Although aspects of quality and safety criteria were considered when asking consumers to rate their preferences for different cuts and types of pork, respondents were also asked more directly if they had food quality and safety concerns about fresh and processed pork. Ninety-six percent of urban and 89% of rural consumers said they had concerns about quality of
fresh pork, while 90% of urban and 74% of rural respondents said they had concerns about the quality of processed pork (Table 12.5).
Table 12.4. Mean reference rating of different cuts of fresh pork and types of processed pork, by location
Type of cut/product Urban areas Rural areas Fresh pork
Shoulder (ham) 9.0 (0.1) 8.1 (0.1)
Leg (ham) 8.3 (0.1) 9.3 (0.1)
Loin 8.9 (0.1) 9.1 (0.1)
Ribs 8.1 (0.1) 7.4 (0.2)
Backbone 6.1 (0.2) 5.8 (0.2)
Head 4.2 (0.2) 4.0 (0.2)
Bacon 5.4 (0.2) 5.4 (0.2)
Intestinal tract 5.7 (0.2) 5.7 (0.2) Processed pork
Sausage 7.0 (0.2) 7.1 (0.4)
Meat ball 6.3 (0.3) 6.9 (0.3)
Pâté 5.5 (0.3) 6.7 (0.3)
Dried meat 7.9 (0.3) 9.0 (0.2)
Frankfurters 6.7 (0.9) 8.0 (0.8)
Pork flakes 7.5 (0.3) 8.3 (0.4)
Preference rating on a scale of zero (no preference) to 10 (highest preference). Standard errors in parentheses.
Source: Field survey.
In the case of fresh pork, the most important quality concern was fat content (more important in rural areas) though it was not clear if high or low fat content was the concern. Other concerns were freshness (more important in urban areas) and taste (equally important in both locations). Other concerns of minor importance were the colour, appearance and cleanliness of cuts.
As was the case for fresh pork, the most important quality concern regarding processed pork products was fat content, and this was more important in rural than in urban areas. Other concerns were taste, smell, processing technique, appearance, colour and packaging, some of which were slightly more important in urban areas and others in rural areas.
Respondents were also asked about the extent to which they would be willing to pay a premium for a guaranteed-quality product. Nearly a quarter of the respondents who expressed concern about quality were unwilling to pay any premium for a quality guarantee while about 60% were willing to pay 10% more on the existing price, about 15% were willing to pay 25% more and only 2% were willing to pay 50% more.
Table 12.5. Consumer concerns about the quality of fresh and processed pork, by location Urban consumers
(%) Rural consumers
(%) Concerned about quality of fresh pork?
% responding ‘yes’ 96 89
If yes, what is the most important concern?
Fat content 45 54
Cleanliness of meat cuts/other 1 1
Concerned about quality of processed pork?
% responding ‘yes’ 90 74
If yes, what is the most important concern?
Fat content 28 40
Processing technique and ingredients used 10 5
If yes for quality concerns, willing to pay premium for pork with quality guarantee?
50% more than current price 2 2
25% more than current price 14 15
10% more than current price 61 58
Not willing to pay more 23 25
Source: Field survey.
With regard to food safety, 97% of urban respondents and 95% of rural respondents reported having concerns about the safety of fresh pork while 98% of urban respondents and 78% of rural respondents were concerned about the safety of processed pork (Table 12.6).
In the case of fresh pork, consumers in both rural and urban areas generally preferred main cuts to organs, and among the main cuts, the shoulder, leg and loin were more preferred than ribs and the backbone. As regards the preference rating of different types of processed pork products, there was little variation between consumers in urban and rural areas.
In the case of fresh pork, the most important safety concern was whether the animal was disease-free and this factor was of greater concern to urban than rural consumers (Table 12.6). Other important safety concerns were levels of hygiene in the markets and slaughterhouses. Residues of hormones and antibiotics in pork were not recorded as major
concerns because these substances are hardly used in the predominant traditional scavenging pig production systems and commercial pig production is not widespread.
Table 12.6. Consumer concerns about the safety of fresh and processed pork, by location Urban consumers
(%) Rural consumers
(%) Concerned about safety of fresh pork?
% responding ‘yes’ 97 95.1
If yes, what is the major concern?
Hygiene in slaughtering 8 12
Hygiene in market outlet 10 16
Disease-free or not 81 69
Hormone-free or not – 3
Antibiotic-free or not 1 1
Concerned about safety of processed pork?
% responding ‘yes’ 98 78
If yes, what is the major concern?
Packaging 7 6
Hygiene in market outlet 12 22
Free of chemical additives or not 65 44
Disease-free or not 15 25
Antibiotic-free or not 1 –
Shelf life – 2
If yes for safety concerns, willing to pay premium for pork with safety guarantee?
50% more than current price 2 1
25% more than current price 17 16
10% more than current price 63 74
Not willing to pay more 18 9
Source: Field survey.
For processed pork, the most important safety concern was whether the products were free from chemical additives and this concern was of greater importance among urban than rural consumers. Other important safety concerns included the level of hygiene in the market place and whether the pork products were derived from disease-free pigs; both these concerns were of greater significance among rural consumers.
Among consumers reporting concerns about the safety of pork, 18% of urban respondents and 9% of rural respondents were not willing to pay a premium for guaranteed-safety pork products. However, 63% of urban and 74% of rural respondents were willing to pay up to 10% above the existing price, while 16% in both urban and rural areas were willing to pay 25% more for guaranteed safety.