Present paper attempts to analyze consumption pattern and consumer preferences towards value-added fish and fish products in north zone of India. Results reveal that socio economic variables affect consumption of value-added fish and fish products. A total of 49 percent respondents were of middle age group (35 t050 years). All were literates except 7 percent from the rural area. All were purchasing fish at least once in 15 days. A total of 90 percent respondents in rural, 77 percent in semi urban and 50 percent in urban area were unaware of value-added fish and fish products. About 10 percent of respondents had consumed it, out of which most were from urban area. Demand analysis by Cobb Douglas (CD) Demand function; revealed that when price of fish, price of the substitutes, income of family and family size were used as independent variables, variation in demand offish explained by CD Demand function was about 39 percent in urban area, 24 percent in semi urban area and 22 percent in rural area. From Garette ranking technique major problems in fish consumption found were irregular supply, lack of fresh fish, high price and presence of bones in fish. While lack of awareness, unavailability, no preference and unacceptable taste were major problems for consumption of value-added fish and fish product

Sabat, Sunil

Sharma, Arpita

Shyam, S Salim

Present paper attempts to analyze consumption pattern and consumer preferences towards value-added fish and fish products in north zone of India. Results reveal that socio economic variables affect consumption of value-added fish and fish products. A total of 49 percent respondents were of middle age group (35 to 50 years). All were literates except 7% from the rural area. All were purchasing fish at least once in 15 days. A total of 90% respondents in rural, 11% in semi urban and 50% in urban area were unaware of value-added fish and fish products. About 10% of respondents had consumed it, out of which most were from urban area. Demand analysis by Cobb Douglas (CD) Demand function revealed that when price of fish, price of the substitutes, income of family and family size were used as independent variables, variation in demand of fish explained by CD Demand function was about 39% in urban area, 24% in semi urban area and 22% in rural area. From Garette ranking technique major problems in fish consumption found were irregular supply, lack of fresh fish, high price and presence of bones in fish. While lack of awareness, unavailability, no preference and unacceptable taste were major problems for consumption of value-added fish and fish products

Sabater, S.

Sharma, A.

Salim, S.S.

Aquatic Commons

19 
J. Indian Fish Assoc., 35: 19-27, 2008 
CONSUMPTION PATTERN AND CONSUMER PREFERENCE FOR VALUE- ADDED FISH AND FISH 
PRODUCTS IN NORTH ZONE OF INDIA 
Sunil Sabat, Arpita Sharma* and Shyam S. Salim 
Centra/Institute of Fisheries Education {Deemed University) 
Indian Council of Agricultural Research 
Department of Fisheries Informatics Technology Evaluation and Transfer 
Seven Bungalows, Versova, Mumbai-400061 
Corresponding author- arpitasharma@cife.edu.in 
ABSTRACT 
Present paper attempts to analyze consumption pattern and consumer preferences towards 
value-added fish and fish products in north zone of India. Results reveal that socio economic 
variables affect consumption of value-added fish and fish products. A total of 49 percent 
respondents were of middle age group {35 to SO years). All were literates except 1 percent from the 
rural area. All were purchasing fish at least once in 15 days. A total of 90 percent respondents in 
rural, 11 percent in semi urban and 50 percent in urban area were unaware of value-added fish and 
fish products. About 10 percent of respondents had consumed it, out of which most were from 
urban area. Demand analysis by Cobb Douglas (CD} Demand function; revealed that when price of 
fish, price of the substitutes, income of family and family size were used as independent variables, 
variation in demand of fish explained by CD Demand function was about 39 percent in urban area, 
24 percent in semi urban area and 22 percent in rural area. From Garette ranking technique major 
problems in fish consumption found were irregular supply, lack of fresh fish, high price and 
presence of bones in fish. While lack of awareness, unavailability, no preference and unacceptable 
taste were major problems for consumption of value-added fish and fish products. 
Keywords: Consumption, consumer preference, value-added fish products. 
INTRODUCTION 
Fisheries sector has witnessed an 
impressive growth from a subsistence 
traditional activity to a well-developed 
commercial and diversified enterprise. It has 
been playing a pivotal role in the economic 
development by virtue of its potential 
contribution to employment generation, 
income augmentation, addressing food and 
nutritional security concerns and foreign 
exchange earnings. World fish production has 
increased immensely and the capture fishery 
has arrived at a state of over exploitation. An 
alarming increase in human population is 
resulting in widening the supply-demand gap, 
with the consequences of reduced availability, 
rising price and search for alternative resources 
to meet the gap (Clark, 1990).0n other hand 
about one third of the global fish catch is under 
utilized for human food consumption because 
of post-harvest losses. Fish in large quantities 
are discarded into sea as it is currently 
uneconomic to preserve and bring them ashore 
20 Sunil Sabat, Arpita Sharma and Shyam S. Salim 
like shrimp by-catch of about 27million 
tonnes/year mostly due to the low market 
value of the materia I, size, species 
composition and the lack of suitable 
refrigerated storage space on-board. Non-
preferable low priced fishes are either 
converted to fish meal or sold at very low 
price for curing. In general deep-sea fishes 
may not be immediately acceptable to the 
consumers due to unfamiliarity in shape, size 
and colour of the new varieties. These low 
priced fishes are nutritionally and chemically 
in no way inferior to that of fishes of 
commercial importance. Therefore, 
collecting and processing meat of these fishes 
into diversified value-added products suiting 
to human consumption would result in 
effective utilization of the resource. This can 
meet the desire for better and new taste with 
commercial benefits. Moreover, purchasing 
capacity of people is going to enhance in 
years to come and market prices are going to 
be high for fish. 'Value addition' is defined as 
any additional activity that changes the 
nature and form of raw material and 
increases sale value and in general improves 
the utility. 
Marketing of value-added fish 
products is completely different from 
traditional seafood trade. It is dynamic, 
sensitive, complex and expensive. Market 
surveys, packaging and advertising are a few 
ofthe very important areas, which ultimately 
determine successful movement of new 
products. Most market channels currently 
used may not be suitable to trade value-
added fish products. A new appropriate 
channel would be supermarket chain; which 
want to procure directly from source of 
supply. Though, market research has been 
conducted in the field of fresh and frozen fish 
but still the domain of value-added fish and fish 
products remain less explored. In this context 
the present study was undertaken to analyze 
the consumption pattern and consumer 
preferences towards value-added fish and fish 
products in north zone of India with the 
objective of analyzing the consumption pattern 
and consumer preferences towards value-
added fish and fish products. 
DESIGN OF STUDY 
Haryana, Punjab and Delhi were 
chosen as the States for survey under the study. 
A sample of 90 respondents was taken from the 
selected area with 30 from Delhi 
(metro/urban), 30 from Rohtak (semi urban), 
Haryana and 30 from Lahili (rural), Haryana. 
The size of the sample was decided as the 
above as the objective was to draw inference 
about the population (Gupta and Gupta, 1997). 
To analyze the consumption pattern and 
consumer preferences, data were collected 
with prestructured consumer survey 
questionnaires from varied strata of society like 
high, middle and low income. 
Collected data were analyzed using 
specific tools of analysis like percentage 
analysis and functional analyses like Demand 
analysis (Cobb-Douglas Demand function) and 
Garette ranking technique to access the 
consumption pattern and consumer 
preference towards value-added fish and fish 
products. 
CONSUMPTION PATTERN AND CONSUMER PREFERENCE FOR VAlUE- ADDED FISH AND FISH 21 
PRODUCTS IN NORTH ZONE OF INDIA 
TOOLS OF ANALYSIS 
Percentage analysis 
In this method all the variables like 
income, education level, age, family 
structure, awareness level and fish 
consumption have been expressed in the 
form of percentage. 
Functional analysis 
These following tools were used for 
functional analysis of result. 
Demand analysis 
Garret ranking 
Demand analysis 
Demand is the quantity of a product 
or service, which buyers will purchase at the 
different prices in a market at a given period 
of time (Levy, 1985). Demand function is a 
mathematical expression of the relationship 
between the quantity demanded of a 
commodity and factors affecting the quantity 
demanded (Hal, 1992), e.g. the quantity of 
fish demanded is determined by the price of 
fish, price of the substitute, income levels, the 
population, average education level etc. The 
demand function is expressed as 
Dt = f ( P t' P s' Yv St, Et, Dt-1l 
Where, 
Dt = quantity offish demanded 
Pt = price ofthefish in period t 
P5 = price of the substitute 
Yt = average income level 
st = size of the population in period t 
Et = average level of education in period t 
Dt_1 =quantity offish demanded in period t-1 
Cobb-Douglas Demand Function 
In order to forecast demand based on 
different variables, a Cobb Douglas (CD) 
demand function (Cobb and Douglas, 1928) 
was employed on different sets of independent 
variables. The dependent variable was Y= 
demand, independent variables were X1= price 
offish, X2= price of the substitutes, X3= income 
of the family, X4= family size, X5=age of the 
respondents, X6= quantity demanded of 
substitutes, X7= expenditure on fish. 
CD Demand function can be expressed as: 
b1 b2 b3 b4 bS b6 b7 u 
~a~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ e 
Where a= Intercept 
u 
e =Error term 
(b1, b2, b3, b4, bS, b6, b7) are coefficients 
To convert it into linearform we have taken log 
on both sides. Hence the linear lu&Tfl of CD 
Demand function is: 
LnY= B+b11nX1 +b2 1nX2 +b31nX3+b4 
lnX4+b51nX5 +b6 1nX6+b71nX7+u 
Where B=ln a 
b1, b2 and b3 represent the price elasticity of 
demand, price elasticity of substitutes and 
income elasticity of demand respectively. 
Garette Ranking Technique 
The Garette Ranking Technique was 
employed to rank the problems in 
consumption of fish and value-added fish 
product of consumers. Order of merit given by 
the consumers was transmitted into scores. 
For converting scores assigned by the 
consumers towards a particular problem, 
2.2 Sunil Sabat, Arpita Sharma and Shyam S. Salim 
percent position was worked out using the 
formulae (Garrett and Woodsworth, 1969). 
Percent position= 100 (Ru-0.5)/Ni 
Where, 
th 
Ru = rank given for the i 
th 
problem bythej consumer 
Ni =number of attributes 
RESUlTS AND DISCUSSION 
Percentage Analysis 
Results obtained from percentage 
analysis were segregated under various 
heads. General information category 
contained age, family structure and 
education level. Results showed that 49% 
respondents were from middle age i.e., group 
35 to 50 years. All respondents were literate 
except 7 per cent who were illiterate from the 
rural area. There were more number of 
graduates (43 per cent) and professional 
degree holders (17 per cent) from urban area. 
Most of the rural respondents were from 
agriculture sector. Number of respondents in 
private jobs was higher than government 
ones especially in urban area. A total of 50 per 
cent semi urban respondents belonged to 
manufacturing sector. Most of the 
respondents in urban area (about GO per 
cent) were having annual income above Rs. 
3,00,000/- while for respondents from semi 
urban and rural area the range was Rs. 60,000 
to 3,00,000/- Respondents with less than Rs. 
60,000 annual income were more in rural 
area (20 per cent) as compared to other 
areas. Percentage of respondents with their 
own land and house were more in rural area 
while all urban respondents possessed own 
consumer durables. More respondents in 
urban and semi urban area had own vehicles. 
All respondents spent highest percentage of 
expenditure on food. 
To analyze the consumption pattern 
and consumer preference for value-added fish 
and fish products, information was collected as 
regards to frequency of fish purchase, 
awareness and consumption of value-added 
fish and fish products. Results revealed that all 
the respondents were purchasing fish at least 
once in 15 days. Maximum number of 
respondents had frequency of fish purchase 
once in a week (63 per cent) followed by more 
than once in a week (30 per cent). Most of the 
respondents in rural (90 per cent) and in semi 
urban area (77 per cent) were unaware of 
value-added fish and fish products while 50 per 
cent respondents in urban area were aware of 
it. About 10 per cent had consumed value-
added products of fish out of which maximum 
were from urban area and minimum were from 
rural area. As regards to consumer preference it 
was clearly reported by all respondents that 
they had a preference for boneless fish 
products. Moreover, the fisheries departments 
also have reported that they would like to have 
government support for the procurement of 
deboning machines. 
Demand analysis 
In Demand analysis (Cobb Douglas 
Demand Function) when price of fish, price of 
the substitutes, income of family and family 
size were used as independent variables, in 
urban area the CD Demand function could 
explain about 39 per cent of variation in 
demand of fish while income and family size 
significantly affected the demand of fish (Table 
1}, in semi urban area the CD Demand function 
could explain about 24 per cent of variation in 
CONSUMPTION PATTERN AND CONSUMER PREFERENCE FOR VALUE- ADDED FISH AND FISH 23 
PRODUCTS IN NORTH ZONE OF INDIA 
demand of fish while family size significantly 
affected the demand of fish (Table 2); the CD 
Demand function could explain about 22 per 
cent of variation in demand of fish while 
Income and family size significantly affected 
the demand offish (Table 3}. 
In a study, Redkar and Bose (2004) 
investigated the factors affecting the 
purchase decisions of seafood consumers in 
selected urban areas of India. They reported 
that taste, religion, size of household and age 
of family member were significant factors at 
95 per cent confidence level. 
Garette ranking: 
With the results obtained from 
Garette ranking of problems in fish 
consumption it was seen that irregular 
supply, lack of fresh fish and high price were 
major problems in fish consumption. In 
addition, all the respondents had a problem 
with the presence of bones in fish. Many of 
them had a preference for boneless fish and 
Table 1. Demand analysis of urban area 
Adjusted R 
Square 0.393974 
fish products like fish pakora and fish cutlet 
(Table 4). With the results obtained from 
Garette ranking of problems for value-added 
fish and fish products consumption, it was 
ascertained that north Indian respondents 
were ready to pay a reasonable amount for 
value-added fish and fish products, but the 
dilemma is that neither the product nor any 
range of products was available in the market. 
At the same time some have also shown lack of 
appreciation for the taste for these products. 
Lack of awareness, unavailability, no 
preference and unacceptable taste were the 
major problems for consumption of value-
addedfish and fish products (Table 5). 
There appear to be few problems perceived as 
regards to the consumption of value-added fish 
and fish products in households and these 
influences may lead to vague and uncontrolled 
drifts in consumption patterns. Active market 
promotion can play a significant role in bringing 
change. The extent to which this can be 
achieved should be of great interest to 
development planners, policy makers and the 
trade in general, because of significant social, 
political and economic benefits. 
Coefficients Standard Error tStat P..value 
Intercept -0.66761 0.446174 -1.49631 0.147092 
PRICE -0.16816 0.201929 -0.83275 0.412872 
PRis -0.07857 0.068425 -1.14828 0.261723 
INCOME 0.288602 0.133493 2.161917 0.040396 
FAMILY SIZE 0.662152 0.298913 2.215197 0.036084 
-0.16816 -.07857 0.28860 0.66215 CD Demand function: Y = -0.66761 X1 X2 X3 X4 
24 Sunil Sabat, Arpita Sharma and Shyam S. Salim 
Table 2. Demand analysis of semi urban area 
Adjusted a 
Square 0.249909 
Standard 
Coeffidents Error tStat P-value 
Intercept -0.12194 1.04238 -Q.11698 0.907849 
PRICE 0.001708 0.692497 0.002466 0.998053 
PRis 0.055601 0.048458 1.147412 0.262521 
INCOME 0.045552 0.124088 0.367098 0.716763 
FAMILY SIZE 0.909928 0.276482 3.291092 0.003078 
0.001708 0.055601 0.045552 0.909928 
CD Demand function: Y = -0.12194 X1 X2 X3 X4 
Table 3. Demand analysis of rural area 
Adjusted R 
Square 0.218064 
Standard 
Coefjidents Error tStat P-value 
Intercept 0.040615 1.459838 0.027822 0.978025 
PRICE -0.93453 1.057146 -Q.88401 0.385112 
PRis -0.0887 0.056612 -1.56679 0.129735 
INCOME 0.392124 0.141709 2.767106 0.010487 
FAMILY SIZE 0.760231 0.326737 2.326737 0.028377 
-0.93453 -0.0887 0.392124 0.760231 
CD Demand function: Y = 0.040615X1 X2 X3 X4 
CONSUMPTION PATTERN AND CONSUMER PREFERENCE FOR VAlUE- ADDED FISH AND FISH 25 
PRODUCTS IN NORTH ZONE OF INDIA 
Table 4. Analysis of the problems in fish consumption - Garette ranking technique 
Sl. No Problems Urban area Semi urban area Rural area 
Mean 
Rank Mean score Rank Mean score Rank 
score 
1 Irregular supply 59.2 1 69.7 1 57.2 4 
2 lack of fresh fish 48.4 7 60.8 2 42.3 8 
Wide fluctuation in 
3 56.7 3 
price 
50.3 7 58 3 
4 
Non availability of 
preferable fishes 
55.1 5 45.3 8 41.7 9 
5 Health aspects 39.1 10 30.3 11 38 10 
6 Rei igious aspect 35.2 11 34.3 10 52.2 5 
7 Highly perishable 52.6 6 45.0 9 45.2 7 
8 High price 57.4 2 56.6 3 68.8 1 
9 Lack of Quality/hygiene 48.3 8 50.8 5 50.1 6 
Nearness to the source 
10 42.1 9 50.8 6 31.7 11 of purchase 
11 Others(bones in fish) 55.7 4 55.9 4 64.8 2 
2.6 Sunil Sabat, Arpita Sharma and Shyam S. Salim 
Table 5. Analysis of the problems as regards to value-added fish and fish products consumption 
- Garette ranking technique 
Sl. No Problems Urban area Semi urban area Rural area 
Mean score Rank Mean score Rank Mean score 
1 Lack of awareness 68.3 2 57 3 70.2 
2 Not available 57.8 1 57.7 2 52.7 
3 
Ranges of products 
are unavailable 
53.6 3 43.5 6 40 
Taste is 
4 
unacceptable 
51 5 52.1 4 53.7 
5 Inferior quality 44.1 7 40 8 36.3 
Products are 
6 52.1 4 52.0 5 58 
expensive 
7 
Lack of quality and 
36.1 9 39.5 9 41.4 
hygiene 
Nearness to the 
8 
source of purchase 
36.9 8 41.7 7 39.7 
9 No preference 50.1 6 66.5 1 58.0 
Rank 
1 
5 
7 
4 
9 
3 
6 
8 
2 
CONSUMPTION PATTERN AND CONSUMER PREFERENCE FOR VALUE- ADDED FISH AND FISH 27 
PRODUCTS IN NORTH ZONE OF INDIA 
CONClUSION 
The present paper attempts to 
analyze the consumption pattern and 
consumer preferences towards value-added 
fish and fish products. The result reveals that 
socio economic variables affect the 
consumption of value-added fish and fish 
products. In Demand analysis by Cobb 
Douglas Demand function; when price of 
fish, price of the substitutes, income of family 
and family size were used as independent 
variables, the variation in demand of fish 
explained by CD Demand function was about 
39 per cent in urban area, 24 per cent in semi 
urban area and 22 percent in rural area. From 
Garette ranking technique the major 
problems in fish consumption found were 
irregular supply, lack of fresh fish, high price 
and bones in fish. While lack of awareness, 
unavailability, no preference and 
unacceptable taste are the major problems 
for consumption of value-added fish and fish 
products. it could be a guide to both the 
producers and marketers of fish and fish 
products to produce products of desired 
quality and good price in the market. 
REFERENCES 
Clark, C. W., 1990. Mathematical 
Bioeconomics: The Optimal 
Management of Renewable Resources, 
John Wiley and Sons. Inc. New York.7-
14PP. 
Cobb, W. and P. H. Douglas, 1928. A Theory 
on Production, American Economic 
Review,18 (Supplement):139-165. 
Garrett, H.E. and R. S. Woodsworth, 1969. 
Statistics in Psychology and Education. 
Vakils, Feffer&Simons Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai, 
323-329. 
Gupta, S.P. and M. P. Gupta, 1997. Business 
Statistics, Sultan Chand and Sons, 
Delhi.400P. 
Hal, R. V., 1992. Microeconomic Analysis W.W. 
Norton and Company Inc. USA.9-32PP. 
Redkar, S. B. and S. Bose, 2004. Modeling 
Purchasing Decisions of Seafood 
Products. A Case Study of Mumbai, India. 
International Journal of Consumer 
Studies, 28 (1): 75-82. 
levy, S, 1985. Factor Demand Functions for 
constant returns to Scale Technologies, 
Southern Economic Journal, 51 (3): 860-
867. 


Consumption pattern and consumer preference for value-added fish and fish products in north zone of India

CMFRI Digital Repository

19 J. Indian Fish Assoc., 35: 19-27, 2008  CONSUMPTION PATTERN AND CONSUMER PREFERENCE FOR VALUE- ADDED FISH AND FISH PRODUCTS IN NORTH ZONE OF INDIA   Sunil Sabat, Arpita Sharma and Shyam S. Salim Central Institute of Fisheries Education (Deemed University) Indian Council of Agricultural Research Department of Fisheries Informatics Technology Evaluation and Transfer Seven Bungalows, Versova, Mumbai-400061 arpitasharma@cife.edu.in             Present paper attempts to analyze consumption pattern and consumer preferences towards value-added fish and fish products in north zone of India. Results reveal that socio economic variables affect consumption of value-added fish and fish products. A total of 49 percent respondents were o  ABSTRACT f middle age group (35 t050 years). All were literates except 7 percent from the rural area. All were purchasing fish at least once in 15 days. A total of 90 percent respondents in rural, 77 percent in semi urban and 50 percent in urban area were unaware of value-added fish and fish products. About 10 percent of respondents had consumed it, out of which most were from urban area. Demand analysis by Cobb Douglas (CD) Demand function; revealed that when price of fish, price of the substitutes, income of family and family size were used as independent variables, variation in demand offish explained by CD Demand function was about 39 percent in urban area, 24 percent in semi urban area and 22 percent in rural area. From Garette ranking technique major problems in fish consumption found were irregular supply, lack of fresh fish, high price and presence of bones in fish. While lack of awareness, unavailability, no preference and unacceptable taste were major problems for consumption of value-added fish and fish products. .Keywords: Consumption, consumer preference, value-added fish products.        increased immensely and the capture fishery has arrived at a state of over exploitation. An alarming increase in human population is resulting in widening the supply-demand gap, with the consequences of reduced availability, rising price and search for alternative resources to meet the gap (Clark, 1990).On other hand about one third of the global fish catch is under utilized for human food consumption because of post-harvest losses. Fish in large quantities are discarded into sea as it is currently uneconomic to preserve and bring them ashore INTRODUCTION Fisheries sector has witnessed an impressive growth from a subsistence traditional activity to a well-developed commercial and diversified enterprise. It has been playing a pivotal role in the economic development by virtue of its potential contribution to employment generation, income augmentation, addressing food and nutritional security concerns and foreign exchange earnings. World fish produc-tion has    20   Sunil Sabat, Arpita Sharma and Shyam S. Salim  like shrimp by-catch of about 27million tonnesfyear mostly due to the low market value of the material, size, species composition and the lack of suitable refrigerated storage space on-board. Non-preferable low priced fishes are either converted to fish meal or sold at very low price for curing. In general deep-sea fishes may not be immediately acceptable to the consumers due to unfamiliarity in shape, size and colour of the new varieties. These low priced fishes are nutritionally and chemically in no way inferior to that of fishes of commercial importance. Therefore, collecting and processing meat of these fishes into diversified value-added products suiting to human consumption would result in effective utilization of the resource. This can meet the desire for better and new taste withcommercial benefits. Moreover, purchasing capacity of people is going to enhance in years to come and market prices are going to be high for fish. 'Value addition' is defined as any additional activity that changes the nature and form of raw material and increases sale value and in general improves the utility. conducted in the field of fresh and frozen fish but still the domain of value-added fish and fish products remain less explored. In this context the present study was undertaken to analyze the consumption pattern and consumer preferences towards value-added fish and fish products in north zone of India with the objective of analyzing the consumption pattern and consumer preferences towards valueadded fish and fish products. DESIGN OF STUDYHaryana, Punjab and Delhi were chosen as the States for survey under the study. A sample of 90 respondents was taken from the selected area with 30 from J;>elhi (metrofurban), 30 from Rohtak (semi urban), Haryana and 30 from Lahili (rural), Haryana. The size of the sample was decided as the above as the objective was to draw inference about the population (Gupta and Gupt(j, 1997). To analyze the consumption pattern and consumer preferences, data were collected with prestructured consumer survey questionnaixe~ from variedstratR oJ societvJike high, middle and low income. ' 1 Marketing of value-added fish products is completely different from traditional seafood trade. It is dynamic, sensitive, complex and expensive. Market surveys, packaging and advertising are a few of the very important areas, which ultimately determine successful movement of new products. Most market channels currently used,,'may not be suitable to trade value-added fish products. A new appropriate channel would be supermarket chain;which want to procure directly from source of supply. Though, market research has been Collected data were analyzed using specific tools of analysis like percentage analysis and functional analyses like Demand analysis (Cobb-Douglas Demand function) and Garette ranking technique to access the consumption pattern and consumer preference towards value-pdded fish and fish products. 21  CONSUMPTION PATTERN AND CONSUMER PREFERENCE FOR VALUE- ADDED FISH AND FISH PRODUCTS IN NORTH ZONE OF INDIA TOOLS OF ANALYSIS Cobb-Douglas Demand Function Percentage analysis In order to forecast demand based on different variables, a Cobb Douglas (CD) demand function (Cobb and Douglas, 1928) was employed ondifferent sets of independent variables. Thedependent variable was V= demand, independent variables were Xl= price of fish, X2= price of thesubstitutes, X3= income of the family, X4= family size,Xs=age of the respondents, X6= quantity demandedof substitutes, X7= expenditure on fish. In this method all the variables like income, education level, age, family structure, awareness level and fish consumption have been expressed in the form of percentage. Functional analysis These following tools functionalanalysis of result.  were used for CD Demand function can be expressed as:b1 b2 b3 b4 bS b6 b7 u V=aX1 X2 X3 X4 Xs X6 X7 e Where a = Intercept  u  e = Ertorterm  (bl, b2, b3, b4, b5, b6, b7) are coefficientsDemand analysis Garret ranking Demand analysis To convert it into linear form we have taken log on both sides. Hence the linear form of CD Demand function is: Demand is the quantity of a ptoduct or service, which buyers will purchase at the different prices in a market at a given period of time (Levy, 1985). Demand function is a mathematical expression of the relationship between the quantity dematfded of a commodity and factors affecting the quantity demanded (Hal, 1992), e.g. the quantity of fish demanded is determined by the price of fish, price of the substitute, income levels, the population, average education levei ett. The demand function is expressed as Dt= f (P t' P 5' Vt' 5t, Et, Dt-11 Where, Dt = quantity offish demanded Pt = price of the fish in period t Ps = price of the substitute Vt = average income'level 5t = size of the population in period t Et= average level of education in period t Dt-1 = quantity of ,fish demanded in period t-l Ln V = B+ b11nX1+b21nX2 +b3InX3+b4  InX4+bslnXs +b6InX6+b7InX7+u Where B= In a bl1 h2 and b3 represent the price elasticity of demand, price elasticity of substitutes and income elasticity of demand respectively. GaretteRankingtechnique The Garette'Ranking Technique was employed to rank the problems in consumption of fish and value-added fish product of consumers. Order of merit given by the consumers was transmitted into scores. For converting scores assigned by the consumers towards a particular problem,  22 Sunil Sabat, Arpita Sharma and Shyam S. Salimpercent position was worked out using the formulae (Garrett and Woodsworth, 1969). Percent position = 100 (RifO.5)/Nj  Where,  th  Rij = rank given for the i  th problem by the j. consumer  Nj = number of attributes To analyze the consumption pattern and consumer preference for value-added fish and fish products, information was collected as regards to frequency of fish purchase, awareness and consumption of value-added fish and fish products. Results revealed that all the respondents were purchasing fish at least once in 15 days. Maximum number of respondents had frequency of fish purchase once in a week (63 per cent) followed by more than once in a week (30 per cent). Most of the respondents in rural (90 per cent) and in semi urban area (77 per cent) were unaware of value-added fish and fish products while 50 per cent respondents in urban area were aware of it. About 10 per cent had consumed valueadded products of fish out of which maximum were from urban area and minimum were from rural area. As regards to consumer preference it was clearly reported by all respondents that they had a preference for boneless fish products. Moreover, the fisheries departments also have reported that they would like to have government support for the procurement of deboning machines. All respondents spent highest percentage of expenditure on food. Results obtained from percentage analysis were segregated under various heads. General information category contained age, family structure and education level. Results showed that 49% respondents were from middle age i.e., group 35 to 50 years. All respondents were literate except 7 per cent who were illiterate from the rural area. There were more number of graduates (43 per cent) and professional degree holders (17 per cent) from urban area. Most of the rural respondents were from agriculture sector. Number of respondents in private jobs was higher than government ones especially in urban area. A total of 50 per cent semi urban respondents belonged to manufacturing sector. Most of the respondents in urban area (about 60 per cent) were having annual income above Rs. 3,00,000/- while for respondents from semi urban and rura1area the range was Rs. 60,000 to 3,00,000/- Respondents with less than Rs. 60,000 annual income were more in rural area (20 per cent) as compared to other areas. Percentage of respondents with their own land and house were more in rural area while all urban respondents possessed own consumer durables. More respondents in urban and semi urban area had own vehicles. Percentage Analysis RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Demand analysisIn Demand analysis (Cobb Douglas Demand Function) when price of fish, price of the substitutes, income of family and family size were used as independent variables, in urban area the CD Demand function could explain about 39 per cent of variation in demand of fish while income and family size significantly affected the demand of fish (Table 1), in semi urban area the CD Demand function could explain about 24 per cent of variation in  I  23 CONSUMPTION PATTERN AND CONSUMER PREFERENCE FOR VALUE. ADDED FISH AND FISH PRODUCTS IN NORTH ZONE OF INDIA There appear to be few problems perceived as regards to the consumption of value-added fish and fish products in households and these influences may lead to vague and uncontrolled drifts in consumption patterns. Active market promotion can playa significant role in bringing change. The extent to which this can be achieved should be of great interest to development planners, policy makers and the trade in general, because of significant social, political and economic benefits. demand of fish while family size significantly affectedthe demand of fish (Table 2); the CD Demand functioncould explain about 22 per cent of variation in demandof fish while Income and family size significantly affectedthe demand offish (Table 3). In a study, Redkar and Bose (2004) investigated the factors affecting the purchase decisions of seafood consumers in selected urban areas of India. They reported that taste, religion, size of household and age of family member were significant factors at 95 per cent confidence level. CONCLUSION . The present paper attempts to analyze the consumption pattern and consumer preferences towards value-added fish and fish products. The result reveals that socio economic variables affect the consumption of value-added fish and fish products. In Demand analysis by Cobb Douglas Demand function; when price of fish, price of the substitutes, income of family and family size were used as independent variables, the variation in demand of fish explained by CD Demand function was about 39 per cent in urban area, 24 per cent In semi urban area and 22 per cent in rural area. From Garette ranking technique the major problems In fish consumption found were irregular supply, lack of fresh fish, high price and bones in fish. While lack of awareness, unavailability, no preference and unacceptable taste are the major problems for consumption of value-added fish and fish products. It could be a guide to both the producers and marketers of fish and fish products to produce products of desired quality and good price in the market. Garette ranking: With the results obtained from Garette ranking of problems in fish consumption it was seen that irregular supply, lack of fresh fish and high price were major problems in fish consumption. In addition, all the respondents had a problem with the presence of bones in fish. Many of them had a preference for boneless fish and fish products like fish pakora and fish cutlet (Table 4). With the results obtained from Garette ranking of problems for value-added fish and fish products consumption, it was ascertained that north Indian respondents were ready to pay a reasonable amount for value-added fish and fish products, but the dilemma is that neither the product nor any range of products was available in the market. At the same time some have also shown lack of appreciation for the taste for these products. Lack of awareness, unavailability, no preference and unacceptable taste were the major problems for consumption of value-added fish and fish products (Table 5).     :::; .......-.24  Sunil Sabat, Arpita Sharma and Shyam S. Salim REFERENCES Gupta, S.P. and M. P. Gupta, 1997. Business Statistics, Sultan Chand and Sons, Delhi.400P. Clark, C. W., 1990. MathematicalBioeconomics: The OptimalManagement of Renewable Resources,John Wiley and Sons. Inc. New York.7-14PP. Hal, R. V., 1992. Microeconomic Analysis w.w.  Norton and Company Inc. USA.9c32PP. Redkar, S. B. and S. Bose, 2004. Modeling Purchasing Decisions of Seafood Products. A Case Study of Mumbai, India. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 28 (1): 75-82. Cobb, W. and P. H. Douglas, 1928. A Theory on Production, American Economic Review, 18 (Supplement):139-165. Garrett, H.E. and R. S. Woodsworth, 1969. Statistics in Psychology and Education. Vakils, Feffer & Simons Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai,323-329. Levy, S, 1985. Factor Demand Functions for constant returns to Scale Technologies, Southern Economic Journal, 51 (3): 860-867. Table 1. Demand analysis of urban area    Adjusted R     Square 0.393974     Coefl/dents Standard Error t Stat P-value  '"  Intercept -0.66761 0.446174 -1.49631 0.147092PRICE -0.16816 0.201929 -0.83275 0.412872PRis -0.07857 0.068425 -1.14828 0.261723INCOME 0.288602 0.133493 2.161917 0.040396FAMILY SIZE 0.662152 0.298913 2.215197 0.036084-0.16816 -.078S7 0.28860 0.6621S CD Demand function: Y = -0.66761 Xl X2 X3 X4  25 CONSUMPTION PATTERN AND CONSUMER PREFERENCE FOR VALUE- ADDED FISH AND FISH  PRODUCTS IN NORTH ZONE OF INDIA  Table 2. Demand analysis of semi urban area   Aqusted R     Square 0.249909      Standard    Coeffidents Error t Stat P-value Intercept -0.12194 1.04238 -0.11698 0.907849PRICE 0.001708 0.692497 0.002466 0.998053PRls 0.055601 0.048458 1.147412 0.262521INCOME 0.045552 0.124088 0.367098 0.716763FAMILY SIZE 0.909928 0.276482 3.291092 0.003078CD Demand function: Y = -0.12194 X 0.001708X 0.055601 0.045552 0.909928  1 2 X3 X4Table 3. Demand analysis of rural area   Adjusted R     Square 0.218064      Standard    Coelfidents Error t Stat P-value Intercept 0.040615 1.459838 0.027822 0.978025PRICE -0.93453 1.057146 .{) .8840 1 0.385112PRls -0.0887 0.056612 -1.56679 0.129735INCOME 0.392124 0.141709 2.767106 0.0104870.760231 FAM IL Y SIZE 0.326737 2326737 0.028377CD Demand function: Y = 0.040615X -0.93453X -0.0887 0.392124 0.760231  1 2 X3 X4  26 Sunil Sabat, Arplta Sharma and Shyam S. Salim Table 4. Analysis of the problems In fish consumption - Garette ranking technique SI.No Problems Urban area Semi urban area Rural area    Mean         Rank Mean score Rank Mean score Rank  sco re       4  1 59.2 1 69.7 1 57.2 I rregul ar supp Iy 2 lack of fresh fish 48.4 7 60.8 2 42.3 8   Wide fluctuation in        3 price 56.7 3 50.3 7 58 3  Non availability of  4 55.1 5 45.3 8 41.7 9preferable fishes  10 5 Health aspects 39.1 10 30.3 11  38 6 Rei igious aspect 35.2 11 34.3 10 52.2 5  7 Highly perishable 52.6 6 45.0 9 45.2 7  8 High price 57.4 2 56.6 3 68.8 1  9 Lack of Quality/hygiene 48.3 8 50.8 5 50.1 6   Nearness to the source        10 of purchase 42.1 9 50.8 6 31.7 11  11 Others(bones in fish) 55.7 4 55.9 4 64.8 2   27   CONSUMPTION PATTERN AND CONSUMER PREFERENCE FOR VALUE- ADDED FISH AND FISH PRODUCTS IN NORTH ZONE OF INDIA  Table 5. Analysis - Garette ranking technique  of the problems as regards to value-added fish and fish products consumption 51. No Problems Urban area Semi urban area Rural area   Mean score Rank Mean score Rank Mean score Rank           1 Lack of awareness 68.3 2 57 3 70.2 1 2 Not available 57.8 1 57.7 2 52.7 5 3 Ranges of products 53.6 3 43.5 6 40 7  are unavailable        Taste is       4  51 5 52.1 4 53.7 4  unacceptable    5 Inferiorquality 44.1 7 40 8 36.3 9  Products are       6  52.1 4 52.0 5 58 3  expensive       7 Lack of quality and 36.1 9 39.5 9 41.4 6  hygiene  Nearness to the        36.9 8 41.7 8 7 39.7 8 source of purchase    9 No preference 50.1 6 66.5 1 58.0 2 

Consumption pattern and consumer preference for value- added fish and fish products in north zone of India

http://eprints.cmfri.org.in/5979/1/JIFA_paper_Shyam.pdf

Consumption pattern and consumer preference for value- added fish and fish products in north zone of India

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Aquatic Commons

CMFRI Digital Repository