Determination of Fish Consumption in Çanakkale

Fish plays a key role in human consumption in terms of protein, mineral, and essential fatty acid contents. Unfortunately, despite its importance for the human health, there is lack interest on the fish consumption in Turkey. In this context, this paper aimed to determine the fish consumption habits in Çanakkale. It is estimated that fish consumption could be higher in the locations along the coasts of marine and inland waters. Therefore, consumers living in all districts of the city were surveyed to test this hypothesis. The questionnaire was carried out to provide an insight into the fish consumption habits of randomly selected 1056 consumers in Çanakkale. Socio-economic and demographic structures such as age, gender, educational status, profession, income level of the consumers were determined. Responses of the consumers were arranged and analysed by using SPSS and MS-Excel software. Moreover, fish consumption amount, consumption frequency, preferred fish species, most consumed fish species were also determined. The results give an excellent snapshot of fish consumption habits in Çanakkale. Both the most consumed and the most favourite fish species are identified as Sarda sarda. Fish consumption frequency was described as 33.3% (352 individuals) for consuming fish one a week followed by bimonthly frequency (21.9%, 231 individuals) and monthly frequency (21.5%, 227 individuals). 2.3% (24 individuals) of the participants noted that they never consume fish. Moreover, the majority of consumers specified that they consume fish 1-2 kg (39.0%, 312 individuals) and 27.3% (288 individuals) consume fish 0.5-1 kg. Socio-economic and demographic characteristics of consumers are affecting the fish consumption habits. In the present study, season, income level, and freshness of fish are found to be driving force for fish consumption in Çanakkale. Therefore, fish farmers and sellers are recommended to remain the freshness of fish and to follow the appropriate fishing season for providing fish to consumers.

Keywords:

Fish consumption, Consumption habits, Socio-economic structure Demographic characteristics, Questionnaire,

PDF

___

Abdikoğlu, D. I. & Unakitan, G. (2019). Determining Important Factors on Fish Consumption With Conjoint Analysis in Tekirdag, Turkey. FOODBALT 2019 - 13th Baltic Conference on Food Science and Technology “Food. Nutrition. Well-Being” Conference Proceedings, 83-87. http://doi.org/10.22616/FoodBalt.2019.003
Akpınar, M. G., Dağıstan, E., Mazlum, Y., Gül, M., Koç, B. & Yılmaz, Y. (2009). Determining household preferences for fish consumption with conjoint analysis in Turkey. Journal of Animal and Veterinary Advances, 8(11): 2215-2222.
Arık Çolakoğlu, F., İşmen, A., Özen, Ö., Çakır, F., Yığın, Ç. & Ormancı, H. B. (2006). The evaluation of fish consumption in Çanakkale. Ege University Journal of Fisheries & Aquatic Sciences, 23(Ek 1/3): 387-392.
Arslan, G. (2019). Determination of fish consuming habits of vocational school students from different families. Marine Science and Technology Bulletin, 8(2): 40–45. https://doi.org/0.33714/masteb.622072
Aydın, M. &Karadurmuş, U. (2012). Consumer behaviours for seafood in Ordu province. Yunus Araştırma Bülteni, 3: 18-23. https://doi.org/10.17693/yunusae.v2012i21908.235434
Aydın, M. & Karadurmuş, U. (2013). Consumer behaviors for seafood in Giresun and Trabzon Province. The Black Sea Journal of Sciences, 3(9):57-71.
Aydın, M. & Odabaşı, Y. (2017). A study on the seafood consumer behaviors: Case of Diyarbakır Province. Turkish Journal of Maritime and Marine Sciences, 3(2): 101-112
Bashimov, G. (2017). Determınıng fish meat consumption habits in Nigde Province. Turkish Journal of Agricultural and Natural Sciences, 4(2): 196-204.
Bayraktar, S., Ergün, S. & Ayvaz, Z. (2019). Comparison of seafood consumption preferences and habits in Ankara and Çanakkale (Turkey). Acta Aquatica Turcica, 15(2): 213-226. https://doi.org/10.22392/actaquatr.489281
Boughanmi, H., Al-Musalami, J., Al-Oufi, H. & Zaibet, L. (2007). Estimating consumer preferences for value-added fish products in Oman. Journal of Food Products Marketing, 13(2): 47-68.
Can, M. F., Günlü, A. & Can, H. Y. (2015). Fish consumption preferences and factors influencing it. Food Science and Technology, 35(2): 339-346. http://doi.org/10.1590/1678-457X.6624
Cengiz, D. & Özoğul, F. (2019). The survey study of seafood consumption in Adana and Mersin cities. Çukurova Üniversitesi Fen ve Mühendislik Bilimleri Dergisi, 37(1): 159-168.
Claret, A., Guerrero, L., Aguirre, E., Rincon, L., Hernandez, M. D., Martinez, I., Benito Peleteiro, J., Grau, A., Rodriguez-Rodriguez, C. (2012) Consumer preferences for sea fish using conjoint analysis: Exploratory study of the importance of country of origin, obtaining method, storage conditions and purchasing price. Food Quality and Preference, 26(2): 259-266.
Collins, M. (1986). Sampling. p. (85-110). In: Worcester, R.M., Donwham, J. (eds.), Consumer Market Research Handbook. McGraw-Hill Press, London. 840p.
Dal, B., Kızılaslan, H. & Dal, T. (2019). Fish consumption preferences of consumers and determination of criteria affecting fish consumption by analytical hierarchical process (AHS) method (Tokat Province of Almus District). Turkish Journal of Agriculture - Food Science and Technology, 7(10): 1526-1532. https://doi.org/10.24925/turjaf.v7i10.1526-1532.2479
Dilek, S., Paruğ, Ş., Paruğ, A. & Kesgingöz, H. (2019). Seafood Consumption Preferences and Fish Demand in Kastamonu. Turkish Journal of Agriculture - Food Science and Technology, 7(11): 1844-1857. https://doi.org/10.24925/turjaf.v7i11.1844-1857.2751
FAO. & WHO. (2011). Report of the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Consultation on the Risks and Benefits of Fish Consumption, Rome, 25–29 January 2010. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Report No. 978. Rome.
FAO. (2018). The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2018 - Meeting the sustainable development goals. Rome. 210p.
GDFA. (2019). Fisheries Statistics. General Directorate of Fisheries and Aquaculture, Retrieved on November 14, 2019 from https://www.tarimorman.gov.tr/sgb/Belgeler/SagMenuVeriler/BSGM.pdf
Geslani, C., Loke, M. K., Barnes-Mauthe, M. & Leung, P. (2015) Seafood purchasing preferences of Hawaii Chefs: Comparing actual purchase to stated preferences from conjoint choice experiment. Journal of International Food & Agribusiness Marketing, 27(1): 50-63.
Hanis, A., Jinap, S., Mad Nasir, S. & Alias, R. (2013) Eliciting Malaysian consumer preferences for marine fish attributes by using conjoint analysis. World Applied Sciences Journal, 28(12): 2054-2060.
Kale, S. (2017a). Climatic trends in the temperature of Çanakkale city, Turkey. Natural and Engineering Sciences, 2(3): 14-27. https://doi.org/10.28978/nesciences.348449
Kale, S. (2017b). Analysis of climatic trends in evaporation for Çanakkale (Turkey). Middle East Journal of Science, 3(2): 69-82. https://doi.org/10.23884/mejs.2017.3.2.01
Kızılaslan, H. & Nalinci, S. (2013). The fish meat consumption habits of households and the factors affecting their fish meat consumption in the province of Amasya. Gaziosmanpaşa Bilimsel Araştırma Dergisi, 5: 61-75.
Lee, M-K. & Nam, J. (2019). The determinants of live fish consumption frequency in South Korea. Food Research International, 120: 382-388. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2019.03.005
Özer, O. O., Gül Yavuz, G. & Gül, U. (2016). Demographic factors influencing consumer preferences of seafood consumption: Central Anatolia Region. Turkish Journal of Agriculture - Food Science and Technology, 4(5): 356-364.
Selvi, K., Kandemir, G. & Özdikmenli Tepeli, S. (2019). Determination of factors affecting on the fish consumption habit in rural areas: The case of Çan (Çanakkale). COMU Journal of Marine Science and Fisheries, 2(2): 132-141.
TurkStat. (2019) Statistics for Fishery Products in 2018. Turkish Statistical Institue Press Release, No: 30697. Retrieved on August 3, 2019 from http://tuik.gov.tr/PreHaberBultenleri.do?id=30697#
Ünal, V., Acarli, D. & Gordoa, A. (2010). Characteristics of marine recreational fishing in the Çanakkale Strait (Turkey). Mediterranean Marine Science, 11(2): 315-330. http://doi.org/10.12681/mms.79