Consumer profile of chicken meat in the municipality of Aquidauana, MS
Keywords:
cuts, frequency of consumption, preference, points of salesAbstract
This study aimed to identify the consumer profile of chicken meat in the city of AquidauanaMS. They were interviewed 160 consumers in the sales offices through questionnaires defined.
The results showed that 59% of consumers are women aged between 40 and 50 years, with high
education and family income of two minimum salaries. Of the respondents, 43% have a habit
of consuming chicken meat at least three times a week. Regarding preferably, consumers chose
the first beef (78%) and the second chicken meat (74%). Most respondents consumer the desired
amount of chicken meat, and 45% consider as important features when buying quality, followed
by hygiene (35%), price (13%) and origin of the product (7%). On the actions that would
increase consumption, 52% of respondents would increase consumption by reducing the price
of chicken meat; to 30% fat reduction is that the consumer would leverage; 11% increase
consumption by the increase in the price of other meats and 8% by improving the presentation
of the product. The merits of the flesh, most respondents could not say the source of it. And
when asked 93% of respondents considered it important to know the animal production system,
and believe that hormones are used in this process.
References
study. Meat Sci. 2005;71:464-70.
2. Francisco DC, Nascimento VP, Pedrozo EA. Conhecendo o consumidor de carne de frango
da cidade de Porto Alegre-RS. Hig Aliment. 2009;23:66-9.
3. Mazzuchetti RN, Batalha MO. O comportamento do consumidor em relação ao consumo e
às estruturas de comercialização da carne bovina na região de Amerios/PR. Varia Sci.
2005;4:25-43.
4. Saith W, Alves AF, Parré JL. Transmissão e integração de preço no mercado de boi gordo
entre região Centro-Oeste e Estado de São Paulo. Rev Adm Neg Amazonia. 2013;5:71-84.
5. Boechat AMF, Alves AF. A política de defesa da concorrência no setor de abate de bovinos.
Rev Econ Nordeste. 2014;45:112-24.
6. Williamson OE. The new institutional economics: taking stock, looking ahead. J Econ Lit.
2000;38:595-613.
7. Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística. Censo demográfico 2010 [Internet]. Rio de
Janeiro: IBGE; 2010 [cited 2015 Feb 4]. Available from:
http://www.ibge.gov.br/home/estatistica/populacao/censo2010/resultados_dou/MS2010.pd
f
8. Pinheiro CD, Lírio VS. Fatores condicionantes da demanda de carne suína no município de
Viçosa–MG. Rev Econ Reuna. 2003;8:43-66.
9. Francisco DC, Nascimento VP, Logueiro AP, Camargo L. Caracterização do consumidor de
carne de frango da cidade de Porto Alegre. Cienc Rural. 2007;37:253-8.
10. Santos CRA. A alimentação e seu lugar na história: os tempos da memória gustativa. Hist
Questoes Debates. 2005;42:11-31.
11. Bonamigo A, Silva CBS, Molento CFM. Atribuições da carne de frango relevantes ao
consumidor: foco no bem estar animal. Rev Bras Zootec. 2012;41:1044-50.
12. Barros GS, Meneses JNC, Silva JA. Representações sociais do consumo de carne em Belo
Horizonte. Physis. 2012;22:365-83.
13. Kaur B, Gupta SR, Singh G. Carbon storage and nitrogen cycling in silvopastoral systems
on a sodic soil in northwestern India. Agrofor Syst. 2002;54:21-9.
14. Associação Brasileira de Proteína Animal. Comemora oficialização de rótulo sobre não uso
de hormônios [Internet]. São Paulo: ABPA; 2014 [cited 2015 Aug 20]. Available from:
http://www.ubabef.com.br/noticias/932?m=62
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Este obra está licenciado com uma Licença Creative Commons Atribuição-NãoComercial 4.0 Internacional.