Research Article
BibTex RIS Cite

Red Meat Consumption Structure and Consumer Behavior in the Urban Area of Adana Province

Year 2020, Volume: 35 Issue: 2, 143 - 150, 29.12.2020

Ufuk Gültekin N'djambieri Yacouba Soro

https://doi.org/10.36846/CJAFS.2020.28

Abstract

In this study, to determine the red meat consumption structure and consumer behavior in different income groups, 400 persons have been subjected to a questionnaire. Red meat consumption habits and consumers' family preferences were also determined. According to research findings, the per capita annual intake of red meat was 22,02 kg. It was found that the most favored form of meat was boneless meat regardless of the income level, given the red meat intake of the individuals subjected to this study. In the study, 57.9% of customers prefer conventional butcher shops to purchase red meat when the butcher is known to be familiar. Consumers like red meat because it is inexpensive, nutritious and easy to access. In addition, 30% of customers who partook in the survey were willing to pay more for red meat in food safety. 74.6% of the people who took part in the study were determined to consume more red meat if the price lowered by 30%. In order to analyze the factors that influence the red meat buying place of the families participating in this research the binary logit model was used. As per the results of the logit model it has been established that the family's red meat buying place was influenced by variables like income, education, quantity, proximity, fresh meat, affordable price

Keywords

Red meat Binary logit model Consumer behavior Consumption structure

Supporting Institution

This work was supported by Research Projects Center of Cukurova University

Project Number

FYL-2019-11677

References

  • Akbay, C., Boz, İ., 2005. Turkey’s Livestock Sector: Production, Consumption and Policies. Livestock Research for Rural Development, 17(9):1-14.
  • Akdemir, Ş, 1989. Structure of Food Consumption in the World and in Turkey. Ç.Ü. Agriculture Faculty Journal, Number: 6, Adana.
  • Anonymous., 2015. Kirmizi et stratejisi. Hayvancilik Genel Mudurlugu, 73p, Ankara.
  • Anonymous., 2016. Meat and seafood production consumption. https://ourworldindata.org/meat-and-seafood-production consumption#per-capita-trends-in-meat-consumption 25/09/2019.
  • Armagan, G., Akbay, C., 2007. An econometric analysis of urban households' animal products consumption in Turkey. Applied Economics, pp.1-8.
  • Cankurt, M, Miran, B., Şahin, A., 2010. Sigir Eti Tercihlerin Etkileyen Faktorlerin Belirlenmesi Uzerine Bir Arastirma Ili Ornegi Hayvansal Uretim, 51(2), 16-22.
  • Ceylan, M,. 2006. Van Ili kentsel ve Kirsal Alanda Et ve Urunleri Tuketim Yapisi ve Tuketicilerin Satin Alma Egimleri. Yüksek Lisans Tezi. Yuzuncu Yil Universitesi, Fen Bilimleri Enstitusu, 71 s.
  • Gogus., A.K., 1986. Meat technology. Ankara University Faculty of Agriculture Publications: 991, pp. 243, Ankara.
  • Gökçek, A.A., 1998. Edible Oil Consumption of Families in the Urban Area of Adana Province and Estimation of Spending Flexibility of Oil. CU Institute of Science, Agriculture Department of Economics, Master Thesis, Adana.
  • Hanta, B., 1984. Animal Food Consumption Structure in the Urban Area of Adana Province. Ç.Ü Institute of Science, Department of Agricultural Economics, Master's Thesis, Adana.
  • Hatırlı, S.A., Ozturk, E., Aktaş, A.R. (2007). An analysis of demand of red meat, fish and chicken using full demand system approach. Journal of Suleyman Demirel University Institute of Social Sciences, 2007/2: 6.
  • Karlı, B., Bilgiç, A., (2007). Factors affecting meat and meat products consumption quantities in Sanliurfa province. Journal of Akdeniz University Agricultural Faculty, 20(1): 127-136.
  • Kizioglu, S., Kizioglu, R., 2013. Erzurum Merkez Ilçede Et ve Ithal Et Tuketme Durumunu Inceleyen Bir Arastirma. Igdir Uni. Fen Bilimleri Enst. Dergisi. 3(1), 61-68.
  • Lorcu, F., Bolat, B.A., 2012. Edirme Ilinde Kirmizi ET Tüketim Tercihlerinin Incelenmesi. Tekirdağ Ziraat Fakultesi Dergisi/Journal of Tekirdağ Agricultural Faculty, 9(1), 71-85.
  • Merve, A., 2017. Kirmizi ette fiyat oynakligi ve tuketici davranislari. Gaziosmanpasa Üniversitesi, Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Doktora Tezi, Tokat , 147s.
  • Mutlu, S., 2007. Gıda Güvenirliği Açısından Tüketici Davranışları (Adana Kentsel Kesimde Kırmızı Et Tüketim Örneği). Ç.Ü. Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Tarım Ekonomisi Anabilim Dalı, Doktora Tezi, Adana.
  • Pazarlioglu, M.V., Miran, B., Ucdogruk, S., Abay, C., (2007).Using econometric modelling to predict demand for fluid and farm milk: a case study from Turkey. Food Quality and Preference, 18: 416–424.
  • Sanchez, M., Sanjuan, A.I., Akl, G., 2001. The Influence of Experience in Consumption and Personal Attitudes on the Purchase of Lamb and Beef. 71st EAAE Seminar, Zaragoza-Ispanya.
  • Stock Jh, Watson Mw., 2007. Introduction to Econometrics. Pearson Addison Wesley, Boston.
  • TÜİK., 2018a. http://www.tuik.gov.tr/PreIstatistikTablo.do?istab_id=685 Erişim Tarihi: 08.07.2019.
  • Upton, N., 2004. The Role of Livestock in Economic Development and Poverty Reduction. A Living from Livestock, FAO, 57p.
  • Uzunoz, M., Akcay, Y., Aslan, C,. (2011). Factors affecting consumer preferences of food away from home in Tokat Province of Turkey.
  • Yaylak, E., Taşkin, T., Koyubenbe, N., Konca, Y., (2010). A Study on determination of red meat consumption behaviors in Ödemiş, Izmir. Journal of Animal Production, 51(1): 21-30.
  • Yen, S.T., Lin, B.H., Davis, C.G., (2008). Consumer knowledge and meat consumption at home and away from home. Food Policy, 33: 631–639.

Adana İli Kentsel Alanda Kırmızı Et Tüketim Yapısı ve Tüketici Davranışları

Year 2020, Volume: 35 Issue: 2, 143 - 150, 29.12.2020

Ufuk Gültekin N'djambieri Yacouba Soro

https://doi.org/10.36846/CJAFS.2020.28

Abstract

Bu çalışmada, farklı gelir gruplarında kırmızı et tüketim yapısını ve tüketici davranışını belirlemek amacıyla 400 kişiye anket uygulanmış ve kırmızı et tüketim alışkanlıkları ile tercihleri belirlenmiştir. Araştırmadan elde edilen bulgulara göre kişi başına yıllık kırmızı et tüketimi 22,02 kg'dır. Kişilerin kırmızı et tüketimi göz önüne alındığında, gelir grubu ne olursa olsun en çok tercih edilen et çeşidinin kemiksiz et olduğu belirlenmiştir. Buna ek olarak, kırmızı eti sırasıyla ucuz, sağlıklı ve kolay ulaşılabilir olması nedeniyle satın alma yeri olarak tüketicilerin geleneksel kasap dükkanlarını tercih ettikleri belirlenmiştir. Ayrıca çalışmaya katılan tüketicilerin%30'u gıda güvenliği açısından kırmızı ete fazladan ödeme yapma istekliliğindedirler. Araştırmaya katılanların %74,6'sının kırmızı et fiyatının %30 ucuzlaması durumunda daha fazla kırmızı et tüketme istekliliği tespit edilmiştir. Bu araştırmaya katılan ailelerin kırmızı et satın alma yerini etkileyen faktörleri analiz etmek için ikili logit modeli kullanılmıştır. Logit modeli sonuçlarına göre, ailelerin kırmızı et tüketim yerlerinin; gelir, eğitim, miktar, yakınlık, taze et, uygun fiyat vb. istatistiksel değişkenlerden etkilendiği belirlenmiştir.

Keywords

Kırmızı et İkili logit modeli Tüketici davranışı Tüketim yapısı

Project Number

FYL-2019-11677

References

  • Akbay, C., Boz, İ., 2005. Turkey’s Livestock Sector: Production, Consumption and Policies. Livestock Research for Rural Development, 17(9):1-14.
  • Akdemir, Ş, 1989. Structure of Food Consumption in the World and in Turkey. Ç.Ü. Agriculture Faculty Journal, Number: 6, Adana.
  • Anonymous., 2015. Kirmizi et stratejisi. Hayvancilik Genel Mudurlugu, 73p, Ankara.
  • Anonymous., 2016. Meat and seafood production consumption. https://ourworldindata.org/meat-and-seafood-production consumption#per-capita-trends-in-meat-consumption 25/09/2019.
  • Armagan, G., Akbay, C., 2007. An econometric analysis of urban households' animal products consumption in Turkey. Applied Economics, pp.1-8.
  • Cankurt, M, Miran, B., Şahin, A., 2010. Sigir Eti Tercihlerin Etkileyen Faktorlerin Belirlenmesi Uzerine Bir Arastirma Ili Ornegi Hayvansal Uretim, 51(2), 16-22.
  • Ceylan, M,. 2006. Van Ili kentsel ve Kirsal Alanda Et ve Urunleri Tuketim Yapisi ve Tuketicilerin Satin Alma Egimleri. Yüksek Lisans Tezi. Yuzuncu Yil Universitesi, Fen Bilimleri Enstitusu, 71 s.
  • Gogus., A.K., 1986. Meat technology. Ankara University Faculty of Agriculture Publications: 991, pp. 243, Ankara.
  • Gökçek, A.A., 1998. Edible Oil Consumption of Families in the Urban Area of Adana Province and Estimation of Spending Flexibility of Oil. CU Institute of Science, Agriculture Department of Economics, Master Thesis, Adana.
  • Hanta, B., 1984. Animal Food Consumption Structure in the Urban Area of Adana Province. Ç.Ü Institute of Science, Department of Agricultural Economics, Master's Thesis, Adana.
  • Hatırlı, S.A., Ozturk, E., Aktaş, A.R. (2007). An analysis of demand of red meat, fish and chicken using full demand system approach. Journal of Suleyman Demirel University Institute of Social Sciences, 2007/2: 6.
  • Karlı, B., Bilgiç, A., (2007). Factors affecting meat and meat products consumption quantities in Sanliurfa province. Journal of Akdeniz University Agricultural Faculty, 20(1): 127-136.
  • Kizioglu, S., Kizioglu, R., 2013. Erzurum Merkez Ilçede Et ve Ithal Et Tuketme Durumunu Inceleyen Bir Arastirma. Igdir Uni. Fen Bilimleri Enst. Dergisi. 3(1), 61-68.
  • Lorcu, F., Bolat, B.A., 2012. Edirme Ilinde Kirmizi ET Tüketim Tercihlerinin Incelenmesi. Tekirdağ Ziraat Fakultesi Dergisi/Journal of Tekirdağ Agricultural Faculty, 9(1), 71-85.
  • Merve, A., 2017. Kirmizi ette fiyat oynakligi ve tuketici davranislari. Gaziosmanpasa Üniversitesi, Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Doktora Tezi, Tokat , 147s.
  • Mutlu, S., 2007. Gıda Güvenirliği Açısından Tüketici Davranışları (Adana Kentsel Kesimde Kırmızı Et Tüketim Örneği). Ç.Ü. Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Tarım Ekonomisi Anabilim Dalı, Doktora Tezi, Adana.
  • Pazarlioglu, M.V., Miran, B., Ucdogruk, S., Abay, C., (2007).Using econometric modelling to predict demand for fluid and farm milk: a case study from Turkey. Food Quality and Preference, 18: 416–424.
  • Sanchez, M., Sanjuan, A.I., Akl, G., 2001. The Influence of Experience in Consumption and Personal Attitudes on the Purchase of Lamb and Beef. 71st EAAE Seminar, Zaragoza-Ispanya.
  • Stock Jh, Watson Mw., 2007. Introduction to Econometrics. Pearson Addison Wesley, Boston.
  • TÜİK., 2018a. http://www.tuik.gov.tr/PreIstatistikTablo.do?istab_id=685 Erişim Tarihi: 08.07.2019.
  • Upton, N., 2004. The Role of Livestock in Economic Development and Poverty Reduction. A Living from Livestock, FAO, 57p.
  • Uzunoz, M., Akcay, Y., Aslan, C,. (2011). Factors affecting consumer preferences of food away from home in Tokat Province of Turkey.
  • Yaylak, E., Taşkin, T., Koyubenbe, N., Konca, Y., (2010). A Study on determination of red meat consumption behaviors in Ödemiş, Izmir. Journal of Animal Production, 51(1): 21-30.
  • Yen, S.T., Lin, B.H., Davis, C.G., (2008). Consumer knowledge and meat consumption at home and away from home. Food Policy, 33: 631–639.
There are 24 citations in total.

Details

Primary Language English
Subjects Agricultural Engineering
Journal Section Research Article
Authors

Ufuk Gültekin 0000-0002-4378-8868

N'djambieri Yacouba Soro 0000-0002-4194-9955

Project Number FYL-2019-11677
Publication Date December 29, 2020
Published in Issue Year 2020 Volume: 35 Issue: 2

Cite

APA Gültekin, U., & Soro, N. Y. (2020). Red Meat Consumption Structure and Consumer Behavior in the Urban Area of Adana Province. Çukurova Tarım Ve Gıda Bilimleri Dergisi, 35(2), 143-150. https://doi.org/10.36846/CJAFS.2020.28
AMA Gültekin U, Soro NY. Red Meat Consumption Structure and Consumer Behavior in the Urban Area of Adana Province. Çukurova J. Agric. Food. Sciences. December 2020;35(2):143-150. doi:10.36846/CJAFS.2020.28
Chicago Gültekin, Ufuk, and N’djambieri Yacouba Soro. “Red Meat Consumption Structure and Consumer Behavior in the Urban Area of Adana Province”. Çukurova Tarım Ve Gıda Bilimleri Dergisi 35, no. 2 (December 2020): 143-50. https://doi.org/10.36846/CJAFS.2020.28.
EndNote Gültekin U, Soro NY (December 1, 2020) Red Meat Consumption Structure and Consumer Behavior in the Urban Area of Adana Province. Çukurova Tarım ve Gıda Bilimleri Dergisi 35 2 143–150.
IEEE U. Gültekin and N. Y. Soro, “Red Meat Consumption Structure and Consumer Behavior in the Urban Area of Adana Province”, Çukurova J. Agric. Food. Sciences, vol. 35, no. 2, pp. 143–150, 2020, doi: 10.36846/CJAFS.2020.28.
ISNAD Gültekin, Ufuk - Soro, N’djambieri Yacouba. “Red Meat Consumption Structure and Consumer Behavior in the Urban Area of Adana Province”. Çukurova Tarım ve Gıda Bilimleri Dergisi 35/2 (December 2020), 143-150. https://doi.org/10.36846/CJAFS.2020.28.
JAMA Gültekin U, Soro NY. Red Meat Consumption Structure and Consumer Behavior in the Urban Area of Adana Province. Çukurova J. Agric. Food. Sciences. 2020;35:143–150.
MLA Gültekin, Ufuk and N’djambieri Yacouba Soro. “Red Meat Consumption Structure and Consumer Behavior in the Urban Area of Adana Province”. Çukurova Tarım Ve Gıda Bilimleri Dergisi, vol. 35, no. 2, 2020, pp. 143-50, doi:10.36846/CJAFS.2020.28.
Vancouver Gültekin U, Soro NY. Red Meat Consumption Structure and Consumer Behavior in the Urban Area of Adana Province. Çukurova J. Agric. Food. Sciences. 2020;35(2):143-50.
 Download Cover Image

From January 1, 2016 “Çukurova University Journal of Faculty of Agriculture” continuous its publication life as “Çukurova Journal of Agriculture and Food Sciences”.