IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/iaae09/51100.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Quality and Safety of Milk in Bangladesh: What do Consumers Believe in?

Author

Listed:
  • Islam, S.M. Fakhrul
  • Jabbar, Mohammad A.

Abstract

The paper attempts to analyze quality and safety attributes of milk for which consumers are willing to pay and make their decisions to purchase using the framework of conjoint analysis. The study also examines consumer’s level of preference concerning quality and safety attributes of milk in relation to their socio-economic factors. The data used for this analysis is collected from a consumer survey of 900 households conducted in April 2006 and a supplementary survey specifically designed for the conjoint study with a sub-sample of 380 households from the original 900 samples- 260 in Dhaka city and 120 in Mymensingh city of Bangladesh, conducted in 2008. Buyers of raw fresh milk appeared to be fairly indifferent about level of fat content, have marginally more preference for milk from local breeds rather than crossbreeds but have strong preference for milk in which water has not been added. Low price is also stronly preferred to high price, which is an indication that consumers do not associate high price with higher quality, given that several other attributes such as breed of the cow and adulteration are not easily verifiable at the point of purchase. Water addition is the most common form of adulteration of milk in the country. Consumers perceive that water addition has two potential negative effects on the quality of milk. First, addition of water may make the milk ‘impure’ or ‘unsafe’ if contaminated water is addeded, and it dilutes milk so fat content is reduced in water added milk. Therefore, preference for fat content is partly indirectly expressed through preference for milk without added water. There are other forms of adulteration such as adding powdered milk, chemicals to avoid spoilage but ordinary consumers can’t easily verify these at the time of purchase to make a choice. Buyers of pasteurized milk are also indifferent about fat content but have strong preference for milk in polypack rather than in paper cartoon and for low price. It was found that the consumers gave highest consideration on freshness of raw milk followed by taste and purity. In case of pasteurized milk, taste was the most important criteria, and fat content the least. It appeared from conjoint analysis that, other things being equal, the most preferred profile of raw fresh milk is ‘milk from local breed cow with low fat without water adulteration and at low price’ and the least preferred is ‘milk from a crossbred cow with low fat, added water and at high price’. In case of pasteurized milk, the most preferred profile is ‘full cream milk in polypack at low price’ and the least preferred profile is ‘low fat milk in paper cartoon at high price’. Among the selected attributes of raw fresh milk, other things being equal, an average buyer in his/her purchase decision give 31% weight on price, 28% on water adulteration, 22% on breed of the cow and 19% on fat content. In case of pasteurized milk, among the three selected attributes 49% of weight is given on price, 30% on packing and 21% on fat content. Regression analysis showed that fat content, cow breed, milk purity, milk price, religion, household expenditure per month and district dummy significantly affected product profile preference rating of raw milk. The result of this study could be used for designing safety and quality standard of milk for domestic market and gradually update those standards as new information on quality criteria and consumer preferences emerge from new research.

Suggested Citation

  • Islam, S.M. Fakhrul & Jabbar, Mohammad A., 2009. "Quality and Safety of Milk in Bangladesh: What do Consumers Believe in?," 2009 Conference, August 16-22, 2009, Beijing, China 51100, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:iaae09:51100
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.51100
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/51100/files/Fakhrul%20Paper%20IAAE%20Bejing%20Conference%202009.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.51100?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Piedra, Mario A. & Schupp, Alvin R. & Montgomery, Donna E., 1996. "Consumer Use Of Nutrition Labels On Packaged Meats," Journal of Food Distribution Research, Food Distribution Research Society, vol. 27(2), pages 1-6, July.
    2. Kelvin J. Lancaster, 1966. "A New Approach to Consumer Theory," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 74(2), pages 132-132.
    3. Becker, Tilman, 1999. ""Country of origin" as a cue for quality and safety of fresh meat," 67th Seminar, October 28-30, 1999, LeMans, France 241034, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Manuel Garcia & Carlos Carpio & Darren Hudson & Tullaya Boonsaeng & Chenggang Wang, 2024. "Mexican consumers' perceptions and preferences for US and Texas beef," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 40(4), pages 727-748, October.
    2. Ward, Clement E. & Lusk, Jayson L. & Dutton, Jennifer M., 2008. "Implicit Value of Retail Beef Product Attributes," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 33(3), pages 1-18.
    3. Reynolds, Travis & Kolodinsky, Jane & Murray, Byron, 2012. "Consumer preferences and willingness to pay for compact fluorescent lighting: Policy implications for energy efficiency promotion in Saint Lucia," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 712-722.
    4. Abdullah, Sabah & Mariel, Petr, 2010. "Choice experiment study on the willingness to pay to improve electricity services," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(8), pages 4570-4581, August.
    5. Czajkowski, Mikołaj & Zagórska, Katarzyna & Letki, Natalia & Tryjanowski, Piotr & Wąs, Adam, 2021. "Drivers of farmers’ willingness to adopt extensive farming practices in a globally important bird area," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    6. Canessa, Carolin & Venus, Terese E. & Wiesmeier, Miriam & Mennig, Philipp & Sauer, Johannes, 2023. "Incentives, Rewards or Both in Payments for Ecosystem Services: Drawing a Link Between Farmers' Preferences and Biodiversity Levels," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 213(C).
    7. Rebecca Boehm & Hannah Kitchel & Selena Ahmed & Anaya Hall & Colin M. Orians & John Richard Stepp & Al Robbat, Jr. & Timothy S. Griffin & Sean B. Cash, 2019. "Is Agricultural Emissions Mitigation on the Menu for Tea Drinkers?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(18), pages 1-20, September.
    8. Gracia, Azucena & Loureiro, Maria & Nayga, Rodolfo Jr., 2007. "Do consumers perceive benefits from the implementation of a EU mandatory nutritional labelling program?," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(2), pages 160-174, April.
    9. Huang, Chung L. & Lin, Biing-Hwan, 2006. "A Hedonic Analysis on the Implicit Values of Fresh Tomatoes," 2006 Annual Meeting, August 12-18, 2006, Queensland, Australia 25404, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    10. Hyowon Kim & Dong Soo Kim & Greg M. Allenby, 2020. "Benefit Formation and Enhancement," Quantitative Marketing and Economics (QME), Springer, vol. 18(4), pages 419-468, December.
    11. Hussain, Salman, 2006. "Co-regulation and voluntarism in the provision of food safety: lessons from institutional economics," Working Papers 45996, Scotland's Rural College (formerly Scottish Agricultural College), Land Economy & Environment Research Group.
    12. Anderson, Simon P. & Foros, Øystein & Kind, Hans Jarle, 2012. "Product quality, competition, and multi-purchasing," Discussion Papers 2012/9, Norwegian School of Economics, Department of Business and Management Science.
    13. Ma, Yongfan & Qi, Tiancheng, 2023. "China mainland art investment: Return and portfolio," Finance Research Letters, Elsevier, vol. 58(PC).
    14. Min, Shi & Wang, Xiaobing & Yu, Xiaohua, 2021. "Does dietary knowledge affect household food waste in the developing economy of China?," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 98(C).
    15. Mika Kortelainen & Timo Kuosmanen, 2007. "Eco-efficiency analysis of consumer durables using absolute shadow prices," Journal of Productivity Analysis, Springer, vol. 28(1), pages 57-69, October.
    16. Barnett, William A. & Serletis, Apostolos, 2008. "Consumer preferences and demand systems," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 147(2), pages 210-224, December.
    17. Mtimet, Nadhem & Ujiie, Kiyokazu & Kashiwagi, Kenichi & Zaibet, Lokman & Nagaki, Masakazu, 2011. "The effects of Information and Country of Origin on Japanese Olive Oil Consumer Selection," 2011 International Congress, August 30-September 2, 2011, Zurich, Switzerland 114642, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    18. Greene, David & Hossain, Anushah & Hofmann, Julia & Helfand, Gloria & Beach, Robert, 2018. "Consumer willingness to pay for vehicle attributes: What do we Know?," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 258-279.
    19. Jitender Singh, 2016. "Quality of Public Goods, Public Policy and Human Development: A State-wise Analysis," Indian Journal of Human Development, , vol. 10(2), pages 215-235, August.
    20. Charles Hulten & Leonard I. Nakamura, 2020. "Expanded GDP for Welfare Measurement in the 21st Century," NBER Chapters, in: Measuring and Accounting for Innovation in the Twenty-First Century, pages 19-59, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:iaae09:51100. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/iaaeeea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.