "Extrapolating experimental-auction results
using a stated choice survey". European Review of Agricultural Economics           34 (3):
345-363

Alfnes, F. (2004). "Stated preferences for imported and hormone-treated beef:
Application of a mixed logit model". European Review of Agricultural Economics 31:
19-37.


Anderson, S. and Newell, R. (2003). "Simplified Marginal Effects in Discrete Choice
Models". Economics Letters 92(1): 44-46


Asare, G. O. (2008). "Consumers Willingness to Pay a Premium Price for Safe
Cabbage". Department of Agricultural Economics and Agribusiness, University of
Ghana (unpublished Dissertation).


Asp, E. H. (1999). "Factors Affecting Food Decisions Made by Individual
Consumers". Food Policy 24: 287-94


Banterle, A. and Stranieri, S. (2008). "Consumer preferences and labelling: an
empirical analysis of the beef sector in Italy". 12th Congress of the European
Association of Agricultural Economists, Department of Agricultural, Food and
Environmental Economics, University of Milan, Italy.


Bennett, J. and Blamey, R. (2001). The Choice Modelling Approach to Environmental
Valuation, Massachusetts, Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.



Bond, J. K., Thilmany, D. and Bon, C. (2009). "What Influences Consumer Choice of
Fresh Produce Purchase Location". Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics
41(1): 61–74


Burton, M., Rigby, D., Young, T. and James, S. (2001). "Consumer attitudes to
genetically modified organisms in food in the UK". European Review of Agricultural
Economics 28: 479-498.
                                          52
Chang, B. J., Moon, W. and Balasubramanian, S. K. (2009). "Health Concerns and
Consumer Preferences for Soy Foods: Choice Modeling Approach". Agricultural
&Applied Economics Association Annual Meeting, Milwaukee, WI, July 26-28.


Darby, M. R., Kami, E. (1973), "Free competition and the optimal amount of fraud".
Journal of Law and Economics 16: 66-86.


Engel, J., Blackwell, R., Miniard, P. (1995), Consumer Behaviour. Dryden Press,
Orlando, FL.


Fleischer, J. E. and Barnes, A. R. (1998). "A Diagnostic survey of the Present State of
the Pig industry in the Greater Accra Region". Ghana Journal of Agricultural Science
31: 87-92.


Fox, J. A., Shogren, J. F. Hayes, D. J. and Kliebenstei, J. B. (1998). "CVM-X:
Calibrating contingent values with experimental auction markets". American Journal
of Agricultural Economics 80, 455S465.


Franklin, C. H. (2005). Maximum Likelihood Estimation Binary Model Hypothesis
Tests and Interpretation. University of Wisconsin – Madison


Garber, L. L., Hyatt, E. and Starr, R. G. (2003). "Measuring Consumer Response to
Food Products". Food Quality and Preference 14 (1): 3-15.


Gossard, M. H. and York, R. (2003). "Social Structural Influences on Meat
Consumption". Human Ecology Review, Vol. 10, No. 1.


Grunert, K. G., Bredahl, L. and Brunso, K. (2004). "Consumer Perception of Meat
Quality and Implications for Product Development in the Meat Sector - a Review".
Meat Science 66 (2): 259-72.


Hanley, N., R. Wright, et al. (1998). "Using choice experiements to value the
environment: Design issues, current experience and future prospects". Environment
and Resource Economics 11(3-4): 413-428.


Hanley, N., R. Wright, et al. (1998). "Using choice experiements to value the
environment: Design issues, current experience and future prospects." Environment

                                          53
and Resource Economics 11(3-4): 413-428.


Harris, M. J. and Shiptsova, R. (2007). "Consumer Demand for Convenience Foods:
Demographics and Expenditures". Journal of Food Distribution Research 38(3)


International Society for Infectious Diseases, (2005). ProMed Digest: Accessed in
May 2009 at (http://listas.sld.cu/pipermail/farmepi-l/2005-February/000991.html),
Boston, USA.


ISSER (2008). The State of the Ghanaian Economy in 2007.


Jensen, H. H. and Unnevehr, L. J. (2000). "HACCP in pork processing: Costs and
benefits". In L. J. Unnevehr (ed.), The Economics of HACCP, pp. 29S44. St. Paul,
MN: Eagan Press.


Kaneko, N. and Chern, W. S. (2007). "Some Problems in Estimating Willingness to
Pay with Contingent Valuation Surveys: Case for Consumer Acceptance of
Genetically Modified Food," 2007 Annual Meeting, February 4-7, 2007, Mobile,
Alabama 34852, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.


Karli, B. and Bilgic, A. (2007). "Factors Affecting Meat and Meat Products
Consumption Quantities in Sanliurfa Province". Akdeniz Üniversitesi Ziraat Fakültesi
Dergisi 20(1): 127-136


Keller, K. L. (1993). "Conceptualizing, Measuring, and Managing Cusomer-Based
Brand Equity". Journal of Marketing 57(1): 1-22.


Kimenju, S. C., Morawetz, U. B. and Hugo, D. G. (2005). "Comparing Contingent
Valuation Method, Choice Experiments and Experimental Auctions in soliciting
Consumer preference for maize in Western Kenya: Preliminary results". African
Econometric Society 10th Annual Conference on Econometric Modeling in Africa,
Nairobi, Kenya


Kuchler, F. and Golan, E., (1999). Assigning values to life: comparing methods for
valuing health risk. US Department of Agriculture, Economics Research Service,
AER-784.


Lefkoff-Hagius, R. and Mason, C. (1993). "Characteristic, Beneficial, and Image

                                        54
Attributes in Consumer Judgments of Similarity and Preference". Journal of
Consumer Research 20 (1): 100-110.


Lusk, J. L. and Fox J. A. (2003). "Value elicitation in retail and laboratory
environments". Economic Letters 79: 27-34.


Marreiros, C. and Ness, M. (2009). "A Conceptual Framework of Consumer Food
Choice Behaviour", CEFAGE-UE Working Paper, Faculty of Science, Agriculture and
Engineering, University of Newcastle.


Marshall, D.W. (1995), "Introduction: food choice, the food consumer and food
provisioning", in Marshall, D.W. (Eds), Food Choice and the Consumer, Blackie
Academic and Professional, Glasgow, .


Martinez, S., Hanagriff, R., Lau, M. and Harris, M. (2007). "Factors Affecting Demand
for Branded Beef," 2007 Annual Meeting, February 4-7, Mobile, Alabama 34885,
Southern Agricultural Economics Association.


Miller, G. Y. and Unnevehr, L. J. (1999). "Characteristics of Consumers Demanding
and their Willingness to Pay for Certified Safer Pork". Journal of Agribusiness 19, 2
(Fall 2001): 101S119.


Mitchell, R. C. and Carson, R. T. (1989). Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: The
Contingent Valuation Method. Resources for the Future, Washington, DC.


Nayga Jr., R. M., & Capps Jr., O. (1999). "US consumers‟ perceptions of the
importance of following the US dietary guidelines". Food Policy 24 (5): 553–564.


Nigel, R., MacFie, H. and Shepherd, R. (1994). "Consumer Attitudes to Meat Eating".
Meat Science 36 (1/2): 57-66.


Nilsson, T. and Foster, K. (2005), "Certification of Pork Products," 2005 Annual
meeting, July 24-27, Providence, RI 19350, American Agricultural Economics
Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).




                                         55
Norat, T., Lukanova,A., Ferrari, P., and Riboli, E. (2002). "Meat Consumption and
Colorectal Cancer Risk: Dose-Response Meta-Analysis of Epidemiological Studies".
International Journal of Cancer 98(2): 241-56 (ISSN: 0020-7136)


Oyewumi, O.A. and Jooste, A. (2005). "Measuring the determinants of pork
consumption in South Africa". Paper presented at the World Food and Agribusiness
Symposium, Chicago, United States: June 25-26


Pouta, E., Forsman-Hugg, S., Heikkilä, J., Isoniemi, M., Mäkelä, J. and Paananen, J.
(2008). "Consumers‟ choice of broiler meat in Finland: the effects of country of origin
and production methods". 12th Congress of the European Association of Agricultural
Economists. MTT Agrifood Research Finland, Economic Research, Helsinki, Finland.


Putler, D. S., & Frazao, E. (1994). "Consumer awareness of diet-disease relationships
and dietary behaviour: the case of dietary fat". Journal of Agricultural Economics
Research 45: 3-17.


Raats, M., Daillant-Spinnler, B., Deliza, R. and MacFie, H. (1995). "Are Sensory
Properties Relevant to Consumer Food choice". In D.W. Marshall, ed. Food choice
and the consumer. London: Blackie Academic & Professional, Report no. 784.


Rhee, K. S., Oltman, M. and Han, J. (2000). "A consumer survey of goat meat:
Perception, knowledge, and use". Sheep Goat Res. J.16:111–116.


Roppa, L. (2005). "Competition from South American Pork Production". Advances in
Pork Production 16: 29


Rozin, P. (1990). "Acquisition of Stable Food Preferences". Nutrition Reviews 48 (2):
106-113.


Sandstead H.H. (2001) “Zinc deficiency. A public health problem”. American Journal
of Disable Child 145: 853-859


Sepulveda, W. 1, Maza Rubio, M.T. and Mantecon, A.R (2008). "Factors Associated
to Purchase of Quality-Labeled Beef". 12th Congress of the European Association of
Agricultural Economists. University of Zaragoza, Department of Agriculture and
Agricultural Economics.

                                          56
Shogren, J. F., Fox, J. A., Hayes, D. J. and Roosen, J. (1999). "Observed choices for
food safety in retail, survey, and auction markets". American Journal of Agricultural
Economics 81, 1192S1199.


Steenkamp, J. B. (1997). "Dynamics in Consumer Behaviour with Respect to
Agricultural and Food Products in Agricultural Marketing and Consumer Behaviour
in a Changing World". Kluwer Academic Publishers.


Swait, J. and Louviere, J. (1993). "The Role of the Scale Parameter in the
Estimation and Use of Multinomial Logit Models". Journal Marketing Research 30:
305–14.


Washington State Beef Commission, (2006). "Industry Information: Branded Beef".
http://www.wabeef.org/AboutUs/BrandedBeef.aspx /.


Winpenny, J. (1997). Water Policy Issues. Occasional Paper No. 2, Department for
International Development, London


www.ghanadistricts.com, (2009). "A Repository of Jaman South District in the
Republic of Ghana".


www.ghanatravel.org, (2009). "Ghana Travel Home Page: Palace Travel".




                                         57
                                     APPENDICES


Appendix A: Questionnaire on Pork Consumption

A questionnaire designed to collect data from consumers in the Jaman South District

on the factors influencing pork consumption.

Section A: Personal Information

1.   Sex                             Male ( )                    Female ( )

2.   Age          (……..……)

3.   Religion:

     Specify…………………………………………………………………………..

4.   Educational level     a. Primary (    )     b. J.S. S. (    )     b. S.S.S.     (    )     c.

     Tertiary (   )

     d. Technical/Vocational (   )   e. None ( )         f. Islamic Education ( )

5.   Are you the family head of your household?            Yes ( )                   No ( )

6.   What is the size of your family including all dependants?       (…. ………)

7.   Occupation       a. Farming (   )    b. Trading (       )   c. Unemployed (              ) d.

     Other………………….

8.   Are children in your household? Yes ( ) No ( ) How many are below 18

     years………………..

           Section B: Consumer Perception

9.   Do you consume pork?        Yes ( )        No ( )

10. If     YES,    how   many    times    do    you   consume        pork   in   a       month?

     (……………..)

                                           58
11. If        NO,        why          don‟t         you       consume      pork?               Give

    reasons……………………………………………………………………………

    ……………………………………………………………………………………

    Note: Skip and go to question 21 for those whose reasons are not based on

    religion.

12. Do you like the flavor (taste and aroma) of pork?            Yes (       No (      )

13. Do you like the softness (tenderness) of pork?            Yes ( )        No (      )

14. Is pork meat very appealing to you on sight?              Yes ( )           No (       )

15. Is it easy to store fresh pork over a desirable period? Yes ( )         No (       )

16. Is the price per kg of pork very high to you?          Yes ( )       No ( )

17. Is the price per kg of pork to be displayed before buying? Yes ( ) No (                )

18. What            is         your           substitute        meat       to              pork?

    Specify…………………………………………………………..

  Price of substitute meat per kg GH⊄_________ Price of pork per kg

GH⊄______________

19. What system of production for pig do you prefer to buy pork from?

    a. Intensive system ( )             b. Semi intensive ( ) c. Extensive ( )

    Give reasons for your choice…………………………………

20. What breed of pork do you prefer? a. Local breed/Ashanti Black (            ) b. Exotic

    breed (     )

    Note: Starting point for those who do not consume pork and not based on

    religion.

21. If pork is said to be of good quality than the conventional pork with the following

    attributes;

Regulated use of antibiotics and growth promoting hormones (used only when the


                                               59
need arises because food borne disease from pig is difficult to be treated by doctors as

a result of increased resistance of the microbe to antibiotics), produced under

hygienic condition (regular cleaning of pen), control of feeding habits (preventing

eating from landfills) regulating slaughtering practices (slaughtering in neat and

infection free environment), sold in clean retail shelf and if certified. Will you be

willing to consume by paying extra price?          Yes     ( )       No        ( )



Section C: Willingness to Pay Bidding

If YES from question 22 and;

22. If a kg of conventional pork costs GH⊄____________ , How much extra will you be

    willing to pay for the same kg under these hygienic conditions? GH ⊄                        ,

    (followed by bidding with the respondents)           Final bid GH⊄

23. Do you know the source of the pork you buy?            Yes ( )              No ( )

24. Do you like pork to be already packaged per certain (kg) weight before

    purchasing?    Yes ( )           No ( )

25. Do you like pork to be given a special name to differentiate it from the

    conventional pork?          Yes ( )                    No ( )




Appendix B: Jaman District Pig Production from 1992 to 2000
 Year (T)              Exotic Pig           Local Pig                    Total Pig Production

 1992                  84                   895                          979
 1993                  132                  1140                         1272
 1994                  204                  1206                         1410
 1995                  359                  1260                         1619
 1996                  546                  1441                         1987
 1997                  615                  1364                         1979


                                            60
 1998                          228                      941                           1169
 1999                          365                      1104                          1469
 2000                          545                      1107                          1652

       Source: Dadu, Jaman South District

       Appendix C: Jaman South Pig Production From 2007 - 2008

Year                          Exotic Breed             Local Breed                   Total Pig Production
2007                          543                      134                           677
2008                          652                      188                           840




            Appendix D: Livestock and Poultry Production
              Cattle                 Sheep             Goats             Pigs                Poultry

              Mill.    Percent       Mill.   Percent   Mill.   Percent   Mill.   Percent     Mill.     Percent
Year/Period
              Head     Change        Head    Change    Head    Change    Head    Change      Head      Change

2000          1.3      0.78          2.74    3.01      3.08    5.12      0.32    -3.03       20.47     8.83

2001          1.32     1.54          2.83    3.28      3.23    4.87      0.32    0           22.28     8.84

2002          1.33     0.76          2.92    3.18      3.39    4.95      0.31    -3.13       24.25     8.84

2003          1.34     0.75          3       2.74      3.56    5.01      0.3     -3.23       25.67     5.86

2004          1.36     1.49          3.11    3.67      3.74    5.06      0.29    -3.33       28.73     11.92

2005          1.37     0.74          3.21    3.22      3.92    4.81      0.29    0           28.37     -1.25

2006          1.39     1.46          3.31    3.12      4.12    5.1       0.28    -3.45       34.03     19.95

2007          1.4      0.72          3.42    3.32      4.32    4.85      0.27    -3.57       37.04     8.85

Average

2000-2003     1.32                   2.87              3.32              0.31                23.17     1.32

2004-2007     1.38                   3.26              4.03              0.28                32.04     1.38

       Source: Veterinary Services Directorate, MoFA in ISSER, 2008




                                                       61

								
To top