WORKING PAPERS - BOBP/WP/83
Survey of Fish Consumption in Madras
by
MARG (Marketing and Research Group Pvt.
Ltd.),
Madras
Prepared for and edited by
Post-Harvest Fisheries Project
Bay of Bengal Programme
|
WORKING PAPERS - BOBP/WP/83 Survey of Fish Consumption in Madrasby |
|
Executing Agency: FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS Funding agency: OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION, UK Bay of Bengal Programme Madras, India, 1992 |
| The designations employed and the presentation of material in this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. |
All rights reserved. Reproduction and dissemination of material in this information product for educational or other non-commercial purposes are authorized without any prior written permission from the copyright holders provided the source is fully acknowledged. Reproduction of material in this information product for resale or other commercial purposes is prohibited without written permission of the copyright holders. Applications for such permission should be addressed to the Chief, Publishing and Multimedia Service, Information Division, FAO, Viale delle Terme di Caracalla, 00100 Rome, Italy or by email to [email protected]
© FAO 2004
|
Fish occupies an important position in the diet of much of the population living in the Bay of Bengal region. It is the most favoured and least expensive form of animal protein available. But poor post-harvest techniques can cause substantial material and nutritional losses of fish. Most commonly, bad handling of fish upon capture leads to rapid spoilage and inevitable downgradation in value. Subsequent poor, or inadequate, processing, marketing and distribution practices tend, in turn, to lead to low-quality products with low market values. It was against this backdrop that the ODA-funded Post-Harvest Fisheries Project of the Bay of Bengal Programme (BOBP) sought to examine the consumption of marine produce and the extent of current wastage. More specifically, it sought to assess what determined the demand for marine produce — rational considerations or attitudinal aspects or both. It was decided to confine such a study to Madras, the capital of the state of Tamil Nadu, India, in the first instance, but felt it could later be extended to other cities. The underlying reason for studying the market in Madras was that the demand for fish in this metropolis was felt to be considerably low vis-a-vis the availability. To this end, MARG, a leading marketing and research group, was engaged to conduct exploratory research in Madras and study the consumption and attitudes to consumption of marine produce in households in the city. This document not only comprises a report of the findings by MARG during its study, but it also presents a Foreword indicating possible future interventions in the clearly important area of fish marketing. Both the study and the working paper on its findings were funded by the Overseas Development Administration of the United Kingdom. |
FOREWORD
I. OBJECTIVES
II. METHODS
III. MANAGEMENT SUMMARY
IV. CONCLUSIONS
DETAILED COMMENTARY
Part A
FISH CONSUMPTION: FINDINGS OF QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH
1. THE SAMPLE
1.1 Classification of households in Madras city
1.2 Incidence of consumption of some high protein items
1.3 Profile of the sample and fish consuming households2. MONTHLY EXPENDITURE ON FOOD
2.1 Average monthly expenditure on all food
2.2 Average monthly expenditure on, and consumption of, fish and fish products
2.3 Average monthly expenditure on, and consumption of, eggs
2.4 Average monthly expenditure on, and consumption of, milk
2.5 Average monthly expenditure on, and consumption of, mutton
2.6 Average monthly expenditure on, and consumption of, chicken
2.7 Average monthly expenditure on, and consumption of, other meat3. CONSUMPTION OF FISH/FISH PRODUCTS IN HOUSEHOLDS
3.1 Perceptions relating to consumption of fish, mutton and chicken
3.2 Major reasons for buying more fish than chicken or mutton and vice-versa
3.3 Fish products consumed in households4. SEAWATER FISH
4.1 Awareness of seawater fish
4.2 Purchase of seawater fish
4.3 The most preferred fish
4.4 Purchase of preferred fish
4.5 Method of preparation of preferred fish5. AWARENESS AND PURCHASE OF FRESHWATER FISH
6. FREQUENCY OF CONSUMPTION OF OTHER MARINE PRODUCTS
7. PURCHASE OF FISH7.1 Decision-maker deciding on variety of fish to be purchased
7.2 Point of decision on variety of fish to be purchased
7.3 Factors influencing decision on variety of fish to be purchased at point of purchase
7.4 Purchaser of fish
7.5 Location of purchase point8. NON-VEGETARIAN HOUSEHOLDS NOT CONSUMING FISH
8.1 Reasons for not consuming fish in non-vegetarian households
8.2 Frequency of family consuming fish outside the house9. VEGETARIAN HOUSEHOLDS
Part B
FISH CONSUMPTION: FINDINGS OF QUALITATIVE RESEARCH
10. ATTITUDES TO FISH
10.1 Classification of foods by needs and expectations
10.2 Perceptions relating to vegetarian food
10.3 Perceptions relating to non-vegetarian food
10.4 Perceptions relating to fish
10.5 Motivations to consume fish
10.6 Barriers to consuming fish
10.7 Comparative rating of non-vegetarian food11. PERCEPTIONS RELATING TO VARIOUS TYPES OF FISH
11 .1 Awareness of types
11.2 Perceptions relating to types of fish
11.3 Perceptual charts of fish
11.4 Perceptions relating to Crab
11.5 Perceptions relating to dried fish (Karuvadu)
11.6 Perceptions relating to Prawn
11.7 Awareness and perceptions of packaged/processed fish12. CURRENT PURCHASE AND USAGE PRACTICES
12.1 Purchase habits
12.2 Variety of fish consumed
12.3 Factors influencing selection of fish
12.4 Perceptions relating to freshness of fish
12.5 Cues used to assess freshness
12.6 Perceptions relating to outlets
12.7 Cleaning of fish
12.8 Preparation of fish dishes
12.9 Consumption practicesTABLES
1. ‘Spontaneous’ awareness of seawater fish (%)
2. Total ‘aided’ awareness of seawater fish (%)
3. Purchase of seawater fish during last 6 months
4. Estimated total consumption of Seer and Bream in an average month
5. Awareness and purchase of freshwater fish (%)
6. Frequency of consumption of other fish productsAPPENDIX
I. Names of fish
PUBLICATIONS OF THE BAY OF BENGAL PROGRAMME