Consumers’ perception of poultry meat from insect-fed chickens: University students focus study

Abstract

Feeding insects as raw or processed is becoming widespread among poultry farmers due to the high cost of animal feed ingredients. Various factors such as cultural beliefs, level of education, geographical location, gender, and exposure could affect the acceptance or rejection of such meat that are insect-fed. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate consumers’ perception of meat from insect-fed chickens among the youth in the Eastern Cape of South Africa using University students as a case study. A total of 300 respondents from three universities in the Eastern Cape, South Africa were interviewed using structured google form questionnaires. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and chi-squares tests. Participants answered a total of 14 questions that were based on chicken meat, insect feeds and demographics. Results showed that 54% of the respondents are aware of insect-fed chicken meat. A high percentage (76%) of consumers from all three origins, i.e., rural, semi-urban and urban, suggest a positive perception about chickens eating insects. About 73.3% strongly disagreed that consuming insect-fed chicken meat cause allergies, and 69% of the participants were not concerned about knowing the types of insects used. Only 16% show concern about buying meat from insect-fed chickens. About 60.67% agreed or strongly agreed that insects could increase food for the world population. Among all factors analyzed, the participant’s origin and beliefs significantly influenced their readiness to eat insect-fed chicken meat. Therefore, most consumers in this study supported the concept of feeding chickens with insects to reduce the cost of feeds. Thereby meeting human demand for chicken meat for animal protein, especially in sub-Saharan Africa.

Keywords:

• Consumer perception
• insect feeds
• insect-fed chicken meat
• acceptability
• insect species

1. Introduction

Population growth, increase in demand for feed and feed ingredients, coupled with nutrition, sustainability, and animal welfare benefits are the reason for utilizing insects as an alternative to conventional feeds for chicken diets, and this has grown in popularity in recent years. It is natural for chickens to eat insects on free range. Chicken raised in this system or a seminatural environment spend a lot of time foraging and eating insects in the fields. Van Huis et al. () reported that insects are a good source of protein, minerals, and vitamins for humans and livestock. Production of protein for poultry use from insect sources is more beneficial than protein from other sources because they have a lesser ecological footprint (Sánchez-Muros et al., 2014). The demand for good animal feed and feed ingredients has been upward. It will likely continue to climb as the world’s population increases, making it difficult for natural resources and the ecosystem to generate animal protein (Marono et al., 2017, 2015; Verbeke et al., 2015).

Le Mouël and Forslund (2017) observed that the global demand for animal protein will continue to increase because the world population is expected to reach 9.6 billion from its present 7.2 billion by 2050. In developed nations, consumer acceptance and regulatory policy are significant obstacles to adopting insects as protein sources for humans and animals (Halloran et al., 2014). It has been reported that insects have excellent nutritional characteristics and can successfully substitute many other protein sources in feed manufacturing (Chia et al., 2019). Insect species such as black soldier fly meal, silkworms’ larvae of the common housefly (Musca domestica), silkworms, and yellow mealworms have been reported to have the potential to be used in commercial animal feed production (Halloran et al., 2014; Oonincx et al., 2015).

Scientific reports revealed that about 2000 species of insect had been consumed by human beings in different locations and origins. These species could be in various stages of development. These include beetles, caterpillars of butterflies and moths, bees, wasps, and ants (Rumpold & Oliver, 2013). According to Agbidye et al. (2009), insects are good nutrition suppliers as they contain proteins, fat, energy, vitamins, and minerals. They can supply approximately 76% of the daily protein requirement and almost 100% of the daily vitamin requirement in humans. Hence, as the global protein demand increases, insects as a feed ingredient or a protein source could be the solution the world has been waiting for.

Meeting the demand for protein sources in poultry production without an alternative means against the current source will be a significant challenge. Conventional sources alone may not be enough to mitigate these challenges. Therefore, providing alternative feed sources, such as insects, could be a hopeful option in feeding chickens to meet the demand for poultry products.

Consumption of insects or consumption of insect-fed chicken has a natural emotion attached. However, disgusting has a significant part in consumers’ food rejection. Dietary culture strongly influences what may or may not be edible among consumers. In industrialized nations, insects are not easily regarded as a source of nutritious food. In some countries, insects are seen as dirty vectors to many disease-causing organisms, potentially dangerous to human health (Herz, 2012; Looy et al., 2014).

Presently, insect feed in poultry production is not yet on a commercial level. Nevertheless, studies have shown that researchers are optimistic that its use in poultry production will increase poultry farmers’ profit by reducing feed costs and benefit the environment in the long run. In contrast, others have criticized its potential or advantages. Knowledge about insect use is another aspect that influences acceptance and approval among consumers (Laureati et al., 2013). Sharing knowledge about economic and nutritional advantages obtained when utilizing insects as feed can ease consumers’ concerns (Verbeke, 2015). There is an increasing conversation about insects as a nutrient supply alternative. The acceptance of insect feeds as a possible substitute for costly feeding is not only based on technological, economic, or regulatory constraints. It also concerns customer preferences, perceptions, and acceptance of insects as a rich protein source in animal feed (Mancuso et al., 2016). Therefore, this study investigated Consumers’ perception of poultry meat from insect-fed chickens: University students’ focus study. It was hypothesized that poultry meat from insect-fed chicken would not affect consumers’ perspectives among university students.

2. Materials and methods

2.1. Ethical approval

Ethical clearance was obtained from the University of Fort Hare Research Ethics committee before the commencement of the survey study. ETHICS CLEARANCE (REC-270710-028-RA Level 01).

2.2. Survey instrument

Three hundred students from three different universities in South Africa answered and completed the structured questionnaire sent to them via email. An online questionnaire was developed on Google forms. The online questionnaire was chosen because of its low cost and ability to reduce face-to-face contact during the COVID-19 pandemic. The sampling and the survey application were performed via email. Respondents were randomly selected from three public Universities in Eastern Cape, South Africa. Participants answered a total of 14 questions that were based on chicken meat and insect feeds, excluding the demographic questions.

2.3. Survey contents

The questionnaire consists of three questions sections; The first set of questions measures demographic information. The second group investigates consumer opinion regarding insects as a feed ingredient. The third group investigates consumer concerns about accepting meat from chickens that consume insect meals. The online questionnaire first describes the study and requests the participant’s consent. Without consent, participants cannot proceed with the questionnaire. Questions for this study have multiple choice answers, and one additional option should a participant wish to add an answer not provided by the questionnaire.

Demographic information includes gender, age, place of origin, nationality, level of education, income per month, and familiarity with insect feeds and chickens. Questions for an opinion regarding insects as a feed ingredient determine consumer perception of the use of insects in chicken feed. Consumer concerns in accepting meat from chickens that consume insect meals include questions determining the extent to which consumers are concerned about buying and eating meat from insect-fed chickens.

2.4. Data collection

Data were collected using an anonymous online survey developed from Google forms. No identifying values could link the data to a particular participant. The survey was distributed using students’ emails, directing them to a Google forms survey link. Students were chosen because most of them are youths who buy and eat a lot of chicken from fast food restaurants. Participating in the survey was voluntary. In addition, participants’ recruitment was achieved by sharing the link on social media such as public WhatsApp groups and Facebook pages or by people referred to by other users. A total of 300 questionnaires were selected randomly for data analysis.

2.5. Statistical analysis

Data analysis was done using the Microsoft Excel software and IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 27.0 (2020). Analysis and computation were based on the respondents’ age groups, gender, nationality, origin, level of education, income, chicken raised at home, and familiarity with insect feed. PROC CHISQ was used to determine the association between the demographic characteristics of the respondents and their perceptions of the production and consumption of insect-fed chicken meat. Microsoft Excel software and IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 27.0. Released 2020, descriptive statistics were used to analyze the data.

3. Results

Table 1 shows the sample profile of the participants in the study. This table shows that 54% of participants were female, 74% were from rural areas, and 67% were between 18 and 24 years old. Moreover, approximately 54% of the participants were familiar with insects as feed for chickens, and 49% had a monthly income between R1000 to R1999. Also, 75% of the participants have chickens raised in their homes. The dominant groups were 18–24 years (67%) and females (54%). The sample profile illustrated in Table 1 represents the average meat consumer among students in Universities in South Africa. Figure 1. shows the demographic variables and number of participants who participated in the survey.

Figure 1. Demographics variables vs. number of participant’s graph.

Table 1. Demographic characteristics of the respondents (n = 300)

		Count	Cumulative Frequency
Gender	Male	135	45.0%
	Female	162	54.0%
	I prefer not to say	3	1%
Age	18–24	201	67.0%
	25–34	84	28.0%
	35–44	10	3.0%
	45–54	5	2.0%
Nationality	South African	282	94.0%
	Other	18	6.0%
Origin	Rural	222	74.0%
	Semi-urban	51	17.0%
	Urban	27	9.0%
Education Level	Undergraduate	246	82.0%
	Postgraduate	54	18.0%
Income	Less than R500	69	23.0%
	R500-R999	57	19.0%
	1000–1999	147	49.0%
	More than R2000	27	9.0%
Chickens raised at home	Yes	225	75.0%
	No	75	25.0%
Familiar with insect feed	Yes	162	54.0%
	No	138	46.0%

Data shown in Table 2 reveals that 32.4% of consumers from rural areas were neutral about the idea of chickens eating insects as feed, while 44.6% accepted it. Considering consumers from all the three origins together, i.e., rural, semi-urban and urban, the highest proportion of the respondents (46%) suggest a positive perception about chickens eating insects, followed by 28% that is neutral about the consumption of chickens eating insects as feed.

Table 2. Origin*perception of chickens eating insects

Perception of chickens eating insects as feed crosstabulation
			Chickens eating insects
		Bad	2	3	4	Good	Total
Origin	Rural	24	27	72	48	51	222
	Semi-urban	12	6	9	12	12	51
	Urban	3	6	3	6	9	27
Total		39	39	84	66	72	300

Table 3 shows participant responses when asked about the possibility of insect feeds causing allergic reactions in people that consume insect-fed chicken meat. Most of the respondents (47%) strongly disagree or disagree across all the three origins considered in this study, while a minority (28%) agree or strongly agree. Also, people of rural origin had a high neutral response and a strongly agreeing response to an allergic reaction.

Table 3. Origin*perception of insect feeds causing allergic reactions

Perception of insect feeds causing allergic reaction crosstabulation
		Allergic reaction					Total
		Strongly disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
Origin	Rural	54	51	60	36	21	222
	Semi-urban	9	15	6	12	9	51
	Urban	3	9	9	3	3	27
Total		66	75	75	51	33	300

Consumer concerns regarding the type of insects used to feed chickens for meat production were asked. The highest proportion (48%) of the total respondents showed little or no concern about knowing the types of insects used, followed by 36% that showed real or slight concern, and 16% were neutral. Observation also showed that in urban and semi-urban areas, only 26.9 % of the respondents are either extremely concerned or concerned, and 23.1% are neutral. (Table 4).

Table 4. Origin*consumer perception in knowing insect type used in chicken feed

Perception of consumers in knowing insect type used in chicken feed Crosstabulation
		Knowing insect types for chicken feed					Total
		Not at all concerned	Slightly concerned	Neutral	Concerned	Extremely concerned
Origin	Rural	42	63	30	48	39	222
	Semi-urban	15	9	12	9	6	51
	Urban	12	3	6	0	6	27
Total		69	75	48	57	51	300

Upon asking participants how much they are concerned with buying meat from insect-fed chickens, most of the respondents (58%) from all origins said they have little or no concerns for such meat. A considerable percentage (26%) of those showing no concern came from rural participants (Table 5).

Table 5. Origin*perception in buying insect-fed meat

Perception in Buying insect-fed meat Crosstabulation
		Buying meat from insect-fed chickens					Total
		Not at all concerned	Slightly concerned	Neutral	Concerned	Extremely concerned
Origin	Rural	78	51	51	33	9	222
	Semi-urban	18	9	12	12	0	51
	Urban	15	3	6	3	0	27
Total		111	63	69	48	9	300

Participants were asked whether using insects as feed for chickens is good or bad. Irrespective of the origin of the respondents,26% indicated to be neutral, 59% said it is good, and 15% said it is bad—however, most respondents who affirmed that using insects as food is good have rural backgrounds.(Table 6)

Table 6. Origin*perception of using insects as feed

Perception of Using insects as feed Crosstabulation
		Using insects as feed					Total
		Bad	2	3	4	Good
Origin	Rural	21	12	60	54	78	222
	Semi-urban	9	3	6	12	18	51
	Urban	0	0	12	6	9	27
Total		30	15	78	72	105	300

Participants were asked about their perception of insects potentially reducing chicken feed prices and, therefore, chicken meat prices. About 44% of participants strongly agreed or agreed, 12% originated from rural areas, 3% from urban areas, and no participant from urban origin strongly agreed. About 10% of rural origin strongly disagreed, and 1% from semi-urban and urban disagreed strongly. A total of 33% of participants were neutral, whereas 29% agreed that insects could reduce feed and chicken meat prices. (Table 7).

Table 7. Origin*perception in reducing feed and chicken meat prices

Perception of insects reducing feed and chicken meat prices Crosstabulation
		Feed and chicken meat price					Total
		Strongly disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
Origin	Rural	30	27	69	60	36	222
	Semi-urban	3	3	21	15	9	51
	Urban	3	3	9	12	0	27
Total		36	33	99	87	45	300

Participants also asked about the perception of insect feeds increasing food for the world population. A total of 60.67% of participants agreed or strongly agreed, while 17.66 % of participants were neutral. The majority (63%) were from rural origins, while 4% were semi-urban and urban. 60.67% agreed or strongly agreed that insects could increase food for the world population.(Table 8).

Table 8. Origin*perception of insect feeds increasing food for the world population

Perception of insect feeds increasing food for the world population.
		Enough food for the world population					Total
		Strongly disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
Origin	Rural	10	23	29	69	81	222
	Semi-urban	3	10	12	20	6	51
	Urban	3	6	12	6	0	27
Total		16	47	53	95	87	300

The Chi-square test was then used to determine if the origin of participants has a relationship with the perception towards using insects as feed for chicken at α = 0.05. The results were not statistically significant and indicated strong evidence for the null hypothesis. This means we retain the null hypothesis and reject the alternative hypothesis.

4. Discussion

The high number of people originating from rural areas and have chickens raised as livestock (75%) indicated that most people in Eastern Cape have a rural background. This also buttressed the report of DAFF (2019) that there are more rural villages in Eastern Cape province than any other province in South Africa. Because people in the rural communities are used to chicken rearing and sometimes eating some kinds of insects, they are novices to this. A similar study by Ngo and Moritaka (2020) reported that cultural and background differences affected consumer preferences for insect feeds. People of rural origin had higher intention and behavior to buy insect-fed meat. According to Manditsera et al. (2018), people in rural areas eat insect-fed meat higher than those in urban areas (89.7% vs. 80%). This could be because people in the rural community eat insects. Because of their environment’s nature, they are frequently exposed to insects. Similarly, in the research conducted by Chia et al. (2019), small poultry holders in rural areas often feed their chicken with insects and larva of insects because of a lack of funds or unavailability of commercial feed that is rich in protein. They see insects as substitutes for protein-rich commercial feeds for their chicken.

The concerns raised by some consumers where they were either concerned or highly concerned can be compared to similar findings by Fischer and Steenbekkers (2018). They found that some common insects, such as grasshoppers, crickets, and mealworms, are far more readily accepted than others. Due to a lack of information, many people are unaware of the benefits of insect feeds. Educational backgrounds regarding nutrition cause consumer groups’ to dislike and show concerns; however, other studies have found that consumer perceptions of insects as feed are unaffected by known environmental and nutritional benefits (Lammers et al., 2019)

About 28% of respondents in this study believe insect-fed meat may have harmful chemicals that could cause allergies in the consumers. The percentage is low probably because many of the respondents are from rural communities who are already familiar with insects as food. This aligned with the report of Ngo and Moritaka (2020), who observed similar concerns among the respondents in their study. Consumers’ concerns about insect-fed chicken meat’s safety were likely to discourage them from eating it. Food containing components from insects was thought to be the source of diseases and allergic reactions. Several research papers have highlighted how important it is to familiarize consumers with insect feeds. Increasingly exposing them to such feeds will reduce and eliminate the rejection of insects. According to Gunya et al. (2018), many customers lack basic awareness about insect feed’s benefits, causing hesitance to accept meat from insect-fed animals. Hence, releasing public information on insect feeds is critical in changing consumer perception (Ballitoc & Sun, 2013). However, many consumers in this study revealed that they are familiar with insects as feed for chickens. This could be because all the investigated respondents are educated to a large extent, who could have been aware of the benefits of using insects and larvae as food. The lack of information regarding the value of alternative protein sources such as insect feeds in the chicken diet, and the appropriate creation of meals utilizing insects might have influenced the neutral results obtained. The acceptance of insect-based food has improved with increased awareness and knowledge of the benefits of entomophagy (Woolf et al., 2019).

Most respondents regularly consumed meat from chicken or other proteins of animal origin. The results show that people are generally not particularly interested in what kind of feed the animals consume but the actual meat and its prices. These results in this study were consistent with those from an earlier similar study in the U.K., where most participants revealed they were willing to buy the product of insect-fed chickens. However, they are required to know the price before making any choice (Spartano & Grasso, 2021). This could be because the costs of things will determine the demand, especially in places with insufficient resources, such as Eastern Cape, South Africa.

5. Conclusion

This study showed that insect-fed chicken meat does not affect consumers’ perception among students, especially those having rural backgrounds. However, there is a need to continuously educate the public about the benefits of insects as food for sustainability. Also, insects could provide alternative feed sources to poultry farmers in this era of high prices of conventional feed ingredients. If food security in all nations is to be achieved by 2030, every resource should be deployed towards it. This includes the integration and enlightenment on beneficiary insects into our food culture, both for humans and livestock.

Author contributions

Conceptualization, Mtolo, and Ikusika; Methodology, Mtolo Software, Mtolo and Ikusika; Validation, Mtolo, Ikusika, and Mpendulo; Formal Analysis, Mtolo; Investigation, Mtolo.; Resources, Mtolo; Data Curation, Mtolo; Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Mtolo; Writing – Review & Editing, Ikusika; Visualization, Ikusika; Supervision, Ikusika, and Mpendulo

Informed consent statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Acknowledgements

University of Fort Hare community

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

The author(s) reported there is no funding associated with the work featured in this article.

Notes on contributors

Mvuselelo Mtolo

Mvuselelo Mtolo are Master’s students at the University of Fort Hare, Alice, South Africa, with a research interest in food safety and animal nutrition. Olusegun Ikusika is current a post-doctoral fellow in the Department of Livestock and Pasture Science, University of Fort Hare, Alice, South Africa. His research interest is Animal Nutrition, Physiology, meat, and food safety. He is a member of the South Africa Society of Animal Scientists. Conference Thando Mpendulo is a lecturer in the Department of Livestock and Pasture Science, University of Fort Hare, Alice, South Africa. He bagged his Ph.D. in 2016 from the University of Kwa-Zulu Natal, Pietermaritzburg, South Africa. His research interest is Animal Nutrition, Physiology, meat, and food safety. He is a member of the South Africa Society of Animal Scientists.

Clyde Haruzivi

Clyde Haruzivi are Master’s students at the University of Fort Hare, Alice, South Africa, with a research interest in food safety and animal nutrition. Olusegun Ikusika is current a post-doctoral fellow in the Department of Livestock and Pasture Science, University of Fort Hare, Alice, South Africa. His research interest is Animal Nutrition, Physiology, meat, and food safety. He is a member of the South Africa Society of Animal Scientists. Conference Thando Mpendulo is a lecturer in the Department of Livestock and Pasture Science, University of Fort Hare, Alice, South Africa. He bagged his Ph.D. in 2016 from the University of Kwa-Zulu Natal, Pietermaritzburg, South Africa. His research interest is Animal Nutrition, Physiology, meat, and food safety. He is a member of the South Africa Society of Animal Scientists.