Chinese Consumers’ Attitude towards Different Pig Production Systems Marcia de Barcellos, Klaus Grunert, Bjarne Sørensen, University of Aarhus ZhouYanfeng, Zhongshan University Huang Guang, Susanne Pedersen, Guangdong University of Business Studies

Abstract This study investigates Chinese consumers’ attitude towards different pig production systems by means of a conjoint analysis. While there has been a range of studies on western consumers’ attitudes to various forms of food production, little is known about such attitudes in other cultural contexts. A cross-sectional survey was carried out in six Chinese cities and 473 valid questionnaires were obtained. Results indicate that Chinese consumers prefer industrial pig production systems, where traditional pig breeds are raised, over large-scale and small family farms. Farms with maximum attention to food safety which furthermore can provide lean meat with consistent quality are also preferred compared to farms that have less focus on food safety. Chinese consumers also rejected imported pig breeds and tasty but variable meat. Introduction In recent years, consumers’ demand for innovative, high-quality, safe and healthy food products is re-shaping agri-food chains worldwide. Enterprises in the agribusiness sector have to understand consumer needs and desires in order to survive in an increasingly competitive and dynamic environment. One aspect that has drawn particular attention in recent years is consumers’ attitude not to the product itself but to the way in which this product is being produced. In many western countries, consumers have also showed an interest in issues like animal welfare, organic production, and use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) (e.g. Brunsø and Grunert, 2007, Costa et al., 2007). This interest may be driven by beliefs that such attributes of the production system affect final product quality, but are also driven by ethical and environmental considerations. Attitudes to the way food is being produced have an impact not only on consumer demand for these products, but may also result in local environments being hostile or friendly with regard to particular forms of food production, which in turn can have an impact on the competitiveness of local food production sectors. While there has been a range of studies on western consumers’ attitudes to various forms of food production (Peet, 2002, Ngapo et al., 2003, Grunert, 2006), little is known about such attitudes in other cultural contexts. Culture is a fundamental topic to help researchers understand the different food consumption patterns of consumers worldwide. In his seminal work, Boas (1920) postulates that specific cultural traits — behaviours, beliefs, and symbols — should be understood in terms of their local context. Therefore, the present study provides some first insight by focussing on Chinese consumers’ attitudes to different pig production systems. Pig production is an important agricultural activity worldwide and especially in China (with nearly half a billion hogs). However, industrial pig production has, in the western world, been the target of considerable criticism based in environment and ethics. Therefore, considering up-to-date market trends, the understanding of consumer attitudes to pig production systems in China is of interest not only with regard to serving the Chinese market,

1

but also with regard to evaluating the potential of China as a potential player on the world market for pork. Food Issues and Pig Production Systems in China China is by far the largest meat consumer in the world accounting for half of the world’s total pig consumption (USDA, 2008). Among all kinds of meat and meat products consumed each year, pork is ranked the first. There is a rich variety of meat products in China and consumers are increasingly concerned or critical about the quality and safety of such products (Ho and Vermeer, 2004, Lü, 2006). Food safety is a major concern in China at present. On the one hand, because the continuous growth in global trade is perceived as a threat to food safety. On the other hand, in China, the majority of enterprises in the food production chain (including producers, processors and industries) are small. Such enterprises have deficiencies with regard to food hygiene and food safety and are usually not well covered by governmental regulation (Expatica, 2008). Also, uses of chemical fertilizers, pesticides, as well as polluted soil and water have aroused the environmental consciousness of consumers in the People’s Republic of China. Pig production has long been an essential part of animal husbandry of China, with the total pork production taking up 64.5% of the whole output of meat in 2006. Chinese pig breeds have special characteristics such as prolificacy, high tolerance to extensive management and good meat quality (Xian and Feng, 2003). But most pigs and other livestock are still reared by traditional rural households. Livestock provides food for the family, draft power, and manure for fertilizer. Nevertheless, according to the data from the National Bureau of Statistics of China (2007), the number of total live pigs reared in China has continuously increased from 362 million in 1996 to 494 million in 2006, and this trend continues at present. Since market reforms took hold in the 1980s, overall farm sizes are increasing. Many households shifted their focus from crop production to livestock and increased their swine herds from 1 or 2 head per household to 10, 50, or 100 head. Large-scale commercial operations, typically located near urban population centres, have also increased since the 1980s, encouraged by growing applications of imported technologies and management practices. Since 1985, the share of China's pork produced by traditional households has declined from 95 percent to less than 80 percent. Households that specialize in livestock production and large commercial operations have risen in share of overall livestock production in China to roughly 15 and 5 percent, respectively (Fuller et al., 2001). It becomes clear that China’s pig production is now facing serious challenges. Firstly, consumers are more critical about the quality and safety of pork, so pig producers must “put their shoulder to the wheel” to produce “safe pork”. Secondly, consumers are also more aware of health issues related to pork consumption. The global concerns over obesity and coronary diseases due to high levels of cholesterol coming from food are impacting on the way modern pigs are reared. Hence, there is a trend towards the production of lean pig meat. Additionally, as a result of of the rapid development of the industrial pig production system, the dumping of untreated waste began to cause serious pollution and soil contamination. On this background, an analysis of Chinese consumers’ attitudes to pig production systems gives both insights relevant for serving the Chinese consumer and for shedding light on the possible future of Chinese pig production in a global context.

2

Research Method Quantitative data were collected in China in 2008 through a cross-sectional consumer survey as part of a large international project. Six Chinese cities were chosen for the fieldwork based on considerations of representativeness of the country and prevalence of pig production in the area: Guangzhou, Chengdu, Wuhan, Nanjing, Beijing and Changchun. The master questionnaire was developed in English, translated and adapted into Chinese using the procedure of back-translation (Maneesriwongul and Dixon, 2004). The questionnaire was also pre-tested by the researchers through personal interviews with 50 respondents. Participants were randomly selected at the place of purchase (butcher or supermarket) (Malhotra and Peterson, 2006). A quota of 80 respondents per city was sampled with 40 respondents defined for each place of purchase and gender. A total number of 480 respondents was personally interviewed by trained fieldwork researchers from the Sun Yatsen University. After consistency checking (missing values and outliers) 473 valid questionnaires were obtained. Attitudes to pig production systems were examined by means of a conjoint analysis. Respondents were shown a set of stimuli. These stimuli were constructed in a factorial design by combining three levels of five attributes related to pig production systems. The five attributes were a) stocking density (small family farm with 1-5 sows, large-scale family farm with as much as 400 sows or industrial pig farm with hired labour and several thousand sows), b) pigs’ breed (traditional Chinese or imported from Europe), c) meat type (tasty or lean), d) food safety at farm level (not a special consideration, special attention with regular veterinary control and hygiene regulations or maximum attention with strict veterinary control and strict hygiene regulations), and e) meat quality (constant or variable). The reduced orthogonal design provided by the SPSS 15 software identified 16 combinations of these attributes and levels, which were presented to the respondents one by one. Respondents had to indicate how much s/he liked each of the pig production systems on a scale of -5 to +5, where -5 meant ‘dislike very much’, zero meant ‘neither dislike nor like’ and +5 meant ‘like very much’. The results are expressed as utilities (part-worth) scores and their standard error for each factor level is shown. Since the utilities are all expressed in a common unit, they can be summed to give the total utility of any combination. Higher utility values indicate more positive attitudes. Results Table 1 (appendix) presents the utilities and standard errors for the Chinese consumers’ attitudes towards pig production systems, and also the obtained results per city. The results indicate that the Chinese consumers' preferred stocking density was the industrial pig production system with ‘hired labour and several thousand sows’ (utility of 0.27). The ‘large-scale family farm with as much as 400 sows’ was the least preferred pig production system, presenting a negative utility of -0.25. The ‘small family farm with 1-5 sows, mostly for own use’ was also less accepted by Chinese consumers (negative utility of -0.02). The results were similar between cities regarding the preference for large industrial pig farms (most accepted) and large-scale family farms (least accepted). Nevertheless, respondents from Chengdu and Wuhan assigned positive utilities towards the small family pig farm (0.01 and 3

0.13 respectively), thus indicating the acceptance of this pig production system by consumers from these cities. Results also indicated that for the average Chinese consumer the most preferred pig breed was the one where animals belonged to ‘traditional Chinese breeds, i.e. pigs that have been used in China for many years’ (utility of 0.26). The pig production system where ‘pigs are mostly imported from Europe’ was less accepted (negative utility of -0.26). Results between the cities indicate the same preference pattern. Regarding preferred type of meat Chinese consumers slightly prefer the pig production system that can provide ‘lean meat’ (utility of 0.002) instead of ‘tasty meat’ (utility of -0.02). Such results are very much aligned with the global trends towards a more healthy eating style. Nevertheless, differences found within cities were not statically significant for this attribute. Results regarding food safety at farm level indicated that Chinese consumers preferred pig production systems were ‘food safety gets maximum attention when raising pigs in this farm, for example by strict veterinary control and strict hygiene regulations’ (highest utility of 1.34) followed by systems where ‘food safety gets special attention when raising pigs in this farm, for example by regular veterinary control and hygiene regulations’ (utility 1.09). The farms where ‘food safety is not a special consideration when raising pigs’ were rejected by respondents, with a high negative utility value of -2.43. Respondents' preference for quality attributes indicated the acceptance of the pig production system where ‘the farm produces pigs with the aim to deliver the same meat quality every time’, i.e., consumers prefer a consistent pork quality (utility of 0.36) from the farm. When ‘the farm produces pigs with variable meat quality due to biological variation and changing local conditions’ Chinese consumers tended to reject it (utility value -0.36). This result is very much aligned with the first one, indicating consistency of consumer attitudes since industrial pig farms tend to produce standardized meat quality. Importance scores, computed by taking the utility range for each factor separately and dividing it by the sum of the utility ranges for all factors, show that ‘food safety’ presented the highest influence on the overall preference of the different pig production systems, with an importance score of 48.97%. The ‘stocking density’ of the different pig production systems was also very important to consumers. This factor contributed approximately 19% of the overall preference score. ‘Quality’ contributed approximately 13% on the overall preference, thus playing a smaller role. The ‘pigs’ breed’ contributed 11% of the preference. Finally, ‘meat type’ played the least important role in determining overall preference, contributing only 8%. For instance, similar research carried out in five European countries (Q-PorkChains, 2008) indicates that ‘floor type’ and ‘impact’ of pig production system on the environment (soil, air and water)’ are the main factors affecting western consumers’ preference for different pig production systems (77% of the overall preference). ‘Fat contents’ and ‘chain type and product quality’ contributed less than 10% each to the overall preference, thus showing a smaller role. Finally, ‘stocking density’ played the least important role in determining overall preference, contributing less 5% of the overall preference. Such results indicate interesting cultural differences in regard to preferences for pig production systems. Future studies could deeper investigate those findings and explore in more detail situational factors affecting eastern and western society context.

4

General Discussion and Managerial Implications The overall aim of this study has been the assessment of Chinese consumers’ attitudes to pig production systems. We investigated the utility attached to attributes of such production systems. The key findings of this study are relevant for the development of Chinese pig production systems in the long run. Thus, the high utility attributed to food safety and high stocking densities indicates that Chinese consumers are very oriented towards industrial pig production, confirmed by the preference for the traditional, but lean and consistent meat type pigs. In spite of increasing concerns over global warming and other environmental issues negatively related to economic growth, Chinese society is facing a prosperous industrial local development. Apparently, from Chinese consumers’ perspective, the industrial approach represents achievement, evolution, quality and safety, since pig production is moving away from low-cost, family scale systems, where quality inconsistencies and lack of safety assurance were the main problems. The concerns that western consumers have about largescale industrial pig production – in terms of environmental impact and animal welfare – seem not to be shared by Chinese consumers. In this regard, cultural and situational factors could help explain such differences in consumer behaviour and therefore will be addressed in further studies. The question from now on is whether the Chinese outstanding development can be sustainable in the long run, considering the challenges imposed by environmental constraints. Interestingly, the worldwide opening caused by globalization may also impact on Chinese consumers’ attitudes to pig production in the near future. Information is available and it is just a matter of time before a general consciousness about our planet’s fragilities is established and agricultural production is adapted to more conservative and sustainable systems. Acknowledgement The authors gratefully acknowledge the European Community financial participation under the Sixth Framework Programme for Research, Technological Development and Demonstration Activities, for the Integrated Project Q-PORKCHAINS FOOD-CT-2007036245. Disclaimer The views expressed in this publication are the sole responsibility of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the European Commission. Neither the European Commission nor any person acting on behalf of the Commission is responsible for the use, which might be made of the information. The information in this document is provided as is and no guarantee or warranty is given that the information is fit for any particular purpose. The user thereof uses the information at its sole risk and liability. References Boas, F., 1920. Methods of ethnology. American Anthropologist, 22, 311-322. Brunsø, K., Grunert, K.G., 2007. Consumer attitude measures and food product development. In: MacFie, H.(ed). Consumer-led Food Product Development. Cambridge: Woodhead Publishing Ltd, 197-222. Costa, A. I. A., Pires, C. P., Grunert, K.G., 2007. Consumer demand for ethically-improved animal productions systems. Proceedings 3rd SNS Congress "Food Processing-InnovationNutrition-Healty Consumers", Radenci, Slovenia, 23-26 September. 5

Expatica, 2008. China urged to invest in product safety for small firms. Available at: . Accessed 18/06/2008. Fuller, F., Tuan, F., Wailes, E., 2001. Rising demand for meat: who will feed China’s hogs? In: USDA (Ed.), China’s Food and Agriculture: Issues for the 21st Century. AIB-775, Economic Research Service, United States Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC. Grunert, K.G., 2006. Future trends and consumer lifestyles with regard to meat consumption. Meat Science, 74 (1), 149-160. Ho, P., Vermeer, E. B., 2004. Food safety concerns and biotechnology: Consumers’ attitudes to genetically modified products in urban China. AgBioForum, 7 (4), 158-175. Lü, L., 2006. Chinese public understanding of the use of agricultural biotechnology—A case study from Zhejiang Province of China. Journal of Zhejiang University Science B, 7 (4), 257266. Malhotra, N.K., Peterson, M., 2006. Basic marketing research: A decision-making approach. Pearson Education / Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River. Maneesriwongul, W., Dixon, J.K., 2004. Instrument translation process: a methods review. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 48, 175-186. National Bureau of Statistics of China, 2007. China Statistical Yearbook 2007, 13-20 Number of Livestock. Available at: Accessed 05/06/2008. Ngapo T. M., Dransfielda E., Martina J. -F., Magnusson M., Bredahl L , Nuted G. R., 2003. Consumer perceptions: pork and pig production. Insights from France, England, Sweden and Denmark. Meat Science, 66, 125–134. Peet, B., 2002. Will we be told how to raise pigs? – Lessons from Europe. Advances in Pork Production, 13, 199-204. Q-PorkChains, 2008. Citizen Attitudes to Pig Production: Comprehensive Report. In: Deliverable 1.1.1, EU Project Report, in press. U.S. Department of Agriculture, USDA, 2008. Livestock and Poultry: World Markets & Trade, April 2008: Accessed 14/06/2008 Xian, W.l, Feng, L. J., 2003. Pig production in China. Krmiva, 45, (6), 343-349. Abstract available at: Accessed 03/02/2007.

6

Appendix Table 1. Utilities and standard error for the different pig production system attribute’s levels in China (overall) and selected cities. Utilities

China (n = 473) Mean SE

Guangzhou (n = 80) Mean SE

Chengdu (n = 77) Mean SE

Wuhan (n = 80 ) Mean SE

Nanjing (n = 76 ) Mean SE

Beijing (n = 80 ) Mean SE

Changchun (n = 80) Mean SE

Small farm* Medium farm Large industrial farm Traditional Chinese pig breed European pig breed Lean meat* Tasty meat* No particular interest in food safety

-0.02 -0.25 0.27

0.03 0.04 0.04

-0.04 -0.15 0.19

0.09 0.10 0.11

0.01 -0.42 0.41

0.08 0.11 0.10

0.13 -0.40 0.27

0.10 0.10 0.10

-0.06 -0.19 0.25

0.07 0.11 0.09

-0.09 -0.05 0.14

0.06 0.09 0.09

-0.09 -0.30 0.40

0.05 0.07 0.07

0.26

0.03

0.03

0.06

0.33

0.06

0.29

0.08

0.28

0.08

0.15

0.06

0.51

0.07

-0.26

0.03

-0.03

0.06

-0.33

0.06

-0.29

0.08

-0.28

0.08

-0.15

0.06

-0.51

0.07

0.002 0.02 -0.002 0.02 -2.43 0.08

-0.04 0.04 -2.00

0.06 0.06 0.17

0.03 -0.03 -2.41

0.05 0.05 0.18

-0.01 0.01 -2.34

0.05 0.05 0.19

-0.01 0.01 -2.10

0.05 0.05 0.23

0.08 -0.08 -2.46

0.05 0.05 0.24

-0.02 0.02 -3.27

0.04 0.04 0.15

Extra food safety 1.09 0.05 0.90 0.11 1.13 Maximum food 1.10 0.10 1.29 1.34 0.05 safety Consistent quality 0.36 0.03 0.34 0.09 0.71 Variable quality -0.36 0.03 -0.34 0.09 -0.71 N.D. the preferred overall level of each attribute is bolded.

0.10 0.12

1.03 1.31

0.14 0.16

0.98 1.12

0.14 0.15

1.05 1.42

0.15 0.14

1.47 1.80

0.09 0.09

0.11 0.11

0.26 -0.26

0.08 0.08

0.37 -0.37

0.09 0.09

0.27 -0.27

0.07 0.07

0.25 -0.25

0.05 0,05

All means are statically significant at p