Analysing the Determinants of Fresh Beef Consumption and its Marketing Efficiency in Nigeria: A Rural Perspective

The area under survey, Maiha Local Government Area (LGA), is located in Adamawa State, Nigeria. The LGA is one of 21 in the State. Adebayo et al. (2020) reported that the LGA lies between latitudes of 9°31' and 10°09' North and between longitudes of 13°02'and 13°17' East of the equator. It has a landmass of 1,385 km2. The LGA shares boundaries with Mubi-North LGA to the north, and Mubi-South to the northeast. Hong and Song LGAs are found to the northwest and west, respectively. Fufore LGA is to the southeast of the study area, with the Republic of Cameroon to the east. In terms of population, the area has a total of 156,033 inhabitants, with the Nzanyi as the major tribe. Other languages spoken include Fulani, Kilba, Higgi and Margi, among others.

The area of study has terrain that is marked by mountains and hills rising to 1,200–1,500 m above sea level in the eastern part, and a height of 400–800 m in the southern part. The nature of the terrain is such that streams and river valleys traverse the area, with two distinct wet and dry seasons. The wet season lasts from April until October every year and the dry season from November until March. Maiha LGA has minimum and maximum temperatures of 19.0°C and 32.3°C, respectively. On average, the level of humidity was estimated at 24.0%, while 11 km/h was the average estimate of wind speed in the LGA. Annual rainfall in the area is between 1,000 and 1,050 mm (Adebayo et al., 2020).

Fig. 1.

Map of Adamawa State, Nigeria, showing the study area

Source: Adebayo et al., 2020.

As the area has been mainly agrarian in nature, human activities in relation to farming, the gathering of wood for fuel, adjustment with connection to settlements, economic shuttles way for considerable vegetative changes in the LGA (Adebayo et al., 2020). Further, agricultural production has been identified as the main livelihood of the people of the area. In particular, favourable crops grown are rice, maize, sorghum, cowpea, and cassava. The most dominant livestock raised in the area include cattle, sheep and goats, poultry, and fish. The cattle feedlot system has been the most practiced among farmers due to its economic potential. Virtually all cattle that enter Nigeria via the international border with the Republic of Cameroon pass through the LGA, thereby allowing the feedlot business to flourish. Therefore, middlemen, retailers and butchers in the cattle business are numerous in the area.

The Maiha LGA therefore presents an appropriate location for the consumption of beef and its by-products, which warrants its study as a typical rural community which can be taken to represent other parts of the country with similar characteristics.

The study area, Maiha LGA, is composed of 10 wards, namely Belel, Humbutudi, Konkol, Pakka, Mayo-Nguli, Manjekin, Maiha-Gari, Sorau-A, Sorau-B and Tambajam. Purposive and simple random sampling methods were employed in the selection of wards and respondents, respectively. Ward headquarters were purposively chosen for their high concentration of beef consumers and sellers. However, while the selection of beef sellers was carried out through a snowball method, the beef consumers were recruited through the identification of buyers at selling points over a period of two weeks.

Data collection for the study was carried out by a thoroughly briefed set of veterinary attendants in charge of the respective wards (10 veterinary attendants), who engaged both beef sellers and consumers in answering the questionnaire. Respondents who could not read or properly write were assisted by interview sessions, group discussion and, in some instances, interpreters. Data were sought on the demographics of the beef consumers and sellers. Similarly, the general expenditure on beef by consumers was obtained. Also, the marketing costs of the beef sellers were sought and documented. A total of 186 beef sellers were generated as a sample frame, of whom 141 sellers formed the sample. Further, 1,488 beef consumers were obtained from the 10 wards, of whom 1,115 formed the sample for the study. The ward headquarters, beef sellers, beef consumers and sampling frames are shown in Table 1.

The data were analysed using both descriptive and inferential statistics. Specifically, the demographic aspects of the respondents and challenges to fresh beef consumption were determined by the application of descriptive statistics, including frequency distributions, percentages and means. The influence of the socio-economic characteristics of the consumers on fresh beef consumption was determined by the use of regression analysis. The function is explicitly specified as follows: (1) Y=f(X1;X2;X3;X4;X5;X6;X7;X8;X9;X10;U) Y = f({X_1};{X_2};{X_3};{X_4};{X_5};{X_6};{X_7};{X_8};{X_9};{X_{10}};U)

Where:

Y – fresh beef consumption in kg,

The above equation was subjected to four functional forms, namely linear, exponential, semi-log and double-log. However, the double-log function was discovered to have the best fit in terms of the R² value, the number of significant variables in the model and the F-value. It was therefore selected as the lead equation, explicitly specified as follows: (2) Log Y=a+b1logX1+b2logX2+b3logX3+b4logX4+b5logX5+…+b10logX10−U \matrix{{{\rm{Log}}\,Y = a + {b_1}\log {X_1} + {b_2}\log {X_2} + {b_3}\log {X_3} +} \cr {{b_4}\log {X_4} + {b_5}\log {X_5} + \ldots + {b_{10}}\log {X_{10}} - U} \cr}

Where:

Y – as stated in equation 1,

The efficiency of the marketing of fresh beef in the study area was realised by the use of a marketing efficiency tool. The components of this model include gross marketing receipts and marketing expenses. It is specified as follows: (3) ME (%)=(GMR/Me)×100 {\rm{ME}}\,(\% ) = ({\rm{GMR}}/{\rm{Me}}) \times 100

Where:

ME – marketing efficiency,

The findings in tables 2–5 depict the socio-economic characteristics of both fresh beef consumers and marketers. The results show that the majority (63.68%) of the consumers fell within the age bracket of 31–40 years. The age bracket of 41–50 accounted for 30.94% of fresh beef consumers. This was followed by the age range of 20–30 years, which constituted 2.96% of fresh beef consumers. The smallest group was those above 50 years of age, which only made up 2.42% of consumers. This is in accordance with the findings of Anyiro et al. (2013) in Abia State, Nigeria, who opined that individuals aged 20–40 years form the majority of beef consumers. Again, Christopher et al. (2015) stated that as consumers grow older, their total consumption of beef begins to decline. Male-headed households provided the majority (69.96%) of consumers. Females constituted 30.04% of the beef consumers in the study area. Male dominance is attributed to the fact that the majority were involved in buying foodstuffs/groceries, among other things. This contradicts the findings of Oluwatusin et al. (2019), who attested that the majority of the households in Ekiti State, Nigeria were headed by females. Married households accounted for the majority (54.26%), single fresh beef consumers for 32.46%, and divorcees and widowers for 7.98% and 5.29% of fresh beef consumers, respectively. This implies that since the majority of the fresh beef consumers in the area of Maiha (LGA) were married, there would be a greater demand for beef at the household level. Therefore, married consumers should be the focus of marketers. This supports the findings of Oluwatusin et al. (2019), which affirmed that households headed by married persons would demand more beef than those headed by unmarried persons. Those in households of fewer than 5 persons constituted the largest proportion (47.98%). Households with 6–10 individuals accounted for 22.60%. Households with 16–20 members contributed 12.83% of the total, while households with 11–15 persons represented 7.53% and households with more than 20 individuals made up 2.04%.

The educational level of the fresh beef consumers showed that individuals with a secondary education formed the majority (56.95%). Fresh beef consumers with a tertiary education made up 25.02% of the total, while those with a primary school or non-formal education constituted 11.56% and 6.45%, respectively. These results are shown in table 3. The study further revealed that the largest proportion (43.05%) of fresh beef consumers were middle-income earners, with a monthly income of between ₦21,000 and ₦50,000. A total of 30.13% were low-income fresh beef consumers, earning less than ₦20,000 monthly. Fresh beef consumers who earned above ₦50,000 made up 26.82% of the total. The demand for beef was sensitive to changes in the fresh beef consumers' income levels. This implies that rural dwellers with a greater disposable income exhibit greater demand for fresh beef. Household heads with better paid jobs generate a higher income, which allows them to afford more fresh beef for their family members. A total of 37.40% of fresh beef consumers were farmers. Civil servants accounted for 29.24% of fresh beef consumers. Businessmen and women constituted a proportion of 19.19%, whilst consumers involved in other occupations/artisan constituted 14.17%. Nevertheless, consumers' monthly expenditure on fresh beef indicates that majority (65.46%) of fresh beef consumers spend less than ₦5,000 monthly on the product, while 23.90% spend between ₦5,000 and ₦10,000. About 4.39% of fresh beef consumers purchased beef with a value of between ₦11,000 and ₦15,000 monthly. Finally, 8.07% consumers spend more than ₦15,000 on fresh beef monthly.

Tables 4–5 depict the socio-economic attributes of fresh beef marketers in the study area. The results reveal that the largest proportion (38.30%) of fresh beef marketers fell within the age range of 41–50 years. About 30.50% fell within the group aged 31–40 years. A total of 17.02% were aged 20–30 years, and 14.18% were aged above 50 years. However, in terms of gender, the findings show that all the fresh beef marketers in the surveyed area (100%) were men. The majority (55.32%) of fresh beef marketers were married. Single individuals made up a proportion of 20.57%, divorcees accounted for 13.48%, and widowers represented 10.63%. Further, households of less than 5 persons accounted for 32.62%, and those from households with between 6 and 10 individuals represented 25.53%. This was followed by those from households with 16–20 persons, who accounted for 13.48% of the total, and those from households of 11–15 persons, who formed 16.31%. Finally, those from households with more than 20 individuals constituted 12.06%.

Data on the educational attainment of the fresh beef marketers (shown in table 5) indicate that 39.01% attended secondary school. This was followed by those with only a primary-level education, who constituted 26.95%. Fresh beef consumers with a non-formal education formed 17.73% of the total, while those with a tertiary education accounted for 16.31%. Fresh beef marketers earning above ₦50,000 monthly were the majority (52.48%). About 24.82% earned between ₦20,000 and ₦50,000 monthly. Those with a monthly income of less than ₦20,000 formed 22.70%. However, a larger proportion (41.31%) of beef marketers had 11–15 years of experience. About 31.91% had 6–10 years of experience, while 14.20% had been in beef marketing for less than 5 years. A negligible segment (5.67%) had more than 20 years' experience. Furthermore, the majority (78.01%) of the fresh beef marketers were registered members of an association, while 21.99% were not registered members of an association.

Table 6 shows that the minimum and maximum ages of fresh beef consumers were 29 and 75 respectively, with a mean age of 33, indicating that most of the individuals were middle-aged persons. They had a minimum of 6 years and maximum of 16 years of education, with a mean of 11.94 years. Respondents had a maximum household size of 25 persons and a minimum of 1 person. The mean household size was 7 individuals in the surveyed area. The mean monthly income of the respondents was ₦36,353.68, with minimum and maximum incomes of ₦20,000 and ₦100,000, respectively.

Table 7 reveals that the minimum age of fresh beef marketers was 27 and the maximum age was 69, with a mean age of 31. They had a minimum of 6 years of education, a maximum of 12 years and a mean of 9 years. The maximum household size was 30 persons and the minimum was 1 person, with a mean household size of 8 persons. The minimum monthly income was ₦20,000, in contrast to a maximum of ₦300,000. The mean monthly income was ₦37,353.70.

The influence of the socio-economic attributes of consumers on fresh beef consumption is presented in table 8. Four functional forms of regression were fitted to the data collected – namely, linear, exponential, semi-log and double-log. The double-log was chosen as the lead equation. Ten (10) variables were regressed on beef consumption – namely, age, gender, educational level, marital status, household size, monthly income, taste, monthly expenditure on beef, monthly expenditure on beef substitute and frequency of consumption. Of these variables, educational level, household size, monthly income, taste, monthly expenditure on beef, monthly expenditure on beef substitute and frequency of consumption were positively related to beef consumption, while age, gender and marital status were negatively related to beef consumption. However, age is an important determinant of beef consumption. As a consumer ages, their total consumption begins to decline. The study revealed a negative coefficient, as age was negatively related to beef consumption, but the relationship was significant at p < 0.01. This implies that increase in age of 1% would lead to a 4% decrease in fresh beef consumption. It shows that older consumers only consume small quantities of beef in the area under consideration. This supports the finding of Moreno et al. (2012) that beef consumption declines with age. Whether male or female, the head of a household is responsible for feeding the family members. In this study, there was a negative relationship between gender and beef consumption, but it was not significant. In spite of this, a 1% increase in the number of households headed by females would lead to a 14% decrease in fresh beef consumption. This suggests that males consume more fresh beef than females. It is at odds with the findings of Oluwatusin et al. (2019) in Ekiti State, Nigeria, who reported that females consume more beef than their male counterparts. Educational attainment affects living conditions directly or indirectly. Developed economies are saturated with high educational attainment, which is one facet of their prosperity. In this study, a positive relationship between educational attainment and beef consumption was documented but was not significant. An increase in educational attainment of 1% would result in a 7% increase in the consumption of fresh beef. This implies that educated household heads consumed more beef at the household level. This is in agreement with the studies of Yakubu et al. (2013) in Sokoto State, Nigeria, which attest that education guides households to find proper dietary sources of protein that support healthy development. Marital status was negatively related to fresh beef consumption, and the relationship was not significant. A 1% increase in the number of unmarried households would lead to a 13% decrease in the consumption of fresh beef. This contradicts the findings of Oluwatusin et al. (2019), who affirmed a positive effect of marital status in an area of southern Nigeria. Larger populations demand and consume more groceries than smaller ones, particularly at the household level. In line with this, household size had a positive relationship with beef consumption, which was significant at p <0.05. This suggested that households with family members consume more beef. Specifically, a 1% increase in household size would result in a 10% increase in beef consumption. This implies that households with many members will demand and consume more beef. Moreover, monthly income was significant at p < 0.01 and also positively related to the consumption of fresh beef. An increase in monthly income level of 1% would result in a 0.2% increase in fresh beef consumption. This supports the findings of Oluwatusin et al. (2019) in southern Nigeria. Similarly, it is in line with the results of Uzunoz and Karakas (2014) in Turkey. Taste had a positive relationship with fresh beef consumption, which was significant at p < 0.001. This suggests that the consumers in the area surveyed had a relative preference for the taste of fresh beef. The coefficient of taste was recorded as the highest of all the variables. Overall, an increase in the taste parameter of 1%, holding other factors constant, would lead to a 63% boost in fresh beef consumption. Monthly expenditure on beef and beef substitute were positively related to beef consumption. Both variables were significant at p < 0.001. A 1% increase in monthly expenditure on fresh beef or beef substitute, holding other factors constant, would lead to a 0.27% or 0.11% increase in the consumption of fresh beef, respectively. Similarly, the frequency of consumption was positively related to beef consumption, and the relationship was significant at p < 0.001. Therefore, a 1% increase in the frequency of consumption would result in a 50% rise in total fresh beef consumption. This implies that people who consume beef more frequently consume greater quantities of beef.

Aspects of the marketing efficiency of fresh beef were determined and are presented in table 9. The Total Gross Receipts (TGR) of fresh beef marketing were recorded at ₦68,074,000. The items contributing to Gross Receipts (GR) included fresh beef, skin, ingester and horn/bone. Of these items, fresh beef formed the larger part (89.02%) of TGR. This was followed by ingester, which accounted for 7.57%. About 2.97% was skin and 0.44% horn/bone. Nonetheless, Total Cost or Total Marketing Expenses (TME) were ₦40,915,100. Components of TME included the cost of slaughtering, flaying, beef purchased, loading/off-loading, transportation, packaging, storage, and miscellaneous. Further, the estimated Total Variable Cost (TVC) was recorded at ₦43,391,370.75. The revenue accrued from the enterprise was ₦24,682,629.25. The marketing efficiency was therefore 1.56 (156%). This implies that the market was highly efficient. It is worth mentioning that for every ₦1 spent, a net return of ₦1.56 Kobo was realised on the investment. This is similar to the findings of Nse-Nelson et al. (2017) in Akwa North Local Government Area (LGA), Anambra State, Nigeria, on the economic analysis of beef marketing. Their findings showed that the enterprise in the area incurred a total variable cost of ₦11,099.93 and accrued a total revenue of ₦1,601.93 per kilo of beef. They reported a marketing efficiency of 1.45 (145%).

The challenges to fresh beef consumption are described as well as presented in table 10. The income of the household head is the foremost challenge faced by fresh beef consumers in the surveyed area, affecting 70.76% of respondents. The price of beef, which is ranked 2nd, was a challenge for a proportion of 49.87%. This suggests that beef demand is sensitive to price fluctuation. It agrees with the findings of Uzunoz and Karakas (2014) in Turkey, who affirmed that low-income households consumed more beef when beef prices were lower. This implies that when the price of beef is high, the total consumption of low-income groups will be affected. Marketing availability and health problems were ranked 3rd and 4th, affecting proportions of 41.88% and 27.09%, respectively. Taste was a factor for 20.00% of respondents. Age of household members was a significant factor for 17.04%. This implies that as a consumer grows older, his/her consumption eventually declines.