Fish marketing and credit in Viet Nam.

Previous Page Table of Contents Next Page


Fish buying patterns

· Purchasing frequency

This section examines how households acquire fish. Around 70 percent of the respondents reported that fish accounted for more than 50 percent of the total meat consumed. The fish component of a meal tended to be higher for rural people than for urban consumers (Table 58).

Women are often in charge of purchasing food for family consumption. In this study, 84 percent of the families reported that the wife takes care of the kitchen and goes to the market to purchase fish (Table 57). In other families, fish purchasing may be the task of the children or other family members. Therefore, women should be the main target group for fish market studies and fish consumption promotion campaigns.

TABLE 57
Family members that usually go to buy fish by areas of residence

Family members

Area of residence

Total

Cities

Suburbs

Rural

Wife

Count

302

126

103

531

%

82.1

86.3

85.8

83.8

Husband

Count

6

4

2

12

%

1.6

2.7

1.7

1.9

Children and other family members

Count

60

16

15

91

%

16.3

11.0

12.5

14.4

Total

Count

368

146

120

634

%

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

Fish purchasing patterns are similar in all locations surveyed. Table 58 shows that people went to buy fish every two days. Each time, around 1 kg of fish was purchased. However, the financial resource at disposal for each purchase of fish was different. In the cities, people were would spend an average of VND 20 000 per fish purchase, while in the suburban and rural area the figures were VND 15 and 10 000 respectively (Table 59). The size of fish should not exceed 1 kg, which corresponds to the preference of consumers. The size of the fish product was important affecting price and purchasing decision. The willingness of consumers to pay varied with location, therefore, city markets should be supplied with higher price products, and the suburban and rural markets with lower price products.

TABLE 58
Purchasing pattern for fish products

Area of residence

Frequency of buying fish (days)

Quantity of each purchase (kg)

Expense per each purchase

Average cost per fish meal (1 000 VND)

Cities

Mean

2.2

1.1

20.3

20.1

N

370

369

369

368

Std. deviation

1.19

1.029

12.9286

10.33

Minimum

1

0.3

2.00

3

Maximum

10

15.0

100.00

70

Median

2.0

1.0

20.0000

20.00

Suburbs

Mean

2.7

1.2

16.5

15.2

N

156

155

154

153

Std. deviation

3.76

1.103

10.0091

8.89

Minimum

1

.3

5.00

1

Maximum

30

12.0

100.00

50

Median

2.00

1.000

15.0000

15.00

Rural

Mean

2.6

1.2

12.9

10.9

N

123

123

122

123

Std. deviation

2.90

0.732

8.3413

8.20

Minimum

1

0.2

1.50

2

Maximum

30

5.0

60.00

70

Median

2.00

1.000

10.0000

10.00

Total

Mean

2.4

1.2

18.0

17.2

N

649

647

645

644

Std. deviation

2.41

.998

11.8736

10.28

Minimum

1

0.2

1.50

1

Maximum

30

15.0

100.00

70

Median

2.00

1.000

15.0000

15.00

TABLE 59
Frequency of fresh/alive fish products consumption by areas of residence

Response

Ares of residence

Total

Cities

Suburbs

Rural

Never

Count

2

-

-

2

%

0.5

-

-

0.3

Always

Count

242

121

92

455

%

65.4

77.6

74.8

70.1

Most of time

Count

109

22

23

154

%

29.5

14.1

18.7

23.7

Sometimes

Count

15

9

7

31

%

4.1

5.8

5.7

4.8

Not often

Count

2

3

1

6

%

0.5

1.9

0.8

0.9

Seldom

Count

-

1

-

1

%

-

0.6

-

0.2

Total

Count

370

156

123

649

%

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

· Fish species/products purchased

Various forms of fish products are available in the market. Fresh fish was most frequently consumed (Table 59) followed by dried products (Table 60). Canned, frozen or ready-made products are rarely consumed at household level, especially in the rural area where these forms are hardly consumed (Tables 61-63).

TABLE 60
Frequency of dried fish products consumption by areas of residence

Frequency of purchase

Area of residence

Total

Cities

Suburbs

Rural

Never

Count

49

22

14

85

%

13.9

14.7

11.6

13.6

Always

Count

1

2

4

7

%

0.3

1.3

3.3

1.1

Most of time

Count

6

4

2

12

%

1.7

2.7

1.7

1.9

Sometimes

Count

125

43

48

216

%

35.4

28.7

39.7

34.6

Not often

Count

126

50

40

216

%

35.7

33.3

33.1

34.6

Seldom

Count

46

29

13

88

%

13.0

19.3

10.7

14.1

Total

Count

353

150

121

624

%

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

TABLE 61
Frequency of canned fish product consumption by areas of residence

Frequency of purchase

Area of residence

Total

Cities

Suburbs

Rural

Never

Count

70

46

66

182

%

21.6

32.4

64.7

32.0

Always

Count

2

1

-

3

%

0.6

0.7

-

0.5

Most of time

Count

8

-

-

8

%

2.5

-

-

1.4

Sometimes

Count

60

20

4

84

%

18.5

14.1

3.9

14.8

Not often

Count

101

37

11

149

%

31.2

26.1

10.8

26.2

Seldom

Count

83

38

21

142

%

25.6

26.8

20.6

25.0

Total

Count

324

142

102

568

%

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

TABLE 62
Frequency of frozen fish products consumption by areas of residence

Frequency of purchase

Area of residence

Total

Cities

Suburbs

Rural

Never

Count

73

37

34

144

%

23.1

26.6

32.7

25.8

Always

Count

6

7

7

20

%

1.9

5.0

6.7

3.6

Most of time

Count

9

2

1

12

%

2.8

1.4

1.0

2.1

Sometimes

Count

64

24

34

122

%

20.3

17.3

32.7

21.8

Not often

Count

71

24

12

107

%

22.5

17.3

11.5

19.1

Seldom

Count

93

45

16

154

%

29.4

32.4

15.4

27.5

Total

Count

316

139

104

559

%

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

TABLE 63
Frequency of ready-made fish product consumption by areas of residence

Frequency of purchase

Area of residence

Total

Cities

Suburbs

Rural

Never

Count

88

58

68

214

%

28.0

42.0

64.8

38.4

Always

Count

11

3

3

17

%

3.5

2.2

2.9

3.1

Most of time

Count

10

1

2

13

%

3.2

0.7

1.9

2.3

Sometimes

Count

64

15

3

82

%

20.4

10.9

2.9

14.7

Not often

Count

54

24

9

87

%

17.2

17.4

8.6

15.6

Seldom

Count

87

37

20

144

%

27.7

26.8

19.0

25.9

Total

Count

314

138

105

557

%

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

There was a variety of fish species available for consumption from fresh or marine waters. When asked which fish species people liked most, it was found that shrimp, squid, crab, snakehead, major carps, common carp, mackerel, tilapia, shellfish and scad were the ten most preferred species among consumers (Table 64). In addition, rural consumers also preferred catfish and dried fish.

TABLE 64
Fish species preferred by consumers by areas of residence

Fish species/products

Area of residence

Total

Cities

Suburb

Rural

Count

%

Count

%

Count

%

Count

%

Dried fish

2

0.5

2

1.3

3

2.5

7

1.1

Dried squid

2

0.5

0

0

1

0.8

3

0.5

Fish sauce

3

0.8

-

-

-

-

3

0.5

Shrimp

260

69.9

77

49.4

57

47.9

394

60.9

Squid

149

40.1

57

36.5

31

26.1

237

36.6

Crab

134

36.0

53

34.0

21

17.6

208

32.1

True mackerel

36

9.7

17

10.9

3

2.5

56

8.7

Grouper/sea bass

2

0.5

1

0.6

1

0.8

4

0.6

Catfish

8

2.2

4

2.6

7

5.9

19

2.9

Tuna

15

4

1

0.6

5

4.2

21

3.2

Common carp

32

8.6

15

9.6

11

9.2

58

9

Tilapia

9

2.4

11

7.1

14

11.8

34

5.3

Snakehead

39

10.5

21

13.5

24

20.2

84

13.0

Scad

11

3

7

4.5

4

3.4

22

3.4

Pomfret

6

1.6

4

2.6

0

0

10

1.5

Marine fish

40

10.8

9

5.8

12

10.1

61

9.4

Freshwater fish

17

4.6

17

10.9

25

21.0

59

9.1

Trevally

1

0.3

1

0.6

0

0

2

0.3

Snapper

6

1.6

6

3.8

1

0.8

13

2

Major carps

35

9.4

29

18.6

174

11.8

78

12.1

Freshwater shrimp

9

2.4

3

1.9

5

4.2

17

2.6

Sail fish

1

0.3

0

0

0

0

1

0.2

Ray

0

0

1

0.6

0

0

1

0.2

Mullet

1

0.3

2

1.3

1

0.8

4

0.6

Lizard

1

0.3

1

0.6

0

0

2

0.3

Croaker

4

1.1

0

0

0

0

4

0.6

Clam, snail

23

6.2

4

2.6

2

1.7

29

4.5

Total

372

57.5

156

24.1

119

18.4

647

100

However, there are several species that people do not like to eat. The reasons for the dislikes are diverse. Table 65 shows that 88 percent of the consumers reported that they did not like fish because of organoleptic and nutritional reasons mentioning taste, smell, look, fat and bones. In addition, economic and health reasons should be considered. 47 percent of the respondents referred to health problems when eating fish such as, allergies, itching or getting poisoned. Twelve percent said that they had economic problems with eating fish since fish due to high prices, or they had a low income and could not afford the consumption of fish products.

TABLE 65
Reasons for fish dislikes by respondents by areas of residence

Reason

Area of residence

Total

Cities

Suburb

Rural

Count

%

Count

%

Count

%

Count

%

Health problems

123

50.2

41

44.6

30

41.1

194

47.3

Economic problems

36

14.7

9

9.8

6

8.2

51

12.4

Organoleptic and nutritional problems

205

83.7

82

89.1

72

98.6

359

87.6

Total

245

59.8

92

22.4

73

17.8

410

100

The preferred species, were also the most frequently consumed species namely shrimp, snakehead, squid, major carps, mackerel, scad, common carp, crab, tuna and tilapia. There was a difference as shellfish and catfish are not in the list of the most frequently consumed species, instead they are replaced by tuna and scad (Table 66). This situation was similar in the list of the ten most purchased species where shellfish and catfish are not found, and anabas, scad and other types of mackerel replaced shellfish, catfish and tilapia (Table 67).

TABLE 66
Species consumed by households
(kg/month)

Species/products

Mean

N

Median

Sum

% of total sum

Dried fish

2.0

2

2.0

4.00

0

Dried squid

1.0

1

1.0

1.00

0

Shrimp

3.0

366

2.0

1098.0

9.7

Squid

3.5

223

3.0

782.2

6.9

Crab

2.6

135

2.0

355.0

3.1

True mackerel

4.5

104

3.0

467.0

4.1

Grouper/sea bass

4.6

10

4.5

46.0

0.4

Cat fish

3.6

41

3.0

149.5

1.3

Tuna

5.9

49

5.0

291.0

2.6

Common carp

3.7

96

3.0

359.0

3.2

Tilapia

5.0

55

4.0

276.5

2.4

Snakehead

4.9

209

4.0

1018.5

9.0

Scad

5.2

72

4.0

375.7

3.3

Jobfish

3.5

6

3.0

21.0

0.2

Pomfret

2.8

23

3.0

65.5

0.6

Marine fish

9.4

100

5.0

936.5

8.2

Fish (general)

9.4

257

9.0

2428.0

21.4

FW fish

6.4

70

5.0

447.5

3.9

Trevally

9.8

6

4.0

59.00

0.5

Snapper

4.0

21

3.0

85.0

0.7

Major carp

4.3

147

4.0

630.5

5.5

FW shrimp

2.3

16

1.0

36.0

0.3

Sail fish

3.5

2

3.5

7.00

0.1

Ray

3.0

1

3.0

3.00

0.0

Mullet

5.3

16

5.0

84.0

00.7

Leather jacket

3.3

11

1.0

36.0

0.3

Hairtail

4.8

6

5.0

29.0

0.3

Lizard

4.5

6

1.0

27.0

0.2

Flying fish

5.0

1

5.0

5.0

0.0

Croaker

2.3

6

2.0

14.0

0.1

‘keo’ fish

4.0

9

3.0

36.0

0.3

Anchovy

2.6

5

2.0

13.0

0.1

Sheat fish

2.0

1

2.0

2.0

0.0

Goby

3.3

7

3.0

23.0

0.2

Other mackerel

5.1

67

4.0

339.0

3.0

Anabas

4.2

53

4.0

222.5

2.0

Other species and products

5.8

96

4.0

552.5

4.9

Total

4.9

2299

3.0

11360.4

100.0

TABLE 67
Household expenditure of fish products by species (VND x 1000)

Species

Mean

N

Median

Sum

% of total sum

Dried fish

8.0

2

8

16.0

0.0

Dried squid

120.0

1

120

120.0

0.1

Shrimp

114.8

365

70

41907.0

18.8

Squid

169.5

223

60

37807.0

17.0

Crab

97.7

134

53.5

13097.0

5.9

True mackerel

136.1

103

100

14014.0

6.3

Grouper/sea bass

45.6

10

36

456.0

0.2

Catfish

46.9

40

41

1874.0

0.8

Tuna

64.2

49

48

3147.0

1.4

Common carp

56.7

95

50

5382.0

2.4

Tilapia

51.0

55

40

2806.0

1.3

Snakehead

91.2

209

75

19061.0

8.6

Scad

49.4

71

30

3508.0

1.6

Jobfish

43.0

6

33

258.0

0.1

Pomfret

64.9

23

60

1492.0

0.7

Marine fish

98.2

100

44

9824.0

4.4

Fish (general)

125.5

255

100

31992.0

14.4

FW fish

78.2

68

58

5320.0

2.4

Trevally

91.7

6

54

550.0

0.2

Snapper

75.4

21

50

1584.0

0.7

Major carp

52.9

144

45

7619.0

3.4

FW shrimp

48.1

16

30

769.0

0.3

Sail fish

195.0

2

195

390.0

0.2

Ray

12.0

1

12

12.0

0.0

Mullet

60.8

16

60

972.0

0.4

Leather jacket

82.0

11

50

902.0

0.4

Hairtail

45.3

6

39

272.0

0.1

Lizard

44.3

6

20

266.0

0.1

Flying fish

20.0

1

20

20.0

0.0

Croaker

35.2

6

37.5

211.0

0.1

‘keo’ fish

94.2

9

70

848.0

0.4

Anchovy

44.0

5

40

220.0

0.1

Sheat fish

60.0

1

60

60.0

0.0

Goby

80.9

7

60

566.0

0.3

Other mackerel

46.5

67

40

3115.0

1.4

Anabas

88.9

53

60

4712.0

2.1

Other species and products

75.7

94

30

7120.0

3.2

Total

97.4

2283

60

222329.0

100.0

Fish sauce was the most common fish product consumed in almost every family. Table 68 shows that the average quantity of fish sauces consumed monthly per household was 2.2 litres, corresponding to a monthly expense of VND 18 470. The consumption of fish sauce was slightly different according to location; consumption in rural areas tended to be higher (2.5 litres) than in cities (2.0 litres). Even though, more fish sauce was consumed in the rural areas, the monthly expenses on fish sauce were less than VND 14 727, while the figure for cities was VND 19 470. This indicates that urban consumers purchased fish sauce at a higher price than those in rural areas.

TABLE 68
Monthly consumption of fish sauce per household by areas of residence

Area of residence

Quantity (litres)

Expense (VND x 1 000)

Cities

Mean

2.0

19.4

N

354

343

Median

2.0

16.0000

Sum

707.85

6680.00

% of Total

51.6

59.8

Suburbans

Mean

2.4

19.1

N

148

145

Median

2.0000

16.0000

Sum

356.55

2776.00

% of Total

26.0

24.8%

Rural

Mean

2.5

14.7

N

121

117

Median

2.0000

10.0000

Sum

308.50

1723.00

% of Total

22.5

15.4

Total

Mean

2.2

18.5

N

623

605

Median

2.0000

15.0000

Sum

1372.90

11179.00

% of Total

100.0

100.0

The total quantity of fisheries products consumed per household/month was also investigated (Table 69). The median monthly quantity consumed per household was 3 kg, with corresponding expenses of VND 60 000 (Table 69). According to NIN (2002), in 2000, the per capita fish consumption per year was 18.72 kg including all kinds of aquatic products. Variation of fish consumption by region was considerable, but the amount of fish consumed per household was similar to that of 10 years before. From the study, it was also found that there was a slight difference among locations. Urban consumers consumed less fisheries products than those in rural areas. The median of the quantity consumed in cities was 3 kg, while the figure for the rural was 5 kg. However, the median of the expenses in cities was higher than that in the rural area.

TABLE 69
Monthly consumption of fish products per household

Area of residence

Quantity (kg)

Purchased quantity (kg)

Expense (1000 VND)

Cities

Mean

4.4

4.0

92.3

N

1377

1220

1376

Std. deviation

4.70

4.20

100.62

Median

3.0

3.0

60.0000

Suburbs

Mean

5.0

4.3

82.8

N

577

535

570

Std. deviation

6.56

6.38

104.62

Median

3.0

3.0

50.0

Rural

Mean

6.9

5.6

83.5

N

345

302

337

Std. deviation

10.0

4.50

117.6

Median

5.0

5.0

50.0000

Total

Mean

4.9

4.4

88.6

N

2299

2057

2283

Std. deviation

6.3

4.93

104.34

Median

3.0

3.0

60.0

TABLE 70
Proportions of fish products among other total meats consumed by areas of residence

Range (%)

Area of residence

Total

Cities

Suburbs

Rural

<25

Count

8

5

6

19

%

2.2

3.2

4.8

2.9

25-50

Count

130

33

17

180

%

35.1

21.2

13.7

27.7

50-75

Count

193

89

63

345

%

52.2

57.1

50.8

53.1

>75

Count

39

29

38

106

%

10.5

18.6

30.6

16.3

Total

Count

370

156

124

650

%

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

Consumers’ access to fish

Fish products are available in most market places throughout the study areas. The median of distance for consumers in cities to travel to purchase fish products was one km compared with a mean of two km for rural consumers.

Fish consumers can have access to various fish suppliers at the same time. Findings show that 95.6 percent of the consumers purchased fish from fish retailers with large proportion of the purchase often accounting for more than 75 percent of the total purchase. Apart from getting fish from retailers, consumers purchase fish from fish farmers or fisherfolk, fish wholesalers, processors, or even supermarkets. However, the proportion of these purchases was minor. Table 75 shows that those who purchased from primary producers mostly lived in rural areas, while those who purchased from wholesalers, processors and supermarkets, lived in cities or sub-urban areas.

Consumers’ preference in selecting suppliers was based on reasonable prices, trusted and assured quality of products and a nearby location (Table 77). The suppliers should also offer various kinds of products so as to allow choices for consumers (7.8 percent of the respondents).

Promotion of fish consumption

· Image of fish and promotion of fish consumption

According to Table 77 price, quality of the products and their freshness are the major factors influencing the buyer’s decisions. Therefore, it was necessary to provide information of the fish product traded in the market in order to affirm purchasing decision of consumers; particularly in view of recent concerns related to the safety of products and natural, free of chemicals and disease.

Regarding brand name of fisheries products, the majority (74.7 percent) of consumers do not focus on brand names (Table 71). This was due to either unavailability of fish products with band-names or lack of impact. However, a higher proportion of urban consumers reported that their purchasing decision was based on the products’ brand names only related to fish sauce and frozen or canned products. Various brand-names of fish sauce were mentioned by consumers namely Cat Hai, Nha Trang, Phu Quoc, Hai Dang, Nam O, Muoi Thu, Cua Hoi, or Phuong Trang fish sauce, while only frozen and canned products of Ha Long Cannery were mentioned. Some other respondents referred only to products of factories in general without specific brand names. The study also examined how a brand name of a fish product could favour a firm image of products with consumers. Consumption experience was the most common way to establish an image as reported by 65.6 percent of the respondents (Table 72). Advertisements, availability of the product, introduction by other consumers or the salespersons to the product were only means leading to the first consumption. This implies that in order to have a good image of the product, quality and price are those that could strengthen the image.

TABLE 71
Brand names used in fish purchasing decision by respondents by areas of residence

Decision response

Area of residence

Total

Cities

Suburbs

Rural

No

Count

144

92

89

325

%

64.6

79.3

92.7

74.7

Yes

Count

79

24

7

110

%

35.4

20.7

7.3

25.3

Total

Count

223

116

96

435

%

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

TABLE 72
Motivation and product preference by area of residence

Method

Areas of residence

Total

Cities

Suburbs

Rural

Advertisement

Count

7

-

2

9

%

4.9

-

7.4

4.2

Availability in market

Count

19

2

4

25

%

13.4

4.7

14.8

11.8

Consumption experiences

Count

87

34

18

139

%

61.3

79.1

66.7

65.6

Seller’s suggestion

Count

8

4

2

14

%

5.6

9.3

7.4

6.6

Friends’ introduction

Count

18

1

-

19

%

12.7

2.3

-

9.0

Others

Count

3

2

1

6

%

2.1

4.7

3.7

2.8

Total

Count

142

43

27

212

%

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

Hence the image of fisheries products was not strong in consumers’ impression, i.e. fisheries products did not have a clear-cut distinction against other kind of meat products in the domestic market. Fisheries operators should build up their image in the market aiming at sustainable market development. In order to attract more consumers to fish consumption, the study also searched for the most preferred promotion activity as seen by consumers. Discounted prices were the most indicated, and the behaviour of the salespersons was also considered important for attracting consumers (26.6 percent of the respondents; Table 73). Other factors like gift, cooking guidance, packaging or preliminary processing, quality assurance, and home delivery service are widely appreciated.

TABLE 73
Preferences on fish trade promotion by final consumers by areas of residence

Method

Areas of residence

Total

Cities

Suburbs

Rural

Discount

Count

140

62

50

252

%

38.7

42.8

42.4

40.3

Cooking guidance

Count

48

11

12

71

%

13.3

7.6

10.2

11.4

Gifts

Count

47

15

25

87

%

13.0

10.3

21.2

13.9

Packing

Count

16

5

1

22

%

4.4

3.4

0.8

3.5

Preliminary processed

Count

19

2

1

22

%

5.2

1.4

0.8

3.5

Seller’s good behaviour

Count

90

47

29

166

%

24.9

32.4

24.6

26.6

Others

Count

2

3

-

5

%

0.6

2.1

-

0.8

Total

Count

362

145

118

625

%

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

· Problems or constraints to fish consumption

In examining fish consumption at consumer level, various problems were identified. Many consumers complained about price of fish products being high or changing. Around one third mentioned low income as a constraint to fish consumption (Table 74). However, fish scarcity and limited information on fish products were problems recorded by many consumers, especially those living in urban areas. It was high time to improve the retailing network and meet the increasing demand for fish. In addition, around half of the respondents complained about the safety and quality of fish products, several people referred to ethical issues related to the salespersons, e.g., cheating when weighing fish.

TABLE 74
Problems and constraints perceived for fish consumption by respondents by areas of residence

Problems and constraints

Areas of residence

Total

Cities

Suburb

Rural

Count

%

Count

%

Count

%

Count

%

Scarcity

104

29.3

28

20.6

19

17.4

151

25.2

High price

180

50.7

60

44.1

53

48.6

293

48.8

Price changing

206

58.0

59

43.4

40

36.7

305

50.8

Low income

122

34.4

55

40.4

46

42.2

223

37.2

Low safety and quality

169

47.6

53

39

28

25.7

250

41.7

No product information

19

5.4

7

5.1

0

0

26

4.3

Selling ethical issues

0

0

2

1.5

0

0

2

0.3

Total

355

59.2

136

22.7

109

18.2

600

100


Previous Page Top of Page Next Page