Korean Journal of Poultry Science (한국가금학회지)

The Korean Society of Poultry Science (한국가금학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

A Survey of Korean Consumers' Awareness on Animal Welfare of Laying Hens

산란계 동물복지에 대한 국내 소비자의 인지도 조사

  • Hong, Eui-Chul (Poultry Research Institute, National Institute of Animal Science, Rural Development Administration) ;
  • Kang, Hwan-Ku (Poultry Research Institute, National Institute of Animal Science, Rural Development Administration) ;
  • Park, Ki-Tae (Poultry Research Institute, National Institute of Animal Science, Rural Development Administration) ;
  • Jeon, Jin-Joo (Poultry Research Institute, National Institute of Animal Science, Rural Development Administration) ;
  • Kim, Hyun-Soo (Poultry Research Institute, National Institute of Animal Science, Rural Development Administration) ;
  • Kim, Chan-Ho (Poultry Research Institute, National Institute of Animal Science, Rural Development Administration) ;
  • Kim, Sang-Ho (Poultry Research Institute, National Institute of Animal Science, Rural Development Administration)
  • 홍의철 (농촌진흥청 국립축산과학원 가금연구소) ;
  • 강환구 (농촌진흥청 국립축산과학원 가금연구소) ;
  • 박기태 (농촌진흥청 국립축산과학원 가금연구소) ;
  • 전진주 (농촌진흥청 국립축산과학원 가금연구소) ;
  • 김현수 (농촌진흥청 국립축산과학원 가금연구소) ;
  • 김찬호 (농촌진흥청 국립축산과학원 가금연구소) ;
  • 김상호 (농촌진흥청 국립축산과학원 가금연구소)
  • Received : 2018.08.14
  • Accepted : 2018.09.19
  • Published : 2018.09.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

This study was conducted twice to investigate egg purchase behavior and perception on animal welfare of Korean consumers. This study included women, who were the main decision makers and caretakers in the household, and men with one-person household. This survey was conducted with by the Computer Assisted Web Interview and Gang Survey methods. On the key considerations factor, the highest response rate was considered to be 'price', and the response rate of considering 'packing date' increased in the second survey. At a reasonable price based on 10 eggs, the response rate was the highest at 53.8% and 42.9% in both the first and second surveys and the appropriate price averages were 2,482 won and 2,132 won, respectively. The highest rate of purchase of egg consumers from 'Large Mart' followed by 'Medium sized supermarket' and 'Chain supermarket'. As for the awareness about animal welfare, the recognition ratio (73.5%) was higher in the result of the second survey than the first. The cognitive period of animal welfare was 59.0% before the insecticide egg crisis and 41.0% thereafter. Regarding whether or not they have ever seen an animal welfare certification mark and an animal welfare animal farm certification mark, 59.6% of respondents said that they saw it for the first time and 37.6% answered that they knew the animal welfare certification mark. On the animal welfare system, the 'free-range' response rate was the highest at 85.8%. The 'free-range' fit response decreased by 34.2%p, while the 'barn' and 'European type' fit response increased by 13.2%p and 24.1%p, respectively. The number of 'I have never seen' and 'I have ever eaten' responses to the recognition and eating experience of animal welfare certified eggs decreased while the number of those who answered 'Have ever seen' and 'Have eaten' increased. The answer of purchasing animal welfare certified eggs at department stores, organic farming cooperatives, and internet shopping malls was higher than that of buying conventional eggs. Of the total respondents, 92.0% were willing to purchase an animal welfare egg before the price was offered, but after offering the prices of animal welfare eggs, the intention to purchase was 62.7%, which was about 30%p lower than before. The reason for purchasing an animal welfare certified egg was the highest score of 71.0% for 'I think it is likely to be high in food safety', and 38.1% for 'I think the price is high' for lack of intention to purchase. In the sensory evaluation of animal welfare eggs, egg color and skin texture of conventional eggs were significantly higher than those of certified welfare eggs (P<0.05), and boiled eggs showed that egg whites of animal welfare certified eggs were more (P<0.05). As a result, the results of this study will contribute to the activation of the animal welfare certification system for laying hens by providing basic data on consumer awareness to animal welfare certified farmers.

본 연구는 국내 소비자의 계란 구매 형태와 산란계 동물복지에 대한 인지도를 조사하기 위하여 살충제 계란 파동 사태 전후 2차례에 걸쳐 수행되었다. 조사대상은 가정 내 계란 구입 주 결정권자 및 취식자인 전국 만 25~59세 여성과 만 25~35세의 1인 가구 남성을 대상으로 하였다. 조사방법은 웹조사(Computer Assisted Web Interview; CAWI) 방법과 Gang survey 방법으로 수행되었다. 계란 구매 시 주요 고려 요인에 대하여 '가격'을 고려한다는 응답이 모두 가장 높았으며, 2차 조사에서 '포장일자/제조일자'를 고려한다는 응답률이 증가하였다. 계란 10개의 적정 가격으로 '2,000~3,000원 미만' 응답 비율이 1와 2차 조사에서 각각 53.8%과 42.9%로 가장 높았으며, 적정 가격 평균은 각각 2,482원과 2,132원이었다. 국내 계란 소비자의 구매 장소에 대해 '대형마트'에서 구입한다는 응답 비율이 가장 높고, 다음으로 '중대형 슈퍼마켓', '체인 슈퍼마켓'의 순이었다. 동물복지 관련 인지도를 보면 2차 조사의 결과에서 인지 비율(73.5%)이 높아졌다. 동물복지 용어 인지 시기는 살충제 계란 파동 사태 이전 59.0%, 이후 41.0%였다. 동물복지 인증마크와 동물복지 축산농장 인증마크를 본 적이 있는지에 대해서는 처음 본다는 응답이 59.6%이며, 동물복지 인증마크를 알고 있다는 응답비율이 37.6%였다. 동물복지 사육시스템에 대하여 가장 현실적으로 적합한 동물복지형 계사로는 '방사형' 응답율이 85.8%로 가장 높았다. 동물복지 사육시스템 정보 제시 후 '방사형' 적합 응답은 34.2%p 감소한 반면, '평사형'과 '유럽형' 적합 응답은 각각 13.2%p와 24.1%p 증가하였다. 국내 소비자의 동물복지 인증 계란에 대한 인지 및 취식경험에 대하여 '본 적이 없다'는 감소한 반면, '본 적이 있다'와 '먹어 본 경험이 있다'는 응답은 모두 증가하였다. 백화점, 유기농 관련 협동조합, 인터넷 쇼핑몰에서 동물복지 인증 계란을 구입했다는 응답이 일반 계란을 구입했다는 응답비율보다 높았다. 가격 제시 전 기준으로 전체 응답자 중 동물복지 계란을 구입할 의향은 92.0%이었으나, 동물복지 계란 가격을 제시후 구입 의향은 62.7%로 가격 제시 전 대비 약 30%p 감소하였다. 동물복지 인증 계란 구입 의향 이유로는 '식품 안전성이 높을 것 같아서' 응답이 71.0%로 가장 높고, 구입 의향이 없는 이유로는 '가격이 비쌀 것 같아서'가 38.1%로 가장 높았다. 동물복지 계란 관능평가 조사에서 일반 계란의 난각색과 껍질 촉감이 동물복지인증계란보다 유의하게 더 높은 것으로 나타났으며(P<0.05), 삶은 계란은 동물복지인증계란의 흰자 색이 일반계란보다 더 밝은 것으로 인식되었다(P<0.05). 결과적으로, 본 연구결과는 동물복지 인증 농가들에게 소비자 인식에 대한 기초자료를 제공함으로써 산란계 동물복지 인증제도의 활성화에 도움이 될 것으로 판단된다.

Keywords

References

  1. APMS 2017 Animal Welfare Livestock Farm Certification inFormation. Animal Protection Management System. Animal and Plant Quarantine Agency.
  2. Bae JH, Kang HJ, Cho GH, Jung HY 2011 Estimation of willingness to pay for livestock products which is produced under the farm animal welfare regulation. Korea J Agr Econo 52(1):49-70.
  3. European Commission 2007 Commissioner Kyprianou Welcomes Council Agreement on Animal Welfare Rules for BroIlers. Press Release IP/07/630, May 8. Brussels, European Commission, DG Consumer Protection and Health.
  4. Goddard E, Boxall P, Emunu JO, Boyd C, Asselin A, Neall A 2007 Consumer attitudes, willingness to pay and revealed preferences for different egg production attributes: Analysis of Canadian egg consumers. In Department of Rural Economy, University of Alberta Project Report 07-03. http://purl.umn.edu/52087.
  5. Gracia A, Loureiro MI, Nayga RM Jr 2009 Valuing animal welfare labels with experimental auctions: What do we learn from consumers? Contributed Paper. In: International Association of Agriculture Economists Conference, 16-22 August, 2009, Beijing, China.
  6. Janczak AM, Riber AB 2015 Review of rearing-related factors affecting the welfare of laying hens. Poultry Sci 94(7):1454-1469. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps/pev123
  7. Jung YP, Roh SH, Ohh SJ, Lee JI 2010 Current studies to estimate the economic values of welfare-endowed animal products. J Lives Hous & Env 16(1):29-40.
  8. Koppel K, Sosa M, Gutierrez NG, Cardinal P, Godwin SL, Cates SC, Chambers Iv E 2016 Consumer practices for purchase, storage, and preparation of poultry and eggs in selected north and south American countries: A pilot study. Universidad de Antioquia, Medelin, Colombia 23(1):58-64.
  9. Koppel P, Timberg L, Shalimov R, Vazquez-Araujo L, Carbonell-Barrachina AA, Di Donfrancesco B, Chambers Iv E 2015 Purchase, storage, and preparation of eggs and poultry in selected European countries: A preliminary study. Br Food J 117(2):749-765. https://doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-01-2014-0021
  10. Koppel K, Suwonsichon S, Chitra U, Lee J, Chambers Iv E 2014 Eggs and poultry purchase, storage, and preparation practice of consumers in selected Asian countries. Foods. 3(1):110-127. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods3010110
  11. MAFRA 2018 Distribution Stage Price Trend (eggs). Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs.
  12. Martelli G 2009 Consumer's perception of farm animal welfare: An Italian and European perspective. Italian Journal of Animal Science 8(Suppl 1):31-44. https://doi.org/10.4081/ijas.2009.s1.31
  13. Miele M, Evans A 2010 When food become animals. Ruminations on ethics and responsibility in care-full practices of consumption. Ethics Policy & Environ 13(2):171-190. https://doi.org/10.1080/13668791003778842
  14. Napolitano F, Girolami A, Braghieri A 2010 Consumer liking and willingness to pay for high welfare animal-based products. Trends in Food Sci & Technol 21(11):537-543. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2010.07.012
  15. Ortega DL, Wolf CA 2018 Demand for farm animal welfare and producer implications: Results from a field experiment in Michigan. Food Policy 74:74-81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2017.11.006
  16. Schjoll A 2014 Consumer preference for animal welfare: What can we learn from restaurant, store and web experiments? Norwegian University of Life Science.
  17. Schnettler MB, Vidal MR, Silva FR, Vallejos CL, Sepulveda BN 2008 Consumer perception of animal welfare and livestock production in the Araucania region, Chile. Chile Agric Res 68(1):80-93.
  18. Toma L, Stott AW, Revoredo-Giha C, Kupiec-Teahan B 2012 Consumers and animal welfare. A comparison between European Union countries. Appetite 58(2):597-607. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2011.11.015
  19. Toma L, McVittie A, Hubbard C, Stott A 2011 A structural equation model of the factors influencing British consumer's behavior towards animal welfare. J Food Prod Mark 17(2-3):261-278. https://doi.org/10.1080/10454446.2011.548748
  20. Vanhonacker F, Verbeke W 2009 Buying higher welfare poultry products? Profilling flemish consumers who do and do not. Poult Sci 88(12):2702-2711. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps.2009-00259